# Did we really have to nuke Japan?



## The2ndAmendment

I don't buy it.

They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.

A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).

There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.

I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.


> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.



This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.


----------



## NYcarbineer

They might have been secretly working on their own atomic weapon.  What if they had needed maybe 2 months, or 4, or 6, to get their own operational?


----------



## konradv

An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people and probably would have developed alternate forms of energy.  I think one was definitely necessary, but two, maybe not.  Three days doesn't seem like enough time to have let the gravity of the situation sink in.  I'd have waited at least a week.


----------



## martybegan

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


It was a weapon, the US spent billions developing it, it was going to get used no matter what. No one really knew enough about it to think it was anything else than just a big regular bomb, because one had never been detonated in anger before. 

Plus, if we didn't use it, we probably would have needed or not been able to refuse soviet assistance in the invasion. Want to imagine the cold war with a North ans South Japan?


----------



## Theowl32

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


Japan was threatening behind closed doors to surrender to the USSR. That way the emperor had a chance to save face with his people. Stalin was also very interested in those trade routes, and Stalin already made it clear he was no friend to the US or England.

The cold war began almost immediately following WWII and the dividing of the land. USSR pretty much flat out held out a big giant finger to both the US and England. Yes, it was predictable and Patton was trying to get a war with them.

The fact is behind closed doors the USSR and Japan had worked SOMETHING out. There was no way this country was just going to allow the USSR to take Japan after America pretty much alone defeated them with so many American lives lost.

However, the American people could not possibly stomach another war, and Stalin counted on that. There was only one solution that the US had to ensure that Japan would surrender to the US and not the USSR. Dropping the bombs.

Why else do you think the USSR declared war on Japan shortly after they agreed to surrender to us? Yes, it was pretty much from that point that the cold war became a 40 year problem.

Here is the fact. If the bombs would not have been dropped, would it have been wise to get into a hot war with the USSR? Would the American people been able to accept that? 100s of thousands of American lives lost to what was supposedly our allies for the entire WWII?

Or, would America have accepted the fact that Japan surrender to Russia?

Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Theowl32 said:


> [
> Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?



This is proper and truthful version that they should ... teach in school.

But anyway, it seems you only learn meaningful history and the reasons behind it on the internet from other enlightened people. Thank you.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Japan had been offered unconditional surrender and refused twice I believe.  It would have been nicer to smoke a hundred thousand German Nazis in Berlin square than 100 plus thousand innocent Japanese.


----------



## JoeMoma

The thing about history is that we can never really know what was down the road not taken.


----------



## Theowl32

The2ndAmendment said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is proper and truthful version that they should ... teach in school.
> 
> But anyway, it seems you only learn meaningful history and the reasons behind it on the internet from other enlightened people. Thank you.
Click to expand...

_
Aug 8, 1945:_
*Soviets declare war on Japan; invade Manchuria*

*Soviets declare war on Japan invade Manchuria mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 8 8 1945

--------------------
*
Aug 6th 1945, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. 

Aug 8th USSR declared war on Japan. 

Aug 9th Bomb dropped on Nagasaki 

Essentially, they did tell the truth in regards to saving American lives. Once they put the narrative out, that is what needed to be sold. 

Of course we can thank the Rosenbergs for the USSR getting the bomb. They probably would have gotten it at some point, but they were at a real disadvantage when they did not have it. 

Yes, the Rosenbergs along with many Jews that emigrated here from Russia certainly sympathize with the USSR. Yes, it was Emma Goldman that greatly influenced the mind of Roger Baldwin, who founded the ACLU. 






Want to know where the Barbara Boxers or Dianne Feinsteins or Charles Schumers come from? There is your hint.


----------



## Unkotare

NYcarbineer said:


> They might have been secretly working on their own atomic weapon.  ..




No "might" about it, but they had no means of delivery at that point.


----------



## Steven_R

The US was looking at nearly a million casualties (killed and wounded) to pacify Japan. We're still giving out Purple Hearts ordered for the troops slated to invade Japan, even after Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Gulf War 1 & 2, and Afghanistan. Are Purple Hearts from 1945 still being awarded - The Rumor Doctor - Stripes

The Japanese weren't going to go quietly into that good night. They were arming and training civilians to attack allied troops. Even after firebombing Tokyo and killing 100,000 in one night, the Japanese still fought.The only way to have conquered Japan would to have simply killed everyone in Japan. Dropping the bombs and shocking them into submission saved US lives and Japanese lives.


----------



## The Irish Ram

We could have kissed them on the forehead and asked them to pretty please stop killing us.......
or we could stop them from killing us.  Remember they declared war on us, attacked us and refused to stop even after they were bombed.  Stop trying to make us the bad guys.  We ended the war.  Our men came home. 
The question you should be asking is, "Did Japan really need to fly to Pearl Harbor to kill as many Americans as they could?"


----------



## Unkotare

konradv said:


> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....




No, they couldn't.


----------



## Unkotare

Steven_R said:


> The Japanese weren't going to go quietly into that good night. They were arming and training civilians to attack allied troops. Even after firebombing Tokyo and killing 100,000 in one night, the Japanese still fought.The only way to have conquered Japan would to have simply killed everyone in Japan.....




That is utter nonsense.


----------



## kaz

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.



Read a book, that's just stupid.

Your poll is missing an option.  The question asked the answer is no, we did not have to invade.  But the implication of that in your poll is your fairy land belief the Japanese would have folded to economic sanctions.  The poll options should be.

1)  Should we have dropped the bomb and killed a quarter million Japanese?

2)  Should we have invaded and killed 10 million Japanese and a million allied forces?

3)  Should we believe the fairy tale the Japanese would have caved to economic sanctions?


----------



## SAYIT

LordBrownTrout said:


> Japan had been offered unconditional surrender and refused twice I believe.  It would have been nicer to smoke a hundred thousand German Nazis in Berlin square than 100 plus thousand innocent Japanese.


 
Does 25,000 in Dresden assuage your sense of lost opportunity a bit?


----------



## Anathema

Yes, because the loss of even another American soldier, sailor, airman or marine was unacceptable. Even if we'd had to wipe out the entire Japanese country it would have been acceptable as a means to end the war, punish the Japanese Government and people, and hopefully ensure other countries learned the lesson not to fuck with us.

Unfortunately that didn't work out as it should have due to Soviet spies, American traitors, and a US Government that failed to understand that FEAR is a much more useful tool in international relations than respect is.


----------



## Steven_R

Unkotare said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese weren't going to go quietly into that good night. They were arming and training civilians to attack allied troops. Even after firebombing Tokyo and killing 100,000 in one night, the Japanese still fought.The only way to have conquered Japan would to have simply killed everyone in Japan.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


Volunteer Fighting Corps - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You might also want to look at the battles of Iwo Jima (200 survivors out of a garrison of 20,000 and over 6000 dead US Marines) and Okinawa where civilians (including women) blended with the military troops to fight the Americans. We lost over 8000 taking that island.


----------



## SAYIT

The2ndAmendment said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is proper and truthful version that they should ... teach in school.
> 
> But anyway, it seems you only learn meaningful history and the reasons behind it on the internet from other enlightened people. Thank you.
Click to expand...

 
The truth, 69 years later, is that despite your claim we had good reasons to smoke Japan and those who made the decisions were not "sick and demented fucks" as you also claim,.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Everything we did in WWII was for the benefit of Stalin and Mao


----------



## SAYIT

Theowl32 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is proper and truthful version that they should ... teach in school.
> 
> But anyway, it seems you only learn meaningful history and the reasons behind it on the internet from other enlightened people. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> Aug 8, 1945:_
> *Soviets declare war on Japan; invade Manchuria*
> 
> *Soviets declare war on Japan invade Manchuria mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 8 8 1945
> 
> --------------------
> *
> Aug 6th 1945, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.
> 
> Aug 8th USSR declared war on Japan.
> 
> Aug 9th Bomb dropped on Nagasaki
> 
> Essentially, they did tell the truth in regards to saving American lives. Once they put the narrative out, that is what needed to be sold.
> 
> Of course we can thank the Rosenbergs for the USSR getting the bomb. They probably would have gotten it at some point, but they were at a real disadvantage when they did not have it.
> 
> Yes, the Rosenbergs along with many Jews that emigrated here from Russia certainly sympathize with the USSR. Yes, it was Emma Goldman that greatly influenced the mind of Roger Baldwin, who founded the ACLU.
> 
> Want to know where the Barbara Boxers or Dianne Feinsteins or Charles Schumers come from? There is your hint.
Click to expand...


Russia?


----------



## Unkotare

Steven_R said:


> You might also want to look at the battles of Iwo Jima  and Okinawa ...



I have. What you said is utter nonsense.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


Hi, The2ndAmendment.

Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing.  We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees.  That's all true.

But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor.  Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.

Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples.  Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands.  Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore. 

So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan.  It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.  

And what was the result?  Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism.  It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.

So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima.  I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might have been secretly working on their own atomic weapon.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No "might" about it, but they had no means of delivery at that point.
Click to expand...

 
It is certain they were working on that, too:
"According to decrypted messages from the Japanese embassy in Germany, twelve dismantled V-2 rockets were shipped to Japan. These left Bordeaux in August 1944 on the transport U-boats _U-219_ and _U-195_, which reached Djakarta in December 1944. A civilian V-2 expert was a passenger on _U-234_, bound for Japan in May 1945 when the war ended in Europe. The fate of these V-2 rockets is unknown."

V-2 rocket - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## The Irish Ram

How many innocent Americans were killed because Japan thought it was a good idea to start killing us?  When someone takes an oath to kill you, do you immediately think  lets keep the playing field even or end the war THEY started????????  What the hell is wrong with you people? How many American lives were saved by not allowing Japan's war against us to continue? That should be the question.   If innocent Japanese were killed it is a direct result of their gov.  not ours.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Unkotare said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
Click to expand...


They didn't give a shit about feeding their people or keeping them alive.  It was heroic to kill themselves by flying their planes into our ships.  Killing us.  They intended to conquer us.  We said, "No."   While you bleeding hearts would have sat on the weapon that ended their intentions, they would have used it on us, and our children would have bled instead.


----------



## Unkotare

The Irish Ram said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't give a shit about feeding their people or keeping them alive....
Click to expand...



Don't be stupid.


----------



## Theowl32

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi, The2ndAmendment.
> 
> Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing.  We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees.  That's all true.
> 
> But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor.  Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.
> 
> Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples.  Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands.  Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore.
> 
> So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan.  It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.
> 
> And what was the result?  Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism.  It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.
> 
> So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima.  I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.
Click to expand...



Again, the bombs being dropped had nothing to do with Japan giving up, or "revenge." Of course many Americans then and now saw it that way.

It had everything to do with the USSR and their encroachment into the region. Again, they were absolute bullies, and they were certainly testing America's resolve. Stalin, rightfully so, knew the American people would not be able to stomach another long drawn out war. He took advantage of that, and he certainly wanted those very valuable trade routes (yes oil.)

The USSR was working some clandestine type of agreement with Japan, who was all too willing to some how save face. At the very least, they would not have to surrender to the United States. That in itself could be sold as a victory.

Stalin, for all intents and purposes, was basically asking Truman, "what they hell are you going to do about it?"

I am not sure if we know what sort of a sick tyrant Stalin was. So, the choices for this country were:

> Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.

> Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.

> Drop the  bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.

Those are the choices. Which one of the 3 would you have made?

Again, there were no choices that were good. I do not believe the Japanese people "deserved" it. I mean innocent women and children and elderly people etc etc are like most citizens in every country. They have little to no clue or care what is happening in some distant land. 

However, this is the tragedy. There are different horrifying stories in every war. Thousands of them. Every single war has them, and it is very tempting to demonizing a group of people, a religion, or a race. I do it. It is not right. 

Unless you are talking about insidious hypocrites like the American left wing piece of godless shit that is.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

SAYIT said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan had been offered unconditional surrender and refused twice I believe.  It would have been nicer to smoke a hundred thousand German Nazis in Berlin square than 100 plus thousand innocent Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does 25,000 in Dresden assuage your sense of lost opportunity a bit?
Click to expand...


A hundred thousand german nazi soldiers, circa 1945, would have been a good start instead of 100k plus innocent japanese civilians.


----------



## Theowl32

LordBrownTrout said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan had been offered unconditional surrender and refused twice I believe.  It would have been nicer to smoke a hundred thousand German Nazis in Berlin square than 100 plus thousand innocent Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does 25,000 in Dresden assuage your sense of lost opportunity a bit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hundred thousand german nazi soldiers, circa 1945, would have been a good start instead of 100k plus innocent japanese civilians.
Click to expand...


If you were Truman, which one of these choices would you have made?

> Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.

> Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.

> Drop the bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I have this site bookmarked for when some dumb ass says we did not need to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

Hell after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government refused to surrender, they only surrendered when The Emperor over road the Government and then the Army staged a coup to stop that.

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources  SOURCE Documents that clearly show that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering that even after 2 atomic bombs they refused. That when the Emperor said it was over the Army attempted a Coup to stop him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
Click to expand...

They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources


----------



## williepete

No need to wonder or debate this one. (Again). 

Just read, 'The Rising Sun: The Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945' by John Toland. Take special note of the resources Toland used in his research. The book is a one of a kind.  

And to really nail it home, read 'Truman' by David McCullough or at least the part pertaining to the end of WW2 with Japan and the use of the bomb.


----------



## Dante

We didn't 'have to' but we chose to


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might also want to look at the battles of Iwo Jima  and Okinawa ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. What you said is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

The Army ordered the civilians on mainland Japan to arm themselves with bamboo spears and to human wave assault any landings. This was an order to any one able to carry a spear to include children. the source documents I linked to prove it.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources
Click to expand...

What and who signed what on the USS Missouri?


----------



## Dante

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...



You appear to be looking at a reflection in the mirror when you go to other people's motives. Is your anger reflected too?

Now go ask the peoples and nations invaded by Japan just who the sicks fucks where...

,\..then take your head out of your ass


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dante said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What and who signed what on the USS Missouri?
Click to expand...

The Emperor over road the Army and ordered the surrender and even then the Army attempted a Coup to stop the message getting out. Learn a little History.


----------



## deltex1

Nuke the japs, then nuke the Rooskies...a better world for all.


----------



## Dante

martybegan


martybegan said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a weapon, the US spent billions developing it, it was going to get used no matter what. No one really knew enough about it to think it was anything else than just a big regular bomb, because one had never been detonated in anger before.
> 
> Plus, if we didn't use it, we probably would have needed or not been able to refuse soviet assistance in the invasion. Want to imagine the cold war with a North ans South Japan?
Click to expand...



The danger is ignorance and revisionist history like yours. Read what the government scientists were worried about as they advised the President


geeze!


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What and who signed what on the USS Missouri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Emperor over road the Army and ordered the surrender and even then the Army attempted a Coup to stop the message getting out. Learn a little History.
Click to expand...

You said that Japan never surrendered "the Japanese Government did not surrender."


----------



## Dante

Theowl32


Theowl32 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan was threatening behind closed doors to surrender to the USSR. That way the emperor had a chance to save face with his people. Stalin was also very interested in those trade routes, and Stalin already made it clear he was no friend to the US or England.
> 
> The cold war began almost immediately following WWII and the dividing of the land. USSR pretty much flat out held out a big giant finger to both the US and England. Yes, it was predictable and Patton was trying to get a war with them.
> 
> The fact is behind closed doors the USSR and Japan had worked SOMETHING out. There was no way this country was just going to allow the USSR to take Japan after America pretty much alone defeated them with so many American lives lost.
> 
> However, the American people could not possibly stomach another war, and Stalin counted on that. There was only one solution that the US had to ensure that Japan would surrender to the US and not the USSR. Dropping the bombs.
> 
> Why else do you think the USSR declared war on Japan shortly after they agreed to surrender to us? Yes, it was pretty much from that point that the cold war became a 40 year problem.
> 
> Here is the fact. If the bombs would not have been dropped, would it have been wise to get into a hot war with the USSR? Would the American people been able to accept that? 100s of thousands of American lives lost to what was supposedly our allies for the entire WWII?
> 
> Or, would America have accepted the fact that Japan surrender to Russia?
> 
> Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?
Click to expand...

This liberal agrees with you, so stfu about liberals


----------



## Jarlaxle

martybegan said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a weapon, the US spent billions developing it, it was going to get used no matter what. No one really knew enough about it to think it was anything else than just a big regular bomb, because one had never been detonated in anger before.
> 
> Plus, if we didn't use it, we probably would have needed or not been able to refuse soviet assistance in the invasion. Want to imagine the cold war with a North ans South Japan?
Click to expand...


A Soviet invasion of Hokkaido was a very real possibility.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Theowl32 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan was threatening behind closed doors to surrender to the USSR. That way the emperor had a chance to save face with his people. Stalin was also very interested in those trade routes, and Stalin already made it clear he was no friend to the US or England.
> 
> The cold war began almost immediately following WWII and the dividing of the land. USSR pretty much flat out held out a big giant finger to both the US and England. Yes, it was predictable and Patton was trying to get a war with them.
> 
> The fact is behind closed doors the USSR and Japan had worked SOMETHING out. There was no way this country was just going to allow the USSR to take Japan after America pretty much alone defeated them with so many American lives lost.
> 
> However, the American people could not possibly stomach another war, and Stalin counted on that. There was only one solution that the US had to ensure that Japan would surrender to the US and not the USSR. Dropping the bombs.
> 
> Why else do you think the USSR declared war on Japan shortly after they agreed to surrender to us? Yes, it was pretty much from that point that the cold war became a 40 year problem.
> 
> Here is the fact. If the bombs would not have been dropped, would it have been wise to get into a hot war with the USSR? Would the American people been able to accept that? 100s of thousands of American lives lost to what was supposedly our allies for the entire WWII?
> 
> Or, would America have accepted the fact that Japan surrender to Russia?
> 
> Now, you are in position to make the decision. What would you have done?
Click to expand...


Little Boy on Tokyo, Fat Man on Moscow.


----------



## Dante

Steven_R


Steven_R said:


> The US was looking at nearly a million casualties (killed and wounded) to pacify Japan. We're still giving out Purple Hearts ordered for the troops slated to invade Japan...



What moronic reasoning!  So what. What does that actually mean?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might have been secretly working on their own atomic weapon.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No "might" about it, but they had no means of delivery at that point.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have this site bookmarked for when some dumb ass says we did not need to drop the atomic bombs on Japan....


again: We did not 'need to' we chose to.

good gawd man, get with the program


----------



## Unkotare

The Irish Ram said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't give a shit about feeding their people or keeping them alive....
Click to expand...



Don't be stupid. Civilians on the mainland (what the militarists considered 'real' Japanese, as opposed to Okinawans, for example) were starving, and had long since grown tired of an extended, futile war and all that came with it. Starving children and old women were not going to die to the last fighting with sticks against a foe who had done what they thought was impossible.


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might have been secretly working on their own atomic weapon.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No "might" about it, but they had no means of delivery at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
Click to expand...


Neither part is bullshit. Open a book sometime.


----------



## Jarlaxle

They absolutely DID have a means of delivery.


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> They absolutely DID have a means of delivery.




To where?


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might also want to look at the battles of Iwo Jima  and Okinawa ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. What you said is utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Army ordered the civilians on mainland Japan to arm themselves with bamboo spears and to human wave assault any landings. This was an order to any one able to carry a spear to include children. the source documents I linked to prove it.
Click to expand...



No doubt some fool in the military bureaucracy produced such 'orders,' but to believe it would be so is beyond stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not care, ...
Click to expand...



Don't be stupid.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They absolutely DID have a means of delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To where?
Click to expand...


San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They absolutely DID have a means of delivery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
Click to expand...


They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
Click to expand...


No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
Click to expand...



OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Load it on a submarine. (They had at least three subs with four times the range required.)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dante said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What and who signed what on the USS Missouri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Emperor over road the Army and ordered the surrender and even then the Army attempted a Coup to stop the message getting out. Learn a little History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that Japan never surrendered "the Japanese Government did not surrender."
Click to expand...

The Government in power at the time of negotiations and at the time of the dropping of the Bombs did not surrender. It was replaced. By the Emperor. The Army ran the Government and absolutely refused to surrender, when the Emperor told them he was surrendering the ARMY STAGED A COUP TO STOP HIM.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't give a shit about feeding their people or keeping them alive....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid. Civilians on the mainland (what the militarists considered 'real' Japanese, as opposed to Okinawans, for example) were starving, and had long since grown tired of an extended, futile war and all that came with it. Starving children and old women were not going to die to the last fighting with sticks against a foe who had done what they thought was impossible.
Click to expand...

Okinawa proves you wrong, Thousands of Japanese civilians committed suicide and tried to force Okinawan's to do the same.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not care, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
Click to expand...

I have provided the relevant source documents, your failure to read them does not equate to me being wrong.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> They did not care, They had no fuel for the coming winter and the Government run by the Army DID NOT CARE. read the documents, even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government did not surrender.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What and who signed what on the USS Missouri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Emperor over road the Army and ordered the surrender and even then the Army attempted a Coup to stop the message getting out. Learn a little History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said that Japan never surrendered "the Japanese Government did not surrender."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Government in power at the time of negotiations and at the time of the dropping of the Bombs did not surrender. It was replaced. By the Emperor. The Army ran the Government and absolutely refused to surrender, when the Emperor told them he was surrendering the ARMY STAGED A COUP TO STOP HIM.
Click to expand...

Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The instrument was first signed by the Japanese foreign minister Mamoru Shigemitsu


----------



## Dante

However, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, when he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima, the Emperor 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 because that happened in wartime."[34]

Die-hard army fanatics opposed to the surrender attempted a coup d'état. They seized the Imperial Palace (the Kyūjō Incident). However, the physical recording of the surrender speech was hidden and preserved overnight, and the coup was quickly crushed on the Emperor's order.  Hirohito - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


end of story, Good Night Johnboy


----------



## Steven_R

Dante said:


> Steven_R
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US was looking at nearly a million casualties (killed and wounded) to pacify Japan. We're still giving out Purple Hearts ordered for the troops slated to invade Japan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moronic reasoning!  So what. What does that actually mean?
Click to expand...


What it means is we expected nearly a million US casualties. We made a million Purple Heart medals in anticipation of those casualties. Thankfully, the invasion never happened so we didn't have those causalities. So the medals sat in warehouses and have slowly been used up in all the wars and police actions and whatnot since then.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Theowl32 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi, The2ndAmendment.
> 
> Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing.  We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees.  That's all true.
> 
> But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor.  Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.
> 
> Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples.  Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands.  Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore.
> 
> So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan.  It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.
> 
> And what was the result?  Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism.  It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.
> 
> So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima.  I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bombs being dropped had nothing to do with Japan giving up, or "revenge." Of course many Americans then and now saw it that way.
> 
> It had everything to do with the USSR and their encroachment into the region. Again, they were absolute bullies, and they were certainly testing America's resolve. Stalin, rightfully so, knew the American people would not be able to stomach another long drawn out war. He took advantage of that, and he certainly wanted those very valuable trade routes (yes oil.)
> 
> The USSR was working some clandestine type of agreement with Japan, who was all too willing to some how save face. At the very least, they would not have to surrender to the United States. That in itself could be sold as a victory.
> 
> Stalin, for all intents and purposes, was basically asking Truman, "what they hell are you going to do about it?"
> 
> I am not sure if we know what sort of a sick tyrant Stalin was. So, the choices for this country were:
> 
> > Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.
> 
> > Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.
> 
> > Drop the  bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.
> 
> Those are the choices. Which one of the 3 would you have made?
> 
> Again, there were no choices that were good. I do not believe the Japanese people "deserved" it. I mean innocent women and children and elderly people etc etc are like most citizens in every country. They have little to no clue or care what is happening in some distant land.
> 
> However, this is the tragedy. There are different horrifying stories in every war. Thousands of them. Every single war has them, and it is very tempting to demonizing a group of people, a religion, or a race. I do it. It is not right.
> 
> Unless you are talking about insidious hypocrites like the American left wing piece of godless shit that is.
Click to expand...

You didn't understand my post at all. It's not about what criteria caused President Truman to use nuclear bombs, it's about the longer term justice by which Japan received just reciprocity for centuries of horrible war crimes.  In Korea, a nation I spent a year in, there is still deep seated pain and anger over the Japanese occupation that went from 1910 to 1945, when we freed them from Japanese tyranny.  It's difficult without writing a whole book to convey the depth of suffering Japan inflicted on its neighbors.  The civilian lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly regrettable, but it pales in comparison to what Japanese did to civilians in the countries they occupied, from torture to outright holocaust.  Japan had an ass kicking coming to it and we were the ones to mete it out.


----------



## Mac1958

.

It's certainly fair (and probably accurate) to assume that allowing the war to continue would have cost far more lives and involved far more risk.  No doubt.

But making the decision to kill that many innocents.  Man.  I'm glad I'll never be in a position to have to consider an option like that.

.


----------



## Dante

Steven_R said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US was looking at nearly a million casualties (killed and wounded) to pacify Japan. We're still giving out Purple Hearts ordered for the troops slated to invade Japan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moronic reasoning!  So what. What does that actually mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is we expected nearly a million US casualties. We made a million Purple Heart medals in anticipation of those casualties. Thankfully, the invasion never happened so we didn't have those causalities. So the medals sat in warehouses and have slowly been used up in all the wars and police actions and whatnot since then.
Click to expand...

so we didn't give out all the purple hearts because we ran out of them?


----------



## Dante

Steven_R said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US was looking at nearly a million casualties (killed and wounded) to pacify Japan. We're still giving out Purple Hearts ordered for the troops slated to invade Japan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moronic reasoning!  So what. What does that actually mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is we expected nearly a million US casualties. We made a million Purple Heart medals in anticipation of those casualties. Thankfully, the invasion never happened so we didn't have those causalities. So the medals sat in warehouses and have slowly been used up in all the wars and police actions and whatnot since then.
Click to expand...

Oh, if we had invaded we would have ran out of medals?  even funnier


----------



## Steven_R

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> It's certainly fair (and probably accurate) to assume that allowing the war to continue would have cost far more lives and involved far more risk.  No doubt.
> 
> But making the decision to kill that many innocents.  Man.  I'm glad I'll never be in a position to have to consider an option like that.
> 
> .



The civilians weren't the goal of the bombs; they were just unfortunate collateral damage. The targets were legitimate military objectives (an army group headquarters and a shipyard). More civilians were killed in one night during a fire bomb attack on Tokyo than were killed in both atomic bombings.

It sucks that civilians get caught in the middle in cities like Dresden and Coventry and Tokyo, but that's total war for you.


----------



## Steven_R

Dante said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US was looking at nearly a million casualties (killed and wounded) to pacify Japan. We're still giving out Purple Hearts ordered for the troops slated to invade Japan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What moronic reasoning!  So what. What does that actually mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is we expected nearly a million US casualties. We made a million Purple Heart medals in anticipation of those casualties. Thankfully, the invasion never happened so we didn't have those causalities. So the medals sat in warehouses and have slowly been used up in all the wars and police actions and whatnot since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, if we had invaded we would have ran out of medals?  even funnier
Click to expand...


No. We made them in anticipation for the invasion. We didn't hand them out because the war ended after Truman opened up some canned sunshine. We had them in warehouses and have been handing them out ever since.

Think about it. We made enough medals for the killed and wounded we expected to have in one campaign, that we have been handing them out since 1945 in four major wars (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iran/Iraq) and still have some left.


----------



## Theowl32

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi, The2ndAmendment.
> 
> Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing.  We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees.  That's all true.
> 
> But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor.  Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.
> 
> Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples.  Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands.  Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore.
> 
> So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan.  It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.
> 
> And what was the result?  Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism.  It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.
> 
> So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima.  I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bombs being dropped had nothing to do with Japan giving up, or "revenge." Of course many Americans then and now saw it that way.
> 
> It had everything to do with the USSR and their encroachment into the region. Again, they were absolute bullies, and they were certainly testing America's resolve. Stalin, rightfully so, knew the American people would not be able to stomach another long drawn out war. He took advantage of that, and he certainly wanted those very valuable trade routes (yes oil.)
> 
> The USSR was working some clandestine type of agreement with Japan, who was all too willing to some how save face. At the very least, they would not have to surrender to the United States. That in itself could be sold as a victory.
> 
> Stalin, for all intents and purposes, was basically asking Truman, "what they hell are you going to do about it?"
> 
> I am not sure if we know what sort of a sick tyrant Stalin was. So, the choices for this country were:
> 
> > Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.
> 
> > Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.
> 
> > Drop the  bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.
> 
> Those are the choices. Which one of the 3 would you have made?
> 
> Again, there were no choices that were good. I do not believe the Japanese people "deserved" it. I mean innocent women and children and elderly people etc etc are like most citizens in every country. They have little to no clue or care what is happening in some distant land.
> 
> However, this is the tragedy. There are different horrifying stories in every war. Thousands of them. Every single war has them, and it is very tempting to demonizing a group of people, a religion, or a race. I do it. It is not right.
> 
> Unless you are talking about insidious hypocrites like the American left wing piece of godless shit that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't understand my post at all. It's not about what criteria caused President Truman to use nuclear bombs, it's about the longer term justice by which Japan received just reciprocity for centuries of horrible war crimes.  In Korea, a nation I spent a year in, there is still deep seated pain and anger over the Japanese occupation that went from 1910 to 1945, when we freed them from Japanese tyranny.  It's difficult without writing a whole book to convey the depth of suffering Japan inflicted on its neighbors.  The civilian lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly regrettable, but it pales in comparison to what Japanese did to civilians in the countries they occupied, from torture to outright holocaust.  Japan had an ass kicking coming to it and we were the ones to mete it out.
Click to expand...


Yes. I agree with all of this pretty much.


----------



## blackhawk

Look at the death toll for the U.S. forces at the battles of Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa 2000 killed at Peleliu, 6,800 killed at Iwo Jima, and 12,000 killed at Okinawa to answer this question. First and foremost surrender was not an option to the Japanese of that time for them that was dishonorable and worse than death so no embargo or blockade would have made them surrender when you combine this mindset with the population of mainland Japan and that military planners estimated the combined death toll on both sides would have been well over a million that made the atomic bombs as bad as they were the best option to end the war.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Let me try a different approach.
For anyone on this thread that is a parent, go back with me to a sleepy little town in Iowa.  A mama there had 5 baby boys, that she loved and nurtured and tucked safely into bed at night.  They grew into 5 wonderful young men who had their whole lives ahead of them.  And then Japan decided to force us into a war we never asked for, but Japan insisted on.
And like* thousands *of other moms and dads, wives and children, that mother knew when she saw the chaplain pull up to her house, that she too had lost a beloved child.   She managed to stay on her feet long enough to meet them on the porch and  ask, "Which one did I lose?"  The answer was, "All of them." 
Parents, listen to that line.   All of your precious children are dead simply because Japan wanted to kill them.

Those bombs were dropped on an unrelenting country, to put an end to the misery that Mrs. Sullivan and countless others  needlessly endured at the whim of the Japanese.  That generation didn't have the luxury of sitting back and pondering which Japanese still supported Japan, and which had grown weary of their war.   We did what was necessary to bring our men home alive.
And then the greatest generation that has ever walked this earth, was responsible for the magnanimous act of helping the enemy rebuild  their nation.  Instead of second guessing them from your politically correct couch,  thank them for putting their lives on the line so you could have your comfy judgmental couch.   Your lack of respect is appalling.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Steven_R said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> It's certainly fair (and probably accurate) to assume that allowing the war to continue would have cost far more lives and involved far more risk.  No doubt.
> 
> But making the decision to kill that many innocents.  Man.  I'm glad I'll never be in a position to have to consider an option like that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians weren't the goal of the bombs; they were just unfortunate collateral damage. The targets were legitimate military objectives (an army group headquarters and a shipyard). More civilians were killed in one night during a fire bomb attack on Tokyo than were killed in both atomic bombings.
> 
> It sucks that civilians get caught in the middle in cities like Dresden and Coventry and Tokyo, but that's total war for you.
Click to expand...


Let's not white wash history.  Hiroshima was targeted specifically for it's population density.  The target was a bridge that crossed the Kyuohotaqawa River in the middle of the city, not the military production harbors to the South. The objective was to maximize casualties.  And there was no attack on Tokyo that killed 105,000 civilians and I defy you to prove otherwise. Let's stick to the facts.


----------



## Steven_R

It was the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9-10 1945 (Operation Meetinghouse). Pretty much every historian thinks the official casualty numbers were artificially low and even then those numbers are nearly 100,000.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Let's not whitewash.   Japan attacked us, killed our soldiers and tried to conquer the United States.  We fought back.  They lost.  Lesson learned.  Move on.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Steven_R said:


> It was the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9-10 1945 (Operation Meetinghouse). Pretty much every historian thinks the official casualty numbers were artificially low and even then those numbers are nearly 100,000.



Then actually we're both wrong. The death toll was nearly identical.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Steven_R said:


> It was the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9-10 1945 (Operation Meetinghouse). Pretty much every historian thinks the official casualty numbers were artificially low and even then those numbers are nearly 100,000.



I wonder why we did that.  We should have dropped posies and valentines on Tokyo.  What were we thinking!


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> Load it on a submarine. (They had at least three subs with four times the range required.)



Naval blockade, moron.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> An embargo wouldn't have done it.  They could feed their people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they couldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't give a shit about feeding their people or keeping them alive....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid. Civilians on the mainland (what the militarists considered 'real' Japanese, as opposed to Okinawans, for example) were starving, and had long since grown tired of an extended, futile war and all that came with it. Starving children and old women were not going to die to the last fighting with sticks against a foe who had done what they thought was impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okinawa proves you wrong, .
Click to expand...


You don't understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Unkotare

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi, The2ndAmendment.
> 
> Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing.  We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees.  That's all true.
> 
> But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor.  Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.
> 
> Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples.  Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands.  Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore.
> 
> So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan.  It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.
> 
> And what was the result?  Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism.  It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.
> 
> So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima.  I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bombs being dropped had nothing to do with Japan giving up, or "revenge." Of course many Americans then and now saw it that way.
> 
> It had everything to do with the USSR and their encroachment into the region. Again, they were absolute bullies, and they were certainly testing America's resolve. Stalin, rightfully so, knew the American people would not be able to stomach another long drawn out war. He took advantage of that, and he certainly wanted those very valuable trade routes (yes oil.)
> 
> The USSR was working some clandestine type of agreement with Japan, who was all too willing to some how save face. At the very least, they would not have to surrender to the United States. That in itself could be sold as a victory.
> 
> Stalin, for all intents and purposes, was basically asking Truman, "what they hell are you going to do about it?"
> 
> I am not sure if we know what sort of a sick tyrant Stalin was. So, the choices for this country were:
> 
> > Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.
> 
> > Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.
> 
> > Drop the  bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.
> 
> Those are the choices. Which one of the 3 would you have made?
> 
> Again, there were no choices that were good. I do not believe the Japanese people "deserved" it. I mean innocent women and children and elderly people etc etc are like most citizens in every country. They have little to no clue or care what is happening in some distant land.
> 
> However, this is the tragedy. There are different horrifying stories in every war. Thousands of them. Every single war has them, and it is very tempting to demonizing a group of people, a religion, or a race. I do it. It is not right.
> 
> Unless you are talking about insidious hypocrites like the American left wing piece of godless shit that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't understand my post at all. It's not about what criteria caused President Truman to use nuclear bombs, it's about the longer term justice by which Japan received just reciprocity for centuries of horrible war crimes.  In Korea, a nation I spent a year in, there is still deep seated pain and anger over the Japanese occupation that went from 1910 to 1945, when we freed them from Japanese tyranny.  It's difficult without writing a whole book to convey the depth of suffering Japan inflicted on its neighbors.  The civilian lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly regrettable, but it pales in comparison to what Japanese did to civilians in the countries they occupied, from torture to outright holocaust.  Japan had an ass kicking coming to it and we were the ones to mete it out.
Click to expand...



So, killing all those civilians wasn't a military objective? Just for the visceral pleasure of revenge?


----------



## Mojo2

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


Can Air Power Alone Win a War


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Unkotare said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi, The2ndAmendment.
> 
> Not too long ago, I was arguing pretty much the same thing.  We devastated their fleet, ejected them from the Pacific Islands, bombed their infrastructure into military insignificance, and had them on their knees.  That's all true.
> 
> But watching Pearl Harbor with my family on December 7th change my mind, not because of anything in the movie, but because I began to contemplate what Japan had done over the last several centuries leading up to Pearl Harbor.  Their ruthless military conquests, their harsh treatment of civilians, and the atrocities they committed rivaled only by Nazi Germany left a deficit of justice that needed to be paid.
> 
> Historically, I look at how God suffers great injustice, cruelty, and despotic systems for decades and even centuries, but eventually brings it to a crushing end. It's what happened when the Israelites took Canaan, and there are many more examples.  Japan had iron fisted control off and on of Siberia, Eastern China, the Koreas, and the Pacific Islands.  Their cruelty is the stuff of legends and people had been crying out against their injustice for too long for a just God to ignore.
> 
> So rather than looking at Hiroshima as direct reciprocity for Pearl Harbor, it makes more sense to see it through the context of a long history of atrocities, massacres, torture, and suffering inflicted by the Empire of Japan.  It was an evil empire that needed to be crushed to end its reign of terror on the Pacific rim. And crush them we did.
> 
> And what was the result?  Japan has now, for the last 70 years, been a peaceful nation, a democracy that seeks economic success not through conquest but through free trade and capitalism.  It's hard to second guess history, or to credibly claim that there would have been a similar result if we didn't bring them to the point of absolute, unconditional surrender.
> 
> So as recently as a week ago, I've changed my mind on Hiroshima.  I think it was necessary and I think they deserved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bombs being dropped had nothing to do with Japan giving up, or "revenge." Of course many Americans then and now saw it that way.
> 
> It had everything to do with the USSR and their encroachment into the region. Again, they were absolute bullies, and they were certainly testing America's resolve. Stalin, rightfully so, knew the American people would not be able to stomach another long drawn out war. He took advantage of that, and he certainly wanted those very valuable trade routes (yes oil.)
> 
> The USSR was working some clandestine type of agreement with Japan, who was all too willing to some how save face. At the very least, they would not have to surrender to the United States. That in itself could be sold as a victory.
> 
> Stalin, for all intents and purposes, was basically asking Truman, "what they hell are you going to do about it?"
> 
> I am not sure if we know what sort of a sick tyrant Stalin was. So, the choices for this country were:
> 
> > Allow Japan to surrender to the USSR even after we fought the war and so many died.
> 
> > Start up a long drawn out HOT war with the USSR (we probably would have won, considering all of our factories were in working order and we did not lose half the men or hardware the USSR did and why Patton wanted to start it with them). Of course that would have meant 10s of thousands more young American men dying.
> 
> > Drop the  bomb, and forcing the USSR to back off. The USSR called the bluff after the first drop and after the second drop they were not sure how many we had, so they backed off invading Japan, who became an "American ally" upon their surrender.
> 
> Those are the choices. Which one of the 3 would you have made?
> 
> Again, there were no choices that were good. I do not believe the Japanese people "deserved" it. I mean innocent women and children and elderly people etc etc are like most citizens in every country. They have little to no clue or care what is happening in some distant land.
> 
> However, this is the tragedy. There are different horrifying stories in every war. Thousands of them. Every single war has them, and it is very tempting to demonizing a group of people, a religion, or a race. I do it. It is not right.
> 
> Unless you are talking about insidious hypocrites like the American left wing piece of godless shit that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't understand my post at all. It's not about what criteria caused President Truman to use nuclear bombs, it's about the longer term justice by which Japan received just reciprocity for centuries of horrible war crimes.  In Korea, a nation I spent a year in, there is still deep seated pain and anger over the Japanese occupation that went from 1910 to 1945, when we freed them from Japanese tyranny.  It's difficult without writing a whole book to convey the depth of suffering Japan inflicted on its neighbors.  The civilian lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly regrettable, but it pales in comparison to what Japanese did to civilians in the countries they occupied, from torture to outright holocaust.  Japan had an ass kicking coming to it and we were the ones to mete it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, killing all those civilians wasn't a military objective? Just for the visceral pleasure of revenge?
Click to expand...


You really think in tiny circles, don't you?  I wasn't talking about the reasons the U.S. bombed Japan. In fact, that was made clear in the second sentence of the post you quoted and didn't read or didn't understand.  Try to extend yourself a little better. Not saying you're stupid, I'm saying you're not using your intellect.


----------



## The Irish Ram

I understand things just fine, Unk.    You're playing Risk, and Battleship with WW2 soldier's lives.
What would you have suggested we do to stop Japan?  Keep in mind that being nuked once had no effect on their resolve.
How much longer would you be willing to let our soldiers die if they didn't need to, in a war they didn't ask for, at a rate of over 500 a day to spare the enemy?    Include your son or daughter or daddy in the death tolls on Aug. 10th, 11th, 12..........  How many more young American lives would you have  forfeited in an effort to be politically correct and spare our enemy the agony of defeat?  A month more?  Another year?  500 more Americans a day for 6 months?  You play at war.  They died in war.  Second guess that.

What if it was a military objective?  So?  Was the objective obtained?  Did it end the war?  

Wake Island was the  visceral pleasure of revenge.  Bombing any or all of Japan to get them to surrender was an effort to end the death of Americans.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

This is an argument that appears will never be settled, and will live on.

I wish people would just let it go and move on.


----------



## Unkotare

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Japan had an ass kicking coming to it and we were the ones to mete it out.




So, killing all those civilians wasn't a military objective? Just for the visceral pleasure of revenge?[/QUOTE]

You really think in tiny circles, don't you?  I wasn't talking about the reasons the U.S. bombed Japan. In fact, that was made clear in the second sentence of the post you quoted and didn't read or didn't understand.  Try to extend yourself a little better. Not saying you're stupid, I'm saying you're not using your intellect.[/QUOTE]


It was a yes/no question. Stop ducking.


----------



## Unkotare

The Irish Ram said:


> I understand things just fine, Unk.   ....




Sure doesn't seem that way.


----------



## The Irish Ram

It's called patriotism.  Don't expect you to get it.  Poor Japan, huh?


----------



## Unkotare

The Irish Ram said:


> It's called patriotism.




What is?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load it on a submarine. (They had at least three subs with four times the range required.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval blockade, moron.
Click to expand...


Maybe you have not heard, but a submarine can do this really neat thing: it can travel BELOW the surface!  Despite the blockade, subs still got through.


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load it on a submarine. (They had at least three subs with four times the range required.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval blockade, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you have not heard, but a submarine can do this really neat thing: it can travel BELOW the surface!  Despite the blockade, subs still got through.
Click to expand...



You are a fool.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load it on a submarine. (They had at least three subs with four times the range required.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval blockade, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you have not heard, but a submarine can do this really neat thing: it can travel BELOW the surface!  Despite the blockade, subs still got through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.
Click to expand...

The fool here is you, you refuse to read SOURCE Documents that prove that Japan had no intention of surrendering and refused after 2 atomic bombs.That when the Emperor ordered the surrender anyway that the Army attempted a Coup to stop the surrender.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Unkotare said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called patriotism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is?
Click to expand...


You don't think I get what you're talking about.  You're playing armchair General.   The OP was questioning America's political correctness in the war against Japan.  Should we have dropped the bomb?  Yes.  Why?  Because it saved my Dad's life.  He came home to marry and raise a family.     We weren't at war with the Japanese military.  We were  at war with Japan.  And every square mile of Japan had soldiers in their war that were supported by those  people that were bombed.   The days when people would picnic around the battlefields where soldiers fought and killed each other, no longer applied with the advent of the airplane.  I'm pretty sure Japan knew that and felt losing non-military members of their society was worth the risk.   Even when they were warned.  We needed to drop a bomb on Japan to stop Japan from killing us some more.   

A better question for the op would be,  did Japan really need to bomb Pearl Harbor?


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load it on a submarine. (They had at least three subs with four times the range required.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval blockade, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you have not heard, but a submarine can do this really neat thing: it can travel BELOW the surface!  Despite the blockade, subs still got through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fool here is you, you refuse to read SOURCE Documents that prove that Japan had no intention of surrendering and refused after 2 atomic bombs.That when the Emperor ordered the surrender anyway that the Army attempted a Coup to stop the surrender.
Click to expand...


Your straw man also says you're a fool.


----------



## Unkotare

The Irish Ram said:


> [  We weren't at war with the Japanese military.  We were  at war with Japan....





So the goal was to kill civilians? Women, children, the elderly?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Jarlaxle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Load it on a submarine. (They had at least three subs with four times the range required.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval blockade, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you have not heard, but a submarine can do this really neat thing: it can travel BELOW the surface!  Despite the blockade, subs still got through.
Click to expand...


You're not talking to an intelligent person. He sounds like a teenager or just a very stupid man.


----------



## Unkotare

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> You're not talking to an intelligent person. ...





No need to introduce yourself every time you post.


----------



## whitehall

Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Stupid post! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

whitehall said:


> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.



So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Unkotare said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  We weren't at war with the Japanese military.  We were  at war with Japan....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the goal was to kill civilians? Women, children, the elderly?
Click to expand...


The goal was to win the war that Japan started.  We did that.  To the tune of 500+ American lives a day.    Be sure to watch the movie Unbroken, then weep for Japan.  

The real question Unk is why did Japan put their women, children, and elderly at such risk, and declare war on a nation that was minding it's own business?  Almost like their eye was on the big prize at the expense of their own women, children, and elderly.  Stop trying to make the U.S. the bad guys.   Japan was the bad guy.


----------



## Unkotare

The Irish Ram said:


> Stop trying to make the U.S. the bad guys.





Another failed straw man.


----------



## HenryBHough

Rooseveldt needed the war to deal with unemployment problem.  Truman saw the REAL job was done and ended it before hundreds of thousands more Americans were killed.  Yeah, I can see why liberals would have loved to see more American corpses.  Hey, they like dead babies!  Just think of casualtits as REALLY late-term abortions.


----------



## FA_Q2

Unkotare said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  We weren't at war with the Japanese military.  We were  at war with Japan....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the goal was to kill civilians? Women, children, the elderly?
Click to expand...

Yes, that actually was the goal.

Japan simply would not give up and the only way to end the war was to make a show of power that was so awesome that it completely demoralized them.  Apparently it worked well enough to end the war.

The most interesting part about these topics when they arise is that they focused on the bombs that were dropped without regard to the firebombing which actually killed MORE civilians that the atomic weapons ever did.  Why is the morality of the atomic weapons in such a state when most people have no knowledge of the more destructive bombing raids?


----------



## Unkotare

FA_Q2 said:


> The most interesting part about these topics when they arise is that they focused on the bombs that were dropped without regard to the firebombing which actually killed MORE civilians that the atomic weapons ever did...




Actually, the firebombing is brought up _every time_ this topic arises.


----------



## Unkotare

FA_Q2 said:


> most people have no knowledge of the more destructive bombing raids?




What gives you the idea that "most people have no knowledge" of that?


----------



## FA_Q2

Unkotare said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> most people have no knowledge of the more destructive bombing raids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea that "most people have no knowledge" of that?
Click to expand...

People I have spoken to.

It is very rare that I find someone that actually knows anything about the air raids over japan but virtually everyone knows we dropped 2 atomic weapons on them.

Edit: has it even been brought up in this thread?


----------



## FA_Q2

Unkotare said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most interesting part about these topics when they arise is that they focused on the bombs that were dropped without regard to the firebombing which actually killed MORE civilians that the atomic weapons ever did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the firebombing is brought up _every time_ this topic arises.
Click to expand...

I have not seen it brought up before.


----------



## Politico

The2ndAmendment said:


> *Did we really have to nuke Japan?*


Yes. moving on.


----------



## Unkotare

FA_Q2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> most people have no knowledge of the more destructive bombing raids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea that "most people have no knowledge" of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I have spoken to.....
Click to expand...




What a logical conclusion............


----------



## Unkotare

FA_Q2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most interesting part about these topics when they arise is that they focused on the bombs that were dropped without regard to the firebombing which actually killed MORE civilians that the atomic weapons ever did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the firebombing is brought up _every time_ this topic arises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have not seen it brought up before.
Click to expand...



Pay attention.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
Click to expand...


You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.

Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.


----------



## Jarlaxle

They had no planes that could carry a bomb without being vastly overloaded, and ZERO chance of one getting through even if it managed to get off the ground.


----------



## Unkotare

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.....
Click to expand...



Like all those times they had managed to do anything like that during the war _before_ they had been decimated? Yeah...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.
> 
> Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.
Click to expand...


You're way out on a limb here.  Projecting power like that requires infrastructure, infrastructure that we crushed. The point of the OP is that Japan was already brought to its knees. Protecting its own homeland was top priority and there was no chance they were going to anger the Americans further, especially with an emperor that wanted to stay in power.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Jarlaxle said:


> They had no planes that could carry a bomb without being vastly overloaded, and ZERO chance of one getting through even if it managed to get off the ground.


Another good point. They had nothing like the Enola Gay B-29 high altitude strategic bomber.


----------



## Redfish

OMG, now the libs want to refight WW2 and blame the USA.    The bombs saved millions of US and Japanese lives.   The US was gearing up for a land invasion of Japan that would have killed millions and cost billions.  Truman made the right call.


----------



## NYcarbineer

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.
> 
> Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're way out on a limb here.  Projecting power like that requires infrastructure, infrastructure that we crushed. The point of the OP is that Japan was already brought to its knees. Protecting its own homeland was top priority and there was no chance they were going to anger the Americans further, especially with an emperor that wanted to stay in power.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  Remember, the Japanese would not have known we had the bomb.  If they had gotten it, hell, they could used it against the eventual US invasion force, at sea, and wiped it out.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Redfish said:


> OMG, now the libs want to refight WW2 and blame the USA.    The bombs saved millions of US and Japanese lives.   The US was gearing up for a land invasion of Japan that would have killed millions and cost billions.  Truman made the right call.



You should learn to read and THEN resume posting.


----------



## Redfish

NYcarbineer said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.
> 
> Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're way out on a limb here.  Projecting power like that requires infrastructure, infrastructure that we crushed. The point of the OP is that Japan was already brought to its knees. Protecting its own homeland was top priority and there was no chance they were going to anger the Americans further, especially with an emperor that wanted to stay in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Remember, the Japanese would not have known we had the bomb.  If they had gotten it, hell, they could used it against the eventual US invasion force, at sea, and wiped it out.
Click to expand...

 

damn,  I never thought I would agree with you on anything.


----------



## Mr Natural

The big mistake we made was apologizing for the bomb.

Instead, we should have taken a stance that this is what happens to you when you fuck with us.


----------



## Redfish

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, now the libs want to refight WW2 and blame the USA.    The bombs saved millions of US and Japanese lives.   The US was gearing up for a land invasion of Japan that would have killed millions and cost billions.  Truman made the right call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn to read and THEN resume posting.
Click to expand...

 

WTF is wrong with you?   I give you a compliment and you come back with that shit.   I take back the beer toast


----------



## NYcarbineer

Redfish said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, now the libs want to refight WW2 and blame the USA.    The bombs saved millions of US and Japanese lives.   The US was gearing up for a land invasion of Japan that would have killed millions and cost billions.  Truman made the right call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn to read and THEN resume posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is wrong with you?   I give you a compliment and you come back with that shit.   I take back the beer toast
Click to expand...


Because you were accusing 'liberals' of being against using the bomb.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Japan could have developed an atomic bomb but most of her scientists were distracted by being this close!! to inventing the transistor radio.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.
> 
> Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're way out on a limb here.  Projecting power like that requires infrastructure, infrastructure that we crushed. The point of the OP is that Japan was already brought to its knees. Protecting its own homeland was top priority and there was no chance they were going to anger the Americans further, especially with an emperor that wanted to stay in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Remember, the Japanese would not have known we had the bomb.  If they had gotten it, hell, they could used it against the eventual US invasion force, at sea, and wiped it out.
Click to expand...

You really don't know a lot about atomic weapons, do you?


----------



## regent

I wonder how the American people would have felt about continuing the war waiting for Japan to surrender?  For many Americans the war was about over when Germany surrendered, and would they have been angry at the war's continuance even with a bomb that might motivate a surrender? Would we be debating today that the USSR gained so much for its puny efforts. Would the people have ventilated their anger at the ballot box? In a democracy there can be a political side to decisions.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

NYcarbineer said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.
> 
> Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.
Click to expand...


You're actually making the case that we should have dropped those bombs on Japan.  If we were so afraid they were going to hit us again, then it would behoove us to hit them first, and hard.  Did you intend to argue in favor of nuking Japan?


----------



## SAYIT

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.
> 
> Or you put it on a plane and hit a large US occupied island in the Pacific and let us worry about what more you might be capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're actually making the case that we should have dropped those bombs on Japan.  If we were so afraid they were going to hit us again, then it would behoove us to hit them first, and hard.  Did you intend to argue in favor of nuking Japan?
Click to expand...


To pretty much everyone's surprise, NY has been justifying our use of "The Bomb." Evidently he _is_ capable of rational thought. Hell, I even gave him a "Thank You."


----------



## Theowl32

August 6th 1945 Hiroshima bomb dropped.

August 8th 1945 USSR declares war on Japan.

August 9th US drops Nagasaki bomb, which was  twice as powerful as the first.

August 15th 1945 Japan surrenders to the US.

If it was true that Japan was going to never surrender then why did they?

No, they were trying to work out something with the USSR so they could save face....and possibly defeat the US with Stalins help.

Logistically the US could not bomb the USSR. Politically it would have been a disaster and there were plenty of Russian defenses along with many many issues.

Here is a hint. The Enola Gay flew the mission unescorted. Japan had no defense.

The bottom line was after the second drop, the USSR backed off and Japan had no choice.

There were no real choices and the bombs had pretty much everything to do with sending the USSR a clear message.

Yes, it did save many many American lives. So in essence it was not a lie. As far as the USSR being an enemy  Truman did not want that to get out at that time.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.


***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****

Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Unkotare said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, possibly Seattle.  If they were really ambitious, add Miami, Charleston, New York, or Boston.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no means of such delivery. Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that same bullshit, *it is STILL BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK genius, how did the defeated nation without enough men to staff their forces or experienced pilots to fly the very few planes with no fuel remaining have the means to extend forces past the US Navy encircling their nation to deliver a large, experimental bomb on the US mainland when they had not been able to deliver conventional bombs even when they had enjoyed military successes early in the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put it in a submarine and and get as close to LA or San Francisco as you can.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all those times they had managed to do anything like that during the war _before_ they had been decimated? Yeah...
Click to expand...


Submarines bombarded San Franscisco and attacked the Panama Canal.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

I don't believe there is any way that we weren't going to use those two bombs. Japan happened to be a nice island separated from any mainland.


----------



## hazlnut

The2ndAmendment said:


> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.



Then get the fuck out, traitor.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****
> 
> Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover



> Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of _U.S_. _News_ (now _U.S. News & World Report_), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."
> 
> Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine _Human Events_ contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the _Chicago Tribune_, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."


History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****
> 
> Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?
> 
> "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of _U.S_. _News_ (now _U.S. News & World Report_), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."
> 
> Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine _Human Events_ contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the _Chicago Tribune_, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima
> 
> "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.
Click to expand...


Go ahead and explain to us why the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th and then we dropped the second bomb the very next day.

Go ahead.

You are a fucking fool. The proof is the timeline and the fact that the USSR became our enemy immediately following WWii.

The bombs essentially had little to with Japan and basically everything to do with Stalin.

Fucking American hating fool of the academic commie elite  left. Who lives to blame America for everything.

You are nothing but a propagandist of the left wing commie pieces of shit.

Fuck you.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

hazlnut said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then get the fuck out, traitor.
Click to expand...


A Patriot is one that his country from his government...loyalist.


----------



## Unkotare

NYcarbineer said:


> Japan could have developed an atomic bomb but most of her scientists were distracted by being this close!! to inventing the transistor radio.




Japan Tested Atomic Bomb in NK Before End of WWII


----------



## NYcarbineer

Nobody had hindsight in 1945.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****
> 
> Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?
> 
> "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of _U.S_. _News_ (now _U.S. News & World Report_), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."
> 
> Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine _Human Events_ contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the _Chicago Tribune_, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima
> 
> "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead and explain to us why the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th and then we dropped the second bomb the very next day.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> You are a fucking fool. The proof is the timeline and the fact that the USSR became our enemy immediately following WWii.
> 
> The bombs essentially had little to with Japan and basically everything to do with Stalin.
> 
> Fucking American hating fool of the academic commie elite  left. Who lives to blame America for everything.
> 
> You are nothing but a propagandist of the left wing commie pieces of shit.
> 
> Fuck you.
Click to expand...

Boring. Was Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied forces during WWII, an "American hating fool of the adademic commie elite left?" Or are you just too ignorant to actually understand the history of your own ideology, let alone that of others?


----------



## Syriusly

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...



We didn't have to even fight the Japanese- we could have just surrendered.

Just to point out- the atomic bombs did far less damage than our conventional bombing of Japan.


----------



## Mojo2

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


If the Japs had been defeated why did the fighting continue even past the 15th of August 1945?

backmarkerS_E 7 points 1 year ago 

Fighting continued right up to the announcement of the surrender on 15th August 1945, though the United States had frozen its combat actions on 14th August 1945. As a result, it is near impossible to tell who fired the last shot before the surrender, though my educated guess would be a Chinese, Japanese or Soviet soldier.

Fighting, however, continued beyond the surrender. The Imperial Japanese Army did not communicate the cease-fire order to the Kwantung Army in Manchuria until the 20th August 1945, meaning that fighting between Soviet-Mongolian and the Kwantung Army continued until that date. Japanese soldiers in China had not completed their surrender until 9th September 1945, and there were isolated incidents of fighting up until that point.

Japanese garrisons on the Kuril Islands did not surrender until 23rd August 1945. The Battle of Shumshu was the final battle in the campaign, and saw 1,534 soldiers killed.

Because Japanese soldiers were conducting jungle warfare on isolated islands in the Pacific, a number of soldiers kept fighting after the surrender, either as they did not find out about the surrender, or they suspected reports of the surrender might have been enemy propaganda.

The last confirmed holdout was Teruo Nakamura, who was found on Morotai in Indonesia in December 1974, but it seems that he didn't fire his rifle for much of his time on the island as he feared that he would attract attention by doing so, so I don't think he would have fired the last shots.

Before him, Hiroo Onoda was found on the Lubang Island in the Philippines. Despite having seen a leaflet in October 1945 that declared the war was over, he and his fellow soldiers thought it was probably enemy propaganda, so continued fighting. Onoda is a good bet for having fired the last shots, as he and his fellow soldiers (who all died before his discovery) believed they were conducting a guerilla war, and killed 30 Filipinos, and was involved in a shoot-out with the police as recently as 19th October 1972. When discovered he only agreed to surrender if he was given a command to do so by his commanding officer. The Japanese government tracked down his commanding officer, who was by then a book-seller, who flew to Lubang and ordered Onoda to surrender.

Source: Japanese Army Stragglers

It's possible that there were further holdouts, but unlikely. There were two Japanese soldiers who joined communist guerillas in Thailand and were fighting until 1991, but I would exclude this as being part of the Second World War.​
backmarkerS E comments on When was the last shot of World War 2 fired


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****
> 
> Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?
> 
> "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of _U.S_. _News_ (now _U.S. News & World Report_), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."
> 
> Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine _Human Events_ contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the _Chicago Tribune_, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima
> 
> "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead and explain to us why the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th and then we dropped the second bomb the very next day.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> You are a fucking fool. The proof is the timeline and the fact that the USSR became our enemy immediately following WWii.
> 
> The bombs essentially had little to with Japan and basically everything to do with Stalin.
> 
> Fucking American hating fool of the academic commie elite  left. Who lives to blame America for everything.
> 
> You are nothing but a propagandist of the left wing commie pieces of shit.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring. Was Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied forces during WWII, an "American hating fool of the adademic commie elite left?" Or are you just too ignorant to actually understand the history of your own ideology, let alone that of others?
Click to expand...


Do you even know when the cold war started?

Hint: It was in February of 1945. (the Yalta conference) There, I just gave you the answer.

I love it. You think Stalin was all interested in "helping the US" in August of 1945. Of course he was. Of course.

Fucking hippy.

Keep on thinking that Truman just made the decision to kill Japanese women and children, simply for no reason. Of course.

Keep on telling that to your fellow American hating morons.

You, do not know shit about history. It is real easy for you to join that bandwagon of know it all idiots

Communism failed. The USSR was an absolute epic failure. Karl Marx, failed.


----------



## whitehall

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
Click to expand...

Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Pure garbage.^
We won a war that we didn't ask for.  Then went and helped rebuild the enemy's country for them.  Pretty humane considering all of the Americans that died because of Japan's greed and aggression.   Tell all of those patriots who buried their children because Japan lost it's mind,  that  we shouldn't have ended the war as soon as possible.
Don't  want your ass kicked?  Don't declare war on America. We *do *care about our women, children, and elderly, and will do what ever it takes to protect them.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

whitehall said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
Click to expand...


Then I guess the entire country was insane because Truman's decision met with almost universal approval.

Or we can go with a far more likely scenario.  You are.


----------



## Theowl32

whitehall said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
Click to expand...


Another brainwashed fool of communist propaganda. They are so stupid that they actually believe they dropped the bombs for the hell of it. 

Yes, they are that fucking stupid. 

America is to blame for everything to these fucking pawns of the socialist left.


----------



## regent

America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later. 
Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the writing on the wall, knew that the Soviet Union would soon enter the Pacific to aid the U.S., and began reaching out to the Soviets to surrender and end the conflict. The idea that the nuclear bombs saved American soldiers' lives is grossly misstated, and completely ignores the fact that an invasion of Japan was completely unnecessary as they were already attempting to end the conflict. The U.S. government refused their conditions, nuked them, and then accepted their conditions after they had vaporized innocent Japanese civilians for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ***Liberal propaganda alert!!!****
> 
> Typical American hating bullshit perspective right here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't it the liberal Truman who nuked the Japanese, whereas conservatives opposed it?
> 
> "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days later, David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of _U.S_. _News_ (now _U.S. News & World Report_), argued that Japan's surrender had been inevitable without the atomic bomb. He added that justifications of "military necessity" will "never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children."
> 
> Just weeks after Japan's surrender, an article published in the conservative magazine _Human Events_ contended that America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima might be morally "more shameful" and "more degrading" than Japan's "indefensible and infamous act of aggression" at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Such scathing criticism on the part of leading American conservatives continued well after 1945. A 1947 editorial in the _Chicago Tribune_, at the time a leading conservative voice, claimed that President Truman and his advisers were guilty of "crimes against humanity" for "the utterly unnecessary killing of uncounted Japanese."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History News Network Why It s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima
> 
> "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> Perhaps you're the liberal propagandist with no knowledge of conservatism at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead and explain to us why the USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th and then we dropped the second bomb the very next day.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> You are a fucking fool. The proof is the timeline and the fact that the USSR became our enemy immediately following WWii.
> 
> The bombs essentially had little to with Japan and basically everything to do with Stalin.
> 
> Fucking American hating fool of the academic commie elite  left. Who lives to blame America for everything.
> 
> You are nothing but a propagandist of the left wing commie pieces of shit.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boring. Was Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied forces during WWII, an "American hating fool of the adademic commie elite left?" Or are you just too ignorant to actually understand the history of your own ideology, let alone that of others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even know when the cold war started?
> 
> Hint: It was in February of 1945. (the Yalta conference) There, I just gave you the answer.
> 
> I love it. You think Stalin was all interested in "helping the US" in August of 1945. Of course he was. Of course.
> 
> Fucking hippy.
> 
> Keep on thinking that Truman just made the decision to kill Japanese women and children, simply for no reason. Of course.
> 
> Keep on telling that to your fellow American hating morons.
> 
> You, do not know shit about history. It is real easy for you to join that bandwagon of know it all idiots
> 
> Communism failed. The USSR was an absolute epic failure. Karl Marx, failed.
Click to expand...

Was Eisenhower a hippy?

Yes, communism was an abject failure. Big surprise. Completely irrelevant.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The Irish Ram said:


> Pure garbage.^
> We won a war that we didn't ask for.  Then went and helped rebuild the enemy's country for them.  Pretty humane considering all of the Americans that died because of Japan's greed and aggression.   Tell all of those patriots who buried their children because Japan lost it's mind,  that  we shouldn't have ended the war as soon as possible.
> Don't  want your ass kicked?  Don't declare war on America. We *do *care about our women, children, and elderly, and will do what ever it takes to protect them.


"We" didn't ask for it, but FDR was bound and determined to get the U.S. involved, and so provoked the Axis powers at every opportunity.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

regent said:


> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.



Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
Click to expand...

An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
Click to expand...


Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
Click to expand...


Huh.  If that was* really* the case, they would have waved the white flag as soon as the first bomb was dropped.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?
Click to expand...

Yes, they were reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender because they knew when the Soviets entered the Pacific theater they were done for. The U.S. had intercepted communications from the Japanese making this fact clear. It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The Irish Ram said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh.  If that was* really* the case, they would have waved the white flag as soon as the first bomb was dropped.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. For starters, three days isn't exactly a long period of time to get a government's affairs in order, especially when there were so many competing interests after power in Imperial Japan at the time. Not to mention that the reason the U.S. wasn't interested in this surrender was that the Japanese were only willing to go through with it on the condition that the Emperor would remain in power. The U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender, which they got after the second bomb and then proceeded to accept that condition anyway. In other words, they vaporized those innocent civilians for no reason other than to demonstrate that they could.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
Click to expand...

No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.


----------



## SAYIT

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender because they knew when the Soviets entered the Pacific theater they were done for. The U.S. had intercepted communications from the Japanese making this fact clear. It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil.
Click to expand...


Some people have an irresistible need to make America seem "evil" by twisting history to satisfy that need.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
Click to expand...

How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SAYIT said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender because they knew when the Soviets entered the Pacific theater they were done for. The U.S. had intercepted communications from the Japanese making this fact clear. It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people have an irresistible need to make America seem "evil" by twisting history to satisfy that need.
Click to expand...

Like future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces?


----------



## SAYIT

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender because they knew when the Soviets entered the Pacific theater they were done for. The U.S. had intercepted communications from the Japanese making this fact clear. It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people have an irresistible need to make America seem "evil" by twisting history to satisfy that need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces?
Click to expand...


No ... like you.


----------



## SAYIT

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
Click to expand...


No, Gunny's evidence says the Japs were not surrendering but rather offering the Soviets a ceasefire (which would have had no bearing on our prosecution of our conflict with Japan). I wonder why you must lie and distort the facts in order to make your case that America is "evil?" Could it be they just do not support your conclusion?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SAYIT said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender because they knew when the Soviets entered the Pacific theater they were done for. The U.S. had intercepted communications from the Japanese making this fact clear. It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people have an irresistible need to make America seem "evil" by twisting history to satisfy that need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No ... like you.
Click to expand...

Well I'm taking the same position as Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, and many other conservatives of the time. 

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover

"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." - Norman Cousins

"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." - William D. Leahy

So you're saying that these men are twisting history.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SAYIT said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Gunny's evidence says the Japs were not surrendering but rather offering the Soviets a ceasefire (which would have had no bearing on our prosecution of our conflict with Japan). I wonder why you must lie and distort the facts in order to make your case that America is "evil?" Could it be they just do not support your conclusion?
Click to expand...

If you actually read the cables it shows that Japan was reaching out to the Soviet Union as an in-between for them to surrender to the United States conditionally. Conditions which were later met after the nuclear bombs, and which could have been agreed to beforehand so that there was no reason to vaporize those innocent civilians. Furthermore, the only one talking about America being evil is you. Was Truman evil? No doubt. Harry Truman was not America, however.


----------



## regent

Histories of the bombing indicate Japan had two groups working, one to continue the war and the other to surrender. These two groups could not agree and the war continued. After the second bomb, the emperor called the groups together and in effect told them to surrender and after some hassle they agreed. It was the bombs and the emperor that ordered the war ended, and Japan to endure the unendurable. Japan did not have to go through Russia to surrender, it had only to surrender,


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

regent said:


> Histories of the bombing indicate Japan had two groups working, one to continue the war and the other to surrender. These two groups could not agree and the war continued. After the second bomb, the emperor called the groups together and in effect told them to surrender and after some hassle they agreed. It was the bombs and the emperor that ordered the war ended, and Japan to endure the unendurable. Japan did not have to go through Russia to surrender, it had only to surrender,


Obviously incorrect, because that is what they were trying to do. Their conditions were refused until after the bombing and were then accepted. Truman was bound and determined to bomb them.


----------



## SAYIT

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Gunny's evidence says the Japs were not surrendering but rather offering the Soviets a ceasefire (which would have had no bearing on our prosecution of our conflict with Japan). I wonder why you must lie and distort the facts in order to make your case that America is "evil?" Could it be they just do not support your conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you actually read the cables it shows that Japan was reaching out to the Soviet Union as an in-between for them to surrender to the United States conditionally. Conditions which were later met after the nuclear bombs, and which could have been agreed to beforehand so that there was no reason to vaporize those innocent civilians. Furthermore, the only one talking about America being evil is you. Was Truman evil? No doubt. Harry Truman was not America, however.
Click to expand...


Really? In post #154 (about an hour ago) you stated "It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil" but Eisenhower never said that ... it was you attributing your "evil" to him.


----------



## SAYIT

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Histories of the bombing indicate Japan had two groups working, one to continue the war and the other to surrender. These two groups could not agree and the war continued. After the second bomb, the emperor called the groups together and in effect told them to surrender and after some hassle they agreed. It was the bombs and the emperor that ordered the war ended, and Japan to endure the unendurable. Japan did not have to go through Russia to surrender, it had only to surrender,
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously incorrect, because that is what they were trying to do. Their conditions were refused until after the bombing and were then accepted. Truman was bound and determined to bomb them.
Click to expand...

 
You can spin all you like, had the Japanese surrendered unconditionally they could have avoided the bomb.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SAYIT said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Gunny's evidence says the Japs were not surrendering but rather offering the Soviets a ceasefire (which would have had no bearing on our prosecution of our conflict with Japan). I wonder why you must lie and distort the facts in order to make your case that America is "evil?" Could it be they just do not support your conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you actually read the cables it shows that Japan was reaching out to the Soviet Union as an in-between for them to surrender to the United States conditionally. Conditions which were later met after the nuclear bombs, and which could have been agreed to beforehand so that there was no reason to vaporize those innocent civilians. Furthermore, the only one talking about America being evil is you. Was Truman evil? No doubt. Harry Truman was not America, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In post #154 (about an hour ago) you stated "It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil" but Eisenhower never said that ... it was you attributing your "evil" to him.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry, he used the word "awful." Regardless, you're still the only one talking about America being evil.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SAYIT said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Histories of the bombing indicate Japan had two groups working, one to continue the war and the other to surrender. These two groups could not agree and the war continued. After the second bomb, the emperor called the groups together and in effect told them to surrender and after some hassle they agreed. It was the bombs and the emperor that ordered the war ended, and Japan to endure the unendurable. Japan did not have to go through Russia to surrender, it had only to surrender,
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously incorrect, because that is what they were trying to do. Their conditions were refused until after the bombing and were then accepted. Truman was bound and determined to bomb them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can spin all you like, had the Japanese surrendered unconditionally they could have avoided the bomb.
Click to expand...

And you can provide cover for unnecessarily bombing innocent people all you like, but Truman is a monster precisely because he demanded the one thing he knew the Japan wouldn't do for peace. In other words, he didn't want peace until he could demonstrate the bomb to the world. That is despicable, and if any country had done anything remotely similar to the United States we would still be denouncing the evil of such an act to this day.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
Click to expand...

All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.


----------



## SAYIT

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Gunny's evidence says the Japs were not surrendering but rather offering the Soviets a ceasefire (which would have had no bearing on our prosecution of our conflict with Japan). I wonder why you must lie and distort the facts in order to make your case that America is "evil?" Could it be they just do not support your conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you actually read the cables it shows that Japan was reaching out to the Soviet Union as an in-between for them to surrender to the United States conditionally. Conditions which were later met after the nuclear bombs, and which could have been agreed to beforehand so that there was no reason to vaporize those innocent civilians. Furthermore, the only one talking about America being evil is you. Was Truman evil? No doubt. Harry Truman was not America, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In post #154 (about an hour ago) you stated "It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil" but Eisenhower never said that ... it was you attributing your "evil" to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, he used the word "awful." Regardless, you're still the only one talking about America being evil.
Click to expand...


I see. So I point out at it was _you_ who referred to America as "evil" (note the quotes in all my posts), you who attributed it to Eisenhower to give it weight, and now having been caught at your little game you simply claim you meant "awful" and try to dump your lie on me. My references to the term "evil" were all directly related to _your_ bogus use of the term. Yours.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

The better question is, why didn't we nuke Stalin before the USSR had nukes themselves? He was 10x worse than Hitler.


----------



## Theowl32

The2ndAmendment said:


> The better question is, why didn't we nuke Stalin before the USSR had nukes themselves? He was 10x worse than Hitler.



Logistics and politics made that all but impossible. Patton wanted us to go to war with Stalin. He knew they were very vulnerable, and he knew they were no friend to the US. He knew much of our hardware was there, he knew we had mass production capabilities with all of our war factories in tact, and he knew the USSR army was very weakened. 

However, they were still very capable, and unlike Japan they still had a very strong navy and they were very capable of defending Moscow. Which meant heavy American losses. 

The bottom line is the moronic, American hating typical left wing piece of lying commie shit poster Kennedy thinks the country dropped the bombs on Japan for the hell of it. That is his pathetic disposition. The interesting thing (the pathetic thing) is how he actually thinks he is oh so smart with that type of thinking. 

It is so fashionable and imperative for pieces of shit like him to belong to the little clubs they belong to, to blame America for everything. If he even attempted to compliment America and acted thankful in any away for all of the opportunities this country has given him, he would be shunned by his like minded commie losers.  There are no bigger annoying sacks of shit than these pieces of commie propaganda pushers. They are nothing but pawns. 

Hey Kennedy, you are a fucking moron. You are a fucking loser. You lost this debate a long time ago you unappreciative piece of lying shit. 

In case I have not made myself clear enough......FUCK YOU.


----------



## gipper

America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.  

However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.

Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.


----------



## martybegan

Dante said:


> martybegan
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a weapon, the US spent billions developing it, it was going to get used no matter what. No one really knew enough about it to think it was anything else than just a big regular bomb, because one had never been detonated in anger before.
> 
> Plus, if we didn't use it, we probably would have needed or not been able to refuse soviet assistance in the invasion. Want to imagine the cold war with a North ans South Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The danger is ignorance and revisionist history like yours. Read what the government scientists were worried about as they advised the President
> 
> 
> geeze!
Click to expand...


Yes, there was the chance they talked about with the atmosphere igniting, however most of their opposition interestingly occurred when Germany was defeated.  They also were mostly not against detonating it, but wanted a demonstration. The fact that the Japanese Military still wanted to fight after one of its cities was incinerated shows you how well a demonstration was going to work.

And as for the claim of "revisionist history", go fuck a camel dainty.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.



And yet our bombing conventionally of Germany and Japan was OK somehow? 

They were not defenseless, and they did not think they were defeated.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet our bombing conventionally of Germany and Japan was OK somehow?
> 
> They were not defenseless, and they did not think they were defeated.
Click to expand...


No...total war is ALWAYS wrong...and your jumping to conclusions based nothing, lacks intelligence.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender because they knew when the Soviets entered the Pacific theater they were done for. The U.S. had intercepted communications from the Japanese making this fact clear. It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people have an irresistible need to make America seem "evil" by twisting history to satisfy that need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces?
Click to expand...


Yes, just like Eisenhower.   While the Supreme Commander didn't confront Truman with his "concerns" *before* the bomb was dropped, when election time came around they were on opposite sides of the fence.  You're using campaign rhetoric to write history, just like Eisenhower used it against the opposite party.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> America dropped two bombs and the war ended days later.
> Had Truman not dropped the bombs, some posters today would be holding Truman responsible for every casualty after August 14. A lot of young Americans lived full lives because of Truman's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
Click to expand...

Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?


----------



## Theowl32

gipper said:


> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.



Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.

The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.

By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.

Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.

So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.

Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.

Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.

Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SAYIT said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gunny's evidence says the Japs were not surrendering but rather offering the Soviets a ceasefire (which would have had no bearing on our prosecution of our conflict with Japan). I wonder why you must lie and distort the facts in order to make your case that America is "evil?" Could it be they just do not support your conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you actually read the cables it shows that Japan was reaching out to the Soviet Union as an in-between for them to surrender to the United States conditionally. Conditions which were later met after the nuclear bombs, and which could have been agreed to beforehand so that there was no reason to vaporize those innocent civilians. Furthermore, the only one talking about America being evil is you. Was Truman evil? No doubt. Harry Truman was not America, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In post #154 (about an hour ago) you stated "It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil" but Eisenhower never said that ... it was you attributing your "evil" to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, he used the word "awful." Regardless, you're still the only one talking about America being evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. So I point out at it was _you_ who referred to America as "evil" (note the quotes in all my posts), you who attributed it to Eisenhower to give it weight, and now having been caught at your little game you simply claim you meant "awful" and try to dump your lie on me. My references to the term "evil" were all directly related to _your_ bogus use of the term. Yours.
Click to expand...

Again, Truman is not America, so provide a quote and link, which you failed to do, to me calling America evil for Truman's actions. That would be like me saying America is perverted because of Anthony Weiner. We can go so far as to say that other members of Truman's administration were evil, or that government in general is evil, but the idea that the entire country is evil, a large portion of which disagreed with Truman's nuking Japan, is incorrect.

I never claimed I meant awful. I attributed the word evil to him, but what he said was awful. So no, I didn't mean awful, I incorrectly said evil. That being said, this is about the most trivial of concerns.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is, why didn't we nuke Stalin before the USSR had nukes themselves? He was 10x worse than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics and politics made that all but impossible. Patton wanted us to go to war with Stalin. He knew they were very vulnerable, and he knew they were no friend to the US. He knew much of our hardware was there, he knew we had mass production capabilities with all of our war factories in tact, and he knew the USSR army was very weakened.
> 
> However, they were still very capable, and unlike Japan they still had a very strong navy and they were very capable of defending Moscow. Which meant heavy American losses.
> 
> The bottom line is the moronic, American hating typical left wing piece of lying commie shit poster Kennedy thinks the country dropped the bombs on Japan for the hell of it. That is his pathetic disposition. The interesting thing (the pathetic thing) is how he actually thinks he is oh so smart with that type of thinking.
> 
> It is so fashionable and imperative for pieces of shit like him to belong to the little clubs they belong to, to blame America for everything. If he even attempted to compliment America and acted thankful in any away for all of the opportunities this country has given him, he would be shunned by his like minded commie losers.  There are no bigger annoying sacks of shit than these pieces of commie propaganda pushers. They are nothing but pawns.
> 
> Hey Kennedy, you are a fucking moron. You are a fucking loser. You lost this debate a long time ago you unappreciative piece of lying shit.
> 
> In case I have not made myself clear enough......FUCK YOU.
Click to expand...

You continue to embarrass yourself. The f-word isn't actually an argument, I'm afraid.


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
Click to expand...


You fucking ignorant commie gasbag.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet our bombing conventionally of Germany and Japan was OK somehow?
> 
> They were not defenseless, and they did not think they were defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...total war is ALWAYS wrong...and your jumping to conclusions based nothing, lacks intelligence.
Click to expand...


1) English, try to type it.

2) your opinion on "total war" always being wrong is typical hippie utopianism. The fact is the atom bombs were no different than the incendiary attacks and the city bombing done in both theaters. The true different nature of atom bombs only came into being when the chance of complete societal destruction came into play, with the increase in yield and numbers.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
Click to expand...


That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is, why didn't we nuke Stalin before the USSR had nukes themselves? He was 10x worse than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics and politics made that all but impossible. Patton wanted us to go to war with Stalin. He knew they were very vulnerable, and he knew they were no friend to the US. He knew much of our hardware was there, he knew we had mass production capabilities with all of our war factories in tact, and he knew the USSR army was very weakened.
> 
> However, they were still very capable, and unlike Japan they still had a very strong navy and they were very capable of defending Moscow. Which meant heavy American losses.
> 
> The bottom line is the moronic, American hating typical left wing piece of lying commie shit poster Kennedy thinks the country dropped the bombs on Japan for the hell of it. That is his pathetic disposition. The interesting thing (the pathetic thing) is how he actually thinks he is oh so smart with that type of thinking.
> 
> It is so fashionable and imperative for pieces of shit like him to belong to the little clubs they belong to, to blame America for everything. If he even attempted to compliment America and acted thankful in any away for all of the opportunities this country has given him, he would be shunned by his like minded commie losers.  There are no bigger annoying sacks of shit than these pieces of commie propaganda pushers. They are nothing but pawns.
> 
> Hey Kennedy, you are a fucking moron. You are a fucking loser. You lost this debate a long time ago you unappreciative piece of lying shit.
> 
> In case I have not made myself clear enough......FUCK YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to embarrass yourself. The f-word isn't actually an argument, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...


You are the one that thinks America and the USSR were allies in August of 1945. Which means you know nothing about the conference of yalta in February of 1945.
you are a liar. You are a fucking American hating scumbag who is ignorant as all fuck.

Keep on telling Truman dropped the bombs for no good reason other than for the fun of it 

You lost a long time ago.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The Irish Ram said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what they were doing while we were dropping leaflets on them and begging them to avert disaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender because they knew when the Soviets entered the Pacific theater they were done for. The U.S. had intercepted communications from the Japanese making this fact clear. It's the reason that Eisenhower said that nuking them was unnecessary and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people have an irresistible need to make America seem "evil" by twisting history to satisfy that need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, just like Eisenhower.   While the Supreme Commander didn't confront Truman with his "concerns" *before* the bomb was dropped, when election time came around they were on opposite sides of the fence.  You're using campaign rhetoric to write history, just like Eisenhower used it against the opposite party.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence that Eisenhower knew about the bombing beforehand and that he said nothing? As for them being rivals on opposite sides of the fence, I think you may not know as much as you think. Truman was a big supporter of Eisenhower for President despite the fact that they disagreed on the use of the bombs, and tried to get him to run for the Democratic nomination. True they fell out later, but I can find no evidence to suggest that Ike was ever anything other than against nuking the Japanese.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
Click to expand...

That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is, why didn't we nuke Stalin before the USSR had nukes themselves? He was 10x worse than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics and politics made that all but impossible. Patton wanted us to go to war with Stalin. He knew they were very vulnerable, and he knew they were no friend to the US. He knew much of our hardware was there, he knew we had mass production capabilities with all of our war factories in tact, and he knew the USSR army was very weakened.
> 
> However, they were still very capable, and unlike Japan they still had a very strong navy and they were very capable of defending Moscow. Which meant heavy American losses.
> 
> The bottom line is the moronic, American hating typical left wing piece of lying commie shit poster Kennedy thinks the country dropped the bombs on Japan for the hell of it. That is his pathetic disposition. The interesting thing (the pathetic thing) is how he actually thinks he is oh so smart with that type of thinking.
> 
> It is so fashionable and imperative for pieces of shit like him to belong to the little clubs they belong to, to blame America for everything. If he even attempted to compliment America and acted thankful in any away for all of the opportunities this country has given him, he would be shunned by his like minded commie losers.  There are no bigger annoying sacks of shit than these pieces of commie propaganda pushers. They are nothing but pawns.
> 
> Hey Kennedy, you are a fucking moron. You are a fucking loser. You lost this debate a long time ago you unappreciative piece of lying shit.
> 
> In case I have not made myself clear enough......FUCK YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to embarrass yourself. The f-word isn't actually an argument, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that thinks America and the USSR were allies in August of 1945. Which means you know nothing about the conference of yalta in February of 1945.
> you are a liar. You are a fucking American hating scumbag who is ignorant as all fuck.
> 
> Keep on telling Truman dropped the bombs for no good reason other than for the fun of it
> 
> You lost a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Did the USSR declare war on Japan?

Soviet Japanese War 1945 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
Click to expand...


True enough, but there was also no nation building after WWI which is what Woodrow Wilson was trying to get past in his 14 point proposal which the League of Nations did not honor.

You stupid ass.

Tell us all again how Truman dropped the bombs just for the hell of it. I want to laugh in your face again.


----------



## gipper

Theowl32 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
Click to expand...


Wrong.

All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs. 

Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.  

Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower. 

That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is, why didn't we nuke Stalin before the USSR had nukes themselves? He was 10x worse than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics and politics made that all but impossible. Patton wanted us to go to war with Stalin. He knew they were very vulnerable, and he knew they were no friend to the US. He knew much of our hardware was there, he knew we had mass production capabilities with all of our war factories in tact, and he knew the USSR army was very weakened.
> 
> However, they were still very capable, and unlike Japan they still had a very strong navy and they were very capable of defending Moscow. Which meant heavy American losses.
> 
> The bottom line is the moronic, American hating typical left wing piece of lying commie shit poster Kennedy thinks the country dropped the bombs on Japan for the hell of it. That is his pathetic disposition. The interesting thing (the pathetic thing) is how he actually thinks he is oh so smart with that type of thinking.
> 
> It is so fashionable and imperative for pieces of shit like him to belong to the little clubs they belong to, to blame America for everything. If he even attempted to compliment America and acted thankful in any away for all of the opportunities this country has given him, he would be shunned by his like minded commie losers.  There are no bigger annoying sacks of shit than these pieces of commie propaganda pushers. They are nothing but pawns.
> 
> Hey Kennedy, you are a fucking moron. You are a fucking loser. You lost this debate a long time ago you unappreciative piece of lying shit.
> 
> In case I have not made myself clear enough......FUCK YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to embarrass yourself. The f-word isn't actually an argument, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that thinks America and the USSR were allies in August of 1945. Which means you know nothing about the conference of yalta in February of 1945.
> you are a liar. You are a fucking American hating scumbag who is ignorant as all fuck.
> 
> Keep on telling Truman dropped the bombs for no good reason other than for the fun of it
> 
> You lost a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the USSR declare war on Japan?
> 
> Soviet Japanese War 1945 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


August 8th 1945, USSR declares war on Japan. August 9th the second bomb is dropped.

USSR backs off of Japan and Japan surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY on August 15th.

Short time after, your heroes the rosenbergs betrayed the country, and the USSR became a nuclear power.

Fuck!!!!!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True enough, but there was also no nation building after WWI which is what Woodrow Wilson was trying to get past in his 14 point proposal which the League of Nations did not honor.
> 
> You stupid ass.
> 
> Tell us all again how Truman dropped the bombs just for the hell of it. I want to laugh in your face again.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to the point. The point was that, completely opposite to what was claimed, the only conditions on Germany's surrender were actually punitive conditions against Germany.

As to the rest, you have yet to make a cogent point on the nuking of Japan, so until you do so my previous comments stand up just fine.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is, why didn't we nuke Stalin before the USSR had nukes themselves? He was 10x worse than Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics and politics made that all but impossible. Patton wanted us to go to war with Stalin. He knew they were very vulnerable, and he knew they were no friend to the US. He knew much of our hardware was there, he knew we had mass production capabilities with all of our war factories in tact, and he knew the USSR army was very weakened.
> 
> However, they were still very capable, and unlike Japan they still had a very strong navy and they were very capable of defending Moscow. Which meant heavy American losses.
> 
> The bottom line is the moronic, American hating typical left wing piece of lying commie shit poster Kennedy thinks the country dropped the bombs on Japan for the hell of it. That is his pathetic disposition. The interesting thing (the pathetic thing) is how he actually thinks he is oh so smart with that type of thinking.
> 
> It is so fashionable and imperative for pieces of shit like him to belong to the little clubs they belong to, to blame America for everything. If he even attempted to compliment America and acted thankful in any away for all of the opportunities this country has given him, he would be shunned by his like minded commie losers.  There are no bigger annoying sacks of shit than these pieces of commie propaganda pushers. They are nothing but pawns.
> 
> Hey Kennedy, you are a fucking moron. You are a fucking loser. You lost this debate a long time ago you unappreciative piece of lying shit.
> 
> In case I have not made myself clear enough......FUCK YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to embarrass yourself. The f-word isn't actually an argument, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that thinks America and the USSR were allies in August of 1945. Which means you know nothing about the conference of yalta in February of 1945.
> you are a liar. You are a fucking American hating scumbag who is ignorant as all fuck.
> 
> Keep on telling Truman dropped the bombs for no good reason other than for the fun of it
> 
> You lost a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the USSR declare war on Japan?
> 
> Soviet Japanese War 1945 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 8th 1945, USSR declares war on Japan. August 9th the second bomb is dropped.
> 
> USSR backs off of Japan and Japan surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY on August 15th.
> 
> Short time after, your heroes the rosenbergs betrayed the country, and the USSR became a nuclear power.
> 
> Fuck!!!!!
Click to expand...

In other words, the Soviet Union entered the Pacific Theater against Japan on the side of the U.S.


----------



## Theowl32

gipper said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
Click to expand...




gipper said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
Click to expand...


The USSR had a navy. They also a a working Air Force. They were weakened greatly and that was the reason Patton (perhaps rightfully so) wanted to take the war to Stalin right then.

However, politically that would not have sold to the American people who had just celebrated the end of WWII. 

You are saying you would have conducted a hot war with the USSR? Which Stalin was basically pushing.

Is that what you would have opted for?


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True enough, but there was also no nation building after WWI which is what Woodrow Wilson was trying to get past in his 14 point proposal which the League of Nations did not honor.
> 
> You stupid ass.
> 
> Tell us all again how Truman dropped the bombs just for the hell of it. I want to laugh in your face again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is irrelevant to the point. The point was that, completely opposite to what was claimed, the only conditions on Germany's surrender were actually punitive conditions against Germany.
> 
> As to the rest, you have yet to make a cogent point on the nuking of Japan, so until you do so my previous comments stand up just fine.
Click to expand...


The USSR was no longer our ally in August of 1945. They were bullying their way into taking over the area by getting Japan to surrender to them. The USSR was not our ally!

So it was either allow the USSR to take Japan with no resistance from us, risk an all out hot war with Stalin or drop the bombs. Thereby forcing Stalin to back off.


Fuck!!!


----------



## DriftingSand

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


I voted "no." I think we should have targeted military targets.


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logistics and politics made that all but impossible. Patton wanted us to go to war with Stalin. He knew they were very vulnerable, and he knew they were no friend to the US. He knew much of our hardware was there, he knew we had mass production capabilities with all of our war factories in tact, and he knew the USSR army was very weakened.
> 
> However, they were still very capable, and unlike Japan they still had a very strong navy and they were very capable of defending Moscow. Which meant heavy American losses.
> 
> The bottom line is the moronic, American hating typical left wing piece of lying commie shit poster Kennedy thinks the country dropped the bombs on Japan for the hell of it. That is his pathetic disposition. The interesting thing (the pathetic thing) is how he actually thinks he is oh so smart with that type of thinking.
> 
> It is so fashionable and imperative for pieces of shit like him to belong to the little clubs they belong to, to blame America for everything. If he even attempted to compliment America and acted thankful in any away for all of the opportunities this country has given him, he would be shunned by his like minded commie losers.  There are no bigger annoying sacks of shit than these pieces of commie propaganda pushers. They are nothing but pawns.
> 
> Hey Kennedy, you are a fucking moron. You are a fucking loser. You lost this debate a long time ago you unappreciative piece of lying shit.
> 
> In case I have not made myself clear enough......FUCK YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to embarrass yourself. The f-word isn't actually an argument, I'm afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that thinks America and the USSR were allies in August of 1945. Which means you know nothing about the conference of yalta in February of 1945.
> you are a liar. You are a fucking American hating scumbag who is ignorant as all fuck.
> 
> Keep on telling Truman dropped the bombs for no good reason other than for the fun of it
> 
> You lost a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the USSR declare war on Japan?
> 
> Soviet Japanese War 1945 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 8th 1945, USSR declares war on Japan. August 9th the second bomb is dropped.
> 
> USSR backs off of Japan and Japan surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY on August 15th.
> 
> Short time after, your heroes the rosenbergs betrayed the country, and the USSR became a nuclear power.
> 
> Fuck!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, the Soviet Union entered the Pacific Theater against Japan on the side of the U.S.
Click to expand...


Btw, you have not come close to proving Truman dropped the bombs for the hell of it. You trying to sell that is just that fucking ignorant. You have not come close.


----------



## rightwinger

We had an atomic bomb....nobody else did

To demonstrate its power did we have to drop it over a populated area? We could have dropped one as a "demo" and then informed the Japanese that they had one week to accept an unconditional surrender or we would begin targeting their cities

Even if you can justify Hiroshima, how do you justify Nagasaki three days later?  Why not enter intense negotiations after Hiroshima with the understanding we have an unlimited supply of additional bombs (even though we didn't)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to embarrass yourself. The f-word isn't actually an argument, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that thinks America and the USSR were allies in August of 1945. Which means you know nothing about the conference of yalta in February of 1945.
> you are a liar. You are a fucking American hating scumbag who is ignorant as all fuck.
> 
> Keep on telling Truman dropped the bombs for no good reason other than for the fun of it
> 
> You lost a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did the USSR declare war on Japan?
> 
> Soviet Japanese War 1945 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 8th 1945, USSR declares war on Japan. August 9th the second bomb is dropped.
> 
> USSR backs off of Japan and Japan surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY on August 15th.
> 
> Short time after, your heroes the rosenbergs betrayed the country, and the USSR became a nuclear power.
> 
> Fuck!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, the Soviet Union entered the Pacific Theater against Japan on the side of the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Btw, you have not come close to proving Truman dropped the bombs for the hell of it. You trying to sell that is just that fucking ignorant. You have not come close.
Click to expand...

I've made an effective case. You've responded with the same basic argument of a toddler sure that they're right. Your argument boils down to, "NUH UH!!!"


----------



## Theowl32

DriftingSand said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I voted "no." I think we should have targeted military targets.
Click to expand...


If dropping the bombs were really about getting Japan to surrender then yes. It was really not about that. It was about getting The USSR to back off and getting Japan to surrender to us rather than Stalin and preventing a long drawn out hot war, which could not be sold to the American people.


----------



## Theowl32

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that thinks America and the USSR were allies in August of 1945. Which means you know nothing about the conference of yalta in February of 1945.
> you are a liar. You are a fucking American hating scumbag who is ignorant as all fuck.
> 
> Keep on telling Truman dropped the bombs for no good reason other than for the fun of it
> 
> You lost a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the USSR declare war on Japan?
> 
> Soviet Japanese War 1945 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 8th 1945, USSR declares war on Japan. August 9th the second bomb is dropped.
> 
> USSR backs off of Japan and Japan surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY on August 15th.
> 
> Short time after, your heroes the rosenbergs betrayed the country, and the USSR became a nuclear power.
> 
> Fuck!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, the Soviet Union entered the Pacific Theater against Japan on the side of the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Btw, you have not come close to proving Truman dropped the bombs for the hell of it. You trying to sell that is just that fucking ignorant. You have not come close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made an effective case. You've responded with the same basic argument of a toddler sure that they're right. Your argument boils down to, "NUH UH!!!"
Click to expand...



You think I responded with no ugh? You piece of ignorant bloviated shit. I provided the motive and the real choices. I provided the timeline and when the Cold War began. 

You had no clue about the conference of yalta. You continue your stupidity by claiming Truman dropped them for the hell of it.

Your attempt at passing commie propaganda with your half baked bullshit and lies did not work. 

You lost.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Theowl32 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the USSR declare war on Japan?
> 
> Soviet Japanese War 1945 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August 8th 1945, USSR declares war on Japan. August 9th the second bomb is dropped.
> 
> USSR backs off of Japan and Japan surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY on August 15th.
> 
> Short time after, your heroes the rosenbergs betrayed the country, and the USSR became a nuclear power.
> 
> Fuck!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, the Soviet Union entered the Pacific Theater against Japan on the side of the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Btw, you have not come close to proving Truman dropped the bombs for the hell of it. You trying to sell that is just that fucking ignorant. You have not come close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made an effective case. You've responded with the same basic argument of a toddler sure that they're right. Your argument boils down to, "NUH UH!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You think I responded with no ugh? You piece of ignorant bloviated shit. I provided the motive and the real choices. I provided the timeline and when the Cold War began.
> 
> You had no clue about the conference of yalta. You continue your stupidity by claiming Truman dropped them for the hell of it.
> 
> Your attempt at passing commie propaganda with your half baked bullshit and lies did not work.
> 
> You lost.
Click to expand...

It's common knowledge on the internet that when you start talking about people "winning" or "losing" you make an ass of yourself.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
Click to expand...


Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.
Click to expand...

Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.
Click to expand...


Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.


 
Another member of the "I-gotta-bend-over-and-take-it-where-the-sun-don't-shine" club crawls in.


----------



## Syriusly

whitehall said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
Click to expand...


I agree that revenge is a bad military tactic.

But the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was no worse than, and actually caused much less harm than conventional bombing.

America at the time was convinced that the only appropriate end to the war was unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan. Germany had already been destroyed and unconditionally surrendered. 

Japan was not surrendering- and had made plans for suicidal defense of Japan. 

Dropping the bombs- especially the first bomb- made rational sense to leaders who were yes- more concerned about the lives of American soldiers than those of Japanese. 

But those bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than American lives. 

I can find much to criticize about our conduct in WW2, but I wasn't the one who had to commit U.S. troops to fighting it.  By my reading of what American leaders knew at the time, dropping the bomb seemed like a rational decision.


----------



## HenryBHough

What every terrorist and tin-pot dictator KNOWS:

So long as America keeps on electing panty-waist liberals (of ANY party) they can do wot they FUCKING WELL PLEASE with no fear of reltribution.

Now...tell me Osama's dead but only if you personally saw his corpse and checked ID.


----------



## rightwinger

Syriusly said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that revenge is a bad military tactic.
> 
> But the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was no worse than, and actually caused much less harm than conventional bombing.
> 
> America at the time was convinced that the only appropriate end to the war was unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan. Germany had already been destroyed and unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> Japan was not surrendering- and had made plans for suicidal defense of Japan.
> 
> Dropping the bombs- especially the first bomb- made rational sense to leaders who were yes- more concerned about the lives of American soldiers than those of Japanese.
> 
> But those bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than American lives.
> 
> I can find much to criticize about our conduct in WW2, but I wasn't the one who had to commit U.S. troops to fighting it.  By my reading of what American leaders knew at the time, dropping the bomb seemed like a rational decision.
Click to expand...

 
Could we have gotten the same result without incinerating 130,000 civilians?

Could the first drop have been an a sparsely occupied island where we could have demonstrated the lethality of the weapon and then threatened to start bombing populated areas if they didn't surrender?


----------



## Syriusly

rightwinger said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that revenge is a bad military tactic.
> 
> But the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was no worse than, and actually caused much less harm than conventional bombing.
> 
> America at the time was convinced that the only appropriate end to the war was unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan. Germany had already been destroyed and unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> Japan was not surrendering- and had made plans for suicidal defense of Japan.
> 
> Dropping the bombs- especially the first bomb- made rational sense to leaders who were yes- more concerned about the lives of American soldiers than those of Japanese.
> 
> But those bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than American lives.
> 
> I can find much to criticize about our conduct in WW2, but I wasn't the one who had to commit U.S. troops to fighting it.  By my reading of what American leaders knew at the time, dropping the bomb seemed like a rational decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could we have gotten the same result without incinerating 130,000 civilians?
> 
> Could the first drop have been an a sparsely occupied island where we could have demonstrated the lethality of the weapon and then threatened to start bombing populated areas if they didn't surrender?
Click to expand...


I believe that was one of the options discussed.

And again this is purely on memory, but I believe that the reasons it was not chosen was because 
a) we had literally two bombs at the time. I don't believe we had a third one ready to use- there was a concern about wasting one bomb.
b) there was a concern that the bombs themselves might fail. 

I think it is easy to look back now and second guess the decision, but if you read the discussions, there was an actual plan for the invasion of the Japanese islands- and a projected American casualties of over a million.

With that in mind, Truman's decision seems rational to me- as much as any war could be called rational.


----------



## rightwinger

Syriusly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that revenge is a bad military tactic.
> 
> But the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was no worse than, and actually caused much less harm than conventional bombing.
> 
> America at the time was convinced that the only appropriate end to the war was unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan. Germany had already been destroyed and unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> Japan was not surrendering- and had made plans for suicidal defense of Japan.
> 
> Dropping the bombs- especially the first bomb- made rational sense to leaders who were yes- more concerned about the lives of American soldiers than those of Japanese.
> 
> But those bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than American lives.
> 
> I can find much to criticize about our conduct in WW2, but I wasn't the one who had to commit U.S. troops to fighting it.  By my reading of what American leaders knew at the time, dropping the bomb seemed like a rational decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could we have gotten the same result without incinerating 130,000 civilians?
> 
> Could the first drop have been an a sparsely occupied island where we could have demonstrated the lethality of the weapon and then threatened to start bombing populated areas if they didn't surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that was one of the options discussed.
> 
> And again this is purely on memory, but I believe that the reasons it was not chosen was because
> a) we had literally two bombs at the time. I don't believe we had a third one ready to use- there was a concern about wasting one bomb.
> b) there was a concern that the bombs themselves might fail.
> 
> I think it is easy to look back now and second guess the decision, but if you read the discussions, there was an actual plan for the invasion of the Japanese islands- and a projected American casualties of over a million.
> 
> With that in mind, Truman's decision seems rational to me- as much as any war could be called rational.
Click to expand...

This whole thread is what if/revisionist history

The question is: Did we need to kill civilians in order to demonstrate the power of the bomb?

We knew we only had two bombs. The Japanese had no idea how many we had. In any case, it only would have taken a few months to build more bombs if we needed them


----------



## regent

rightwinger said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that revenge is a bad military tactic.
> 
> But the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was no worse than, and actually caused much less harm than conventional bombing.
> 
> America at the time was convinced that the only appropriate end to the war was unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan. Germany had already been destroyed and unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> Japan was not surrendering- and had made plans for suicidal defense of Japan.
> 
> Dropping the bombs- especially the first bomb- made rational sense to leaders who were yes- more concerned about the lives of American soldiers than those of Japanese.
> 
> But those bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than American lives.
> 
> I can find much to criticize about our conduct in WW2, but I wasn't the one who had to commit U.S. troops to fighting it.  By my reading of what American leaders knew at the time, dropping the bomb seemed like a rational decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could we have gotten the same result without incinerating 130,000 civilians?
> 
> Could the first drop have been an a sparsely occupied island where we could have demonstrated the lethality of the weapon and then threatened to start bombing populated areas if they didn't surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that was one of the options discussed.
> 
> And again this is purely on memory, but I believe that the reasons it was not chosen was because
> a) we had literally two bombs at the time. I don't believe we had a third one ready to use- there was a concern about wasting one bomb.
> b) there was a concern that the bombs themselves might fail.
> 
> I think it is easy to look back now and second guess the decision, but if you read the discussions, there was an actual plan for the invasion of the Japanese islands- and a projected American casualties of over a million.
> 
> With that in mind, Truman's decision seems rational to me- as much as any war could be called rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This whole thread is what if/revisionist history
> 
> The question is: Did we need to kill civilians in order to demonstrate the power of the bomb?
> 
> We knew we only had two bombs. The Japanese had no idea how many we had. In any case, it only would have taken a few months to build more bombs if we needed them
Click to expand...

If we had just continued our regular bombing of Japan I wonder how long it would have taken for Japan to surrender and what shape would Japan have been in after a year or two of regular bombing? These boards also require us to indicate the political good guys and bad guy, so which side, liberal or conservative is now against the use of the A bombs?


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that revenge is a bad military tactic.
> 
> But the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was no worse than, and actually caused much less harm than conventional bombing.
> 
> America at the time was convinced that the only appropriate end to the war was unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan. Germany had already been destroyed and unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> Japan was not surrendering- and had made plans for suicidal defense of Japan.
> 
> Dropping the bombs- especially the first bomb- made rational sense to leaders who were yes- more concerned about the lives of American soldiers than those of Japanese.
> 
> But those bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than American lives.
> 
> I can find much to criticize about our conduct in WW2, but I wasn't the one who had to commit U.S. troops to fighting it.  By my reading of what American leaders knew at the time, dropping the bomb seemed like a rational decision.
Click to expand...

Your entire premise is incorrect.

1. The assholes (FDR and Truman) never should have imposed unconditional surrender on Germany and Japan.  This only prolonged the war, destruction, and death.  Death and suffering mostly incurred by non-combatants of both nations.
2.  There is no need to OCCUPY an foreign nation after war, but since the assholes completely destroyed both Germany and Japan, America was forced to occupy them to protect them from the USSR. 
3. Japan was defenseless and unable to continue the war BEFORE Truman dropped the bombs.  This proves the bombs were not dropped to end the war.
4. Japan was not going to commit national suicide.  You think women, child, and the old people of Japan would have fought an advanced military like the USA.  Wrong.  They had nothing left and the people wanted peace.
5. It is entirely a myth, concocted by the Truman administration to justify the A bombings, that the bombs saved American lives.  They concocted this myth AFTER the bombs were dropped, when they were getting criticism by many leaders in the USA and elsewhere.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that revenge is a bad military tactic.
> 
> But the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was no worse than, and actually caused much less harm than conventional bombing.
> 
> America at the time was convinced that the only appropriate end to the war was unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan. Germany had already been destroyed and unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> Japan was not surrendering- and had made plans for suicidal defense of Japan.
> 
> Dropping the bombs- especially the first bomb- made rational sense to leaders who were yes- more concerned about the lives of American soldiers than those of Japanese.
> 
> But those bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than American lives.
> 
> I can find much to criticize about our conduct in WW2, but I wasn't the one who had to commit U.S. troops to fighting it.  By my reading of what American leaders knew at the time, dropping the bomb seemed like a rational decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your entire premise is incorrect.
> 
> 1. The assholes (FDR and Truman) never should have imposed unconditional surrender on Germany and Japan.  This only prolonged the war, destruction, and death.  Death and suffering mostly incurred by non-combatants of both nations.
> 2.  There is no need to OCCUPY an foreign nation after war, but since the assholes completely destroyed both Germany and Japan, America was forced to occupy them to protect them from the USSR.
> 3. Japan was defenseless and unable to continue the war BEFORE Truman dropped the bombs.  This proves the bombs were not dropped to end the war.
> 4. Japan was not going to commit national suicide.  You think women, child, and the old people of Japan would have fought an advanced military like the USA.  Wrong.  They had nothing left and the people wanted peace.
> 5. It is entirely a myth, concocted by the Truman administration to justify the A bombings, that the bombs saved American lives.  They concocted this myth AFTER the bombs were dropped, when they were getting criticism by many leaders in the USA and elsewhere.
Click to expand...


1. Unconditional surrender is the reason Japan and Germany are no longer threats to world peace. After WWI conditional surrender was not going to be allowed. 

2. Occupation verified compliance, plus do you really want to contemplate Russian troops on the French border in your modified cold war?

3. They were still able to repel any invasion, and had shown that they were willing to fight to the death. Japanese civilians, swayed under government propaganda were willing to commit suicide rather than be captured. 

4. No, they were going to fight with pitchforks against any invasion force. Some of the people may have wanted peace, but enough were gung ho to go along with the government. 

5. The invasion of Japan plans, as well as the expected casualties are well documented. The order of hundreds of thousands of purple hearts during the war (of which we have not run out of yet) gives lie to your statement of post-war revisionism.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> [
> 4. Japan was not going to commit national suicide.  You think women, child, and the old people of Japan would have fought an advanced military like the USA.  Wrong.  They had nothing left and the people wanted peace.



Seriously- have you never read about the war?
*1945 suicide order still a trauma on Okinawa*
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/world/asia/20iht-oki.html?_r=0

*TOMAN, Okinawa — *Clutching a hand grenade issued by the Japanese Imperial Army and driven by tales of what U.S. soldiers would do with a pretty young woman, Sumie Oshiro recalled,she fled into the forests of Okinawa during the World War II battle known here as the "typhoon of steel."

"At one place, we sat together and hit the grenade on the ground, but it did not explode," she said last week of her flight with friends after Japanese soldiers told them to kill themselves rather than be taken captive.

"We tried to kill ourselves many times, trying to explode the grenade we were given from the Japanese Army," she said.

The three-month battle for Okinawa took more than 200,000 lives - 12,520 Americans, 94,136 Japanese soldiers and 94,000 Okinawan civilians, about one-quarter of the prewar population.

Lieutenant General Robert Blackman, commander of the U.S. Marine forces in Japan, led a low-profile memorial ceremony on Friday, attended largely by American war veterans and relatives.

This Thursday, the 60th anniversary of the the last major battle of World War II, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is scheduled to attend Japan's tribute here.

On Sunday, he led a memorial service on Iwo Jima, a Japanese island where fighting ended in late March 1945, just as the Okinawa invasion began.

Okinawa's trauma over what happened after 545,000 U.S. troops attacked this small archipelago is still deep. People on Japan's southernmost islands want more recognition from Japanese society for their sufferings. But that conflicts with a growing nationalist effort to airbrush the past.

After winning battles to play down Japan's war-era history of forcing Asian women to work in military-run brothels and Asian men to work in Japanese factories and mines, Nobukatsu Fujioka, a nationalist educator, started campaigning two weeks ago to delete from Japanese schoolbooks the accounts of orders from soldiers to civilians here to choose suicide over surrender.

He said there were no such orders. "I confirmed this by hearing people this time," he said.

"People claimed that there was an order by Japanese Army because they wanted to get pension for the bereaved," he said.

Okinawa's trauma over the widespread civilian suicides has been sharpened by the deep belief here that soldiers from Japan's main islands encouraged Okinawan civilians to choose suicide over surrender.

In a display at the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum, a spotlight highlights a glinting bayonet held by a fierce-looking Japanese soldier who stands over an Okinawan family huddled in a cave, the mother trying to smother her baby's cries.

"At the hands of Japanese soldiers, civilians were massacred, forced to kill themselves and each other," reads the caption. Nearby, a life-size wall photo shows the grisly aftermath of a family killed by a hand grenade.

Soldiers seeking refuge from the naval shelling forced civilians out of limestone caves, according to wall captions.

About two weeks into the battle, the Japanese military commander sought to suppress spying by banning the speaking of the Okinawan dialect, a version of Japanese often unintelligible to nonresidents. Armed with this order, Japanese soldiers killed about 1,000 Okinawans, according to local historians.

"To prevent the leakage of secret information, civilians were ordered never to surrender to U.S. forces," read one wall caption inspected by a large high school group on Friday. "In many places, parents, children, relatives and friends were ordered or coerced to kill each other in large groups. These killings were in the wake of years of militaristic education, which exhorted people to serve their nation by giving their lives to the emperor."

Two Japanese history textbooks from the 1990s that talk of Japanese soldiers' "coercing" civilians to kill themselves are on display. Okinawans fear that this history will be dropped from the national consciousness.

"In many cases, hand grenades, which were in extreme shortage, were distributed to residents," Masahide Ota, an Okinawan who fought with the Japanese Army's Blood and Iron Student Corps, said in an interview. "I heard people say they were told by the military to commit suicide using the grenades rather than becoming captives."

After surrendering four months after the fighting ended here, Ota went on to become a leading local historian, then Okinawa's governor, from 1990 to 1998. Now, at 80, he represents the prefecture in Japan's upper house of Parliament.

Okinawans fear that the lack of a written suicide order by Japanese military commanders will prompt editors of Japanese history textbooks to drop all mention of the military indoctrination that soldiers and civilians had to live and die together.

On nearby Geruma Island, Takejiro Nakamura was a civilian, a 15-year-old student when the invasion started.

"For a long time, the Japanese Imperial Army announced that, on other islands, the women had been raped and killed, and the men were tied at the wrists and tanks were driven over them," said Nakamura, now a guide at a museum that bears bullet holes. "Japanese Imperial Army repeated that again and again, and we believed that announcement completely."


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> 5. It is entirely a myth, concocted by the Truman administration to justify the A bombings, that the bombs saved American lives.  They concocted this myth AFTER the bombs were dropped, when they were getting criticism by many leaders in the USA and elsewhere.



What criticism?


----------



## The Irish Ram

> 1. The assholes (FDR and Truman) never should have imposed unconditional surrender on Germany and Japan.  This only prolonged the war, destruction, and death.  Death and suffering mostly incurred by non-combatants of both nations.
> 2.  There is no need to OCCUPY an foreign nation after war, but since the assholes completely destroyed both Germany and Japan, America was forced to occupy them to protect them from the USSR.
> 3. Japan was defenseless and unable to continue the war BEFORE Truman dropped the bombs.  This proves the bombs were not dropped to end the war.
> 4. Japan was not going to commit national suicide.  You think women, child, and the old people of Japan would have fought an advanced military like the USA.  Wrong.  They had nothing left and the people wanted peace.
> 5. It is entirely a myth, concocted by the Truman administration to justify the A bombings, that the bombs saved American lives.  They concocted this myth AFTER the bombs were dropped, when they were getting criticism by many leaders in the USA and elsewhere.




1.Those two men didn't barter with enemies.  America doesn't negotiate with the enemy.  At least they didn't then.  Japan didn't get to decide  what terms they would accept, if they surrendered._  What are ya going to give me _wasn't an option for Japan.  Just like a defendant in court doesn't get to negotiate his sentence with the judge or tell the judge what sentence he will abide by and which sentence he would reject.

2.  Yes there is a need to OCCUPY a foreign nation.  Here is the thing about those "surrender talks" that the Russians were having with Japan, when Japan's outlook was bleak. Japan did not want to lose the war.
America and Russia were uneasy allies.  Both considered the option of engaging each other after all other obstacles were removed from the fray.  If Japan could persuade Russia that 2 are better than 1, and an alliance between Japan and Russia could defeat the U.S.  Japan still stood a chance.  Russia declined.   There was no  reason not to believe that Japan wouldn't  take a 6 mo. hiatus after the surrender to regroup,  look for back up, merge and/or build their own bomb.
Occupation and the dismantling of their military was to insure they were actually sincere about the war being over.  We knew how sneaky they were.  Pearl Harbor went well for them.

3.  They disagree.  They were willing to continue the war even after they were hit with the first bomb.  They may have been losing battles, but they still wanted to win the war.  They were waiting to hear from Russia.  1 bomb later made Russia's decision for Russia.  They didn't have a bomb either.  Out of the 3 only 1 had the means to end a war without losing soldiers.

4.  They were told they were committing suicide, by way of waking a sleeping giant and never took one step back.  You bet women children and the elderly would have fought.  Causalities were insignificant when winning meant the United States of Japan.  Why do you think our military didn't train Americans in kamikaze  technique?  Our soldiers weren't expendable.
We wanted peace before they attacked us.  If peace was their objective, a second bomb would not have been necessary.

5. Bullshit.  We were not perceived in the global eye like we are now. Not only was there no criticism,  the world was astonished by the valor of our soldiers.  We were admired by friend and foe alike for our courage and determination. And humanity.  There concentration camps were not quite the same as ours.  We had Germans here that didn't want to leave when the war ended.
The war ended because of those bombs.  The lives of those *worldwide* who were no longer being shot to death, lived and went home.  Those not yet tortured to death in concentration camps, lived and went home.
Ending the war saved lives.


----------



## gipper

There was much criticism of the bombings...not knowing this, is proof you are uninformed.  Some of that criticism is clearly posted in this thread.  Read it.

Yes America had to occupy Germany and Japan, only because they destroyed both nations making them unable to defend themselves from the Russian hordes.

The US military originally believed they would lose 40k men had they invaded Japan.  The 500,000 American deaths is complete fiction and a lie unfortunately believed by many, even today. The lie was fabricated to convince us that the war criminal Truman, was right in murdering thousands of Japanese women and children in cold blood...really not much different from what the Nazis did in their death camps.

Its all right here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7
html http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html


----------



## Dante

martybegan said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a weapon, the US spent billions developing it, it was going to get used no matter what. No one really knew enough about it to think it was anything else than just a big regular bomb, because one had never been detonated in anger before.
> 
> Plus, if we didn't use it, we probably would have needed or not been able to refuse soviet assistance in the invasion. Want to imagine the cold war with a North ans South Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The danger is ignorance and revisionist history like yours. Read what the government scientists were worried about as they advised the President
> 
> 
> geeze!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there was the chance they talked about with the atmosphere igniting, however most of their opposition interestingly occurred when Germany was defeated.  They also were mostly not against detonating it, but wanted a demonstration. The fact that the Japanese Military still wanted to fight after one of its cities was incinerated shows you how well a demonstration was going to work.
> 
> And as for the claim of "revisionist history", go fuck a camel dainty.
Click to expand...

they talked about much more. Like the Peach here, you have your own version of events,  how very odd


----------



## Mojo2

whitehall said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was a defeated country. It's once powerful navy was left with a couple of submarines and little or no surface ships. It's army was defeated on every front. The clinically insane remnants of the Bushido empire were desperate to negotiate terms with the US but Harry Truman was following orders from his deceased former boss and the clinically insane holdouts in the FDR administration and he refused to negotiate so the Japanese went to Stalin who promised them everything. The biggest issue in the Japanese negotiations was the preservation of the Emperor and the promise that he would not be executed. Ironically that promise was kept after Truman authorized the incineration of two Japanese cities. While the Japanese thought they were negotiating peace terms with Russia (who was a US ally) they were jolted into reality with entire cities destroyed with a single bomb. The use of the Atomic bomb was a hideous example of how degenerate human beings had become in a mere four years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....after 150 years of atrocities against its neighbors and attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan is the victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revenge is a very, very bad military tactic. Killing civilians to convince a crazy band of military holdouts to surrender is itself evidence of the loss of humanity in the U.S.. The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was the final indication that the FDR/Truman administration had gone insane and the media at the time was just a propaganda arm of the military.
Click to expand...


I feel great irritation when i read posts from those who know not of which they speak.

Your post is like that.

You don't even know how or what the glaring flaw in your position is.

You fail at the internets.


----------



## The Irish Ram

> There was much criticism of the bombings...not knowing this, is proof you are uninformed.



No, that means I understand consensus. While a philosophical few pondered the question, and politicians weighed in, the world had grown weary of young men dying for a German or Japanese desire for world dominance.  Up to 85 million people were buried because someone wanted to be king of the world.  We decided that was enough.  It was no longer how it ended, just that it ended.  The* world *was glad it ended.


----------



## Mojo2




----------



## Two Thumbs

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...

your ignorance is profound

w/o the bombs we would possibly talk about the Japanese in the past tense



we took few prisoners, b/c they fought to the death, and many that we did take killed themselves


----------



## kflaux

Syriusly said:


> I think it is easy to look back now and second guess the decision, but if you read the discussions, there was an actual plan for the invasion of the Japanese islands- and a projected American casualties of over a million.



As others have pointed out, those projections were fabrications, designed to try to defend the decision. They had no basis in reality.



> With that in mind, Truman's decision seems rational to me- as much as any war could be called rational.



Modern scholars think that Russia's invasion of Manchuria had more to do with the surrender than did the atomic bombs, about which the J leadership had little reliable information at the time.

Moreover, the Japanese were trying to open talks to discuss surrender. The US leaders knew this.

BTW there is a fairly popular book in Japan called, roughly, "Don't Let Japan Surrender Until We Drop the Bomb".

Setting aside the arguments in the book, it has been widely read, with mixed reviews.


----------



## Syriusly

kflaux said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is easy to look back now and second guess the decision, but if you read the discussions, there was an actual plan for the invasion of the Japanese islands- and a projected American casualties of over a million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As others have pointed out, those projections were fabrications, designed to try to defend the decision. They had no basis in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With that in mind, Truman's decision seems rational to me- as much as any war could be called rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern scholars think that Russia's invasion of Manchuria had more to do with the surrender than did the atomic bombs, about which the J leadership had little reliable information at the time.
> 
> Moreover, the Japanese were trying to open talks to discuss surrender. The US leaders knew this.
> 
> BTW there is a fairly popular book in Japan called, roughly, "Don't Let Japan Surrender Until We Drop the Bomb".
> 
> Setting aside the arguments in the book, it has been widely read, with mixed reviews.
Click to expand...


More accurately- some modern scholars have made that argument. Most modern scholars do not agree that those projections were fabricated.


----------



## SillyWabbit

LOL: I thought the questoion was "_Do_ we really have to nuke Japan?"


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> There was much criticism of the bombings...not knowing this, is proof you are uninformed.  Some of that criticism is clearly posted in this thread.  Read it.
> 
> Yes America had to occupy Germany and Japan, only because they destroyed both nations making them unable to defend themselves from the Russian hordes.
> 
> The US military originally believed they would lose 40k men had they invaded Japan.  The 500,000 American deaths is complete fiction and a lie unfortunately believed by many, even today. The lie was fabricated to convince us that the war criminal Truman, was right in murdering thousands of Japanese women and children in cold blood...really not much different from what the Nazis did in their death camps.
> 
> Its all right here:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7
> html http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html



Any links to real sources?

Yeah- there are lots of lies about the bombings.

You have promoted some of them.


----------



## MaryL

Japan had been starving for at least a year, and they were quite obviously losing the war. A war they  initiated. A brutal war, killing millions of innocent  Chinese, Koreans, Burmese, Asians of every stripe, as lesser people. And they still weren't giving up...until that second A bomb. They got the picture, they were done. Absolutely it took such an extreme method, after the firebombing of Tokyo killed at least  100,000 people and it left no impression on the Japanese psyche, it took so much firepower to make an impression on the Japanese Imperial government. A short sharp shock. They couldn't  even try for a stalemate.


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> Japan had been starving for at least a year, and they were quite obviously losing the war. A war they  initiated. A brutal war, killing millions of innocent  Chinese, Koreans, Burmese, Asians of every stripe, as lesser people. And they still weren't giving up...until that second A bomb. They got the picture, they were done. Absolutely it took such an extreme method, after the firebombing of Tokyo killed at least  100,000 people and it left no impression on the Japanese psyche, it took so much firepower to make an impression on the Japanese Imperial government. A short sharp shock. They couldn't  even try for a stalemate.


Total war is never the answer and always immoral.
The American people are a great people... Sadly our leadership are a bunch of psychopaths.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
Click to expand...

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of those posters wouldn't even be alive because their grandfather died in a costly invasion and never met their grandmother.  That's what happens when history is rewritten.
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
Click to expand...

So you think the US should have agreed to allow Japan to have back all her conquered property, remain at war with China and we should have just said ok? Now who is the idiot? Japan never offered to surrender. Even after one atomic bomb they asked that they retain the property their wars had gotten them and that all that happen is a ceasefire.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
Click to expand...

That is NOT the only condition. They demanded that no occupation and no troops in Japan, they asked for a ceasefire where in all their property that was taken in the war would be returned. And they demanded that their war in China continue.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An invasion rendered unnecessary by the fact that Japan was attempting to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not as evidenced by my already linked source documents all Japan offered was a ceasefire in place with a return to Japan of all land seized since the start of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times have you and I done this? You post the link to your source documents, I find the documents showing the Japanese cables intercepted by the U.S. showing them reaching out to the Soviet Union to end the conflict, thus making any invasion or nuclear bombing unnecessary, and you resort to quibbling over semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that Japan offered was a ceasefire with a return to November 1941 start positions. You know it, I know it and anyone that reads the link knows it. That is not an offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surrendering with conditions is still surrendering. Eisenhower and MacArthur understood that, why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the US should have agreed to allow Japan to have back all her conquered property, remain at war with China and we should have just said ok? Now who is the idiot? Japan never offered to surrender. Even after one atomic bomb they asked that they retain the property their wars had gotten them and that all that happen is a ceasefire.
Click to expand...

You apparently. Is that what I said?


----------



## Unkotare

Hiroshima survivor tracks down POW victims for posterity The Japan Times


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT the only condition. They demanded that no occupation and no troops in Japan, they asked for a ceasefire where in all their property that was taken in the war would be returned. And they demanded that their war in China continue.
Click to expand...


It was the ONLY condition Japan requested in May 1945.  Please read...

*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 B.C. 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?"*

The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief ofOSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that u2018On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo — they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.'" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz furtherpoints out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.
READ the entire column here...
The Hiroshima Myth 8211 LewRockwell.com

These books are required reading, if you want the truth.
Amazon.com The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb 9780679762850 Gar Alperovitz Books

Great Mistakes of the War Hanson W. Baldwin Amazon.com Books

The Secret Surrender The Classic Insider s Account of the Secret Plot to Surrender Northern Italy During WWII Allen W. Dulles 9781592283682 Amazon.com Books


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That type of surrender is what got Europe WWII out of WWI. Their conditions of no occupation, no disarmament, war crimes to be tried by the Japanese themselves were no-go's.
> 
> 
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
Click to expand...


and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT the only condition. They demanded that no occupation and no troops in Japan, they asked for a ceasefire where in all their property that was taken in the war would be returned. And they demanded that their war in China continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the ONLY condition Japan requested in May 1945.  Please read...
> 
> *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 B.C. 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?"*
> 
> The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief ofOSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that u2018On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo — they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.'" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz furtherpoints out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.
> READ the entire column here...
> The Hiroshima Myth 8211 LewRockwell.com
> 
> These books are required reading, if you want the truth.
> Amazon.com The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb 9780679762850 Gar Alperovitz Books
> 
> Great Mistakes of the War Hanson W. Baldwin Amazon.com Books
> 
> The Secret Surrender The Classic Insider s Account of the Secret Plot to Surrender Northern Italy During WWII Allen W. Dulles 9781592283682 Amazon.com Books
Click to expand...


Again, you ignore the other 3 conditions they wanted, no occupation, to keep what they had won in China, and no war crimes trials. 



> Kido proposed that Japan withdraw from the formerly European colonies it had occupied provided they were granted independence, that Japan disarm provided this not occur under Allied supervision, and that Japan for a time be "content with minimum defense." Kido's proposal did not contemplate Allied occupation of Japan, prosecution of war criminals or substantial change in Japan's system of government.



Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is the greatest nation to ever exist.  This is due to its foundation of limited government and maximum individual liberty.
> 
> However America has been poorly lead by a criminal gang known as politicians, for some time.
> 
> Truman was without a doubt a war criminal.  Dropping those bombs on a defeated and defenseless nation, killing scores of women, children, and old people can only be considered a terrible crime against humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT the only condition. They demanded that no occupation and no troops in Japan, they asked for a ceasefire where in all their property that was taken in the war would be returned. And they demanded that their war in China continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the ONLY condition Japan requested in May 1945.  Please read...
> 
> *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 B.C. 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?"*
> 
> The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief ofOSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that u2018On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo — they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.'" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz furtherpoints out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.
> READ the entire column here...
> The Hiroshima Myth 8211 LewRockwell.com
> 
> These books are required reading, if you want the truth.
> Amazon.com The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb 9780679762850 Gar Alperovitz Books
> 
> Great Mistakes of the War Hanson W. Baldwin Amazon.com Books
> 
> The Secret Surrender The Classic Insider s Account of the Secret Plot to Surrender Northern Italy During WWII Allen W. Dulles 9781592283682 Amazon.com Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you ignore the other 3 conditions they wanted, no occupation, to keep what they had won in China, and no war crimes trials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kido proposed that Japan withdraw from the formerly European colonies it had occupied provided they were granted independence, that Japan disarm provided this not occur under Allied supervision, and that Japan for a time be "content with minimum defense." Kido's proposal did not contemplate Allied occupation of Japan, prosecution of war criminals or substantial change in Japan's system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I ignored it because it was not a condition in May 1945.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT the only condition. They demanded that no occupation and no troops in Japan, they asked for a ceasefire where in all their property that was taken in the war would be returned. And they demanded that their war in China continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the ONLY condition Japan requested in May 1945.  Please read...
> 
> *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 B.C. 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?"*
> 
> The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief ofOSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that u2018On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo — they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.'" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz furtherpoints out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.
> READ the entire column here...
> The Hiroshima Myth 8211 LewRockwell.com
> 
> These books are required reading, if you want the truth.
> Amazon.com The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb 9780679762850 Gar Alperovitz Books
> 
> Great Mistakes of the War Hanson W. Baldwin Amazon.com Books
> 
> The Secret Surrender The Classic Insider s Account of the Secret Plot to Surrender Northern Italy During WWII Allen W. Dulles 9781592283682 Amazon.com Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you ignore the other 3 conditions they wanted, no occupation, to keep what they had won in China, and no war crimes trials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kido proposed that Japan withdraw from the formerly European colonies it had occupied provided they were granted independence, that Japan disarm provided this not occur under Allied supervision, and that Japan for a time be "content with minimum defense." Kido's proposal did not contemplate Allied occupation of Japan, prosecution of war criminals or substantial change in Japan's system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ignored it because it was not a condition in May 1945.
Click to expand...




> At a series of high-level meetings in May, the Big Six first seriously discussed ending the war—but none of them on terms that would have been acceptable to the Allies. Because anyone openly supporting Japanese surrender risked assassination by zealous army officers, the meetings were closed to anyone except the Big Six, the Emperor, and the Privy Seal—no second- or third-echelon officers could attend.[35] At these meetings, despite the dispatches from Japanese ambassador Satō in Moscow, only Foreign minister Tōgō realized that Roosevelt and Churchill might have already made concessions to Stalin to bring the Soviets into the war against Japan.[36] As a result of these meetings, Tōgō was authorized to approach the Soviet Union, seeking to maintain its neutrality, or (despite the very remote probability) to form an alliance.[37]


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
Click to expand...

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
Click to expand...


So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
Click to expand...

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
Click to expand...

You are exhibiting an unwillingness to accept the truth.

Japan only asked that the Emperor stay on as a figure head.  Had Truman agreed to this in May 1945, when Japan offered it, the war would have ended and thousands of innocent Japanese women and children would not have been murdered in cold blood.

Truman essentially told the Japanese, "fuck you...you dirty japs, we are going to drop the bombs...and then we will agree to your terms." 

Nice guy...old Harry.


----------



## regent

In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are exhibiting an unwillingness to accept the truth.
> 
> Japan only asked that the Emperor stay on as a figure head.  Had Truman agreed to this in May 1945, when Japan offered it, the war would have ended and thousands of innocent Japanese women and children would not have been murdered in cold blood.
> 
> Truman essentially told the Japanese, "fuck you...you dirty japs, we are going to drop the bombs...and then we will agree to your terms."
> 
> Nice guy...old Harry.
Click to expand...


Japan in no way offered that in May 1945, all the other conditions would have been part of ANY package. I referenced a wiki article with its own referenced sources. If you choose to ignore them, its up to you.

Japan in May 1945 still thought it could get a settled resolution to the war that left itself virtually intact. 

Japan got a figurehead monarch, not what it really wanted, which was the retention of the Meji constitution based government. 

They wanted no occupation, they didn't get it.
They wanted to keep their possessions in China, didn't get it.
They wanted to self-disarm in a limited manner, didn't get it.
They wanted to prosecute their own war criminals, didn't get it.
They wanted their turnover of European colonies to be based on popular sovereignty votes of the natives, didn't get it.

Stop making up history, that's for progressives.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany was  not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.
Click to expand...


They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out. 

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.
> 
> I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.
Click to expand...

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors.  After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.
> 
> I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.
> 
> It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.
Click to expand...


and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms. 

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:



> 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.


http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.
> 
> After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.
> 
> I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.
> 
> It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.
> 
> They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.
Click to expand...

See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.

And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?
> 
> What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.
> 
> I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.
> 
> It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.
> 
> They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.
> 
> And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.
Click to expand...


He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision. 

You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.
Click to expand...


That was the foreign minister, the army wanted to hold onto the territory in China. Other declarations reference "European holdings" being given back, but on the condition that the natives be given their independence via a vote. 

The Army had terms, and these terms were unacceptable to the US. None of your posts counter this very simple and clear fact.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.
> 
> I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.
> 
> It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.
> 
> They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.
> 
> And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.
> 
> You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.
Click to expand...

You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the foreign minister, the army wanted to hold onto the territory in China. Other declarations reference "European holdings" being given back, but on the condition that the natives be given their independence via a vote.
> 
> The Army had terms, and these terms were unacceptable to the US. None of your posts counter this very simple and clear fact.
Click to expand...

Here again you create a distinction between military and government, but later admit that the government could control the military.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.
> 
> I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.
> 
> It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.
> 
> They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.
> 
> And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.
> 
> You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent. You also make the mistake of assuming a western mindset for a culture that is not western.

The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military. The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command. They were then placed in the position of refusing the emperor, something they had never had to do before, but something they found impossible to do. 

Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the foreign minister, the army wanted to hold onto the territory in China. Other declarations reference "European holdings" being given back, but on the condition that the natives be given their independence via a vote.
> 
> The Army had terms, and these terms were unacceptable to the US. None of your posts counter this very simple and clear fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again you create a distinction between military and government, but later admit that the government could control the military.
Click to expand...


The government WAS the military, at least the part with power. The others knew the Army could get rid of them at a whim, which is why they hid all the peace feelers sent out. The Navy was not as gung ho, because at that point, it had basically ceased to exist. The Army still had vast reserves of manpower and held large amounts of territory in China. It did not see itself as being defeated at that point, something the Navy already knew.


----------



## Staidhup

Revisionist Historians serve no other purpose then to expand their personal agenda and beliefs, otherwise pure garbage.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.
> 
> It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.
> 
> They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.
> 
> And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.
> 
> You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent. You also make the mistake of assuming a western mindset for a culture that is not western.
> 
> The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military. The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command. They were then placed in the position of refusing the emperor, something they had never had to do before, but something they found impossible to do.
> 
> Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.
Click to expand...

So you say, and yet we have source documents showing that they certainly believed that they could.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.
> 
> They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.
> 
> 
> 
> See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.
> 
> And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.
> 
> You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent. You also make the mistake of assuming a western mindset for a culture that is not western.
> 
> The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military. The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command. They were then placed in the position of refusing the emperor, something they had never had to do before, but something they found impossible to do.
> 
> Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say, and yet we have source documents showing that they certainly believed that they could.
Click to expand...


Only if you ignore the mountains of other documents that concur with what I am saying. Just like conspiracy nutters, you have to focus in on an interpretation of s small set of sources, and ignore all others. 

The only thing you have done to refute any of what I have types is "this document says otherwise", which isn't refuting at all.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.
> 
> And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.
> 
> You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent. You also make the mistake of assuming a western mindset for a culture that is not western.
> 
> The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military. The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command. They were then placed in the position of refusing the emperor, something they had never had to do before, but something they found impossible to do.
> 
> Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say, and yet we have source documents showing that they certainly believed that they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore the mountains of other documents that concur with what I am saying. Just like conspiracy nutters, you have to focus in on an interpretation of s small set of sources, and ignore all others.
> 
> The only thing you have done to refute any of what I have types is "this document says otherwise", which isn't refuting at all.
Click to expand...

The war was over in July 1945.  Japan had no ability to wage war against the USA.  We should have declared victory and went home.  Had we not punished the Japanese people enough?  Of course, the statists did not want that.  They wanted to conquer and occupy.

The unconditional surrender requirement instituted by Stalin's Stooge, only prolonged the killing and destruction...which apparently was his intention...and the fool Truman followed his evil plan. 

The wanton destruction of innocent women and children is always wrong.  Sadly America has a long history of total war.


----------



## kflaux

martybegan said:


> Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent.



There was no complete consensus, true, but as with almost all political groups, there were factions and partial consensus.



> The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military.



Herbert Bix argues rather persuasively that Hirohito was rather more powerful than that.

Amazon.com Hirohito And The Making Of Modern Japan eBook Herbert P. Bix Kindle Store



> The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command.



None of us are privy to the thought processes of the Emperor at the time.



> Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.



Pure speculation on your part.

Japan's relative position--it was beaten, had been for months--and the fact that the Russians were on the move in Manchuria both suggest that rather than a means of forcing surrender, which was assured in any case, Truman wanted a display of force to check Stalin, put him in his place.

Pity that hundreds of thousands of civilians had to die to achieve this end. 

And, of course, the US remains the only country that has used nuclear weapons in aggression. Do you think that when nukes are used again (and they will be, sooner or later), this historical fact will not be mentioned?


----------



## namvet

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


click - this is a recording


----------



## namvet

wonder who they were gonna use the bomb on??


morons


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

regent said:


> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?



Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.


----------



## namvet

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
Click to expand...


HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

namvet said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
Click to expand...


They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.


----------



## namvet

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
Click to expand...


there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities


----------



## gipper

namvet said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
Click to expand...


Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.


----------



## HenryBHough

Where in Hell IS Truman when America needs him most?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

gipper said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
Click to expand...


Considering what the Japs had been doing for the last 100 years to all their neighbors, they got off easy.


----------



## gipper

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering what the Japs had been doing for the last 100 years to all their neighbors, they got off easy.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt the Japanese military and leadership was ruthless and deserving of destruction.  Innocent women and children are not worthy of such actions and if America is a just nation, seeking peace and justice for all, murdering civilians by the hundreds of thousands is something we should never condone.


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> Where in Hell IS Truman when America needs him most?


I suspect you will find him burning in Hell.


----------



## namvet

gipper said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
Click to expand...


try reading history. its all there


----------



## gipper

namvet said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try reading history. its all there
Click to expand...

It sure is.  I learned from it and you did not.


----------



## namvet

gipper said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try reading history. its all there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is.  I learned from it and you did not.
Click to expand...


no you did not. imagine if you will (or can) having a brother who was in the Marines. and he was killed during the invasion. a year later you find out Truman had a weapon that would have saved his and millions and didn't use it. your satified with your borthers death right??


----------



## gipper

namvet said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try reading history. its all there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is.  I learned from it and you did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you did not. imagine if you will (or can) having a brother who was in the Marines. and he was killed during the invasion. a year later you find out Truman had a weapon that would have saved his and millions and didn't use it. your satified with your borthers death right??
Click to expand...

Your post proves you have failed to learn the history.  Your entire premise is BS.  No invasion was necessary.  

Try to understand that Japan was defeated before the bombs were dropped. The war was over.  All we needed to do was go home.


----------



## namvet

gipper said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try reading history. its all there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is.  I learned from it and you did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you did not. imagine if you will (or can) having a brother who was in the Marines. and he was killed during the invasion. a year later you find out Truman had a weapon that would have saved his and millions and didn't use it. your satified with your borthers death right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post proves you have failed to learn the history.  Your entire premise is BS.  No invasion was necessary.
> 
> Try to understand that Japan was defeated before the bombs were dropped. The war was over.  All we needed to do was go home.
Click to expand...


thank god they didn't put you in charge. you'd kill em all


----------



## regent

I wonder how many of us really understand the Japanese frame of mind at that time? Would most Japanese continued to fight to the death if the emperor said nothing and allowed the military to continue? The history of the Pacific War indicated they would.  European and other nations would have surrendered, when the war seemed hopeless but not the Japanese, and that was the problem.
Would the American people have tolerated a ten year war and the continued slow destruction of a large part of the Japanese population by bombing?  If Hirohito had not decided to end the war how long would it have continued, and at what cost to all?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper, what you do not know is there was no real choice.
> 
> The USSR was starting to flex their muscles upon becoming a super power. The Cold War began with the USSR in February of 1945 at conference of yalta.
> 
> By August of 1945, it was clear Stalin wanted control of the trade routes in the Far East. The same routes Japan dominated for nearly half a century. Yes, oil was the product and it was the main reason Japan wanted to control all of those shipping lanes.
> 
> Stalin, by 1945 was clearly desiring to dominate the world. There was an obvious clandestine agreement happening between Japan and the USSR. Japan was being enticed to surrender to the USSR. At that time, the US and the USSR were no longer allies. History even writes it that way.
> 
> So, the choices for Truman and the US were dubious at best, and dropping the bombs was really the only sensible option to give you an idea of paradoxical options he had.
> 
> Either, get into a long drawn out war with the USSR over control of the region, allow the USSR to run roughshod over the US and allow Japan to surrender to Stalin after we wasted so many American lives, or drop the bombs and force Stalin to back off and thereby prevent a full scale hot war with the USSR  which would have cost us another 50000 lives if not more.
> 
> Btw there was no way the American people could stomach another long drawn out war with what they thought at the time was our ally.
> 
> Those are your choices Gipper. What do you do? Do not give me a hippy peace love answer. This is Stalin we are talking about. A megalomaniac if there was ever one. What choice do you make? Allow the Japanese to surrender to the USSR after we fought them and she'd our blood? Just let that happen? You have any idea the political fall out? What do you do Gipper? There were only 3 choices. What do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> All Truman had to do was except the ONLY condition Japan requested for surrender, in July 1945.  That condition was allowing the Emperor to stay on and not be prosecuted....which Truman did, but after he incinerated thousands of innocent Japanese with the two bombs.
> 
> Thinking that mass murder of innocents was justified in an effort to control Stalin, is abhorrent and immoral.
> 
> Stalin was certainly a dangerous and sick individual, but he could never have prevailed against the USA in 1945.  He had no navy and little air force.  He had a huge army, which he would gladly sacrifice for world dominion.  However, he was smart enough to know he stood little chance against American firepower.
> 
> That said, he also had spies deeply embedded throughout the FDR/Truman administrations and had great success in duping FDR.  He may have thought he could dupe Truman too, rather than war against the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is NOT the only condition. They demanded that no occupation and no troops in Japan, they asked for a ceasefire where in all their property that was taken in the war would be returned. And they demanded that their war in China continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the ONLY condition Japan requested in May 1945.  Please read...
> 
> *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 B.C. 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?"*
> 
> The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief ofOSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that u2018On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo — they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.'" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz furtherpoints out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.
> READ the entire column here...
> The Hiroshima Myth 8211 LewRockwell.com
> 
> These books are required reading, if you want the truth.
> Amazon.com The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb 9780679762850 Gar Alperovitz Books
> 
> Great Mistakes of the War Hanson W. Baldwin Amazon.com Books
> 
> The Secret Surrender The Classic Insider s Account of the Secret Plot to Surrender Northern Italy During WWII Allen W. Dulles 9781592283682 Amazon.com Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you ignore the other 3 conditions they wanted, no occupation, to keep what they had won in China, and no war crimes trials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kido proposed that Japan withdraw from the formerly European colonies it had occupied provided they were granted independence, that Japan disarm provided this not occur under Allied supervision, and that Japan for a time be "content with minimum defense." Kido's proposal did not contemplate Allied occupation of Japan, prosecution of war criminals or substantial change in Japan's system of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ignored it because it was not a condition in May 1945.
Click to expand...

You are a liar or to stupid to breathe


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

gipper said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They believed that in spite of the fact that we told them we had another bomb and were going to use it if they didn't surrender.  Anyone even remotely compassionate for the welfare of their people would have heeded that warning even if they didn't heed the first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering what the Japs had been doing for the last 100 years to all their neighbors, they got off easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no doubt the Japanese military and leadership was ruthless and deserving of destruction.  Innocent women and children are not worthy of such actions and if America is a just nation, seeking peace and justice for all, murdering civilians by the hundreds of thousands is something we should never condone.
Click to expand...


America is a just nation. That's why we brought the Empire of Japan to its knees and ended its reign of terror on the Pacific Rim. Their recalcitrance led to the dropping of every bomb.  Your Leftist tendency to shift responsibility is on parade here.


----------



## Unkotare

namvet said:


> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities




Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## FA_Q2

gipper said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try reading history. its all there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is.  I learned from it and you did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you did not. imagine if you will (or can) having a brother who was in the Marines. and he was killed during the invasion. a year later you find out Truman had a weapon that would have saved his and millions and didn't use it. your satified with your borthers death right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post proves you have failed to learn the history.  Your entire premise is BS.  No invasion was necessary.
> 
> Try to understand that Japan was defeated before the bombs were dropped. The war was over.  All we needed to do was go home.
Click to expand...

If that was true then why did they continue to fight?

Mostly because THEY didn't think the war was over.  They would have continued to fight.


----------



## HenryBHough

Did we HAVE to?

Maybe not but it sure felt good at the time.


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> Did we HAVE to?
> 
> Maybe not but it sure felt good at the time.



It may have felt good only because our government and media, at the time, had effectively demonized the Japanese people.  Made them less than human in the eyes of Americans.  So murdering them on a vast scale, was accepted by Americans as good.  How is this any different from what the Nazis did to Jews and others they found less than human?

Japan's military and leadership were no doubt ruthless killers, but how are they any different from what Truman did to Japanese civilians?  

Japan committed many terrible atrocities against civilians, but not American civilians.  They bombed Pearl Harbor killing mostly American military personnel.  America bombed civilian centers killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese.  How are American actions comparable or just?


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

We had to save Christendom from the east, so yes we had to send them to hell where they belong!


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Would most Japanese continued to fight to the death if the emperor said nothing and allowed the military to continue? The history of the Pacific War indicated they would.



History does not "indicate" that.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would most Japanese continued to fight to the death if the emperor said nothing and allowed the military to continue? The history of the Pacific War indicated they would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History does not "indicate" that.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would most Japanese continued to fight to the death if the emperor said nothing and allowed the military to continue? The history of the Pacific War indicated they would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History does not "indicate" that.
Click to expand...

I think the history of the Pacific war does so indicate. How many Japanese soldiers died needlessly for the code? It was one of differences in the Pacific war and the European war that many never understood.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would most Japanese continued to fight to the death if the emperor said nothing and allowed the military to continue? The history of the Pacific War indicated they would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History does not "indicate" that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would most Japanese continued to fight to the death if the emperor said nothing and allowed the military to continue? The history of the Pacific War indicated they would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History does not "indicate" that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the history of the Pacific war does so indicate. ...
Click to expand...



You're wrong, and you need to study history in greater depth. Many Japanese soldiers would have fought to the last breath, just as many Americans would have, but the fact is that the Japanese people in general were starving, sick and tired of the war, and fed up with the government. Love of country doesn't negate that anymore than it would among Americans. If you really look at Japanese history, you'll see that surrender was not at all unheard of. It happened all the time during various periods of frequent warfare. Nobody likes it. Americans sure as hell wouldn't like it any either. What was rare in Japanese history was wholesale slaughtering of civilian populations. Most of the civilians on Okinawa, for example, were not considered 'really' Japanese, and so it was 'acceptable' to convince them that the Americans would violate and slaughter each man, woman, and child (hence, so many committed suicide as America took the island) as a tactic to slow the inevitable American march toward the 'real' main islands. Old ladies and children would not have fought to the death with sticks on Honshu in the event of a theoretical American invasion. In the fact of the actual American occupation, they did not do so.


----------



## regent

I can't speak for the feelings of the Japanese people, but I did see a few
Banzai charges that we considered a form of suicide. Also the number of Japanese soldiers that killed them selves when surrender would have given them a life.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> We had to save Christendom from the east, so yes we had to send them to hell where they belong!



"Christendom" must be pretty damn weak then.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Yes...And in the future when we get into a war with china, we will nuke three georges damn. 

They have more manufacturing than we do and we can't beat them any other way.


----------



## Nutz

Matthew said:


> Yes...And in the future when we get into a war with china, we will nuke three georges damn.
> 
> They have more manufacturing than we do and we can't beat them any other way.


LOL...what an idiot.  All we have to do is win the economic war against China. No need for nukes.  There is no way China could feed and arm their soldiers long enough for a victory after we cut off trade with them. After we cut off their supply lines.  A billion Chinamen would starve in a matter of a year.


----------



## FA_Q2

Nutz said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...And in the future when we get into a war with china, we will nuke three georges damn.
> 
> They have more manufacturing than we do and we can't beat them any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...what an idiot.  All we have to do is win the economic war against China. No need for nukes.  There is no way China could feed and arm their soldiers long enough for a victory after we cut off trade with them. After we cut off their supply lines.  A billion Chinamen would starve in a matter of a year.
Click to expand...

Cut off trade with them?

You do understand where things are manufactured, right?  Hint: it not here.


----------



## Nutz

FA_Q2 said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...And in the future when we get into a war with china, we will nuke three georges damn.
> 
> They have more manufacturing than we do and we can't beat them any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...what an idiot.  All we have to do is win the economic war against China. No need for nukes.  There is no way China could feed and arm their soldiers long enough for a victory after we cut off trade with them. After we cut off their supply lines.  A billion Chinamen would starve in a matter of a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut off trade with them?
> 
> You do understand where things are manufactured, right?  Hint: it not here.
Click to expand...

And, you also understand we won't be using cheap TV and widgets to fight a war...right?  How much of our money is needed for the Chinese economy to survive?

What, do you think two nations at war still trade?  


I know...too deep and complex for you.  Stick to the hate threads...boy.


----------



## FA_Q2

Nutz said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...And in the future when we get into a war with china, we will nuke three georges damn.
> 
> They have more manufacturing than we do and we can't beat them any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...what an idiot.  All we have to do is win the economic war against China. No need for nukes.  There is no way China could feed and arm their soldiers long enough for a victory after we cut off trade with them. After we cut off their supply lines.  A billion Chinamen would starve in a matter of a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut off trade with them?
> 
> You do understand where things are manufactured, right?  Hint: it not here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, you also understand we won't be using cheap TV and widgets to fight a war...right?  How much of our money is needed for the Chinese economy to survive?
> 
> What, do you think two nations at war still trade?
> 
> 
> I know...too deep and complex for you.  Stick to the hate threads...boy.
Click to expand...

Cheap TV's and widgets - lol.  You obviously don't know where things are manufactured.  Its not cheap TV's that America no longer makes - its virtually all electronics.  Smartphones, tablets, computers and anything electrical as well as the chap crap.  China produces a LOT of things - most of which we consider to be quite high quality.  Look for that made in America sticker on a unit or device - its pretty damn rare.  even when you find one you will discover that most things are simply put together in the states and the actual parts are made somewhere else.


----------



## Nutz

FA_Q2 said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...And in the future when we get into a war with china, we will nuke three georges damn.
> 
> They have more manufacturing than we do and we can't beat them any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...what an idiot.  All we have to do is win the economic war against China. No need for nukes.  There is no way China could feed and arm their soldiers long enough for a victory after we cut off trade with them. After we cut off their supply lines.  A billion Chinamen would starve in a matter of a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut off trade with them?
> 
> You do understand where things are manufactured, right?  Hint: it not here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, you also understand we won't be using cheap TV and widgets to fight a war...right?  How much of our money is needed for the Chinese economy to survive?
> 
> What, do you think two nations at war still trade?
> 
> 
> I know...too deep and complex for you.  Stick to the hate threads...boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheap TV's and widgets - lol.  You obviously don't know where things are manufactured.  Its not cheap TV's that America no longer makes - its virtually all electronics.  Smartphones, tablets, computers and anything electrical as well as the chap crap.  China produces a LOT of things - most of which we consider to be quite high quality.  Look for that made in America sticker on a unit or device - its pretty damn rare.  even when you find one you will discover that most things are simply put together in the states and the actual parts are made somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Who are the consumers of cheap products if we were to go to China.  How do they replace that income????  Sure, we get a lot of consumer products from China....but we don't depend on them for our military needs.  

Again, if we cut off trade with China...where do they get their money?  If we don't pay our debts to China...where do they get their money for their military.  How do they feed their troops and afford ammunition?  How long will CHinamen starve while their fathers and brothers are dying.  

China already lost any war....they are dependent on the US for their economy.


----------



## kflaux

Unkotare said:


> Many Japanese soldiers would have fought to the last breath, just as many Americans would have, but the fact is that the Japanese people in general were starving, sick and tired of the war, and fed up with the government. Love of country doesn't negate that anymore than it would among Americans.


Indeed

I'll just add that many people forget, if they ever knew in the first place, that the wartime J government was authoritarian, actually pretty much totalitarian. Dissent of any kind was not tolerated and was always harshly punished.

As one point on the graph, some time ago I read about a middle-aged Japanese man who wrote in a letter "I wish this war would end". The censors, who opened mail randomly, read his letter, arrested him for treason, threw him in jail, where he died before the war's end. His wife/widow and two children were left to their own devices; I think one of the children starved before war's end.

If there were no protests, letters to the editor etc advocating an end to the war, that certainly didn't mean the populace was not beyond sick of it all.


----------



## whitehall

The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.


----------



## HenryBHough

Last good thing Truman ever did.


----------



## whitehall

HenryBHough said:


> Last good thing Truman ever did.


Nope, it wasn't the last of give'm hell Harry. The idiot bean counter went on to disarm America's Military and was blindsided by Korea. He screwed that one up too.


----------



## kflaux

whitehall said:


> The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.


Agree with nearly all this, but the J had begun efforts to discuss peace before FDR's demise, IIRC, via another country other than the Soviets. Switzerland perhaps.

More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons. 

After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.

Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?

Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.



The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible. 

That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## namvet

kflaux said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with nearly all this, but the J had begun efforts to discuss peace before FDR's demise, IIRC, via another country other than the Soviets. Switzerland perhaps.
> 
> More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons.
> 
> After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.
> 
> Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?
> 
> Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.
> 
> 
> 
> The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible.
> 
> That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...


"More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons."

this should be obvious even to you. we now have the hydrogen bomb which is a world killer


----------



## elektra

Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers. 

Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering. 

maybe this was said already, lots of posts here. 

anyhow, on a high note I will just add;

Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.



So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.

Not logical and terribly barbaric.


----------



## JoeB131

Theowl32 said:


> Japan was threatening behind closed doors to surrender to the USSR. That way the emperor had a chance to save face with his people. Stalin was also very interested in those trade routes, and Stalin already made it clear he was no friend to the US or England.
> 
> The cold war began almost immediately following WWII and the dividing of the land. USSR pretty much flat out held out a big giant finger to both the US and England. Yes, it was predictable and Patton was trying to get a war with them.
> 
> The fact is behind closed doors the USSR and Japan had worked SOMETHING out. There was no way this country was just going to allow the USSR to take Japan after America pretty much alone defeated them with so many American lives lost.



Okay, what retarded ass Home Skule did you learn this from?  

The thing was the USSR and Japan already had a non-aggression pact, that the USSR broke at the insistence of the allies after Germany surrendered.  

The reason why Japan surrendered was not due to the Atom bomb, but because when the USSR entered the war, they knew they couldn't hold Manchuria and Korea against a battle hardened Red Army (in fact, the USSR Rolled up the Kwantung Army in less than a week)  and if the USSR decided to invade Hokkaido (That's the northernmost Island in Japan, for all you Home-Schoolers) all the Japanese had to defend it were two divisions deployed on the EASTERN half of the Island. 

They had heard stories about how the Red Army was raping the shit out of Germany, and they realized they'd be better off under American occupation.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was threatening behind closed doors to surrender to the USSR. That way the emperor had a chance to save face with his people. Stalin was also very interested in those trade routes, and Stalin already made it clear he was no friend to the US or England.
> 
> The cold war began almost immediately following WWII and the dividing of the land. USSR pretty much flat out held out a big giant finger to both the US and England. Yes, it was predictable and Patton was trying to get a war with them.
> 
> The fact is behind closed doors the USSR and Japan had worked SOMETHING out. There was no way this country was just going to allow the USSR to take Japan after America pretty much alone defeated them with so many American lives lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, what retarded ass Home Skule did you learn this from?
> 
> The thing was the USSR and Japan already had a non-aggression pact, that the USSR broke at the insistence of the allies after Germany surrendered.
> 
> The reason why Japan surrendered was not due to the Atom bomb, but because when the USSR entered the war, they knew they couldn't hold Manchuria and Korea against a battle hardened Red Army (in fact, the USSR Rolled up the Kwantung Army in less than a week)  and if the USSR decided to invade Hokkaido (That's the northernmost Island in Japan, for all you Home-Schoolers) all the Japanese had to defend it were two divisions deployed on the EASTERN half of the Island.
> 
> They had heard stories about how the Red Army was raping the shit out of Germany, and they realized they'd be better off under American occupation.
Click to expand...

Damn Joe...I never expected you capable of a post that is mostly factual.  Congrats.


----------



## JoeB131

whitehall said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last good thing Truman ever did.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it wasn't the last of give'm hell Harry. The idiot bean counter went on to disarm America's Military and was blindsided by Korea. He screwed that one up too.
Click to expand...


Actually, the REpublicans were just as much for the Draw-down after WWII as the Truman was.  The GOP really wanted to return to a pre-war policy of isolationism. 

You see, FDR had nationalized much of the economy during WWII, which meant the government was controlling prices and wages and production and priorities that were normally left to the "Markets".  The GOP wanted to put an end to that, they wanted an end to conscription, they wanted to go back to "Normalcy". 

Truman had to fight to keep as much of the military as we had, he had to fight for the Marshall plan.


----------



## Theowl32

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
Click to expand...


So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR? 

Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda. 

The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII. 

Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil). 

So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices. 

Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?

1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?

2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died. 

3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR. 

Those are your choices. What do you do? 

The timeline. 

February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta. 

August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima. 

August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria. 

August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri. 

What, do you do?


----------



## JoeB131

Hey, Owl, Josef Stalin is hiding under your bed right now! 

The reality is the bombs were probably not that big of a deal.  

Let's look at the sequence of events. 

Japan knows it's defeated, they start putting out feelers about a surrender.  The sticking point is that the US won't commit to retaining Hirohito as _tenyo_ (Emperor) 

Then we drop the bombs, but we had been bombing Japan for months at that point, and conventional bombs were killing far more people.  

When the USSR entered the war, it changed a bunch of things. 

1) Stalin wasn't going to mediate between Japan and the Allies. 
2) The Red Army was quickly rolling up the Japanese Army on the mainland. 
3) If the war dragged on, Japan would be partitioned like Germany and Austria were. 

That's why Japan surrendered.  The game changer was not another weapon, but the fact that the balance of power across the theatre had drastically turned against them.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

No.

The war was won and winding down by August when the bombs were deployed. But from a financial perspective, something to show for it was required as with actually using them. Plus the Allies wanted to demonstrate to the Soviets "We have this big bomb..."


----------



## namvet

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
Click to expand...


you fuckin' moron. those were military targets. and POW's were put to death. your a fuckin pacifists idiot


----------



## gipper

Theowl32 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?
> 
> Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.
> 
> The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.
> 
> Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).
> 
> So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.
> 
> Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?
> 
> 1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?
> 
> 2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.
> 
> 3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.
> 
> Those are your choices. What do you do?
> 
> The timeline.
> 
> February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.
> 
> August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
> 
> August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
> 
> August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.
> 
> What, do you do?
Click to expand...

I do not think those choices are accurate.

First, we never should have been at war with Japan, or Germany for that matter, had FDR not been such a deceitful lying bastard.  In the 1940 election he promised Americans we would stay out of the war...all the while working feverishly to get us into war with Germany and Japan.  Had he not placed economic sanctions on Japan along with freezing their assets in the USA, and refusing to even meet with Japanese officials to work out differences, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.  

Regarding Japan's surrender, they had been trying to surrender as early as 1944.  But due to the FDR's crazy unconditional surrender requirement, they feared the US would hang the Emperor in front of the palace.  Most ironic that the doofus from Independence refused Japan's only condition, but after incinerating women and children with the bombs, he then agreed to it.  Does this mean anything to you?

I do believe Dirty Harry did want to impress Stalin, by using the bombs...most immoral for a man who claimed to be a devout Christian wouldn't you agree?  

Murdering civilians particularly on the scale the US did to Germany and Japan, is entirely indefensible.


----------



## Theowl32

gipper said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?
> 
> Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.
> 
> The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.
> 
> Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).
> 
> So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.
> 
> Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?
> 
> 1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?
> 
> 2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.
> 
> 3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.
> 
> Those are your choices. What do you do?
> 
> The timeline.
> 
> February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.
> 
> August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
> 
> August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
> 
> August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.
> 
> What, do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not think those choices are accurate.
> 
> First, we never should have been at war with Japan, or Germany for that matter, had FDR not been such a deceitful lying bastard.  In the 1940 election he promised Americans we would stay out of the war...all the while working feverishly to get us into war with Germany and Japan.  Had he not placed economic sanctions on Japan along with freezing their assets in the USA, and refusing to even meet with Japanese officials to work out differences, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.
> 
> Regarding Japan's surrender, they had been trying to surrender as early as 1944.  But due to the FDR's crazy unconditional surrender requirement, they feared the US would hang the Emperor in front of the palace.  Most ironic that the doofus from Independence refused Japan's only condition, but after incinerating women and children with the bombs, he then agreed to it.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> I do believe Dirty Harry did want to impress Stalin, by using the bombs...most immoral for a man who claimed to be a devout Christian wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Murdering civilians particularly on the scale the US did to Germany and Japan, is entirely indefensible.
Click to expand...


Wow. So America was just guilty of starting WWII with Japan and they were both victims of American imperialism. 

Holy shit.


----------



## gipper

Theowl32 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?
> 
> Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.
> 
> The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.
> 
> Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).
> 
> So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.
> 
> Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?
> 
> 1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?
> 
> 2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.
> 
> 3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.
> 
> Those are your choices. What do you do?
> 
> The timeline.
> 
> February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.
> 
> August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
> 
> August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
> 
> August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.
> 
> What, do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not think those choices are accurate.
> 
> First, we never should have been at war with Japan, or Germany for that matter, had FDR not been such a deceitful lying bastard.  In the 1940 election he promised Americans we would stay out of the war...all the while working feverishly to get us into war with Germany and Japan.  Had he not placed economic sanctions on Japan along with freezing their assets in the USA, and refusing to even meet with Japanese officials to work out differences, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.
> 
> Regarding Japan's surrender, they had been trying to surrender as early as 1944.  But due to the FDR's crazy unconditional surrender requirement, they feared the US would hang the Emperor in front of the palace.  Most ironic that the doofus from Independence refused Japan's only condition, but after incinerating women and children with the bombs, he then agreed to it.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> I do believe Dirty Harry did want to impress Stalin, by using the bombs...most immoral for a man who claimed to be a devout Christian wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Murdering civilians particularly on the scale the US did to Germany and Japan, is entirely indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. So America was just guilty of starting WWII with Japan and they were both victims of American imperialism.
> 
> Holy shit.
Click to expand...

Why have you chosen to pose a strawman argument?

America was not guilty.  FDR was.


----------



## Theowl32

gipper said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?
> 
> Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.
> 
> The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.
> 
> Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).
> 
> So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.
> 
> Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?
> 
> 1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?
> 
> 2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.
> 
> 3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.
> 
> Those are your choices. What do you do?
> 
> The timeline.
> 
> February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.
> 
> August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
> 
> August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
> 
> August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.
> 
> What, do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not think those choices are accurate.
> 
> First, we never should have been at war with Japan, or Germany for that matter, had FDR not been such a deceitful lying bastard.  In the 1940 election he promised Americans we would stay out of the war...all the while working feverishly to get us into war with Germany and Japan.  Had he not placed economic sanctions on Japan along with freezing their assets in the USA, and refusing to even meet with Japanese officials to work out differences, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.
> 
> Regarding Japan's surrender, they had been trying to surrender as early as 1944.  But due to the FDR's crazy unconditional surrender requirement, they feared the US would hang the Emperor in front of the palace.  Most ironic that the doofus from Independence refused Japan's only condition, but after incinerating women and children with the bombs, he then agreed to it.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> I do believe Dirty Harry did want to impress Stalin, by using the bombs...most immoral for a man who claimed to be a devout Christian wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Murdering civilians particularly on the scale the US did to Germany and Japan, is entirely indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. So America was just guilty of starting WWII with Japan and they were both victims of American imperialism.
> 
> Holy shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why have you chosen to pose a strawman argument?
> 
> America was not guilty.  FDR was.
Click to expand...


Holy shit


----------



## gipper

Theowl32 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?
> 
> Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.
> 
> The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.
> 
> Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).
> 
> So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.
> 
> Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?
> 
> 1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?
> 
> 2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.
> 
> 3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.
> 
> Those are your choices. What do you do?
> 
> The timeline.
> 
> February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.
> 
> August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
> 
> August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
> 
> August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.
> 
> What, do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not think those choices are accurate.
> 
> First, we never should have been at war with Japan, or Germany for that matter, had FDR not been such a deceitful lying bastard.  In the 1940 election he promised Americans we would stay out of the war...all the while working feverishly to get us into war with Germany and Japan.  Had he not placed economic sanctions on Japan along with freezing their assets in the USA, and refusing to even meet with Japanese officials to work out differences, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.
> 
> Regarding Japan's surrender, they had been trying to surrender as early as 1944.  But due to the FDR's crazy unconditional surrender requirement, they feared the US would hang the Emperor in front of the palace.  Most ironic that the doofus from Independence refused Japan's only condition, but after incinerating women and children with the bombs, he then agreed to it.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> I do believe Dirty Harry did want to impress Stalin, by using the bombs...most immoral for a man who claimed to be a devout Christian wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Murdering civilians particularly on the scale the US did to Germany and Japan, is entirely indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. So America was just guilty of starting WWII with Japan and they were both victims of American imperialism.
> 
> Holy shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why have you chosen to pose a strawman argument?
> 
> America was not guilty.  FDR was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit
Click to expand...

How can you not know that FDR was a lying scumbag who instigated the war?


----------



## namvet

gipper said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?
> 
> Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.
> 
> The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.
> 
> Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).
> 
> So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.
> 
> Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?
> 
> 1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?
> 
> 2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.
> 
> 3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.
> 
> Those are your choices. What do you do?
> 
> The timeline.
> 
> February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.
> 
> August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
> 
> August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
> 
> August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.
> 
> What, do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think those choices are accurate.
> 
> First, we never should have been at war with Japan, or Germany for that matter, had FDR not been such a deceitful lying bastard.  In the 1940 election he promised Americans we would stay out of the war...all the while working feverishly to get us into war with Germany and Japan.  Had he not placed economic sanctions on Japan along with freezing their assets in the USA, and refusing to even meet with Japanese officials to work out differences, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.
> 
> Regarding Japan's surrender, they had been trying to surrender as early as 1944.  But due to the FDR's crazy unconditional surrender requirement, they feared the US would hang the Emperor in front of the palace.  Most ironic that the doofus from Independence refused Japan's only condition, but after incinerating women and children with the bombs, he then agreed to it.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> I do believe Dirty Harry did want to impress Stalin, by using the bombs...most immoral for a man who claimed to be a devout Christian wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Murdering civilians particularly on the scale the US did to Germany and Japan, is entirely indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. So America was just guilty of starting WWII with Japan and they were both victims of American imperialism.
> 
> Holy shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why have you chosen to pose a strawman argument?
> 
> America was not guilty.  FDR was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you not know that FDR was a lying scumbag who instigated the war?
Click to expand...


how do you know he wasn't??? proof??  no didn't think so. louse


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
Click to expand...

Your simpleton narrative of World War II is not descriptive of the events that the Japanese created.


----------



## gipper

To All The Above:

Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.  

Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *

You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor 
The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
More Articles on Pearl Harbor

Read these books PLEASE:
Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Myt...=1421184648602&peasin=930073274&tag=ff0d01-20
Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books


----------



## namvet

gipper said:


> To All The Above:
> 
> Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *
> 
> You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
> Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
> Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
> The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
> How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
> How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
> More Articles on Pearl Harbor
> 
> Read these books PLEASE:
> Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
> http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Myt...=1421184648602&peasin=930073274&tag=ff0d01-20
> Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books



educate yourselves on these fictitious lies. for this member speak with two faces and  know nothing of this subject


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> To All The Above:
> 
> Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *
> 
> You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
> Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
> Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
> The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
> How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
> How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
> More Articles on Pearl Harbor
> 
> Read these books PLEASE:
> Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
> Amazon.com The Roosevelt Myth 50th Anniversary Edition 9780930073275 John T. Flynn Ralph Raico Books
> Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books


The use of "links", from a google is a "fool's errand". 

Why not quote or paraphrase something you think makes your point, that would at least indicate you know a bit more than a google search on your ideology.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All The Above:
> 
> Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *
> 
> You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
> Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
> Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
> The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
> How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
> How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
> More Articles on Pearl Harbor
> 
> Read these books PLEASE:
> Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
> Amazon.com The Roosevelt Myth 50th Anniversary Edition 9780930073275 John T. Flynn Ralph Raico Books
> Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books
> 
> 
> 
> The use of "links", from a google is a "fool's errand".
> 
> Why not quote or paraphrase something you think makes your point, that would at least indicate you know a bit more than a google search on your ideology.
Click to expand...


Damn....I have posted on this subject repeatedly since I have been here.  Sorry you missed my prior posts.

And I posted links because another poster asked for them.  

These links lead to articles from many experts.  You would be wise to read them.


----------



## namvet

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All The Above:
> 
> Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *
> 
> You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
> Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
> Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
> The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
> How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
> How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
> More Articles on Pearl Harbor
> 
> Read these books PLEASE:
> Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
> Amazon.com The Roosevelt Myth 50th Anniversary Edition 9780930073275 John T. Flynn Ralph Raico Books
> Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books
> 
> 
> 
> The use of "links", from a google is a "fool's errand".
> 
> Why not quote or paraphrase something you think makes your point, that would at least indicate you know a bit more than a google search on your ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn....I have posted on this subject repeatedly since I have been here.  Sorry you missed my prior posts.
> 
> And I posted links because another poster asked for them.
> 
> These links lead to articles from many experts.  You would be wise to read them.
Click to expand...

 wiser to ignore them


----------



## HenryBHough

I don't think we'll ever have to do it again.

But it's looking like China might.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All The Above:
> 
> Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *
> 
> You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
> Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
> Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
> The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
> How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
> How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
> More Articles on Pearl Harbor
> 
> Read these books PLEASE:
> Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
> Amazon.com The Roosevelt Myth 50th Anniversary Edition 9780930073275 John T. Flynn Ralph Raico Books
> Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books
> 
> 
> 
> The use of "links", from a google is a "fool's errand".
> 
> Why not quote or paraphrase something you think makes your point, that would at least indicate you know a bit more than a google search on your ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn....I have posted on this subject repeatedly since I have been here.  Sorry you missed my prior posts.
> 
> And I posted links because another poster asked for them.
> 
> These links lead to articles from many experts.  You would be wise to read them.
Click to expand...

In my experience, those who use Google, like its a deck of cards, are simply playing go fish. 
I thought of what you said while I was away, that most likely you quoted or was more specific. Still, so many people simply think a Google search that gives them results is somehow proof or confirmation of their particular ideology. 

Yes, you posted the links cause someone asked for them, yet you proceeded the links with the comment;
 "To All The Above: Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State."

Here is a pic of most the books that are relevant to the topic at hand. Have you read, "The Rape of Nanking", certainly tells much of the character of the enemy we faced. Seems I forgot to include my stuff about Burma, where the Japanese tortured and maimed teenager's genitals and such, until the young teenage died, I am talking 13 year old boys and girls. Pretty gruesome enemy we faced. 

How about that stuff about Stimson, or the Secretary of State at the time.

But I kind of like the books, Hirohito or The Rising Sun. Quotes directly from the highest ranking Japanese officials, very relevant. How about the Battle for Okinawa, another good source, or how about Gunther's book.

Did you notice the open book, its old, 1928 is when it was written, I should confirm that, it may be a bit newer, I say stuff written before the War is very insightful. 

Still, all that stuff on or from Stimson, he was the expert on Asia. 

John Gunther's book is useful as well. 

So, to me, links mean next to nothing, mostly they are of other people's opinion. 

Japan, did we really have to nuke Japan? 
No, not at all.
Unconditional Surrender? What did that mean, leaving the Japanese in Control of the areas of China they controlled? Leaving the Japanese in Control of Vietnam, Burma? All of Indochina? 

Read, The Rising Sun or Hirohito, and one realizes Japan was not ever, surrendering. But as it happened in History, they did Surrender, the most difficult part of the Emperor Surrendering was the Emperor had to fight against the Army, the Emperor literally had to do much in secret, as to not to be murdered those within the Emperor's government who would not ever allow Surrender. 

It was only after Nagasaki was destroyed that the Emperor fought against the Japanese military command, and surrendered, risking his life and others, in doing so. 

Japan was never united in Surrender, conditionally or unconditionally. Overtures to Communist Russia, far short of a surrender.

Quote your best source, I will easily counter, more than one book, first though, direct quotes from the Japanese who were in charge, in command. Who better to speak, than the Japanese.


----------



## JoeB131

Elektra, once again, you are swallowing the Cold War line to justify the bombing. 

The reality is, the entry of the USSR into the Pacific War had a lot more to do with Japan's surrender than the A-bomb.  The Bombings were not needed.  

Both Eisenhower and MacArthur thought bombing Japan with Nukes was a bad idea.


----------



## namvet

JoeB131 said:


> Elektra, once again, you are swallowing the Cold War line to justify the bombing.
> 
> The reality is, the entry of the USSR into the Pacific War had a lot more to do with Japan's surrender than the A-bomb.  The Bombings were not needed.
> 
> Both Eisenhower and MacArthur thought bombing Japan with Nukes was a bad idea.



Eisenhower had no combat experience and MacArthur wanted to walk over the dead in Japan and declare himself Jesus H Christ. its a fact the Japs were building their own abomb with help from the nazi's. the bombs were dropped to prevents millions of Americans from dying and end the war. period. they were necessary. just ask any Marine or sailor who was going to invade the empire, and their families. 
better the Japs die than us. Truman said after the war he'd make the same call again. in war you use your best weapon. use it or lose it. 
think!!! if your dad had died in the invasion your not born. then your mom finds out later truman had a weapon that would have ended the war and saved his life. 

go ahead. ask your mom. i dare ya

BTY the Russians knew we had the bomb before we used it


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Elektra, once again, you are swallowing the Cold War line to justify the bombing.
> 
> The reality is, the entry of the USSR into the Pacific War had a lot more to do with Japan's surrender than the A-bomb.  The Bombings were not needed.
> 
> Both Eisenhower and MacArthur thought bombing Japan with Nukes was a bad idea.


Eisenhower? Really, that should be interesting, give Eisenhower your best shot. Let me guess, you are going to make the claim that Eisenhower knew of the Top Secret A-Bomb when the Vice President of the United States did not, and that further during a peace conference in 1945 somebody disclosed that Top Secret, which was kept from Vice President Truman until Roosevelt died, you will make the claim that for a General not involved with the war in the Pacific that Top Secret would be disclosed and Eisenhower would make a statement that the bomb was not needed to said person.

Such a significant meeting must be well documented, disclosing Top Secrets is not easy, so their is obviously all the papers showing that Truman gave the proper clearance to General Eisenhower. I guess we will see the statement in Eisenhower's books as well.

So, you have some sort of link, source for Eisenhower, you can even include MacArthur.

Funny though, Was it Hull or Stimson that stated everybody supported the dropping of the A-Bomb and the Hydrogen Bomb.

The Politics after the fact have nothing to do with the History that passed, Eisenhower's statements are nothing more than politics after the fact.

The most glaring error of your post, is you fail to state the the USSR had a treaty with Japan that they did not break until after the Hydrogen Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, after the Emperor began his effort (against those in the Japanese government that opposed Surrender) to surrender.

Hell, the last Japanese to surrender was in 1974, there are plenty of books out there, go ahead and offer a quote or a source, and I will kindly do the same.
I can start with that Red and White book below, Hiohito.


----------



## JoeB131

namvet said:


> Eisenhower had no combat experience and MacArthur wanted to walk over the dead in Japan and declare himself Jesus H Christ. its a fact the Japs were building their own abomb with help from the nazi's.



Neither the Japanese no Nazis were anywhere close to an a-bomb, not to mention they had no method to DELIVER it.  That's kind of important.  



namvet said:


> the bombs were dropped to prevents millions of Americans from dying and end the war. period. they were necessary. just ask any Marine or sailor who was going to invade the empire, and their families.



You know what, guy.  Letting the Japanese negotiate for a peace that allowed them to save face would have saved Americans from dying and ending the war.  THe sticking point was Hirohito, and that guy was allowed to stay, anyhow.  




namvet said:


> Truman said after the war he'd make the same call again. in war you use your best weapon. use it or lose it.
> think!!! if your dad had died in the invasion your not born. then your mom finds out later truman had a weapon that would have ended the war and saved his life. go ahead. ask your mom. i dare ya



My Dad was a WWII vet.  (European Theater). But the point was, invading Japan wasn't necessary. The leadership was ALREADY seeking a negotiated settlement.  The bombs had nothing to do with their decision to surrender.   The fact the USSR was about to unleash a shitload of whoopass on them was.  



namvet said:


> BTY the Russians knew we had the bomb before we used it



Which is completely irrelevant to the point I made.  Truman told the USSR at Potsdam we had this bomb, but he STILL Pushed for the USSR to enter the pacific war.  He didn't say to Stalin, "Hey, buddy, we got this with Japan, just cool your jets."


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Eisenhower? Really, that should be interesting, give Eisenhower your best shot. Let me guess, you are going to make the claim that Eisenhower knew of the Top Secret A-Bomb when the Vice President of the United States did not, and that further during a peace conference in 1945 somebody disclosed that Top Secret, which was kept from Vice President Truman until Roosevelt died, you will make the claim that for a General not involved with the war in the Pacific that Top Secret would be disclosed and Eisenhower would make a statement that the bomb was not needed to said person.



Pictures of books is not knowledge.  This is what Ike said about the A-bomb. 

Hiroshima Quotes

"...in [July] 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.* ...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, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"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. *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..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, _Mandate For Change_, pg. 380


----------



## namvet

JoeB131 said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower had no combat experience and MacArthur wanted to walk over the dead in Japan and declare himself Jesus H Christ. its a fact the Japs were building their own abomb with help from the nazi's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the Japanese no Nazis were anywhere close to an a-bomb, not to mention they had no method to DELIVER it.  That's kind of important.
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bombs were dropped to prevents millions of Americans from dying and end the war. period. they were necessary. just ask any Marine or sailor who was going to invade the empire, and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what, guy.  Letting the Japanese negotiate for a peace that allowed them to save face would have saved Americans from dying and ending the war.  THe sticking point was Hirohito, and that guy was allowed to stay, anyhow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truman said after the war he'd make the same call again. in war you use your best weapon. use it or lose it.
> think!!! if your dad had died in the invasion your not born. then your mom finds out later truman had a weapon that would have ended the war and saved his life. go ahead. ask your mom. i dare ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Dad was a WWII vet.  (European Theater). But the point was, invading Japan wasn't necessary. The leadership was ALREADY seeking a negotiated settlement.  The bombs had nothing to do with their decision to surrender.   The fact the USSR was about to unleash a shitload of whoopass on them was.
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTY the Russians knew we had the bomb before we used it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is completely irrelevant to the point I made.  Truman told the USSR at Potsdam we had this bomb, but he STILL Pushed for the USSR to enter the pacific war.  He didn't say to Stalin, "Hey, buddy, we got this with Japan, just cool your jets."
Click to expand...


dead wrong on all counts. you were never right


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower? Really, that should be interesting, give Eisenhower your best shot. Let me guess, you are going to make the claim that Eisenhower knew of the Top Secret A-Bomb when the Vice President of the United States did not, and that further during a peace conference in 1945 somebody disclosed that Top Secret, which was kept from Vice President Truman until Roosevelt died, you will make the claim that for a General not involved with the war in the Pacific that Top Secret would be disclosed and Eisenhower would make a statement that the bomb was not needed to said person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictures of books is not knowledge.  This is what Ike said about the A-bomb.
> 
> Hiroshima Quotes
> 
> "...in [July] 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.* ...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, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
> 
> "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. *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..."
> 
> - Dwight Eisenhower, _Mandate For Change_, pg. 380
Click to expand...

You link to a website which quotes one of the books I own, can physically read, and you claim your google search gives you more knowledge? 

Seeing how I will not use google, how I quote from the books directly, it will take a bit more time to respond than your cut/paste. 

Google is not knowledge at all, its an obfuscation of the facts, you could do a search on, "Eisenhower likes blue Goats", and get results. 

Stimson came to tell Eisenhower a Top Secret, we have Eisenhower's word? Seems to me there was a big fight going on between Eisenhower and Truman? Yes?


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> You link to a website which quotes one of the books I own, can physically read, and you claim your google search gives you more knowledge?
> 
> Seeing how I will not use google, how I quote from the books directly, it will take a bit more time to respond than your cut/paste.
> 
> Google is not knowledge at all, its an obfuscation of the facts, you could do a search on, "Eisenhower likes blue Goats", and get results.
> 
> Stimson came to tell Eisenhower a Top Secret, we have Eisenhower's word? Seems to me there was a big fight going on between Eisenhower and Truman? Yes?



First, you act like the Atomic Bomb was that big of a secret that most people couldn't have conceived of such a thing.   People had been speculating about the possibility of atomic weapons since the 1920's.  

Second, do you deny that the quote is there?  Or are you just saying because I can find something faster with google, that makes a difference?  

Anyway, a lot of our military men, Ike and MacArthur, thought the bomb was a terrible idea, which of course, it was.


----------



## JoeB131

namvet said:


> dead wrong on all counts. you were never right



Your inability to offer counterarguments that don't rely on emotion is duly noted.


----------



## MaryL

The2ndAmendment said:


> I don't buy it.
> 
> They no longer had a navy or air force to project their armies.
> 
> A simple food and trade embargo would have sufficed (enforced by our unchallenged navy).
> 
> There was no reason to even attack the Japanese mainland.
> 
> I think it was a bunch of sick and demented fucks that wanted to demonstrate the power of their new toy to the communist USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
> 
> *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*.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country is being run by murderous sociopaths.
Click to expand...


You don't understand this at all. The Japanese didn't have any qualms about being merciless invaders in China and Korea. Burma, and provoking the war with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor without warning. And, it took  TWO A-bombs to convince the already war weary and starving Japanese leadership to stop their war mongering. Are you kidding?   The Japanese where the ones with the  F-up murderous sociopaths in charge.


----------



## namvet

they were way the hell and gone from being finished




JoeB131 said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> dead wrong on all counts. you were never right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to offer counterarguments that don't rely on emotion is duly noted.
Click to expand...


the doug long link is a blog. mere opinion and speculation. more like conspiracy

try again.


----------



## namvet

JoeB131 said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> dead wrong on all counts. you were never right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to offer counterarguments that don't rely on emotion is duly noted.
Click to expand...


#264


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You link to a website which quotes one of the books I own, can physically read, and you claim your google search gives you more knowledge?
> 
> Seeing how I will not use google, how I quote from the books directly, it will take a bit more time to respond than your cut/paste.
> 
> Google is not knowledge at all, its an obfuscation of the facts, you could do a search on, "Eisenhower likes blue Goats", and get results.
> 
> Stimson came to tell Eisenhower a Top Secret, we have Eisenhower's word? Seems to me there was a big fight going on between Eisenhower and Truman? Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you act like the Atomic Bomb was that big of a secret that most people couldn't have conceived of such a thing.   People had been speculating about the possibility of atomic weapons since the 1920's.
> 
> Second, do you deny that the quote is there?  Or are you just saying because I can find something faster with google, that makes a difference?
> 
> Anyway, a lot of our military men, Ike and MacArthur, thought the bomb was a terrible idea, which of course, it was.
Click to expand...

You found something faster with Google, while I have read and own the book? Your idea about being faster is your fantasy.

Do I deny the quote is there, as stated from your link, its not a matter of denial, its a matter of fact that your link is garbage and that quote is not on page 380, as your link states, I quoted the link you gave, with the reference to the incorrect page.

Whoever created the page is a lousy scholar, there is no check for accuracy, most likely whoever cut/paste the quote together did not read the book. First and foremost, page 380 of Mandate for Change talks of the TVA, not Stimson and the bomb.

So tell me how fast you are with google, tell us how you know the material, the subject, tell us in your brilliance did you ever think of checking what is referenced.

How about a picture of page 380, simply to point out the fact, that it is the fool who only knows google.

I guess once you go back to google, get a quote without errors, we can continue our discussion. There is so much more but you make it slow, having all your google errors to contend with.

I have not responded to anything else you stated, simply because of the extreme error in your link. You really should of caught the error, had you known what you are talking about.




Hiroshima Quotes


> *~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER*
> "...in [July] 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. ...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, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
> 
> "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. 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..."
> 
> - Dwight Eisenhower, _Mandate For Change_, pg. 380


----------



## elektra

Eisenhower and his conflicting statements could be the subject of another thread. But seeing how its brought up here, I mine as well post what is fact, here.

Eisenhower said two very different things about dropping the Bomb on Japan in two books, which is closer to the truth, a book from 1948 or a book from 1963?

Nowhere does Eisenhower state that we should not use the bomb, that Japan is beaten and about to surrender. Eisenhower explicitly states the bomb would be used if Japan did not surrender. Eisenhower, "hoped" we would not have to be the first to use the bomb, because its powerful and destructive as well cause Eisenhower did not want our enemies to know that fission was achievved. . Much different than his much later statements. Why? So close to the when the bomb was dropped you would think we would have the most accurate statement from Eisenhower, yet nowhere does Eisenhower state to Stimson that we should not use the Bomb against Japan. 

Further, there is a note, #25 for this chapter, which references Stimson's book, specifially Eisenhower references particular page numbers in Stimson's book where Stimson explicityly states nobody objected to dropping the bomb on Japan. Why would Eisenhower reference a book that contradicts Eisenhower, the fact is Eisenhower did not object to dropping the bomb on Japan.

But at the least, Eisenhower referencing Stimson is another post.


----------



## regent

Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule. 
Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule.
> Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.




One of the most poorly thought-out posts seen here in some time. ^^


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> You found something faster with Google, while I have read and own the book? Your idea about being faster is your fantasy.
> 
> Do I deny the quote is there, as stated from your link, its not a matter of denial, its a matter of fact that your link is garbage and that quote is not on page 380, as your link states, I quoted the link you gave, with the reference to the incorrect page.
> 
> Whoever created the page is a lousy scholar, there is no check for accuracy, most likely whoever cut/paste the quote together did not read the book. First and foremost, page 380 of Mandate for Change talks of the TVA, not Stimson and the bomb.



Hey, I know this might come as a shock to you, but different editions of the books might have different page numbers.   Ike really did say the things about the bombing that he said. 

Point is, a lot of military men thought the bombing was unnessary. 

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." 
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"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." 
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." 
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army


Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:


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. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule.
> Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.



You see, I don't buy that.  The Japanese HAD put out feelers that they wanted to talk peace to the Soviets (before they entered the war) to the Swiss.  

The use of the bomb had a lot more to do with trying to end the war on terms that didn't include partitioning Japan and China with the Soviets.


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the Pacific War is one of those wars that is hard to understand because it was unlike our usual wars. It was an unwritten rule that when an enemy saw no hope of winning, they surrendered. Germany surrendered and most European nations followed that rule.
> Many saw the Japanese with no hope, therefore they would surrender, it was the rule. But in actual combat, time after time, the Japanese fought well beyond the no-hope stage and into the suicide stage. America was faced with the possibility that what was left of the Japanese forces, and they were not defeated and had many many divisions intact, would fight to the end. Would they fight to the suicide stage? Based on the Japanese past performances it was almost inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, I don't buy that.  The Japanese HAD put out feelers that they wanted to talk peace to the Soviets (before they entered the war) to the Swiss.
> 
> The use of the bomb had a lot more to do with trying to end the war on terms that didn't include partitioning Japan and China with the Soviets.
Click to expand...


Here is a good read on what JoeB is talking about. It is review of "Racing the Enemy" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.

bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All The Above:
> 
> Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *
> 
> You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
> Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
> Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
> The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
> How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
> How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
> More Articles on Pearl Harbor
> 
> Read these books PLEASE:
> Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
> Amazon.com The Roosevelt Myth 50th Anniversary Edition 9780930073275 John T. Flynn Ralph Raico Books
> Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books
> 
> 
> 
> The use of "links", from a google is a "fool's errand".
> 
> Why not quote or paraphrase something you think makes your point, that would at least indicate you know a bit more than a google search on your ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn....I have posted on this subject repeatedly since I have been here.  Sorry you missed my prior posts.
> 
> And I posted links because another poster asked for them.
> 
> These links lead to articles from many experts.  You would be wise to read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my experience, those who use Google, like its a deck of cards, are simply playing go fish.
> I thought of what you said while I was away, that most likely you quoted or was more specific. Still, so many people simply think a Google search that gives them results is somehow proof or confirmation of their particular ideology.
> 
> Yes, you posted the links cause someone asked for them, yet you proceeded the links with the comment;
> "To All The Above: Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State."
> 
> Here is a pic of most the books that are relevant to the topic at hand. Have you read, "The Rape of Nanking", certainly tells much of the character of the enemy we faced. Seems I forgot to include my stuff about Burma, where the Japanese tortured and maimed teenager's genitals and such, until the young teenage died, I am talking 13 year old boys and girls. Pretty gruesome enemy we faced.
> 
> How about that stuff about Stimson, or the Secretary of State at the time.
> 
> But I kind of like the books, Hirohito or The Rising Sun. Quotes directly from the highest ranking Japanese officials, very relevant. How about the Battle for Okinawa, another good source, or how about Gunther's book.
> 
> Did you notice the open book, its old, 1928 is when it was written, I should confirm that, it may be a bit newer, I say stuff written before the War is very insightful.
> 
> Still, all that stuff on or from Stimson, he was the expert on Asia.
> 
> John Gunther's book is useful as well.
> 
> So, to me, links mean next to nothing, mostly they are of other people's opinion.
> 
> Japan, did we really have to nuke Japan?
> No, not at all.
> Unconditional Surrender? What did that mean, leaving the Japanese in Control of the areas of China they controlled? Leaving the Japanese in Control of Vietnam, Burma? All of Indochina?
> 
> Read, The Rising Sun or Hirohito, and one realizes Japan was not ever, surrendering. But as it happened in History, they did Surrender, the most difficult part of the Emperor Surrendering was the Emperor had to fight against the Army, the Emperor literally had to do much in secret, as to not to be murdered those within the Emperor's government who would not ever allow Surrender.
> 
> It was only after Nagasaki was destroyed that the Emperor fought against the Japanese military command, and surrendered, risking his life and others, in doing so.
> 
> Japan was never united in Surrender, conditionally or unconditionally. Overtures to Communist Russia, far short of a surrender.
> 
> Quote your best source, I will easily counter, more than one book, first though, direct quotes from the Japanese who were in charge, in command. Who better to speak, than the Japanese.
> 
> View attachment 35866
Click to expand...


Your library is extremely limited.


----------



## regent

If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and  Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
> The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and  Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.


Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?


----------



## HenryBHough

Rooseveldt's depression was about over.  Truman simply recognized that the war was no longer necessary to the economy so he ended it.

Of course pragmatists need no longer apply for Democat party membership so it's all moot.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
> The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and  Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?
Click to expand...

Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo  a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
> The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and  Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo  a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that is accurate.  By the time of the bombings, little fighting was occurring.  Japan had no air force or navy left and the army was in tatters. 

It is a fallacy that the bombs saved American lives and a terrible insult that it saved Japanese lives.  The US had no need to invade the mainland...and for that matter, Okinawa too.  Why did the US need to occupy a defeated nation...other than to appease the warmongers???  The war was over.  The US won and most of Japan was in ruins.  All Truman had to do was accept the one condition and Japan surrenders...thus saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children.   Truman chose to murder those women and children and THEN accept the one condition.  No greater war crime has ever been committed.


----------



## Camp

Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would  continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.


----------



## gipper

And to think Dirty Harry justified in mass murder of civilians who wanted the war over, because the Japanese government would not surrender, is to not think.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would  continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.



And all for nothing other than to make a name for a few generals.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would  continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all for nothing other than to make a name for a few generals.
Click to expand...

You keep assuming Japan was defeated and ready to surrender. The problem was the Japanese did not know that it was defeated and ready to surrender. Our experience with Japan is they were capable of fighting to the end of life. They were not afraid to die and to die for the emperor was more important than living. That concept was difficult for Americans to understand. We believed they would see clearly that they were beaten and surrender, and they did not. Until the emperor suggested they surrender  it was up in the air. So what made the emperor suggest surrender, the fire bombing the fact that they seemed defeated, nope none of those.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
> The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and  Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo  a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not believe that is accurate.  By the time of the bombings, little fighting was occurring.  Japan had no air force or navy left and the army was in tatters.
> 
> It is a fallacy that the bombs saved American lives and a terrible insult that it saved Japanese lives.  The US had no need to invade the mainland...and for that matter, Okinawa too.  Why did the US need to occupy a defeated nation...other than to appease the warmongers???  The war was over.  The US won and most of Japan was in ruins.  All Truman had to do was accept the one condition and Japan surrenders...thus saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children.   Truman chose to murder those women and children and THEN accept the one condition.  No greater war crime has ever been committed.
Click to expand...

Lots of imagination and opinions based on faulty data. The Japanese had troops spread out all over Asia that were being recalled to fight off an invasion. We learned during the battle at Okinawa that they employed a tactic of disassembling aircraft and hiding them in the countryside. Many of the 1500 Kamikazes from Formosa that fought at Okinawa were these hidden aircraft. The Japanese had another 7000 of these aircraft in reserve in preparation for the invasion. In addition they had a fleet of 5000 suicide boats prepared.
What this theory of not attacking Okinawa when we did would have done was give Japan time to refurbish, retrain, reinforce and prepare for the coming invasion. There is no evidence or indication that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the bombs. The only feasible alternative would have been the continued use of fire bombing of cities and inflicting even more casualties than the atomic bombs caused. If Japan knew we were out of bombs and were unable to strike another city they would not have surrendered.
The Japanese surrendered because the Emperor believed another atomic bomb was on the way and it was going to be aimed at him.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese....




Nope.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Our experience with Japan is they were capable of fighting to the end of life...




So are Americans and everyone else.


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.



Well, no, it wasn't.  The bombing just weren't having that much of an effect, as the Japanese had moved their industries underground. 

What made the difference was the Soviet Entry into the War.  Remember, Japan wanted to retain Manchuria and Korea as part of a peace deal. The Soviets quickly made short work of their army in Manchuria, and was threatening Hokkaido.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa sealed Japan's fate in regards to whether the bombs would be used to force their surrender. The battle began a few weeks before VE Day, Victory in Europe. America celebrated the end of war in Europe. There was no way the country would  continue a long drawn out war with Japan with the means available to end the war quickly. While the country tried to celebrate the end of the war in Europe they had to suffer the consequences of Okinawa. Over 50,000 US casualties were suffered, including over 12,000 killed in action. Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese. It was seen as an example of what an invasion of Japan would look like. America wanted to be done with that war. Truman nor any other President would be forgiven for allowing it to continue while having the means to end it with a couple of bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all for nothing other than to make a name for a few generals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep assuming Japan was defeated and ready to surrender. The problem was the Japanese did not know that it was defeated and ready to surrender. Our experience with Japan is they were capable of fighting to the end of life. They were not afraid to die and to die for the emperor was more important than living. That concept was difficult for Americans to understand. We believed they would see clearly that they were beaten and surrender, and they did not. Until the emperor suggested they surrender  it was up in the air. So what made the emperor suggest surrender, the fire bombing the fact that they seemed defeated, nope none of those.
Click to expand...

The Japanese military code of refusing to surrender, does not justify Truman's war crime.  Killing civilians on a vast scale is unjustifiable and clearly immoral.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. If you want to inform on the history of the Ryuku Kingdom and control of the islands go ahead. The island was a possession of the Japanese since 1872 and they had voting rights for the Japanese Diet. It was technically a part of Japan and while it's citizens were multicultural, they were Japanese citizens.


----------



## whitehall

In order to discuss the matter rationally we have to learn to rely on evidence and our independent judgement regardless of propaganda and political agenda promoted by the (liberal) media. We know from the media's version of history that Nixon was evil and that Truman was a feisty "give 'em hell president" and most of us are too lazy and not independent enough to look at it rationally. It seems that most Americans are against the concept of killing civilians to promote a political outcome but since the "historians" in the liberal media promoted the propaganda that we lived with in schools and culture it seems that Truman's agenda of killing foreign civilians to achieve a political goal was far more popular than the evil Nixon's alleged idea of burglarizing the headquarters of the other political party. Truman's mistakes in Korea, covered up by the "historians" in the liberal media, is an example of the double standard in 20th century political agenda. In the greatest Country in the world real history is out there if you really have the ambition to find it.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was. ....
Click to expand...



No, it was not. You don't understand what you are trying to talk about.


----------



## regent

Well we're off to the question of what was the status of Okinawa, and something about Korea so that should be it for this thread.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not. You don't understand what you are trying to talk about.
Click to expand...

Well get in touch with Mitsugu Sakihara because he agrees with with me and disagrees with you. Bunch of other folks agree with Mitsugu too. They all say Okinawa was the 47 prefecture of Japan since the late 19th century.

muse.jhu.edu/journals/man/summary/v021/21.1.sakihara.html


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
> The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and  Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo  a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not believe that is accurate.  By the time of the bombings, little fighting was occurring.  Japan had no air force or navy left and the army was in tatters.
> 
> It is a fallacy that the bombs saved American lives and a terrible insult that it saved Japanese lives.  The US had no need to invade the mainland...and for that matter, Okinawa too.  Why did the US need to occupy a defeated nation...other than to appease the warmongers???  The war was over.  The US won and most of Japan was in ruins.  All Truman had to do was accept the one condition and Japan surrenders...thus saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children.   Truman chose to murder those women and children and THEN accept the one condition.  No greater war crime has ever been committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of imagination and opinions based on faulty data. The Japanese had troops spread out all over Asia that were being recalled to fight off an invasion. We learned during the battle at Okinawa that they employed a tactic of disassembling aircraft and hiding them in the countryside. Many of the 1500 Kamikazes from Formosa that fought at Okinawa were these hidden aircraft. The Japanese had another 7000 of these aircraft in reserve in preparation for the invasion. In addition they had a fleet of 5000 suicide boats prepared.
> What this theory of not attacking Okinawa when we did would have done was give Japan time to refurbish, retrain, reinforce and prepare for the coming invasion. There is no evidence or indication that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the bombs. The only feasible alternative would have been the continued use of fire bombing of cities and inflicting even more casualties than the atomic bombs caused. If Japan knew we were out of bombs and were unable to strike another city they would not have surrendered.
> The Japanese surrendered because the Emperor believed another atomic bomb was on the way and it was going to be aimed at him.
Click to expand...


So...you justify the a-bombs, thus killing huge numbers of defenseless civilians, because the Japanese government would not surrender.  I think your justification is immoral, unethical, and tyrannical.

I see little difference between the Nazi death camps and the Rape of Nanking, to what Truman did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> [They all say Okinawa was the 47 prefecture of Japan since the late 19th century.
> l



Straw man, not in contention.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found something faster with Google, while I have read and own the book? Your idea about being faster is your fantasy.
> 
> Do I deny the quote is there, as stated from your link, its not a matter of denial, its a matter of fact that your link is garbage and that quote is not on page 380, as your link states, I quoted the link you gave, with the reference to the incorrect page.
> 
> Whoever created the page is a lousy scholar, there is no check for accuracy, most likely whoever cut/paste the quote together did not read the book. First and foremost, page 380 of Mandate for Change talks of the TVA, not Stimson and the bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I know this might come as a shock to you, but different editions of the books might have different page numbers.   Ike really did say the things about the bombing that he said.
> 
> Point is, a lot of military men thought the bombing was unnessary.
> 
> "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
> - Admiral William D. Leahy
> Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> 
> "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."
> - J. Samuel Walker
> Chief Historian
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
> 
> "It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
> - General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
> Commanding General of the U.S. Army
> 
> 
> Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
> 
> 
> 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. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)
Click to expand...


It is very simply, you do not know what you are talking about. Your claim is unsubstantiated. You linked to site that has false information. I cited the book that your link provides as a source. Facts are facts, and the fact is that whoever wrote what you believe in does not even know where the Eisenhower statement comes from.

Eisenhower completely agreed with the bombing of Japan, to force surrender. 

You think you can just run from one quote to another, when the first quote is found not to exist where you claim.

You can not substantiate your Eisenhower claim, yet you move on to others as if you a playing a game of GO FISH.

Eisenhower had a talk with Stimson, in that talk Eisenhower never said Japan was ready to surrender, not once, further Eisenhower than cites Stimson's book, cites the exact page where Stimson explicitly states, nobody objected to the bomb being dropped. So how does Eisenhower reference Stimson's without qualifying Eisenhower's position as to not agreeing. 

How does Eisenhower completely change his opinion 13 years later. 

Why does Joeb31 choose to link to a page that references the wrong page of Eisenhower's book. I think the answer is simply, the link cherry picked Eisenhower's statements, left critical information out, hence the person than purposely lists the wrong page, so we do not see the part of the statement that was missing.

You links are pure crap, how about linking to the complete Eisenhower statement.

So after providing a link with a partial cherry picked quote, Joeb31 ignores the wrong information and goes on to give another quote from someone else, you know knowthing Joeb31. 

Eisenhower knew nothing of the bomb, it was top secret, as in not known, Eisenhower was never told the secret, that Eisenhower stated to completely different things about the meeting with Stimson is proof enough, that your sources will not correctly state where they got the material from is further proof, that you must lie to make a point.


----------



## JoeB131

Emily, does your doctor know you are off your medication?


----------



## regent

Not that it was any of their business, but I wonder how the American people felt in 1945  about the dropping of the bombs?


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> Not that it was any of their business, but I wonder how the American people felt in 1945  about the dropping of the bombs?



Probably the same way they felt about rounding up 110,000 Japanese Americans and putting them in concentration camps.


----------



## elektra

regent said:


> Not that it was any of their business, but I wonder how the American people felt in 1945  about the dropping of the bombs?


Yea, how could be, the business of the American People? How did they feel, to end a War we did not start, a war where in the last 3 months before the bombs were dropped over 49,000 American Sons, died. 

regent, how is it any of your business how people felt, before you were born? 

I wonder how the millions of families felt, who were literally murdered by the Japanese, felt? I be they felt we did not do enough, soon enough.

STATISTICS OF JAPANESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER



> *Chapter 3*
> *Statistics Of
> Japanese Democide
> Estimates, Calculations, And Sources**
> *By R.J. Rummel*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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).


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it was any of their business, but I wonder how the American people felt in 1945  about the dropping of the bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the same way they felt about rounding up 110,000 Japanese Americans and putting them in concentration camps.
Click to expand...

Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books? 

Thus far you have failed to make a reputable, factual post. 

Your ideas and thoughts are based on the poor, factually inaccurate, "scholarly", work of others, hence, undefinable. .


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You link to a website which quotes one of the books I own, can physically read, and you claim your google search gives you more knowledge?
> 
> Seeing how I will not use google, how I quote from the books directly, it will take a bit more time to respond than your cut/paste.
> 
> Google is not knowledge at all, its an obfuscation of the facts, you could do a search on, "Eisenhower likes blue Goats", and get results.
> 
> Stimson came to tell Eisenhower a Top Secret, we have Eisenhower's word? Seems to me there was a big fight going on between Eisenhower and Truman? Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you act like the Atomic Bomb was that big of a secret that most people couldn't have conceived of such a thing.   People had been speculating about the possibility of atomic weapons since the 1920's.
> 
> Second, do you deny that the quote is there?  Or are you just saying because I can find something faster with google, that makes a difference?
> 
> Anyway, a lot of our military men, Ike and MacArthur, thought the bomb was a terrible idea, which of course, it was.
Click to expand...

MacArthur did not like the bomb? Care to back that up like you were not able to back up your Eisenhower claims?


----------



## Jarlaxle

namvet said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about between atomic bombs one and two?  He was given every opportunity to surrender but clearly didn't care about his people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HE was not in charge. the IJA was. their belief was the Americans had only 1 bomb. it would not happen again
Click to expand...


Also...advocating surrender had a very real chance of getting Hirohito assassinated!  (In fact, even after the second bomb, he nearly was.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

gipper said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no compassion for civilians. they were nothing more than slaves. also we did drop leaflets warning civilians to leave large cities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman had so much compassion for Japanese civilians, that he incinerated them on a vast scale for no legitimate reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try reading history. its all there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure is.  I learned from it and you did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you did not. imagine if you will (or can) having a brother who was in the Marines. and he was killed during the invasion. a year later you find out Truman had a weapon that would have saved his and millions and didn't use it. your satified with your borthers death right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post proves you have failed to learn the history.  Your entire premise is BS.  No invasion was necessary.
> 
> Try to understand that Japan was defeated before the bombs were dropped. The war was over.  All we needed to do was go home.
Click to expand...


You are a truly SPECIAL kind of stupid!


----------



## regent

STATISTICS OF JAPANESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER



> *Chapter 3*
> *Statistics Of*
> *Japanese Democide*
> *Estimates, Calculations, And Sources**
> *By R.J. Rummel*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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).


[/QUOTE]


JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it was any of their business, but I wonder how the American people felt in 1945  about the dropping of the bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the same way they felt about rounding up 110,000 Japanese Americans and putting them in concentration camps.
Click to expand...

Yes, the American people were quite concerned about the Japanese in America at the time and two thirds on the West Coast were indeed citizens, but we didn't take too many chances at that time. Amazing for a concentration camp, however, for the inmates to go on strike, maybe we don't run the correct type of concentration camps?


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
> Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books?



Naw, I just got bored trying to reason with a crazy person...  You really need to get back on your medication

simply put, you are crazy as an outhouse rat and not really worth talking to.


----------



## Jarlaxle

whitehall said:


> The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.



An invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath the likes of which have never been seen  Hundreds of thousands of Americans and *millions* of Japanese would have died.  Also, the winter of 1945-46 would have had a mass famine...even with American supplies, it was a lean winter.


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> Yes, the American people were quite concerned about the Japanese in America at the time and two thirds on the West Coast were indeed citizens, but we didn't take too many chances at that time. Amazing for a concentration camp, however, for the inmates to go on strike, maybe we don't run the correct type of concentration camps?



Well, no, the problem is that we interchangeably use the terms "concentration camp" (where people are rounded up and held against their will) with "Death Camp" (Where people are systematically exterminated.) 

And, no, locking up people for who their ancestors were because we were scared was just wrong. Period. 

Dropping an atomic bomb on a country that was already defeated was just wrong.  Period.  

In our defense, the whole world was doing a whole lot of wrong at that point.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> An invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath the likes of which have never been seen Hundreds of thousands of Americans and *millions* of Japanese would have died. Also, the winter of 1945-46 would have had a mass famine...even with American supplies, it was a lean winter.



But there wouldn't have been an invasion, that's the point.


----------



## Jarlaxle

kflaux said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with nearly all this, but the J had begun efforts to discuss peace before FDR's demise, IIRC, via another country other than the Soviets. Switzerland perhaps.
> 
> More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...


Initially, because nobody had the stones to do so.  Later, because of MAD.



> After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.
> 
> Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?
> 
> Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.



Pyongyang should have vanished under a mushroom cloud the day they invaded South Korea.



> The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible.
> 
> That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



More died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in BOTH atomic bomb attacks combined.  Spare us your false outrage.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> MacArthur did not like the bomb? Care to back that up like you were not able to back up your Eisenhower claims?



do you promise to take your meds if I find you a quote, or are you going to just post more screenshots of pages of books?  

Because I'm kind of done with you and apparently so is everyone else.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the American people were quite concerned about the Japanese in America at the time and two thirds on the West Coast were indeed citizens, but we didn't take too many chances at that time. Amazing for a concentration camp, however, for the inmates to go on strike, maybe we don't run the correct type of concentration camps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, the problem is that we interchangeably use the terms "concentration camp" (where people are rounded up and held against their will) with "Death Camp" (Where people are systematically exterminated.)
> 
> And, no, locking up people for who their ancestors were because we were scared was just wrong. Period.
> 
> Dropping an atomic bomb on a country that was already defeated was just wrong.  Period.
> 
> In our defense, the whole world was doing a whole lot of wrong at that point.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Theowl32 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you would have rather had a long drawn out war with the USSR?
> 
> Again, this had nothing to do with defeating Japan but getting the USSR to back off of their intentions. Which was taking Japan, who was all too willing where they could save face through propaganda.
> 
> The USSR and the USA were officially in a cold war since the Yalta conference which was in February of 1945. You get that or not? That was BEFORE the official end of WWii. BEFORE THE END of WWII.
> 
> Stalin, from all evidence, was an absolute megalomaniac and he was bullying is way into the far east with the absolute desire to control those valuable trade routes (mainly for oil).
> 
> So, the bombs were for preventing a long drawn out campaign with the USSR. There were no choices.
> 
> Wait, here were the choices. You are president. Which one do you opt for?
> 
> 1. Allow Japan to just surrender to Stalin and allow Stalin to dominate the entire region for who knows how long. After, young Americans had just died. How would you justify that to the American people?
> 
> 2. Declare war on the USSR and carry on a long drawn out war with Stalin. It may have worked considering the USA had such a logistical advantage considering ALL of the factories were in working order, and our hardware was in the region already. Of course, we would have went it alone, considering England would not have agreed to join us and the American people would have been crushed knowing that we just ended WWII. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died.
> 
> 3. Drop the bomb, and get the USSR to back off of the notion of getting Japan to surrender to them. When they did not call the bluff after Hiroshima, they certainly got it after Nagasaki. As a result, Japan surrenders to the US and we prevent a long war with the USSR.
> 
> Those are your choices. What do you do?
> 
> The timeline.
> 
> February 8th.... The official cold war begins with the USSR at the Conference of Yalta.
> 
> August 6th the bomb is dropped on Hiroshima.
> 
> August 8th..USSR declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
> 
> August 9th Second bomb is dropped and the Japanese agree with surrender UNCONDITIONALLY on the Missouri.
> 
> What, do you do?
Click to expand...


4. Little Boy on Japan, Fat Man on Moscow.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Already provided the link the Japanese Government had no intention of surrendering. All they offered was a cease fire in place and a return to Japan of all her lost territory, no disarmament , no end to the war in China, no occupation. They continued to make those demands after one Atomic bomb and attempted a Coup when the Emperor over rode them after the second Bomb.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the American people were quite concerned about the Japanese in America at the time and two thirds on the West Coast were indeed citizens, but we didn't take too many chances at that time. Amazing for a concentration camp, however, for the inmates to go on strike, maybe we don't run the correct type of concentration camps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, the problem is that we interchangeably use the terms "concentration camp" (where people are rounded up and held against their will) with "Death Camp" (Where people are systematically exterminated.)
> 
> And, no, locking up people for who their ancestors were because we were scared was just wrong. Period.
> 
> Dropping an atomic bomb on a country that was already defeated was just wrong.  Period.
> 
> In our defense, the whole world was doing a whole lot of wrong at that point.[/QUOTE
> It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?
Click to expand...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japan wanted and intended to surrender all it had to do was surrender. It didn't have to go through the USSR or make noises about surrendering; just put up a white flag and it was over. With Hirohito letting his military leaders continue the war while they negotiated with each other as to surrender or not surrender meant the war continued. Somebody in Japan should have been in charge,
> The bottom line is that a couple of days after the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered. The two bombs and  Hirohito saying we should surrender seemed to have done the deed even as the military continued to argue.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think this justifies using the a-bombs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the fire-bombing didn't seem to be doing the trick so the A bombs were used and bingo  a couple days later the Japanese surrendered. While today it may seem old hat, but at the time many Americans were worried more about the loss of American lives and not so much Japanese lives. But, even-so, how many lives, Japanese and American, were spared because of the surrender? As I said it was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not believe that is accurate.  By the time of the bombings, little fighting was occurring.  Japan had no air force or navy left and the army was in tatters.
> 
> It is a fallacy that the bombs saved American lives and a terrible insult that it saved Japanese lives.  The US had no need to invade the mainland...and for that matter, Okinawa too.  Why did the US need to occupy a defeated nation...other than to appease the warmongers???  The war was over.  The US won and most of Japan was in ruins.  All Truman had to do was accept the one condition and Japan surrenders...thus saving the lives of thousands of innocent women and children.   Truman chose to murder those women and children and THEN accept the one condition.  No greater war crime has ever been committed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of imagination and opinions based on faulty data. The Japanese had troops spread out all over Asia that were being recalled to fight off an invasion. We learned during the battle at Okinawa that they employed a tactic of disassembling aircraft and hiding them in the countryside. Many of the 1500 Kamikazes from Formosa that fought at Okinawa were these hidden aircraft. The Japanese had another 7000 of these aircraft in reserve in preparation for the invasion. In addition they had a fleet of 5000 suicide boats prepared.
> What this theory of not attacking Okinawa when we did would have done was give Japan time to refurbish, retrain, reinforce and prepare for the coming invasion. There is no evidence or indication that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the bombs. The only feasible alternative would have been the continued use of fire bombing of cities and inflicting even more casualties than the atomic bombs caused. If Japan knew we were out of bombs and were unable to strike another city they would not have surrendered.
> The Japanese surrendered because the Emperor believed another atomic bomb was on the way and it was going to be aimed at him.
Click to expand...


There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs.  That's it.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa was a home island of Japan, populated by Japanese....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was. If you want to inform on the history of the Ryuku Kingdom and control of the islands go ahead. The island was a possession of the Japanese since 1872 and they had voting rights for the Japanese Diet. It was technically a part of Japan and while it's citizens were multicultural, they were Japanese citizens.
Click to expand...


Don't bother...he's just not that bright.


----------



## Jarlaxle

gipper said:


> So...you justify the a-bombs, thus killing huge numbers of defenseless civilians, because the Japanese government would not surrender.  I think your justification is immoral, unethical, and tyrannical.
> 
> I see little difference between the Nazi death camps and the Rape of Nanking, to what Truman did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



Then you have a grasp on reality that is, at best, tenuous.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
> Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I just got bored trying to reason with a crazy person...  You really need to get back on your medication
> 
> simply put, you are crazy as an outhouse rat and not really worth talking to.
Click to expand...


Too many wasted words, Joey...you should just have posted the Joey-to-English translation: "I concede."


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> [
> It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?


[

My dad was in WWII as a medic.  He was at Normandy and the battle of the bulge and his unit liberated Nordhausen.  

And, yes, most people knew Japan was defeated by the summer of 1945.  They simply had no ships or planes left.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs. That's it.



Or just telling the Japanese they could keep their Emperor, which is what we ended up doing anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
> Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I just got bored trying to reason with a crazy person...  You really need to get back on your medication
> 
> simply put, you are crazy as an outhouse rat and not really worth talking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many wasted words, Joey...you should just have posted the Joey-to-English translation: "I concede."
Click to expand...


Why should I.  I proved that most of the military men of the time disagreed with the decision to nuke Japan.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> My dad was in WWII as a medic.  He was at Normandy and the battle of the bulge and his unit liberated Nordhausen.
> 
> And, yes, most people knew Japan was defeated by the summer of 1945.  They simply had no ships or planes left.
Click to expand...

Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat.  We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.


----------



## kflaux

Jarlaxle said:


> kflaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> Initially, because nobody had the stones to do so.  Later, because of MAD.
Click to expand...

Then tell us why Nixon didn't nuke VN and/or Cambodia.



> After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.
> 
> Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?
> 
> Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pyongyang should have vanished under a mushroom cloud the day they invaded South Korea.
Click to expand...

So you're a psychopath who gets off on murdering innocent civilians. Good to know.



> The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible.
> 
> That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in BOTH atomic bomb attacks combined.  Spare us your false outrage.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Around 100k to 125k died in the Tokyo firebombings. Less than at Hiroshima, more than at Nagasaki.

And unlike you, I expect, I have been to the museum in Tokyo dedicated to the Tokyo firebombings.

Doesn't affect my point, except in the mind of a logic-challenged pinhead.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most likely, I see you have ran from your post on Eisenhower, is that because your source factually wrong, or was it because the source literally, left the middle of the quote, out, thus cherry picking.
> Or is it because you can not google, as fast as I can post facts from Eisenhower's books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I just got bored trying to reason with a crazy person...  You really need to get back on your medication
> 
> simply put, you are crazy as an outhouse rat and not really worth talking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many wasted words, Joey...you should just have posted the Joey-to-English translation: "I concede."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I.  I proved that most of the military men of the time disagreed with the decision to nuke Japan.
Click to expand...

Because you say its really fast, with google?

Most Military men of the time, had no idea that we were going to Nuke Japan, hence your premise is false.

At the least, you can prove the assertions you claim are true. Eisenhower was too easy for me, lets move onto MacArthur, who you state opposed using a Nuke on Japan. Was it June 12th or July 12th, that MacArthur stated Japan's Mainland must be attacked? Its a question I know the answer to, and will post the exact page from MacArthur's book, as in a book MacArthur wrote. 

But as you say, "google is fast", so while I go take pics of pages from MacArthur's book, go ahead and "google", what you believe.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan, poor Japanese people killed by the most powerful weapon created at that time. The Japanese were brutal barbarians, bayoneting pregnant Chinese woman for fun in Nanking, as well as the deviant torture of teenage boys in Burma. Nasty Barbarians, even sent pictures home to Mom and Dad to published in the local papers. Proud the Japanese were in the torture and barbaric murders they committed as "Samurai" soldiers.
> 
> Those who talk of the Japanese surrender should read history, at best the government of Japan was divided, with the military very much in control. That the Emperor surrendered is a great story of the war, a must read. It was not so simple to surrender, those who tried faced the real threat of being killed, the government was more than the Emperor, it also consisted of the Military Command, who were not going to surrender, and literally fought against the Emperor surrendering.
> 
> maybe this was said already, lots of posts here.
> 
> anyhow, on a high note I will just add;
> 
> Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese Officer to Surrender, in 1974.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since the Japanese military committed brutal acts, the US was justified in incinerating thousands of their women and children...who had no say and no involvement in the heinous acts of their military.
> 
> Not logical and terribly barbaric.
Click to expand...

"Not logical", I would describe gimpper's reducing the War against the Japanese aggressors to one sentence as, ILLOGICAL, versus, "not logical".


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> It's too bad you weren't here to assure those GI's slated for Olympia and Coronet that Japan was already defeated. Had Japan only known they were defeated it would have saved some anxiety on their parts. Incidentally when did you declare Japan defeated and were the Japanese surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> My dad was in WWII as a medic.  He was at Normandy and the battle of the bulge and his unit liberated Nordhausen.
> 
> And, yes, most people knew Japan was defeated by the summer of 1945.  They simply had no ships or planes left.
Click to expand...

Now you have resorted to, flat out lies. 

No ships or planes left in the summer of 1945, then how did the single biggest lost of the U.S. Navy occur on July 30th, 1945.

I hope you are simply a liar, I hate to think people are so stupid, while at the same time they claim they know so much because GOOGLE TELLS THEM EVERYTHING, FAST!


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs.  That's it.




That was not "it."


----------



## elektra

kflaux said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with nearly all this, but the J had begun efforts to discuss peace before FDR's demise, IIRC, via another country other than the Soviets. Switzerland perhaps.
> 
> More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons.
> 
> After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.
> 
> Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?
> 
> Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.
> 
> 
> 
> The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible.
> 
> That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

Your idea that the innocent must die, Americans, is ludicrous. 

How about the Rape of Nanking, do you really know what that was, the rape of 10 year old girls, than the ten year old girl was bayoneted, alive, a picture is then taken and sent home, to the proud parents (who go to work building bombs, bullets, or repairing the Japanese War Ships in Nagasaki), the parents then send the pic to the local paper for publication, as a hero.

Children in the United States of America should see their fathers die in a battle on the Japanese homeland? When we can stop the people who are the literal enemies of the United States of America? 

13 children died when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, without declaring War first. 

The Japanese "Men", raped murdered and children. In Burma the Japanese sexually tortured the children first, unless they were virgin girls, who were simply raped before they bayoneted them to death. 

Yes Japanese children died, after we warned the Japanese government we would completely destroy everything in Japan if they did not surrender, at that it took two atomic bombs, two cities, to stop the Japanese. 

The Japanese Army were literally raping and murdering children, all over China, to include Vietnam and Burma, when the bomb dropped on Nagasake, and kflaux believes these children must die a gruesome death, while we have the means to stop the rape and murder of children. 

The children of Burma, should they have been tortured sexually another 3 months, another 4 months? Should the children of those attacked by Japan die another 5 months, or should we prevent the Japanese from killing, murdering, raping, and torturing children as fast as humanly possible, or should allow the millions who were not Japanese, to simply die. 

The Japanese killed millions, how many on the day Nagasaki was bombed, who knows how many the Japanese killed that day, in China were they were pretty much unhindered. 

The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations engaged in acts of war, is a simple, legitimate, target.

Those who state otherwise, are, I am at a lost of words, you are scum, nothing more. 

Millions of Asian's died at the hands of the Japanese Army, literally. How many rapes were committed by the Japanese, rapes of minor children? Why must these hundreds of thousands, these millions, be murdered, raped, because kflaux has no understanding of the events which were happening. 

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the men of these two cities raped more children during war, than history has ever known. A literal World Record.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not "it."
Click to expand...

Or allow thousands upon thousands of children to continue to be raped and murdered by japanese soldeirs, daily.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not "it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or allow thousands upon thousands of children to continue to be raped and murdered by japanese soldeirs, daily.
Click to expand...



Your limitations are your own. The insistence on categorical statements does not erase the moral question you seem to want to avoid.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not "it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or allow thousands upon thousands of children to continue to be raped and murdered by japanese soldeirs, daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your limitations are your own. The insistence on categorical statements does not erase the moral question you seem to want to avoid.
Click to expand...


"Categorical statements", is that how you describe the rape and murder of children by the Japanese? By stating such, are you not erasing the morality involved in your ideology?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were three alternatives: a bloodbath of an invasion, using chemical weapons, or using the atomic bombs.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not "it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or allow thousands upon thousands of children to continue to be raped and murdered by japanese soldeirs, daily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your limitations are your own. The insistence on categorical statements does not erase the moral question you seem to want to avoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Categorical statements", is that how you describe the rape and murder of children by the Japanese?
Click to expand...


???

Uh...no.

Is English your first language?


----------



## Unkotare

Was Hiroshima Necessary


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.



Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed. 

And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.  

The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Now you have resorted to, flat out lies.
> 
> No ships or planes left in the summer of 1945, then how did the single biggest lost of the U.S. Navy occur on July 30th, 1945.
> 
> I hope you are simply a liar, I hate to think people are so stupid, while at the same time they claim they know so much because GOOGLE TELLS THEM EVERYTHING, FAST!



At that point in the war, the Japanese had no operational battleships, no operational carriers, and they were expendign the last of their planes as Kamikazes.  

Japan was defeated, and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of what the peace treaty was going to say. 

We refused to give them assurances on the Emperor, until the Russians got into the war, and it looked like they m ight get to Japan before we did.   Suddenly, we were totally cool with Hirohito!  Why, that poor man had nothing to do with the war.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Because you say its really fast, with google?
> 
> Most Military men of the time, had no idea that we were going to Nuke Japan, hence your premise is false.
> 
> At the least, you can prove the assertions you claim are true. Eisenhower was too easy for me, lets move onto MacArthur, who you state opposed using a Nuke on Japan. Was it June 12th or July 12th, that MacArthur stated Japan's Mainland must be attacked? Its a question I know the answer to, and will post the exact page from MacArthur's book, as in a book MacArthur wrote.
> 
> But as you say, "google is fast", so while I go take pics of pages from MacArthur's book, go ahead and "google", what you believe.



I'm not going to waste time talking to you because you are like, a crazy person.  

But Nuclear Weapons were not some fantastic secret that no one knew about.  They had been speculated about since the 1920's.  Scientists had published papers about them before the war. 

Now, go back to your crazy talk, no one is really interested in you anymore.


----------



## JoeB131

No one discusses this, but the real game changer was the entry of the USSR into the War.  

Russia and Japan signed a non-Aggression pact in 1941.  This freed up the Japanese to attack the US, and Russia to fight Germany.  

Once Germany had been defeated, Stalin could shift dozens of battle hardened divisions to the Pacific Theater. 

Because the Japanese were expecting the Americans to attack from the South, they had left their northern flanks completely exposed.  There were only two divisions stationed in Hokkaido, and they were dug in on the EASTERN coast.  

The Kwantung Army was overrun in a few weeks in Manchuria. 

But we Americans really, really need to beleive it was the A-bomb that made the difference.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the men of these two cities raped more children during war, than history has ever known. A literal World Record.



Proof? That aside, are you saying the civilians in those two cities were killed in revenge?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> The Japanese Army were literally raping and murdering children, all over China, to include Vietnam and Burma, when the bomb dropped on Nagasake [sic]....




Japanese forces in China were in retreat well before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Was Hiroshima Necessary


The truth means nothing to the statist.  To them, Truman was right to refuse Japan's surrender and use the a bombs on a defenseless nation.

By early 1945, American bombers flew uncontested over all of Japan.  Japan had been hallowed out and their people who we are told would all fight to the death, were starving and had no arms in which to fight an American invasion.  

The pentagon predicted 40k American deaths had we invaded....then Truman made up the fictitious number of 500k deaths, after he murdered women and children with the two a bombs...merely to justify his heinous actions.  Amazingly millions of Americans still believe this lie.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> kflaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only argument that the pro-nukers have left is that lots of Americans would have been killed in the invasion of Japan. Can any reasonable sane human really defend that argument? Evidence, that's right, freaking evidence indicates that the Japanese were so desperate to negotiate surrender terms that they turned to Stalin when the idiot that democrats had appointed to succeed FDR seemed clueless. The hangup for surrender negotiations was the promise not to execute the Japanese emperor but Truman was bound by his dead boss's mandate of unconditional surrender and refused to negotiate terms while Stalin was lying to the Japanese about liberal terms of surrender. It's ironic but the one thing the Japanese surrender terms hinged on was authorized after Truman signed off on the incineration of two Japanese cities full of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with nearly all this, but the J had begun efforts to discuss peace before FDR's demise, IIRC, via another country other than the Soviets. Switzerland perhaps.
> 
> More importantly...those of you who think nuking Japan was a good idea need to explain to the rest of us why the US has never again used nuclear weapons.
> 
> After all, we have lost other wars since then. Vietnam most prominently.
> 
> Why was it A-O-K in August 1945, but not in the late 60's?
> 
> Or for that matter in N Korea, Iraq, Syria etc.
> 
> 
> 
> The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations was and is morally indefensible.
> 
> That's true whether we're talking about the Rape of Nanking, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your idea that the innocent must die, Americans, is ludicrous.
> 
> How about the Rape of Nanking, do you really know what that was, the rape of 10 year old girls, than the ten year old girl was bayoneted, alive, a picture is then taken and sent home, to the proud parents (who go to work building bombs, bullets, or repairing the Japanese War Ships in Nagasaki), the parents then send the pic to the local paper for publication, as a hero.
> 
> Children in the United States of America should see their fathers die in a battle on the Japanese homeland? When we can stop the people who are the literal enemies of the United States of America?
> 
> 13 children died when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, without declaring War first.
> 
> The Japanese "Men", raped murdered and children. In Burma the Japanese sexually tortured the children first, unless they were virgin girls, who were simply raped before they bayoneted them to death.
> 
> Yes Japanese children died, after we warned the Japanese government we would completely destroy everything in Japan if they did not surrender, at that it took two atomic bombs, two cities, to stop the Japanese.
> 
> The Japanese Army were literally raping and murdering children, all over China, to include Vietnam and Burma, when the bomb dropped on Nagasake, and kflaux believes these children must die a gruesome death, while we have the means to stop the rape and murder of children.
> 
> The children of Burma, should they have been tortured sexually another 3 months, another 4 months? Should the children of those attacked by Japan die another 5 months, or should we prevent the Japanese from killing, murdering, raping, and torturing children as fast as humanly possible, or should allow the millions who were not Japanese, to simply die.
> 
> The Japanese killed millions, how many on the day Nagasaki was bombed, who knows how many the Japanese killed that day, in China were they were pretty much unhindered.
> 
> The wholesale slaughter of civilian populations engaged in acts of war, is a simple, legitimate, target.
> 
> Those who state otherwise, are, I am at a lost of words, you are scum, nothing more.
> 
> Millions of Asian's died at the hands of the Japanese Army, literally. How many rapes were committed by the Japanese, rapes of minor children? Why must these hundreds of thousands, these millions, be murdered, raped, because kflaux has no understanding of the events which were happening.
> 
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the men of these two cities raped more children during war, than history has ever known. A literal World Record.
Click to expand...

Again...you justify the a bombs because the Japanese military committed atrocities...and you claim I am illogical.

Using the a bombs can never be justified.  Murdering defenseless civilians because of the acts of their military, of which they had no control, is not only illogical it is psychopathic.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
Click to expand...


At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
Cam anyone answer these questions:
Did Japan believe she could defeat America? 
If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.




= the desperate irrationality of someone who can't support his argument but lacks the character to admit it and move on.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
Click to expand...


No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.  

Why is this so difficult to understand?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the men of these two cities raped more children during war, than history has ever known. A literal World Record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof? That aside, are you saying the civilians in those two cities were killed in revenge?
Click to expand...

So what was Japans strategy for the war?


gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Let us start with basics: Did Japan believe she could defeat America in a war?


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...


Where the heck do you get your estimates of Japanese military strength? They had moved over 500,000 combat hardened troops to Kyushu by July '45 in preparation for an invasion.


----------



## boedicca

The answer is yes.   James Taylor wasn't old enough to be sent in to sing "You've Gotta Friend" to Emperor Hirohito.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...


I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight. 

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today? 

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong. 

And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.


----------



## Camp

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
Click to expand...

How dare you approach this topic in a balanced and objective fashion!


----------



## ThirdTerm

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relatively small provincial cities and the sacrifices made by civilians in these cities saved the nation from an American invasion which would have killed up to 1 million civilians on the ground. The Soviet troops were also on the verge of invading Japan from the north and without the atomic bombs, Japan could have been split in two and the Soviet Union could have occupied the northern half of Japan. Soviet Russia would have created a puppet state called North Japan to impose Communist rule and Japan would not have been as prosperous as it is now, reduced to an insignificant Asian country like South Korea. Moreover, Imperial Japan was responsible for killing as many Chinese civilians as those who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan is in no position to complain about the dropping of the atomic bombs as atrocities were committed by both sides during the war.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
Click to expand...

The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?


----------



## Syriusly

Camp said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare you approach this topic an a balanced and objective fashion!
Click to expand...


Sometimes I wonder if the people who are so appalled by dropping the atomic Bombs have never even heard of the Tokyo fire bombings?


gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
> Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?
Click to expand...


I thought I was pretty clear about what my point was. 

I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.

First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.

Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.

Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?

World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. *We did more right than wrong.*


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?
Click to expand...

Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How dare you approach this topic an a balanced and objective fashion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if the people who are so appalled by dropping the atomic Bombs have never even heard of the Tokyo fire bombings?
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
> Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I was pretty clear about what my point was.
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. *We did more right than wrong.*
Click to expand...

Killing civilians on a vast scale can't be justified now or then. 
How do we learn from history if we can't analyze and make conclusions on actions taken?  Because decades have passed we can't condemn...I think not.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
> And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?
Click to expand...

Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To All The Above:
> 
> Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Have you failed to learn* war is the health of the state?  *
> 
> You want links....here they are.  I dare you to read them.
> Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html
> Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Did FDR Plan the Attack on Pearl Harbor
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues 8211 LewRockwell.com
> The Arthur McCollum Memorandum
> How To Start a War The American Use of War Pretext Incidents 8211 LewRockwell.com
> Man of Blood 8211 LewRockwell.com
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html
> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
> How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin. thisisyourgovernment
> More Articles on Pearl Harbor
> 
> Read these books PLEASE:
> Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
> Amazon.com The Roosevelt Myth 50th Anniversary Edition 9780930073275 John T. Flynn Ralph Raico Books
> Stalin s Secret Agents The Subversion of Roosevelt s Government M. Stanton Evans Herbert Romerstein 9781439147702 Amazon.com Books
> 
> 
> 
> The use of "links", from a google is a "fool's errand".
> 
> Why not quote or paraphrase something you think makes your point, that would at least indicate you know a bit more than a google search on your ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn....I have posted on this subject repeatedly since I have been here.  Sorry you missed my prior posts.
> 
> And I posted links because another poster asked for them.
> 
> These links lead to articles from many experts.  You would be wise to read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my experience, those who use Google, like its a deck of cards, are simply playing go fish.
> I thought of what you said while I was away, that most likely you quoted or was more specific. Still, so many people simply think a Google search that gives them results is somehow proof or confirmation of their particular ideology.
> 
> Yes, you posted the links cause someone asked for them, yet you proceeded the links with the comment;
> "To All The Above: Please educate yourselves and stop believing the lies of the State."
> 
> Here is a pic of most the books that are relevant to the topic at hand. Have you read, "The Rape of Nanking", certainly tells much of the character of the enemy we faced. Seems I forgot to include my stuff about Burma, where the Japanese tortured and maimed teenager's genitals and such, until the young teenage died, I am talking 13 year old boys and girls. Pretty gruesome enemy we faced.
> 
> How about that stuff about Stimson, or the Secretary of State at the time.
> 
> But I kind of like the books, Hirohito or The Rising Sun. Quotes directly from the highest ranking Japanese officials, very relevant. How about the Battle for Okinawa, another good source, or how about Gunther's book.
> 
> Did you notice the open book, its old, 1928 is when it was written, I should confirm that, it may be a bit newer, I say stuff written before the War is very insightful.
> 
> Still, all that stuff on or from Stimson, he was the expert on Asia.
> 
> John Gunther's book is useful as well.
> 
> So, to me, links mean next to nothing, mostly they are of other people's opinion.
> 
> Japan, did we really have to nuke Japan?
> No, not at all.
> Unconditional Surrender? What did that mean, leaving the Japanese in Control of the areas of China they controlled? Leaving the Japanese in Control of Vietnam, Burma? All of Indochina?
> 
> Read, The Rising Sun or Hirohito, and one realizes Japan was not ever, surrendering. But as it happened in History, they did Surrender, the most difficult part of the Emperor Surrendering was the Emperor had to fight against the Army, the Emperor literally had to do much in secret, as to not to be murdered those within the Emperor's government who would not ever allow Surrender.
> 
> It was only after Nagasaki was destroyed that the Emperor fought against the Japanese military command, and surrendered, risking his life and others, in doing so.
> 
> Japan was never united in Surrender, conditionally or unconditionally. Overtures to Communist Russia, far short of a surrender.
> 
> Quote your best source, I will easily counter, more than one book, first though, direct quotes from the Japanese who were in charge, in command. Who better to speak, than the Japanese.
> 
> View attachment 35866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your library is extremely limited.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

I state I own 1400 books, sucks for you, right, people who actually know more than you. I own the books you and the like of you indirectly quote from using google. 

Care to tell me of a quote in which I do not OWN THE BOOK! 

Go ahead, google search, quote, selectively pick your "search parameters", I will go to the original source which I most likely own, take a pic, and quote the whole page or as much as it takes to capture the relevant. 

I see you had to ignore and not address the facts I have presented. Instead you attack me. 

I may go back and read your posts, it takes a little more time to be right, versus a quick google search. I have not forgot that there is post you addressed to me with maybe something in it, I just got tied up in the quick and easy, discrediting the Eisenhower and MacArthur post.

So, feel free to challenge my, "Library", with whatever your limited knowledge can think to type into your Google search bar.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, Owl, Josef Stalin is hiding under your bed right now!
> 
> The reality is the bombs were probably not that big of a deal.
> 
> Let's look at the sequence of events.
> 
> Japan knows it's defeated, they start putting out feelers about a surrender.  The sticking point is that the US won't commit to retaining Hirohito as _tenyo_ (Emperor)
> 
> Then we drop the bombs, but we had been bombing Japan for months at that point, and conventional bombs were killing far more people.
> 
> When the USSR entered the war, it changed a bunch of things.
> 
> 1) Stalin wasn't going to mediate between Japan and the Allies.
> 2) The Red Army was quickly rolling up the Japanese Army on the mainland.
> 3) If the war dragged on, Japan would be partitioned like Germany and Austria were.
> 
> That's why Japan surrendered.  The game changer was not another weapon, but the fact that the balance of power across the theatre had drastically turned against them.


"The game changer was not another weapon,........"

Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast. 

So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
> Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?
Click to expand...

Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.

Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army". 

A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.


----------



## Camp

elektra said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Owl, Josef Stalin is hiding under your bed right now!
> 
> The reality is the bombs were probably not that big of a deal.
> 
> Let's look at the sequence of events.
> 
> Japan knows it's defeated, they start putting out feelers about a surrender.  The sticking point is that the US won't commit to retaining Hirohito as _tenyo_ (Emperor)
> 
> Then we drop the bombs, but we had been bombing Japan for months at that point, and conventional bombs were killing far more people.
> 
> When the USSR entered the war, it changed a bunch of things.
> 
> 1) Stalin wasn't going to mediate between Japan and the Allies.
> 2) The Red Army was quickly rolling up the Japanese Army on the mainland.
> 3) If the war dragged on, Japan would be partitioned like Germany and Austria were.
> 
> That's why Japan surrendered.  The game changer was not another weapon, but the fact that the balance of power across the theatre had drastically turned against them.
> 
> 
> 
> "The game changer was not another weapon,........"
> 
> Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast.
> 
> So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.
Click to expand...


Surely with historian heavyweights like Lew Rockwell and James Perloff in his library he can answer these questions.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
> And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.



I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible. 



regent said:


> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.



No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty. 

Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. 

They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other. 

By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast.
> 
> So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.



When are you going to return to taking your medications?  Your doctor and I are concerned.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
> And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...

Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
> Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.
> 
> Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".
> 
> A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.
Click to expand...

You need to research conditions in Japan.  Do not check your limited library.  Try Google.
Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe posters seventy years later had the power and certainly not the information to decide whether America did not have to invade Japan. The Japanese were waiting for the invasion and had prepared defenses. Did the Japanese believe they would accomplish anything by defending Kyushu and Honshu? If they did, the war would continue, if not, the war was over. So did the Japanese believe at that time that they would gain by their defense against invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain why the USA needed to invade Japan?
> And why does it matter that Japan was preparing for an invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan had an advanced WMD program that focused on biological weapons. They also had the means to deliver these weapons. Not only did they have at least 40 submarines hidden away, they had experimented and successfully tested weapons delivery with balloons. The combination made it possible to deliver biological weapons anywhere in the continental USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.
Click to expand...

Again you resort to justifying mass murder of civilians.
Truman never used that explanation so it is you reaching.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, if that is true, you should easily be able to quote the Japanese Emperor. And where is your link? Are you not the one who said using Google give you an advantage because its so fast.
> 
> So prove your contentions. I will likely return with quotes from books, to show the ignorance of another of joeb131's posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to return to taking your medications?  Your doctor and I are concerned.
Click to expand...

Poor Baby, you give up on your "fast" Google searches? 

I do not blame you, many weak minded resort to insults, its simply that you have not the intellect to support those idiotic ideas, others planted in your weak mind.

Eisenhower supported the dropping the Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Eisenhower goes as far as to reference Stimson's book, which I took the time to photograph and post, this contradicted your statement and calls into question the ".com" you linked to. 

After a couple simple posts, JoeB131 is so dumbfounded, the response of JoeB131's is simply flames and trolls.

MacArthur, Did you ever link to anything MacArthur stated? MacArthur literally stated Japan's Homeland must be attacked. Was that July or June, go ahead and Google.

You also mentioned Leahy? Yes, Leahy stated that the A-Bomb would be a dud, would not explode. Care to tackle Leahy, who you, joeb131 referenced?

I see many loose ends of Joeb131, and after a couple quotes and pics of the books I own, joeb131 decided the only argument left, is to hurl insults. 

Thank you so much for another opportunity, to state the facts, everyone agreed that Japan's Homeland must be attacked and destroyed, to secure a surrender.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
> Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.
> 
> Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".
> 
> A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to research conditions in Japan.  Do not check your limited library.  Try Google.
> Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?
Click to expand...

So know you acknowledge that Japanese civilians were active, supporting the war, thank you.

Google? Google is not a source, not at all, the idea that Google can give you an answer in a second is pure stupidity, not even what I would call ignorance. 

My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google, specifically because I have bought my books to address this topic specifically. I do not contend all 1400 books are specifically about the bombing of Japan. But a nice proportion of my books were bought specifically to read what you and others literally were quoting. 

I have thus far proved that in my previous posts, your chirping like a parrot does not deminish the books I own that you quote through Google.

So once again, go ahead and challenge what you flame, my library. 

You got google, go ahead, run your fingers, come up with something and I will quote the books directly, if I find I have not the particular book, I guarantee I will find the relevant material, and buy it.

Japanese civilians working on Munitions and Armaments is a legitimate target. Thank you for confirming they were not at home knitting socks.


----------



## JoeB131

Camp said:


> Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.



Except the Japanese didn't have such a weapon. Not even close. Japan was effectively crippled.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Poor Baby, you give up on your "fast" Google searches?



No, I gave up on trying to have a sane conversation with an obviously crazy person. 



elektra said:


> My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google,



Yeah, okay.  Frankly, you sound like the equivlent to a crazy cat lady, wiht books instead of cats...


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the folks tasked with defending the nation didn't want to wait until the Japanese decided to use such a weapon. They may have determined it was best to knock them out of the war before they had the chance to use these weapons. Just one more reason not to allow the war to drag out and finish it quick when the weapons to do so became available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Japanese didn't have such a weapon. Not even close. Japan was effectively crippled.
Click to expand...

The Japanese launched about 9,000 balloon bombs. About 350 were confirmed to have reached the USA. Six US citizens were killed by one in Oregon. One was found in British Colombia recently. Just because they used explosives and didn't combine their balloon operations with Unit 731's biological warfare programs doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't have.


----------



## HenryBHough

Pity there were only two prototype bombs available at the time else the obstacle to navigation that is Japan might have been cleared.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, the Japanese they knew  that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
Click to expand...

They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that  was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.


JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
Click to expand...

The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.



Uh huh. Okay, realizing that this isn't the 'Let's bash Japan thread", but the "Was dropping the bombs needed thread", if the Japanese didn't care about human life, then dropping the bombs was kind of meaningless.  

The big game changer was the USSR entering the war.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
> Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.
> 
> Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".
> 
> A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to research conditions in Japan.  Do not check your limited library.  Try Google.
> Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So know you acknowledge that Japanese civilians were active, supporting the war, thank you.
> 
> Google? Google is not a source, not at all, the idea that Google can give you an answer in a second is pure stupidity, not even what I would call ignorance.
> 
> My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google, specifically because I have bought my books to address this topic specifically. I do not contend all 1400 books are specifically about the bombing of Japan. But a nice proportion of my books were bought specifically to read what you and others literally were quoting.
> 
> I have thus far proved that in my previous posts, your chirping like a parrot does not deminish the books I own that you quote through Google.
> 
> So once again, go ahead and challenge what you flame, my library.
> 
> You got google, go ahead, run your fingers, come up with something and I will quote the books directly, if I find I have not the particular book, I guarantee I will find the relevant material, and buy it.
> 
> Japanese civilians working on Munitions and Armaments is a legitimate target. Thank you for confirming they were not at home knitting socks.
Click to expand...

I get it.  I are an advocate of total wa


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, the Japanese they knew  that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that  was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.
Click to expand...



Demonstrating once again you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Okay, realizing that this isn't the 'Let's bash Japan thread", but the "Was dropping the bombs needed thread", if the Japanese didn't care about human life, then dropping the bombs was kind of meaningless.
> 
> The big game changer was the USSR entering the war.
Click to expand...

Read Hirohito's surrender message, it might be pretty honest and accurate.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have resorted to, flat out lies.
> 
> No ships or planes left in the summer of 1945, then how did the single biggest lost of the U.S. Navy occur on July 30th, 1945.
> 
> I hope you are simply a liar, I hate to think people are so stupid, while at the same time they claim they know so much because GOOGLE TELLS THEM EVERYTHING, FAST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that point in the war, the Japanese had no operational battleships, no operational carriers, and they were expendign the last of their planes as Kamikazes.
> 
> Japan was defeated, and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of what the peace treaty was going to say.
> 
> We refused to give them assurances on the Emperor, until the Russians got into the war, and it looked like they m ight get to Japan before we did.   Suddenly, we were totally cool with Hirohito!  Why, that poor man had nothing to do with the war.
Click to expand...

Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.

Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?

Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.

Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.


----------



## gipper

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of quarterbacking from more than 60 years later- based upon what we know now and how we feel now about the atomic bomb.
> 
> First of all- of all the things we did to Japanese civilians- the atomic bombs certainly do not rank as the highest- not even close to the firebombing of Tokyo.
> 
> Second- there is no question in my mind that based upon the perspective of the American leaders at that time- they believed that an invasion of Japan was a necessity, and that they believed- correctly- that Japan would continue to fight.
> 
> Did we need to drop the atomic bomb? Of course not- heck we didn't even NEED to defend the Pacific. But did all of the decisions that were made then result in the modern Japan that we have today?
> 
> World War 2 was a terrible tragedy for millions- but looking back 60 years- Japan came out of it as a vibrant Democracy and ally of the West. We did more right than wrong.
> 
> And by the way- there is no side in any war that did not do something wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is about the use of A bombs.  Of course I also find the mass bombings of Japanese and German civilians heinous.
> Are you justifying mass murder of Japanese civilians because Japan became an ally and a democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass Murder of Civilians? Civilians who just happened to work making Bombs and Bullets, fixing Warships. Civilians who just happened to surround the areas that had factories that made the Bayonets the Japanese were using on Pregnant Chinese Woman or making the Ball Bearings needed to keep the Japanese War Machine killing.
> 
> Japan as a united nation attacked and began the War, it was not simply, "The Army".
> 
> A nation at War is the target, not simply a "pill box", on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to research conditions in Japan.  Do not check your limited library.  Try Google.
> Do you know what happened to Japanese civilians who refused to support the war effort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So know you acknowledge that Japanese civilians were active, supporting the war, thank you.
> 
> Google? Google is not a source, not at all, the idea that Google can give you an answer in a second is pure stupidity, not even what I would call ignorance.
> 
> My Library of some 1400 books is far greater a source than Google, specifically because I have bought my books to address this topic specifically. I do not contend all 1400 books are specifically about the bombing of Japan. But a nice proportion of my books were bought specifically to read what you and others literally were quoting.
> 
> I have thus far proved that in my previous posts, your chirping like a parrot does not deminish the books I own that you quote through Google.
> 
> So once again, go ahead and challenge what you flame, my library.
> 
> You got google, go ahead, run your fingers, come up with something and I will quote the books directly, if I find I have not the particular book, I guarantee I will find the relevant material, and buy it.
> 
> Japanese civilians working on Munitions and Armaments is a legitimate target. Thank you for confirming they were not at home knitting socks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it.  I are an advocate of total wa
Click to expand...


What I meant to post, but my phone keyboard was acting screwy is...

I get it. You are an advocate of total war, except when it happens to you.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, the Japanese they knew  that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that  was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.
Click to expand...


No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.

What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military.  

Why is this disputed, when the evidence is clear?  Could it be we Americans pride ourselves on being fair and just, and refuse to accept the truth?  The massive bombings of civilian areas in Japan and Germany was clearly heinous.  We must accept the truth and never let our leaders commit such acts again...wishful thinking....see Iraq War.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have resorted to, flat out lies.
> 
> No ships or planes left in the summer of 1945, then how did the single biggest lost of the U.S. Navy occur on July 30th, 1945.
> 
> I hope you are simply a liar, I hate to think people are so stupid, while at the same time they claim they know so much because GOOGLE TELLS THEM EVERYTHING, FAST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that point in the war, the Japanese had no operational battleships, no operational carriers, and they were expendign the last of their planes as Kamikazes.
> 
> Japan was defeated, and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of what the peace treaty was going to say.
> 
> We refused to give them assurances on the Emperor, until the Russians got into the war, and it looked like they m ight get to Japan before we did.   Suddenly, we were totally cool with Hirohito!  Why, that poor man had nothing to do with the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
Click to expand...

Since Japan committed very few acts of war, late in the war, Truman was right to incinerate thousands of defenseless civilians with massive aerial bombings and the use of the A bombs.

Is that your point?


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.



Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, the Japanese they knew  that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that  was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.
> 
> What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military...
Click to expand...


You just fabricated that to support your bogus conclusions. There is no evidence that the Japanese were anything but enthusiastic supporters of war.


----------



## SAYIT

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
Click to expand...


You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
Click to expand...

One sub sinks one US ship.

Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.  

Most illogical.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
Click to expand...


Actual conclusion: One of many Japanese subs operating in a vast sea _1500 miles from home_ managed to sink a single American ship travelling alone and headed away from Japan. Is that the action of a country about to surrender or one of a country determined to continue the war?


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, the Japanese they knew  that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that  was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.
> 
> What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just fabricated that to support your bogus conclusions. There is no evidence that the Japanese were anything but enthusiastic supporters of war.
Click to expand...

You are not informed.

Read accounts from POWs imprisoned on the mainland, which clearly prove the population was staving and demoralized.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, the Japanese they knew  that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They continued the same tactics as to obtain better surrender terms, make the war so costly in casualties that we would negotiate with better terms. With Bushido, human life including Japanese lives did not seem valuable to the Japanese and that  was their strategy, trade lives for negotiating purposes.
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever, That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say all human life is valuable. I think chosing to kill non-comatant Japanese because you didn't want to face the political consequences of dead soldiers and you didn't want to negotiate for peace in good faith was morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't think they could defeat America.  They did think that they could drag the war on long enough to where the Americans would agree to a favorable peace treaty.
> 
> Which is pretty close to what their strategy was in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
> 
> They had hoped America wold be to preoccuppied with Germany, or that they could play the USSR and US off against each other.
> 
> By 1945, though, they knew that was impossible and were just looking for a peace treaty.  Once the USSR entered the Pacific War, they knew the game was up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese strategy was simple after Pearl Harbor: take a lot of land make Americans pay with lives taking the land back. When America could no longer tolerate the loss of lives, America would then negotiate, and in the negotiations Japan would end up with its needed resources. Of course Japan would lose soldiers too but with Bushido the losses seemed tolerable. But like many wars it didn't work out that way. American ended up tolerating its losses and Japan could not. If the Japanese care for life as Americans they would not have allowed Bushido and would have cared more for its wounded, and certainly not asked their soldiers to commit suicide rather than surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one disputes that the acts of the Japanese government and military were heinous.
> 
> What is disputed is the American government using total war tactics to purposely murder huge numbers of Japanese civilians, most of whom were enslaved by their government and military...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just fabricated that to support your bogus conclusions. There is no evidence that the Japanese were anything but enthusiastic supporters of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not informed.
> 
> Read accounts from POWs imprisoned on the mainland, which clearly prove the population was staving and demoralized.
Click to expand...


I am well enough informed to know the Japanese may not have been happy with the outcome of their war but they certainly supported it and you still have provided _nothing_ in support of your bogus claim that they "were enslaved by their government and military."


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
Click to expand...

They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity. 


gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
Click to expand...

I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.


----------



## regent

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
Click to expand...

Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
Click to expand...

AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question? 

By July 1945, Japan had lost nearly all their possessions throughout the Pacific.  Their military was nearly destroyed.  Their people were starving.  The US air forces had destroyed nearly every major throughout Japan.  They had little naval and air forces left.  The US had complete control of the air and sea.  B-29s flew numerous missions completely uncontested, with many not even incurring anti-aircraft fire.

The US military estimated 46k American dead, should a full scale invasion had occurred.  Yet Truman lied claiming 500k would have died.
See Barton J. Bernstein, "A Post-War Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved," _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_ 42, no. 6 (June–July 1986): 38–40; and idem, "Wrong Numbers," _The Independent Monthly_ (July 1995): 41–44.

Answer this one simple question:
Why did Truman refuse to accept Japan's one condition for surrender, only to later accept that condition after the A-bombings?

Here is the truth...
_Still, Truman’s multiple deceptions and self-deceptions are understandable, considering the horror he unleashed. It is equally understandable that the U.S. occupation authorities censored reports from the shattered cities and did not permit films and photographs of the thousands of corpses and the frightfully mutilated survivors to reach the public.95 Otherwise, Americans – and the rest of the world – might have drawn disturbing comparisons to scenes then coming to light from the Nazi concentration camps.

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.96 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.97

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._
Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico -- Antiwar.com


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
Click to expand...


Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan. 

Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go. 

Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before. 

Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb. 

You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
Click to expand...


I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head.  The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..
Click to expand...


I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head.  The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.
Click to expand...


I am curious about this claim- I would appreciate links to the source so I can review myself.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head.  The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am curious about this claim- I would appreciate links to the source so I can review myself.
Click to expand...


I linked the source above, but here it is again.  It is far from the only source.
See Barton J. Bernstein, "A Post-War Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved," _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_ 42, no. 6 (June–July 1986): 38–40; and idem, "Wrong Numbers," _The Independent Monthly_ (July 1995): 41–44.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.
Click to expand...

So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral.  Is that your position?

_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._


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
Click to expand...


3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral.  Is that your position?_._
Click to expand...


I was responding to your claim:
_Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties ....., in an effort to justify the immoral act.._

You claimed that Truman was attempting to justify an 'immoral act'- my point is that I do not believe that Truman thought it was an immoral act- and therefore had no reason to justify it.


----------



## Camp

The government felt so sure about the casualties that would be suffered with the invasion that they produced a half a million Purple Hearts in preparation. The Purple Hearts being awarded to this very day were originally produced and meant for casualties of the Japanese invasion. Other things produced for the invasion have long since been disposed of, but those medals remain. All the men and women who have been killed and wounded in all the wars and actions since WWII have received medals meant for the invasion of Japan. 80 years of American combat, whether wars, police actions or whatever action was ordered by the President and congress do not equal the number of casualties expected during the invasion of Japan.

historynewsnetwork.org/article/1801


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act.
> 
> Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head.  The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral.  Is that your position?
> 
> _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._
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

If the Germans had enough A bombs and began dropping them on cities perhaps we would have surrendered to Germany, or at least Germany might have made a negotiated peace with the allies. Who knows how that new war would have turned out. But it's a new component for the board-game,


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act.
> 
> Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings, but only asked that the Emperor stay on the throne as a figure head.  The US would have demanded their military be disbanded, which Japan would have agreed too.
Click to expand...

You are literally, ignorant. 

The U.S. Military projected 46k deaths? If you knew what you were talking about you would say who, there were many plans and studies, like the Strategic Bombing Survey. 

That the gimpper does not know what information is available shows the pure ignorance of, "gipper".

Seriously, you have zero idea of what to even plug into your Google search bar.

Japan agreed to surrender, prior to the a-bombings? A flat out fabrication on your part. The Emperor never once sought a surrender prior to Nagasaki. Try reading a book, like The Rising Sun or Hirohito. 

The Palace literally needed to REVOLT, literally REVOLTED, in order to SURRENDER!

Gipper, in all honesty, you have really lost out on the best history of WW II, it is an incredible story, of the Emperor trying to Surrender after Nagasaki, The Emperor literally risked his life, risked murder by his own people, the people within the Japanese high command literally attempted to stop the Surrender after Nagasaki was bombed.

Surrender to Russia, not hardly, not at all, they had a neutrality pack they tried to extend. The Emperor never attempted to Surrender through Russia. Not once, never asked nor indicated this was desired.

How about Sweden, did the Giant Heads get to Sweden and Dulles, a bit more of a story there, but not of "JAPAN" seeking surrender. Who sought Surrender in Japan is the question, because it was literally impossible for the Emperor, on his own, to seek Surrender. The Emperor never ever did anything against the military leaders of Japan, it simply unthinkable to speak against the military, they made the decisions regarding war, period. It was the Military's duty to protect Japan, even against the Emperor. Plenty of quotes from the Japanese Military leaders after the war to verify this fact.

I guess you have no understanding of the meaning of Samurai and how that dictated tradition in Japan. Which is critical because its the basis for how the Japanese came to Surrender. 

Those who state "Japan" sought surrender never read a bit of the relevant history.

Its a great story, one of the best, and all you who have not read about it really have missed out on the most interesting facts of WWII. 

It is your loss.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
Click to expand...

ha, ha, all your posts are a joke, now, before at least you used Google to get an answer from some one else, now that you are stating what you think, you are a blithering idiot.

No, the only reason the Indy was such a disaster was the Indianapolis got sunk! 

A bit of Human Error in communications and such kept her lost for 4 days. Secret or no Secret, the Indianapolis was scheduled to arrive at port, what happened is all well documented. 

There is even a book, which I am sure you can Google/Link/Partially-Quote, then you can flame and deride me for using the actual book you quote and reference with Google, for that is how joeb131 reacts when facts are counter to joeb131's "ideas".


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have resorted to, flat out lies.
> 
> No ships or planes left in the summer of 1945, then how did the single biggest lost of the U.S. Navy occur on July 30th, 1945.
> 
> I hope you are simply a liar, I hate to think people are so stupid, while at the same time they claim they know so much because GOOGLE TELLS THEM EVERYTHING, FAST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that point in the war, the Japanese had no operational battleships, no operational carriers, and they were expendign the last of their planes as Kamikazes.
> 
> Japan was defeated, and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of what the peace treaty was going to say.
> 
> We refused to give them assurances on the Emperor, until the Russians got into the war, and it looked like they m ight get to Japan before we did.   Suddenly, we were totally cool with Hirohito!  Why, that poor man had nothing to do with the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since Japan committed very few acts of war, late in the war, Truman was right to incinerate thousands of defenseless civilians with massive aerial bombings and the use of the A bombs.
> 
> Is that your point?
Click to expand...

My point, is simple, I point out how "gipper's" post is that of the ignorant.

Few acts of war? What are you, an idiot? Japan was at WAR! Not committing, "a few acts of war". A huge difference, being at war and committing a few acts of war. 

Defenseless civilians? Zero Bomb Shelters? No Air-Raid sirens. No Flak cannons? No Army? 

We do know that every single island conquered came with the horrific lost of life, the Japanese literally fought to the death, had extreme fortifications, and you contend that the Japanese homeland was defenseless? 

It is a well documented fact, the defenses of Japan's mainland, and you contend they were defenseless?

You have zero knowledge of World War II, you do have knowledge of the misconceptions, the lies, the distorted crap put out by the likes of Howard Zinn and Chomsky. Most likely you have zero idea that your posts originate from Zinn.

Puts you and everyone else at an extreme disadvantage, to not know where your information comes from.


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
Click to expand...

Iwo ended in March.  A bombs dropped in August...not three months.  
The 46k combat deaths is the estimate the US military projected.  It amazes me you guys do not know this, yet you think I am wrong.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral.  Is that your position?_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to your claim:
> _Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties ....., in an effort to justify the immoral act.._
> 
> You claimed that Truman was attempting to justify an 'immoral act'- my point is that I do not believe that Truman thought it was an immoral act- and therefore had no reason to justify it.
Click to expand...

Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
Click to expand...

Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral.  Is that your position?_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to your claim:
> _Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties ....., in an effort to justify the immoral act.._
> 
> You claimed that Truman was attempting to justify an 'immoral act'- my point is that I do not believe that Truman thought it was an immoral act- and therefore had no reason to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.
Click to expand...


Okay- so you are offering your opinion that Truman believed the same thing, but chose to lie to Americans- most of whom had no problem with Japanese being incinerated by a bomb at that point if they thought it would save one American GI life.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded.  Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties and you bought the lie, but after he incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an effort to justify the immoral act..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral.  Is that your position?_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to your claim:
> _Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties ....., in an effort to justify the immoral act.._
> 
> You claimed that Truman was attempting to justify an 'immoral act'- my point is that I do not believe that Truman thought it was an immoral act- and therefore had no reason to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- so you are offering your opinion that Truman believed the same thing, but chose to lie to Americans- most of whom had no problem with Japanese being incinerated by a bomb at that point if they thought it would save one American GI life.
Click to expand...

If our gov told the truth and showed pics of the damage and victims, Americans would have been apalled.


----------



## JoeB131

SAYIT said:


> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.



I ignore it because it was completely irrelevent to the point.  Yes, they could sink the odd ship.  But we had plenty of ships to spare and they didn't.  Of Japan's 12 battleships, 11 were sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Of her 20 or so aircraft carriers, almost all of them had been sunk, including all six that had attacked Pearl Harbor.  

And the USSR entering the war had a lot more to do with their decision to surrender than dropping a-bombs did.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ignore it because it was completely irrelevent to the point.  Yes, they could sink the odd ship.  But we had plenty of ships to spare and they didn't.  Of Japan's 12 battleships, 11 were sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Of her 20 or so aircraft carriers, almost all of them had been sunk, including all six that had attacked Pearl Harbor.
> 
> And the USSR entering the war had a lot more to do with their decision to surrender than dropping a-bombs did.
Click to expand...

We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!! 

You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!

On the wrongs side of the war, you are.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!
> 
> You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!
> 
> On the wrongs side of the war, you are.



That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals. 

We could have had peace with Japan in 1944.  We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iwo ended in March.  A bombs dropped in August...not three months.
> The 46k combat deaths is the estimate the US military projected.  It amazes me you guys do not know this, yet you think I am wrong.
Click to expand...

The "U.S. military", never undertook what you contend. There were specific estimates, by specific individuals, groups, teams, by the Navy, the Army, by the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, even the strategic bombing study.

There never was a study, by the "military". What was its name, "The Military Estimate of Casualties". 

You are vague and broad because you have never ever read about what you speak, other than a Google search on the specific propaganda you believe.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!
> 
> You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!
> 
> On the wrongs side of the war, you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals.
> 
> We could have had peace with Japan in 1944.  We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.
Click to expand...

We could not of had peace in 1944.

The Emperor never sought peace.

The Military never sought peace.

If you honestly believe that we had a chance in 1944, show us how. Who, when, and where? 

Best place to actually base this on history is to search Dulles, Sweden, Japanese Surrender.

Do you actually know the story of the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki? It is a great story, you can actually read that story without upsetting your other "ideas" of what happened in WW II.

A chance for peace in 1944?


----------



## elektra

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had 40 subs roaming around looking for targets of opportunity.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was defeated on July 30th of 1945? Then why did Japan continue to fight, how did they sink the Indianapolis on July 30th of 1945? 700-800 men died when the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis.
> 
> Submarines, was it? How many more ships could Japan sink, if the war continued. Maybe another 10 ships, killing at least another 5,000? Or could Japan sink another 100 ships, resulting in how many more Americans, to die?
> 
> Your statement that Japan was defeated, on July 30th of 1945 is proven false by the Japanese sinking the Indianapolis thus killing 800 men on that date.
> 
> Yea, its another book, crazy huh, facts from books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, now you just went into crazy town...  The only reason why the Indy was such a disaster was because her mission was so secret, no one knew where she was. I suppose the Sharks were on Japan's side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One sub sinks one US ship.
> 
> Conclusion - The entire nation of Japan is fully capable of warring against the USA.
> 
> Most illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are unaware of the military strength of the Japanese at the end of WWII. They may have been very limited in their ability to wage an offense, but they certainly had the strength to wage a deadly defense. It was certainly reasonable to assume Japan had an atomic bomb program as well as biological weapons programs. Given time these weapons could be turned against the USA.
> During the attack on Kure Harbor that destroyed a large portion of the remaining Japanese fleet that was stuck in the harbor without enough fuel to operate, 126 US aircraft were downed, many of them by Japanese aircraft. That occurred on the 24th, 25th and 28th of July, only weeks away from the A-bomb attacks. During the last months of the Super Fortress B-29 firebombings 136 bombers crewed by 11 men each were brought down. Eventually the losses were reduced to aircraft malfunctions rather than enemy shoot downs, but those were still significant and the reduced numbers were only possible because the Japanese were reserving their remaining aircraft for Honshu, Kyushu and the coming invasion.
> The Japanese Navy still had 40 submarines. In addition, they had approximately 6,000 of the small motorized suicide boats of the Shin'yo class. The Army had 3,000 of a similar boat called the Maru-ni class. These matched with 3,500 Kamikazi aircraft were some of the armaments that caused the US to predict high casualties expected with an invasion.
Click to expand...

Is that the Gipper tied up in those quotes? I think it was the Gipper who stated the Japanese were DEFENSELESS. 

But speaking of facts I thought I would add to yours;

Preparations for Invasion of Japan World War II Database



> Because Japanese geography did not provide many invasion beaches, the Japanese organized a strong defense, particularly at Kyushu. Over 10,000 aircraft of various types and sizes were prepared as _kamikaze_ aircraft. Underground networks of bunkers and caves stored food, water, and thousands of tons of ammunition. 2,350,000 regular soldiers and 250,000 garrison troops were deployed, 900,000 of which were stationed in Kyushu by Aug 1945. 32,000,000 militia, in other words all males between the age of 15 and 60 and all females between 17 and 45, were given the task to supplement the regular military; their weapons include everything from antique bronze cannons to Arisaka rifles, from bamboo spears to Model 99 light machine guns. Perhaps the eeriest fact was that after the war the United States discovered even children were trained to become suicide bombers when necessarily, strapping explosives around their torsos and rolling under the treads of American tanks. "This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate", said Dan van der Vat, "a country of fanatics dedicated to _hara-kiri_, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting". Although there was a strong dovish movement in Tokyo to end the war by seeking a conditional surrender, _Ketsu-Go_ (Operation "Decision") continued to move forth, aiming to cause as much casualty as possible in order to sway American popular opinion. If they could cause more casualties than what the American people could accept, they thought, Japan might have a chance at negotiating for an armistice.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Answer this one simple question:
> Why did Truman refuse to accept Japan's one condition for surrender, only to later accept that condition after the A-bombings?



Because the Aliens from Mars made it a condition of giving us the bomb, it was the Martians that did not like the Japanese, not Truman.

Japan never offered to surrender, hence you offer a literal, "False Premise".

When, who, and where was this surrender offered? It did not come from the Emperor or the Military Command? 

There are at least two things you could possibly mistake for an attempt at surrender, but actually not, just one, the first would be Dulles/Sweden. That was while Roosevelt was alive. The second would be again not involving the Emperor, a feeler to Russia. 

No offer ever given to the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our Ambassador, etc..


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!
> 
> You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!
> 
> On the wrongs side of the war, you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals.
> 
> We could have had peace with Japan in 1944.  We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.
Click to expand...

If by "we" you mean Truman and his inner circle, okay.   
If the American people knew Japan offered to surrender, they would have demanded it be accepted.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that has done any research on what the Japanese had waiting for the Americans on Kyushu and Honshu know the Japanese were not helpless. The Japanese  didn't have enough to repel the Americans but they had enough to cause tremendous casualties. The question was, would those tremendous casualties cause America to negotiate surrender terms?
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
Click to expand...


That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).


----------



## SAYIT

JoeB131 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You blithely ignore the FACT that on July 30, 1945 Japan still had the capability and disposition to sink an American ship in the Philippine Sea, exhibiting both their willingness and capacity to continue the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ignore it because it was completely irrelevent to the point.  Yes, they could sink the odd ship.  But we had plenty of ships to spare and they didn't.  Of Japan's 12 battleships, 11 were sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Of her 20 or so aircraft carriers, almost all of them had been sunk, including all six that had attacked Pearl Harbor.
> 
> And the USSR entering the war had a lot more to do with their decision to surrender than dropping a-bombs did.
Click to expand...


You're diverting. The fact remains Japan still had the capacity and the will to wage war and Truman was right and the duty to end it in the quickest, least damaging way to America. All your Monday morning q-back stuff is pseudo-intellectual masturbation.


----------



## Jarlaxle

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank your dad, medics were great. But we didn't know Japan was defeated, and I was in an infantry division in the Pacific. We did the New Guinea thing, then the Luzon thing including the recapture of Bataan. Over three hundred days of combat. We were slated for Coronet, and expecting a blood bath but then no one told us the war was over. Might check the real numbers of Japanese troops and equipment waiting on Kyushu and Honshu for the Americans to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they were out of fuel, they were out of ships, their infrastructure was smashed.
> 
> And once the Russians were in the War, it was done.
> 
> The bombs were unnecessary.  Now, if you need to tell yourself that it was okay to burn hundreds of thousands to death, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the time it came down to Japanese lives or American lives and I had to choose, I vote for Americans to live. Call me old fashioned or whatever,  That which seems so hard for many to understand is that the Pacific war was different.
> Cam anyone answer these questions:
> Did Japan believe she could defeat America?
> If Japan could not defeat America, why did she attack America?
> If Japan could not defeat America what was their strategy?
> Was it still their strategy at the end of the war?
> As for Japan's shortage of ships she no longer needed ships we were bringing the Americans to them to be killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...it did not come down to Japanese lives or American lives.  That is a false argument offered by statists to justify the mass murder of women and children.  The war was over by July '45.  Japan lost and their government and military knew it and asked that only the Emperor stay on the throne.  There was no need for America to invade the mainland.  There was no need to occupy Japan.
> 
> Why is this so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...


Because it is bullshit.  They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Even AFTER two atomic bombs and the Soviets attacking, the Emperor was nearly assassinated for ordering the surrender!


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN...the USA did not need to invade.  Why did our government want to occupy Japan?  Do you have any answer to this question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
Click to expand...

Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- the United States didn't need to do anything. We could have just walked away from the entire Pacific and just defended Hawaii and just left the rest to Japan.
> 
> Why did our government want to occupy Japan? Because if we did not, the military government that had ruled Japan would have stayed in power. Remember- Japan had been strongly and absolutely military for at least 40 years. That culture had to go.
> 
> Instead- we demanded surrender- got the surrender- occupied Japan, instilled a representative government that is a strong ally and is not the expansionist military government it was before.
> 
> Did we need to drop the bomb? Certainly we didn't have to- but since from the beginning the government- and the American people were committed to complete surrender by the Japanese government- and our government did not believe that surrender would happen without an invasion- or dropping the bomb.
> 
> You said yourself that the projected casualties from an invasion would have been at least 50,000 dead(a very, very low projection)- and yes- I think dropping the bombs to prevent that made sense- and they accomplished that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
Click to expand...


Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?


----------



## Unkotare

Jarlaxle said:


> They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!




Don't be stupid.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/international/asia/20okinawa.html


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> We could not of had peace in 1944.
> 
> The Emperor never sought peace.
> 
> The Military never sought peace.
> 
> If you honestly believe that we had a chance in 1944, show us how. Who, when, and where?
> 
> Best place to actually base this on history is to search Dulles, Sweden, Japanese Surrender.
> 
> Do you actually know the story of the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki? It is a great story, you can actually read that story without upsetting your other "ideas" of what happened in WW II.
> 
> A chance for peace in 1944?



Yeah, when Tojo was replaced as Prime Minister.  

I mean, I'm really not talking to you anymore, because you're like a fucking crazy person.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!
> 
> You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!
> 
> On the wrongs side of the war, you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals.
> 
> We could have had peace with Japan in 1944.  We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "we" you mean Truman and his inner circle, okay.
> If the American people knew Japan offered to surrender, they would have demanded it be accepted.
Click to expand...


And that was the point. By 1945, Americans were sick of World War II. They were sick of drafts, they were sick of rationing. they were sick of the men who would come by the house to inform you Little Johnny was coming home in a box. Or not coming home at all. 

The reason why Okinawa was such a PR disaster was that it was the first time the folks back home got to see what a dead soldier looked like.


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had plenty of ships to spare? That means AMERICAN LIVES!!
> 
> You literally stated we had PLENTY OF AMERICAN LIVES TO SPARE!
> 
> On the wrongs side of the war, you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what fighting wars is all about. How willing are you to throw away lives in order to acheive your goals.
> 
> We could have had peace with Japan in 1944.  We didn't want that. We wanted Japan to know damned well it had been defeated and we were willing to throw away American, Japanese, and Chinese lives to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "we" you mean Truman and his inner circle, okay.
> If the American people knew Japan offered to surrender, they would have demanded it be accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that was the point. By 1945, Americans were sick of World War II. They were sick of drafts, they were sick of rationing. they were sick of the men who would come by the house to inform you Little Johnny was coming home in a box. Or not coming home at all.
> 
> The reason why Okinawa was such a PR disaster was that it was the first time the folks back home got to see what a dead soldier looked like.
Click to expand...

Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes, to the last child, if you read the posts, one side of this argument actually posts facts, not feelings.

Preparations for Invasion of Japan World War II Database



> Perhaps the eeriest fact was that after the war the United States discovered even children were trained to become suicide bombers when necessarily, strapping explosives around their torsos and rolling under the treads of American tanks. "This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate", said Dan van der Vat, "a country of fanatics dedicated to _hara-kiri_, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting"


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could not of had peace in 1944.
> 
> The Emperor never sought peace.
> 
> The Military never sought peace.
> 
> If you honestly believe that we had a chance in 1944, show us how. Who, when, and where?
> 
> Best place to actually base this on history is to search Dulles, Sweden, Japanese Surrender.
> 
> Do you actually know the story of the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki? It is a great story, you can actually read that story without upsetting your other "ideas" of what happened in WW II.
> 
> A chance for peace in 1944?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, when Tojo was replaced as Prime Minister.
> 
> I mean, I'm really not talking to you anymore, because you're like a fucking crazy person.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you are not so fast with Google, as you brag. Answers just can not be found by you. 

When Tojo was replaced? Right, Tojo was replaced because Japan was losing the war, specifically Saipan in the Mariana Islands.

18 July of 1944, Tojo resigned. I believe the revisionists themselves would not make a claim such as yours, that there was an attempt at surrender, associated with the replacement of Tojo.

Quick to Google in the past, I imagine you learned your lesson, best to be vague and just post your opinion without a link.

I am sure if you found one, it would be here, right? A link to support your claim.


----------



## JoeB131

Camp said:


> Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.



It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point.  Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection. 

Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Obviously, you are not so fast with Google, as you brag. Answers just can not be found by you.



No, I just don't waste time talking to crazy people.  

Get back to me when you start taking your meds. 

Psst. Psst. I'm openly mocking you at this point. Other people get serious answers. You get mockery.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to the last child, ]
Click to expand...


I thought I told you not to be stupid. Now, try actually thinking about it for a second.


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
Click to expand...

I love America more than most.  I do know that American pols lie and I hate lying and I am the opposite of a leftist.
Let's see...the Japanese people who were starving were going to inflict 500k casualties on a battle hardened US military who controlled air and sea, with pitchforks.

Stop believing in fairy tales and lying progressive statists.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love America more than most.  I do know that American pols lie and I hate lying and I am the opposite of a leftist.
> Let's see...the Japanese people who were starving were going to inflict 500k casualties on a battle hardened US military who controlled air and sea, with pitchforks.
> 
> Stop believing in fairy tales and lying progressive statists.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point.  Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection.
> 
> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
Click to expand...

It is true the US Gov was indeed censoring photo's but Okinawa was not the first time a photo of a dead American was published. A full paged photo of three dead Americans at Buna was published in TIME magazine 1943.

time.com/3524493/the-photo-that-won-world-war-ii-dead-americans-at-buna-beach-1943/


----------



## regent

On these boards It sounds like the Japanse were falling all over themselves trying to surrender. Japanese military were so looking forward to the invasion they had set up beach chairs and had snacks ready for the American invaders.


JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point.  Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection.
> 
> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
Click to expand...

The first pictures of American dead were published much earlier. they were from the battle of Buna early in the war, Dead GI's lying on the beach near Buna station, New Guinea.I strongly suspect from the 32nd division. The beach was called maggot beach. At that time it was pretty hard to hide things, even errors, but then people were not viewing the war as a  political board game to enhance their political views. Today we have to paint everything with a political brush, even going back seventy years hoping to find some usable political fodder.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to the last child, ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I told you not to be stupid. Now, try actually thinking about it for a second.
Click to expand...

You thought? Stretching the truth again, are you!


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point.  Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection.
> 
> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
Click to expand...

The Japanese government was putting out feelers? 

You still have not came up with a good Goggle answer, have you. The Japanese would never of surrendered, not after the Fire Bombing in Tokyo, not after the lost of Okinawa, funny how the Japanese never quit shooting, never quit Hari Kari, funny how so many fought to the death, took not one but two Nuclear attacks, and even then it was pretty rough for them to Surrender.

The Japanese Government? The Diet? The Prime Minister? Any text of the conversations? Any photos of the messages? 

Tojo never attempted to surrender.

The Japanese Supreme command, never tried to surrender. 

At any time the Japanese could of surrendered, laid down its weapons, and stopped killing people, but they never did. 

How about some of those fast Google searches, I am sure you must of tried to come up with something better than, "The Japanese Government tried to surrender".

The Japanese government was the Military, they were in control, them and a couple of old families, the Diet, the Supreme council, so quit being vague.

Tell us who you are talking about, are you talking about the Emperor, come on, spill the beans, give us dates, give us names. 

Was it Dulles in Sweden? Are you speaking of the Palace Revolt? Tojo and Germany? The Ambassador? The Prime Ministers? There were a few Prime Ministers, yes?


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Truman ever thought of the bombing as an immoral act. After all those bombings were just the culmination of destroying Japanese cities by conventional bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> So if Truman did not think it immoral, well then it can't be immoral.  Is that your position?_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to your claim:
> _Truman made up the lie about 500k casualties ....., in an effort to justify the immoral act.._
> 
> You claimed that Truman was attempting to justify an 'immoral act'- my point is that I do not believe that Truman thought it was an immoral act- and therefore had no reason to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but my point is he knew it was immoral and chose to lie in an effort to justify it and dupe Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay- so you are offering your opinion that Truman believed the same thing, but chose to lie to Americans- most of whom had no problem with Japanese being incinerated by a bomb at that point if they thought it would save one American GI life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If our gov told the truth and showed pics of the damage and victims, Americans would have been apalled.
Click to expand...


That really applied to every single battle we took part in except Pearl Harbor. 

IF our government had not censored photo's of the D-Day invasion- Americans would have been appalled. 
IF our government had not censored photo's of Iwo Jima- Americans would have been appalled.
Heck- our government even censored photo's of concentration camps- because of concerns on how Americans would react.

I agree- Americans would recoil at the real images of the tragedy of war- look at the uncensored photo's of the Civil War. 

But in general- Americans were fine with killing Japanese civilians in 1945- doesn't make it right- but I think it is BS to claim that Truman was concerned about how Americans would view the deaths- Americans were sick of receiving telegrams about their sons dieing and would have accepted almost anything to a) defeat Japan and b) reduce the number of Americans dying to accomplish that.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love America more than most.
Click to expand...




SAYIT said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.  I did state that the US military projected US deaths at 46k, if we invaded...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
Click to expand...


What absolute crap.

Look- as a proud 'liberal'- I have been in this thread arguing against gipper from the beginning- so let me just say you are just full of crap in your claims.

FDR was a 'leftist'- Truman was a 'leftist'- I am a 'leftist'- saying we all hate America is absurd- and stupid as when someone says all Conservatives are racists or all Conservatives are fascists- it is stupid- and ignorant.

I will say this again- this is monday morning quarterbacking 60 years after the fact. America was convinced that we needed an unconditional surrender from Japan and was prepared to invade- and suffer horrific casualties. Dropping atomic bombs seemed at the time to be logical alternatives- and we do not know for certain how anything would have turned out if we didn't.

We do know that Japan went from being one of the most imperialistic and jingoistic nations prior to the war, to being a vibrant democracy and ally today.  We know what we did achieved both our short term and long term goals.


----------



## Syriusly

JoeB131 said:


> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.



I asked for a link to that source before- and I would sincerely like to review any information you have on previous Japanese peace offers.


----------



## SAYIT

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love America more than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 months earlier we suffered nearly 7000 dead and over 19,000 wounded at Iwo Jima. Anyone now claiming that we would have suffered "only" 46,000 casualties had we invaded Japan's home islands is desperately trying to win an argument he can't.
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
> In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
> A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.
> 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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
> Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute crap.
> 
> Look- as a proud 'liberal'- I have been in this thread arguing against gipper from the beginning- so let me just say you are just full of crap in your claims.
> 
> FDR was a 'leftist'- Truman was a 'leftist'- I am a 'leftist'- saying we all hate America is absurd- and stupid as when someone says all Conservatives are racists or all Conservatives are fascists- it is stupid- and ignorant.
> 
> I will say this again- this is monday morning quarterbacking 60 years after the fact. America was convinced that we needed an unconditional surrender from Japan and was prepared to invade- and suffer horrific casualties. Dropping atomic bombs seemed at the time to be logical alternatives- and we do not know for certain how anything would have turned out if we didn't.
> 
> We do know that Japan went from being one of the most imperialistic and jingoistic nations prior to the war, to being a vibrant democracy and ally today.  We know what we did achieved both our short term and long term goals.
Click to expand...


Well then, I stand corrected and I agree with and appreciate your thoughtful, rational posts on this subject. It's not libs I have a prob with here but rather leftists. You know ... those so wedded to their ideology that they hate America because we don't see things their way.
Haters gotta hate.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> The Japanese government was putting out feelers?
> 
> You still have not came up with a good Goggle answer, have you. The Japanese would never of surrendered, not after the Fire Bombing in Tokyo, not after the lost of Okinawa, funny how the Japanese never quit shooting, never quit Hari Kari, funny how so many fought to the death, took not one but two Nuclear attacks, and even then it was pretty rough for them to Surrender.



You know what, why do I get the feeling you don't even KNOW any Japanese people. But you read a book once.


----------



## JoeB131

Syriusly said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for a link to that source before- and I would sincerely like to review any information you have on previous Japanese peace offers.
Click to expand...


Here you go... but don't tell Elektra...It's from the internet and she has "books">  

Guide to Decision Part I


Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. (See pp. 232-233, Chapter 18) Many other "peace feelers" had preceded this move. (See Chapter 2)



Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.


----------



## regent

Syriusly said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for a link to that source before- and I would sincerely like to review any information you have on previous Japanese peace offers.
Click to expand...

This has all been done. Japan and the US were negotiating peace even as Japanese ships were steaming to Pearl Harbor to bomb us. The peace feelers she sent to the USSR were an attempt to set up a Japanese-USSR alliance. If Japan wanted peace she had but  to contact the US.


----------



## Syriusly

JoeB131 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for a link to that source before- and I would sincerely like to review any information you have on previous Japanese peace offers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go... but don't tell Elektra...It's from the internet and she has "books">
> 
> Guide to Decision Part I
> 
> 
> Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. (See pp. 232-233, Chapter 18) Many other "peace feelers" had preceded this move. (See Chapter 2)
> 
> 
> 
> Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
> The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.
Click to expand...


A link to a blog?

How about a link to an actual source? 

What intercepted cables? 'what many other peace feelers'? 

July 21 1945?
_July 21, 1945 –
The U.S. broadcasts an offer of unconditional surrender to Japan based loosely upon the Atlantic Charter. Japan does not respond to this offer directly. Rather, on July 25, Americans intercept a Japanese message sent to Moscow that reads in part: “The fact that the Americans alluded to the Atlantic Charter is particularly worthy of attention at this time. It is impossible to accept an unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we would like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter.” Meanwhile, a kaiten from a Japanese submarine sinks the transport ship Marathon._

So Japan signaled that it would never unconditionally surrender- which the United States broadcast of 7/21/45 was about_.
_
This is your smoking gun?

I would be glad to read actual sources but the closest you have come that I can somewhat verify is the July 21 1945 cable. 

Here is what Japan could have done: it could have surrendered- that would have caught FDR's attention much better than a vague cable to the Soviet Union. 
_
_


----------



## Syriusly

SAYIT said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> 
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love America more than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not recognize propaganda when you see it?  Those casualty rates are exponential higher than any we experienced during the war.  All lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it? You _claim_ some casualty estimate of 46,000 and when I post legit sources that say you are a fool you simply call all those who authored the numbers propagandists? Perhaps you should look at the names attached to the numbers I posted and compare them to your source (which you have yet to post).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think about conditions in Japan in mid 1945.  If you can, you would know they had no ability to inflict 500k casualties on the worlds most powerful military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. So I can believe your unposted source or the virtual "1945 Who's Who America" I posted in support of the 500,000 number. The question is: why in the face of facts to you continue to bash Truman and America? Does your membership in The Loony Leftist Society require it? Why do all Leftists hate America like it's your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What absolute crap.
> 
> Look- as a proud 'liberal'- I have been in this thread arguing against gipper from the beginning- so let me just say you are just full of crap in your claims.
> 
> FDR was a 'leftist'- Truman was a 'leftist'- I am a 'leftist'- saying we all hate America is absurd- and stupid as when someone says all Conservatives are racists or all Conservatives are fascists- it is stupid- and ignorant.
> 
> I will say this again- this is monday morning quarterbacking 60 years after the fact. America was convinced that we needed an unconditional surrender from Japan and was prepared to invade- and suffer horrific casualties. Dropping atomic bombs seemed at the time to be logical alternatives- and we do not know for certain how anything would have turned out if we didn't.
> 
> We do know that Japan went from being one of the most imperialistic and jingoistic nations prior to the war, to being a vibrant democracy and ally today.  We know what we did achieved both our short term and long term goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, I stand corrected and I agree with and appreciate your thoughtful, rational posts on this subject. It's not libs I have a prob with here but rather leftists. You know ... those so wedded to their ideology that they hate America because we don't see things their way.
> Haters gotta hate.
Click to expand...


Well then call them that- there is no distinction between 'leftists' and 'liberals'- to me its like the guy who says he is justified calling blacks he disagrees with (a poster on this board) n*ggers- because he only calls blacks that when they deserve it. 

There are as many close minded conservatives who are idiotic- good look at Protectionist- and who hate Americans because he disagrees with them as there are liberals who are idiotic- pisses me off when there are such broad generalizations.


----------



## gipper

Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.  

What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese government was putting out feelers?
> 
> You still have not came up with a good Goggle answer, have you. The Japanese would never of surrendered, not after the Fire Bombing in Tokyo, not after the lost of Okinawa, funny how the Japanese never quit shooting, never quit Hari Kari, funny how so many fought to the death, took not one but two Nuclear attacks, and even then it was pretty rough for them to Surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what, why do I get the feeling you don't even KNOW any Japanese people. But you read a book once.
Click to expand...

My daughter is Japanese, makes my mother in-law Japanese, that makes you about the dumbest person here? Yes?

So joeb131 quotes and links a page that speaks of Eisenhower, only problem the quote does not exist on that page or any page near the one referenced. joebb131 at the same time claims Google searches are fast and best (insert foot in mouth). 

Now joeb131 knows better to not respond with links to lies.

You learn fast, yes? Or is it you are still busy doing the fast Google search.

So now joeb131 vaguely claims the Japanese Government sought a surrender before Nagasaki. 

How about it, still got nothing joeb131, how about another personal insult, see if you can come up one that actually makes someone around here chuckle.


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> This has all been done. Japan and the US were negotiating peace even as Japanese ships were steaming to Pearl Harbor to bomb us. The peace feelers she sent to the USSR were an attempt to set up a Japanese-USSR alliance. If Japan wanted peace she had but to contact the US.



Well, no, not really.  The USSR had no reason to ally with Japan.  they were hoping for a peace deal that allowed them to keep some of their gains in China.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> My daughter is Japanese, makes my mother in-law Japanese, that makes you about the dumbest person here? Yes?



Oooookay, this just got weird.  I'm done


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Guide to Decision Part I
> 
> Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).





> Yeah, when Tojo was replaced as Prime Minister.
> 
> I mean, I'm really not talking to you anymore, because you're like a fucking crazy person.



Tojo was not replaced in July of 1945.

You stated specifically when Tojo resigned, that was in the summer of 1944, supposedly through Germany, now you link to the history of the summer of 1945? Zero reference to Tojo.

While, at least you are trying but its plain to see that Joeb131 is trying to figure it out after Joeb131 runs his mouth (I am assuming you are a man, just so you know I am a man as well, not a girl like you think, my avatar is of a record label, not the movie!).


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Tojo was not replaced in July of 1945.
> 
> You stated specifically when Tojo resigned, that was in the summer of 1944, supposedly through Germany, now you link to the history of the summer of 1945? Zero reference to Tojo.
> 
> While, at least you are trying but its plain to see that Joeb131 is trying to figure it out after Joeb131 runs his mouth (I am assuming you are a man, just so you know I am a man as well, not a girl like you think, my avatar is of a record label, not the movie!).



Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was clear I wasn't talking to you anymore because you're a fucking crazy person. 

I'm sorry you don't get that, but until you get back on the anti-crazy pills, I'm really not talking to you anymore.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter is Japanese, makes my mother in-law Japanese, that makes you about the dumbest person here? Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooookay, this just got weird.  I'm done
Click to expand...

Where is your quote, cherry picker? Give up on the USMB rules?? 

You stated I know, zero Japanese. Must suck to be wrong, even while you try to flame, yes?


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter is Japanese, makes my mother in-law Japanese, that makes you about the dumbest person here? Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooookay, this just got weird.  I'm done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is your quote, cherry picker? Give up on the USMB rules??
> 
> You stated I know, zero Japanese. Must suck to be wrong, even while you try to flame, yes?
Click to expand...


No, it sucks to try to have a rational conversation with someone who got internet access as part of their therapy.


----------



## JoeB131

Elektra, I'm moved on to openly mocking you at this point.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tojo was not replaced in July of 1945.
> 
> You stated specifically when Tojo resigned, that was in the summer of 1944, supposedly through Germany, now you link to the history of the summer of 1945? Zero reference to Tojo.
> 
> While, at least you are trying but its plain to see that Joeb131 is trying to figure it out after Joeb131 runs his mouth (I am assuming you are a man, just so you know I am a man as well, not a girl like you think, my avatar is of a record label, not the movie!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was clear I wasn't talking to you anymore because you're a fucking crazy person.
> 
> I'm sorry you don't get that, but until you get back on the anti-crazy pills, I'm really not talking to you anymore.
Click to expand...

Point is, again you screwed up your super fast Google search, you stated the time period when Tojo resigned in 1944, not 1945.

You can run from all your posts and attack me, that just confirms you are fuming at the keyboard.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Point is, again you screwed up your super fast Google search, you stated the time period when Tojo resigned in 1944, not 1945.
> 
> You can run from all your posts and attack me, that just confirms you are fuming at the keyboard.



NO, I just realized you went completely off the rails and aren't even following the conversation anymore.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Elektra, I'm moved on to openly mocking you at this point.


Oh, I am so sorry, to point out repeatedly that you do not know what you are talking about. Mocking, that just sucks for me, mocking is making fun of someone in cruel way. I wonder if you can get away with being cruel here.

That is what mocking is, right, a cruel way of making fun of someone. Just making sure you know what you are doing cause you keep getting it wrong in your posts that are on topic.

Just so you know, mocking could be against the USMB rules. 

I am not sure I can take mocking, I mean it really hurts when anonymous fools on the internet call my a crazy lady, now open mocking. 

Boy, this will really make my day bad. 

I could ignore you, but then I would not be able to point out all you feeble attempts to have Google save your pathetic posts. 

Maybe you will be better at openly mocking, so go ahead, you got my okay to openly mock me. 

idiot


----------



## JoeB131

Again, you stopped having a rational conversation pages ago.  

Because you have books, or something.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to the last child, ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I told you not to be stupid. Now, try actually thinking about it for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought? Stretching the truth again, are you!
Click to expand...



There you go again being stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

Okay, for rational people now.  

Was the Bombing of Hiroshima Necessary Three Myths Debunked TakePart

Much has been made of the Japanese _kamikaze_ spirit, but by early summer, Emperor Hirohito was already making overtures to surrender -- weeks before the bombing of Hiroshima.

In a cable intercepted on July 12, 1945, Hirohito revealed that he was ready to end the war on the condition that the monarchy be granted immunity from war crimes --* conditions which the U.S. only accepted after dropping two atomic bombs on the country.

I*n Truman’s own journal he called the message a “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” And years later, in his book Secret Surrender, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said he had relayed a similar message.

"On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’"


----------



## JoeB131

The scary thing about this thread is the Unkatore and Gipper actually sound rational compared to Elektra.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.


 
Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, to the last child, ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I told you not to be stupid. Now, try actually thinking about it for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought? Stretching the truth again, are you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again being stupid.
Click to expand...

Cause all you know is stupid? You seem to find a lot of stupid, maybe you are a stupid magnet.


Was the atomic bombing of Japan justifiable 


> *The Japanese government plans a fanatical defence of Japan's home islands to the last man, woman and child*
> 
> In April 1945, the Japanese Suzuki government had prepared a war policy called Ketsugo which was a refinement of the Shosango victory plan for the defence of the home islands _to the last man_. These plans would prepare the Japanese people psychologically to die as a nation in defence of their homeland. Even children, including girls, would be trained to use makeshift lethal weapons, and exhorted to sacrifice themselves by killing an American invader. To implement this policy of training children to kill, soldiers attended Japanese schools and trained even small children in the use of weapons such as bamboo spears.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.


Maybe that's the morality and truth rising above political persuasion?


----------



## SAYIT

JoeB131 said:


> Elektra, I'm moved on to openly mocking you at this point.


 
That's because you're a proud idiot, JoeB, who relies on blogger silliness to support his bogus claims, and I mean that with all do respect.


----------



## JoeB131

SAYIT said:


> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.



I agree.  

And frankly, I would generally rate Harry Truman as a pretty good president, who made a lot of pretty good calls.  The Berlin Airlift, coming to the Aid of Korea, NATO, not bailing the French out in Vietnam, not getting us into the middle of China's civil war. 

This wasn't one of them. And you can almost feel bad that he wasn't prepared for the Presidency by FDR (who never wanted him as a running mate in 1944). 

Japan was trying to surrender as long as they could keep their emperor, a figure of not only national pride but of religious reverence.  Most people who knew anything about Japan knew they'd have a hard time maintaining control of the country without the Emperor. 

The only real problem.  Old Hirohito was as guilty as a cat in a canary cage as far as war crimes went. 

So we kept on that sticking point, dropped horrific weapons on Japan (and a lot of less horrific ones) until the USSR got involved, and we realized peace would be a lot more complicated with "North Japan" and "South Japan"


----------



## JoeB131

SAYIT said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elektra, I'm moved on to openly mocking you at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're a proud idiot, JoeB, who relies on blogger silliness to support his bogus claims, and I mean that with all do respect.
Click to expand...


Okay. Because you've got books.  I get that.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could not of had peace in 1944.
> 
> The Emperor never sought peace.
> 
> The Military never sought peace.
> 
> If you honestly believe that we had a chance in 1944, show us how. Who, when, and where?
> 
> Best place to actually base this on history is to search Dulles, Sweden, Japanese Surrender.
> 
> Do you actually know the story of the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki? It is a great story, you can actually read that story without upsetting your other "ideas" of what happened in WW II.
> 
> A chance for peace in 1944?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go... but don't tell Elektra...It's from the internet and she has "books">
> 
> Guide to Decision Part I
> 
> 
> Intercepted cables on July 12-13 showed Japan's Emperor had intervened to attempt to end the war. (See pp. 232-233, Chapter 18) Many other "peace feelers" had preceded this move. (See Chapter 2)
> 
> Intercepted cables showed Japan responding positively to a U.S. offer of a surrender based on the "Atlantic Charter" as put forward in an official July 21, 1945 American radio broadcast. The key clause of the Charter promised that every nation could choose its own form of government (which would have allowed Japan to keep its Emperor).
> The broadcast was allowed to stand with Presidential sanction, but U.S. officials chose thereafter to ignore this indication of Japan's willingness to surrender.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, when Tojo was replaced as Prime Minister.
> 
> I mean, I'm really not talking to you anymore, because you're like a fucking crazy person.
Click to expand...


Tojo was replaced in 1944, not 45. It is obvious joeb131 does not know what joeb131 is talking about.
joeb131, maybe you should follow more than the first link you get when you do that "fast Google" search.

I guess if joeb131 Google's enough joeb131 will figure out what joeb131 is talking about.

Diary Japan s Tojo fought surrender till end - SFGate

*Diary: Japan's Tojo fought surrender till end*
*Even after A-bomb, Japanese leader wanted to fight on
Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press*

*Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, August 13, 2008*











Photo: AP
IMAGE 1 OF 1
In this Oct. 17, 1941, photo, Japanese wartime leader Hideki Tojo is shown in Tokyo.
Image1of1
In this Oct. 17, 1941, photo, Japanese wartime leader Hideki Tojo is shown in Tokyo.


Japanese World War II leader Hideki Tojo wanted to keep fighting even after U.S. atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accusing surrender proponents of being frightened, a newly released diary reveals.

Excerpts from the approximately 20 pages written by Tojo in the final days of the war and held by the National Archives of Japan were published for the first time in several newspapers Tuesday.

"The notes show Tojo kept his dyed-in-the-wool militarist mentality until the very end," said Kazufumi Takayama, the archives curator, who confirmed the accuracy of the published excerpts. "They are extremely valuable."


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Tojo was replaced in 1944, not 45. It is obvious joeb131 does not know what joeb131 is talking about.
> joeb131, maybe you should follow more than the first link you get when you do that "fast Google" search.



Or you just lacked the reading comprehension skills to get what I was saying.  But that's okay.


----------



## HenryBHough

Whaddya bet the free world will have to smack down Germany again before it has to whack Japan?


----------



## JoeB131

HenryBHough said:


> Whaddya bet the free world will have to smack down Germany again before it has to whack Japan?



Actually, the free world has a bigger problem with the third world.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to the last child, ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I told you not to be stupid. Now, try actually thinking about it for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought? Stretching the truth again, are you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again being stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cause all you know is stupid?
Click to expand...


Seems to be all you have to offer. Still afraid to even try to think?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to the last child, ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I told you not to be stupid. Now, try actually thinking about it for a second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought? Stretching the truth again, are you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again being stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cause all you know is stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to be all you have to offer. Still afraid to even try to think?
Click to expand...


Unkotare, you even have to cherry pick my rebuttal/flame/insult, my god you are weak and pathetic.

Seriously, you could not quote the entire insult?

Was the atomic bombing of Japan justifiable 


> *The Japanese government plans a fanatical defence of Japan's home islands to the last man, woman and child*
> 
> In April 1945, the Japanese Suzuki government had prepared a war policy called Ketsugo which was a refinement of the Shosango victory plan for the defence of the home islands _to the last man_. These plans would prepare the Japanese people psychologically to die as a nation in defence of their homeland. Even children, including girls, would be trained to use makeshift lethal weapons, and exhorted to sacrifice themselves by killing an American invader. To implement this policy of training children to kill, soldiers attended Japanese schools and trained even small children in the use of weapons such as bamboo spears.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> And frankly, I would generally rate Harry Truman as a pretty good president, who made a lot of pretty good calls.  The Berlin Airlift, coming to the Aid of Korea, NATO, not bailing the French out in Vietnam, not getting us into the middle of China's civil war.
> 
> This wasn't one of them. And you can almost feel bad that he wasn't prepared for the Presidency by FDR (who never wanted him as a running mate in 1944).
> 
> Japan was trying to surrender as long as they could keep their emperor, a figure of not only national pride but of religious reverence.  Most people who knew anything about Japan knew they'd have a hard time maintaining control of the country without the Emperor.
> 
> The only real problem.  Old Hirohito was as guilty as a cat in a canary cage as far as war crimes went.
> 
> So we kept on that sticking point, dropped horrific weapons on Japan (and a lot of less horrific ones) until the USSR got involved, and we realized peace would be a lot more complicated with "North Japan" and "South Japan"
Click to expand...

Our declaration demanding Unconditional Surrender never stated the Emperor must go? 

This is a thread about the Nukes, Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, prior to the bombs being dropped we sent them our demand purposely leaving out the Emperor. You ought to like wikepedia, comes up often in joeb131's "fast Google" searches.

Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



> "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.



No, we did not stay on that "sticking point", as you state.

Is it your comprehension, or your Google skills, or do you simply lie? The Japanese armed forces is very specific, not easily confused with the Royal Family. How does joeb131 confuse the two so easily? You should "fast Google" that.

"fast Google", I just realized that joeb131 figures quoting joeb131 is me openly mocking joeb131, hence the threat to openly mock me? 

Can I say I am sorry for openly mocking you, joeb131?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> [ you even have to cherry pick]




No, I choose which bit of your stupidity to which to respond. 


Old women and children would not have fought to the death, you ridiculous buffoon.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ you even have to cherry pick]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I choose which bit of your stupidity to which to respond.
> 
> 
> Old women and children would not have fought to the death, you ridiculous buffoon.
Click to expand...

Which bit to which? 

Too bad History does not agree with your opinion. Just because you would never fight for your country does not mean the Japanese people of WWII are as unpatriotic and cowardly. 

On the contrary, sadly, history disagreed with you.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ you even have to cherry pick]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I choose which bit of your stupidity to which to respond.
> 
> 
> Old women and children would not have fought to the death, you ridiculous buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which bit to which?
> 
> Too bad History does not agree with your opinion. Just because you would never fight for your country does not mean the Japanese people of WWII are as unpatriotic and cowardly.
> 
> On the contrary, sadly, history disagreed with you.
Click to expand...


Real history agrees with me.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Our declaration demanding Unconditional Surrender never stated the Emperor must go?
> 
> This is a thread about the Nukes, Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, prior to the bombs being dropped we sent them our demand purposely leaving out the Emperor. You ought to like wikepedia, comes up often in joeb131's "fast Google" searches.



Again, not talking to you because you are a crazy person. 

Seriously, have you looked at WWII Propaganda?  We considered Hirohito as bad a monster as  Hitler.


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
Click to expand...

Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ you even have to cherry pick]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I choose which bit of your stupidity to which to respond.
> 
> 
> Old women and children would not have fought to the death, you ridiculous buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which bit to which?
> 
> Too bad History does not agree with your opinion. Just because you would never fight for your country does not mean the Japanese people of WWII are as unpatriotic and cowardly.
> 
> On the contrary, sadly, history disagreed with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real history agrees with me.
Click to expand...

Yet you resort to name calling and flames?


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our declaration demanding Unconditional Surrender never stated the Emperor must go?
> 
> This is a thread about the Nukes, Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, prior to the bombs being dropped we sent them our demand purposely leaving out the Emperor. You ought to like wikepedia, comes up often in joeb131's "fast Google" searches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not talking to you because you are a crazy person.
> 
> Seriously, have you looked at WWII Propaganda?  We considered Hirohito as bad a monster as  Hitler.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you stated we consistently demanded that the Emperor be removed, and that is a flat out lie. 

I posted the Surrender demand that you just failed to include in your quote, failed as in purposely deleted.

joeb131, you make claims you can not support. I bet thus far, you have ran from at least 12 of your posts, unable to offer any sort of defense of statements, not of your own, but stuff that you find on your "fast Google". 

So maybe, you can explain how you come up with this bull crap we demanded the end of the Emperor? 

Now you want to compare Germany and Japan, maybe joeb131 just can not focus, here is the declaration we made in regard to the Emperor, the Emperor was not included. It states the Armed Services, not the Royal Family, specifically.

Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



> "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.


----------



## Syriusly

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, for rational people now.
> 
> Was the Bombing of Hiroshima Necessary Three Myths Debunked TakePart
> 
> Much has been made of the Japanese _kamikaze_ spirit, but by early summer, Emperor Hirohito was already making overtures to surrender -- weeks before the bombing of Hiroshima.
> 
> In a cable intercepted on July 12, 1945, Hirohito revealed that he was ready to end the war on the condition that the monarchy be granted immunity from war crimes --* conditions which the U.S. only accepted after dropping two atomic bombs on the country.
> 
> I*n Truman’s own journal he called the message a “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” And years later, in his book Secret Surrender, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said he had relayed a similar message.
> 
> "On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’"



Your citation from the Socialist Workers paper doesn't support the claim you have made- doesn't mention that cable at all, and nothing but a vague reference to a cable from the emperor. 

Your other citation is to some blog?

Let me be more clear- any citations of these actual cables or actual offers to surrender?


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
Click to expand...

Seems the truth is that we fought Japan for three and a half years and then we dropped two bombs and in a few days the war was over. Truth or myth, a lot of Americans and Japanese were able to live their full lives out because of the truth or myth.


----------



## SAYIT

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the truth is that we fought Japan for three and a half years and then we dropped two bombs and in a few days the war was over. Truth or myth, a lot of Americans and Japanese were able to live their full lives out because of the truth or myth.
Click to expand...


No doubt dropping the bombs saved American lives and treasure and may well have saved Japanese lives. How many Japanese would have died had the war continued conventionally?


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
Click to expand...

 
"Truth Sayers?" You suffer from delusions of both grandeur and self-importance.


----------



## gipper

SAYIT said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the truth is that we fought Japan for three and a half years and then we dropped two bombs and in a few days the war was over. Truth or myth, a lot of Americans and Japanese were able to live their full lives out because of the truth or myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt dropping the bombs saved American lives and treasure and may well have saved Japanese lives. How many Japanese would have died had the war continued conventionally?
Click to expand...

Round and round you go...and you guys have lost your minds.

You justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of defenseless women, children, and old men.

How does one get so murderous and uncaring?


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the truth is that we fought Japan for three and a half years and then we dropped two bombs and in a few days the war was over. Truth or myth, a lot of Americans and Japanese were able to live their full lives out because of the truth or myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt dropping the bombs saved American lives and treasure and may well have saved Japanese lives. How many Japanese would have died had the war continued conventionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Round and round you go...and you guys have lost your minds.
> 
> You justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of defenseless women, children, and old men.
> 
> How does one get so murderous and uncaring?
Click to expand...


I think we are fairly clear that we believe that dropping the bomb saved more lives than it cost. Of course those deaths were horrible- all deaths- women, children, old men- and soldiers are horrible. 

We cannot know what would have happened if we had not dropped the bomb- we do know that the result today is that Japan is a vibrant modern Democracy that has no imperial ambitions.


----------



## gipper

Syriusly said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> 
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the truth is that we fought Japan for three and a half years and then we dropped two bombs and in a few days the war was over. Truth or myth, a lot of Americans and Japanese were able to live their full lives out because of the truth or myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt dropping the bombs saved American lives and treasure and may well have saved Japanese lives. How many Japanese would have died had the war continued conventionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Round and round you go...and you guys have lost your minds.
> 
> You justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of defenseless women, children, and old men.
> 
> How does one get so murderous and uncaring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we are fairly clear that we believe that dropping the bomb saved more lives than it cost. Of course those deaths were horrible- all deaths- women, children, old men- and soldiers are horrible.
> 
> We cannot know what would have happened if we had not dropped the bomb- we do know that the result today is that Japan is a vibrant modern Democracy that has no imperial ambitions.
Click to expand...


So you believe mass murder of innocent defenseless civilians, to prevent the deaths of your soldiers, is okay.


----------



## Vigilante

Perhaps if we NUKED Mecca, we would have proof, either way, that NUKES prevent more war, or would the muslim scum, get all irate, and then we could do as we did with Japan and drop a second one on Medina..... after that, we certainly would have an indication of if it was necessary or not!


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreeing with Truman's dropping of the A bombs has nothing to do with one's political persuasion or love of country.  It has to do with morality and the truth.
> 
> What is strange is how many on the right defend Truman, yet he was a big gov progressive statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse crap. There is nothing moral or honest about twisting the truth to satisfy your hate for Truman or America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems the truth is that we fought Japan for three and a half years and then we dropped two bombs and in a few days the war was over. Truth or myth, a lot of Americans and Japanese were able to live their full lives out because of the truth or myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt dropping the bombs saved American lives and treasure and may well have saved Japanese lives. How many Japanese would have died had the war continued conventionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Round and round you go...and you guys have lost your minds.
> 
> You justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of defenseless women, children, and old men.
> 
> How does one get so murderous and uncaring?
Click to expand...

False premise or an outright lie. 

Defenseless, hardly. Murder? A stretch of the imagination, a moral argument? 

Murder, The Japanese Army is guilty of the murder of over 10,000,000 people, during the Murder spree the Japanese went on.

The Japanese Army and Navy began the murder of Chinese, Burmese, and Philippine people long before they began Murdering defenseless Americans. 

The Japanese made the decision to Murder abroad while at the same time they assured the civilians in Japan they could protect them, at the same time. 

How are we guilty for the Japanese mistakes? We are to let the Murderers go? Just forget about the tens of millions the Japanese murdered and raped. 

The Japanese murdered millions, murdered millions from a half a dozen countries, and more, while being defenseless?

OPERATION KETSU-GO



> _The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly._
> 
> *- Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945.*
> 
> _Japan was finished as a warmaking nation, in spite of its four million men still under arms. But...Japan was not going to quit. Despite the fact that she was militarily finished, Japan's leaders were going to fight right on. To not lose "face" was more important than hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives. And the people concurred, in silence, without protest. To continue was no longer a question of Japanese military thinking, it was an aspect of Japanese culture and psychology._
> 
> *- James Jones, WWII*
> 
> *Japanese Homeland Defense Strategy*
> 
> With the greater part of Japan's troop strength overseas and industrial production suffering under constant American air attacks, the defense of the Japanese home islands presented an enormous challenge to the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (IGHQ). On 8 April 1945, the Imperial General Headquarters issued orders, to be effective 15 April, activating the First and Second General Armies.(1) These two Armies would be responsible for the ground defense of the Japanese home islands. Also, on 8 April 1945, IGHQ issued an order activating the Air General Army, effective 15 April. The purpose of the new Air General Army was to coordinate the air defense of Japan, providing a single headquarters through which cooperation with the ground forces and the Navy could be expedited in implementing the defense of the home islands.(2) Simultaneously with the activation of the First and Second General Armies and the Air General Army, IGHQ issued orders for the implementation of *Ketsu-Go*(Decisive) Operation. Defensive in nature, the operation divided the Japanese home territory into seven zones from which to fight the final decisive battles of the Japanese empire.(3)
> 
> The strategy for *Ketsu-Go* was outlined in an 8 April 1945 Army Directive.(4) It stated that the Imperial Army would endeavor to crush the Americans while the invasion force was _*still at sea*_. They planned to deliver a decisive blow against the American naval force by initially destroying as many carriers as possible, utilizing the special attack forces of the Air Force and Navy. When the amphibious force approached within range of the homeland airbases, the entire air combat strength would be employed in continual night and day assaults against these ships. In conducting the air operations, the emphasis would be on the disruption of the American landing plans. *The principal targets were to be the troop and equipment transports*. Those American forces which succeeded in landing would be swiftly attacked by the Imperial Army in order to seek the decisive victory. The principal objective of the land operation was the destruction of the American landing force *on the beach*.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Seriously, you stated we consistently demanded that the Emperor be removed, and that is a flat out lie.
> 
> I posted the Surrender demand that you just failed to include in your quote, failed as in purposely deleted.



NO, I don't bother with it because it was irrelevent to the point.  We didn't start being reasonable about the Emperor until the Soviets got into it, and we had a reasonably fear they might get to Tokyo first.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> False premise or an outright lie.
> 
> Defenseless, hardly. Murder? A stretch of the imagination, a moral argument?
> 
> Murder, The Japanese Army is guilty of the murder of over 10,000,000 people, during the Murder spree the Japanese went on.
> 
> The Japanese Army and Navy began the murder of Chinese, Burmese, and Philippine people long before they began Murdering defenseless Americans.
> 
> The Japanese made the decision to Murder abroad while at the same time they assured the civilians in Japan they could protect them, at the same time.



the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't killing people.


----------



## Syriusly

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like so many myths in American history, the truth about the A bombs is difficult to accept and the truth sayers must be denigrated to protect the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the truth is that we fought Japan for three and a half years and then we dropped two bombs and in a few days the war was over. Truth or myth, a lot of Americans and Japanese were able to live their full lives out because of the truth or myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt dropping the bombs saved American lives and treasure and may well have saved Japanese lives. How many Japanese would have died had the war continued conventionally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Round and round you go...and you guys have lost your minds.
> 
> You justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of defenseless women, children, and old men.
> 
> How does one get so murderous and uncaring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we are fairly clear that we believe that dropping the bomb saved more lives than it cost. Of course those deaths were horrible- all deaths- women, children, old men- and soldiers are horrible.
> 
> We cannot know what would have happened if we had not dropped the bomb- we do know that the result today is that Japan is a vibrant modern Democracy that has no imperial ambitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe mass murder of innocent defenseless civilians, to prevent the deaths of your soldiers, is okay.
Click to expand...


I believe that if we are going to be 'murdering' human beings, that fewer is better than more. 

And the decision to drop the bomb resulted in fewer deaths than the alternative that was going to happen.


----------



## Syriusly

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you stated we consistently demanded that the Emperor be removed, and that is a flat out lie.
> 
> I posted the Surrender demand that you just failed to include in your quote, failed as in purposely deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't bother with it because it was irrelevent to the point.  We didn't start being reasonable about the Emperor until the Soviets got into it, and we had a reasonably fear they might get to Tokyo first.
Click to expand...


We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.

The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.


----------



## Syriusly

Vigilante said:


> Perhaps if we NUKED Mecca, we would have proof, either way, that NUKES prevent more war, or would the muslim scum, get all irate, and then we could do as we did with Japan and drop a second one on Medina..... after that, we certainly would have an indication of if it was necessary or not!



Well that would make as much sense as if we nuked Hiroshima in order to get India to surrender to us.......


----------



## JoeB131

Syriusly said:


> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.



Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them. 

A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.


----------



## SAYIT

gipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot know what would have happened if we had not dropped the bomb- we do know that the result today is that Japan is a vibrant modern Democracy that has no imperial ambitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe mass murder of innocent defenseless civilians, to prevent the deaths of your soldiers, is okay.
Click to expand...


Murder? You're an idiot, Gipper, and I mean that with all do respect.


----------



## Jarlaxle

gipper said:


> I love America more than most.  I do know that American pols lie and I hate lying and I am the opposite of a leftist.
> Let's see...the Japanese people who were starving were going to inflict 500k casualties on a battle hardened US military who controlled air and sea, with pitchforks.
> 
> Stop believing in fairy tales and lying progressive statists.



You wouldn't know a fact if it bit your scrotum.  500,000 casualties were probably a bit high...but an invasion would have been a bloodbath.  The Japanese KNEW where the invasion would be (there are only a few places where it is practical), and were ready.  They had amassed thousands of suicide boats, _kamikaze_ planes, rocket bombs (basically, manned cruise missiles), and _kaiten_ manned torpedoes.

Also, the American troops would lose their biggest advantage- air cover-due to the monsoons.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter is Japanese, makes my mother in-law Japanese, that makes you about the dumbest person here? Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooookay, this just got weird.  I'm done
Click to expand...


Too many words, boy.  You just needed to type, "I concede."


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
Click to expand...


Did they have the airlift and sea-lift capability for that?


----------



## SAYIT

Jarlaxle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love America more than most.  I do know that American pols lie and I hate lying and I am the opposite of a leftist.
> Let's see...the Japanese people who were starving were going to inflict 500k casualties on a battle hardened US military who controlled air and sea, with pitchforks.
> 
> Stop believing in fairy tales and lying progressive statists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it bit your scrotum.  500,000 casualties were probably a bit high...but an invasion would have been a bloodbath.  The Japanese KNEW where the invasion would be (there are only a few places where it is practical), and were ready.  They had amassed thousands of suicide boats, _kamikaze_ planes, rocket bombs (basically, manned cruise missiles), and _kaiten_ manned torpedoes.
> 
> Also, the American troops would lose their biggest advantage- air cover-due to the monsoons.
Click to expand...


Even if the casualty figure for America is halved consider the number of Japanese that would be dead. 500,000? 750,000? 1 million? The point is many lives and much treasure was saved and the war was brought to a speedy end allowing for the healing to begin sooner. In effect, a win-win-win. There is something wrong with those who desperately need to make America the bad guy in this matter.


----------



## Camp

Jarlaxle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the airlift and sea-lift capability for that?
Click to expand...

They maintained about 20 paratrooper brigades, but would quickly transform them into rifle brigades when needed. They had several major jumps and many smaller ones. The Tupolev TB 3 was the aircraft used. 

youtube.com/watch?v=zzMb_ue4aG4


----------



## whitehall

Egghead responsibility? Pop history says that Oppenheimer and Einstein were "surprised" or "offended" or "angered" by the way the Truman administration dropped their creation on innocent civilians but history indicates that the scientists were the biggest proponents of testing their creation on society. When the nuclear shit hit the fan the eggheads ran for cover.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you stated we consistently demanded that the Emperor be removed, and that is a flat out lie.
> 
> I posted the Surrender demand that you just failed to include in your quote, failed as in purposely deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't bother with it because it was irrelevent to the point.  We didn't start being reasonable about the Emperor until the Soviets got into it, and we had a reasonably fear they might get to Tokyo first.
Click to expand...

Lies, nothing more.

How in the hell was The USSR going to get to Tokyo before us, considering we were already there and the USSR was barely in Manchuria? You do realize that the USSR entry in the War was in China.

Not reasonable about the Emperor until the USSR got in the war.

Did you miss the date of the Potsdam declaration, that was before the USSR joined the war.

T

Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The *Potsdam Declaration* or the *Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender* is a statement that called for the surrender of all Japanese armed forces during World War II. On July 26, 1945,


JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you stated we consistently demanded that the Emperor be removed, and that is a flat out lie.
> 
> I posted the Surrender demand that you just failed to include in your quote, failed as in purposely deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't bother with it because it was irrelevent to the point.  We didn't start being reasonable about the Emperor until the Soviets got into it, and we had a reasonably fear they might get to Tokyo first.
Click to expand...

The soviets joined the war in august, the demand for surrender came in July.

Joeb131 is wrong again, thus far every post wrong, as proven with facts.

Joeb131 is perfectly wrong.

An accomplishment of sorts.


----------



## elektra

whitehall said:


> Egghead responsibility? Pop history says that Oppenheimer and Einstein were "surprised" or "offended" or "angered" by the way the Truman administration dropped their creation on innocent civilians but history indicates that the scientists were the biggest proponents of testing their creation on society. When the nuclear shit hit the fan the eggheads ran for cover.


Despite Einstein ' s pleas to develop the bomb? Einstein had zero to do with the development of the bombs,  not even Einstein ' s formulas were used, Einstein did write a letter urging that the bombs be built.

Oppenheimer, was he for the bomb before he was against it? He just thought he was building a firecracker to scare people, right.


----------



## elektra

elektra said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa began at about the time the war in Europe was ending. It got bad PR because over 12,000 Americans were killed and another 38,000 wounded. This was not the first time Americans got to see what a dead soldier looked like. That is like saying no one was paying attention during the entire war in Europe. That is just ridiculous. What they were not accustomed to seeing were so many casualties in such a short amount of time. Okinawa came on the heels of Iwo Jima which cost 7,000 killed in action and 20,000 wounded. America was dealing with almost 5,000 killed and wounded every week from the time Iwo Jima began at the end of February until Okinawa ended at the end of June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the first time that pictures of dead Americans were published in the press, that was the point.  Up until that point, the Government was censoring the shit out of everything, hiding things like the 700 guys who got killed during a practice excercise for D-Day because some German torpedo boats slipped past their protection.
> 
> Point was, the Japanese government was putting out feelers for peace long before we dropped the bomb.  We dropped these horrible weapons anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese government was putting out feelers?
> 
> You still have not came up with a good Goggle answer, have you. The Japanese would never of surrendered, not after the Fire Bombing in Tokyo, not after the lost of Okinawa, funny how the Japanese never quit shooting, never quit Hari Kari, funny how so many fought to the death, took not one but two Nuclear attacks, and even then it was pretty rough for them to Surrender.
> 
> The Japanese Government? The Diet? The Prime Minister? Any text of the conversations? Any photos of the messages?
> 
> Tojo never attempted to surrender.
> 
> The Japanese Supreme command, never tried to surrender.
> 
> At any time the Japanese could of surrendered, laid down its weapons, and stopped killing people, but they never did.
> 
> How about some of those fast Google searches, I am sure you must of tried to come up with something better than, "The Japanese Government tried to surrender".
> 
> The Japanese government was the Military, they were in control, them and a couple of old families, the Diet, the Supreme council, so quit being vague.
> 
> Tell us who you are talking about, are you talking about the Emperor, come on, spill the beans, give us dates, give us names.
> 
> Was it Dulles in Sweden? Are you speaking of the Palace Revolt? Tojo and Germany? The Ambassador? The Prime Ministers? There were a few Prime Ministers, yes?
Click to expand...

Joeb131 ran from this post, Joeb131 was wrong, as my reply proved.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter is Japanese, makes my mother in-law Japanese, that makes you about the dumbest person here? Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooookay, this just got weird.  I'm done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many words, boy.  You just needed to type, "I concede."
Click to expand...


No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Joeb131 ran from this post, Joeb131 was wrong, as my reply proved.



No, i don't talk to you because you are a crazy person.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> The soviets joined the war in august, the demand for surrender came in July.
> 
> Joeb131 is wrong again, thus far every post wrong, as proven with facts.
> 
> Joeb131 is perfectly wrong.
> 
> An accomplishment of sorts.



Did you go to teh Political Chick school of debate where you just make off topic comments and declare victory. 

The Soviets entered the war in August. the overran Manchuria in less than a week. The Japanese didn't even have time to get their puppet ruler Pu-Yi out of the country.  

THat's why they gave up. 

You see, what Americans like to forget is that the USSR did most of the heavy lifting in WWII.  A couple bombs didn't make a difference.  50 battle hardened Red Army division rampaging through Manchuria and Korea and threatening Japan itself did.


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The soviets joined the war in august, the demand for surrender came in July.
> 
> Joeb131 is wrong again, thus far every post wrong, as proven with facts.
> 
> Joeb131 is perfectly wrong.
> 
> An accomplishment of sorts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you go to teh Political Chick school of debate where you just make off topic comments and declare victory.
> 
> The Soviets entered the war in August. the overran Manchuria in less than a week. The Japanese didn't even have time to get their puppet ruler Pu-Yi out of the country.
> 
> THat's why they gave up.
> 
> You see, what Americans like to forget is that the USSR did most of the heavy lifting in WWII.  A couple bombs didn't make a difference.  50 battle hardened Red Army division rampaging through Manchuria and Korea and threatening Japan itself did.
Click to expand...

Wow, comparing Electra to PoliticalChic is over the line unfair. Electra uses excellent sources and is promoting ideas and opinions of a long list of legitimate historians and scholars and adhering to the generally accepted what may loosely be called the Richard B. Frank school based largely on "Downfall" and Edward Drea's "MacArthur's Ultra: Code Breaking....." These are not schools of thought and works that can be shrugged off over speculative opinion. Nor are they old obsolete works that have been somehow debunked with the release of previously unknown or declassified data the way PoliticalChics sources have.
nytimes.com/books/first/f/frank-downfall.html

The Hasegawa books are being accepted and studied. Not really new, but his works are taking time to take hold. They are the viewpoints of a Japanese scholar and hence less known to westerners. They are certainly praised and get excellent reviews by professional historians and have become required reading on this subject. Racing the Enemy is a must read.
bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html
Add to Racing the Enemy his book The End of the Pacific War: Reappraisals
h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23499
It appears that you have knowingly or unknowingly been influenced by the Hasegawa school.


----------



## JoeB131

Camp said:


> Wow, comparing Electra to PoliticalChic is over the line unfair. Electra uses excellent sources and is promoting ideas and opinions of a long list of legitimate historians and scholars and adhering to the generally accepted what may loosely be called the Richard B. Frank school based largely on "Downfall" and Edward Drea's "MacArthur's Ultra: Code Breaking....." These are not schools of thought and works that can be shrugged off over speculative opinion. Nor are they old obsolete works that have been somehow debunked with the release of previously unknown or declassified data the way PoliticalChics sources have.



i think they are both a little crazy, honestly.  they seem to both want to spam a thread with off -tangent stuff and then think they win when everyone else loses interest.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you stated we consistently demanded that the Emperor be removed, and that is a flat out lie.
> 
> I posted the Surrender demand that you just failed to include in your quote, failed as in purposely deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't bother with it because it was irrelevent to the point.  We didn't start being reasonable about the Emperor until the Soviets got into it, and we had a reasonably fear they might get to Tokyo first.
Click to expand...

Lies, nothing more.

How in the hell was The USSR going to get to Tokyo before us, considering we were already there and the USSR was barely in Manchuria? You do realize that the USSR entry in the War was in China.

Not reasonable about the Emperor until the USSR got in the war.

Did you miss the date of the Potsdam declaration, that was before the USSR joined the war.

The USSR joined the war in August, not before, hence joeb131 proves once again, joeb131's revisionist view is wrong. Further Joeb131 kn

Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The *Potsdam Declaration* or the *Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender* is a statement that called for the surrender of all Japanese armed forces during World War II. On July 26, 1945,


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, comparing Electra to PoliticalChic is over the line unfair. Electra uses excellent sources and is promoting ideas and opinions of a long list of legitimate historians and scholars and adhering to the generally accepted what may loosely be called the Richard B. Frank school based largely on "Downfall" and Edward Drea's "MacArthur's Ultra: Code Breaking....." These are not schools of thought and works that can be shrugged off over speculative opinion. Nor are they old obsolete works that have been somehow debunked with the release of previously unknown or declassified data the way PoliticalChics sources have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think they are both a little crazy, honestly.  they seem to both want to spam a thread with off -tangent stuff and then think they win when everyone else loses interest.
Click to expand...

Actually, honestly, "spam a thread with off tangent stuff".

EXCUSE ME!, I WAS RESPONDING TO YOUR POSTS!

simple liar you are


----------



## elektra

*The Rising Sun*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Rising Sun (diasambiguation).
_*The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936–1945*_, written by John Toland, was published by Random House in 1970[1] and won the 1971 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction.[2] It was republished by Random House in 2003.[3]

A chronicle of the World War II rise and fall of the Japanese empire, from the invasion of Manchuria and China to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from the Japanese perspective, it is in the author's words, "a factual saga of people caught up in the flood of the most overwhelming war of mankind, told as it happened—muddled, ennobling, disgraceful, frustrating, full of paradox."

I call this book a bit biased towards the Japanese side, but it is still a very accurate book, John Toland was actually married to a Japanese woman of some family standing, I believe, I would have to read the forward to be precise.

Toland interviewed many High Ranking Japanese officials from WW II for the book.

The first book from the Japanese point of view.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Lies, nothing more.
> 
> How in the hell was The USSR going to get to Tokyo before us, considering we were already there and the USSR was barely in Manchuria? You do realize that the USSR entry in the War was in China.



We got there first because the Japanese surrendered.  They took a long look at Stalin barrelling towards them and didn't want a bunch of little Eurasian Rape Babies.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Camp said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the airlift and sea-lift capability for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They maintained about 20 paratrooper brigades, but would quickly transform them into rifle brigades when needed. They had several major jumps and many smaller ones. The Tupolev TB 3 was the aircraft used.
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=zzMb_ue4aG4
Click to expand...


They could drop paratroops, assuming the US didn't "accidentally" intercept them.  What about sealift?


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.



Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else.  Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else.  Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!
Click to expand...


Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.


----------



## Thunderbird

I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.


----------



## JoeB131

Thunderbird said:


> I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.



I think you might be overthinking it a bit.  

I think the Atom bomb in 1945 wasn't the awe-inspiring thing it is today, after most of us grew up under the threat of nuclear annihilation.  

It was just another weapon in a war where all sorts of new weapons had been employed to devastating effect. 

Yes, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, in a war that had already killed some 70 million.


----------



## Camp

Jarlaxle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the airlift and sea-lift capability for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They maintained about 20 paratrooper brigades, but would quickly transform them into rifle brigades when needed. They had several major jumps and many smaller ones. The Tupolev TB 3 was the aircraft used.
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=zzMb_ue4aG4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could drop paratroops, assuming the US didn't "accidentally" intercept them.  What about sealift?
Click to expand...




Jarlaxle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they have the airlift and sea-lift capability for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They maintained about 20 paratrooper brigades, but would quickly transform them into rifle brigades when needed. They had several major jumps and many smaller ones. The Tupolev TB 3 was the aircraft used.
> 
> youtube.com/watch?v=zzMb_ue4aG4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could drop paratroops, assuming the US didn't "accidentally" intercept them.  What about sealift?
Click to expand...

Sea lift or troop transport was not a problem. In fact, they began there attack as promised at Yalta, three days after Hiroshima. They were very prepared with two ports to launch their invasion fleets. Vladivostok in the north and Lushon (previously Port Arthur) in the south. They took the Liaodong peninsula quickly to acquire the port. Their supporting fleet consisted of a dozen surface warships, 60 submarines, numerous support vessels and troop transports. The distance needed to travel was so small that the ships could ferry supplies and troops. The air assets for the invasion consisted of over 6,000 aircraft. The invasion of the Russian hoards had already begun in Manchuria  when the bombs were dropped. Russia's ability was not in question.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Then perhaps Fat Man should have been dropped on Vladivostock...


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Then perhaps Fat Man should have been dropped on Vladivostock...



Maybe fat man should have been dropped on the truck stop where you keep picking up those hookers and the ditch-weed.


----------



## Camp

Jarlaxle said:


> Then perhaps Fat Man should have been dropped on Vladivostock...


It wasn't necessary and would have caused a war between the US and USSR in Europe. The USSR did not know how many atom bombs we  had.  It was the start of the Cold War. US wasn't going to share the spoils of Japan in exchange for a few days of fighting by the USSR. They were satisfied in getting China, North Korea and the Kuril Islands. Point is the dates of dropping the bombs and was not coincidental. Dropping the bombs  were directly related to the USSR breaking the neutrality pact and entering the war and hence make the bombing more about political with economic rewards than militarily strategic necessities.


----------



## SAYIT

JoeB131 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, in a war that had already killed some 70 million.
Click to expand...


The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.


----------



## SAYIT

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else.  Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.
Click to expand...

 
Absolute BS.
Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, in a war that had already killed some 70 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.
Click to expand...



Whatever conclusion one may reach, trying to reduce a question like this to anything simple is lazy and weak-minded.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Camp said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps Fat Man should have been dropped on Vladivostock...
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't necessary and would have caused a war between the US and USSR in Europe. The USSR did not know how many atom bombs we  had.  It was the start of the Cold War. US wasn't going to share the spoils of Japan in exchange for a few days of fighting by the USSR. They were satisfied in getting China, North Korea and the Kuril Islands. Point is the dates of dropping the bombs and was not coincidental. Dropping the bombs  were directly related to the USSR breaking the neutrality pact and entering the war and hence make the bombing more about political with economic rewards than militarily strategic necessities.
Click to expand...

The russians knew precicly how many bombs we had.  Stalin had better knowledge on the manhattan project than truman had.


----------



## Camp

Baruch Menachem said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps Fat Man should have been dropped on Vladivostock...
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't necessary and would have caused a war between the US and USSR in Europe. The USSR did not know how many atom bombs we  had.  It was the start of the Cold War. US wasn't going to share the spoils of Japan in exchange for a few days of fighting by the USSR. They were satisfied in getting China, North Korea and the Kuril Islands. Point is the dates of dropping the bombs and was not coincidental. Dropping the bombs  were directly related to the USSR breaking the neutrality pact and entering the war and hence make the bombing more about political with economic rewards than militarily strategic necessities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The russians knew precicly how many bombs we had.  Stalin had better knowledge on the manhattan project than truman had.
Click to expand...

Really? I knew that the USSR had plenty of spies, but I didn't realize they had the kind of knowledge you are speaking of. Which spy had the knowledge of the number of bombs the USA had ready for use in August of 1945. Maybe you could provide a link?


----------



## Baruch Menachem

The venona project.   You have heard of it?


----------



## regent

American scientists that worked on the American A bomb estimated it would take the USSR four years to build  their own bomb. The USSR exploded its first bomb on 8/29/49 a few days late, but four years later as the American scientists had predicted. Four years seems to be the norm, it took America 31/2 years, and there was some doubt if it could be built. After America exploded her first it was now known it could be done.


----------



## Camp

Baruch Menachem said:


> The venona project.   You have heard of it?


Yes, where in it does it say the USSR knew the number of bombs produced and available? Is it possible that you are making an assumption?


----------



## JoeB131

SAYIT said:


> The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.



Well, no, the estimates of fatalities for the US side was only 46,000.  The Home Army was not well equipped to fight a long war.  

the 500,000 figure is something Truman and others pulled out of their asses later when people started realizing the implication of these weapons.  

The reality was, the Japanese were already ready to surrender, were desperately trying to do so.   The entry of the USSR into the war was the deciding factor.


----------



## JoeB131

SAYIT said:


> Absolute BS.
> Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).



We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us.   Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.  

The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference.  A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else.  Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.
Click to expand...

That is not the history. 

Thus far you have claimed Japan was beat, yet after Japan was beat The USSR declared war on Japan? 

You claim that the USSR caused Japan to Surrender, yet after the USSR declared war on Japan, Japan did not Surrender.

Japan and the USSR fought until Sept. 2nd, 1945.

Japan Surrendered to the Allies, to the USA on Aug. 15th, 1945.

It is the little things in the Revisionist logic they can not explain.

If Russia forced Japan to surrender to the Allies on August 15th 1945. why did Russia have to physically fight the Japanese until Sept 2nd, 1945. 

How did 20,000 Russian soldiers die after August 15th 1945 when the, "entire World knew", the Japanese were beaten, defenseless, unable to inflict casualties?

If you are a Communist (the USSR version of Marxism), the Japanese obviously Surrendered on Sept. 2nd of 1945. When the Japanese Army and the Russian Army quit hostilities, which happened to be on the day of the Formal Surrender Ceremony.

On August 19th a Japanese Delegation left Japan, for Manila, where the same day they discussed the Terms of Surrender, at the Manila Conference.

Yet, Russia and Japan were fighting, Japan had not surrendered to Russia, the War in Manchuria between Japan and Russia attest to that fact.

Confusing the Revisionists make things.


----------



## elektra

Baruch Menachem said:


> The venona project.   You have heard of it?


Oppenheimer heard of it. If they knew it was Oppenheimer, hence wise to take his Top Secret security clearance.


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, the estimates of fatalities for the US side was only 46,000.  The Home Army was not well equipped to fight a long war.
> 
> the 500,000 figure is something Truman and others pulled out of their asses later when people started realizing the implication of these weapons.
> 
> The reality was, the Japanese were already ready to surrender, were desperately trying to do so.   The entry of the USSR into the war was the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

That 46,000 casualties figure is suspect and not reliable. Track it yourself if you wish, but my research could only trace it to an "Afterward" by Barton Bernstein  for an essay about the bombing debates entitled Judgementat the Smithsonian. I could not find or trace where Bernstein got those numbers other than his "assessment". Seems like a pretty big and important factor in the discussion to depend on ones mans opinion. But maybe you know of other sources for this estimate of 46,000 casualties that don't come from Bernstein.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with Truman's decision to drop the bomb, however I think Truman was motivated by anger at Japan rather than fear of the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, in a war that had already killed some 70 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever conclusion one may reach, trying to reduce a question like this to anything simple is lazy and weak-minded.
Click to expand...


The point you so assiduously avoided (talk about lazy and weak-minded) is that "hundreds of thousands" were not killed by the bombs - in fact hundreds of thousands of lives were saved - and that JoeB LIED because his arguments are so lazy and weak-minded.


----------



## SAYIT

JoeB131 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bombs killed 129,000 and had we invaded Japan the war would have dragged on for perhaps another year and would have claimed another million or more lives ... including 500,000 Americans. Dropping those bombs was the quickest and most humane way to end the war. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, the estimates of fatalities for the US side was only 46,000.  The Home Army was not well equipped to fight a long war.
> 
> the 500,000 figure is something Truman and others pulled out of their asses later when people started realizing the implication of these weapons...
Click to expand...


More of your absolute (and unsupported) BS and your claim that "Truman and others pulled [the estimate] out of their asses later" has already been completely debunked by those who were there in 1945:


In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day _Olympic_ campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If _Coronet_ took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. 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.

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 implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. 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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering 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.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the _Los Angeles Times_, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT

JoeB131 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute BS.
> Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us.   Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.
> 
> The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference.  A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.
Click to expand...

 
All your OPINION but a far cry from reality. Indeed those you named had outrageous _civilian casualties_ but there would have been no western front to relieve the pressure on Russia had US military might and hardware not been involved. I remind you that the US suffered 420,000 dead ... a number you seem to find insignificant.


----------



## Jarlaxle

SAYIT said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute BS.
> Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us.   Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.
> 
> The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference.  A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All your OPINION but a far cry from reality. Indeed those you named had outrageous _civilian casualties_ but there would have been no western front to relieve the pressure on Russia had US military might and hardware not been involved. I remind you that the US suffered 420,000 dead ... a number you seem to find insignificant.
Click to expand...


Joey also ignores (basically: he covers his ears and hollers, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 3-year-old any time it is mentioned the fact that the Soviets would most likely have collapsed without it) the millions of tons of supplies that the Soviets got through Lend-Lease.

Then again...he simply isn't all that bright.


----------



## SAYIT

Jarlaxle said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute BS.
> Why you twist yourself into a pretzel to diminish America's impact on WW2 is a bit baffling (but fun to watch).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We Americans vastly overemphasize our importance in a war that barely touched us.   Russians, Chinese and Indians (under the British) took the brunt of the conflict.
> 
> The reality was, two more bombs didn't make that much of a difference.  A battle hardened Red Army ready to attack on their undefended western flank did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All your OPINION but a far cry from reality. Indeed those you named had outrageous _civilian casualties_ but there would have been no western front to relieve the pressure on Russia had US military might and hardware not been involved. I remind you that the US suffered 420,000 dead ... a number you seem to find insignificant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joey also ignores (basically: he covers his ears and hollers, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 3-year-old any time it is mentioned the fact that the Soviets would most likely have collapsed without it) the millions of tons of supplies that the Soviets got through Lend-Lease.
> 
> Then again...he simply isn't all that bright.
Click to expand...


He suffers from ideological disconnect. Anything which conflicts with his ideology - in this case his disdain for America - is to be avoided like the plague.


----------



## Syriusly

JoeB131 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
Click to expand...


Really? LOL......please tell me more?

Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2? 

The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?

Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.


----------



## Syriusly

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else.  Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.
Click to expand...


No- some historians conclude that. 

Others don't.


----------



## Camp

Syriusly said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? LOL......please tell me more?
> 
> Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?
> 
> The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?
> 
> Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.
Click to expand...

They had a lot of experience with airborne troops, more than the US. They were ahead of the US and Germany. Their large drops were considered failures or only partial success's as they experimented with how to use them, but their smaller drops were considered successful. They dropped 4,000 paratrooper/commando's in the war against Japan in August 1945.

globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-vdv-history.htm


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> That is not the history.
> 
> Thus far you have claimed Japan was beat, yet after Japan was beat The USSR declared war on Japan?
> 
> You claim that the USSR caused Japan to Surrender, yet after the USSR declared war on Japan, Japan did not Surrender.



Okay, until you learn logic and reason and start taking your meds, not talking to you.


----------



## JoeB131

Syriusly said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else.  Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- some historians conclude that.
> 
> Others don't.
Click to expand...


The ones who know what they are talking about realize that the USSR getting into the Pacific War was a game changers. 

Let's look at what it changed. 

1) They took Manchuria in less than a week. 
2) They brought in 1.6 million battle hardened Soviets into the War. 
3) They made it impossible for the Japanese to continue to supply their armies in China overland. 
4) They had secured the northern half of Korea.  

So what did the Atomic Bombings do?  They flattened two cities.  And the japanese probably knew enough of the science to know we probably didn't have more than just the two we dropped.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Joey also ignores (basically: he covers his ears and hollers, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 3-year-old any time it is mentioned the fact that the Soviets would most likely have collapsed without it) the millions of tons of supplies that the Soviets got through Lend-Lease.
> 
> Then again...he simply isn't all that bright.



Yeah, guy, I ignore it because it's kind of stupid.  Stalin's USSR was an industrial machine with unlimited resources.  The produced over 100,000 Armored fighting vehicles and self-propelled guns during the war.  

They also engaged most of the Nazi Armies in Europe...


----------



## JoeB131

Syriusly said:


> Really? LOL......please tell me more?
> 
> Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?
> 
> The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?
> 
> Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.



Yes, we do. The Japanese surrendered because they figured they get better treatment from the Americans than the Russians.  

By 1945, the USSR had 9 Airborne divisions.  Compare that to the Japanese, who only had two divisions and two brigades deployed in Hokkaido.


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> "hundreds of thousands" were not killed by the bombs - in fact hundreds of thousands of lives were saved -.....




"Were not killed" and "lives saved" is mere speculation, and you (should) know it.


----------



## regent

ir


JoeB131 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? LOL......please tell me more?
> 
> Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?
> 
> The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?
> 
> Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. The Japanese surrendered because they figured they get better treatment from the Americans than the Russians.
> 
> By 1945, the USSR had 9 Airborne divisions.  Compare that to the Japanese, who only had two divisions and two brigades deployed in Hokkaido.
Click to expand...

The Eleventh Airborne division was in the Pacific and made a couple of drops, one on Corregidor.


----------



## Syriusly

Camp said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.
> 
> The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.
> 
> A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock.  Easy-peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? LOL......please tell me more?
> 
> Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?
> 
> The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?
> 
> Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a lot of experience with airborne troops, more than the US. They were ahead of the US and Germany. Their large drops were considered failures or only partial success's as they experimented with how to use them, but their smaller drops were considered successful. They dropped 4,000 paratrooper/commando's in the war against Japan in August 1945.
> 
> globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-vdv-history.htm
Click to expand...



Correction- they had a lots of experience prior to the war- during World War 2, they had far less experience. 

Most of the Soviet Airborne experience in WW2 were small scale operations

https://books.google.com/books?id=0erZZt-
EGDQC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=manchurian+soviet+airborne+japan&source=bl&ots=RZjU2s8i7W&sig=au9JfOE7SGD5BoSGQBTYdkM4bJc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zaHFVNXjLImqgwSf2IH4Dg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=manchurian%20soviet%20airborne%20japan&f=false

They had already decided that large scale operations were too costly(page 304) and couldn't be supported.

We are just having an academic discussion right now but the suggestion was the the Soviets would just drop 4 divisions of Airborne into Hokkaido- and I haven't seen anything that supports their ability or willingness to do so. 

And to the question of Soviet military and industrial capability- the Soviets had the finest armored forces in the world in 1945, the finest artillery corp in the world, superb experienced infantry, competent air force and a mediocre navy.  

But the only reason why they could even contemplate invading Japan is because the United States had provided the bulk of naval forces- and all the landing craft that they had.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the history.
> 
> Thus far you have claimed Japan was beat, yet after Japan was beat The USSR declared war on Japan?
> 
> You claim that the USSR caused Japan to Surrender, yet after the USSR declared war on Japan, Japan did not Surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, until you learn logic and reason and start taking your meds, not talking to you.
Click to expand...

Logic and Reason, Logic would mean that Joeb131 does not quote from links with gross errors. 

Can't explain much, Joeb131 proves.

Flaming me while avoiding the facts I responded to your post with, that makes me feel good.

Further, I could car less what your response is, Joeb131, my post is for all those others to see, seems like views are much much more than responses in this thread, hence a lot of people see you, Joeb131 running from many of the false statements you post.

Thanks for the validation, your insults and taunts validate the facts I have posted.


----------



## JoeB131

elektra said:


> Logic and Reason, Logic would mean that Joeb131 does not quote from links with gross errors.



Okay, because you got books.  And they let you have them when you aren't takign your meds.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic and Reason, Logic would mean that Joeb131 does not quote from links with gross errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, because you got books.  And they let you have them when you aren't takign your meds.
Click to expand...

your link provided false information, the author of the website in which joeb131 quoted, that author or website did not use the "book", which they quoted. 

Sorry, but when you post false information through ignorance, and then attack the person who simply points it out, that makes you a liar. 

How are you not a liar, joeb131, you have failed to explain one of the errors you posted. 

It is not a matter that I own books and you do not, it is simple the fact that I care enough about what I post, to educate myself from multiple sources. 

joeb131, I bet you have no idea who Howard Zinn is. You should, for the fools you link to, use Howard Zinn as a source, and the funny thing is Howard Zinn sourced nothing in his book.

joeb131, go buy Zinn's book, at least you will have gone to the source of the Revisionist "hate" the USA history.


----------



## JoeB131

Okay, again, party ended here a long time ago, no one is interested.  

Unsubscribe.


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, again, party ended here a long time ago, no one is interested.
> 
> Unsubscribe.


I do not post to educate you, I hardly see myself in a conversation or debate with joeb131, I was just here to post facts that revisionist ignore. Not for your benefit, I understand you have no desire to know history, your opinion is based in hate, nothing more. You are about the weakest in a long line of revisionist parrots, most who do not even have the smarts to know they are simply parrots. I post what I post, so that others can see how easy it is to show that Joeb131 and all the revisionist parrots can not defend their "ideas". 

Is that your last flame and troll? You last insult? Pretty weak, just like your Opinion you have been ranting about.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, again, party ended here a long time ago, no one is interested.
> 
> Unsubscribe.


Then why are you here? This topic is a theme that either takes a break every so often or renews itself every so often, take your pick but it will be back. It is a look at another generation and one of the problems they faced and how they dealt with it. Some  years from now a new generation will be asking why this generation allowed....


----------

