71 Years

[Unkotare]

YOU need to search all the facts .....

What facts, Mexico Mary?

Don't go there, misogynist Unko. ........

What facts, Mexico Mary?

 

[Unkotare]

... Why are you defending the indefensible? WHY? .......

What, in the fog of your dotage, do you imagine me to be defending, Mexico Mary?

 

[Unkotare]

You don't support facist [sic] japan [sic] as some sort of poor poor misunderstood little victims, are [sic] you? ....

No, and I never have. See how easy it is to answer a question, MM?

 

[whitehall]

Americans that the best "means" to end the war" is to incinerate the (sub human?) civilian population of two cities while their leaders were seeking surrender terms.

Why the sub human insert? A Truman quote?

The leaders were seeking a cease fire, not a surrender. Their proposals with the Soviets were a fools errand. Stalin passed few if any of their proposals to Truman. Stalin looked to gain ground in lost Japanese territory.

Again, why the sub human insert? We wanted our boys home. We wanted to stop the hundreds to thousands of killed/maimed that was going on every day ON BOTH SIDES.

The sub human insert is based on real evidence that the FDR administration relied on racist stereotypes before the war to convince themselves that the Japanese were a warlike little yellow race incapable of building a ship that would float or a plane that would fly because they had an inherent balance and vision problem. Don't laugh, it was the prevailing intelligence before Pearl Harbor and probably the reason that the FDR administration was blindsided by the "Day of Infamy". The initial stated mission for taking the tiny stinking island of Iwo Jima was to stop Japanese fighters from harassing American bombers on daylight raids of Japan. The stinking atol could have been bombed into oblivion and it's survivors left to starve but the real mission was to sacrifice Marines to encourage public support for using the Atomic Bomb.

 

[Divine Wind]

And if a real leader could have brought about an end to the war without incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon ever devised? Would you be for or against that?

For it. However, anyone who says that could have been done in August 1945 is a fucking revisionist moron.

 

[Divine Wind]

We all morn the innocent dead of all nations from Guernica , Nan King, Coventry to Nagasaki. Perhaps we should leave it at that, yes?

Not the Japanese. They figure taking China and massacring tens of thousands was their God-given right.

 

[regent]

I think FDR was well aware of the strength of the Japanese armed forces. Iwo was needed as a base closer to Japan so it could be used as a base for the coming invasions.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think FDR was well aware of the strength of the Japanese armed forces. Iwo was needed as a base closer to Japan so it could be used as a base for the coming invasions.

Agreed about FDR.

Iwo was necessary for the airfield as a landing spot for damaged B-29s returning from raids over Japan.

 

[Unkotare]

And if a real leader could have brought about an end to the war without incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon ever devised? Would you be for or against that?

For it. However, anyone who says that could have been done in August 1945 is a fucking revisionist moron.

EVIDENCE suggests otherwise.

 

[Unkotare]

We all morn the innocent dead of all nations from Guernica , Nan King, Coventry to Nagasaki. Perhaps we should leave it at that, yes?

Not the Japanese. They figure taking China and massacring tens of thousands was their God-given right.

Did you fight in WWII?

 

[Unkotare]

And if a real leader could have brought about an end to the war without incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon ever devised? Would you be for or against that?

For it. ......

So you would support the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians if not (as it was not) militarily necessary?

 

[Divine Wind]

EVIDENCE suggests otherwise.

Evidence suggests you're wrong.....again.

If Japan hadn't taken up fascism and embarked on a campaign to conquer or destroy those who were in their way, would the US have nuked them?

Did you fight in WWII?

No. Did you?

So you would support the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians if not (as it was not) militarily necessary?

No. Do you support the "Rape of Nanking"? Do you support the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? Do you support the enslavement of Korean girls for "comfort houses"? Do you support all of the numerous atrocities committed by Japanese troops such as the massacre of 22 Australian nurses and their patients on Bangka Island?

Bangka, the Indonesian island haunted by a massacre
By the morning of the February 16, there were around 90 survivors gathered on this beach. They included allied servicemen, stretcher cases, civilians and 22 of the Australian nurses. A delegation set off for the nearest village, accompanied by the civilian women and children. They were intercepted by a Japanese patrol, which refused their surrender. The civilians were told to walk into Muntok but the others were marched back to the beach.

The able-bodied servicemen was the first group to be taken behind the headland and killed. The Japanese soldiers then returned and set up a machine-gun. Along with one elderly British civilian, who had refused to leave her wounded husband, the nurses were ordered to walk into the sea and then shot. Then it was the turn of the stretcher cases, one of whom included a British soldier, Private Patrick Kingsley.

Although suffering from terrible injuries, Kingsley survived and so did one nurse, Sister Vivian Bullwinkel. Shot in the hip, the bullet went straight through her, missing her vital organs. Vivian lay in the shallows for up to two days, where the salt water cleaned her wounds.



Ten of Japan's worst War Crimes

 

[Unkotare]

EVIDENCE suggests otherwise.

Evidence suggests you're wrong.....again....

I have provided ample evidence to the contrary.

 

[Unkotare]

... Do you support all of the numerous atrocities committed by Japanese troops ...?

...

Of course not, and the facts of those atrocities have never been in contention here despite what you and Mexico Mary keep trying to insist. Are you, like her, trying to claim the atomic bombings were acts of revenge for those atrocities on behalf of the people of China, Korea, and SEA? If so, can you support that claim with evidence?

 

[Unkotare]

We all morn the innocent dead of all nations from Guernica , Nan King, Coventry to Nagasaki. Perhaps we should leave it at that, yes?

Not the Japanese. They figure taking China and massacring tens of thousands was their God-given right.

Let's see, you did not fight in the war, so why write this in the present tense?

 

[Divine Wind]

For some military leaders it was their only war, and some seemed unable to read the message Japan was sending them with Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

Not sure I follow you here. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were intensely opposed battles by the Japanese. They literally fought to the death. This intensity had increased the closer the US approached Japan. There was no doubt landing on mainland Japan would not only be intensely fought by the military, but also by much of the population. The casualty figures were extrapolated from both Iwo and Okinawa, especially Okinawa since it had a civilian population, and those figures were enormous. Ending the war as fast as possible with a Japanese surrender was of paramount importance. Since the US had a weapon which could possibly accomplish this task, the decision was made to use it.

Many people don't know that we only had 3 bombs, the test bomb at Trinity and the two dropped on Japan. We were bluffing when we implied there were more.

 

[Divine Wind]

Of course not, and the facts of those atrocities have never been in contention here despite what you and Mexico Mary keep trying to insist. Are you, like her, trying to claim the atomic bombings were acts of revenge for those atrocities on behalf of the people of China, Korea, and SEA? If so, can you support that claim with evidence?

Ahh, so you only want to discuss dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima out of context with the war itself? Interesting.

No, the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war done in order to force Japan to cease and desist in their war against us.

 

[Divine Wind]

Let's see, you did not fight in the war, so why write this in the present tense?

Because they still feel that way. You know, like you do.

 

[Unkotare]

[... the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war done in order to force Japan to cease and desist in their war against us.

You fail to address all the copious evidence I have provided that the atomic bombing was not "necessary" to end the war.

 

[Unkotare]

Let's see, you did not fight in the war, so why write this in the present tense?

Because they still feel that way. ......

Upon what do you base this ridiculous claim?