Hiroshima....

[Frank'sRules]

They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians. But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.

Ridiculous.

It's history.

It's America-hating fantasy. They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.

It's history. The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.

They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.

I poor man's smart weapon.

 

[blackhawk]

Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.

Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.

Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.

Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.

There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.

I don't need to be fed the national line, that's what school was for, to socialize me in the proper manner. We were all subjected to that.

This information did not come from a school history book. I gave you a place to start what you choose to with it is up to you either proceed or don't the choice is yours I'm not going to try and convince you anymore either way.

 

[kaz]

We haven't been in a legit war since WWIIm and that has been utterly bipartisan.

There was the Korean War, but for some reason that war is widely forgotten by Americans.

US generals are going to get their asses handed to them if they ever get pushed into actual conventional warfare.

That quote wasn't me, it was Fenton.

I think the Vietnam war and the Korean were for legitimate purposes, but we fucked both up in the execution and would have been better off staying out of them rather than fight it the way we did, particularly Vietnam

 

[Fenton Lum]

Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.

Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.

So, who was in charge them, he or they?

And they were soon to surrender anyway. We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.

That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender. What they proposed was that we just stop fighting. That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again

Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here. A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?

Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here. North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding. Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.

Um ... no ... Strawman. I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it. We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country. Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives. We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them. Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them

You have no will because you're defending nothing, they are wars of aggression.

 

[Onyx]

They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.

The nuclear bombs were not used on solidiers. They were used on civilians.

Many Japanese were critical of the military government and to a lesser extent the emperor by the end of the war. If you want historical context, notice how many more stories we have of Japanese secret police operating in 1945 as opposed to 1938.

 

[TooTall]

Terrorism can work. It sure did there.

Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.

They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians. But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.

You are full of shit up to your eyeballs.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.

Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.

Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.

There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.

I don't need to be fed the national line, that's what school was for, to socialize me in the proper manner. We were all subjected to that.

This information did not come from a school history book. I gave you a place to start what you choose to with it is up to you either proceed or don't the choice is yours I'm not going to try and convince you anymore either way.

I'm referring to a narrative line. Again, many of these things are written from the vantage point of the victor.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Terrorism can work. It sure did there.

Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.

They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians. But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.

You are full of shit up to your eyeballs.

Terrific rebuttal.

 

[BlindBoo]

The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.

Don't try to make acts of terrorism worthy. It might work, like our use of terrorism in Japan, but it's never worthy.

It was an act of war.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.

Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.

So, who was in charge them, he or they?

And they were soon to surrender anyway. We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.

That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender. What they proposed was that we just stop fighting. That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again

Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here. A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?

Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here. North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding. Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.

Um ... no ... Strawman. I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it. We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country. Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives. We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them. Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them

You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea? In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?

 

[kaz]

Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.

So, who was in charge them, he or they?

And they were soon to surrender anyway. We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.

That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender. What they proposed was that we just stop fighting. That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again

Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here. A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?

Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here. North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding. Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.

Um ... no ... Strawman. I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it. We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country. Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives. We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them. Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them

You have no will because you're defending nothing, they are wars orf aggression.

Countering the Soviet Union was defense. The domino theory wasn't a theory. And what's your desire to have Koreans and Vietnamese Communist? Look at the lives today of North Koreans and South Koreans. That doesn't help them? You just hate them because they're not white?

As for the ones after that, I don't support most of them. I support Grenada and Panama, that's about it

 

[jknowgood]

Ridiculous.

It's history.

It's America-hating fantasy. They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.

It's history. The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.

They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.

"Terrorism" is always what the other guy does.

What do you call it?

 

[TooTall]

Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.

They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians. But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.

Ridiculous.

It's history.

It's America-hating fantasy. They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.

It's history. The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.

We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.

Don't try to make acts of terrorism worthy. It might work, like our use of terrorism in Japan, but it's never worthy.

It was an act of war.

Then we'd better expect the same at some point, we sure don't avoid war.

 

[Onyx]

I think the Vietnam war and the Korean were for legitimate purposes, but we fucked both up in the execution and would have been better off staying out of them rather than fight it the way we did, particularly Vietnam

The Korean War had basis in moral justice . North Korea were aggressors, and the goals of the UN were self defense from beginning to end. This is only because we had a little bit of human consciousness still left five years after WW2.

The Vietnam War (which was not an actual war) was wholly unjust. It was driven by greed for geopolitical power, and it caused forced division and chaos among the Vietnamese people at the behest of the US military-industrial complex.

 

[Tom Horn]

You tell me, Ivan....I'm sure your borscht-gobblers have figured out some good lies about us.

To abdicate the emperor, which is the equivalent of abolishing the second amendment or burning all bibles in the United States.

The Imperial High Command, which was governed by 5 officers, was one vote away from surrendering to the United States.

Guess who is still around?

We know...our fake president BOWED to the little asshole.

 

[kaz]

Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.

So, who was in charge them, he or they?

And they were soon to surrender anyway. We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.

That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender. What they proposed was that we just stop fighting. That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again

Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here. A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?

Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here. North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding. Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.

Um ... no ... Strawman. I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it. We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country. Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives. We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them. Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them

You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea? In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?

I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck. What is wrong with you? Seriously?

I keep saying we should do one of two things:

1) Fight a war to win it: Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama

2) Stay out: Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...

Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there. Stupid move

 

[kaz]

I think the Vietnam war and the Korean were for legitimate purposes, but we fucked both up in the execution and would have been better off staying out of them rather than fight it the way we did, particularly Vietnam

The Korean War had basis in moral justice . North Korea were aggressors.

The Vietnam War (which was not an actual war) was wholly unjust. It was driven by greed for geopolitical power, and it caused forced division and chaos among the Vietnamese people at the behest of the US military-industrial complex.

Well, as it happened I agree. We should have stayed out rather than fought it the way we did. However, had we gone in, won, set up the Vietnamese and left it would have been totally justified. We had the military power to do that, but not the political will. LBJ because it was his economic policy, Nixon because the country was no longer behind the war.

 

[Frank'sRules]

They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians. But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.

Ridiculous.

It's history.

It's America-hating fantasy. They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.

It's history. The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.

We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.

Well, how very brave of US. Isn't that the same as saying that ISIS killing Americans is saving Muslim lives?

What we were mostly doing was showing off for the Russians. And these important targets included this little gem -

"US Secretary of War Henry Stimson voiced successfully against the selection of Kyoto as a target, arguing that the city held cultural importance to the world; he also had a personal attachment to the city as he and his wife traveled to Kyoto on their honeymoon many years prior."

 

[BlindBoo]

The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.

They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.

Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land. Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.

Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war. But that really was a different time.

They were told that above, perhaps they'll listen to you.

Nah probably not