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

[RetiredGySgt]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

 

[gipper]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

 

[Unkotare]

Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.

Only in your racist mind.

In reality.

...assign racist motives to everything.

...

Don’t blame the world when you go out of your way to demonstrate what you are by spewing ethnic slurs over and over and over.

You are as uneducated as gripper. Japan is a country, not a race.

And?

 

[Silver Cat]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
3. Sure, imperial powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.

 

[gipper]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.

Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting.

In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.

I thought Americans were better than this.

 

[Silver Cat]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.

Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting.

In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.

I thought Americans were better than this.

You was wrong. We are not "better" (in the understanding of pacifistic freaks). And yes, if anybody (for example, China) think, that we'll not burn hundreds of their cities (and kill many millions of their civilians) in answer of their attack against our military bases on Okinawa and Guam - they are wrong. We'll do it.
The life of an American soldier is much more important than the lifes of millions Chinese civilians.

 

[gipper]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.

Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting.

In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.

I thought Americans were better than this.

You was wrong. We are not "better" (in the understanding of pacifistic freaks). And yes, if anybody (for example, China) think, that we'll not burn hundreds of their cities (and kill many millions of their civilians) in answer of their attack against our military bases on Okinawa and Guam - they are wrong. We'll do it.
The life of an American soldier is much more important than the lifes of millions Chinese civilians.

You are the perfect example of the Dumb American. You’re proud your country massacres defenseless civilians. Ugh.

I’m assuming you’re a con. I thought cons revered the Founding Fathers. They wouldn’t approve of your blood lust imperialism. Now would they?

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

They were not. That is the simplistic notion that too many people have been fed for decades because it avoids the difficult moral problem involved, and implies absolution for the inescapable reality of what was done.

 

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

 

[RetiredGySgt]

archive.ph

Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.

 

[Quasar44]

Japan was as brutal and murderous as Germany
We ended the war

 

[Quasar44]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

 

[Quasar44]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

Wow are you a total ignoramus and lemming

 

[Quasar44]

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

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

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

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

I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives. Not logical.

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.

1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.

Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting.

In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.

I thought Americans were better than this.

You was wrong. We are not "better" (in the understanding of pacifistic freaks). And yes, if anybody (for example, China) think, that we'll not burn hundreds of their cities (and kill many millions of their civilians) in answer of their attack against our military bases on Okinawa and Guam - they are wrong. We'll do it.
The life of an American soldier is much more important than the lifes of millions Chinese civilians.

You are the perfect example of the Dumb American. You’re proud your country massacres defenseless civilians. Ugh.

I’m assuming you’re a con. I thought cons revered the Founding Fathers. They wouldn’t approve of your blood lust imperialism. Now would they?

Japanese killed tens of millions and we finished them

 

[Unkotare]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?

 

[Quasar44]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?

No
But the bombs had to fall
Truman the last great Dem

 

[Quasar44]

Too bad we did not nuke Germany but they surrendered

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...

origins.osu.edu

I wonder if the grunt can read these words....The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used.

I have listed what they offered via the Soviets, a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China, that was no offer to surrender, further no occupation and no repercussions to Japan.

No. All they asked for was no harm to the emperor, by July 1945. Dirty Harry said fuck you, then he nuked thousands of defenseless women and children and then he said okay.

What a guy.

I have the Government intercept you LYING MORON. They did not offer peace and they did not offer to surrender if the Emperor was retained.

You dumb grunt. Stop posting. You know nothing.

For someone who knows nothing, he sure puts your stupid ass to shame.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So again for those watching Unkotare and Gipper both claimed I was wrong when I stated that all Japan offered was ceasefire and return to 41 start lines and Now after over 100 pages of claiming I lied, I was wrong, I was a liar, Unkotare posts TWICE the supposed offer made by Japan to surrender, and GUESS what? It is what I said it was an offer for an end to the war by just stopping and returning to 41 start lines, no consequences for Japan at all and they keep Korea and China.

 

[Unkotare]

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “

Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?

No
But the bombs had to fall

Why?