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

[Unkotare]

...

Everything that history indicates says clearly that Japan would have fought to the last man, woman, and child .....

You mean everything that you were told as a child and now are afraid to even think about.

 

[Unkotare]

Your history of not backing up your claims ....

I have provided copious amounts of data. You have provided nothing beyond your own personal insistence.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't care who disagrees---facts are facts. ...

Facts are what I have provided. Your scholarly contribution so far has been "you're a liar!"

 

[Unkotare]

I don't like propaganda or people spinning shit. .....

Then you should stop doing those things.

 

[Unkotare]

....

I have no clue who Lemay is nor do I care.
....

Oh, what a historian.

 

[Unkotare]

We are willing to discuss history. .....

Doesn't seem that way. Just seems like the reaction of a child who is told Santa Clause isn't real.

 

[Open Bolt]

But we do know they were unwilling to surrender. We have all the records of the imperial war council meetings where they made the plans to fight to the past man, woman and child rather than suffer the dishonor of surrender.

But that changed on August 10.

The theory in question is that it was the Soviet war declaration alone that changed Japan's mind, and the atomic bombs did not contribute.

Most of the people who support that theory probably have an axe to grind. They hate freedom and democracy, and they think it would make America look bad if the atomic bombs were not what won the war.

However, they are wrong to think it makes America look bad. Since Japan was refusing to surrender before August 10, there was nothing wrong with dropping atomic bombs on them.

The theory that it was the Soviets alone that made Japan change their mind can never be proven without the ability to re-run history and see how different choices would pan out.

But Japan was depending rather heavily on a plan to secure Soviet aid to help them to escape the war in a draw without surrendering, so it is theoretically possible that the Soviet war declaration was what forced them to change their minds.

In the end I don't think it matters. Like I said it was still OK for us to drop atomic bombs on them before their surrender.

So the theory could be true, but... who cares?

 

[Open Bolt]

Direct quotes and historical documents aren't "lying."

Your personal attacks against other posters were lies however.

And your claim that Japan was willing to surrender before August 10, 1945 certainly was not true.

I have provided copious amounts of data.

None of it backs up your personal attacks against other posters.

None of it backs up your claim that Japan tried to surrender before August 10, 1945.

Facts are what I have provided.

Your personal attacks certainly were not factual.

Your claim that Japan tried to surrender before August 10, 1945 was not factual.

Your scholarly contribution so far has been "you're a liar!"

After your outrageous personal attacks against other posters, I don't see how you have a basis for complaining about being called a liar.

Then you should stop doing those things.

You are posting propaganda when you pretend that Japan tried to surrender before August 10, 1945.

Doesn't seem that way. Just seems like the reaction of a child who is told Santa Clause isn't real.

The closest thing here to such a reaction has been your personal attacks against other posters.

 

[Unkotare]

Thin skin

 

[Unkotare]

"the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used — and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it."

Opinion: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway

We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.

www.latimes.com

"Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the “telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.”"


"MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. "


"Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"

^^^^^^

 

[Unkotare]

Aug 14, 1965, page 1 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated Aug 14, 1965, page 1.

www.newspapers.com

^^^^^^^^

 

[Flash]

Wrong.
The Japanese never even knew that atomics had been used on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
What caused their surrender is that finally we agreed to not prosecute the Emperor.

So now you idiots are claiming that the Japs didn't even know they were nuked?

LOL!

 

[fncceo]

4,500 posts in ... not a single mind has been changed. Not a single opinion altered.

The fact is, regardless of how much we speculate or opinionate 75+ years later, based on the best available intelligence and prevailing thought AT THE TIME, dropping the new weapon was the decision that was made.

We can luxuriate from the distance of nearly a century later, with no sons and daughters lives on the line, but we can't change what happened of blame anyone except posthumously.

Making the entire line of discussion, literally moot.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Making the entire line of discussion, literally moot.

Couldn't you say that about any topic of history under discussion?

 

[Vegasgiants]

I'm not going to sit here and type an entire book into a messageboard.

If you want to learn, go read them. If you chose ignorance, that's your choice.

I accept your concession

 

[Vegasgiants]

You are right. We could continued fire bombing every city, town and hamlet, then nuked whatever was left standing by the firestorms. We would have killed millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians and thousands of allied POWs in the process. Or we could have spent years blockading Japan and starving the entire population to death while fighting a war against the million plus a Japanese soldiers in China, while uncounted millions of Chinese and Indi-Chinese civilians died

It we could have simply waited 2 weeks

 

[Vegasgiants]

But we do know they were unwilling to surrender. We have all the records of the imperial war council meetings where they made the plans to fight to the past man, woman and child rather than suffer the dishonor of surrender.

We know they were willing to surrender.....because they did

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.
The Japanese and Russians had a long history of war between them, and the last thing they would ever have thought is that Russia would at all help them.
The Korean war never ended because the people were divided and there was no way to combine them again.
With WWII there was no similarity at all.
There was absolutely no possible way to avoid surrender.
And the Japanese NEVER tried to avoid surrender.
They were ready and willing as early as 1944 to surrender.
But the US refused their advances.
It was the US that deliberately prevented them from being allowed to surrender.
Nor was Hirohito in charge.

link to these offers to surrender....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Aug 14, 1965, page 1 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated Aug 14, 1965, page 1.

www.newspapers.com

that article does not have any cites to back up the claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not talk; direct quotes, primary sources, links, evidence, citations. YOU have brought nothing but "nuh-uh!" childish nonsense.

How many years have you taught History?

LOL all you have is an unsourced newspaper article from the mid 60's.