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

[Dayton3]

That is what you object to?????


HAHAHAHAHA

I hate it when people misrepresent or deliberately misstate what I've posted.

Don't you?

 

[Vegasgiants]

I hate it when people misrepresent or deliberately misstate what I've posted.

Don't you?

You support a nuclear attack on china

 

[Dayton3]

You support a nuclear attack on china

Of course. As relatively mild a one as possible to destroy their nuclear arsenal.

I read an article in Foreign Affairs where two arms control experts said that U.S. could do so and kill as few as 800,000 Chinese. Probably less.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I dont give a shit. A lot of evidence has been presented that japan sued for peace long before august

No there hasn't, because the Japanese never sued for peace. People not connected to the government made unofficial attempts to broker a peace, but none of the offers came close to meeting the Allied pre-conditions. The Government's official offer that was attempted to pass through the Soviets was far a cease fire with a return of the conditions of 6 December 1941 with no penalties for Japan at all.

 

[Leo123]

No there hasn't, because the Japanese never sued for peace. People not connected to the government made unofficial attempts to broker a peace, but none of the offers came close to meeting the Allied pre-conditions. The Government's official offer that was attempted to pass through the Soviets was far a cease fire with a return of the conditions of 6 December 1941 with no penalties for Japan at all.

Exactly. Japan needed to actually surrender. Suing for peace was never an option for them after all their invasions, inhumane treatment of conquered peoples and prisoners. No way were they going to prevail. They refused, we dropped the bomb then they surrendered.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It did. And we could have offered them a conditional surrender or even just waited 3 days for Russia to enter the war


But truman did not want Japan to surrender too quickly


He had a message to send to russia

The official ALLIED position was unconditional surrender, Truman was only one of the four international leaders who established that policy.

 

[Dayton3]

No. We could have offered them the one condition we gave them anyway


Or just waited three days


They were open to the possibility of surrender

When fighting a war we have no obligation to go out of our way to minimize the number of deaths of the side that started it.

 

[Open Bolt]

Pretty sure I have.

Not for the claim that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

All you've done to back that up, is link to a single untrue article over and over and over again.

There is no way that you could ever back up that claim, because the claim is untrue. It never happened.

= full of shit

= full of shit

= full of shit

Not at all.

Vegasgiants is clearly not interested in honest debate.

Why should they play his silly mind games?

 

[Open Bolt]

No there hasn't, because the Japanese never sued for peace. People not connected to the government made unofficial attempts to broker a peace, but none of the offers came close to meeting the Allied pre-conditions. The Government's official offer that was attempted to pass through the Soviets was far a cease fire with a return of the conditions of 6 December 1941 with no penalties for Japan at all.

Exactly.

And that offer never even got passed to the Soviets, much less through them.

All Japan ever did was ask the Soviets to please let Prince Konoye come and talk to them.

Since the Soviets never let Prince Konoye come and talk to them, they never even heard Japan's proposal.

 

[Unkotare]

Not for the claim that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
....

Pretty sure I have.

 

[DudleySmith]

Explain this problem you have

He's pissed off the Japs and Nazis didn't win.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Not for the claim that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

All you've done to back that up, is link to a single untrue article over and over and over again.

There is no way that you could ever back up that claim, because the claim is untrue. It never happened.





Not at all.

Vegasgiants is clearly not interested in honest debate.

Why should they play his silly mind games?

I will give you the response you gave me


I dont care and quit whining

 

[Vegasgiants]

The official ALLIED position was unconditional surrender, Truman was only one of the four international leaders who established that policy.

Why? Why not give them the condition we gave them anyway?

 

[elektra]

Why? Why not give them the condition we gave them anyway?

Because they never asked?

The Japanese surrendered to our original terms.

What more could se of done? Other than give up and say we list the war, allowing many to die in the process

 

[Vegasgiants]

Because they never asked?

The Japanese surrendered to our original terms.

What more could se of done? Other than give up and say we list the war, allowing many to die in the process

Why didnt we? Why not just wait three days for the Russian invasion? They surrendered right after that.

 

[Unkotare]

Explain this problem you have

What problem?

 

[Unkotare]

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "

^^^^^

 

[Unkotare]

"
Contrary to popular belief, however, not all Pacific war veterans applaud the atomic annihilation of two Japanese cities.

Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." "

^^^

 

[Unkotare]

"Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "

^^^

 

[Unkotare]

President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

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

^^^