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

[DudleySmith]

They were seeking surrender with conditions.

^^^^ This.

 

[Unkotare]

Funny how I've provided loads of evidence and been met with "Nuh-uh! You lying!"

What impressive historical scholarship.

^^^

 

[Vegasgiants]

They were wrong or purposefully lied.

In your opinion

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In your opinion

By the facts actually in evidence.

 

[Vegasgiants]

By the facts actually in evidence.

No that is factually incorrect


There is no evidence they were lying and they sure were near all on the same page with their opinion even though they were quoted separately

 

[Esdraelon]

WRONG!
Japan had desperately been TRYING to surrender and we refused to communicate with them directly, and pretended confusion with the surrender attempts through the Soviets.

Mokusatsu was the term they used to respond to the Potsdam declaration. The closest translation in English was "silent contempt". What followed was totally their responsibility. I get the impression that if a nuke was detonated in America, people like you would be dancing in celebration. Your little buddies in the Empire of the Rising Sun were fecking EVIL. In many ways, they were FAR worse than the Nazis.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No that is factually incorrect


There is no evidence they were lying and they sure were near all on the same page with their opinion even though they were quoted separately

Then perhaps you can link to the surrender offers by Japanese Government?

 

[Vegasgiants]

Then perhaps you can link to the surrender offers by Japanese Government?

Nope. They clearly sued for peace and all we had to do is wait three days for the russian invasion and offer them the one concession we gave them anyway

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope. They clearly sued for peace and all we had to do is wait three days for the russian invasion and offer them the one concession we gave them anyway

Link to these supposed offers.... or admit you are wrong.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Link to these supposed offers.... or admit you are wrong.

I have already. We have the statements of very very very credible witnesses. There is no denying that

Shall I link those statements again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have already. We have the statements of very very very credible witnesses. There is no denying that

Shall I link those statements again?

Statements with OUT a shred of evidence to support them are simply not worth the paper the statement was written on.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Statements with OUT a shred of evidence to support them are simply not worth the paper the statement was written on.

Yet statements by very credible witnesses who would certainly have access to that information especially after the war when they said them.


Witness testimony is evidence.


It is up to you to prove they are lying and why

 

[Esdraelon]

Some other scenario?

Pre-emptive use of low-yield nukes would be difficult to justify today. The one situation where I'd approve of it would be to use a L-Y bunker buster-type munition to destroy Iran's nuke facilities. They have openly, REPEATEDLY threatened the annihilation of another UN nation. Once they have the means, the strategic situation in the Gulf region will be untenable for the civilized world.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet statements by very credible witnesses who would certainly have access to that information especially after the war when they said them.


Witness testimony is evidence.


It is up to you to prove they are lying and why

No I have the ACTUAL Government records and the Japanese records and NONE of those have any such offers or feelers or attempts. Now who to believe the ACTUAL RECORDS or some General? Some General that CAN NOT provide a single source to back his claim?

 

[Vegasgiants]

No I have the ACTUAL Government records and the Japanese records and NONE of those have any such offers or feelers or attempts. Now who to believe the ACTUAL RECORDS or some General? Some General that CAN NOT provide a single source to back his claim?

And I have the actual quotes of the military leaders who knew the situation on the ground better than anyone. People who had access to all this information.

You claimed they are lying or were wrong. I just want you to tell me why.


Their testimony is evidence.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I have the actual quotes of the military leaders who knew the situation on the ground better than anyone. People who had access to all this information.

You claimed they are lying or were wrong. I just want you to tell me why.


Their testimony is evidence.

LOL no they did not NOT a single General or Admiral you quoted was involved ON the ground in the Pacific.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I have the actual quotes of the military leaders who knew the situation on the ground better than anyone. People who had access to all this information.

You claimed they are lying or were wrong. I just want you to tell me why.


Their testimony is evidence.

It is worthless as the ACTUAL RECORDS show no such offers attempts or feelers you fucking moron.

 

[Vegasgiants]

LOL no they did not NOT a single General or Admiral you quoted was involved ON the ground in the Pacific.

They had the BEST access available to any american about what the situation on the ground was. That is a fact



Now......why would they ALL lie or ALL get it wrong

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They had the BEST access available to any american about what the situation on the ground was. That is a fact



Now......why would they ALL lie or ALL get it wrong

There were hundreds of high level officers involved in the Pacific you have what? 5?

 

[Vegasgiants]

It is worthless as the ACTUAL RECORDS show no such offers attempts or feelers you fucking moron.

You're getting very upset again gunny. A sign of a failing argument


Just answer my simple question and leave the histrionics to others. You are better than that