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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

.......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

technically, I pointed out, major points.

Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?

A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.

Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.

 

[elektra]

.......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

technically, I pointed out, major points.

Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?

A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.

Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.

You post does not mention surrender, you link does not mention surrender. It was surrender I spoke of.

 

[elektra]

E]
Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.

Claiming a document is about surrendering, when that document never comes close to mentioning surrender is not a minor point. It is a glaring error.

Again, you are wrong.

 

[elektra]

A "negotiated peace" is conditional surrender. Again, pedantic.

No it is not, it is not even close. At best, it is a truce.

But that is how the charlatans revise history. By calling the misuse of words a minor issue.
A "negotiated peace", it did not get that far.

Further, Japan was not at war with the Russians.

Words have meaning, except when one must change history to a revised narrative.

 

[elektra]

It's only vague to you, seemingly. Everyone else is capable of understanding the explicit content of the message.

Vague? You are calling the fact that the document you produced never contains the word surrender, as minor. That is kind of vague. And in this post you say the message is explicit. Which it is, it explicitly never mentions surrender.

 

[Unkotare]

.......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

technically, I pointed out, major points.

Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?

A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.

Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.

He has been proven wrong on just about every point on this thread over and over again. He’s at the “lalalala I can’t hear you!” stage of denying his failure at this point.

 

[elektra]

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?":

Wow, you wrote an article? Impressive. Impress us with answers to questions we have of your OP.

If three days was not enough time for Japan to react to the complete destruction of a city by a weapon never ever before seen or used, then how much time would of been enough for Japan to formulate a response?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

.......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.

technically, I pointed out, major points.

Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?

A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.

Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.

You post does not mention surrender, you link does not mention surrender. It was surrender I spoke of.

You may have also been discussing surrender, which is covered by the source I cited as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see, but I also directly quoted where you stated that the Japanese were refusing to give up any territory they conquered. That was proven incorrect.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

E]
Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.

Claiming a document is about surrendering, when that document never comes close to mentioning surrender is not a minor point. It is a glaring error.

Again, you are wrong.

You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A "negotiated peace" is conditional surrender. Again, pedantic.

No it is not, it is not even close. At best, it is a truce.

But that is how the charlatans revise history. By calling the misuse of words a minor issue.
A "negotiated peace", it did not get that far.

Further, Japan was not at war with the Russians.

Words have meaning, except when one must change history to a revised narrative.

Most surrenders are conditional. A truce is not quite the same thing. Now you're simply redefining words.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's only vague to you, seemingly. Everyone else is capable of understanding the explicit content of the message.

Vague? You are calling the fact that the document you produced never contains the word surrender, as minor. That is kind of vague. And in this post you say the message is explicit. Which it is, it explicitly never mentions surrender.

Whether or not it says the actual word "surrender" is indeed a minor issue.

 

[elektra]

you may have also been discussing surrender, which is covered by the source I cited as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see, but I also directly quoted where you stated that the Japanese were refusing to give up any territory they conquered. That was proven incorrect.

The Japanese entered into negotiations with Russia? When, where, who was involved? No historian has gone that far, but you can try to stretch out you flimsy quote of an intercepted cable and explain how that was indeed a real negotiation between the top leaders of both countries.

 

[elektra]

You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.

No, I am not, surrender means one thing.

You are broadly defining the term peace? Are you not. You like to play with words, distort the meaning, and then accuse me of narrowly defining, surrender.

A negotiated peace with a country you are not at war with is not a surrender to the country you started the war with. "Negotiated", it never got that far. Russia refused to listen to offers, period.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you may have also been discussing surrender, which is covered by the source I cited as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see, but I also directly quoted where you stated that the Japanese were refusing to give up any territory they conquered. That was proven incorrect.

The Japanese entered into negotiations with Russia? When, where, who was involved? No historian has gone that far, but you can try to stretch out you flimsy quote of an intercepted cable and explain how that was indeed a real negotiation between the top leaders of both countries.

The Japanese were attempting to open up negotiations with the Soviet Union, as evidenced by the cable I posted, because they wanted the USSR to assist them in negotiating a conditional surrender with the United States.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.

No, I am not, surrender means one thing.

You are broadly defining the term peace? Are you not. You like to play with words, distort the meaning, and then accuse me of narrowly defining, surrender.

A negotiated peace with a country you are not at war with is not a surrender to the country you started the war with. "Negotiated", it never got that far. Russia refused to listen to offers, period.

And I'm bored now.

 

[elektra]

Whether or not it says the actual word "surrender" is indeed a minor issue.

And at that, the cable was meaningless, minor. It was not a negotiation. It was a desperate act of the Japanese pleading with the Russians, for they feared the USA more than they feared the Russians.

So yes, the cable that was nothing more than a simple question of a minor issue which was shrugged off as such.

 

[elektra]

Most surrenders are conditional. A truce is not quite the same thing. Now you're simply redefining words.

A truce, where no side wins, a negotiated peace.

Surrender, submitting to the authority of your enemy who has kicked your ass in war.

Negotiated peace was never on the table. That is why the Russian government brushed that thought aside and went to war with Japan.

 

[elektra]

You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.

No, I am not, surrender means one thing.

You are broadly defining the term peace? Are you not. You like to play with words, distort the meaning, and then accuse me of narrowly defining, surrender.

A negotiated peace with a country you are not at war with is not a surrender to the country you started the war with. "Negotiated", it never got that far. Russia refused to listen to offers, period.

And I'm bored now.

You should be, you lost the point you tried to make and have nothing left.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Most surrenders are conditional. A truce is not quite the same thing. Now you're simply redefining words.

A truce, where no side wins, a negotiated peace.

Surrender, submitting to the authority of your enemy who has kicked your ass in war.

Negotiated peace was never on the table. That is why the Russian government brushed that thought aside and went to war with Japan.

A truce is where no side wins, see the Korean War. A negotiated peace, or conditional surrender, is where one side surrenders assuming certain conditions are met. They still lose, but on their own terms.

 

[elektra]

A truce is where no side wins, see the Korean War. A negotiated peace, or conditional surrender, is where one side surrenders assuming certain conditions are met. They still lose, but on their own terms.

A negotiated peace is not a surrender. Never was, never will be. And again, a cable to russia is not a negotiation so your opinion of the matter does not reflect reality.

Japan intended on keeping it's armies.
Japan said it would give back which territories, specifically? There are no specifics. What about territories Japan took before the war? Would they give them back? And of course they were speaking in the context of Russian territories? Nothing more? Again the cable is nothing more than a simple message that never reached the level of a negotiation, let alone a negotiated peace.

The USA's position was always unconditional surrender. The Russians new that, and refuted the Japanese's "message".