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

[gipper]

And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?

Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.

Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.

Do some people here realize that we were in a F war???

Were we supposed to get permission first??

This thread is total nonsense.

LMFAO.

You think mass murdering defenseless civilians is entirely just and right, because it’s war. WTF! So, the mass murdering by the Nazis and Japanese is okay, because it’s war. Apparently the Nuremberg Trials were unnecessary, because it’s war.
obably
I find that kind of thinking disgusting and ignorant...AND ENTIRELY UN-AMERICAN.

Look pal. What I find really disgusting and UNAMERICAN. is you would sacrafice another 100k American soldiers slaughtered for this thread. I find that totally disturbing from you, so disturbing I'll never read you again.......Calls me UNAMERICAN while more soldiers would have died. Jesus Christ this thread sucks donkey DICK....So historically bankrupt.

Try reading the thread.

It won’t help.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Do some people here realize that we were in a F war??? Were we supposed to get permission first?? This thread is total nonsense.

Well Mike is just trolling (which is why he started an idiotic thread about something that happened 80 years ago) and Gipper is an immature idealist.

This thread is the biggest joke on this board. I see a bunch of Google University Professors here. Masters of Google

 

[HenryBHough]

Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.

 

[gipper]

Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.

Yes! Our criminal government needs to kill as many innocent women and children as possible. It’s the American Way!

You, W, and Ellen must be great friends. LOL

 

[HenryBHough]

Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.

Yes! Our criminal government needs to kill as many innocent women and children as possible. It’s the American Way!

You, W, and Ellen must be great friends. LOL

And here I thought only France was populated by surrender monkey!

Silly me.

 

[gipper]

Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.

Yes! Our criminal government needs to kill as many innocent women and children as possible. It’s the American Way!

You, W, and Ellen must be great friends. LOL

And here I thought only France was populated by surrender monkey!

Silly me.

Let’s see? Surrendering and mass murdering innocents could only be considered the same thing, by a blood thirsty statist.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for YEARS....

.......weeks after Nagasaki we began delivering food and supplies to the Japanese people.

 

[Unkotare]

Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.

That’s not funny.

 

[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.

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

 

[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.

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

 

[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.

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Speculation is not fact.

 

[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.

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.” The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.

The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!

 

[Skylar]

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Speculation is not fact.

Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.

 

[gipper]

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Speculation is not fact.

Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.

You better get to work reading this thread. Because it’s all here.

 

[Skylar]

The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, rather than a protracted invasion killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for......

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.” The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.

You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?

Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.

The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!

Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.

Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.

Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't.

Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?

 

[gipper]

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.” The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.

You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?

Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.

The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!

Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.

Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.

Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't.

Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?

Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.

 

[gipper]

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.” The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.

You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?

Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.

The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!

Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.

Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.

Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't.

Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?

Okay I will agree that Hitler’s death camps were worse, but not by much without considering the numbers killed.

 

[Unkotare]

Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.

Or.....are merely aware of the facts.

Apparently not.

Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.

Speculation is not fact.

Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.

Read carefully: speculation is not fact. Don’t demand factual contradiction when you haven’t presented fact. You have presented 70+ year old propaganda.