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

[gipper]

...They said they don't want to surrender....

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor. The "conditions" were exactly those that Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians and subjecting many, many more to radiation poisoning. If the scumbag fdr weren't dead set on basking in the sea of civilian blood he had so long dreamed of, an end to the war might have been negotiated before the loss of American life at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the slaughter of an unconscionable number of civilians.

This is something most Americans just can’t accept, even though it’s true.

 

[Silver Cat]

...They said they don't want to surrender....

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.

Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.

 

[gipper]

...They said they don't want to surrender....

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.

Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.

It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.

 

[Silver Cat]

...They said they don't want to surrender....

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.

Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.

It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.

May be it's been "proven" for faithful anti-americans, liberals and xenophyles, but clearly it's not been proven for the normal people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources All in here be so kind as to search the link and provide ANY intercept or document that says that Japan would surrender under ANY condition. All they said was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no concessions in China.

 

[Levant]

...

Your account picture is Asian. Are you? ....

Why would that matter?

Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead. It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..

 

[Levant]

The people almost never have control. If you think the people have control in this country, you’re deluding yourself.

Of course we have control. The country is in the mess that it is because the people voted the Congress people that they voted - both left and right. If they wanted change, they'd vote change.

 

[Levant]

... I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.

....

Inevitably, you turn to emo-bullshit because you cannot defend your immoral hypocrisy and are ignorant of the history in question.

I'm not ignorant of the history; you're quoting revisionist history. The history was that on every island we took, the Japanese fought to the death. The history is that years after the war was over, the Japanese found lost on islands fought to the death. They were very dedicated to their Emperor and their country. They were ferocious fights and we would have lost many Americans for every mile of Japan homeland we tried to take.

After two atomic bombs, the Japanese still had not surrendered until 6 days later. It was thought that we'd have to bomb a third time and we were prepared for up to 12. Even knowing their country and their people could be annihilated, they continued to fight and refused to surrender.

Revisionist historians would like to convince you (and apparently have) that it wasn't the bombs at all, that ended the war; it was the Soviets marching into Manchuria and killing a few thousand soldiers.. Because all of the hundreds of thousands that the Allies had killed didn't matter; the conventional and atomic bombing of Japanese cities and hundreds of thousands dead didn't matter but a few Russians killing a few Japanese in a foreign land brought Japan to its knees. 8 years of war against China and the west didn't convince them but 6 days of war against the Russians scared Japan so badly that they surrendered unconditionally. Yeah, right.

 

[Levant]

"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." "

Because Marine Corps sergeants are the strategy experts and have all the facts that President Truman didn't have...

 

[Levant]

And yet you can not LINK to a single piece of ACTUAL evidence that proves any of what you say, you keep linking to OPINIONS. Guess what moron, everyone has one. I on the other hand have and continue to link to FACTS, hard evidence that proves MY point.

And none of those whose after-the-fact opinions he keeps quoting had all of the knowledge and all of the responsibility that Truman and the Allied leaders had when they had to make the decisions. They weren't easy decisions and I imagine many second-guessed themselves for the rest of their lives. The doubt and guilt must have been terrible but that doesn't change the necessity and the right of the decision they had to make and did correctly make.

 

[JoeB131]

May be. May be not. May be it will be not only China, but bigger Alliance (including Indonesia).

Oh, noes, those white people might have to go back where they came from!

International trade would be disrupted as result of any type of China-American war (nuclear or conventional - no difference). Nonsense about "end of civilisation" is just another part of environmentalistic mythology.
Actually question is simple - what is better:
1) to kill 500 millions of Chinese (may be Indonesian, too) civilians or
2) to loose one million of American soldiers.

Actually, they would both be bad.

But it won't ever happen, and if it did NOT OUR PROBLEM.

 

[JoeB131]

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” "

Again, everyone felt really bad about it years later, when the implications of nukes became clear.

At the time, it was just another weapon. 70 million people had already died, what was the big deal about 60K more?

 

[gipper]

...They said they don't want to surrender....

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.

Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.

It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.

May be it's been "proven" for faithful anti-americans, liberals and xenophyles, but clearly it's not been proven for the normal people.

The truth is hardly anti American. Besides why are you proud of your government for.commiting history’s greatest war crime? Why would you support the mass murdering of defenseless civilians?

You are the epitome of anti-American.

 

[gipper]

The people almost never have control. If you think the people have control in this country, you’re deluding yourself.

Of course we have control. The country is in the mess that it is because the people voted the Congress people that they voted - both left and right. If they wanted change, they'd vote change.

You’re very naive. Maybe some day you will grow up and realize the people have little say in their government.

 

[gipper]

...

Your account picture is Asian. Are you? ....

Why would that matter?

Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead. It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..

I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.

 

[JoeB131]

"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." "

Again- look at the date. 1963. Right after the Cuban Missile Crisis and everyone was terrified that the world was about to end.

YES- EVERYONE FELT AWFUL ABOUT IT YEARS LATER! But I put that up with the regret about that one night stand you had.. At the time, it seemed like an awfully good idea, given the fact that the war had already been dragging on for years and tens of millions were already dead.

Invading would have killed tens of thousands more. Waiting Japan out would have killed tens of thousands more. Continuing to conventionally bomb them would have killed tens of thousands more.

At the time, it was just another weapon.

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor. The "conditions" were exactly those that Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians and subjecting many, many more to radiation poisoning. If the scumbag fdr weren't dead set on basking in the sea of civilian blood he had so long dreamed of, an end to the war might have been negotiated before the loss of American life at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the slaughter of an unconscionable number of civilians.

You, see, this is where you are confused, Dripping Poop. The game changer was not letting the War Criminal Hirohito off the hook, it was that the US didn't want to agree to a partition of Japan with the USSR, given that they USSR was already pretty much feeling their oats in Europe and didn't seem all that keen on just restoring a pre-war status quo there. When it became clear the Soviets were mopping up the Japs in Korea and Manchuria, suddenly the US wasn't so keen on seeing Hirohito at the end of that rope he so richly fucking deserved.

The Scumbags were the Jap leaders who insisted on continuing the war when it was pretty clear they couldn't win after 1944.

"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." "

A peace agreement that meant keeping their stolen territories and letting their leaders off the hook. Hard Pass.

 

[Silver Cat]

...They said they don't want to surrender....

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.

Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.

It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.

May be it's been "proven" for faithful anti-americans, liberals and xenophyles, but clearly it's not been proven for the normal people.

The truth is hardly anti American. Besides why are you proud of your government for.commiting history’s greatest war crime? Why would you support the mass murdering of defenseless civilians?

You are the epitome of anti-American.

I'm pro-American. Our government must protect our lives and our wealth, alien "interests" does not matter at all.
So, "mass murder" of 500 millions of foreign civilians is much better than loosing of 1 million of our soldiers. Isn't it?

 

[Silver Cat]

...

Your account picture is Asian. Are you? ....

Why would that matter?

Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead. It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..

I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.

If so, what president would you prefer - the one, who will protect our lives, or who will defend our enemies and allow them continue to kill Americans?

 

[gipper]

...

Your account picture is Asian. Are you? ....

Why would that matter?

Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead. It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..

I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.

If so, what president would you prefer - the one, who will protect our lives, or who will defend our enemies and allow them continue to kill Americans?

Yes Americans must have enemies to support massive war budgets, to enrich the rich and impose imperialism.

 

[Unkotare]

...They said they don't want to surrender....

No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.

Prove it. ...

Illogical.