The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[RetiredGySgt]

So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different. Can you explain?

For you, who seems to be slow. I'd be happy to explain.

"A total of about 185,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their immediate aftermath. Of these, around 110,000 died instantly, and the rest died within days of trauma and radiation sustained in the bombing."
How Many People Died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

"If the US were to invade the Japanese home islands, it was estimated about 1.5 million American military deaths, 2 million Japanese military deaths, and 10 million Japanese civilian deaths would occur."
What was the estimated number of deaths if the US were to invade Japan during 1942

Got it? Round it off at 200,000 fatalities v 13.5 MILLION fatalities

Hmmmmm...think, think, think!

BS.

You bought the lie that Ike said nothing about dropping the A-bombs, and I educated you on that. Now you post this absurd lie that millions would die, if the Americans invaded the home islands. This figure was made up by Truman, AFTER he mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of a nation destroyed and repeatedly demanding surrender.

Secondly, there was no need to invade Japan, unless the US is an imperialistic nation. Right? Why invade a nation destroyed and willing to surrender???? Ask yourself this simple question.

Well except for the simple fact the Government of Japan NEVER offered to surrender and after 2 atomic bombs REFUSED to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the leaders of the Government staged a Coup to stop that surrender.

Read the column I posted in the OP. Please get educated. Ignorance of your kind is so disappointing.

I have SOURCE documents from US and Japan Governments, at NO TIME did Japanese Government offer to surrender, several Naval members made overtures but they were the MINORITY the Army controlled the Government and NEVER offered to surrender, learn a little ACTUAL history instead of revisionist crap by idiots.

 

[harmonica]

so the plan is to --------wait?? not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
till when??
out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
they are NOT surrendering
they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties

Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.

.

if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period

Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.

hahahahhahah

 

[harmonica]

The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in the invasion of Japan.

Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.

Ike said don’t drop those bombs. Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.

They were not ready to surrender. They didn't even surrender after we dropped an atomic bomb on them. It took two to bring them to their knees.

You don’t know history. Come back later when you learn it.

YOU don't know history
he's right
the vote was a TIE for surrender or not--- AFTER the bomb
then, when the Emperor broke the tie, many tried to stop the surrender
...it took 2 atomic bombs to make the Japanese surrender--plain and simple and undeniable
..learn some history please

 

[harmonica]

so the plan is to --------wait?? not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
till when??
out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
they are NOT surrendering
they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties

Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.

.

.....also---if they '''''surrendered''''' before those battles, you would've had the same situation you had 1918---do you not know about that?? the Germans were not totally beaten--not even close....and they thought they really didn't lose the war......etc---then you get WW2 !!!
...the Japanese radicals/militarists would still be in charge/etc --so in a few years or decades, they would start the same shit---and might even be able to produce their own Abomb/etc
..you would have the same shit that went on for decades [ and still is ] with the Israelis-Arabs because there was no total victory
..they needed to be pounded --plain and simple
..shocked so much that they would not dare start that crap again

 

[gipper]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

 

[pismoe]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

--------------------------------- why do Some in the USA think that Total War is NOT acceptable Gipper ??

 

[Markle]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

What are the options? Another war in 20-25 years or less. See WW-I.

 

[pismoe]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

--------------------------------- And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .

 

[gipper]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

--------------------------------- And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .

At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.

 

[gipper]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

What are the options? Another war in 20-25 years or less. See WW-I.

Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.

 

[pismoe]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

--------------------------------- And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .

At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.

---------------------------------------------------- not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper . I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ---------------- i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany' before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .

 

[martybegan]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.

What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?

 

[pismoe]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.

What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?

-------------------------------------------- thanks for info Marty .

 

[gipper]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.

What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?

Silly.

Our debate here is about Japan specifically. Prior to Truman’s war crime, Japan had no navy or air forces. Their army was essentially destroyed and their best fighting men dead.

Now compare that with the armed forces of the USA. Do you comprehend or do I need to spell it out?

 

[gipper]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

--------------------------------- And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .

At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.

---------------------------------------------------- not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper . I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ---------------- i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany' before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .

If it is a war crime for Germany or Japan to commit total war, then logically it is also a war crime if the USA commits it.

 

[martybegan]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.

What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?

Silly.

Our debate here is about Japan specifically. Prior to Truman’s war crime, Japan had no navy or air forces. Their army was essentially destroyed and their best fighting men dead.

Now compare that with the armed forces of the USA. Do you comprehend or do I need to spell it out?

And yet they refused to surrender unconditionally. They still had plenty of infantry, and the will to use them. They had a few thousand crappy planes left for kamikaze attacks. They were prepared for a combination of banzai attacks on the beaches and defense in depth in the interiors.

You brought up the total war concept, I was responding to it.

 

[martybegan]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

--------------------------------- And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .

At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.

---------------------------------------------------- not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper . I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ---------------- i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany' before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .

If it is a war crime for Germany or Japan to commit total war, then logically it is also a war crime if the USA commits it.

They were not tried for total war, they were tried for crimes against peace, aggressive war, specific war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

 

[pismoe]

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?

--------------------------------- And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .

At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.

---------------------------------------------------- not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper . I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ---------------- i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany' before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .

If it is a war crime for Germany or Japan to commit total war, then logically it is also a war crime if the USA commits it.

--------------------------------------- says WHO Gipper plus what Specific WAR Crimes are you talking about Gipper ??

 

[pismoe]

the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War , --- just a comment .

 

[Vandalshandle]

Okinawa

One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men. The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. According to many historians, the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides.

List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists

Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.