67 years ago yesterday

[Johnny Tremain]

This thread demonstrates clearly why people need to be very careful when electing leaders.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So these Japanese, whose leaders (and many of the civilians) were all "Samurai" with a tradition of NEVER surrendering in battle, who for thousands of years preferred to either die to the last man in battle or commit ritual suicide, suddenly decided that the year 1945 would be the first time in all their history that they would simply lay down their weapons and holler "Uncle"? In the fact of numerically superior conventional weapons (nobody had ever heard of a nuclear bomb at the time) and nothing else?

Sure, they knew they had lost. The Allies had blown most of their forces to hell. But the remainder was steeped in the tradition that surrendering was the most dishonorable thing you could do, no matter who the enemy was, how strong, etc. Dying was infinitely preferable to the eternal disgrace of giving up.

So you're telling me that all this went down the toilet in the Spring of 1945, and they decided to surrender anyway?

Sorry, it does not compute.

 

[Gipper]

So these Japanese, whose leaders (and many of the civilians) were all "Samurai" with a tradition of NEVER surrendering in battle, who for thousands of years preferred to either die to the last man in battle or commit ritual suicide, suddenly decided that the year 1945 would be the first time in all their history that they would simply lay down their weapons and holler "Uncle"? In the fact of numerically superior conventional weapons (nobody had ever heard of a nuclear bomb at the time) and nothing else?

Sure, they knew they had lost. The Allies had blown most of their forces to hell. But the remainder was steeped in the tradition that surrendering was the most dishonorable thing you could do, no matter who the enemy was, how strong, etc. Dying was infinitely preferable to the eternal disgrace of giving up.

So you're telling me that all this went down the toilet in the Spring of 1945, and they decided to surrender anyway?

Sorry, it does not compute.

It is a fact the Japanese sought surrender terms well before August '45. Do you dispute this?

Why would we murder women and children in cold blood when their military was already defeated? If we had bombed military installations, that would be different. However, both cities had very little military involvement, which is why neither city had been bombed until those fateful days in August.

You are speaking of their military code of not surrendering. So, that means we had to drop two atomic bombs killing scores of civilians. Sorry, but that does not compute.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

It is a fact the Japanese sought surrender terms well before August '45. Do you dispute this?

Why would we murder women and children in cold blood when their military was already defeated? If we had bombed military installations, that would be different. However, both cities had very little military involvement, which is why neither city had been bombed until those fateful days in August.

You are speaking of their military code of not surrendering. So, that means we had to drop two atomic bombs killing scores of civilians. Sorry, but that does not compute.

Once again--left-wing revisionist history. Period.
You don't know much about war.

 

[Gipper]

Once again--left-wing revisionist history. Period.
You don't know much about war.

That is not an argument. Can you please make one?

 

[dogtowner]

you dont think that america had zero.interest in letting japan save face with terms of their choosing ?

maybe now but not then. pearl harbor replaced vremember the maine as a nationwide rallying cry. and a lot of men died in in that theater.

sixty plus years force a perspective that was not possible at the time.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It is a fact the Japanese sought surrender terms well before August '45.

A few members of their government did... but the war hawks in their government kept overruling them and insisting the fighting go on. They were trianing the women and children you worry about, to fight American soldiers with pointed sticks, rocks etc.

There was plenty of evidence at the time, that the Japanese would fight an invasion to the last man AND woman AND child, and very little that they would not.

Avoiding killing vast numbers of civilians was not an option open to us. The Japanese govt would have forced that to happen, regardless of a few voices in the wilderness asking us (and them) to stop.

We knew it, so we chose the way to do that, that would at least avoid American deaths. We did the right thing, and wound up killing far fewer Japanese and Americans than we would have if we had not dropped the Bomb. Your astonishing acceptance of the "All Japan wanted to surrender" revisionism, is as naive as it is misinformed.

 

[Gipper]

A few members of their government did... but the war hawks in their government kept overruling them and insisting the fighting go on. They were trianing the women and children you worry about, to fight American soldiers with pointed sticks, rocks etc.

There was plenty of evidence at the time, that the Japanese would fight an invasion to the last man AND woman AND child, and very little that they would not.

Avoiding killing vast numbers of civilians was not an option open to us. The Japanese govt would have forced that to happen, regardless of a few voices in the wilderness asking us (and them) to stop.

We knew it, so we chose the way to do that, that would at least avoid American deaths. We did the right thing, and wound up killing far fewer Japanese and Americans than we would have if we had not dropped the Bomb. Your astonishing acceptance of the "All Japan wanted to surrender" revisionism, is as naive as it is misinformed.

You are missing the point. The Japanese had already asked for surrender terms....this is a FACT.

They were more than willing to surrender as long as Hitherto could stay on as emperor. That was the only condition they asked for. The idiot FDR and later the war criminal Truman kept up with the unconditional surrender crap, which only lead to more American and Japanese casualties...and ultimately the atomic bombing. There was NO NEED for American troops to fight on the Japanese mainland...they wanted to surrender in late July.

Why would you chose to believe the big lie promoted by Truman and other progressives regarding the bombings? I chose to believe the many senior military officers including generals Eisenhower and Macarthur and Admiral Leahy....

and the great professor Ralph Raico....

Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets.[6]
Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.[7] The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."[8]

 

[dogtowner]

You are missing the point. The Japanese had already asked for surrender terms....this is a FACT.

They were more than willing to surrender as long as Hitherto could stay on as emperor. That was the only condition they asked for. The idiot FDR and later the war criminal Truman kept up with the unconditional surrender crap, which only lead to more American and Japanese casualties...and ultimately the atomic bombing. There was NO NEED for American troops to fight on the Japanese mainland...they wanted to surrender in late July.

Why would you chose to believe the big lie promoted by Truman and other progressives regarding the bombings? I chose to believe the many senior military officers including generals Eisenhower and Macarthur and Admiral Leahy....

and the great professor Ralph Raico....

so you admit they were willing to kill everyone in Japan for one guy ?

back in the day you said 'I quit' and took your medicine. go try and find someone who still remembers this personally and ask them if anything short of surrender would do.

its like I was able to help a black friend of mine realize re slavery, if you want to understand a time you have o accept that they were not like we are now. thats neither good nor bad but simple fact.

 

[Gipper]

Please read this paper. It is all right here if you are willing to accept the truth.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/severance.pdf

Why would we NOT accept the Emperor staying on the throne, if that would end the war? It is silly to think we would continue the slaughter just to enforce a unconditional surrender. The Japanese envisioned the Americans putting the Emperor on trial for war crimes and hanging him in front of the palace.

Truman merely wanted to impress the world and frighten the Soviets. He had no concern with incinerating 200k civilians. Sad. Very sad.

 

[dogtowner]

Please read this paper. It is all right here if you are willing to accept the truth.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/severance.pdf

Why would we NOT accept the Emperor staying on the throne, if that would end the war? It is silly to think we would continue the slaughter just to enforce a unconditional surrender. The Japanese envisioned the Americans putting the Emperor on trial for war crimes and hanging him in front of the palace.

Truman merely wanted to impress the world and frighten the Soviets. He had no concern with incinerating 200k civilians. Sad. Very sad.

so showing strength was a bad thing ? you must love Obama then.
no concern ? we warned civilians directly.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You are missing the point. The Japanese had already asked for surrender terms....this is a FACT.
....

And they got them. And they refused them.

That has consequences.

Such as the enemy continuing to blow you to hell.

Unfortunately for them, we had developed a "bigger piece of artillery", as Truman called it... which we warned them about.

They started a war.

They refused to end it.

They suffered the consequences.

That's too damned bad.

Have the Japanese people held their own leaders accountable for refusig to accepting the U.S.'s terms? And thus subjecting them to what followed?

I grow tired of this "blame the U.S. for waging successful war" crap.

Tell it to someone who believes your excuses.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

That is not an argument. Can you please make one?

I never argue.
It is the province of fools and the uninformed.
I offer the opinion--based on a lot of learned fact-finding--that your premise--that your ideas--are poorly-informed.
Do with that--what you wish.
Beware of propaganda.

 

[Gipper]

And they got them. And they refused them.

That has consequences.

Such as the enemy continuing to blow you to hell.

Unfortunately for them, we had developed a "bigger piece of artillery", as Truman called it... which we warned them about.

They started a war.

They refused to end it.

They suffered the consequences.

That's too damned bad.

Have the Japanese people held their own leaders accountable for refusig to accepting the U.S.'s terms? And thus subjecting them to what followed?

I grow tired of this "blame the U.S. for waging successful war" crap.

Tell it to someone who believes your excuses.

Sorry but that is not a justification for the wanton murder of women and children. Japan was ready to surrender. We did not need to murder all those civilians to win the war.

Truman did it NOT to end the war, because the war was already over, but to show the world our tremendous power and particularly to intimidate the Soviets. Japan had no ability to make war....they were done.

So, Truman murdered roughly 200,000 women and children for nefarious reasons. Why any conservative would agree with this horrific act by an awful progressive, is beyond me. It was all about the power of the state. We conservatives are against such things otherwise we are no better than the corrupt progressives.

They then pushed the propaganda lie that 500k Americans would die invading Japan. Why would they lie, if their actions were justified?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Sorry but that is not a justification for the wanton murder of women and children.

As I have already pointed out, avoiding killing so many was not an option open to us, whether we had dropped the Bomb or not. See post #22.

Japan was ready to surrender.

As I have already pointed out, Japan was in no way ready to surrender. Only a few of their members of government were making the suggestion - and getting repeatedly shouted down by the large majority of war hawks in that same government. See post #22.

We did not need to murder all those civilians to win the war.

You keep repeating already-debunked falsehoods. That is not an argument. Can you please make one?

.