The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: The Ellimist on May 16, 2015, 06:23:58 PM
-
I have had this topic come up in other discussions. Personally I think they were necessary to Japan's surrender. I would like to hear other's thoughts.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
-
They were both fire bombed and burned to the ground. Atomic bombs are not real.
-
Funny how fire bombs leave radiation effects similar to that of radiation therapy.
-
Funny how fire bombs leave radiation effects similar to that of radiation therapy.
Ignore hoppy's derailing. What's your stance Misero?
-
Funny how fire bombs leave radiation effects similar to that of radiation therapy.
Have you ever investigated the possibility that conventional bobms are what took out those cities? Or do you automatically believe the government propaganda concerning this.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
-
Funny how fire bombs leave radiation effects similar to that of radiation therapy.
Have you ever investigated the possibility that conventional bobms are what took out those cities? Or do you automatically believe the government propaganda concerning this.
Do you have any idea how big these bombs were? Their power is measured in megatons and one megaton is the energy of one million tons of TNT. The bombs in question had about 5 megatons of energy. To put that in perspective, if you were to make a skyscraper sized block of TNT then it would have about 1/5 the power of those atomic bombs.
So did the Americans drop clusters of skyscraper sized bombs on Japan? Also, how would they have faked the radiation? Did they also put radioactive waste in their skyscraper sized bombs? Radiation was the reason for a significant amount of deaths caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
-
Sorry for the off topic, but there were people who got hit with both bombs.
How unfortunate!
Can you imagine?
-
Sorry for the off topic, but there were people who got hit with both bombs.
How unfortunate!
Can you imagine?
People that fled from one city to the other?
Worst luck ever.
-
Sorry for the off topic, but there were people who got hit with both bombs.
How unfortunate!
Can you imagine?
People that fled from one city to the other?
Worst luck ever.
This guy is the only one who was recognized by Japan. (He lived until he was 93!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi)
Although at least 160 people are known to have been affected by both bombings, he is the only person to have been officially recognized by the government of Japan as surviving both explosions.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
Yea, from what I've read of that section of the article, it seems like the Japanese government (or parts of it) rejected unconditional surrender in these talks, meaning all or most of the Japanese government was in favor of continous warfare. In fact, from that section:
His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.
Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.
I don't see how this invalidates the use of the bombs to end the war
-
This guy is the only one who was recognized by Japan. (He lived until he was 93!)
Died of stomach cancer, the poor fella. One of the worst cancers.
-
There was probably no need for the second one. But tragic though it was, if it wasn't for the bombs Japan would have been invaded by the Red Army and probably made of the Soviet Union. So the bombs were probably the lesser of two evils.
-
In reply to the original topic, my opinion on the atomic bombs is that dropping them was not the only way to win the war but it was the best way. The alternative would be to invade Japan in a long battle where both the Americans and the Japanese would loose a lot of people and it didn't even have a 100% chance of success. I think that such an invasion could have won the war but the war would have lasted longer and it's even possible that more people might have died. I believe that the atomic bombs being dropped saved lives in the long run by ending WWII.
-
In reply to the original topic, my opinion on the atomic bombs is that dropping them was not the only way to win the war but it was the best way. The alternative would be to invade Japan in a long battle where both the Americans and the Japanese would loose a lot of people and it didn't even have a 100% chance of success. I think that such an invasion could have won the war but the war would have lasted longer and it's even possible that more people might have died. I believe that the atomic bombs being dropped saved lives in the long run by ending WWII.
There was always the option of leaving Japan to "wither on the vine" like Rabaul or Truk.
ie Surround it and cut off all supplies getting in.
No invasion necessary, no threat from a starving Japan. Then the Japanese emperor could either surrender or starve.
Win-Win
-
In reply to the original topic, my opinion on the atomic bombs is that dropping them was not the only way to win the war but it was the best way. The alternative would be to invade Japan in a long battle where both the Americans and the Japanese would loose a lot of people and it didn't even have a 100% chance of success. I think that such an invasion could have won the war but the war would have lasted longer and it's even possible that more people might have died. I believe that the atomic bombs being dropped saved lives in the long run by ending WWII.
There was always the option of leaving Japan to "wither on the vine" like Rabaul or Truk.
ie Surround it and cut off all supplies getting in.
No invasion necessary, no threat from a starving Japan. Then the Japanese emperor could either surrender or starve.
Win-Win
They could have done that, but that would have just increased casualties (starving Japan would still be a threat, I think), and extended the war for another year or so. The U.S was looking for an endgame, not extended conflict. Also, there's the issue of land occupied by Imperial Japan outside the mainland, which would mean a blockade would have their backs to forces in Thailand, French Indochina, regions in China etc....
-
In reply to the original topic, my opinion on the atomic bombs is that dropping them was not the only way to win the war but it was the best way. The alternative would be to invade Japan in a long battle where both the Americans and the Japanese would loose a lot of people and it didn't even have a 100% chance of success. I think that such an invasion could have won the war but the war would have lasted longer and it's even possible that more people might have died. I believe that the atomic bombs being dropped saved lives in the long run by ending WWII.
There was always the option of leaving Japan to "wither on the vine" like Rabaul or Truk.
ie Surround it and cut off all supplies getting in.
No invasion necessary, no threat from a starving Japan. Then the Japanese emperor could either surrender or starve.
Win-Win
They could have done that, but that would have just increased casualties (starving Japan would still be a threat, I think), and extended the war for another year or so. The U.S was looking for an endgame, not extended conflict. Also, there's the issue of land occupied by Imperial Japan outside the mainland, which would mean a blockade would have their backs to forces in Thailand, French Indochina, regions in China etc....
My post was in response to mikeman saying that the only alternative to Nuclear bombing was invasion.
Which it wasn't.
They could have also cut off all supplies necessary to war production and let Japan alone, angry but harmless.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
Yea, from what I've read of that section of the article, it seems like the Japanese government (or parts of it) rejected unconditional surrender in these talks, meaning all or most of the Japanese government was in favor of continous warfare. In fact, from that section:
His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.
Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.
I don't see how this invalidates the use of the bombs to end the war
The ongoing campaign of carpet bombing was causing more than enough damage, victory was inevitable. From what I read, the US and UK were willing to soften off of unconditional surrender but Russia stone walled the peace process.
To this end, Stalin and Molotov strung out the negotiations with the Japanese, giving them false hope of a Soviet-mediated peace.[56] At the same time, in their dealings with the United States and Britain, the Soviets insisted on strict adherence to the Cairo Declaration, re-affirmed at the Yalta Conference, that the Allies would not accept separate or conditional peace with Japan. The Japanese would have to surrender unconditionally to all the Allies. To prolong the war, the Soviets opposed any attempt to weaken this requirement.[56] This would give the Soviets time to complete the transfer of their troops from the Western Front to the Far East, and conquer Manchuria (Manchukuo), Inner Mongolia (Mengjiang), Korea, Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and possibly, Hokkaidō[57] (starting with a landing at Rumoi).[58]
That being said, I actually think the atomic bombs were a little more humane than fire bombing so although the bombs were not necessary, i think it ended the war sooner than conventional means would have.
-
I think you also need to try to understand the mindset of the time. There had been nearly 6 years of war (well, only 3 for the US ;)) and millions were dead on all sides. Dropping a huge bomb wasn't as shocking then as seems now. Also the the effects of radiation were not predicted.
-
I think you also need to try to understand the mindset of the time. There had been nearly 6 years of war (well, only 3 for the US ;)) and millions were dead on all sides. Dropping a huge bomb wasn't as shocking then as seems now. Also the the effects of radiation were not predicted.
Actually the effects of radiation were well known by then. In fact, my home town where I am right now was effected by radiation from top secret bomb tests. With all the tests they did of nuclear weapons they had a pretty good idea of what they did.
-
I think you also need to try to understand the mindset of the time. There had been nearly 6 years of war (well, only 3 for the US ;)) and millions were dead on all sides. Dropping a huge bomb wasn't as shocking then as seems now. Also the the effects of radiation were not predicted.
It was shocking enough that dropped no two of them immediately brought Japan to their knees.
-
I think you also need to try to understand the mindset of the time. There had been nearly 6 years of war (well, only 3 for the US ;)) and millions were dead on all sides. Dropping a huge bomb wasn't as shocking then as seems now. Also the the effects of radiation were not predicted.
Actually the effects of radiation were well known by then. In fact, my home town where I am right now was effected by radiation from top secret bomb tests. With all the tests they did of nuclear weapons they had a pretty good idea of what they did.
Them bastards. Did you have to leave your nuked town? Or have you all stayed and become 6 fingered banjo players?
-
I think you also need to try to understand the mindset of the time. There had been nearly 6 years of war (well, only 3 for the US ;)) and millions were dead on all sides. Dropping a huge bomb wasn't as shocking then as seems now. Also the the effects of radiation were not predicted.
Actually the effects of radiation were well known by then. In fact, my home town where I am right now was effected by radiation from top secret bomb tests. With all the tests they did of nuclear weapons they had a pretty good idea of what they did.
Them bastards. Did you have to leave your nuked town? Or have you all stayed and become 6 fingered banjo players?
I don't even know anybody who was alive during that time and I certainly wasn't around for it. My extended family didn't even live here at that time. I am told that most people stayed not knowing where the radiation was coming from and there was an increased number of cases of cancer. It wasn't a huge disaster, just a minor tragedy.
-
I think you also need to try to understand the mindset of the time. There had been nearly 6 years of war (well, only 3 for the US ;)) and millions were dead on all sides. Dropping a huge bomb wasn't as shocking then as seems now. Also the the effects of radiation were not predicted.
Actually the effects of radiation were well known by then. In fact, my home town where I am right now was effected by radiation from top secret bomb tests. With all the tests they did of nuclear weapons they had a pretty good idea of what they did.
What do you "by then"? The very first test (trinity) was only a few weeks before Hiroshima.
The physicists knew there would be some radiation effects, but we're more concerned with the blast force. The military even thought they could march US soldiers through the bombed area immediately after the blast!
The decision-makers - Henry Stimpson and Truman - knew nothing about the effects of radiation.
-
I would say the bombs were necessary to end the war. Every single Purple Heart medal issued since 1945 has come from a huge warehouse in Washington, DC where they are stored. They made over a million of the things in preparation for an invasion of Japan that never happened. They were expecting over a million casualties. They haven't had to make a new one since. They fully expected to have to kill every single Japanese man, woman, and child to end the war. The bombs rendered that unnecessary. Ergo, justified.
-
I would say the bombs were necessary to end the war. Every single Purple Heart medal issued since 1945 has come from a huge warehouse in Washington, DC where they are stored. They made over a million of the things in preparation for an invasion of Japan that never happened. They were expecting over a million casualties. They haven't had to make a new one since. They fully expected to have to kill every single Japanese man, woman, and child to end the war. The bombs rendered that unnecessary. Ergo, justified.
But was the only alternative to invasion nuclear bombing? Probably not. There were other ways of bringing about a country's surrender.
-
I would say the bombs were necessary to end the war. Every single Purple Heart medal issued since 1945 has come from a huge warehouse in Washington, DC where they are stored. They made over a million of the things in preparation for an invasion of Japan that never happened. They were expecting over a million casualties. They haven't had to make a new one since. They fully expected to have to kill every single Japanese man, woman, and child to end the war. The bombs rendered that unnecessary. Ergo, justified.
Japan had already come to the table to talk about surrender. They were not necessary except for a weird need for unconditional surrender which even the UK and US were starting to drift from. The USSR are likely the ones to blame for the bombs being felt necessary.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
Yea, from what I've read of that section of the article, it seems like the Japanese government (or parts of it) rejected unconditional surrender in these talks, meaning all or most of the Japanese government was in favor of continous warfare. In fact, from that section:
His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.
Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.
I don't see how this invalidates the use of the bombs to end the war
Everything you've said here is false. Japan was in talks about surrender with the US, and were willing to. The only side that had a problem with these talks were the Americans who wanted to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as guiena pigs for their first real attempts at using an atomic weapon on human beings. America provoked Japan into Pearl Harbor to begin with, so WWII was mostly their fault anyways.
Japan wasn't unwillingly to surrender with conditions, they are actually an extremely peaceful country... probably the most peaceful on Earth. That's why they immediately outlawed war after WWII.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution)
America could learn a thing or two from Japan.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
Yea, from what I've read of that section of the article, it seems like the Japanese government (or parts of it) rejected unconditional surrender in these talks, meaning all or most of the Japanese government was in favor of continous warfare. In fact, from that section:
His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.
Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.
I don't see how this invalidates the use of the bombs to end the war
Everything you've said here is false. Japan was in talks about surrender with the US, and were willing to. The only side that had a problem with these talks were the Americans who wanted to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as guiena pigs for their first real attempts at using an atomic weapon on human beings. America provoked Japan into Pearl Harbor to begin with, so WWII was mostly their fault anyways.
Japan wasn't unwillingly to surrender with conditions, they are actually an extremely peaceful country... probably the most peaceful on Earth. That's why they immediately outlawed war after WWII.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution)
America could learn a thing or two from Japan.
Wasn't that clause forced on them as part of the treaty?
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
Yea, from what I've read of that section of the article, it seems like the Japanese government (or parts of it) rejected unconditional surrender in these talks, meaning all or most of the Japanese government was in favor of continous warfare. In fact, from that section:
His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.
Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.
I don't see how this invalidates the use of the bombs to end the war
Everything you've said here is false. Japan was in talks about surrender with the US, and were willing to. The only side that had a problem with these talks were the Americans who wanted to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as guiena pigs for their first real attempts at using an atomic weapon on human beings. America provoked Japan into Pearl Harbor to begin with, so WWII was mostly their fault anyways.
Japan wasn't unwillingly to surrender with conditions, they are actually an extremely peaceful country... probably the most peaceful on Earth. That's why they immediately outlawed war after WWII.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution)
America could learn a thing or two from Japan.
Wasn't that clause forced on them as part of the treaty?
Yes, it was.
-
Once again. You're both wrong. It wasn't... And even if it was, that clause is still around today. Far after any treaty was ever made.
You should really learn something about history instead of posting nonsense. You realize people are reading these threads wanting accurate information, yes? Then, please provide it. There was no "you can't have war" clause as part of Japan's surrender. They were forced to have a limited military, but that's it... and even that has expired. The fact is, far after WW2, Japan still chooses to be peaceful and anti-war. And America is still starting wars over oil and land. Compare the two.
-
The Americans gave a ultimatum to Japan before throwing the bombs, which they allegedly refuted. But it could have been a wrong translation of the answer given by them. In fact Truman really wanted to throw the bombs. As Molotov remarked: it was actually a message for us. Well that's politics...
-
I've never heard such bulls--- in my life, but then, talk to any survivor of Japanese hellships, or the Comfort Women, or extremely brutally treated POWs, or... You are talking about a country that was a feudal state run by Samurai until 1868. Yes. The "No War" clause was forced upon them by the surrender document written up by General MacArthur.
If you still think that the Japanese were glorious peaceniks, ask anyone who lived through the Rape of Nanking (modern spelling Nanjing) and see just how peaceful the Japanese were.
-
I've never heard such bulls--- in my life, but then, talk to any survivor of Japanese hellships, or the Comfort Women, or extremely brutally treated POWs, or... You are talking about a country that was a feudal state run by Samurai until 1868. Yes. The "No War" clause was forced upon them by the surrender document written up by General MacArthur.
If you still think that the Japanese were glorious peaceniks, ask anyone who lived through the Rape of Nanking (modern spelling Nanjing) and see just how peaceful the Japanese were.
Yaakov, just because you make things up doesn't mean it's true. I really expected more from you, Yaakov. Regardless, you're missing the point. There were conditions, but that's not one of them. Let's say you are correct (you're not, but whatever), the treaty is practically irrelevant now and the Japanese are allowed to wage war and have an army... yet they still don't. And you still think they're a warmongering country? Get a grip with reality, you brain-washed American psycho. The history books are generous to you in America, huh?
What really prompted the clause in their constitution outlawing War as a means of resolving conflicts and expansion was that America, despite the fact that Japan was trying to surrender, still dropped a-bombs on Japan and killed countless people. It was a terrible tragedy. Japan has seen the horrors of war, and wishes no longer to be a part of it.
Now all we need is someone to a-bomb several American cities, and then hopefully they'll learn something and change their warmongering ways. Great tragedy and loss creates change, and America will continue to wage wars of expansion and greed until they've suffered a terrible tragedy because of their actions (like Japan)... hopefully something like that happens soon. I can think of several good targets.
Have you even read this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender)
Please. Please. Please. Do not make uninformed posts. It's tedious and boring. I expected much more from you, Jew.
The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever." Shidehara's perspective was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan
It has nothing to do with surrender conditions, Yaakov. Do some damn research the next time you post. Every time you respond to me it's pure bollocks. The Japanese came up with this clause, not the Americans. Believe me, America wants war because it's profitable. Japan couldn't care less because they are above it, and they do extremely well because of it. Consider this a lesson to you, Yaakov. And a warning.
-
Please. Please. Please. Do not make uninformed posts. It's tedious and boring. I expected much more from you, Jew.
Quote from: wikipedia
The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever." Shidehara's perspective was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan
It has nothing to do with surrender conditions, Yaakov. Do some damn research the next time you post. Every time you respond to me it's pure bollocks. The Japanese came up with this clause, not the Americans. Believe me, America wants war because it's profitable. Japan couldn't care less because they are above it, and they do extremely well because of it. Consider this a lesson to you, Yaakov. And a warning.
Consider yourself reported for anti-semitism. Furthermore, yes, there were wise elements of the Japanese Government that concurred with the General about the need to impose Article 9 on the Japanese people. And today, Japan is indeed very anti-war. No one disputes either of those things. But at the time, the people were mostly ignorant of anything going on in their government, and certainly not anti-war. I never suggested that Japan today was war-mongering in any sense. Perhaps you read into things more than you should. Grow up. Then again, I am talking to someone who believes that earth was attacked by aliens with nukes millions of years ago. Perhaps I should have remembered that when I started posting. Your intelligence has always been a bit, well, in question, if you will.
-
Please. Please. Please. Do not make uninformed posts. It's tedious and boring. I expected much more from you, Jew.
Quote from: wikipedia
The source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever." Shidehara's perspective was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan
It has nothing to do with surrender conditions, Yaakov. Do some damn research the next time you post. Every time you respond to me it's pure bollocks. The Japanese came up with this clause, not the Americans. Believe me, America wants war because it's profitable. Japan couldn't care less because they are above it, and they do extremely well because of it. Consider this a lesson to you, Yaakov. And a warning.
Consider yourself reported for anti-semitism. Furthermore, yes, there were wise elements of the Japanese Government that concurred with the General about the need to impose Article 9 on the Japanese people. And today, Japan is indeed very anti-war. No one disputes either of those things. But at the time, the people were mostly ignorant of anything going on in their government, and certainly not anti-war. I never suggested that Japan today was war-mongering in any sense. Perhaps you read into things more than you should. Grow up. Then again, I am talking to someone who believes that earth was attacked by aliens with nukes millions of years ago. Perhaps I should have remembered that when I started posting. Your intelligence has always been a bit, well, in question, if you will.
Once again, the General had nothing to do with it. Please research these topics before you post your uninformed nonsense. I am trying to be as truthful and accurate as possible, unfortunately I cannot say the same for you. I even posted the relevant information for you. Can you read, Yaakov?
-
I'm just waiting for the Moderators at this point. I don't even care about the argument. Enjoy. Again, I already know I am talking to a guy with an IQ of about 12.
-
I'm just waiting for the Moderators at this point. I don't even care about the argument. Enjoy. Again, I already know I am talking to a guy with an IQ of about 12.
Moderators don't ban or take action against on-topic posting, Yaakov. They are not your personal army. At least I'm accurate with my information. Is there a reason you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong? All the relevant information has been linked to you. Nowhere does it say that Article 9 was a condition for surrender (like you claimed). No where does it say that Article 9 was General MacArthur's idea. You have been wrong about everything so far, do you do this on purpose?
-
I'm talking about the anti-Semitism. Not the rest of it. the fact that you are full of shit, and Wikipedia can't be used as a valid source because literally ANYONE can write for it is beside the point.
-
I'm talking about the anti-Semitism. Not the rest of it. the fact that you are full of shit, and Wikipedia can't be used as a valid source because literally ANYONE can write for it is beside the point.
Oh so now you're using the tired "wikipedia isn't a valid source" argument. I guess that's the only course of action you have left now that you've been called out for providing false information. Of course Wikipedia's not a valid source, the actual SOURCES for the information are the valid source. You do realize that each point in the article has sources at the bottom of the page, yes? Do you know how wikipedia works? Or do you want to dispute each source for the information in the article? If so, I eagerly await your reply.
-
I'm not going to waste my time, since each source has a counter-source that could be dredged up. Its not worth it to me. But like I said, I don't dispute that the Japanese today are very anti-war, far more so than Americans. That has never been in dispute. And that is their business. As for whose idea it was for Article 9, you would have to find me that actual source for the Wiki article that said that before I would accept it, and even then I would question it, since in all my years getting an MA in history that was never something i learned. But no, I did not report you over any of this. I reported you because you're an anti-Semitic asshole.
-
I'm not going to waste my time, since each source has a counter-source that could be dredged up. Its not worth it to me. But like I said, I don't dispute that the Japanese today are very anti-war, far more so than Americans. That has never been in dispute. And that is their business. As for whose idea it was for Article 9, you would have to find me that actual source for the Wiki article that said that before I would accept it, and even then I would question it, since in all my years getting an MA in history that was never something i learned. But no, I did not report you over any of this. I reported you because your an anti-Semitic asshole.
So now you're simply refusing to discus the topic at hand? You do realize you're off-topic at this point, yes?
If you think "I have an MA in history" makes you a valid source or excuses you for posting blatantly wrong information then you're mistaken. Here's a good tip: The sources are at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Maybe take some time to research it yourself? I have already done my research, clearly you have not. The links are only a few posts back. Shouldn't be very hard.
Please do not respond to me if you're not going to be on topic. Take your bitchy Jew attitude to Complete Nonsense, because that's where you belong, troll.
And it's "You're", by the way. Seems like your college education is failing you.
-
Also reported for anti-semitism. I'll grant the orthographic error. I typed it in a hurry. Your total lack of education is failing you. Anyone who can believe that we were attacked by nuclear weapons to kill the dinosaurs needs to be put away, but then...
-
Also reported for anti-semitism. I'll grant the orthographic error. I typed it in a hurry. Your total lack of education is failing you. Anyone who can believe that we were attacked by nuclear weapons to kill the dinosaurs needs to be put away, but then...
Please stop stealing my insults and using them as your own. It's not clever, it's just lazy. Also, please stay on topic. This isn't about dinosaurs, Yaakov. It's about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are you lost?
-
Actually, last I checked, we were on the topic of you being an anti-Semitic ass, and me reporting you for it.
-
Actually, last I checked, we were on the topic of you being an anti-Semitic fuck-tard, and me reporting you for it.
Unless you can grow some balls and man-up, this is my last post in response to you. Never were we talking about antisemitism. That's all you, buddy. Seems like you have a persecution complex. Might I suggest a therapist?
Feel free to make an on-topic post in response to my arguments if you'd like. If not, you won't hear from me again until I have to correct another one of your numerous mistakes.
-
I don't give a flying fuck if you respond to me or not, you filthy shegetz mamzer pig. You're an anti-Semitic asswipe who needs to have his ass kicked. I only hope that there is a Jew nearby that will be able to do the honours, since you are such a piece of garbage. I haven't made the mistakes. You have. Take your schmuck self and go back to Mummy's basement, where you are currently located, since you can't survive outside of the keyboard, for fear that you might actually have to deal with the real world. Asshole.
-
I don't give a flying fuck if you respond to me or not, you filthy shegetz mamzer pig. You're an anti-Semitic asswipe who needs to have his ass kicked. I only hope that there is a Jew nearby that will be able to do the honours, since you are such a piece of garbage. I haven't made the mistakes. You have. Take your schmuck self and go back to Mummy's basement, where you are currently located, since you can't survive outside of the keyboard, for fear that you might actually have to deal with the real world. Asshole.
So you gave factually wrong information and you still claim that I made the mistake? You tell me to grow up, but it seems you're the one who needs growing up, Yaakov.
The bottom line here is this:
Japan is a peaceful country that wanted to surrender to the Americans. The Americans didn't care and dropped nukes on them anyways. Japan then outlawed war at their own discretion without influence from America. This is all well documented, sourced, and accurate. Please stay on topic. I want to discuss Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not you're persecution complex.
-
Like I said, I was not factually wrong. You got your data from a suspect source. that invalidates it.
-
Like I said, I was not factually wrong. You got your data from a suspect source. that invalidates it.
Now you sound like a Flat Earther. Congratulations, Yaakov.
The bottom line here is this:
Japan is a peaceful country that wanted to surrender to the Americans. The Americans didn't care and dropped nukes on them anyways. Japan then outlawed war at their own discretion without influence from America. Japan has not used military force for anything since then, and still maintains a very peaceful culture of anti-war. Unlike America. This is all well documented, sourced, and accurate. Please stay on topic. I want to discuss Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not your persecution complex.
This flies in the face of everything you said. You were wrong. Admit it and calm the hell down.
-
Your data suggesting that Japan wished to surrender on her own is questionable and has been debated ever since the war ended. That question has still not been answered satisfactorily. Had they wished to do so, they had three days between the bombing of the first city and that of the second. They did not. That kind of makes a wash of your theory.
-
Your data suggesting that Japan wished to surrender on her own is questionable and has been debated ever since the war ended. That question has still not been answered satisfactorily. Had they wished to do so, they had three days between the bombing of the first city and that of the second. They did not. that kind of makes a wash of your theory.
Irrelevant. You were mainly wrong about Article 9, and that's not a debated point. There's plenty of information (that I have already linked) that shows that Japan wanted to outlaw war, not that they were "forced" to by America like you claim. It is typical for Americans to make it seem like Japan was the bad guy, but the true instigator in WW2 was America. Of course, I can't blame you, I'm sure your history books are filled with erroneous bullshit.
-
Even that subject is debatable at best. There is no solid evidence that everyone in the Japanese Government would have gone along with the idea of Article 9. There was one person. That individual was NOT the entire Government. It was still forced upon the Government by us. Fortunately for me, I do have better things to do at the moment (namely, go and smoke a cigarette and finish the laundry). I am not going to repeat myself. Its not my fault you are too stupid to read. You evidently haven't talked to any Australian who survived the Bataan Death March. I suggest you have a conversation with a few.It might change your fucked up perspective a bit.
-
Even that subject is debatable at best. There is no solid evidence that everyone in the Japanese Government would have gone along with the idea of Article 9. There was one person. That individual was NOT the entire Government. It was still forced upon the Government by us. Fortunately for me, I do have better things to do at the moment (namely, go and smoke a cigarette and finish the laundry). I am not going to repeat myself. Its not my fault you are too stupid to read. You evidently haven't talked to any Australian who survived the Bataan Death March. I suggest you have a conversation with a few.It might change your fucked up perspective a bit.
Please reread the links I gave you. You will clearly see that many in the Japanese government were in favor of Article 9... otherwise it would have never been implemented to begin with. Funny, regardless, that you're dropping the whole "General Herrdurrr forced them" position, because that claim has been utterly destroyed I guess?
God, use common sense. Mix that with factual information (that I have linked you), then rethink your position. You're completely wrong and you know it, yet you're trying sooo hard to appear in the right. Why is that?
Please reread all the relevant information I linked you, then respond. Otherwise, what are we arguing about? Opinions? Please. Please. Please. Learn how to debate. The first step is understanding the material.
Once you understand the material, let me know and we can continue... until then... please shut up. You look like a fool.
-
I'm not dropping it at all. I merely agree that one person in the Government concurred with the General. I maintain that the General initiated the idea. I have NEVER learned otherwise, and I suspect that any source that teaches otherwise is infected with modern day politically correct bullshit.
Now, had to go out for my cigarette. Sorry about that. the apt is non-smoking. Even if it weren't, my asthmatic wife is. And she would have my ass for anti-matter if she smelled the stuff in the house! I think we can both agree, "Happy Wife, Happy Life!" ;D ;D ;D
-
Have you ever heard the saying: "History is written by the victors"?
-
Have you ever heard the saying: "History is written by the victors"?
Of course I have. But that kind of thing is increasingly hard to do the higher up you go. You may be able to pull that shit in Grade School and High School and even in College, but once you hit Graduate School its harder to accomplish. It can be done, but its harder. Any Student (and Professor; I've been both) is expected to read all sides of a thing. I've had to teach University courses, specifically World and American History. Its hard to only take the victor's side at that point, ESPECIALLY in today's modern age of Political Correctness and Liberal Bullshit that passes for education.
-
Considering the Japanese were already trying to engage in peace talks before the atomic bombs were dropped, I'd say no.
Can you cite a source? I haven't heard of this before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
Yea, from what I've read of that section of the article, it seems like the Japanese government (or parts of it) rejected unconditional surrender in these talks, meaning all or most of the Japanese government was in favor of continous warfare. In fact, from that section:
His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.
Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.
I don't see how this invalidates the use of the bombs to end the war
Everything you've said here is false. Japan was in talks about surrender with the US, and were willing to. The only side that had a problem with these talks were the Americans who wanted to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as guiena pigs for their first real attempts at using an atomic weapon on human beings. America provoked Japan into Pearl Harbor to begin with, so WWII was mostly their fault anyways.
Cite your sources please.
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239874025&sr=1-3)is the book I read that gave me this information.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239874025&sr=1-3)is the book I read that gave me this information.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
I think its fair for Japan to no longer be able to wage wars considering the Rape of Nanking etc.
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239874025&sr=1-3)is the book I read that gave me this information.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
I think its fair for Japan to no longer be able to wage wars considering the Rape of Nanking etc.
Would you care to explain how that is relevant to anything? It was Japan's choice to outlaw war in their constitution, no one else's. Despite what Yaakov says. If you've been keeping up with our discussion you should realize this.
America has done equally terrible things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)
Just to name a few. There are many more.
The lesson here is that every country has a dark history filled with shameful moments. At least Japan has learned from it, whereas America has not. Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike (like America) again, but they choose not to. Interesting, huh?
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
I wasn't disputing this, which is why I removed references to it when I quoted you.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
I'm sure they wanted to negotiate peace, but they still rejected unconditional surrender. Not sure why, as unconditional surrender (detailed in the Potsdamn Declaration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration)) seemed pretty reasonable.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
What is this supposed to mean?
-
As far as I'm concerned, attempting peace negotiations is not a reason to nuke 2 major Japanese cities. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but imagine if you and I were in a fight...
I took your box of candy. You get mad at me and attempt to start a fight. I then say "I will give you the box of candy if I can have a few pieces of the candy", and then you stab me in the gut. Does that seem fair to you, Ellimist?
The fact is, American history does not go through this information at all. Schools do not teach it for some reason. They simply teach that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we did the right thing by nuking them into submission. If history books stated, "Japan attempted peace talks but we bombed them anyways"... do you think this would even be an issue? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unnecessary and barbaric. It was a gratuitous show of strength to scare the world into submission - and it worked.
Another option existed - negotiating with the Japanese. The fact that America didn't even try to negotiate and instead choose to kill 166,000+ people instead really says something about them, doesn't it?
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239874025&sr=1-3)is the book I read that gave me this information.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
I think its fair for Japan to no longer be able to wage wars considering the Rape of Nanking etc.
Would you care to explain how that is relevant to anything? It was Japan's choice to outlaw war in their constitution, no one else's. Despite what Yaakov says. If you've been keeping up with our discussion you should realize this.
America has done equally terrible things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)
Just to name a few. There are many more.
The lesson here is that every country has a dark history filled with shameful moments. At least Japan has learned from it, whereas America has not. Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike (like America) again, but they choose not to. Interesting, huh?
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Yes, Japan basically outlawed war in Article 9 back in 1947, but then you contradict yourself by saying that Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike again," which they can. In fact, there was a recent reinterpretation of the Article back in July of 2014 that allows Japan to defend allies against war.
-
As far as I'm concerned, attempting peace negotiations is not a reason to nuke 2 major Japanese cities. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but imagine if you and I were in a fight...
I took your box of candy. You get mad at me and attempt to start a fight. I then say "I will give you the box of candy if I can have a few pieces of the candy", and then you stab me in the gut. Does that seem fair to you, Ellimist?
That's not an accurate comparison. A correct scenario is:
You pull out a knife and stab me. I pull out a knife and stab you. This goes on for a few hours. Finally when you're losing you say "I'll drop the knife in my hand if you let me keep the knife in my pocket." "No, drop both knives, and all other weapons you have on you." I say, reaching for the gun in my holster. You say, "Fuck you." and keep on lunging with the knives. I step back and shoot you in the kneecaps, and you fall to your knees.
The fact is, American history does not go through this information at all. Schools do not teach it for some reason. They simply teach that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we did the right thing by nuking them into submission. If history books stated, "Japan attempted peace talks but we bombed them anyways"... do you think this would even be an issue? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unnecessary and barbaric. It was a gratuitous show of strength to scare the world into submission - and it worked.
Actually history books do mention attempted peace negotiations with Japan. Key word "attempted". They (they being the Japanese militarist government, ignoring advice from the ambassadors to Switzerland and Russia) clearly rejected unconditional surrender.
Another option existed - negotiating with the Japanese. The fact that America didn't even try to negotiate and instead choose to kill 166,000+ people instead really says something about them, doesn't it?
It doesn't say anything about the American people really. It says even less about current government policy. Also, the Japanese were the ones who initiated the Pacific War, they should have been the ones to initiate negotiations with America, but instead they choose the Soviet Union, where they specifically said they would not accept the Allies' (which included America) demand for unconditional surrender.
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239874025&sr=1-3)is the book I read that gave me this information.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
I think its fair for Japan to no longer be able to wage wars considering the Rape of Nanking etc.
Would you care to explain how that is relevant to anything? It was Japan's choice to outlaw war in their constitution, no one else's. Despite what Yaakov says. If you've been keeping up with our discussion you should realize this.
America has done equally terrible things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)
Just to name a few. There are many more.
The lesson here is that every country has a dark history filled with shameful moments. At least Japan has learned from it, whereas America has not. Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike (like America) again, but they choose not to. Interesting, huh?
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Yes, Japan basically outlawed war in Article 9 back in 1947, but then you contradict yourself by saying that Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike again," which they can. In fact, there was a recent reinterpretation of the Article back in July of 2014 that allows Japan to defend allies against war.
Japan does not use their faux-military for expansion or conflict resolution, simply for self-defense and when called on by allies. They do not have a true military. What I was saying is that they could easily have one, but choose not to because of Article 9. How is that confusing?
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239874025&sr=1-3)is the book I read that gave me this information.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
I think its fair for Japan to no longer be able to wage wars considering the Rape of Nanking etc.
Would you care to explain how that is relevant to anything? It was Japan's choice to outlaw war in their constitution, no one else's. Despite what Yaakov says. If you've been keeping up with our discussion you should realize this.
America has done equally terrible things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)
Just to name a few. There are many more.
The lesson here is that every country has a dark history filled with shameful moments. At least Japan has learned from it, whereas America has not. Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike (like America) again, but they choose not to. Interesting, huh?
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Yes, Japan basically outlawed war in Article 9 back in 1947, but then you contradict yourself by saying that Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike again," which they can. In fact, there was a recent reinterpretation of the Article back in July of 2014 that allows Japan to defend allies against war.
Japan does not use their faux-military for expansion or conflict resolution, simply for self-defense and when called on by allies. They do not have a true military. What I was saying is that they could easily have one, but choose not to because of Article 9. How is that confusing?
Because they can easily have one. The reinterpretation shows that they can change Article 9 at any time. Article 9 was a representation of Japanese sentiment postwar, not the Japanese mindset for all of time and for all its people, just like the American mindset is not and will not always be warlike for all of time and for all its people, which is what you're implying. Policy changes. The 2014 reinterpretation demonstrates that, as it allows Japan to enter more conflicts than it previously was able to.
-
As far as I'm concerned, attempting peace negotiations is not a reason to nuke 2 major Japanese cities. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but imagine if you and I were in a fight...
I took your box of candy. You get mad at me and attempt to start a fight. I then say "I will give you the box of candy if I can have a few pieces of the candy", and then you stab me in the gut. Does that seem fair to you, Ellimist?
That's not an accurate comparison. A correct scenario is:
You pull out a knife and stab me. I pull out a knife and stab you. This goes on for a few hours. Finally when you're losing you say "I'll drop the knife in my hand if you let me keep the knife in my pocket." "No, drop both knives, and all other weapons you have on you." I say, reaching for the gun in my holster. You say, "Fuck you." and keep on lunging with the knives. I step back and shoot you in the kneecaps, and you fall to your knees.
The fact is, American history does not go through this information at all. Schools do not teach it for some reason. They simply teach that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we did the right thing by nuking them into submission. If history books stated, "Japan attempted peace talks but we bombed them anyways"... do you think this would even be an issue? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unnecessary and barbaric. It was a gratuitous show of strength to scare the world into submission - and it worked.
Actually history books do mention attempted peace negotiations with Japan. Key word "attempted". They (they being the Japanese militarist government, ignoring advice from the ambassadors to Switzerland and Russia) clearly rejected unconditional surrender.
Another option existed - negotiating with the Japanese. The fact that America didn't even try to negotiate and instead choose to kill 166,000+ people instead really says something about them, doesn't it?
It doesn't say anything about the American people really. It says even less about current government policy. Also, the Japanese were the ones who initiated the Pacific War, they should have been the ones to initiate negotiations with America, but instead they choose the Soviet Union, where they specifically said they would not accept the Allies' (which included America) demand for unconditional surrender.
Demanding an unconditional surrender is not negotiating, it is leveraging power. It seems either naive or disingenuous to say the Allies were interested in a negotiated peace.
-
As far as I'm concerned, attempting peace negotiations is not a reason to nuke 2 major Japanese cities. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but imagine if you and I were in a fight...
I took your box of candy. You get mad at me and attempt to start a fight. I then say "I will give you the box of candy if I can have a few pieces of the candy", and then you stab me in the gut. Does that seem fair to you, Ellimist?
That's not an accurate comparison. A correct scenario is:
You pull out a knife and stab me. I pull out a knife and stab you. This goes on for a few hours. Finally when you're losing you say "I'll drop the knife in my hand if you let me keep the knife in my pocket." "No, drop both knives, and all other weapons you have on you." I say, reaching for the gun in my holster. You say, "Fuck you." and keep on lunging with the knives. I step back and shoot you in the kneecaps, and you fall to your knees.
The fact is, American history does not go through this information at all. Schools do not teach it for some reason. They simply teach that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we did the right thing by nuking them into submission. If history books stated, "Japan attempted peace talks but we bombed them anyways"... do you think this would even be an issue? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unnecessary and barbaric. It was a gratuitous show of strength to scare the world into submission - and it worked.
Actually history books do mention attempted peace negotiations with Japan. Key word "attempted". They (they being the Japanese militarist government, ignoring advice from the ambassadors to Switzerland and Russia) clearly rejected unconditional surrender.
Another option existed - negotiating with the Japanese. The fact that America didn't even try to negotiate and instead choose to kill 166,000+ people instead really says something about them, doesn't it?
It doesn't say anything about the American people really. It says even less about current government policy. Also, the Japanese were the ones who initiated the Pacific War, they should have been the ones to initiate negotiations with America, but instead they choose the Soviet Union, where they specifically said they would not accept the Allies' (which included America) demand for unconditional surrender.
Demanding an unconditional surrender is not negotiating, it is leveraging power. It seems either naive or disingenuous to say the Allies were interested in a negotiated peace.
Leveraging power to end a war, and in this case the end justifies the means. Unconditional surrender as defined by the Potsdam Declaration doesn't seem unreasonable. The Allies just didn't want any remainder of the militarist government left over after the war.
-
I don't think anybody was interested in a negotiated peace, leastwise the Japanese. If they had wanted to give up, they could have done it in between the bombings of the two cities, as there was a three day lull during the dropping of the two bombs.
Furthermore, I think that suggesting that the Japanese had anything to do with the idea of Article 9 is pandering to modern day concepts of PC bullshit more than anything else. I, for one, am disinclined to believe that General MacArthur would have been too willing to sit down with any Japanese Government official and work out anything, when what his own government was demanding was "Unconditional Surrender". He may have been many things, but he wasn't a schmuck.
And given that here was a man who was later relieved of his command in Korea because he would have gone over the Yalu River into China and eliminated the Communist Government there, well, that's pretty indicative of his personal attitudes and approach. CORVELAY here can believe what he likes. But any source he cites is only the opinion of one historian, and can be questioned.Hell, depending on the qualifications of the source, I might have better qualifications given my own qualifications with my advanced degree in the subject.
So, well, there you are. Not much more to say on that.
-
As far as I'm concerned, attempting peace negotiations is not a reason to nuke 2 major Japanese cities. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but imagine if you and I were in a fight...
I took your box of candy. You get mad at me and attempt to start a fight. I then say "I will give you the box of candy if I can have a few pieces of the candy", and then you stab me in the gut. Does that seem fair to you, Ellimist?
The fact is, American history does not go through this information at all. Schools do not teach it for some reason. They simply teach that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we did the right thing by nuking them into submission. If history books stated, "Japan attempted peace talks but we bombed them anyways"... do you think this would even be an issue? The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unnecessary and barbaric. It was a gratuitous show of strength to scare the world into submission - and it worked.
Another option existed - negotiating with the Japanese. The fact that America didn't even try to negotiate and instead choose to kill 166,000+ people instead really says something about them, doesn't it?
Sorry to jump in, but this isn't true. I was in High School in the 90s, and I learned that Japan had tried to surrender but not on the terms we wanted and that we also wanted to show the Soviet Union we had the bomb and were willing to use the bomb. We spent a week on the after effects of the bombs, the damage and burns and mutations. My teacher was very up front that its debatable at best that using the bomb was necessary to ending the war.
In my college US Political & Social History class (Civil War to Present) my professor went deeper into the fact that the Japanese had been trying to overthrow their own government, stop the war before they had to surrender unconditionally, the attempts at negotiating the peace deal and how the American government knowing full well we had won decided to do what we wanted to cement our own agenda and standing on the post war world stage.
Not all schools in America are preaching that America was a saint before, during WWII and after WWII. My college course textbooks for that class included an amazing little book I highly recommend to every American called Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. It goes into detail how we subverted international law, national self determination and morality to help American national and business interests.
(http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409))
I'm grateful to these classes, they helped me see my country with mature eyes.
-
I don't think anybody was interested in a negotiated peace, leastwise the Japanese. If they had wanted to give up, they could have done it in between the bombings of the two cities, as there was a three day lull during the dropping of the two bombs.
It is a matter of record that the Japanese reached out to the Soviets to discuss conditional surrender. Perhaps you should read about it.
Leveraging power to end a war, and in this case the end justifies the means. Unconditional surrender as defined by the Potsdam Declaration doesn't seem unreasonable. The Allies just didn't want any remainder of the militarist government left over after the war.
They had already broken the back of the Japanese with their carpet bombing campaign. Like Germany, Japan's infrastructure was annihilated in an incendiary cloud. Watch, "Fog of War" to get a sense of the utter devastation that had already been wreaked on Japan before the atomic bombs were dropped. All the bombs did was speed up the process, but they were hardly necessary.
-
No one has ever claimed that America is a Saint, leastwise me. But whitewashing Japan's records during WWII is unconscionable. I agree that things like the the Trail of Tears were appalling, but it was a different time and place, when people did things differently, and brutality was much more tolerated then it was supposed to be in a supposedly more enlightened age.
And if Japan was reaching out to the Soviets, then it was probably a good thing that we didn't let that happen. If we had permitted that, Japan probably would have become a Communist dictatorship.
Things like the Trail of Tears occurred in a time when slavery existed in many societies (as it does today, but it doesn't in the West, at least not formally), and when things like it were to be expected. Not that the Trail of Tears has to do with slavery; my point is that brutal things LIKE slavery and the Trail of Tears could occur because in that time period, it was expected. Things like the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust were deemed unacceptable by the world because supposedly, at least,the human race had gotten beyond that.
The fact that Japan STILL does not honestly speak in their history textbooks about the brutality of the Japanese Imperial Forces on the peoples they conquered speaks volumes. They haven't even fully admitted that the Rape of Nanking even happened, let alone apologised for it.
If they were reaching out to the Soviets, and I am not convinced of that (sources, please? Preferably reliable Internet sources, Wikipedia not being one of them), then they were lucky to have avoided the Communist dictatorship that would have been their lot, even AT the cost of nuclear detonation.
-
If they were reaching out to the Soviets, and I am not convinced of that (sources, please? Preferably reliable Internet sources, Wikipedia not being one of them), then they were lucky to have avoided the Communist dictatorship that would have been their lot, even AT the cost of nuclear detonation.
Is this your new thing, Yaakov? Continually asking for the same thing despite it being given to you several times?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)
Yes, it's Wikipedia. Yes, there are sources at the bottom of the page for each point. Yes it's accurate. Browse the sources if you'd like.
-
No one has ever claimed that America is a Saint, leastwise me. But whitewashing Japan's records during WWII is unconscionable.
Who white washed anything? You are making up lies now.
I agree that things like the the Trail of Tears were appalling, but it was a different time and place, when people did things differently, and brutality was much more tolerated then it was supposed to be in a supposedly more enlightened age.
That is always your excuse. The brutality was not more tolerated, in fact the American government made a concerted effort to censor their brutality so that they could keep their noses clean in the arena of public opinion.
And if Japan was reaching out to the Soviets, then it was probably a good thing that we didn't let that happen. If we had permitted that, Japan probably would have become a Communist dictatorship.
So becoming an SSR is worse than the fire and radiation death of 200,000 people? Oh that's right, you get your morality from the Torah, I expect no less.
If they were reaching out to the Soviets, and I am not convinced of that (sources, please? Preferably reliable Internet sources, Wikipedia not being one of them), then they were lucky to have avoided the Communist dictatorship that would have been their lot, even AT the cost of nuclear detonation.
Wikipedia has been analysed and found to be very accurate (http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html), please stop your academic snobbery.
-
Cite your sources please.
I already have. Please read my posts instead of skimming them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution#References)
No reference refers to Article 9 as being the idea of an American General in any capacity. Yaakov is really the one here that needs to 'cite his sources'. As he hasn't provided any for any of his claims. Article 9 was actually suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, of the Japanese government, and General Douglas MacArthur actually admits this. Shidehara wanted to "prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."
Source: Klaus Schlichtmann, JAPAN IN THE WORLD. Shidehara Kijűrô, Pacifism and the Abolition of War, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto etc., 2 vols., Lexington Books, 2009. See also, by the same author, 'A Statesman for The Twenty-First Century? The Life and Diplomacy of Shidehara Kijűrô (1872–1951)', Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, fourth series, vol. 10 (1995), pp. 33–67
It really annoys me that you're asking for sources when I already gave them, by the way. I will not meet your requests again if you make redundant demands in the future.
As far as sources for Japan trying to surrender, it comes from the Japanese government itself. They claim that they approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate peace with the US and Britain.
This (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239874025&sr=1-3)is the book I read that gave me this information.
Here's another source (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/images/A_Bomb_Order_310745.gif)as well.
I think its fair for Japan to no longer be able to wage wars considering the Rape of Nanking etc.
Would you care to explain how that is relevant to anything? It was Japan's choice to outlaw war in their constitution, no one else's. Despite what Yaakov says. If you've been keeping up with our discussion you should realize this.
America has done equally terrible things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)
Just to name a few. There are many more.
The lesson here is that every country has a dark history filled with shameful moments. At least Japan has learned from it, whereas America has not. Japan could easily start up another military/army and become warlike (like America) again, but they choose not to. Interesting, huh?
I'd like to point out that Japan ad, in Arthur Harris' words, "Sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind"
They attacked first. They did not surrender.
I think that comparing the Internment of Japanese Americans to the god damn rape of Nanking is completely unfair.
So is the Trail of Tears. That was a hundred years before, with a different enemy.
But yes, america has done terrible things. So has Japan.
Japan was beaten. America wasn't. Perhaps if they were, then maybe they would have no army, like the Japanese.
FYI: The Japanese killed as much, if not more Chinese civilians in Nanking, then were nuked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Getting your entrails sliced up, while watching people rape and kill your family would perhaps change your view of the Japanese. it doesn't surprise me that over half of the Chinese population view the Japanese with hatred. I would too.
-
Well the Americans certainly killed more citizens in the fire bombings of Japan than were killed in Nanking and then, after almost all of Japan's major cities were ash, they dropped the two A-Bombs.
I will reiterate so I am not misunderstood: I don't think the Americans are monsters for dropping the atomic bombs, they dropped in about as responsible way as you could want considering the tactical needs. I certainly do not think they were necessary though. Japan was shattered.
-
And you get your morals from a fundamentally narcissistic "anything goes if it makes me feel good" philosophy, ergo, I expect no less of you then bitching and whining if things don't go your way.
And yes, that is the way true wars are fought. You kick some ass and take some names. None of this namby-pamby baby bullshit of trying regime change and all that. If we had pounded Iraq into dogmeat back in '90-'91, when we first went there, we would have eliminated all the problems that shithole has given us since. Same with Afghanistan. We should have supported Russia invading them, probably. Or if we were going to oppose them, then we should have fought back brutally and hard. We haven't won a war since Korea because we haven't remembered how to fight.
Yes, you do destroy the enemy's capacity for resistance. Completely. You render them completely prostrate at your feet and do not allow for any conditions of surrender except those which you dictate. They do what the fuck they are told, how they are told, when they are told, without question, or they face complete destruction as a people. "Cartago Delenda Est." Carthage must be destroyed." And when it was, it was completely razed, its people sold into slavery, and salt poured on the grounds of the destroyed city so it could never be rebuilt. Aside from the slavery part, which enlightened persons don't believe in, The rest of it is perfect, if there isn't immediate obedience.
You people crying for mercy for people who wish to change the West, and make it like their shitholes, have earned nothing but my utter contempt. You should all lose your citizenship in the lands where you live, and go live in those shitholes of sharia, and be subject to the hellholes that they are.
-
And you get your morals from a fundamentally narcissistic "anything goes if it makes me feel good" philosophy, ergo, I expect no less of you then bitching and whining if things don't go your way.
No I don't. Why are you making things up?
And yes, that is the way true wars are fought. You kick some ass and take some names. None of this namby-pamby baby bullshit of trying regime change and all that. If we had pounded Iraq into dogmeat back in '90-'91, when we first went there, we would have eliminated all the problems that shithole has given us since. Same with Afghanistan. We should have supported Russia invading them, probably. Or if we were going to oppose them, then we should have fought back brutally and hard. We haven't won a war since Korea because we haven't remembered how to fight.
I am not sure why you are so mad. Anyway, even if everything you said is true (thankfully it's not, you are just a bit crazy) none of that means the nuclear bombs were necessary.
Yes, you do destroy the enemy's capacity for resistance. Completely. You render them completely prostrate at your feet and do not allow for any conditions of surrender except those which you dictate. They do what the fuck they are told, how they are told, when they are told, without question, or they face complete destruction as a people. "Cartago Delenda Est." Carthage must be destroyed." And when it was, it was completely razed, its people sold into slavery, and salt poured on the grounds of the destroyed city so it could never be rebuilt. Aside from the slavery part, which enlightened persons don't believe in, The rest of it is perfect, if there isn't immediate obedience.
The Americans had already done this and more effectively with their firebombing campaign.
You people crying for mercy for people who wish to change the West, and make it like their shitholes, have earned nothing but my utter contempt. You should all lose your citizenship in the lands where you live, and go live in those shitholes of sharia, and be subject to the hellholes that they are.
Wow, this came out of left field. I think you are trying to sound tough now and it is not working.
-
And you get your morals from a fundamentally narcissistic "anything goes if it makes me feel good" philosophy, ergo, I expect no less of you then bitching and whining if things don't go your way.
No I don't. Why are you making things up?
I wish I were, but that is reality, in spite of your inability to see it.
And yes, that is the way true wars are fought. You kick some ass and take some names. None of this namby-pamby baby bullshit of trying regime change and all that. If we had pounded Iraq into dogmeat back in '90-'91, when we first went there, we would have eliminated all the problems that shithole has given us since. Same with Afghanistan. We should have supported Russia invading them, probably. Or if we were going to oppose them, then we should have fought back brutally and hard. We haven't won a war since Korea because we haven't remembered how to fight.
I am not sure why you are so mad. Anyway, even if everything you said is true (thankfully it's not, you are just a bit crazy) none of that means the nuclear bombs were necessary.
In other words, you're one of the whiny little punks that doesn't know how to fight a war. Good to know.
Yes, you do destroy the enemy's capacity for resistance. Completely. You render them completely prostrate at your feet and do not allow for any conditions of surrender except those which you dictate. They do what the fuck they are told, how they are told, when they are told, without question, or they face complete destruction as a people. "Cartago Delenda Est." Carthage must be destroyed." And when it was, it was completely razed, its people sold into slavery, and salt poured on the grounds of the destroyed city so it could never be rebuilt. Aside from the slavery part, which enlightened persons don't believe in, The rest of it is perfect, if there isn't immediate obedience.
The Americans had already done this and more effectively with their firebombing campaign.
I am talking about wars fought today, just as much as WWII.
You people crying for mercy for people who wish to change the West, and make it like their shitholes, have earned nothing but my utter contempt. You should all lose your citizenship in the lands where you live, and go live in those shitholes of sharia, and be subject to the hellholes that they are.
Wow, this came out of left field. I think you are trying to sound tough now and it is not working.
That is just a stupid response with no meaning, for which you should be evaluated in an IQ test, the which I expect you would score in about low double digits.
-
I wish I were, but that is reality, in spite of your inability to see it.
I realize that as an extreme Zionist you are required to say things that are not based on anything substantial. I forgive you.
In other words, you're one of the whiny little punks that doesn't know how to fight a war. Good to know.
Are you going to say anything pertaining to the topic or just make really bad Ad Hominems? There is no reason to think that the Japanese would not have surrendered without the use of atomic bombs: nukes were not necessary.
I am talking about wars fought today, just as much as WWII.
Well please try and stay on topic.
That is just a stupid response with no meaning, for which you should be evaluated in an IQ test, the which I expect you would score in about low double digits.
The meaning is pretty clear: your shit-posting insinuations that people who disagree with you are extreme Muslims are really not very impressive or intimidating. You have obviously run out of anything substantial to say about the topic and are just looking to get banned or something. Weirdo...
-
Well the Americans certainly killed more citizens in the fire bombings of Japan than were killed in Nanking and then, after almost all of Japan's major cities were ash, they dropped the two A-Bombs.
I will reiterate so I am not misunderstood: I don't think the Americans are monsters for dropping the atomic bombs, they dropped in about as responsible way as you could want considering the tactical needs. I certainly do not think they were necessary though. Japan was shattered.
If Japan was shattered, then why didn't they surrender?
And the Japanese killed more Chinese then Americans killed Japanese.
And you must also think about causality. The Japanese invaded China. Killed millions.
Because of this, America fought back against Japan. Killed millions (?)
The japanese started it.
-
Well the Americans certainly killed more citizens in the fire bombings of Japan than were killed in Nanking and then, after almost all of Japan's major cities were ash, they dropped the two A-Bombs.
I will reiterate so I am not misunderstood: I don't think the Americans are monsters for dropping the atomic bombs, they dropped in about as responsible way as you could want considering the tactical needs. I certainly do not think they were necessary though. Japan was shattered.
If Japan was shattered, then why didn't they surrender?
As previously mentioned, they tried to, but were stone-walled because the Allies decided that the only surrender they would accept was unconditional.
And the Japanese killed more Chinese then Americans killed Japanese.
And you must also think about causality. The Japanese invaded China. Killed millions.
Because of this, America fought back against Japan. Killed millions (?)
The japanese started it.
None of this is being disputed. I will say it once more and if no one wants to respond to it, I will let this thread go: the atomic bomb was not strictly necessary. There were other routes available to the Americans to end the war, and they opted for the one that not only ended the war quickly, but put them in the alpha dog position in the world. All this talk about who deserved what is not only adolescent but fairly repulsive.
-
Well the Americans certainly killed more citizens in the fire bombings of Japan than were killed in Nanking and then, after almost all of Japan's major cities were ash, they dropped the two A-Bombs.
I will reiterate so I am not misunderstood: I don't think the Americans are monsters for dropping the atomic bombs, they dropped in about as responsible way as you could want considering the tactical needs. I certainly do not think they were necessary though. Japan was shattered.
If Japan was shattered, then why didn't they surrender?
As previously mentioned, they tried to, but were stone-walled because the Allies decided that the only surrender they would accept was unconditional.
And the Japanese killed more Chinese then Americans killed Japanese.
And you must also think about causality. The Japanese invaded China. Killed millions.
Because of this, America fought back against Japan. Killed millions (?)
The japanese started it.
None of this is being disputed. I will say it once more and if no one wants to respond to it, I will let this thread go: the atomic bomb was not strictly necessary. There were other routes available to the Americans to end the war, and they opted for the one that not only ended the war quickly, but put them in the alpha dog position in the world. All this talk about who deserved what is not only adolescent but fairly repulsive.
Fair enough. For what it is worth, I voted no, it was not necessary.
But we have to consider the necessity of the times.
Im sure it seemed perfectly reasonable at the time. I hope you aren't disputing that.
-
Well, that was the whole point. You don't fight a war, lose 214,000 people (American losses), not counting Allied losses (which were MUCH higher, especially if we include the USSR and China), not to turn into an Alpha dog in the world. That is just effing stupid!
One does NOT fight a war with the intent of coming out of it a mediocre grade power when one has the possibility of more in one's grasp. America saw, correctly, that it could become a Super-power, and it took that chance and did. Now, Truman was an asswipe for allowing the Soviets to get the bomb, but they would have gotten it fairly soon at any rate, so some would say that he just chose to accelerate the inevitable.
In order to become the world power that America became, Japan was sacrificed. Tough shit. They had started a war they could not win, and they knew it. When they first attacked Pearl Harbor, one of their own Admirals had admitted that they had attacked a tiger the which would end up destroying them, and he was right. If perhaps we could have found another method, and allowed for conditional surrender, and yet did not, that was OUR prerogative, and not theirs. They had to pay for what they had done, not only to us, but to everybody else they had fucked with from about 1932 (in the case of Manchuria) onward (1910 if you count Korea).
-
Blah, blah, blah.
If there was another solution (there was), then the dropping of atomic bombs was not necessary. Seems fairly straightforward. If Japan had not come to the table to discuss surrender I could see your point, but the fact is, Japan did wish to discuss surrender.
I don't see how you can argue against this.
-
Easily. The benefits of Unconditional Surrender were greater than Conditional Surrender. You do the math. Simple Utilitarianism.
-
Blah, blah, blah.
If there was another solution (there was), then the dropping of atomic bombs was not necessary. Seems fairly straightforward. If Japan had not come to the table to discuss surrender I could see your point, but the fact is, Japan did wish to discuss surrender.
I don't see how you can argue against this.
The problem with Japan's attempt at peace is that their definition of "conditional surrender" would have probably left in power the same people who had started the war in the first place.
-
Blah, blah, blah.
If there was another solution (there was), then the dropping of atomic bombs was not necessary. Seems fairly straightforward. If Japan had not come to the table to discuss surrender I could see your point, but the fact is, Japan did wish to discuss surrender.
I don't see how you can argue against this.
The problem with Japan's attempt at peace is that their definition of "conditional surrender" would have probably left in power the same people who had started the war in the first place.
All I can say to that is maybe. Since the Allies never came to the table, it is tough to say how negotiations would have gone. The Japanese really only had their conviction at the end. Their Air Force and navy were decimated, their industrial capability and economy were devastated. They had no negotiating power. I think the allies could have wrung what they wanted from the Japanese.
-
No one can really argue for the bombings as they happened. Two attacks on primarily civilian targets, and not factories or something else is completely inexcusable.
-
They were both fire bombed and burned to the ground. Atomic bombs are not real.
If nukes are not real how did you get irradiated enough to grow six legs?
-
The Japanese really only had their conviction at the end.
That was enough. The entire culture of Japan revolved around honor and other stuff like that, and the populace was totally indoctrinated. The japanese people believed till the end that American invaders would torturer them and massacre them. Don't forget that the Japanese government let the second bomb fall before they surrendered.
-
The Japanese really only had their conviction at the end.
That was enough. The entire culture of Japan revolved around honor and other stuff like that, and the populace was totally indoctrinated. The japanese people believed till the end that American invaders would torturer them and massacre them. Don't forget that the Japanese government let the second bomb fall before they surrendered.
Why do you think they waited? There are more plausible reasons than, "They are zealots". If you read the history, they waited because they gambled that the Americans would not drop another. When they were proven wrong, they capitulated, showing they were rational actors.
The Americans did massacre them by the way. Their fears were well founded. And no, I am not advocating for the victimhood of the japanese or try to demonize the Americans. It is just a fact that 100,000 people in Tokyo died in a single night's bombing raid by the Americans. You would be terrified of them too I imagine.
-
The Japanese really only had their conviction at the end.
That was enough. The entire culture of Japan revolved around honor and other stuff like that, and the populace was totally indoctrinated. The japanese people believed till the end that American invaders would torturer them and massacre them. Don't forget that the Japanese government let the second bomb fall before they surrendered.
If you read the history, they waited because they gambled that the Americans would not drop another. When they were proven wrong, they capitulated, showing they were rational actors.
So, the fact that they would not have surrendered if America had dropped one atom bomb instead of two, somehow shows they were not zealous?
-
Well, after Manchuria & China proper, I'd say they had it coming.
-
The Japanese really only had their conviction at the end.
That was enough. The entire culture of Japan revolved around honor and other stuff like that, and the populace was totally indoctrinated. The japanese people believed till the end that American invaders would torturer them and massacre them. Don't forget that the Japanese government let the second bomb fall before they surrendered.
If you read the history, they waited because they gambled that the Americans would not drop another. When they were proven wrong, they capitulated, showing they were rational actors.
So, the fact that they would not have surrendered if America had dropped one atom bomb instead of two, somehow shows they were not zealous?
No, that is not what I am saying at all. kman mentioned that they did not surrender after the Hiroshima as some sort of evidence that they were zealous, and I am saying that it does not show that.
Well, after Manchuria & China proper, I'd say they had it coming.
Yes, we all know what you would say. It is not very interesting anymore.
-
Well, you can't seem to pose an argument that successfully defeats it, so...
-
Well, you can't seem to pose an argument that successfully defeats it, so...
Once you explain why "they had it coming" means "it had to happen" I will defeat that argument. I imagine the best you can come up with is some chest-thumping rhetoric about might makes right. I sincerely hope you surprise me.
-
You appear not to have a point. They could have surrendered w/ neither bomb. Thex didn't. They could have after 1. They didn't. Ergo, both were needed.
-
You appear not to have a point. They could have surrendered w/ neither bomb. Thex didn't. They could have after 1. They didn't. Ergo, both were needed.
They did try and surrender and the allies said no. Why do you keep ignoring that fact. I thought you were a historian.
-
Rama:
"The Japanese attempted surrender. here's a source"
Yaakov:
"No. That's incorrect. I learned in college that that's not true. I have taught college courses before."
Art:
"The Japanese suggested Article 9 in the constitution, not the Americans. Here's a source"
Yaakov:
"No. That's incorrect. I learned in college that that's not true. I have taught college courses before."
Why? His level of skepticism toward official sources makes it hard to believe that Yaakov did well in college, or even went to begin with.
-
Are you insinuating he should set aside his personal belief in favor of evidence? I am outraged!
-
Are you insinuating he should set aside his personal belief in favor of evidence? I am outraged!
I am insinuating that Yaakov is guilty of a double standard and mental retardation.
He accepts some historical sources, but completely disregards others to suit his argument. Personally, I think all historical sources cannot be trusted, but that's just me.
-
You appear not to have a point. They could have surrendered w/ neither bomb. Thex didn't. They could have after 1. They didn't. Ergo, both were needed.
They did try and surrender and the allies said no. Why do you keep ignoring that fact. I thought you were a historian.
They tried to surrender conditionally. Not good enough.
-
I've already presented my response. The fact remains that with a Wikipedia source, which no scholar permits using, you have to back it first. And I would question that source for Political Correctness first.
-
You appear not to have a point. They could have surrendered w/ neither bomb. Thex didn't. They could have after 1. They didn't. Ergo, both were needed.
They did try and surrender and the allies said no.
If they wanted to surrender why didn't they just accept unconditional surrender?
The terms of unconditional surrender, specified in the Potsdam declaration were were:
1. the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" (removal of the militarist radicals basically; no mention of the Emperor.)
2. the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
3. that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Japan_honshu_map_small.png), Hokkaidō (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Map_of_Japan_with_highlight_on_02edit_Hokkaido_prefecture.svg/250px-Map_of_Japan_with_highlight_on_02edit_Hokkaido_prefecture.svg.png), Kyūshū (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Japan_kyushu_map_small.png), Shikoku (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Japan_shikoku_map_small.png/220px-Japan_shikoku_map_small.png) and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.
4. that "[t]he Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
5. that "[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."
And then there's' this:
1. "The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
2. "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
3. "The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
So they called on Japan's government to restore civil liberties to the people, guaranteed that Japan would keep non-military industries, and agreed to leave as soon as Japan was stable. While this declaration didn't come up during the Soviet-Japanese talks, the Japanese could have at least accepted these terms, or tried to discuss them. Instead, the Japanese government rejected it.
To me it seems that they knew they were going to lose, and saw "negotiations" as a way to get more than they were entitled to. It didn't go their way, so they decide to throw a tantrum, as well as their peoples lives away.
-
Or perhaps they were scared that they would be totally subjugated as the terms of that surrender seem to allow for?
I don't know why wanting to negotiate a peace seems so controversial.
-
Or perhaps they were scared that they would be totally subjugated as the terms of that surrender seem to allow for?
??? ??? ??? ???
[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation
The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
-
Or perhaps they were scared that they would be totally subjugated as the terms of that surrender seem to allow for?
??? ??? ??? ???
[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation
The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
So someone bombs you in to submission, killing millions along the way and then tells you they have your best interests at heart, and you believe them? Tell me that that does not sound like a hard pill to swallow.
-
Or perhaps they were scared that they would be totally subjugated as the terms of that surrender seem to allow for?
??? ??? ??? ???
[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation
The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
So someone bombs you in to submission, killing millions along the way and then tells you they have your best interests at heart, and you believe them? Tell me that that does not sound like a hard pill to swallow.
Doesn't matter if it was a bold-faced lie (and it wasn't) or not. They had 2 options: accept the Declaration, lose the war, be enslaved, and spare Japanese lives, or reject the Declaration, lose the war, be enslaved, and kill more soldiers and citizens. They choose the former.
-
You asked why they did not accept unconditional surrender, I gave a plausible answer.
-
You asked why they did not accept unconditional surrender, I gave a plausible answer.
So you're saying that they rejected unconditional surrender because they were scared of being subjugated by the Allies, but the Japanese government knew they were going to lose, so shouldn't they have known that either way Japan would be conquered? Why then would they choose the option that would drain more resources and get more soldiers killed? It doesn't seem like the option a fearful government would choose.
-
You asked why they did not accept unconditional surrender, I gave a plausible answer.
So you're saying that they rejected unconditional surrender because they were scared of being subjugated by the Allies, but the Japanese government knew they were going to lose, so shouldn't they have known that either way Japan would be conquered? Why then would they choose the option that would drain more resources and get more soldiers killed? It doesn't seem like the option a fearful government would choose.
Firstly plenty of animals fight when cornered. Second, perhaps the Japanese were hoping to be taken up on their request to negotiate a peace.
-
You asked why they did not accept unconditional surrender, I gave a plausible answer.
So you're saying that they rejected unconditional surrender because they were scared of being subjugated by the Allies, but the Japanese government knew they were going to lose, so shouldn't they have known that either way Japan would be conquered? Why then would they choose the option that would drain more resources and get more soldiers killed? It doesn't seem like the option a fearful government would choose.
Firstly plenty of animals fight when cornered. Second, perhaps the Japanese were hoping to be taken up on their request to negotiate a peace.
Comparing the Japanese to animals? Okay.
-
Humans are animals mmmmmk?
-
Humans are animals mmmmmk?
And if animals always fought when cornered then no one would ever surrender.
Still a pretty offensive thing to say.
-
Humans are animals mmmmmk?
And if animals always fought when cornered then no one would ever surrender.
Still a pretty offensive thing to say.
Only because you are ignoring what I mean.
-
You asked why they did not accept unconditional surrender, I gave a plausible answer.
So you're saying that they rejected unconditional surrender because they were scared of being subjugated by the Allies, but the Japanese government knew they were going to lose, so shouldn't they have known that either way Japan would be conquered? Why then would they choose the option that would drain more resources and get more soldiers killed? It doesn't seem like the option a fearful government would choose.
Firstly plenty of animals fight when cornered. Second, perhaps the Japanese were hoping to be taken up on their request to negotiate a peace.
An animal fights when cornered as an instinctive reaction to sudden danger. The Japanese had days to discuss amongst themselves whether they should unconditionally surrender and lose the war or fight back and lose the war, during which the Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland Shun'ichi Kase advised the government to accept the former. So, while being fearful of the enemy and discussing the Declaration for at least a day, with clear minds and time to think about their decision and at least some rational input from Ambassador Kase, they gave a reactionary, not-thought out response?
Second, perhaps the Japanese were hoping to be taken up on their request to negotiate a peace.
The peace talks had already been going on before the Potsdam declaration, with Japan still not accepting unconditional surrender.
-
Second, perhaps the Japanese were hoping to be taken up on their request to negotiate a peace.
The peace talks had already been going on before the Potsdam declaration, with Japan still not accepting unconditional surrender.
There was no negotiating. The Potsdam declaration was an ultimatum, and when the Japanese tried to back channel through the Soviets, they were stone-walled.
-
Second, perhaps the Japanese were hoping to be taken up on their request to negotiate a peace.
The peace talks had already been going on before the Potsdam declaration, with Japan still not accepting unconditional surrender.
There was no negotiating. The Potsdam declaration was an ultimatum, and when the Japanese tried to back channel through the Soviets, they were stone-walled.
??? ??? ??? The wikipedia page says that Japanese attempts to deal with the Soviet Union began June 30th, and the last date it gives for that topic is July 21st, where Tōgō says: With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. The Potsdam Declaration was issued July 26th.
EDIT: If what you're saying is that the Japanese tried to contact the Soviet Union after the declaration and were "stonewalled", of course they were. It had already been established that only unconditional surrender was acceptable, and the terms of unconditional surrender were not unreasonable. We were discussing why the Japanese would choose the less favorable of two options.
-
Either way, they were forced to never go to war again. The people just had atom bombs dropped on major cities. Do you think they're going to fight in a war that just might get them atom bombed again?
-
Either way, they were forced to never go to war again. The people just had atom bombs dropped on major cities. Do you think they're going to fight in a war that just might get them atom bombed again?
Do you know how to read? They were not forced to "never go to war again". Why are you making things up? Basic reading comprehension is required for this forum.