Poll

Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings necessary?

Yes, they were necessary to get Imperial Japan to surrender and end World War II
No, they were not necessary to Imperial Japan's surrender
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings

  • 123 Replies
  • 19666 Views
?

Art Corvelay

  • 78
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #60 on: May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM »
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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 is the book I read that gave me this information.

Here's another source as well.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 03:33:52 PM by Art Corvelay »
Logged
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • +0/-0
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #61 on: May 19, 2015, 03:48:12 PM »
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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 is the book I read that gave me this information.

Here's another source as well.
I think its fair for Japan to no longer be able to wage wars considering the Rape of Nanking etc.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
?

Art Corvelay

  • 78
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #62 on: May 19, 2015, 04:16:51 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on May 19, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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 is the book I read that gave me this information.

Here's another source 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/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
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?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 04:18:45 PM by Art Corvelay »
Logged
*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • +0/-0
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #63 on: May 19, 2015, 04:35:40 PM »
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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.


Quote
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) seemed pretty reasonable.

Quote
Here's another source as well.

What is this supposed to mean?
Logged
Quote from: Flatso on September 14, 2014, 01:06:26 PM
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 
?

Art Corvelay

  • 78
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #64 on: May 19, 2015, 04:41:29 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 04:51:07 PM by Art Corvelay »
Logged
*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • +0/-0
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #65 on: May 19, 2015, 05:03:06 PM »
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on May 19, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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 is the book I read that gave me this information.

Here's another source 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/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
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.
Logged
Quote from: Flatso on September 14, 2014, 01:06:26 PM
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 
*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • +0/-0
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #66 on: May 19, 2015, 05:27:37 PM »
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:41:29 PM
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Logged
Quote from: Flatso on September 14, 2014, 01:06:26 PM
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 
?

Art Corvelay

  • 78
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #67 on: May 19, 2015, 05:30:21 PM »
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on May 19, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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 is the book I read that gave me this information.

Here's another source 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/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
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?
Logged
*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • +0/-0
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #68 on: May 19, 2015, 05:58:17 PM »
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 05:30:21 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on May 19, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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 is the book I read that gave me this information.

Here's another source 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/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
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.
Logged
Quote from: Flatso on September 14, 2014, 01:06:26 PM
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #69 on: May 19, 2015, 10:49:27 PM »
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 05:27:37 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:41:29 PM
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • +0/-0
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #70 on: May 20, 2015, 12:13:36 AM »
Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2015, 10:49:27 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 05:27:37 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:41:29 PM
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Logged
Quote from: Flatso on September 14, 2014, 01:06:26 PM
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #71 on: May 20, 2015, 03:41:48 AM »
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.
Logged
*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • +0/-0
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #72 on: May 20, 2015, 07:49:07 AM »
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:41:29 PM
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)

I'm grateful to these classes, they helped me see my country with mature eyes.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 08:06:41 AM by Lemmiwinks »
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 08:33:23 AM
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #73 on: May 20, 2015, 08:04:05 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 03:41:48 AM
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.
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 20, 2015, 12:13:36 AM
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.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2015, 09:37:32 AM »
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.
Logged
?

Art Corvelay

  • 78
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #75 on: May 20, 2015, 09:46:16 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 09:37:32 AM
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

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.
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #76 on: May 20, 2015, 11:17:45 AM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 09:37:32 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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, please stop your academic snobbery.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • +0/-0
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #77 on: May 20, 2015, 04:16:52 PM »
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on May 19, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
Quote from: Art Corvelay on May 19, 2015, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: The Ellimist on May 19, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
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

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 is the book I read that gave me this information.

Here's another source 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/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #78 on: May 20, 2015, 04:28:35 PM »
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.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #79 on: May 20, 2015, 05:34:08 PM »
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.
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #80 on: May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 05:34:08 PM
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? 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #81 on: May 20, 2015, 06:12:27 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set on May 20, 2015, 05:52:43 PM
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 05:34:08 PM
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. 

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #82 on: May 20, 2015, 08:23:43 PM »
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 06:12:27 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
I am talking about wars fought today, just as much as WWII.
Well please try and stay on topic.

Quote
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...
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • +0/-0
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #83 on: May 20, 2015, 08:51:26 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set on May 20, 2015, 04:28:35 PM
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #84 on: May 20, 2015, 10:08:06 PM »
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on May 20, 2015, 08:51:26 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on May 20, 2015, 04:28:35 PM
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.

Quote
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. 
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • +0/-0
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #85 on: May 21, 2015, 04:27:58 AM »
Quote from: Rama Set on May 20, 2015, 10:08:06 PM
Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on May 20, 2015, 08:51:26 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on May 20, 2015, 04:28:35 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #86 on: May 21, 2015, 05:17:59 AM »
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).

Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #87 on: May 21, 2015, 09:52:40 AM »
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.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Yaakov ben Avraham

  • 2754
  • +0/-0
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #88 on: May 21, 2015, 02:01:00 PM »
Easily. The benefits of Unconditional Surrender were greater than Conditional Surrender. You do the math. Simple Utilitarianism.
Logged
*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • +0/-0
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings
« Reply #89 on: May 21, 2015, 03:08:15 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set on May 21, 2015, 09:52:40 AM
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.
Logged
Quote from: Flatso on September 14, 2014, 01:06:26 PM
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »