The bomb was dropped to reduce the the mathematical probability of far greater loss of life, both sides.. I'm not sure about that but has anybody walked around Pentagon?
Was built initially to facilite massive wounded American Gi's that roll much easier on a gurney.
The bomb was dropped to reduce the the mathematical probability of far greater loss of life, both sides.. I'm not sure about that but has anybody walked around Pentagon?
Was built initially to facilite massive wounded American Gi's that roll much easier on a gurney.
If the majority of citizens in a city are directly involved with the support of hostile troops and the manufacture of weapons to supply those hostile troops, they cannot be viewed as "innocent civilians".
If the majority of citizens in a city are directly involved with the support of hostile troops and the manufacture of weapons to supply those hostile troops, they cannot be viewed as "innocent civilians".
It's always hard to sort through the information to find out the exact causes of war. One thing is always certain - it has to do with money. There are people above politicians. The wealthiest of the wealthy. Not people that are bankers, people that are banks.
If a bank wants to grow it has to lend money. Lending big money to big corporations has a nice return. Banks need corporations, corporations need banks and they can always manipulate politicians. The military is there to further their interests and to protect their assets.
It's always hard to sort through the information to find out the exact causes of war. One thing is always certain - it has to do with money. There are people above politicians. The wealthiest of the wealthy. Not people that are bankers, people that are banks.
If a bank wants to grow it has to lend money. Lending big money to big corporations has a nice return. Banks need corporations, corporations need banks and they can always manipulate politicians. The military is there to further their interests and to protect their assets.
Hogwash. The Pacific Fleet was FAR from "Sitting Ducks".
On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers, USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3) where ALL out of Port and in no danger.
The Enterprise was in escort of the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers.
The Lexington was in escort of the heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers.
The Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget
Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North
Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her
air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of
miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.
In addition, the Yorktown (CV-5)would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941. Accompanied by Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), and Hornet (CV-8).
Hogwash. The Pacific Fleet was FAR from "Sitting Ducks".
On 7 December 1941, the three Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers, USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3) where ALL out of Port and in no danger.
The Enterprise was in escort of the heavy cruisers Northampton (CA-26), Chester (CA-27), and Salt Lake City (CA-24) and nine destroyers.
The Lexington was in escort of the heavy cruisers Chicago (CA-29), Portland (CA-33), and Astoria (CA-34), and five destroyers.
The Saratoga, having recently completed an overhaul at the Puget
Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, reached NAS San Diego [North
Island] late in the forenoon watch on 7 December. She was to embark her
air group, as well as Marine Fighting Squadron (VMF) 221 and a cargo of
miscellaneous airplanes to ferry to Pearl Harbor.
In addition, the Yorktown (CV-5)would be the first Atlantic Fleet carrier to be transferred to the Pacific, sailing on 16 December 1941. Accompanied by Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), along with the aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), and Hornet (CV-8).
You are a fool if you think the overwhelming majority of citizenry who were victims of the atomic bombs and the firebombing were anything other than that...citizenry.
What percentage exactly do you characterize as 'military workers', and what percentage is the tipping point to obliterate them in such an extraordinarily inhumane way?
Tell us as you sit in you wear a Snuggie with a latte on your laptop.
Tell us how many were aiding the Kamikaze and how many deserved their fate.
Please, please. You are the authority here along with the OP.
You are a fool if you think the overwhelming majority of citizenry who were victims of the atomic bombs and the firebombing were anything other than that...citizenry.
What percentage exactly do you characterize as 'military workers', and what percentage is the tipping point to obliterate them in such an extraordinarily inhumane way?
Tell us as you sit in you wear a Snuggie with a latte on your laptop.
Tell us how many were aiding the Kamikaze and how many deserved their fate.
Please, please. You are the authority here along with the OP.
Refer to post #14... READ before you post RUBBISH.
And I am dressed in my favorite Blue Jeans and Leather Jacket and drinking my final Jameson and Ginger Ale before I devour two Ambien Bullets and bid you all Adieu.
Refer to post #14... READ before you post RUBBISH.
And I am dressed in my favorite Blue Jeans and Leather Jacket and drinking my final Jameson and Ginger Ale before I devour two Ambien Bullets and bid you all Adieu.
The bomb was dropped to reduce the the mathematical probability of far greater loss of life, both sides.. I'm not sure about that but has anybody walked around Pentagon?
Was built initially to facilite massive wounded American Gi's that roll much easier on a gurney.
Yes. Had to be there several times in past job. It is a massive and phenomenal architectural design that was built very quickly during a time of limited steel use because of wartime. So lots of concrete. Don't know about the gurney thing. But the amazing thing to me is it is designed so that you can walk from any office to any other office in the building in just over 6 minutes or so.
The bomb was dropped to reduce the the mathematical probability of far greater loss of life, both sides.. I'm not sure about that but has anybody walked around Pentagon?
Was built initially to facilite massive wounded American Gi's that roll much easier on a gurney.
Yes. Had to be there several times in past job. It is a massive and phenomenal architectural design that was built very quickly during a time of limited steel use because of wartime. So lots of concrete. Don't know about the gurney thing. But the amazing thing to me is it is designed so that you can walk from any office to any other office in the building in just over 6 minutes or so.
It's always hard to sort through the information to find out the exact causes of war. One thing is always certain - it has to do with money. There are people above politicians. The wealthiest of the wealthy. Not people that are bankers, people that are banks.
If a bank wants to grow it has to lend money. Lending big money to big corporations has a nice return. Banks need corporations, corporations need banks and they can always manipulate politicians. The military is there to further their interests and to protect their assets.
All men are created equal.
Dunno that this is correct. I think it is great oversimplification. Implication is banks push politicians into war. I think there are people that just happen to be in right place at that time to make money. Not sure they cause the war to make money.
Wars have been fought for many reasons: nationalism, idealism, territory, resources, religion, oppression, power etc. Maybe some of those can be extrapolated into money. But not nearly as many as you migh think.
It's always hard to sort through the information to find out the exact causes of war. One thing is always certain - it has to do with money. There are people above politicians. The wealthiest of the wealthy. Not people that are bankers, people that are banks.
If a bank wants to grow it has to lend money. Lending big money to big corporations has a nice return. Banks need corporations, corporations need banks and they can always manipulate politicians. The military is there to further their interests and to protect their assets.
All men are created equal.
Dunno that this is correct. I think it is great oversimplification. Implication is banks push politicians into war. I think there are people that just happen to be in right place at that time to make money. Not sure they cause the war to make money.
Wars have been fought for many reasons: nationalism, idealism, territory, resources, religion, oppression, power etc. Maybe some of those can be extrapolated into money. But not nearly as many as you migh think.
Refer to post #14... READ before you post RUBBISH.
And I am dressed in my favorite Blue Jeans and Leather Jacket and drinking my final Jameson and Ginger Ale before I devour two Ambien Bullets and bid you all Adieu.
Excuse me?
I did read post #14 before I posted.
What kind of equivocation is this? You sound like you are the press secretary for Truman.
No one was arguing that both those cities were strong military strongholds for the Japanese.
What we were arguing about were the number of civilians that died when those cities were bombed.
Somehow, you are trying to let Truman off the hook here as though those citizens were mere collateral damage (because the cities were of military significance), that he wasn't 'targeting' citizens intentionally.
This kind of talk is as repulsive as it is ignorant.
Estimates are a well over a quarter million people died in those bombings and untold numbers suffered the aftereffects of the bomb.
And you are trying to say Truman didn't 'target' them?
What is your point in saying that? What did he think was going to happen?
If a murderer hides in the bedroom of a rowhouse and the police decided to shoot into that house 600 times, do they go to the podium and say, "We eliminated the target. Regretfully 25 other people died in the firefight but that wasn't our intention" and that absolves them somehow?
That this was an 'unfortunate' tragedy?
You have some work to do goose. Go bury your nose in some relevant books about the bomb and war and get back to me...or not.
Refer to post #14... READ before you post RUBBISH.
And I am dressed in my favorite Blue Jeans and Leather Jacket and drinking my final Jameson and Ginger Ale before I devour two Ambien Bullets and bid you all Adieu.
Excuse me?
I did read post #14 before I posted.
What kind of equivocation is this? You sound like you are the press secretary for Truman.
No one was arguing that both those cities were strong military strongholds for the Japanese.
What we were arguing about were the number of civilians that died when those cities were bombed.
Somehow, you are trying to let Truman off the hook here as though those citizens were mere collateral damage (because the cities were of military significance), that he wasn't 'targeting' citizens intentionally.
This kind of talk is as repulsive as it is ignorant.
Estimates are a well over a quarter million people died in those bombings and untold numbers suffered the aftereffects of the bomb.
And you are trying to say Truman didn't 'target' them?
What is your point in saying that? What did he think was going to happen?
If a murderer hides in the bedroom of a rowhouse and the police decided to shoot into that house 600 times, do they go to the podium and say, "We eliminated the target. Regretfully 25 other people died in the firefight but that wasn't our intention" and that absolves them somehow?
That this was an 'unfortunate' tragedy?
You have some work to do goose. Go bury your nose in some relevant books about the bomb and war and get back to me...or not.
You, in one thread title and a paragraph have regurgitated the single most inane fiction about the atomic bomb.
I suggest you continue to broaden your knowledge because you are so off base with your commentary it's as sad as it is remarkable (and what is this commentary for, Veteran's Day? You are 'honoring' Veteran's somehow by justifying the bomb and its use in 2014??? Wow, what a guy. Not only that, but you are ridiculously off base.).
In one retort, you have summed up the value that you bring to any topic of conversation in this forum. Because you have 1K posts, I guess you feel it necessary to bully, push around and insult other people you don't agree with, BUT YOU NEVER PROVIDE COMMENTARY TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT.
So you are calling me rat s**t, lower than the gum you step on when walking the worst day of your life because of commentary justifying the dropping of the atomic bomb. Fair enough, I've been called worse by people I actually speak with face-to-face..not some internet bully that does nothing but insults people and posts links to lame stories all day.
1. It should be common knowledge that if you are going to insult somebody for their commentary, that you should, at the very least, back it up and explain to that person "how it really was." So why don't you broaden my horizons and tell me what really happened. And then you can tell me how the moon landing, 9/11 and the LSU game was fixed.
2. How am I way "off base," making you say, "what a guy?" Because I've read, watched docu's and wanted to learn about a topic? I'm sorry I posted my opinion, and I'm sorry that the year's of interest I've had in one conflict has steered me down the wrong path of information. I'd fight you back on your opinion....BUT I CAN'T FIND IT.
I summarize this asking WHAT a guy you are. I know people like you a dime a dozen. You use whatever weight you have to insult people, but you never EVER provide the sensible, fact-based argument to back up your claims. You read a piece of literature that deterred you away from 99% of history material provided on one subject, and you go with that because that's the cool thing to do...because the earth is round is so standard, ham and eggs and lame. Your existential profile is built on laziness, lack of detail to any subject, and a bullying attitude because of all of those terrifyingly big numbers you have under your avatar.
You, in one thread title and a paragraph have regurgitated the single most inane fiction about the atomic bomb.
I suggest you continue to broaden your knowledge because you are so off base with your commentary it's as sad as it is remarkable (and what is this commentary for, Veteran's Day? You are 'honoring' Veteran's somehow by justifying the bomb and its use in 2014??? Wow, what a guy. Not only that, but you are ridiculously off base.).
In one retort, you have summed up the value that you bring to any topic of conversation in this forum. Because you have 1K posts, I guess you feel it necessary to bully, push around and insult other people you don't agree with, BUT YOU NEVER PROVIDE COMMENTARY TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT.
So you are calling me rat s**t, lower than the gum you step on when walking the worst day of your life because of commentary justifying the dropping of the atomic bomb. Fair enough, I've been called worse by people I actually speak with face-to-face..not some internet bully that does nothing but insults people and posts links to lame stories all day.
1. It should be common knowledge that if you are going to insult somebody for their commentary, that you should, at the very least, back it up and explain to that person "how it really was." So why don't you broaden my horizons and tell me what really happened. And then you can tell me how the moon landing, 9/11 and the LSU game was fixed.
2. How am I way "off base," making you say, "what a guy?" Because I've read, watched docu's and wanted to learn about a topic? I'm sorry I posted my opinion, and I'm sorry that the year's of interest I've had in one conflict has steered me down the wrong path of information. I'd fight you back on your opinion....BUT I CAN'T FIND IT.
I summarize this asking WHAT a guy you are. I know people like you a dime a dozen. You use whatever weight you have to insult people, but you never EVER provide the sensible, fact-based argument to back up your claims. You read a piece of literature that deterred you away from 99% of history material provided on one subject, and you go with that because that's the cool thing to do...because the earth is round is so standard, ham and eggs and lame. Your existential profile is built on laziness, lack of detail to any subject, and a bullying attitude because of all of those terrifyingly big numbers you have under your avatar.
Estimates are a well over a quarter million people died in those bombings and untold numbers suffered the aftereffects of the bomb.
What kind of explanation is this???????
The same estimates were used when deciphering how many Japanese civilians and American soldiers would have died if he hadn't dropped the bomb. We are talking a million on both sides. So how could you think so repulsively about wasting an astronomical number of American lives--including my grandfather and uncle, who fought in Iwo-Jima and the Philippines respectively--to continue fighting with traditional ground and air weapons?
I can't believe you call my argument off base about the kamikaze warfare when there are hundreds of videos and documents of these pilots flying directly into the Naval fleet, Pacific bases and camps. The Japanese would not stop. They do not surrender. IT IS THE BIGGEST DISGRACE IN THEIR CODE. This is not fictitious, off base material. This is a reality.
NOT TO MENTION, the Red Army was stacked in thousands on the boarder of China, ready to devour Japan just as fast as they could move. Stalin was using post-Third Reich tactics by wanting to continue what Hitler was doing only on his standards of foreign policy. He was coming for Japan, and wasn't going to stop until it was conquered. So I ask you, how many soldiers and civilians die as a result of an invasion by the Red Army?
This was the Japanese government's fault. So Truman is off the hook. They had no business continuing the fight weeks after Italy and Germany collapsed. They were alone and by themselves, yet they wanted to continue a fight.
How is any of this off base? I really need to know what you think really happened. If there weren't thousands of Red Army troops descending upon the country, please tell me who it was. If the Japanese weren't using kamikaze warfare with never surrender policies, please tell me what they were doing. Did they run out of gas? Is that what I'm seeing?
And lastly, PLEASE tell me the alternative to not using the nuclear bomb on heavy military-active cities as Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Should they have continued on the ground through the islands while firebombing the mainland? Should they have pulled out of Japan altogether and crossed their fingers that no further aggression would be used? I need to know. I have to broaden my horizons the Scalibrine way.
Estimates are a well over a quarter million people died in those bombings and untold numbers suffered the aftereffects of the bomb.
What kind of explanation is this???????
The same estimates were used when deciphering how many Japanese civilians and American soldiers would have died if he hadn't dropped the bomb. We are talking a million on both sides. So how could you think so repulsively about wasting an astronomical number of American lives--including my grandfather and uncle, who fought in Iwo-Jima and the Philippines respectively--to continue fighting with traditional ground and air weapons?
I can't believe you call my argument off base about the kamikaze warfare when there are hundreds of videos and documents of these pilots flying directly into the Naval fleet, Pacific bases and camps. The Japanese would not stop. They do not surrender. IT IS THE BIGGEST DISGRACE IN THEIR CODE. This is not fictitious, off base material. This is a reality.
NOT TO MENTION, the Red Army was stacked in thousands on the boarder of China, ready to devour Japan just as fast as they could move. Stalin was using post-Third Reich tactics by wanting to continue what Hitler was doing only on his standards of foreign policy. He was coming for Japan, and wasn't going to stop until it was conquered. So I ask you, how many soldiers and civilians die as a result of an invasion by the Red Army?
This was the Japanese government's fault. So Truman is off the hook. They had no business continuing the fight weeks after Italy and Germany collapsed. They were alone and by themselves, yet they wanted to continue a fight.
How is any of this off base? I really need to know what you think really happened. If there weren't thousands of Red Army troops descending upon the country, please tell me who it was. If the Japanese weren't using kamikaze warfare with never surrender policies, please tell me what they were doing. Did they run out of gas? Is that what I'm seeing?
And lastly, PLEASE tell me the alternative to not using the nuclear bomb on heavy military-active cities as Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Should they have continued on the ground through the islands while firebombing the mainland? Should they have pulled out of Japan altogether and crossed their fingers that no further aggression would be used? I need to know. I have to broaden my horizons the Scalibrine way.
Scal apparently would have preferred a Mainland Invasion of Japan where half a million more Americans would die and 2m more Japanese civilians.
You cannot debate with ignorant insanity.
Case Closed.
Of course that is not at all what he is saying. The need for such a large weapon that killed thousands of innocent lives was not necessary. The target should have been smaller and more precise.
I also agree strongly with what Detox is saying..war is not about nationalism and freedom, it is about power and money. You can hide that under the guise of freedom and nationalism but no war is ever fought without one side having the desire for money and power.
Scal apparently would have preferred a Mainland Invasion of Japan where half a million more Americans would die and 2m more Japanese civilians.
You cannot debate with ignorant insanity.
Case Closed.
Of course that is not at all what he is saying. The need for such a large weapon that killed thousands of innocent lives was not necessary. The target should have been smaller and more precise.
I also agree strongly with what Detox is saying..war is not about nationalism and freedom, it is about power and money. You can hide that under the guise of freedom and nationalism but no war is ever fought without one side having the desire for money and power.
Of course that is not at all what he is saying. The need for such a large weapon that killed thousands of innocent lives was not necessary. The target should have been smaller and more precise.
I also agree strongly with what Detox is saying..war is not about nationalism and freedom, it is about power and money. You can hide that under the guise of freedom and nationalism but no war is ever fought without one side having the desire for money and power.
Again, I don't think you have ANY idea of the mindset amongst the general population of Japan during WWII. Talk to some US Veterans of that era and they will set you straight.
Of course that is not at all what he is saying. The need for such a large weapon that killed thousands of innocent lives was not necessary. The target should have been smaller and more precise.
I also agree strongly with what Detox is saying..war is not about nationalism and freedom, it is about power and money. You can hide that under the guise of freedom and nationalism but no war is ever fought without one side having the desire for money and power.
Again, I don't think you have ANY idea of the mindset amongst the general population of Japan during WWII. Talk to some US Veterans of that era and they will set you straight.
If you back a wolf into a corner and then the wolf attacks you, who is the aggressor? The McCollum Memo.
FDR (corporations, banks etc) wanted to join the war against fascism and imperialism. Congress and the American people never would have allowed it.
It's always the same bs. Corporations and banks want to expand. They want more money. They want more people buying more stuff. After the war, Japan went on to become the second largest economy in the world.
How nice of them to drop atomic bombs on innocent civilians.
Now, lets don't make the Japanese the pure "victims". Innocent civilians were the same in countries like South Korea, China and everyone in between, too. The Japanese government should bear the most responsibility for her own......
If you back a wolf into a corner and then the wolf attacks you, who is the aggressor? The McCollum Memo.
FDR (corporations, banks etc) wanted to join the war against fascism and imperialism. Congress and the American people never would have allowed it.
It's always the same bs. Corporations and banks want to expand. They want more money. They want more people buying more stuff. After the war, Japan went on to become the second largest economy in the world.
How nice of them to drop atomic bombs on innocent civilians.
Now, lets don't make the Japanese the pure "victims". Innocent civilians were the same in countries like South Korea, China and everyone in between, too. The Japanese government should bear the most responsibility for her own......
Japanes soldiers had no problem tossing Chinese babies into the air and spearing them with bayonets during the Nanking Massacre. The civilian rape and slaughter was so horrific that American GI's were cutting off enemy limbs and hanging them around belts. MacArthur finally had to tell his troops to stop.
Japanes soldiers had no problem tossing Chinese babies into the air and spearing them with bayonets during the Nanking Massacre. The civilian rape and slaughter was so horrific that American GI's were cutting off enemy limbs and hanging them around belts. MacArthur finally had to tell his troops to stop.
One reason given for not doing the "demonstration" of our mighty nukes was:
If we warned Japan we are going to drop a version of the bomb, and it was a dud, or malfunctioned in any way, that does not make an impression at all...........
One reason given for not doing the "demonstration" of our mighty nukes was:
If we warned Japan we are going to drop a version of the bomb, and it was a dud, or malfunctioned in any way, that does not make an impression at all...........
Again, I don't think you have ANY idea of the mindset amongst the general population of Japan during WWII. Talk to some US Veterans of that era and they will set you straight.
US Veterans of that era got their information from the propaganda departments of the USA and UK. They had less reliable info than what you have today from various sources.
The war could have been ended a lot easier and a lot sooner if the USA dropped their demand for an unconditional surrender. From what I have read, if the USA offered terms where the Japanese Emperor could save some face, they would have surrendered.
An unconditional surrender would mean the emperor would have to go on trial for war crimes.
Unconditional surrender also extended the war in Germany. Germany's leadership knew they would executed for war crimes after the war, so they had no reason to surrender.
Again, I don't think you have ANY idea of the mindset amongst the general population of Japan during WWII. Talk to some US Veterans of that era and they will set you straight.
US Veterans of that era got their information from the propaganda departments of the USA and UK. They had less reliable info than what you have today from various sources.
The war could have been ended a lot easier and a lot sooner if the USA dropped their demand for an unconditional surrender. From what I have read, if the USA offered terms where the Japanese Emperor could save some face, they would have surrendered.
An unconditional surrender would mean the emperor would have to go on trial for war crimes.
Unconditional surrender also extended the war in Germany. Germany's leadership knew they would executed for war crimes after the war, so they had no reason to surrender.
Of course that is not at all what he is saying. The need for such a large weapon that killed thousands of innocent lives was not necessary. The target should have been smaller and more precise.
I also agree strongly with what Detox is saying..war is not about nationalism and freedom, it is about power and money. You can hide that under the guise of freedom and nationalism but no war is ever fought without one side having the desire for money and power.
Where is that precise weapon being manufactured at in the mid-40's?
For the US it all came down to defending PH and a di*k swinging competition between two empires; but I am not seeing where neither money or power played a role for the UK in WW2. The Third Reich was inevitably going to invade the Brits, and Neville Chamberlain was voted out of office because of his lack of will to defend the country from them. It had nothing to do with money and power but to avoid the rest of Europe's fate, no? And if this was just a campaign for money and power for the Brits, wouldn't Churchill have maintained the PM position after the war for being such a "power and financial wiz" by igniting the war on the island?
Of course that is not at all what he is saying. The need for such a large weapon that killed thousands of innocent lives was not necessary. The target should have been smaller and more precise.
I also agree strongly with what Detox is saying..war is not about nationalism and freedom, it is about power and money. You can hide that under the guise of freedom and nationalism but no war is ever fought without one side having the desire for money and power.
Where is that precise weapon being manufactured at in the mid-40's?
For the US it all came down to defending PH and a di*k swinging competition between two empires; but I am not seeing where neither money or power played a role for the UK in WW2. The Third Reich was inevitably going to invade the Brits, and Neville Chamberlain was voted out of office because of his lack of will to defend the country from them. It had nothing to do with money and power but to avoid the rest of Europe's fate, no? And if this was just a campaign for money and power for the Brits, wouldn't Churchill have maintained the PM position after the war for being such a "power and financial wiz" by igniting the war on the island?
US Veterans of that era got their information from the propaganda departments of the USA and UK. They had less reliable info than what you have today from various sources.
The war could have been ended a lot easier and a lot sooner if the USA dropped their demand for an unconditional surrender. From what I have read, if the USA offered terms where the Japanese Emperor could save some face, they would have surrendered.
An unconditional surrender would mean the emperor would have to go on trial for war crimes.
Unconditional surrender also extended the war in Germany. Germany's leadership knew they would executed for war crimes after the war, so they had no reason to surrender.
We're currently living in the "Information Age" and it's still hard to see the truth through all of the propaganda.
Americans are always so quick to believe that the enemy is the evil side in the fight.
US Veterans of that era got their information from the propaganda departments of the USA and UK. They had less reliable info than what you have today from various sources.
The war could have been ended a lot easier and a lot sooner if the USA dropped their demand for an unconditional surrender. From what I have read, if the USA offered terms where the Japanese Emperor could save some face, they would have surrendered.
An unconditional surrender would mean the emperor would have to go on trial for war crimes.
Unconditional surrender also extended the war in Germany. Germany's leadership knew they would executed for war crimes after the war, so they had no reason to surrender.
We're currently living in the "Information Age" and it's still hard to see the truth through all of the propaganda.
Americans are always so quick to believe that the enemy is the evil side in the fight.
We're currently living in the "Information Age" and it's still hard to see the truth through all of the propaganda.
Americans are always so quick to believe that the enemy is the evil side in the fight.
Yup. US is and has been slaughtering innocent people all over the middle east and across the world.. If nobody believes that then it's time drink a lot of black coffee. Real estate and asset protection has zero limits. This has been truth since the dawn of war and power. Obama didn't call for our recent an current airstrikes, Chevron did.
We're currently living in the "Information Age" and it's still hard to see the truth through all of the propaganda.
Americans are always so quick to believe that the enemy is the evil side in the fight.
Yup. US is and has been slaughtering innocent people all over the middle east and across the world.. If nobody believes that then it's time drink a lot of black coffee. Real estate and asset protection has zero limits. This has been truth since the dawn of war and power. Obama didn't call for our recent an current airstrikes, Chevron did.
Estimates are a well over a quarter million people died in those bombings and untold numbers suffered the aftereffects of the bomb.
What kind of explanation is this???????
The same estimates were used when deciphering how many Japanese civilians and American soldiers would have died if he hadn't dropped the bomb. We are talking a million on both sides. So how could you think so repulsively about wasting an astronomical number of American lives--including my grandfather and uncle, who fought in Iwo-Jima and the Philippines respectively--to continue fighting with traditional ground and air weapons?
I can't believe you call my argument off base about the kamikaze warfare when there are hundreds of videos and documents of these pilots flying directly into the Naval fleet, Pacific bases and camps. The Japanese would not stop. They do not surrender. IT IS THE BIGGEST DISGRACE IN THEIR CODE. This is not fictitious, off base material. This is a reality.
NOT TO MENTION, the Red Army was stacked in thousands on the boarder of China, ready to devour Japan just as fast as they could move. Stalin was using post-Third Reich tactics by wanting to continue what Hitler was doing only on his standards of foreign policy. He was coming for Japan, and wasn't going to stop until it was conquered. So I ask you, how many soldiers and civilians die as a result of an invasion by the Red Army?
This was the Japanese government's fault. So Truman is off the hook. They had no business continuing the fight weeks after Italy and Germany collapsed. They were alone and by themselves, yet they wanted to continue a fight.
How is any of this off base? I really need to know what you think really happened. If there weren't thousands of Red Army troops descending upon the country, please tell me who it was. If the Japanese weren't using kamikaze warfare with never surrender policies, please tell me what they were doing. Did they run out of gas? Is that what I'm seeing?
And lastly, PLEASE tell me the alternative to not using the nuclear bomb on heavy military-active cities as Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Should they have continued on the ground through the islands while firebombing the mainland? Should they have pulled out of Japan altogether and crossed their fingers that no further aggression would be used? I need to know. I have to broaden my horizons the Scalibrine way.
Why would I provide you with anything?
That would take me time and energy and you likely wouldn't even A) read it or B) believe it.
So chastising you for regurgitating what really is the single-most commonly cited reason for Truman's actions, and might I add, a reason that misses the larger picture and intent of the bomb-dropping by light years, is my only option.
Time saved on both sides.
(and you have Goose falling down some sort of patriotic wormhole as well with this thread, not that he wasn't deep in there already).
Estimates are a well over a quarter million people died in those bombings and untold numbers suffered the aftereffects of the bomb.
What kind of explanation is this???????
The same estimates were used when deciphering how many Japanese civilians and American soldiers would have died if he hadn't dropped the bomb. We are talking a million on both sides. So how could you think so repulsively about wasting an astronomical number of American lives--including my grandfather and uncle, who fought in Iwo-Jima and the Philippines respectively--to continue fighting with traditional ground and air weapons?
I can't believe you call my argument off base about the kamikaze warfare when there are hundreds of videos and documents of these pilots flying directly into the Naval fleet, Pacific bases and camps. The Japanese would not stop. They do not surrender. IT IS THE BIGGEST DISGRACE IN THEIR CODE. This is not fictitious, off base material. This is a reality.
NOT TO MENTION, the Red Army was stacked in thousands on the boarder of China, ready to devour Japan just as fast as they could move. Stalin was using post-Third Reich tactics by wanting to continue what Hitler was doing only on his standards of foreign policy. He was coming for Japan, and wasn't going to stop until it was conquered. So I ask you, how many soldiers and civilians die as a result of an invasion by the Red Army?
This was the Japanese government's fault. So Truman is off the hook. They had no business continuing the fight weeks after Italy and Germany collapsed. They were alone and by themselves, yet they wanted to continue a fight.
How is any of this off base? I really need to know what you think really happened. If there weren't thousands of Red Army troops descending upon the country, please tell me who it was. If the Japanese weren't using kamikaze warfare with never surrender policies, please tell me what they were doing. Did they run out of gas? Is that what I'm seeing?
And lastly, PLEASE tell me the alternative to not using the nuclear bomb on heavy military-active cities as Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Should they have continued on the ground through the islands while firebombing the mainland? Should they have pulled out of Japan altogether and crossed their fingers that no further aggression would be used? I need to know. I have to broaden my horizons the Scalibrine way.
Why would I provide you with anything?
That would take me time and energy and you likely wouldn't even A) read it or B) believe it.
So chastising you for regurgitating what really is the single-most commonly cited reason for Truman's actions, and might I add, a reason that misses the larger picture and intent of the bomb-dropping by light years, is my only option.
Time saved on both sides.
(and you have Goose falling down some sort of patriotic wormhole as well with this thread, not that he wasn't deep in there already).
What an utterly lazy comment from such an "illustrious" poster. A) I would read it, as I read all material involving topics of my interest. B) Whether I believe it in it or not means nothing unless you are so invested in what you believe is the truth, that you will not accept any other answer as an option. Your handicapping of my sensibility and comprehension is easily a cover up for pure laziness and either lack of knowledge on said topic, or your inability to express with words.
What an enormous ego you boast, thinking that I'm just begging for your "God-like" answers to trickle down on my ever so ignorant appetite for the truth. I consider myself a 2 watt at best, but from after reading your replies and the lack of reasonable discussion, I peg you as nothing more than a wet match in a dark cave.
You have a lot of growing up to do, guy. That's a shame I'd have to be the one to tell somebody that.
What an utterly lazy comment from such an "illustrious" poster. A) I would read it, as I read all material involving topics of my interest. B) Whether I believe it in it or not means nothing unless you are so invested in what you believe is the truth, that you will not accept any other answer as an option. Your handicapping of my sensibility and comprehension is easily a cover up for pure laziness and either lack of knowledge on said topic, or your inability to express with words.
What an enormous ego you boast, thinking that I'm just begging for your "God-like" answers to trickle down on my ever so ignorant appetite for the truth. I consider myself a 2 watt at best, but from after reading your replies and the lack of reasonable discussion, I peg you as nothing more than a wet match in a dark cave.
You have a lot of growing up to do, guy. That's a shame I'd have to be the one to tell somebody that.
That would take me time and energy and you likely wouldn't even A) read it or B) believe it.
So chastising you for regurgitating what really is the single-most commonly cited reason for Truman's actions, and might I add, a reason that misses the larger picture and intent of the bomb-dropping by light years, is my only option.
Time saved on both sides.
(and you have Goose falling down some sort of patriotic wormhole as well with this thread, not that he wasn't deep in there already).
You spend a lot of time & energy doing precisely what drizzle says you do. You have some inane drive to want to argue with people but yet you never support your side of the argument. You just bash & run. If you aren't going to refute someones claims than why start shiit with them in the first place?
That would take me time and energy and you likely wouldn't even A) read it or B) believe it.
So chastising you for regurgitating what really is the single-most commonly cited reason for Truman's actions, and might I add, a reason that misses the larger picture and intent of the bomb-dropping by light years, is my only option.
Time saved on both sides.
(and you have Goose falling down some sort of patriotic wormhole as well with this thread, not that he wasn't deep in there already).
You spend a lot of time & energy doing precisely what drizzle says you do. You have some inane drive to want to argue with people but yet you never support your side of the argument. You just bash & run. If you aren't going to refute someones claims than why start shiit with them in the first place?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.