• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

And Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other pacific battlegrounds led everyone to believe the Japanese were serious when they said they would fight to the death over every square inch of ground, every man, woman, and child.

Battle of Tarawa. 2,636 troops, 17 captured.
Battle of Iwo Jima. Over 21,000 troops, 216 captured.
Battle of Peleliu. 10,897 troops, 202 captured.
Battle of Saipan. Over 33,000 troops, around 1,300 captured. Out of over 25,000 civilians, over 5,000 killed themselves (over 1,000 at the cliffs alone), over 15,000 killed by Japanese soldiers. Around 6,000 civilians survived.

And in most of those captured, they were wounded or in no condition to fight. They really were serious about fighting to the last man. Surrenders were a rare exception in the Pacific War.
 
If the Japs wanted to surrender before getting nuked then all they had to was ask the Dutch how to do it. The Dutch were masters at surrendering.

We call the French "Surrender Monkeys" but the Dutch had them beat seven ways to Sunday.

Get er done. Murica. Love it or leave it. They took errrrrr jobs!!!
 
It's called war planning. The military plans for everything.


Is it your claim that these american heroes all lied after the war????

Perspectives change. The facts - as they were known at the time and upon which the decisions were made - do not.

In 1963, Bobby Kennedy was one of the biggest hawks within his brother's administration on Vietnam - even naming one of his sons after Maxwell Taylor. By 1968, not so much.
 
Perspectives change. The facts - as they were known at the time and upon which the decisions were made - do not.

In 1963, Bobby Kennedy was one of the biggest hawks within his brother's administration on Vietnam - even naming one of his sons after Maxwell Taylor. By 1968, not so much.

They are telling the truth or lying.


Just be honest. You are calling them liars. Not a single one said they were for the bomb but changed their mind after the war.


Just man up.



Are they lying?
 
They are telling the truth or lying.


Just be honest. You are calling them liars. Not a single one said they were for the bomb but changed their mind after the war.


Just man up.



Are they lying?

How exactly does someone get as old as you are and still have such a black-and-white view of the world??

Nobody - at least nobody of sound mind, anyway - relishes the horror that war - and especially nuclear war - brings. It's a hard thing to come face-to-face with it and not walk away with a determination that it should never have happened and should never happen again. At the same time, there is a natural tendency among all of us to believe that just because a certain outcome came about that it was inevitable... that it would have happened regardless. I think in the case of a lot of the quotations you cited, both of those forces were at play.

But that is how history is written... it's not how it's made. History is made by men and women operating with imperfect information in the heat of a moment. It's having to make tough decisions between the unpalatable and the unacceptable, all without the benefit of hindsight and the hand-wringing it brings. I think if we to give history it's just due, we need to be prepared to look at it with as jaundiced an eye as possible - to try to see things as it's participants saw them, and to do so without judging them by the standards of a different time.
 
How exactly does someone get as old as you are and still have such a black-and-white view of the world??

Nobody - at least nobody of sound mind, anyway - relishes the horror that war - and especially nuclear war - brings. It's a hard thing to come face-to-face with it and not walk away with a determination that it should never have happened and should never happen again. At the same time, there is a natural tendency among all of us to believe that just because a certain outcome came about that it was inevitable... that it would have happened regardless. I think in the case of a lot of the quotations you cited, both of those forces were at play.

But that is how history is written... it's not how it's made. History is made by men and women operating with imperfect information in the heat of a moment. It's having to make tough decisions between the unpalatable and the unacceptable, all without the benefit of hindsight and the hand-wringing it brings. I think if we to give history it's just due, we need to be prepared to look at it with as jaundiced an eye as possible - to try to see things as it's participants saw them, and to do so without judging them by the standards of a different time.



He's left wing. Left wingers hate America in a way that's not rational.
 
How exactly does someone get as old as you are and still have such a black-and-white view of the world??

Nobody - at least nobody of sound mind, anyway - relishes the horror that war - and especially nuclear war - brings. It's a hard thing to come face-to-face with it and not walk away with a determination that it should never have happened and should never happen again. At the same time, there is a natural tendency among all of us to believe that just because a certain outcome came about that it was inevitable... that it would have happened regardless. I think in the case of a lot of the quotations you cited, both of those forces were at play.

But that is how history is written... it's not how it's made. History is made by men and women operating with imperfect information in the heat of a moment. It's having to make tough decisions between the unpalatable and the unacceptable, all without the benefit of hindsight and the hand-wringing it brings. I think if we to give history it's just due, we need to be prepared to look at it with as jaundiced an eye as possible - to try to see things as it's participants saw them, and to do so without judging them by the standards of a different time.

Your posts are so stupid and idiotic. You tried to make this personal with me and then embarrassed yourself when you admitted you never served a day in the military.


Now you are given the opportunity to man up but cant. You want to give me a speech on how men in war make history when your only experience of the military is watching Hogan heroes reruns.


Run away buddy. All you do is make me laugh
 
He's left wing. Left wingers hate America in a way that's not rational.

I loved it enough to serve it for ten years.


You refused to leave mommy's basement. Lol
 
Well, I don't agree with the generalization.... but judging from his above post, I'd definitely be hard-pressed to deny it applied to him specifically.

Let's talk about you and me.


Because you lost this debate on the bomb long ago. Lol
 
Your posts are so stupid and idiotic. You tried to make this personal with me and then embarrassed yourself when you admitted you never served a day in the military.


Now you are given the opportunity to man up but cant. You want to give me a speech on how men in war make history when your only experience of the military is watching Hogan heroes reruns.


Run away buddy. All you do is make me laugh

At this point, the only thing I can advise is that you go back on your meds.

Why don't you take a break and come back when you get back to feeling more like yourself?
 
At this point, the only thing I can advise is that you go back on your meds.

Why don't you take a break and come back when you get back to feeling more like yourself?

Run from the debate buddy.


Make it personal.


I accept your concession
 
Please... I'm urging you - for your own good - just stop what you're doing - walk away from your computer and seek the help of a loved one.

Awwww. You simply cute. You got nothing.


You are dismissed
 
What the literal **** was that?!??

I have never seen someone snap like that on here. Vegas always struck me as at least semi-sane. But it was like he literally threw a spring.
 
What the literal **** was that?!??

I have never seen someone snap like that on here. Vegas always struck me as at least semi-sane. But it was like he literally threw a spring.

Whatever you do......make sure you run from the debate. Lol
 
Whatever you do......make sure you run from the debate. Lol

Trust me... the debate ended when you threw that tie rod. Once again, please go and do whatever you have to do to take care of you.
That's all I'm going to say to you or about you right now.

Truthfully, it makes me sad to see you like this. Take it for what it's worth.
 
Trust me... the debate ended when you threw that tie rod. Once again, please go and do whatever you have to do to take care of you.
That's all I'm going to say to you or about you right now.

Truthfully, it makes me sad to see you like this. Take it for what it's worth.

Awwww. You came after me and cried after I didnt roll over for you.


HAHAHAHAHA


Keep running. Everyone can see it
 
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,*[89]
 
The entire war was unnecessary. Certainly, the refusal to accept Japanese surrender offers was purely a matter of FDR and Truman's desire for progressive world domination.

Please cite the surrender offers by the Japanese. I was not aware of such offers but I am aware of the Japanese high command refusing to agree to the Emperors desire to surrender until after the dropping of the second bomb. At that point the Emperor went over their hands and spoke to the Japanese people and told them they would be wiped out if they did not surrender, and he did.
 
1. Nagasaki was bombed August 6th.

2. Japanese surrendered September 2nd.


So, what happened in the mean time, between the bomb and surrender?

Through the Swiss embassy, there was no direct communication between Japan and America, the two sent notes to each other.

3. The Japanese asked, can we keep our emperor. (mind you, two cities had already been nuked, and they were concerned about their emperor.)

4. The Americans didn't understand because they had left any mention of the Japanese Emperor out of the Potsdam declaration just so the Japanese would know they could keep their emperor.

5. Finally it was figured out that the Japanese wanted reassurance.

6. Byrne sent his note to Japan via the Swiss which didn't explicitly say the emperor could stay, but it did outline several tasks the emperor would have to preform. Which meant he could keep his job.

7. The Japanese right wing said the Byrne note was a trick and once the surrender was made, they would execute the emperor.

8. The Japanese moderates said it wasn't a trick. They asked the emperor to break the tie.

9. The emperor, assured that he would keep his position, agreed to the surrender.

10. Hard liners launched a coup against the emperor so that he couldn't surrender. The were defeated.

11. Japan surrendered.

12. We got silly pictures of MacArthur in a kimono hanging out with the emporer.
 
All I see is your opinion backed by no evidence.

If you think I would have wandered into this thread with nothing my opinion and just spouting off my ignorant thoughts, you must be projecting.

But to clarify;

The actual atomic bombings did not actually change anyone's minds within the Big Six. The people who wanted to surrender before still wanted to surrender, and the people who wanted to keep fighting wanted to keep fighting. In fact the reaction to the bombings was almost dismissive. In "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire", Richard B. Franks shows that this was clearly the case; "To be sure, the damage of the atomic bomb was extremely heavy, but it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession." -Admiral Toyoda, 9 August 1945.

Foreign Minister Togo, Admiral Yonai and Prime Minister Suzuki were willing to sign the Postdam Declaration under the condition the Emperor would remain in power, but were opposed by Generals Anami and Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda who would only accept surrender if Japan was not occupied and no trial for war crimes was held (which would have meant the Japanese leadership responsible for the butcher of millions would go free, no harm no foul).

The War Council could only reach the decision to surrender by unanimous decision, and when they met at midnight the positions were the same;, the pro-war faction would not accept surrender unless they get their way (which the Allies would have rejected outright, and they were certainly aware of this).

In the end it was Hirohito who broke the deadlock, pointing out that the Japanese military had not been able to deliver on the victories they had promised. He then specifically mentioned the atomic bomb, by pointing out that with this new destructive capability the Allies would not have to risk the massive climactic battle the pro-war faction was banking on winning. In the end he was ultimately the one who decided to surrender, as John Toland makes clear in his book on the end of Imperial Japan:

"It pains me," the Emperor was saying, "to think of those who served me so faithfully, the soldier and sailors who have been killed or wounded in far-off battles, the families who have lost all their worldly goods-and often their lives as well- in the air raids at home. It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave and loyal fighting men of japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war. Nevertheless, the time has come when we must bear the unbearable." -The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945, John Toland Kindle 18198.

The War Council ultimately agreed to obey the Emperor's wishes, though not without some protest; General Anami very likely had a role in the attempted coup, but he killed himself so we'll never know for sure.
 
If you think I would have wandered into this thread with nothing my opinion and just spouting off my ignorant thoughts, you must be projecting.

But to clarify;

The actual atomic bombings did not actually change anyone's minds within the Big Six. The people who wanted to surrender before still wanted to surrender, and the people who wanted to keep fighting wanted to keep fighting. In fact the reaction to the bombings was almost dismissive. In "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire", Richard B. Franks shows that this was clearly the case; "To be sure, the damage of the atomic bomb was extremely heavy, but it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession." -Admiral Toyoda, 9 August 1945.

Of course, you also have the interrogation of Lieutenant Marcus McDilda, US Army Air Forces. He was a P51 Mustang pilot, that was captured on 8 August. He was tortured and informed his captors that the US had "100 more bombs", and were going to drop them on Kyoto and Tokyo next. He in reality knew nothing of the bombs, but this report (and himself) were forwarded to Tokyo. And the reports of his interrogation were though used in the meeting of the Privy Council, and did affect those who were not hardliners.
 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not about Japan, they were about Moscow. To show what we were capable and willing to do.

And besides, Japan had it coming. They needed to be taken down a few pegs before being totally conquered. WW2 was the last war we fought like Rome would have fought a war. No negotiation, just surrender and then submit. Glorious times indeed.
 
Back
Top Bottom