So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for htekemerald
htekemerald

7325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#601 htekemerald
Member since 2004 • 7325 Posts

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Hirohito's address to the nation announcing surrender:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

The point being that the two shocks contributed to surrender. USSR invasion (not because of the military operations) but because it meant that the last line of diplomacy for negotiating conditional surrender was over. And dropping the bomb, because it meant that a miracle defense leading to some sort of negotiated peace was not possible. The two things happened essentially in concert.

In the end they surrendered because the emperor decided that there was no hope for a better settlement based on those two changes to the strategic situation/

CreasianDevaili

His comments speak more to saving face than a real reason to surrender...

In the end the real reason the emeperor's hand was forced was the Russians. He, and the rest of the government, knew that they could either make a deal with Americans or be annexed by the Russians.

Never thought i'd see you, of all people in this thread, actually dismiss what an historic figure definitively involved in the Pacific conflict said and put in what you say he really meant in place. You just nullified all the stuff you said across pages man. Along with the people you quoted for your arguement. Use an American to attack America and dismiss the Emperor of Japan in order to not defend America, when talking about what America did to Japan. Transparent agenda man.

""...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."" - Ike

Me: Eisenhower clearly thought bombing the Japanese was wrong.

Pro-Nuke People: Your wong he obviously didn't mean that because I said so.

vs

""Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."" - Japanese Emperor

You: 'Both shocks were nessisary to force japan to surrender'

Me: "His comments speak more to saving face than a real reason to surrender... In the end the real reason the emeperor's hand was forced was the Russians. He, and the rest of the government, knew that they could either make a deal with Americans or be annexed by the Russians."

Avatar image for shemrom
shemrom

1206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#602 shemrom
Member since 2005 • 1206 Posts

If i remember correctly, we warn Japan that the USA has a new wepon and they was going to used it on them if they did't surrender the war, but they refused to.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#603 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts

If i remember correctly, we warn Japan that the USA has a new wepon and they was going to used it on them if they did't surrender the war, but they refused to.

shemrom
Yes Japan was warned....and even after the first....they didn't surrender.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#604 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="htekemerald"] His comments speak more to saving face than a real reason to surrender...

In the end the real reason the emeperor's hand was forced was the Russians. He, and the rest of the government, knew that they could either make a deal with Americans or be annexed by the Russians.

htekemerald

Never thought i'd see you, of all people in this thread, actually dismiss what an historic figure definitively involved in the Pacific conflict said and put in what you say he really meant in place. You just nullified all the stuff you said across pages man. Along with the people you quoted for your arguement. Use an American to attack America and dismiss the Emperor of Japan in order to not defend America, when talking about what America did to Japan. Transparent agenda man.

""...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."" - Ike

Me: Eisenhower clearly thought bombing the Japanese was wrong.

Pro-Nuke People: Your wong he obviously didn't mean that because I said so.

vs

""Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."" - Japanese Emperor

You: 'Both shocks were nessisary to force japan to surrender'

Me: "His comments speak more to saving face than a real reason to surrender... In the end the real reason the emeperor's hand was forced was the Russians. He, and the rest of the government, knew that they could either make a deal with Americans or be annexed by the Russians."

I think it's funny you take Ike's statement at face value without looking at it further while strawmaning and dumbing down your opponents statements but then you try to put deeper meaning to the Emperors statements in an attempt to change it's meaning despite the statement being far more relevant to the argument and bolstering the opponents claims.
Avatar image for Blaminator1221
Blaminator1221

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#605 Blaminator1221
Member since 2010 • 455 Posts
[QUOTE="shemrom"]

If i remember correctly, we warn Japan that the USA has a new wepon and they was going to used it on them if they did't surrender the war, but they refused to.

LJS9502_basic
Yes Japan was warned....and even after the first....they didn't surrender.

Just for the record... since many comparisons between Japan and 9/11 were made, jihadist terrorists did warn the US several times that they've going to attack them. In fact, they've been pretty straightforward and honest (the irony) with the US government. The only thing they did hold on to, is the exact location of the attacks, because obviously even though they're brainwashed they're not braindead.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#606 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

""...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."" - Ike

Me: Eisenhower clearly thought bombing the Japanese was wrong.

Pro-Nuke People: Your wong he obviously didn't mean that because I said so.

vs

""Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."" - Japanese Emperor

You: 'Both shocks were nessisary to force japan to surrender'

Me: "His comments speak more to saving face than a real reason to surrender... In the end the real reason the emeperor's hand was forced was the Russians. He, and the rest of the government, knew that they could either make a deal with Americans or be annexed by the Russians."htekemerald

The problem with Ike's statement is that the Japanese had already demonstrated that they were not ready to surrender, even after the first atomic bomb. The militarists of the Japanese government were not even ready to surrender after the second, they staged a coup attempt to try and overthrow the Emperor that was thwarted by those loyal to the Emperor. Sure, the Japanese may have not wanted to be under Soviet rule, but the fact that they were told that they would face ruination (the warning by Truman) played a big part in his decision to stop the war under the Allies terms. The only area of Japan that the Soviets invaded was the Kuril Islands though they did attack them in Manchuria and a few other places, on the day that the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. It still was 6 days later before the Emperor made his broadcaast. That does not seem to be ready to surrender.

Those are the facts and yes, even Ike's objections to those events can be construed as illinformed. If that were the case, then why did he not accept Goering's proposal of peace prior to the end of the war in Europe? Just a bit of hypocracy there.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#607 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

What other events from 70-100 years ago can we look back on and use our self righteous andentitled judgement to criticize?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#608 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="shemrom"]

If i remember correctly, we warn Japan that the USA has a new wepon and they was going to used it on them if they did't surrender the war, but they refused to.

Blaminator1221
Yes Japan was warned....and even after the first....they didn't surrender.

Just for the record... since many comparisons between Japan and 9/11 were made, jihadist terrorists did warn the US several times that they've going to attack them. In fact, they've been pretty straightforward and honest (the irony) with the US government. The only thing they did hold on to, is the exact location of the attacks, because obviously even though they're brainwashed they're not braindead.

And therein lies the difference...you answered your own question.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#609 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts

What other events from 70-100 years ago can we look back on and use our self righteous andentitled judgement to criticize?

sonicare
Something the US did no doubt......
Avatar image for Blaminator1221
Blaminator1221

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#610 Blaminator1221
Member since 2010 • 455 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Blaminator1221"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes Japan was warned....and even after the first....they didn't surrender.

Just for the record... since many comparisons between Japan and 9/11 were made, jihadist terrorists did warn the US several times that they've going to attack them. In fact, they've been pretty straightforward and honest (the irony) with the US government. The only thing they did hold on to, is the exact location of the attacks, because obviously even though they're brainwashed they're not braindead.

And therein lies the difference...you answered your own question.

The exact location? Or are you talking about something else? Come one, you know better than that. If they revealed the exact position it would be a suicide mission (lol!), a certain failure. The US revealed the exact position because the Japanese were on they're knees basically, they were able to attack them from every position, everytime. Or are you willing to claim that even if that's not the case, the US would still be fair and tell them which cities would be attacked, and send their pilots into certain doom?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#611 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts
[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Blaminator1221"] Just for the record... since many comparisons between Japan and 9/11 were made, jihadist terrorists did warn the US several times that they've going to attack them. In fact, they've been pretty straightforward and honest (the irony) with the US government. The only thing they did hold on to, is the exact location of the attacks, because obviously even though they're brainwashed they're not braindead.

And therein lies the difference...you answered your own question.

The exact location? Or are you talking about something else? Come one, you know better than that. If they revealed the exact position it would be a suicide mission (lol!), a certain failure. The US revealed the exact position because the Japanese were on they're knees basically, they were able to attack them from every position, everytime. Or are you willing to claim that even if that's not the case, the US would still be fair and tell them which cities would be attacked, and send their pilots into certain doom?

Without warning the terrorists....ie AQ assured the civilians would be caught unaware. And they were the target. The US was not engaged in war. All those differences are important IMO in judging history. Or you could demonize the US while justifying AQ. Seems to be done here all the time.....doesn't make it right though.
Avatar image for Blaminator1221
Blaminator1221

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#612 Blaminator1221
Member since 2010 • 455 Posts
[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And therein lies the difference...you answered your own question.LJS9502_basic
The exact location? Or are you talking about something else? Come one, you know better than that. If they revealed the exact position it would be a suicide mission (lol!), a certain failure. The US revealed the exact position because the Japanese were on they're knees basically, they were able to attack them from every position, everytime. Or are you willing to claim that even if that's not the case, the US would still be fair and tell them which cities would be attacked, and send their pilots into certain doom?

Without warning the terrorists....ie AQ assured the civilians would be caught unaware. And they were the target. The US was not engaged in war. All those differences are important IMO in judging history. Or you could demonize the US while justifying AQ. Seems to be done here all the time.....doesn't make it right though.

I see the massmedia did quite the number on you. As i read almost the entire discussion, i really really doubt anyone here is trying to justify what AQ did. That's your deluded thinking. It appears you're the hypocrite here, approving and justifying what the US has done because you're American, but condemning what AQ did. The other are simply pointing out that the differences are minor and again, as i read, it seems that nobody is justifying what AQ did. They are condemning both atrocities EQUALLY, even the one more so. If civilians were really their prime target, why didn't they attack a stadium or a dam as mentioned before by others? There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#613 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.Blaminator1221

Eh, the White House wasn't attacked. It was thought to bea target, but it was not hit. Let's see who all was killed. All the airplanes used, civilians, WTC, again civilians, The Pentagon (the only military target hit), both military and civilian. They may have not been the target, but they were part of the equation and as a rule, terrorist groups do target civilians. That can be seen on a weekly basis.

Avatar image for optiow
optiow

28284

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#614 optiow
Member since 2008 • 28284 Posts
It was terrorism pure and simple. When you look at the facts the Japanese were already on the way to surrendering, and slaughtering more civilians only made the American bombing campaign all that more tragic. They dropped it primarily to force surrender before the Soviets got any closer to Japan.
Avatar image for htekemerald
htekemerald

7325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#615 htekemerald
Member since 2004 • 7325 Posts

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Never thought i'd see you, of all people in this thread, actually dismiss what an historic figure definitively involved in the Pacific conflict said and put in what you say he really meant in place. You just nullified all the stuff you said across pages man. Along with the people you quoted for your arguement. Use an American to attack America and dismiss the Emperor of Japan in order to not defend America, when talking about what America did to Japan. Transparent agenda man. Ace6301

""...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."" - Ike

Me: Eisenhower clearly thought bombing the Japanese was wrong.

Pro-Nuke People: Your wong he obviously didn't mean that because I said so.

vs

""Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."" - Japanese Emperor

You: 'Both shocks were nessisary to force japan to surrender'

Me: "His comments speak more to saving face than a real reason to surrender... In the end the real reason the emeperor's hand was forced was the Russians. He, and the rest of the government, knew that they could either make a deal with Americans or be annexed by the Russians."

I think it's funny you take Ike's statement at face value without looking at it further while strawmaning and dumbing down your opponents statements but then you try to put deeper meaning to the Emperors statements in an attempt to change it's meaning despite the statement being far more relevant to the argument and bolstering the opponents claims.

It's not just me placing a deeper meaning in the emperors words, it's historians in general. Unlike certain posters here I actually do a little research on the facts before posting. That would be why I've not made any claims such as 'Japan was nuked in July, your argument is stupid' or the like...

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#616 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts
[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Blaminator1221"]The exact location? Or are you talking about something else? Come one, you know better than that. If they revealed the exact position it would be a suicide mission (lol!), a certain failure. The US revealed the exact position because the Japanese were on they're knees basically, they were able to attack them from every position, everytime. Or are you willing to claim that even if that's not the case, the US would still be fair and tell them which cities would be attacked, and send their pilots into certain doom?

Without warning the terrorists....ie AQ assured the civilians would be caught unaware. And they were the target. The US was not engaged in war. All those differences are important IMO in judging history. Or you could demonize the US while justifying AQ. Seems to be done here all the time.....doesn't make it right though.

I see the massmedia did quite the number on you. As i read almost the entire discussion, i really really doubt anyone here is trying to justify what AQ did. That's your deluded thinking. It appears you're the hypocrite here, approving and justifying what the US has done because you're American, but condemning what AQ did. The other are simply pointing out that the differences are minor and again, as i read, it seems that nobody is justifying what AQ did. They are condemning both atrocities EQUALLY, even the one more so. If civilians were really their prime target, why didn't they attack a stadium or a dam as mentioned before by others? There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.

Then you missed some posts....and FYI...I don't watch the media. I do, however, read. No what I condemn is unwarranted attacks on civilians by terrorists. Nations at war have to deal with the results of war. As I recall Japan is the reason for the US involvement in the war. Not feeling sorry for an aggressor. News flash...the WTC was filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. The US does have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#617 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

""...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."" - Ike

Me: Eisenhower clearly thought bombing the Japanese was wrong.

Pro-Nuke People: Your wong he obviously didn't mean that because I said so.

vs

""Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."" - Japanese Emperor

You: 'Both shocks were nessisary to force japan to surrender'

Me: "His comments speak more to saving face than a real reason to surrender... In the end the real reason the emeperor's hand was forced was the Russians. He, and the rest of the government, knew that they could either make a deal with Americans or be annexed by the Russians."

htekemerald

I think it's funny you take Ike's statement at face value without looking at it further while strawmaning and dumbing down your opponents statements but then you try to put deeper meaning to the Emperors statements in an attempt to change it's meaning despite the statement being far more relevant to the argument and bolstering the opponents claims.

It's not just me placing a deeper meaning in the emperors words, it's historians in general. Unlike certain posters here I actually do a little research on the facts before posting. That would be why I've not made any claims such as 'Japan was nuked in July, your argument is stupid' or the like...

If I were to discount your entire argument from one incorrect claim, made because I was playing BF3 at the time and preferring to judge your reactions based on the new posting rules, then I would have laughed at your first post then carried on. However your argument is still entertaining so I'm glad I gave you encouragement to continue. Also historians don't read what you got from that Emperor quote. Mostly because it's completely unrelated to what you claim. Your cherry picking your argument. Not to mention you've changed your argument as time has gone by. At first you claimed Japan wanted to surrender then you claim Russia made them want to surrender. Even though there's more than enough evidence that the nukes were what caused their surrender. I mean honestly a country wants to surrender and they don't until after being nuked twice and invaded by Russia.
Avatar image for Johnny_Rock
Johnny_Rock

40314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#618 Johnny_Rock
Member since 2002 • 40314 Posts

Let's see...

Japan attacked America unprovoked. That was terrorism.

Us nuking them, was retaliation.

Get your facts straight, kid.

Avatar image for shemrom
shemrom

1206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#619 shemrom
Member since 2005 • 1206 Posts

[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"]There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.WhiteKnight77

Eh, the White House wasn't attacked. It was thought to bea target, but it was not hit. Let's see who all was killed. All the airplanes used, civilians, WTC, again civilians, The Pentagon (the only military target hit), both military and civilian. They may have not been the target, but they were part of the equation and as a rule, terrorist groups do target civilians. That can be seen on a weekly basis.

Their was some questioning on wherever the white house was in actual target of one of the hijackers, but it must of also been hard to spot so they instead crash into the Pentagon
Avatar image for stiggy321
stiggy321

609

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#620 stiggy321
Member since 2009 • 609 Posts
[QUOTE="shemrom"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.Blaminator1221
Eh, the White House wasn't attacked. It was thought to bea target, but it was not hit. Let's see who all was killed. All the airplanes used, civilians, WTC, again civilians, The Pentagon (the only military target hit), both military and civilian. They may have not been the target, but they were part of the equation and as a rule, terrorist groups do target civilians. That can be seen on a weekly basis.

Their was some questioning on wherever the white house was in actual target of one of the hijackers, but it must of also been hard to spot so they instead crash into the Pentagon

Wow. Please read about things more. Anyway, everyone who has posted in this thread needs to watchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fog_of_war. Thenread about the Postdam Declaration and how exactly the Japanese were warned... and stop talking like you know something about history. Very sad :(.
Avatar image for htekemerald
htekemerald

7325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#621 htekemerald
Member since 2004 • 7325 Posts

If I were to discount your entire argument from one incorrect claim, made because I was playing BF3 at the time and preferring to judge your reactions based on the new posting rules, then I would have laughed at your first post then carried on. However your argument is still entertaining so I'm glad I gave you encouragement to continue. Also historians don't read what you got from that Emperor quote. Mostly because it's completely unrelated to what you claim. Your cherry picking your argument. Not to mention you've changed your argument as time has gone by. At first you claimed Japan wanted to surrender then you claim Russia made them want to surrender. Even though there's more than enough evidence that the nukes were what caused their surrender. I mean honestly a country wants to surrender and they don't until after being nuked twice and invaded by Russia. Ace6301

The Russians forced them to surrender, they were already interested in surrender.

Whatever, no point arguing with those who've gotten their information from Hollywood.

Avatar image for DigitalExile
DigitalExile

16046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#622 DigitalExile
Member since 2008 • 16046 Posts

Let's see...

Japan attacked America unprovoked. That was terrorism.

Johnny_Rock

That's an act of war, not terrorism.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#623 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

If I were to discount your entire argument from one incorrect claim, made because I was playing BF3 at the time and preferring to judge your reactions based on the new posting rules, then I would have laughed at your first post then carried on. However your argument is still entertaining so I'm glad I gave you encouragement to continue. Also historians don't read what you got from that Emperor quote. Mostly because it's completely unrelated to what you claim. Your cherry picking your argument. Not to mention you've changed your argument as time has gone by. At first you claimed Japan wanted to surrender then you claim Russia made them want to surrender. Even though there's more than enough evidence that the nukes were what caused their surrender. I mean honestly a country wants to surrender and they don't until after being nuked twice and invaded by Russia. htekemerald

The Russians forced them to surrender, they were already interested in surrender.

Whatever, no point arguing with those who've gotten their information from Hollywood.

The Russians were part of it, yes, which is what I've been saying the whole topic. It's just as wrong to say the Russians were what forced them to surrender as it is to say the US did everything. It was a combination of being nuked and having Russia attack them that made them realize they had to cut their loses and give in to the side that was most likely to treat them as anything other than dirt. I just think it's funny you're trying to say that Japan wanted to surrender when they clearly didn't. You could just admit you're wrong but honestly at this point I'm enjoying this too much, so please don't.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#624 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Let's see...

Japan attacked America unprovoked. That was terrorism.

DigitalExile

That's an act of war, not terrorism.

I agree. If you're going to describe attacking uniformed military targets using your own uniform military as terrorism then you should probably define your use of the term.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#625 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

If I were to discount your entire argument from one incorrect claim, made because I was playing BF3 at the time and preferring to judge your reactions based on the new posting rules, then I would have laughed at your first post then carried on. However your argument is still entertaining so I'm glad I gave you encouragement to continue. Also historians don't read what you got from that Emperor quote. Mostly because it's completely unrelated to what you claim. Your cherry picking your argument. Not to mention you've changed your argument as time has gone by. At first you claimed Japan wanted to surrender then you claim Russia made them want to surrender. Even though there's more than enough evidence that the nukes were what caused their surrender. I mean honestly a country wants to surrender and they don't until after being nuked twice and invaded by Russia. htekemerald

The Russians forced them to surrender, they were already interested in surrender.

Whatever, no point arguing with those who've gotten their information from Hollywood.

I don't get my information from Hollywood. I actually read books, something that is becoming a lost art. I have probably spent close to $1000 on WWII history books and I just spent close to another $100 this past weekend doing so (5 more books).

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#626 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Blaminator1221"]The exact location? Or are you talking about something else? Come one, you know better than that. If they revealed the exact position it would be a suicide mission (lol!), a certain failure. The US revealed the exact position because the Japanese were on they're knees basically, they were able to attack them from every position, everytime. Or are you willing to claim that even if that's not the case, the US would still be fair and tell them which cities would be attacked, and send their pilots into certain doom?

Without warning the terrorists....ie AQ assured the civilians would be caught unaware. And they were the target. The US was not engaged in war. All those differences are important IMO in judging history. Or you could demonize the US while justifying AQ. Seems to be done here all the time.....doesn't make it right though.

I see the massmedia did quite the number on you. As i read almost the entire discussion, i really really doubt anyone here is trying to justify what AQ did. That's your deluded thinking. It appears you're the hypocrite here, approving and justifying what the US has done because you're American, but condemning what AQ did. The other are simply pointing out that the differences are minor and again, as i read, it seems that nobody is justifying what AQ did. They are condemning both atrocities EQUALLY, even the one more so. If civilians were really their prime target, why didn't they attack a stadium or a dam as mentioned before by others? There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.

Pretty much, he always does that. Nobody here is justifying AQ or trying to put them on a brighter light but that is how he justifies his distorted worldview. The only ones showing double standards here are those who condemn 9/11 and then go on and justify nuking Japan.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#627 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

News flash...the WTC was filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. The US does have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.LJS9502_basic

News flash... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. Japan did have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#628 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"]There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.WhiteKnight77

Eh, the White House wasn't attacked. It was thought to bea target, but it was not hit. Let's see who all was killed. All the airplanes used, civilians, WTC, again civilians, The Pentagon (the only military target hit), both military and civilian. They may have not been the target, but they were part of the equation and as a rule, terrorist groups do target civilians. That can be seen on a weekly basis.

So by that reasoning if AQ drops a nuke on an american city where there happens to be a military target then they are not targeting civilians but if they fly the planes like they did and instead try to hit political and economic targets they are? Your logic gets more twisted by the minute.
Avatar image for Krelian-co
Krelian-co

13274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#629 Krelian-co
Member since 2006 • 13274 Posts

What other events from 70-100 years ago can we look back on and use our self righteous andentitled judgement to criticize?

sonicare

there have been many actually from all countries, but the US was the only one who has showed they give a damn about civilians and nuclear side effects to use one.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#630 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] News flash...the WTC was filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. The US does have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.kuraimen

News flash... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. Japan did have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.

No both cities were militarily important cities. It was a military objective. And hey...it worked for a quick end to a war with less casualties.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#631 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] News flash...the WTC was filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. The US does have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.LJS9502_basic

News flash... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. Japan did have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.

No both cities were militarily important cities. It was a military objective. And hey...it worked for a quick end to a war with less casualties.

Negotiating a peace agreement with Japan would've ended the way with even fewer casualties.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#632 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

News flash... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. Japan did have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.

-Sun_Tzu-
No both cities were militarily important cities. It was a military objective. And hey...it worked for a quick end to a war with less casualties.

Negotiating a peace agreement with Japan would've ended the way with even fewer casualties.

While a peace negotiation would have worked out better it wasn't really in the cards. After WWI the Allies weren't to keen on conditional surrender and Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration. It would have been nice but it wasn't going to happen.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#633 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

News flash... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were filled with civilians......if they didn't want to target civilians they'd have hit a military installation. Japan did have quite a few of those. So please spare me the justification for hitting a civilian installation.

-Sun_Tzu-

No both cities were militarily important cities. It was a military objective. And hey...it worked for a quick end to a war with less casualties.

Negotiating a peace agreement with Japan would've ended the way with even fewer casualties.

That was tried......didn't happen.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#634 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

kuraimen, I see you're back. Go look at page 30.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#635 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts
[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Without warning the terrorists....ie AQ assured the civilians would be caught unaware. And they were the target. The US was not engaged in war. All those differences are important IMO in judging history. Or you could demonize the US while justifying AQ. Seems to be done here all the time.....doesn't make it right though. kuraimen
I see the massmedia did quite the number on you. As i read almost the entire discussion, i really really doubt anyone here is trying to justify what AQ did. That's your deluded thinking. It appears you're the hypocrite here, approving and justifying what the US has done because you're American, but condemning what AQ did. The other are simply pointing out that the differences are minor and again, as i read, it seems that nobody is justifying what AQ did. They are condemning both atrocities EQUALLY, even the one more so. If civilians were really their prime target, why didn't they attack a stadium or a dam as mentioned before by others? There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.

Pretty much, he always does that. Nobody here is justifying AQ or trying to put them on a brighter light but that is how he justifies his distorted worldview. The only ones showing double standards here are those who condemn 9/11 and then go on and justify nuking Japan.

You've justified 911 in a few threads....
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#636 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No both cities were militarily important cities. It was a military objective. And hey...it worked for a quick end to a war with less casualties.LJS9502_basic

Negotiating a peace agreement with Japan would've ended the way with even fewer casualties.

That was tried......didn't happen.

When did the US ever try to negotiate a peace agreement with Japan? The only thing the US did was demand an unconditional surrender. Japan was never approached to negotiate peace - negotiations that Japan repeatedly tried to initiate. A deal could've been reached (and should've been reached, if the US and the rest of the Allies really cared about casualities), but instead the US decided to field test their new weapon on those *** bastards who dragged us into the war in the first place, with the Ruskies watching from the sideline. The bombs were not dropped for humanitarian purposes. They were dropped to put a nice exclamation point on the defeat of a hated enemy.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#639 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Negotiating a peace agreement with Japan would've ended the way with even fewer casualties.-Sun_Tzu-

That was tried......didn't happen.

When did the US ever try to negotiate a peace agreement with Japan? The only thing the US did was demand an unconditional surrender. Japan was never approached to negotiate peace - negotiations that Japan repeatedly tried to initiate. A deal could've been reached (and should've been reached, if the US and the rest of the Allies really cared about casualities), but instead the US decided to field test their new weapon on those *** bastards who dragged us into the war in the first place, with the Ruskies watching from the sideline. The bombs were not dropped for humanitarian purposes. They were dropped to put a nice exclamation point on the defeat of a hated enemy.

Japan was well aware that unconditional surrender was needed or the war would not end. Japan did not agree to those terms. War is filled with tragedies....but Japan willing choose that war. They were not fighting defensively.
Avatar image for QuistisTrepe_
QuistisTrepe_

4121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#640 QuistisTrepe_
Member since 2010 • 4121 Posts

No.

/thread

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#641 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That was tried......didn't happen.LJS9502_basic
When did the US ever try to negotiate a peace agreement with Japan? The only thing the US did was demand an unconditional surrender. Japan was never approached to negotiate peace - negotiations that Japan repeatedly tried to initiate. A deal could've been reached (and should've been reached, if the US and the rest of the Allies really cared about casualities), but instead the US decided to field test their new weapon on those *** bastards who dragged us into the war in the first place, with the Ruskies watching from the sideline. The bombs were not dropped for humanitarian purposes. They were dropped to put a nice exclamation point on the defeat of a hated enemy.

Japan was well aware that unconditional surrender was needed or the war would not end. Japan did not agree to those terms. War is filled with tragedies....but Japan willing choose that war. They were not fighting defensively.

They were certainly fighting defensively by the time the Potsdam declaration was put out. It's just that negotiating a peace treaty was about as out of place for the US back then as Hitler deciding Jews could live.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#642 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That was tried......didn't happen.

LJS9502_basic

When did the US ever try to negotiate a peace agreement with Japan? The only thing the US did was demand an unconditional surrender. Japan was never approached to negotiate peace - negotiations that Japan repeatedly tried to initiate. A deal could've been reached (and should've been reached, if the US and the rest of the Allies really cared about casualities), but instead the US decided to field test their new weapon on those *** bastards who dragged us into the war in the first place, with the Ruskies watching from the sideline. The bombs were not dropped for humanitarian purposes. They were dropped to put a nice exclamation point on the defeat of a hated enemy.

Japan was well aware that unconditional surrender was needed or the war would not end. Japan did not agree to those terms. War is filled with tragedies....but Japan willing choose that war. They were not fighting defensively.

Towards the end of the war they were on the defense. You're acting as if the US didn't have a choice. The US didn't have to demand an unconditional surrender. Sure, war is filled with tragedies, but that doesn't justify anything. This is a tragedy that could've easily been avoided. Hundreds of thousands of lives could've been saved had the US decided to end the war peacefully. It'd be one thing if the US had tried to reach out to the Japanese to negotiate a peace agreement and the Japanese refused to even negotiate a peace. But they didn't even do that. Instead they opted to add to the long list of atrocities committed in what was the bloodiest war in human history.

Avatar image for NiKva
NiKva

8181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#643 NiKva
Member since 2010 • 8181 Posts
The thread title... l2spell op I have to scroll past this topic every day and read HiroshiNa which makes me want to go on a murderous rampage on Black Ops. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
GreySeal9

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#644 GreySeal9
Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] When did the US ever try to negotiate a peace agreement with Japan? The only thing the US did was demand an unconditional surrender. Japan was never approached to negotiate peace - negotiations that Japan repeatedly tried to initiate. A deal could've been reached (and should've been reached, if the US and the rest of the Allies really cared about casualities), but instead the US decided to field test their new weapon on those *** bastards who dragged us into the war in the first place, with the Ruskies watching from the sideline. The bombs were not dropped for humanitarian purposes. They were dropped to put a nice exclamation point on the defeat of a hated enemy. -Sun_Tzu-

Japan was well aware that unconditional surrender was needed or the war would not end. Japan did not agree to those terms. War is filled with tragedies....but Japan willing choose that war. They were not fighting defensively.

Towards the end of the war they were on the defense. You're acting as if the US didn't have a choice. The US didn't have to demand an unconditional surrender. Sure, war is filled with tragedies, but that doesn't justify anything. This is a tragedy that could've easily been avoided. Hundreds of thousands of lives could've been saved had the US decided to end the war peacefully. It'd be one thing if the US had tried to reach out to the Japanese to negotiate a peace agreement and the Japanese refused to even negotiate a peace. But they didn't even do that. Instead they opted to add to the long list of atrocities committed in what was the bloodiest war in human history.

This x1000.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#645 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"]There is a reason why they hit the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE and the trade center. Civilians came second, i wouldn't say they cared about them rather they were their secondary objective. And really to think in this day that civilians were the prime targets in 9/11 really shows how far media brainwashing has gone over there. But i know the type so i ain't gonna bother anymore either.kuraimen

Eh, the White House wasn't attacked. It was thought to bea target, but it was not hit. Let's see who all was killed. All the airplanes used, civilians, WTC, again civilians, The Pentagon (the only military target hit), both military and civilian. They may have not been the target, but they were part of the equation and as a rule, terrorist groups do target civilians. That can be seen on a weekly basis.

So by that reasoning if AQ drops a nuke on an american city where there happens to be a military target then they are not targeting civilians but if they fly the planes like they did and instead try to hit political and economic targets they are? Your logic gets more twisted by the minute.

See, you do not read what people have stated. If you did, then you would know that we do have military installations in cities and towns across the US (though at the time of their original building, most werein the middle of nowhere). In that essense, we are no different than the Japanese.

If an AQ type entity did set of an atomic bomb on a US installation and killed both military and civilian, it still would be a terrorist attack. If we were at war with a nation state and they did that, then it would be an act of war. I actually lived through the threat of that from the day I was born (I was born on a SAC bomber base) until the end of the Cold War. I lived near or on military bases here and abroad both as a kid an adult.

I have no twisted logic. I have a good grasp of WWII history and I keep reading WWIIhistory on a daily basis (did you see the fact I just bought 5 more WWII history books this past weekend? Did you buy any?) and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

Avatar image for Krelian-co
Krelian-co

13274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#646 Krelian-co
Member since 2006 • 13274 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] When did the US ever try to negotiate a peace agreement with Japan? The only thing the US did was demand an unconditional surrender. Japan was never approached to negotiate peace - negotiations that Japan repeatedly tried to initiate. A deal could've been reached (and should've been reached, if the US and the rest of the Allies really cared about casualities), but instead the US decided to field test their new weapon on those *** bastards who dragged us into the war in the first place, with the Ruskies watching from the sideline. The bombs were not dropped for humanitarian purposes. They were dropped to put a nice exclamation point on the defeat of a hated enemy. -Sun_Tzu-

Japan was well aware that unconditional surrender was needed or the war would not end. Japan did not agree to those terms. War is filled with tragedies....but Japan willing choose that war. They were not fighting defensively.

Towards the end of the war they were on the defense. You're acting as if the US didn't have a choice. The US didn't have to demand an unconditional surrender. Sure, war is filled with tragedies, but that doesn't justify anything. This is a tragedy that could've easily been avoided. Hundreds of thousands of lives could've been saved had the US decided to end the war peacefully. It'd be one thing if the US had tried to reach out to the Japanese to negotiate a peace agreement and the Japanese refused to even negotiate a peace. But they didn't even do that. Instead they opted to add to the long list of atrocities committed in what was the bloodiest war in human history.

in before "random excuse of why murdering hundreds of thousands of people is justified because its US"

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#647 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Towards the end of the war they were on the defense. You're acting as if the US didn't have a choice. The US didn't have to demand an unconditional surrender. Sure, war is filled with tragedies, but that doesn't justify anything. This is a tragedy that could've easily been avoided. Hundreds of thousands of lives could've been saved had the US decided to end the war peacefully. It'd be one thing if the US had tried to reach out to the Japanese to negotiate a peace agreement and the Japanese refused to even negotiate a peace. But they didn't even do that. Instead they opted to add to the long list of atrocities committed in what was the bloodiest war in human history.

-Sun_Tzu-

Did you not see my previous statement about Ike's hypocracy? Why would the US want a negotiated peace with Japan if they would not do the same for Germany?

Japan seeks peace through the Soviets

In the meantime, the Japanese government was attempting to persuade the Soviet Union to mediate a peace for Japan that would not be unconditional. This was in response to the Emperor's request at a Big Six meeting on June 22, 1945 to seek peace thru the Soviets, who were the only major member of the Allies that had a neutrality pact with Japan at the time (Butow, pg. 118-120). Unfortunately for all concerned, Japan's leaders were divided over precisely what terms should be sought to end the war, with the Japanese military leaders still wishing to avoid anything that the Allies would have considered a clear "surrender". Surely Japan's leaders hold the lion's share of the responsibility for the fate that befell Japan.

Having broken the code Japan used for transmitting messages, the U.S. was able to follow Japan's efforts to end the war as it intercepted the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's Ambassador to Moscow Sato. The messages were sent as the result of the June 22, 1945 Japanese Cabinet meeting. The conditions under which Japan was willing to surrender were not clearly spelled out in the messages, aside from a willingness to give up territory occupied during the war and a repeated rejection of "unconditional surrender".Doug Long

Even when the Japanese were trying to see about a peace agreement, they were totally against the terms set forth by the Allies (including the Soviets). The Soviets rebuffed the Japanese. The Japanese were trying to set the terms of their surrender and they repeatedly turned a cold shoulder to the Allies and their unconditional surrender terms, even after the first bomb being dropped on Hiroshima.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#648 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180303 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] When did the US ever try to negotiate a peace agreement with Japan? The only thing the US did was demand an unconditional surrender. Japan was never approached to negotiate peace - negotiations that Japan repeatedly tried to initiate. A deal could've been reached (and should've been reached, if the US and the rest of the Allies really cared about casualities), but instead the US decided to field test their new weapon on those *** bastards who dragged us into the war in the first place, with the Ruskies watching from the sideline. The bombs were not dropped for humanitarian purposes. They were dropped to put a nice exclamation point on the defeat of a hated enemy. -Sun_Tzu-

Japan was well aware that unconditional surrender was needed or the war would not end. Japan did not agree to those terms. War is filled with tragedies....but Japan willing choose that war. They were not fighting defensively.

Towards the end of the war they were on the defense. You're acting as if the US didn't have a choice. The US didn't have to demand an unconditional surrender. Sure, war is filled with tragedies, but that doesn't justify anything. This is a tragedy that could've easily been avoided. Hundreds of thousands of lives could've been saved had the US decided to end the war peacefully. It'd be one thing if the US had tried to reach out to the Japanese to negotiate a peace agreement and the Japanese refused to even negotiate a peace. But they didn't even do that. Instead they opted to add to the long list of atrocities committed in what was the bloodiest war in human history.

Ah but my point was the Japan started the hostilities....and when told to surrender they decided no. And it took not one bomb but two to make them surrender. If a nation is willing to withstand a bomb and STILL not surrender then you have to know they wouldn't stop for a land invasion either. Not to mention fire bombing caused a bit of casualties itself. The Japanese were not willing to just give up.....they fought to the death. They employed kamikazes......to think they'd easily stop is a bit on the naive side IMO. I wasn't justifying tragedies.....but that is a part of war and thinking otherwise makes no sense.
Avatar image for SPYDER0416
SPYDER0416

16736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#649 SPYDER0416
Member since 2008 • 16736 Posts

I find it depressing that the education system of many parts of the world seem to be failing a lot of people here.

As far as facts go, what the US did is not defined as terrorism. It was an act of war that saved more lives then it cost, and you have to remember the Japanese started the war. People also need to realize that the Japanese were incredibly far from surrender. When a country is teaching every man, woman and child to be devoted to their emperor and fight to the last breath, that is not a country willing to surrender, and many more lives would have been cost otherwise.

Was the nuke a good thing? No. Was it better then losing millions of lives by going with plan B (invading Japan)? Yes, by a wide margin, not to mention the various plans the Japanese had to attack the US that would have occurred during the extra time it took to end the war (including biological warfare directed to the US mainland).

So this discussion should have ended WAY back on page 1, but instead some people are just being way too stubborn to brush up on their history. Well I'm done, I guess if you hate the US so much you don't even have a clear view of history that is your problem, I'll just be where all the common sense is.

I also want to apologize with all the ad hominem, but at this point I feel the dissenters are doing more harm then good, and coming off as stubborn fiction spreaders, and I'd rather people know the facts instead of the opinions of others who shouldn't even be discussing something without learning a bit about the history involved.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#650 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

I find it depressing that the education system of many parts of the world seem to be failing a lot of people here.

As far as facts go, what the US did is not defined as terrorism. It was an act of war that saved more lives then it cost, and you have to remember the Japanese started the war. People also need to realize that the Japanese were incredibly far from surrender. When a country is teaching every man, woman and child to be devoted to their emperor and fight to the last breath, that is not a country willing to surrender, and many more lives would have been cost otherwise.

Was the nuke a good thing? No. Was it better then losing millions of lives by going with plan B (invading Japan)? Yes, by a wide margin, not to mention the various plans the Japanese had to attack the US that would have occurred during the extra time it took to end the war (including biological warfare directed to the US mainland).

So this discussion should have ended WAY back on page 1, but instead some people are just being way too stubborn to brush up on their history. Well I'm done, I guess if you hate the US so much you don't even have a clear view of history that is your problem, I'll just be where all the common sense is.

I also want to apologize with all the ad hominem, but at this point I feel the dissenters are doing more harm then good, and coming off as stubborn fiction spreaders, and I'd rather people know the facts instead of the opinions of others who shouldn't even be discussing something without learning a bit about the history involved.

SPYDER0416

While not everyone here is anti-American, one is and it shows as he is always in threads like this to bash the US. Maybe if his country had been involved in said war, he would proably have a different understanding, but Central America was spared the death and destruction Pacific, Asian, North Americanand European countries had to endure. Maybe it is part of the education system that they have to try and define an event that happened under one set of rules and in a different age with definitions from today and different rules. Sad.