So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

[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

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.

""...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."

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.

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

[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

""...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."

[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

""...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.

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

[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

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

sonicare

[QUOTE="Blaminator1221"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And therein lies the difference...you answered your own question.LJS9502_basic

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.

[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."

[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

Let's see...

Japan attacked America unprovoked. That was terrorism.

Us nuking them, was retaliation.

Get your facts straight, kid.

[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.

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

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.

Let's see...

Japan attacked America unprovoked. That was terrorism.

Johnny_Rock

[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.

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

Let's see...

Japan attacked America unprovoked. That was terrorism.

DigitalExile

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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-

[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-

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

[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

[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

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

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

No.

/thread

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

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

LJS9502_basic

[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-

This x1000.

[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.

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.

[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-

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

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.

[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-

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.

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.