- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,356
- 24,253
- 2,180
.MacArthur informed the bloodthirsty scumbag that overtures to surrender had been sent out prior to his leaving for Yalta.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
.MacArthur informed the bloodthirsty scumbag that overtures to surrender had been sent out prior to his leaving for Yalta.
.The bloodthirsty fdr rejected the notion out of hand, thus strengthening the position of the hardliners in the Japanese government and undermining those who were considering offering the same terms of surrender that we eventually accepted anyway AFTER incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians, and AFTER the terrible loss of US servicemen at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other battles that might need not ever happened.
.Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.
It is in the nature of conservatives to support the good guys.It is surprising to see some conservatives cheering Truman's needless, barbaric nuking of anti-communist Japan.
In that case, we didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Japan did not "mess with America."
Most people do not agree with your position that support for genocide is reasonable.FDR refused Japan's reasonable peace offers
Japan got their comeuppance when they provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.and provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor so he could enter WW II and save his beloved Soviet Union.
Yes there was. Japan was still refusing to surrender.There was absolutely no need to nuke Japan.
Truman knew that Japan was still refusing to surrender, and he didn't know what it would take to make them surrender.Japan was prostrate, starving, and was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack.. Truman knew that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, wanted to end the war and were willing to surrender on very reasonable terms.
Do you think MacArthur did the right thing when he encouraged fdr to investigate overtures to surrender prior to Yalta?
Overtures to surrender had been floated via the Russians and through Swiss envoys, but the bloodthirsty fdr rejected the notion out of hand.
Tell that to MacArthur. He wrote fdr a 47 page letter about it. fdr threw the letter in the garbage (much the same way he considered the Constitution and the lives of US servicemen).
If fdr had any interest in peace, the war might have ended BEFORE Okinawa.
MacArthur informed the bloodthirsty scumbag that overtures to surrender had been sent out prior to his leaving for Yalta.
The bloodthirsty fdr rejected the notion out of hand, thus strengthening the position of the hardliners in the Japanese government and undermining those who were considering offering the same terms of surrender that we eventually accepted anyway AFTER incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians, and AFTER the terrible loss of US servicemen at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other battles that might need not ever happened.
Fake news. Never happened.Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.
This article still contains a number of blatant falsehoods. Repeating it didn't change anything.Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.www.lawfareblog.com
There were official estimates that invading Japan could result in a million American deaths, plus millions more Americans maimed and gravely wounded.The Hopkins claim was the most recent inflation of estimates building on what Rufus Miles called the “myth of half a million American lives saved.” Secretary of War Henry Stimson originally claimed in his famous 1947 Harper’s article that an invasion was expected to produce “over a million American casualties [wounded and killed] to American forces alone” (emphasis added). Winston Churchill, in his memoirs, claimed instead that the invasion would have produced one million American fatalities and an additional 500,000 thousand allied fatalities. But the serious historians studying this issue come to a different conclusion, finding that the range of estimates of U.S. deaths in the 1945 military records was significantly lower than the mythical half a million figure.
Another lie. About 15% of the dead at Hiroshima were Japanese soldiers.Although Hiroshima contained some military-related industrial facilities—an army headquarters and troop-loading docks—the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel.
Truman had no ability to try it earlier, since Japan was not willing to try it before August 10.As is true with all counterfactuals, we can’t know with certainty whether the Japanese government would have surrendered without the dropping of the bomb if this compromise had been offered when Stimson suggested. Among the many tragedies of Hiroshima, however, is that Truman refused to try this diplomatic maneuver earlier.
All sorts of lies here. The US didn't intentionally attack civilians. The identified military targets in Hiroshima were highly significant and far from modest.The international law of armed conflict has evolved considerably since 1945, and an attack like that against Hiroshima would be illegal today. It would violate three requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: to not intentionally attack civilians (the principle of distinction); to ensure that incidental damage against civilians is not excessive compared to the direct military advantage gained from an attack against a lawful target (the principle of proportionality), especially where, as here, the value of the identified military targets in Hiroshima was modest; and to take all feasible precautions to minimize collateral damage against civilians (the precautionary principle).
Truman didn't demand unconditional surrender. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of surrender terms.Because it would have entailed the awful human costs of an invasion, Truman’s demand for Japan’s unconditional surrender to end the war was indefensible. Seeking to avoid the larger losses that would flow from an unjust demand for unconditional surrender cannot justify the Hiroshima attack.
Nuke em allNon-Japanese Asian civilians were dying at a rate of at least 100,000 a month under the tender mercies of Japanese occupation.
Invasion was necessary until Japan surrendered. They did not surrender until after the second atomic bomb had been dropped.
That was way too long of a wait. We should have recast the uranium from Little Boy into a bunch of composite implosion cores back in the early summer.
Then we should have nuked at least two targets every day, starting with Kyoto, then moving on to Hiroshima, then Kokura Arsenal, then Yokohama (which should have been saved for the atomic bombs), then Niigata, then the Nagasaki shipyards, then Yokosuka Arsenal.
Nuke em all
Ask questions later
... About 15% of the dead at Hiroshima were Japanese soldiers.
...
And what does that mean, Captain Math?
It means that the article lied about the figures in order to unjustly demonize the US.And what does that mean, Captain Math?
Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.Unkotare seems to be under the impression that if the U.S. tries to kill the enemy during wartime that it is a crime.
.Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.
Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.
We didn’t need to occupy Japan.
I have never seen a report of Japanese slaughtering civilians in 1945
.Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.
Gen. MacArthur disagrees with you. The terms that he informed fdr about turned out to be the very same as the ones we eventually accepted anyway.
.Did I say that? Show me where I said that, you lying sack of shit.