Loading The Nagasaki Bomb

[martybegan]

Yep, this plus the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, actually spelled the end for the Japanese. Way more than the atomic bombs. Hand wringing panty-waste's like to imagine the "horror" of the bombs. Japan did not surrender because of the bombs.

The Bombs were the icing on the cake, and all the revisionist history in the world cannot change that.

Murdering innocent civilians is NEVER icing on the cake. It is a war crime of the highest order. To think such a thing, is appalling.

Had Japan won the war, Truman would have been hung for his crimes...and deservedly so.

Both sides were dropping bombs on each other's cities. In the end what is the difference between a one bomber raid and a 700 bomber raid that kill the same amount of people?
You have a hard on for Truman and FDR, we get it. But it doesn't justify making crap up.

Had Japan won the war there wouldn't have BEEN war crimes trials.

 

[gipper]

The Bombs were the icing on the cake, and all the revisionist history in the world cannot change that.

Murdering innocent civilians is NEVER icing on the cake. It is a war crime of the highest order. To think such a thing, is appalling.

Had Japan won the war, Truman would have been hung for his crimes...and deservedly so.

Both sides were dropping bombs on each other's cities. In the end what is the difference between a one bomber raid and a 700 bomber raid that kill the same amount of people?
You have a hard on for Truman and FDR, we get it. But it doesn't justify making crap up.

Had Japan won the war there wouldn't have BEEN war crimes trials.

Name one American city Japan destroyed during the war.

I never claimed Japan would hold war crime trials had they won. You did.

 

[martybegan]

Murdering innocent civilians is NEVER icing on the cake. It is a war crime of the highest order. To think such a thing, is appalling.

Had Japan won the war, Truman would have been hung for his crimes...and deservedly so.

Both sides were dropping bombs on each other's cities. In the end what is the difference between a one bomber raid and a 700 bomber raid that kill the same amount of people?
You have a hard on for Truman and FDR, we get it. But it doesn't justify making crap up.

Had Japan won the war there wouldn't have BEEN war crimes trials.

Name one American city Japan destroyed during the war.

I never claimed Japan would hold war crime trials had they won. You did.

I did no such thing. Your statement is the first time it was brought up. Are you on meds?

Japan couldn't bomb american cities because they lacked the range, not the will. And ask the civillians in China how Japan played the game of war.

 

[editec]

Truman was correct to fire MacArthur. His only mistake was waiting too long. However, it would have been very difficult to get rid of him after MacArthur polished up his own halo with the incredibly sucessful Inchon campaign. He was a megalomaniac, who had long since discarded all boundaries. Being almost worshiped as a god by the Japanese for 5 years didn't help, either.

He was NO hero.


Aristo wannabe, more like.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As Marty said, Gip, we get it. You hate FDR and Truman.Now, go back to you revisiionist history fringe blogs and reload. I was alive during both of their preisdencies, and I still remember Truman's presidency. His desegragation of the armed forces alone would have made him a great preisdent. Professional historians consistently rank FDR no. 1 or 2, and Truman 7 or 8, both of which rank higher than any other president in my 69 years. While I recognize that one can always find a find blog or crank author who loves to make an name for himself by calling everybody elses assessment nothing but lies and cover ups, most of us respect their professional opinions.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gipper]

As Marty said, Gip, we get it. You hate FDR and Truman.Now, go back to you revisiionist history fringe blogs and reload. I was alive during both of their preisdencies, and I still remember Truman's presidency. His desegragation of the armed forces alone would have made him a great preisdent. Professional historians consistently rank FDR no. 1 or 2, and Truman 7 or 8, both of which rank higher than any other president in my 69 years. While I recognize that one can always find a find blog or crank author who loves to make an name for himself by calling everybody elses assessment nothing but lies and cover ups, most of us respect their professional opinions.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hate no one. But I do hate what FDR and Truman did.

Citing statist historians as proof of their greatest, is like asking a p-school teacher if socialism is a good thing.

The great historians you call cranks are some of the most intelligent and capable people alive. It is too bad you can't see that.

I thought as you do before I educated myself. I too like you, was brainwashed by a p-school education. I however overcame it. You have not.

 

[martybegan]

As Marty said, Gip, we get it. You hate FDR and Truman.Now, go back to you revisiionist history fringe blogs and reload. I was alive during both of their preisdencies, and I still remember Truman's presidency. His desegragation of the armed forces alone would have made him a great preisdent. Professional historians consistently rank FDR no. 1 or 2, and Truman 7 or 8, both of which rank higher than any other president in my 69 years. While I recognize that one can always find a find blog or crank author who loves to make an name for himself by calling everybody elses assessment nothing but lies and cover ups, most of us respect their professional opinions.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hate no one. But I do hate what FDR and Truman did.

Citing statist historians as proof of their greatest, is like asking a p-school teacher if socialism is a good thing.

The great historians you call cranks are some of the most intelligent and capable people alive. It is too bad you can't see that.

I thought as you do before I educated myself. I too like you, was brainwashed by a p-school education. I however overcame it. You have not.

I went to Catholic school, and I have read tons of WWII history outside of school for the past 30 years.

And take that "I see things you don't because you are sheep" attitude and cram it up your ass. Its your own gulibility and desire to have some asshole revisionist twat agree with you that blinds YOU to the actual truth, you know the one the rest of us agree on.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I checked out John V. Densen. He is an attorney (not a historian) practicing in Alabama (the hotbed of academic excellance!) who is a committed non interventionist. We all know how well that went in the 1930's!

 

[regent]

One of Trumans problems was that he followed FDR. For some Americans FDR was the only president they had really known and expected all presidents to be another FDR. Truman, of course was Truman he acted differently, talked differently and was his own president. Generally, the historians that are asked to rate the presidents, and few are, rate the presidents on their time in office and with all that background noise taken into account. Truman is usually rated between fifth and ninth best president. Bush may have helped raise some of the president's positions.

 

[Vandalshandle]

One of Trumans problems was that he followed FDR. For some Americans FDR was the only president they had really known and expected all presidents to be another FDR. Truman, of course was Truman he acted differently, talked differently and was his own president. Generally, the historians that are asked to rate the presidents, and few are, rate the presidents on their time in office and with all that background noise taken into account. Truman is usually rated between fifth and ninth best president. Bush may have helped raise some of the president's positions.

Good point!

In the poll I posted above Bush II is around 35. I am surprised he is that high, but as time goes by, things begin to sort themselves out. Personally, I think that Thomas Jefferson and JFK were both a little overrated. Not that they were not good presidents, but JFK, for example, was hardly able to get any of his agenda passed by congress, whereas, LBJ got anything he wanted because of his political skill. Unfortuately, he intimidated everyone around him, and only tolerated those on his team that agreed with him, which explains that bastard, McNamara, whose idea of running the Vietnam war was to calculate the cost of each VC and North Vietnamese killed, and constantly look for cheaper ways to do it. Too bad that he didn't do the same thing that he did to the two seater Thunderbird, and just stop the production. Nixon was even worse, but he at least finally figured out that the only way to get out of Vietnam was to declare victory and leave.

 

[namvet]

One of Trumans problems was that he followed FDR. For some Americans FDR was the only president they had really known and expected all presidents to be another FDR. Truman, of course was Truman he acted differently, talked differently and was his own president. Generally, the historians that are asked to rate the presidents, and few are, rate the presidents on their time in office and with all that background noise taken into account. Truman is usually rated between fifth and ninth best president. Bush may have helped raise some of the president's positions.

Good point!

In the poll I posted above Bush II is around 35. I am surprised he is that high, but as time goes by, things begin to sort themselves out. Personally, I think that Thomas Jefferson and JFK were both a little overrated. Not that they were not good presidents, but JFK, for example, was hardly able to get any of his agenda passed by congress, whereas, LBJ got anything he wanted because of his political skill. Unfortuately, he intimidated everyone around him, and only tolerated those on his team that agreed with him, which explains that bastard, McNamara, whose idea of running the Vietnam war was to calculate the cost of each VC and North Vietnamese killed, and constantly look for cheaper ways to do it. Too bad that he didn't do the same thing that he did to the two seater Thunderbird, and just stop the production. Nixon was even worse, but he at least finally figured out that the only way to get out of Vietnam was to declare victory and leave.

yeah McNamara ran it. he told LBJ when to jump and how high.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan couldn't bomb american cities because they lacked the range, not the will. And ask the civillians [sic] in China how Japan played the game of war.

No country "played the game of war" very nicely during that war.


An interesting question: Which is less likely to happen again, that a major power would use it's most powerful weapon in war or that a major power would wage total war like that seen in WWII?

At the level below 'major power' status the likelihood becomes much greater. Is it naive to think that acquiring the most powerful weapon by itself puts a nation into 'major power' status such that it imparts a certain degree of restraint (if such restraint actually exists among the major powers)?

 

[Unkotare]

One of Trumans problems was that he followed FDR. For some Americans FDR was the only president they had really known and expected all presidents to be another FDR. ...

Thank goodness they haven't been, or we'd have no country left at all by now.

 

[regent]

Truman was correct to fire MacArthur. His only mistake was waiting too long. However, it would have been very difficult to get rid of him after MacArthur polished up his own halo with the incredibly sucessful Inchon campaign. He was a megalomaniac, who had long since discarded all boundaries. Being almost worshiped as a god by the Japanese for 5 years didn't help, either.

FDR, my hero, made a terrible error in bringing MacArthur out of Bataan. There was a dearth of heros at the time and MacArthur was used to boost morale. After bloody Buna MacArthur did try and avoid some hot spot in New Guinea with his leap frog approach. Mac, however, may have been the right man for the Japanese occupation.
Finally, we should thank Republicans for not running MacArthur for president in 1952.

FDR is your hero because statist historians told you to think that way...right?

FDR was a terrible fool. He was primarily responsible for the war crimes committed by American forces during WWII, enslaving half of Europe to communism, empowering the USSR, and so much more.

He is by far the worst president in our history.

FDR is my hero because I lived through that period of history, and the historians simply agreeing with me, smart cookies. I wonder if the 238 noted American historians were aware of your charges against FDR, maybe letting them in on your history would help?
Incidently the people that lived with me through that period also agreed with me on FDR's greatness and elected him four times. That's four times.
As soon as Republicans were able, they got an amendment passed cementing FDR's record in the history books for a long time, if not forever. Then again maybe Republicans knew they could never get a Republican elected more than twice? In any case, thanks Republicans.
The framers had discussed the length and terms of the executive at some length and decided to place no limits on the number of terms, but Republicans in their antiFDR zeal did.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR is my hero because I lived through that period of history...

Really? How old were you during The Great Depression and WWII?

 

[regent]

FDR is my hero because I lived through that period of history...

Really? How old were you during The Great Depression and WWII?

Well different ages during the two periods. I can average it out for you if that would help?

 

[Unkotare]

FDR is my hero because I lived through that period of history...

Really? How old were you during The Great Depression and WWII?

Well different ages during the two periods. I can average it out for you if that would help?

How old in 1945 will do.

 

[Unkotare]

Mushroom cloud rising over open ocean with just fish being killed will have the exact same result vaporizing a city will insofar as the panic that'd ensue. ...

No it wouldn't. That's ridiculous.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan NEVER offered to surrender. ..

The war was quickly coming to an end for Japan one way or another. Of course they wanted to surrender on the most favorable possible terms ('sue for peace,' 'negotiate an end to the war,' whatever you want to call it). Unconditional surrender were the terms the US wanted, but not the only ones we had to accept. The bomb was - it turns out - the quickest way to end the war, though with shocking civilian casualties and dire moral consequences. A mass invasion of Honshu would have taken longer but would also have ended the war. A naval blockade and continued conventional bombing would have taken still longer but would also have resulted in an end to the war. Some people like to say "they would never have surrendered, NEVER!" as a way of avoiding the moral implications and long-term consequences of using the bomb, but the war was ending for Japan one way or another. They simply could not sustain the ability to wage war much longer. Their military was depleted, defeated, and decimated. The populace on the home islands was starving (to death) and more than disaffected at that point. It was coming to an end one way or another. The American public wanted the war over as soon as possible. The Russians were already set to gobble up as much real estate as they could (and visit who knows what 'retribution' for their humiliation in the Russo-Japanese war of years prior) the longer things dragged on. So, choices were made and results ensued, but those who would fall back on "we had no choice!" are being disingenuous.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan was just lucky it wasn't wiped off the face of the earth...for all the horrors it did in WW2.

There's still time but it may be China wot does it.

Unlikely.