- Banned
- #2,361
They pretty well fucked themselves by playing hard ball.
They thought they were sacrificing for the stupid Emperor but in fact they were setting themselves up to be firebombed and nuked. Stupid sonofabitches.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima
- Thread starter mikegriffith1
- Start date
They pretty well fucked themselves by playing hard ball.
They thought they were sacrificing for the stupid Emperor but in fact they were setting themselves up to be firebombed and nuked. Stupid sonofabitches.
Silver Cat
Gold Member
And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.The Japs would have fought to the end .Why?NoCan you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
But the bombs had to fall
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
Here’s more...but the dumb American is incapable of learning or accepting that his nation’s leader committed one of the worst war crimes in world history.One of us did.LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?Your reading skills are weak, old man.Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
Today's Gospel-shorthand tells us it was the A-Bomb, and only the A-Bomb, that forced Japan to surrender, but that is not at all what many leading military and political lights of the day believed.
The following quotations come from Herbert Hoover's history of WWII, Freedom Betrayed:
On August 19, 1945, the AP reported:
Secretary of State ... Byrnes challenged today Japan's argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war.
He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Foreign Commissar Vyacheslaff M. Molotoff informed the Americans and British at the Berlin [Potsdam] Conference, Mr, Byrnes said, that the Japanese had asked to send a delegation to Moscow to seek Russian mediation for the end of the war -- an act that Mr. Byrnes said interpreted as proof of the enemy's recognition of defeat.
On September 20, 1945, Major General Curtis LeMay, who directed the air attacks on Japan, stated to the Associated Press:
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war ... The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians coming in and without the atomic bomb.
Hoover adds: "There were present at this interview two American Generals who were engaged in action against Japan -- General Barney Giles and Brigadier General Emmett O'Donnell -- both of whom agreed with General LeMay."
On October 5, 1945, Admiral Chester Nimitz told the Associated Press "he was convinced that the end of the war would have been the same without the atomic bomb or the entry of the Russians into the war:" On the same day Nimitz told Congress:
The atomic bomb did not end the war against Japan. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. ...
Hoover quotes the memoirs of White House chief of staff Admiral Leahy, who wrote:
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
It was my reaction that the scientists and others want to make this test because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project ...
Here is one final quotation from Admiral Zacharias from How the Far East Was Lost by historian Anthony Kubeck. In a 1950 Look magazine article called "How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender," Zacharias wrote:
The Potsdam declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed and insure our postwar strategic position. Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. ... I contend that the A-bombing of Japan is now known to have been a mistake ... It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. ...
I could go on, but I think the cracks in the consensus are clear. Bomb-love is blind to the historical record.
The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Was the A-Bomb the Only Way to Get the Japanese to Surrender?
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
DupeAnd what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.The Japs would have fought to the end .Why?NoCan you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
But the bombs had to fall
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
...the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
...the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima
My only regret is that we didn't drop 4-5 nukes on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Pound them back to the stone age for what they did to us!
^^^LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?Your reading skills are weak, old man.Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
Two enormous dumb fucks.
The political elite implicated in the atomic bombings feared a backlash that would aid and abet the rebirth of horrid prewar "isolationism." Apologias were rushed into print, lest public disgust at the sickening war crime result in erosion of enthusiasm for the globalist project.98 No need to worry. A sea-change had taken place in the attitudes of the American people. Then and ever after, all surveys have shown that the great majority supported Truman, believing that the bombs were required to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, or more likely, not really caring one way or the other.
The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
I’ve posted this great column by the great Ralph Raico Ph.D multiple times on this message board over the years, but the ignorant American statist never learns.
The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another obvious truth:
If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.109
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.
The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another obvious truth:
If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.109
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.
Silver Cat
Gold Member
Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:DupeAnd what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.The Japs would have fought to the end .Why?NoCan you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
But the bombs had to fall
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
2) Nuclear attack;
3) Russia's entry into the war.
If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
Silver Cat
Gold Member
It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
...the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
Read the column, but please don’t get back to me.It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
...the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,235
- 24,223
- 2,180
If nothing else the Jap[anese] deserved to be nuked for what they did to Allied POWs.
Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of the day indicating that the use of atomic weapons against civilians was an act of revenge?
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,235
- 24,223
- 2,180
"[W]ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" sounds like an argument.It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
...the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
Of course he’s correct, but the dumb American statist is incapable of thinking on his own. The state tells him what to think and he’s happy with that."[W]ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" sounds like an argument.It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
...the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:DupeAnd what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.The Japs would have fought to the end .Why?NoCan you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
But the bombs had to fall
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
2) Nuclear attack;
3) Russia's entry into the war.
If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:DupeAnd what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.The Japs would have fought to the end .Why?NoCan you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
But the bombs had to fall
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
2) Nuclear attack;
3) Russia's entry into the war.
If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:DupeAnd what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.The Japs would have fought to the end .Why?NoCan you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
But the bombs had to fall
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
2) Nuclear attack;
3) Russia's entry into the war.
If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
Offering a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no consequences to Japan is not an offer to surrender.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 65,299
- 34,604
- 2,605
Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:DupeAnd what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.The Japs would have fought to the end .Why?NoCan you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
But the bombs had to fall
Millions would die in the coming US land invasion
It had to be done
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
2) Nuclear attack;
3) Russia's entry into the war.
If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
Offering a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no consequences to Japan is not an offer to surrender.
Of course, you’re wrong. If you could open your closed statist mind, you’d comprehend the truth.
- Banned
- #2,379
Here’s more...but the dumb American is incapable of learning or accepting that his nation’s leader committed one of the worst war crimes in world history.One of us did.LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?Your reading skills are weak, old man.Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
Today's Gospel-shorthand tells us it was the A-Bomb, and only the A-Bomb, that forced Japan to surrender, but that is not at all what many leading military and political lights of the day believed.
The following quotations come from Herbert Hoover's history of WWII, Freedom Betrayed:
On August 19, 1945, the AP reported:
Secretary of State ... Byrnes challenged today Japan's argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war.
He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Foreign Commissar Vyacheslaff M. Molotoff informed the Americans and British at the Berlin [Potsdam] Conference, Mr, Byrnes said, that the Japanese had asked to send a delegation to Moscow to seek Russian mediation for the end of the war -- an act that Mr. Byrnes said interpreted as proof of the enemy's recognition of defeat.
On September 20, 1945, Major General Curtis LeMay, who directed the air attacks on Japan, stated to the Associated Press:
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war ... The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians coming in and without the atomic bomb.
Hoover adds: "There were present at this interview two American Generals who were engaged in action against Japan -- General Barney Giles and Brigadier General Emmett O'Donnell -- both of whom agreed with General LeMay."
On October 5, 1945, Admiral Chester Nimitz told the Associated Press "he was convinced that the end of the war would have been the same without the atomic bomb or the entry of the Russians into the war:" On the same day Nimitz told Congress:
The atomic bomb did not end the war against Japan. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. ...
Hoover quotes the memoirs of White House chief of staff Admiral Leahy, who wrote:
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
It was my reaction that the scientists and others want to make this test because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project ...
Here is one final quotation from Admiral Zacharias from How the Far East Was Lost by historian Anthony Kubeck. In a 1950 Look magazine article called "How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender," Zacharias wrote:
The Potsdam declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed and insure our postwar strategic position. Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. ... I contend that the A-bombing of Japan is now known to have been a mistake ... It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. ...
I could go on, but I think the cracks in the consensus are clear. Bomb-love is blind to the historical record.
The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Was the A-Bomb the Only Way to Get the Japanese to Surrender?
Silver Cat
Gold Member
It is the stupid "argument". There were plenty of wars, won by destroying women and children."[W]ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" sounds like an argument.It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
...the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 274
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 116
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 71
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 222
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 14
- Replies
- 169
- Views
- 684
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8069
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-