gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 72,951
- 39,569
- 2,605
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima
- Thread starter mikegriffith1
- Start date
mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
- Thread starter
- #1,202
So now we're back to your refusal to admit when you're wrong. Isn't it odd that everyone else who has read Hasegawa's book has been able to easily see that his main point is that without the Soviet invasion the hardliners would not have agreed to surrender for at least several months? You're the only one who has read and commented on the book who can't grasp, or who won't admit, that this is his central argument. I think Hasegawa makes this point as clear as language can make something--I quote from his book:
Without the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardment, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so. (p. 298)
How much more plainly do you need him to state this point before you will admit it? Everyone else who reads that statement will conclude that he is saying that if the Soviets had not invaded, the Japanese would have kept fighting until we dropped "numerous" more nukes, or until we invaded the home islands, or until our conventional bombing and our naval blockade made further resistance impossible.
My point all along has been that the nukes did not cause the hardliners to agree to surrender but that the Soviet invasion did. You are a master at missing, or more likely pretending to miss, clear points.
The problem is that you simply will not admit when you're caught in error. Any honest, rational person who reads Eisenhower's 1948 account and his 1963 account will readily see that in both accounts he clearly expressed opposition to nuking Japan, and that the only difference between the accounts is that the later one, understandably enough, reveals more information about his statements to Stimson and Stimson's reaction to them. And I would again point out that Ike's 1963 account is supported by his son, by his biographer, by his 1955 letter to William Pawley, and by Gen. Bradley's account of the Stimson meeting.
Oh, yes, you reply, but in many cases you seem unable--or unwilling--to grasp the meaning of plain English. Your ducking and dodging over Hasegawa's book is a prime example of this. Yes, you reply, but most of the time you fail to address the evidence I present. You dismiss evidence but fail to address the evidence--dismissing evidence you don't like is not the same as refuting it.
For example, are you ever going to address the mountain of evidence that nobody in the War Department believed that we would lose 500,000 men if we invaded Japan and that this estimate was recognized as erroneous and baseless? Even the War Department's experts on the subject, the S&P staff officers, stated in an official memorandum that the estimate was "entirely too high" (Waldo Heinrichs and Marc Gallicchio, Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, pp. 567-568).
I'm guessing you don't know that the 500K estimate originated with Herbert Hoover. Ironically, Hoover gave that wild estimate in the hope that it would discourage an invasion and would cause Truman to give the Japanese milder surrender terms. Hoover rightly believed that FDR had needlessly and treasonously provoked Japan to attack us in order to protect the Soviet Union and to enable him to drag America into the war. Hoover opposed the demand for unconditional surrender and argued that the Japanese would surrender if we would modify our surrender terms. So he tried to dissuade Truman from approving an invasion of Japan by telling him that we would lose 500,000 to 1 million soldiers if we invaded.
Last edited:
elektra
Diamond Member
Ha, ha, ha,the charalatan is back, ignoring all my replies, with a new long rant. Hasegawa's book. I see you ignored my posts in which I used the portions of the book you quoted from the internet.
When will you reply to those posts. One post you make it clear, that the japanese would have not surrendered simply because the soviet union declared war!
I have not forgotten. My last post addressed your OP's opening comment. I used quotes from you to show how sloppy and I'll conceived your opinion is.
Using Bundy as credible, then destroying the credibility of the man we were suppose to believe?
Yes, we all see that you ignored your incompetence.
I am far from done with your subpar work on this topic.
elektra
Diamond Member
I addressed that a long time ago and you ignored the post. If course, we see how inept your research is hence it is more than likely you humble through this thread in the same manner you research your opinion hence there is much you fail to see even though it is right in front of your eyes.
You made the claim the estimates were wrong without quoting and linking or referencing any of the estimates. It is up to you to provide evidence that you are not a filthy liar.
A mountain of evidence. Well, start with a quote/reference. Here is your chance to shine. Offer your opinion on a named study or estimate you believe is wrong.
A long list of revisionist charalatan writers is hardly evidence when the studies themselves are easily found.
So go ahead and quote and quit with the endless heresy.
/——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 72,951
- 39,569
- 2,605
LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
Last edited:
candycorn
Diamond Member
It stopped the japs so thanks. It was a good job
candycorn
Diamond Member
All they had to do was surrender. Which they didn’t do until we rightfully forced their hand
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,460
- 28,277
- 2,180
/——/ Read The Rape of Nanking and get back to us with your snowflake solution to stop brutal regimes. The library will have a copy if you don’t have the coin to buy it. https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking-Forgotten-Holocaust-World/dp/0465068367/?tag=usmb-20
a shame...... it's probably been one of the most eye opening threads i've read on this soul suckin' device
butcha know....some folks.....
~S~
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 72,951
- 39,569
- 2,605
So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies. I don't. How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 72,951
- 39,569
- 2,605
You are not informed. They tried several times to surrender. All they asked is don't murder our emperor. Dirty Harry Truman said fuck you and die you yellow slanty eyed MFers. Then after he mass murdered 200,000 defenseless women and children, he said okay you can keep your emperor.
elektra
Diamond Member
Defenseless? They had air defences. The had guns to shoot down planes. They also had Japanese aces and zeros to use in the defense of all the cities in Japan. Further the Japanese were warned. Total destruction if the do not surrender. So yes, air defences from ground batteries. Pilots still able to attack. Did you know much of the population of Hiroshima was evacuated prior to Hiroshima? All facts that I am teaching you. And that is women and children, left in the city because they worked in the industry that built guns bombs war supplies. Yes, that is right, the city was largely evacuated and left behind, those needed to keep the japanese war machine running.
elektra
Diamond Member
In your dreams, they tried to surrender. Even mikegriffter1 has proved they never tried to surrender let alone, send out, "peace feelers".
You can say what you like but you can never ever come close to proving it. You can try, but everyone else who tried had thier comments nuked!
/——/ Even if they sent out feelers for a cease fire ( not surrender) these were the same ones who bombed Pearl Harbor while their Diplomats were negotiating for peace. No one trusted the dirty Japs.
/—-/ The Japs his their military bases throughout crowded cities. It was the only way to hit them and break their military. Remember the Jap houses were made of wood and paper. One bomb would light up an entire neighborhood.
/—-/ Maybe you think we should humanly capture the enemy and release them in a preserve like when you trap a squirrel in your attic.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 72,951
- 39,569
- 2,605
I don’t believe murdering thousands of innocent women and children is ever justified, but you do.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 72,951
- 39,569
- 2,605
They sent out multiple peace feelers. This is well known. Yes the military didn’t, but Japanese government officials did.
At any rate, mass murdering defenseless women and children can never be justified, except by stupid brainwashed statist Americans.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
BLM and radical feminist ideology a threat to the west - Young black men are more likely to be single and lonely than any other group in America- Started by Andrew_Jackson_FTW
- Replies: 1
-
Gallego campaigns in Pennsylvania- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 0
-
Elon Musk - 100,000 active federal employees also collect unemployment insurance!!!
- Started by StatesRightsForever
- Replies: 3
