Q
Quizlnix
Guest
It is a sin against man and God.
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pnewton
Guest
If we are to stick strictly to the facts, then this is not true. We know they **said **they were trying to negotiate a surrender. We know that they had made contacts in order to send a message of negotiating a surrender. Were they were trying to really surrender or stall for time in order to prepare for a fresh offensive and counter-strike? These people were duplicitous from the start. There was no basis for the American military to believe for a second that these efforts were genuine. Rather their track record left every reason to doubt their words until they were willing to back their words with action. A unilateral cease fire would have shown a genuine interest in surrender.The facts are plain: we knew Japan was trying to negotiate surrender
S
sandomenico
Guest
What we inferred (or what we believe others inferred) from Japanese surrender communications, is not objective, but subjective. But if that were factual evidence, then it would mean we delayed the end of the war and caused far more casualties because of how we felt about the matter.
The simple fact is: once the emperor got involved (after the Nagasaki bombing) the war ended. All it took was Hirohito’s word and that was it. What more did we need to do than talk terms with him, and agree to leave him in place, as we did anyway. Our refusal to discuss things led to more bloodshed than was necessary.
Note that, after U.S. troops landed in Japan, this heavily militarized people, the die-hards who were never supposed to surrender, the people we expected would fight to last man, woman and child, rolled over and accepted our occupation peacefully.
God love you,
sandomenico
The simple fact is: once the emperor got involved (after the Nagasaki bombing) the war ended. All it took was Hirohito’s word and that was it. What more did we need to do than talk terms with him, and agree to leave him in place, as we did anyway. Our refusal to discuss things led to more bloodshed than was necessary.
Note that, after U.S. troops landed in Japan, this heavily militarized people, the die-hards who were never supposed to surrender, the people we expected would fight to last man, woman and child, rolled over and accepted our occupation peacefully.
God love you,
sandomenico
P
pnewton
Guest
That is what the emperor wanted. Dying for the emperor, or accepting surrender for him was a religious obligation.Note that, after U.S. troops landed in Japan, this heavily militarized people, the die-hards who were never supposed to surrender, the people we expected would fight to last man, woman and child, rolled over and accepted our occupation peacefully.
God love you,
sandomenico
R
Redratfish
Guest
Didn’t Japan say it wouldn’t attack at Pearl Harbor too? And didn’t the attack happen while negotiations were going on? They can say they were all they want, but personally I don’t care. Hindsight is 20/20, and this is a perfect case of thatWhat we inferred (or what we believe others inferred) from Japanese surrender communications, is not objective, but subjective. But if that were factual evidence, then it would mean we delayed the end of the war and caused far more casualties because of how we felt about the matter.
The simple fact is: once the emperor got involved (after the Nagasaki bombing) the war ended. All it took was Hirohito’s word and that was it. What more did we need to do than talk terms with him, and agree to leave him in place, as we did anyway. Our refusal to discuss things led to more bloodshed than was necessary.
Note that, after U.S. troops landed in Japan, this heavily militarized people, the die-hards who were never supposed to surrender, the people we expected would fight to last man, woman and child, rolled over and accepted our occupation peacefully.
God love you,
sandomenico
S
sandomenico
Guest
If Hirohito wanted everyone to die for him to fulfill their religious obligation, why did he do precisely the opposite of what everyone expected (and the Japanese militarists wanted) and end the war?
And no, Japan never said it wouldn’t attack Pearl Harbor. They just never told us they were going to.
God bless,
sandomenico
And no, Japan never said it wouldn’t attack Pearl Harbor. They just never told us they were going to.
God bless,
sandomenico
Perhaps because he knew that in the end, it did no good for him to lead a dead country.If Hirohito wanted everyone to die for him to fulfill their religious obligation, why did he do precisely the opposite of what everyone expected (and the Japanese militarists wanted) and end the war?
Nope, the attack was unprovoked but it was not during negotiations.Didn’t Japan say it wouldn’t attack at Pearl Harbor too? And didn’t the attack happen while negotiations were going on? They can say they were all they want, but personally I don’t care. Hindsight is 20/20, and this is a perfect case of that
They tried to declare war formally first, but there was some kind of timing issue and the attack ended up happening a few hours before the declaration of war.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, they did not say they would attack. But they did attack while negotiating trade. It is reasonable to suspect them of using other negotiations to hide other offensive initiatives.And no, Japan never said it wouldn’t attack Pearl Harbor. They just never told us they were going to.
God bless,
sandomenico
Given the duplicity demonstrated by Japan at the time, I am surprised a surrender was accepted at all.No, they did not say they would attack. But they did attack while negotiating trade. It is reasonable to suspect them of using other negotiations to hide other offensive initiatives.
M
Milk_And_Honey
Guest
I have a thread on a related topic. Pacifism and the East
It is discussing an article by a Melkite priest who runs The Program for the Study and Practice of Nonviolent Conflict Resolution at the University of Notre Dame. He interviewed a Catholic military chaplain who was stationed with the 509th Composite Group on Tinian Island. The 509th was the Atomic Bomb Group. That priest became a pacifist after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
If anyone has information about the relationship of pacifism and eastern Christian theology, please post to my thread. I’d like to learn more.
It is discussing an article by a Melkite priest who runs The Program for the Study and Practice of Nonviolent Conflict Resolution at the University of Notre Dame. He interviewed a Catholic military chaplain who was stationed with the 509th Composite Group on Tinian Island. The 509th was the Atomic Bomb Group. That priest became a pacifist after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
If anyone has information about the relationship of pacifism and eastern Christian theology, please post to my thread. I’d like to learn more.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The Rockwell / Denson essay is highly incomplete.I’ve made my points about the morality of the bombing much earlier in this thread. But I read a recent article written in anticipation of the anniversary of the bombings. The article shows how the military was against the bombing and that it was a purely political decision. Some of the quotes are amazing in showing how people in command actually called it immoral. A cover story was necessary so one was invented that said it saved American lives.
The Hiroshima Myth
May God have mercy on our country.
It portrays Einstein as being against the bomb, when it was Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt that created the bomb project in the first place … without that letter, Roosevelt most likely would not have moved forward.
The scientists had no problem dropping the bomb on Germany, but when Germany unconditionally surrendered, then the focus shifted to Japan where the war was not going well … for many months, the lands on the islands in the Pacific from Tarawa on, turned out to be bloody messes with only a handful of Japanese soldiers surrendering. And it got worse and worse and worse.
Further, the essay totally overlooks the brutal infighting between McArthur and his miserable campaign through the Philippines and the Navy’s island hopping campaign which was even more miserable. We were encountering huge casualties.
And then in the middle of it all, we have Potsdam and Yalta which were dominated by Soviet proxies … read the Venona papers. Just google “Venona” and also read up on Venona on Amazon.
No, sorry, it was a horrible world war that took the lives of at least a hundred million people with the only clear victor being the Soviet Union and its Communist ideology.
B
Blacksword
Guest
It did not. Japan had been ready, willing, and trying to surrender well before the bombing. This is a sad myth. It is stunning the difference between the objective reality of what America is and has done over it’s history, and what we tell ourselves about what America is and has been. Simply stunning.Truman was a Democrat and a Southern Baptist . Harry will have to answer for his decision.
I agree with his decision because the end result saved many lives.
G
GKC
Guest
I think I’m finished until next year.The Rockwell / Denson essay is highly incomplete.
It portrays Einstein as being against the bomb, when it was Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt that created the bomb project in the first place … without that letter, Roosevelt most likely would not have moved forward.
The scientists had no problem dropping the bomb on Germany, but when Germany unconditionally surrendered, then the focus shifted to Japan where the war was not going well … for many months, the lands on the islands in the Pacific from Tarawa on, turned out to be bloody messes with only a handful of Japanese soldiers surrendering. And it got worse and worse and worse.
Further, the essay totally overlooks the brutal infighting between McArthur and his miserable campaign through the Philippines and the Navy’s island hopping campaign which was even more miserable. We were encountering huge casualties.
And then in the middle of it all, we have Potsdam and Yalta which were dominated by Soviet proxies … read the Venona papers. Just google “Venona” and also read up on Venona on Amazon.
No, sorry, it was a horrible world war that took the lives of at least a hundred million people with the only clear victor being the Soviet Union and its Communist ideology.
GKC
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
All Japan had to do was to stand down.It did not. Japan had been ready, willing, and trying to surrender well before the bombing. This is a sad myth. It is stunning the difference between the objective reality of what America is and has done over it’s history, and what we tell ourselves about what America is and has been. Simply stunning.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
As a returned, practicing Catholic, I am truely sorry to see the results of the poll. It shows me that there is a huge mass of people out there who do not know their history, or who have been taught politically slanted dis-information instead of factual history.
FWIW, there was a 2 hour rerun of the factual history of the last year of the Pacific campaign of WWII on the History International channel today that covered all of the negotiations…Even after Russia began combat operations in Japanese controlled Manchuria, and the second A Bomb was dropped, a Coup attempt against the Emperor was made by senior army officers to prevent him from ordering his people to surrender!
As for the bombs use on cities, All Japanese cities were part of the war machine, with a huge part of military war production being done in private homes.
As for trusting the Japanese…Pearl Harbor was not the first time they attacked without a declaration of war. They did the same thing at Port Arthur which was the major Russian naval port in the Far East in February of 1904.
You might also want to talk to any Fillipino about what was done to their country during the War!
It is very easy to be sanctimonious against the use of Atomic weapons to end the war, but I doubt seriously any of you have served in the military during war, or had any relatives who were there in WWII, as such, you are basing your opinions on emotion, not fact.
FWIW, there was a 2 hour rerun of the factual history of the last year of the Pacific campaign of WWII on the History International channel today that covered all of the negotiations…Even after Russia began combat operations in Japanese controlled Manchuria, and the second A Bomb was dropped, a Coup attempt against the Emperor was made by senior army officers to prevent him from ordering his people to surrender!
As for the bombs use on cities, All Japanese cities were part of the war machine, with a huge part of military war production being done in private homes.
As for trusting the Japanese…Pearl Harbor was not the first time they attacked without a declaration of war. They did the same thing at Port Arthur which was the major Russian naval port in the Far East in February of 1904.
You might also want to talk to any Fillipino about what was done to their country during the War!
It is very easy to be sanctimonious against the use of Atomic weapons to end the war, but I doubt seriously any of you have served in the military during war, or had any relatives who were there in WWII, as such, you are basing your opinions on emotion, not fact.
X
xxxSKGBxxx
Guest
I think that ish was great. KILLEM ALL AND LET GOD SORTEM OUT. just kidding, god doesn’t want any japs in his beautiful white kingdom
G
GKC
Guest
As to the historical facts of the situation, I agree with you. I own the relevant books of all the scholars interviewed on that show. Richard Frank’s DOWNFALL is essential to an understanding of what actually happened. I recommend the show, even though it was “balanced” by the dean of revisionism, Gar Alperovitz.As a returned, practicing Catholic, I am truely sorry to see the results of the poll. It shows me that there is a huge mass of people out there who do not know their history, or who have been taught politically slanted dis-information instead of factual history.
FWIW, there was a 2 hour rerun of the factual history of the last year of the Pacific campaign of WWII on the History International channel today that covered all of the negotiations…Even after Russia began combat operations in Japanese controlled Manchuria, and the second A Bomb was dropped, a Coup attempt against the Emperor was made by senior army officers to prevent him from ordering his people to surrender!
As for the bombs use on cities, All Japanese cities were part of the war machine, with a huge part of military war production being done in private homes.
As for trusting the Japanese…Pearl Harbor was not the first time they attacked without a declaration of war. They did the same thing at Port Arthur which was the major Russian naval port in the Far East in February of 1904.
You might also want to talk to any Fillipino about what was done to their country during the War!
It is very easy to be sanctimonious against the use of Atomic weapons to end the war, but I doubt seriously any of you have served in the military during war, or had any relatives who were there in WWII, as such, you are basing your opinions on emotion, not fact.
GKC
Please provide the documentation to this.It did not. Japan had been ready, willing, and trying to surrender well before the bombing. This is a sad myth. It is stunning the difference between the objective reality of what America is and has done over it’s history, and what we tell ourselves about what America is and has been. Simply stunning.
I hear this many times, but unless I know which exactly you are speaking of it is difficult to respond properly.
S
sandomenico
Guest
I recall the History Channel also told us that the Crusades were run by greedy knights only seeking to quench their lust for power and gold, and that the Conquistadors were among the first cultural genocide artists. Popular media is hardly the place to find complete and unbiased factuality. Everybody writes history with a tilt, or an axe to grind. Even here.FWIW, there was a 2 hour rerun of the factual history of the last year of the Pacific campaign of WWII on the History International channel today that covered all of the negotiations…Even after Russia began combat operations in Japanese controlled Manchuria, and the second A Bomb was dropped, a Coup attempt against the Emperor was made by senior army officers to prevent him from ordering his people to surrender!
As for the bombs use on cities, All Japanese cities were part of the war machine, with a huge part of military war production being done in private homes.
As for trusting the Japanese…Pearl Harbor was not the first time they attacked without a declaration of war. They did the same thing at Port Arthur which was the major Russian naval port in the Far East in February of 1904.
It is very easy to be sanctimonious against the use of Atomic weapons to end the war, but I doubt seriously any of you have served in the military during war, or had any relatives who were there in WWII, as such, you are basing your opinions on emotion, not fact.
Isn’t it the case, the more removed one is from a situation, the better he is able to look at it objectively? Emotions cloud facts, as you said; but they don’t obscure them, as a rule (otherwise, no history could every be written). Wouldn’t the strong ties of family or friends clutter the historical skyline with more emotion? The subject tends to jump from historical inquiry to defense of family veracity, doesn’t it? Aren’t eyewitnesses also clouded with human emotions, more so than the people they may tell the story to? How many historians tear up telling the story of an eyewitness who breaks down every time he thinks of his story?
How huge a part of honest-to-goodness war production (i.e. tanks, guns, artillery, metalworking, repairs, shipbuilding, munitions, and supplies) can be done in the private homes of people who have few natural resources and even less skilled labor? Wouldn’t the distribution of all the parts and services also make the Japanese war machine that much more unwieldy? (Officer: I need part 2247B for this tank. Laborer: Oh, you need to go to 34 Wakezashi street to get the first half. We produce the other half across town. We didn’t have the equipment on this side.) It seems that they were doing us a favor.
Didn’t the emperor’s word still bring an end to the war, no matter who may have wanted to continue it? The word of the god is the word of law. If the US had wanted peace, why didn’t they just negotiate with the emperor and protect him from reprisal?
God love you,
sandomenico
- Status
- Not open for further replies.