When Napoleon starts mass-posting useless short messages like above, you can always tell that there are strong arguments he wants to bury before anyone sees them.
@The Dankster needs to read this in fully
He's copying and pasting quotes from dudes who woke up in the 50s and realized "oh shyt, my bad" instead of looking at what these men said in August of 1945...he couldn't be more dishonest if he tried
Who else is stunned to see Napoleon co-signing on the "Caucasians were stunned by the brutality of non-Caucasians in war" bullshyt?
And Napoleon is being both dishonest and a dumb fukker. EVERY ONE of the men who I quoted was already known to be expressing those opinions within a couple years of the war, and MOST of them had made their opinion clear before 1945 was over. The US Strategic Bombing Survey's report, which came to the firm conclusion that the atomic bombing wasn't necessary, was released on
September 30, 1945.
And you still haven't been able to show those men I quoted as having supported the decision to bomb in August 1945, even though you keep making that bullshyt claim.
@Napoleon, when only lies can support your case, your case is done.
I bet
@The Dankster really believes Rumsfeld is legitimately sorry for the Iraq War
The Iraq war was an unpopular war with the American public by the time anyone started walking back their support.
The Hiroshima bombing was supported by 85% of the American public, and has NEVER been an unpopular decision in the history of public polling.
You've made the exact wrong case. If public figures were trying to lie to get sympathy and public approval, then they would have lied IN SUPPORT of the bombing, not against it.
The only bad bombs are american bombs
Who the fukk said anything like that? Did you even read my fukking posts?
I used to think that Napoleon was one of those average super-shytty posters, like a guy who makes an argument before he's got all the facts and then just rides it because he doesn't want to lose. But this is showing me he's really something else - doesn't mind lying off his ass in order to try to get argument points, even when he's lying in support of an atrocity.
The only point I was trying to make, was that America wasn't solely responsible for the fukkery that was Potsdam.
I have no problem with that. Many of the countries that participated in WW2 were huge fukk-ups that made awful errors - Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy, France, Poland...I could go on. But we're talking about the American decision to drop the bomb and the mistakes they made. Other people fukking up doesn't justify that, and it was solely the US decision to drop the bomb.
You can't ignore the threat of the Russians or say that their invasion wasn't going to happen, because stopping them would have required America to have changed the agreements we made at Cairo and Yalta, way before a lot of the other bullshyt. I'll hold my thoughts on the rest until I look at the Survey.
The survey didn't say that the Russian invasion wasn't going to happen, just that Japan's state was such that they were nearly ready to surrender even if Russia didn't invade. The impending invasion almost certainly accelerated that decision.
Then why didn't they negotiate with anyone but the treacherous ass Russians? Why didn't they respond to Potsdam with that idea? All they had to do was go to Switzerland or Sweden and say "We'll take the deal as long as we can keep the Emperor as a figurehead. We need him for our nation/religion in the same way that the King of England is the head of the Anglican Church".
With Russia right at their doorstep, and the US destroying their army, I'm fairly certain they felt that those two nations were the only ones to talk to. And the USA had made clear that unconditional surrender was the only thing they'd accept.
Remember, Japan had only been open to the West for 3-4 generations at this point. It's not like, "Negotiating the nation's survival via European intermediaries in a world war" was something they had significant practice in.
You can have two opposing ideas that are both true at the same time. Nagasaki can be both an atrocity, and the best of the fukked up ideas that America had at the time.
Except that MANY people had much better ideas. Not just all the ones I quoted - the Manhattan Project scientists themselves were polled BEFORE the bomb was dropped, and the vast majority wanted a course of action other than "drop the first bomb right on a civilian population".
"By the morning of Aug. 9, the Japanese Supreme War Council was meeting to discuss the terms of surrender. (During the meeting, the second atomic bomb killed tens of thousands at Nagasaki.) On Aug. 15, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally."
They surrendered because of the second Nuclear bomb and the possibility of the Soviet Union further invading Japanese territories. You can't possibly think the Japanese solely surrendered because of the possibility of a full-scale Soviet invasion and not because of the Nuclear bombs effects on Japan's people and infrastructure. Tens of thousands of civilians died from the first bomb and they still didn't readily surrender like they did when the second bomb was dropped.
But they didn't surrender when the 2nd bomb was dropped either, it was 6 days later. You say they were in a meeting to discuss the terms when the 2nd bomb dropped. Why the fukk didn't we wait until they had a chance to digest the first bomb before we killed 60,000 more civilians?
Because we had two kinds of bombs to test, and we wanted to get in one of each.
What you pointed out were viewpoints of American leaders after the war, what I posted were communications between Japanese government and military officials themselves.
No, what you posted was a couple of cherry-picked quotes that just sounded like any nation at war, and a bunch of biased analysis from an apologist.
And you still haven't cited or linked your sources. It was obviously not your own compliation, but some sort of pro-bomb apologist that you wanted to use, but dont' want anyone to see.
The main thing Dankster needs to understand is holding the Japanese people accountable for their own government's actions.
fukk that shyt. You do NOT target hundreds of thousands of civilians in war because you don't like what their government did. That's a moral standard that justifies absolutely anything.
fun fact; the Japanese imperial army was responsible for the death of 10-12 million Asians between the mid-1800s up until 1945.
Why aren't you nikkas angry about that or holding the Japanese government responsible?
Japan did HORRIFIC things in several wars.
But no one has come in threads claiming that Japan was moral. If they did, I would say shyt.
For now, rather than attacking imaginary atrocity-supporting strawmen that don't exist, I'm going to attack the actual atrocity supporters that are posting right here in this thread.
dear god we have nikkas that actually believe in revisionist history and have support of Imperial Japan aka the Nazi's of Asia
. nikkas quoting post-war apologists that suddenly got over-night morality and opposed the bombing of Japan.
The fact that Napoleon, Nomad, and El Caballero have to lie so repeatedly shows how bad their position is.
Not one person in this thread has supported Imperial Japan.
And it's been shown repeatedly that these are NOT post-war apologists that suddenly got overnight morality, but decorated military leaders who opposed the bombing BEFORE it even happened and who had every reason in the world NOT to believe that the USA had committed a horrific atrocity in war.
If the bombing was moral, you dumb fukks, then how the hell would some "overnight morality" turn someone against it? If the bombing was so enormously popular among the American public, why would the military and political leaders who had the most to lose by calling it an atrocity...be the very ones calling it an atrocity?
Uneducated...
" 
. Please pray for his soul 
