They fought in WW1 as Allies. Trading Partners happened after that. Nations aren't friends....but believe Incorporation means you are a Nation.
After reading this NYT article on the Nagasaki bombing, U.S. was truly pathetic
- Thread starter Da King
- Start date
They fought in WW1 as Allies. Trading Partners happened after that. Nations aren't friends....but believe Incorporation means you are a Nation.
You can't keep looking back with clear eyes and going "oh well instead of 20 bullets we could have saved 5"
It doesn't work that way, and thats all you're doing.
Even opinions expressed in december of 45 changed. And? Thats what they're supposed to do. 6 months after you kill a few hundred thousand people in one fell-swoop changes the mind.
According to your logic you have 1945 opinions.
@The Dankster is the type of guy to watch a cop incident and go "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg or the hand?!" 
C'mon son.
You're posting shyt from a month to six months after the war ended.
You're not helping your case.
This is just like watching the pre-9/11 intel and thinking we knew specifically what type of threat NYC and DC were facing. There were signals and pieces of the puzzle but you can't get mad a fortune tellers for not knowing the whole truth.
You have this impossible standard of changing history by pretending that a decision wouldn't have been made when it was time to make it.
That bomb was tested, other bomb programs were sabotaged, and the USA's bomb project was used. ...and everyone immediately realized it was a fukk up
But the Japanese had it coming. Sooner or later. They had it coming.
C'mon son.
You're posting shyt from a month to six months after the war ended.
You're not helping your case.
This is just like watching the pre-9/11 intel and thinking we knew specifically what type of threat NYC and DC were facing. There were signals and pieces of the puzzle but you can't get mad a fortune tellers for not knowing the whole truth.
You have this impossible standard of changing history by pretending that a decision wouldn't have been made when it was time to make it.
That bomb was tested, other bomb programs were sabotaged, and the USA's bomb project was used. ...and everyone immediately realized it was a fukk up
But the Japanese had it coming. Sooner or later. They had it coming.
but they are, like I already stated in this thread, Asia is responsible for the deadliest wars in human history save ww1
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Japan was mostly minding its business until the Perry Expedition came to kick down its doors to open it to exploitation by capital.
I'm done in here
kinda bullshyt is this
just because you are giving the keys doesn't mean you have to drive the car
Nomad1
Tupac KONY and GOAT
America dropped the second bomb because they did not accept defeat. Japan was offered many times to surrender prior to the first Nuclear drop, but they didn't do so;
The Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding the “unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces.” Failure to comply would mean “the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitable the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.” On July 28, Japanese Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki responded by telling the press that his government was “paying no attention” to the Allied ultimatum."
Like I said before, most, if not all, of the blame should be directed to the Japanese government and military officials. Your question should be; "Why didnt Japan accept the pots-dam declaration if the cost of civilian causalities would be at an all time high?" Or "Why was the Japanese government still fragmented in a decision of whether or not to declare defeat after the first bomb was dropped?"
Since you're so stuck on the "timing" of when the bombs dropped and when Japan accepted defeat, i'll re-word my argument; Japan surrendered because of the devastations of the first and second bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima NOT solely because of the possibility of a full-scale invasion by the Soviet Union.
I didn't cherry pick anything, if you read why I typed then you would know I said that there were Japanese people within the government that accepted the possibility of an end-to-war initiative, but the entire government and military still wanted to have an all out war, which is support by communications between government officials and military leaders. This cannot be biased info since this was from Japanese people themselves, not American leaders that suddenly had a change of heart.
And I don't remember you citing anything, but now I have to cite mine?
Sources;
Japan surrenders - Sep 02, 1945 - HISTORY.com
Why did Japan surrender?
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
Don't bother sourcing yours, it's just one document from a site that I easily found in a google search. And you're only piggy-backing off of quotes from "sorry" military figures.
Dudes gonna ignore the shyt out of this
You really want to talk about Unit 731?
a) It was horrific.
b) The women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have shyt to do with it.
c) Do you know why the USA doesn't make a bigger deal about it? Do you know why none of those scientists were tried as war criminals? Because the USA wanted the data they got on human experimentation, so they collaborated with the torturers and offered them immunity in exchange for their data.
Oh yeah, you guys really make America look good by bringing up Unit 731.
Hey, at least you've reduced your lying. Now you've gone from claiming "the 1950s" to "6 months".
But you're still full of shyt.
Eisenhower's first statements against the bomb, made to SecState Stimson and preserved in the public record, were made in JULY 1945.
Hoover was on record making those statements against the bomb in JULY 1945.
The 65 Manhattan Project scientists who signed the petition to Truman not to drop the bomb because it was unnecessary signed it in JUNE and JULY 1945.
Of course, many of the others couldn't comment until after the bomb because they didn't even fukking know about the bomb until after it had been dropped. But all the evidence points to them already believing that the Japanese were ready to surrender BEFORE the bomb was dropped. You haven't given one iota of evidence for why their support would have changed a month later. You haven't given a single quote explaining your claim that they had supported the bombing in August 1945.
That's only because Asia has by far the highest population. Asia has 4.5 BILLION people. There's only 1 billion in Africa, only 0.7 billion in Europe, and only 1 billion in North and South America combined. And the Asian population has always been enormous, while the European population was never very large and the African/American populations were even smaller until recent history.
Of course there's going to be a larger number of deadly wars in the place that has by far the most people.
And as far as deadly wars go, besides WW1, you seem to be forgetting Stalin's purges, the Russian Revolution, the extermination of Native Americans, and the whole European half of WW2.
His grandson is going to be arguing the same shyt 50 years from now, saying many of the U.S. Military leaders didn't want to go into Iraq
Some US military leaders did want to go into Iraq, and some did not. As ignorant as your posts have been, you are probably unaware that the decision to invade Iraq was not made by the US military, but by the Bush administration.
Now, do you have quotes from Bush administration officials from before, during, and after the invasion, explaining how they opposed the invasion? Do you have an official US report made just two months after the invasion that details why the invasion was not necessary? Do you have a single actual iota of evidence or reason that can debunk the claims of the single one of the men I quoted, much less all 23 of them?
Then STFU.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
kinda bullshyt is this
just because you are giving the keys doesn't mean you have to drive the car
If Japan had all of that coming, let's look at what kicked it all off
Pearl Harbor was blowback too for that then
None of the info from Unit 731 proved valuable outside of humans in cold temperature experiments used in the space race.You really want to talk about Unit 731?
a) It was horrific.
b) The women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have shyt to do with it.
c) Do you know why the USA doesn't make a bigger deal about it? Do you know why none of those scientists were tried as war criminals? Because the USA wanted the data they got on human experimentation, so they collaborated with the torturers and offered them immunity in exchange for their data.
Oh yeah, you guys really make America look good by bringing up Unit 731.
Hey, at least you've reduced your lying. Now you've gone from claiming "the 1950s" to "6 months".
But you're still full of shyt.
Eisenhower's first statements against the bomb, made to SecState Stimson and preserved in the public record, were made in JULY 1945.
Hoover was on record making those statements against the bomb in JULY 1945.
The 65 Manhattan Project scientists who signed the petition to Truman not to drop the bomb because it was unnecessary signed it in JUNE and JULY 1945.
Of course, many of the others couldn't comment until after the bomb because they didn't even fukking know about the bomb until after it had been dropped. But all the evidence points to them already believing that the Japanese were ready to surrender BEFORE the bomb was dropped. You haven't given one iota of evidence for why their support would have changed a month later. You haven't given a single quote explaining your claim that they had supported the bombing in August 1945.
That's only because Asia has by far the highest population. Asia has 4.5 BILLION people. There's only 1 billion in Africa, only 0.7 billion in Europe, and only 1 billion in North and South America combined. And the Asian population has always been enormous, while the European population was never very large and the African/American populations were even smaller until recent history.
Of course there's going to be a larger number of deadly wars in the place that has by far the most people.
And as far as deadly wars go, besides WW1, you seem to be forgetting Stalin's purges, the Russian Revolution, the extermination of Native Americans, and the whole European half of WW2.
Some US military leaders did want to go into Iraq, and some did not. As ignorant as your posts have been, you are probably unaware that the decision to invade Iraq was not made by the US military, but by the Bush administration.
Now, do you have quotes from Bush administration officials from before, during, and after the invasion, explaining how they opposed the invasion? Do you have an official US report made just two months after the invasion that details why the invasion was not necessary? Do you have a single actual iota of evidence or reason that can debunk the claims of the single one of the men I quoted, much less all 23 of them?
Then STFU.
The UNIT 731 guy was repatriated to the USA as were Nazi scientists. So?
Whats that got to do with nukes.
We take what info we want and get rid of anyone else we didn't
I'm convinced I can't be talking to Americans here.
Dudes are just willing to take up whatever stance is against the perpetual winners...
Dudes are just willing to take up whatever stance is against the perpetual winners...
Misanthrope
None of the above '16
If Japan had all of that coming, let's look at what kicked it all off
Pearl Harbor was blowback too for that then
Pearl Harbor was blowback for the Mukden Incident and the Kwantung Army?
So UNIT 731 was your big excuse for killing 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but then you shrug your shoulders at the USA collaborating with the very fukking scientists that committed those atrocities?
Napoleon's moral world: horrific experiments are an excuse to kill 200,000 uninvolved civilians, but let's collaborate with and let free the actual guys who were doing the experiments.
I'm convinced I can't be talking to Americans here.
Dudes are just willing to take up whatever stance is against the perpetual winners...
Napoleon,
on The Coli for Imperialist White America since 2012.Do you actually believe this shyt? With all the evidence before you, do you actually believe that America dropped the 2nd bomb "because they did not accept defeat", when they were meeting at that very moment to discuss the terms of surrender? Do you understand that in 1945, it takes a little bit more than 2 days to digest the fact that a totally new kind of weapon has just destroyed an entire city, not to mention figure out the terms of surrender for your entire nation.
Of course, that only matters if you believe that destroying cities forces nations to surrender. Even though the very link you just gave me argues the exact opposite.
You have to be a 1st-order sheep to believe that the USA dropped that 2nd bomb, "because Japan didn't surrender fast enough". They had plans to drop 2 bombs the entire time. One was uranium-based, one was plutonium-based, and they had dramatically different designs. They wanted to test both on a human population before the war was over. They purposely had left three cities unbombed while the bombed the hell out of the rest of Japan, so they'd have untouched populations to clearly see the results of the bombing against. What the hell do you think the second bomb proved to Japan that the first bomb hadn't already proved? The USA had killed 100,000 people in a city-bombing even before the nukes came out, and had the capacity to do it again. We dropped two nukes for our own purposes, not to get them to end the war.
I cited the speaker of every fukking quote I put out there. I didn't cite anything else because there wasn't anything else to cite. Rather than producing a bunch of after-the-fact rationalized opinions, I only gave you the direct quotes of the men who knew the situation best. As you showed, it's easy to look up and verify the veracity of any of those quotes - though rather than simply looking at the blog post that had all of them together, I suggest you do what I did and double-check that blogger's sources by clicking on the other google results and getting the actual sources. You'll find, like I did, that they all check out.
I called out you because you didn't cite clear, in-context quotes, but generalized opinions and a couple out-of-context cables. And I know that YOU didn't cherry-pick those messages. They were already cherry-picked for you by a pro-America, pro-bomb apologize. You were just cutting and pasting.
A history.com article that doesn't even have a cited author.
A Weekly Standard article by Richard B. Frank.
A boston.com article by Gareth Cook that argues the bombing was NOT necessary.
This is what the link you just gave me states:
Those are your fukking sources? An unsourced article, a far-right publication, and an article that makes the exact opposite claim from the one you're making?
