They're all after the fact. The US didn't admit the bomb existed UNTIL after it was used
You lied AGAIN, after I pointed this out to you. And you clearly didn't read the fukking quotes.
Eisenhower was told about the decision to drop the by by SecState Stimson BEFORE the bomb was dropped, and immediately expressed his disapproval because Japan was already defeated. This interaction is in the public record.
Bard was on the Interim Committee that approved the use of the bomb, and was the only dissenter from the committee's final opinion.
The 65 Manhattan Project scientists who signed the petition to Truman asking for the bomb not to be used on Japan clearly knew about the fukking bomb, since they were the ones building it.
And of course Einstein knew, because he asked it to be built in the first place.
And there were numerous quotes about Japan being ready to surrender that were from opinions made clear BEFORE the bomb was dropped, including the statement of public record made in July 1945 that half the military brass already believed Japan was ready to surrender.
Fact is, all of the names you mentioned supported it until the deed was done. Period.
That's no only a complete lie, it completely contradicts your first lie. What kind of dumb fukker are you?
the same ones who pulled the trigger?
A Life Insurance president, a Truman lackey, SecState, and four scientists who didn't know shyt about the military situation who were the only ones given actual authority to affirm Truman's decision to drop the bomb. (Other than UnderSecNavy, who dissented.) The ones who "pulled the trigger" were just following orders, they had no authority to make a decision, and if they refused to do it they simply would have been relieved of duty and someone else would have done it.
Fam, just because the american people "supported" something doesn't change the facts on the ground.
They weren't fighting and they weren't intercepting japan communications or negotiating or speaking to high level leaders.
Thats like saying 90% of Americans think we should all be friends...shyt just ain't that simple
What the fukk are you even talking about now? Can you follow a train of thought?
A) The claim was made that all these guys stated opposition to the bombing in order to get public favor.
B) I pointed out that 85% of the public supported the bombing, so stating opposition would have the exact opposite of the claimed effect.
C) You posted that meaningless babble above that shows your inability to follow the train of thought.
You can't quote something and say "BOOM" you've won the argument. It doesn't work that way
Except that instead of engaging with the quotes, you keep repeatedly lying about them. That basically proves I've won the argument. When your only defense is to lie, the natural assumption is that the truth must hurt.
Every person who allowed the bomb to be used who later regretted it.
Name a single one of those people.
And yet, no surrender was made all summer
Because all summer long, we refused to clarify the state of the emperor and refused to clarify what "unconditional surrender" would mean for the future of Japan as a sovereign nation.
I dont support any atrocity, but the times were different and the stakes were different.
You have clearly been supporting this atrocity. And the "times and stakes" weren't different for the 23 figures I quoted, so you can't use that rationalization anymore.
War isn't supposed to be rational or clean or moral.
Then why even complain about what the Japanese did, if you're going to just go morally relativist about everything yet again. Why not just let them kill everyone and bath in the blood afterwards, if we're not going to be rational or moral about any of it?
Not one time did I think about white people in this thread. Not once. I'm not even white.
But you cosigned on "non-Caucasians are horrific in war" post, and you consistently have bragged about the supposed success of the White American Imperialists in war. If you're not a White man yourself, you certainly have a hard-on for them.
You're absolutely delusional. Since you cant properly refute my points, you attack and attempt to dissect my sources.
Discredit your sources? One of them was completely in favor of my point! I still have no fukking clue how you got "the bomb ended the war" from a five-page article whose entire point was to prove the opposite of your claims.
And "The Weekly Standard" is a far-right conservative rag. You can't deny that. Sorry if I don't trust them to provide unbalanced opinions.
All you did was cite a bunch of quotes, and used that as an attempt to support your weak and false arguments. That's literally the only thing you cited.
Because those are by far the best thing to cite. Every single person in this thread knows less about the situation than every single person I quoted. I could make up my own cherry-picked logic and try to convince you of it, and what would that prove? On the fukking Coli, people are willing to write extended defenses with fake logic and cherry-picked facts about anything. But I showed you that people who actually had a stake in the whole thing came to a strong conclusion AGAINST what you're claiming. And that means something.
Also, my quotes easily disproved the consistent claim you guys were making that this was all "70 years after the fact revisionist history".
Besides those quotes here were your points;
1. The bomb was NOT necessary for Japan to surrender. Japan had been trying to surrender for months.
- False. Besides American perspectives, do you have proof that they were going to surrender?
The conclusions of the US Strategic Bombing Survey Group were not just made on American perspectives, but on all available information gained before, during, and after the war.
The conclusions of the chief historian of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission were not just made on American perspectives, but on all available information gained before, during, and after.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke was the one prepared the intercepted Japanese cables for Truman, and he based his opinion of the Japanese being "down to abject surrender" on those cables.
Einstein wasn't an American.
The conclusions of the historians I quoted both in the original post and above, and the historian you cited who argued my point for me, were all based not on American opinions alone, but all the data available.
Of course, you're a better historian and you know more than all of them, I'm sure.
2. An invasion was NOT necessary. An invasion was never, ever necessary. In fact, we could have invaded fewer islands, had fewer casualties, and ended the war months earlier if we hadn't fukked shyt up with the stupid fukking Potsdam declaration, which everyone who knew anything about Japan stated was a huge fukking mistake.
-False. An invasion was necessary because Japan DID NOT SURRENDER AND STILL CONTINUED TO FIGHT. If America didnt bomb Japan, then operation Olympic, a much deadlier plan, would have taken place in Kyushu, and Japan was already preparing for that and it was called operation "Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive)". This soundly debunks your claim that Japan was beginning to surrender.
You have absolutely no evidence for "If America didn't bomb Japan,then operation Olympic would have taken place." As we've shown again and again, as YOUR OWN CITED HISTORIAN SHOWED, the bomb wasn't the reason they surrendered when they did. And even if they would have invaded (against the advice of their own Fleet Admiral and Army General in the region), it would have been a horrific and unnecessary decision, as the US Strategic Bombing Survey showed.
3. The bomb was NOT the reason Japan surrendered. Japan surrendered because Russia was about to invade and because in the end, America let them keep the emperor, the condition they'd been asking for all along.
-False. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan and began attacking Japanese puppet territories like Manchuria two days AFTER the first bomb was dropped. It's asinine to assume that they readily surrendered (or wanted to) because the Soviet attacked Japan.
In February 1945, Stalin agreed to enter the Pacific Theater 3 months after the European war ended. August 8th was exactly 3 months after the German surrender on May 8th. Their timing didn't have shyt to do with the atomic bombs, it was already in place - but the allies rushed the atomic bomb drops because the war was going to end soon. It's not surprising that the Japanese met to surrender the day after the Russians entered the war.
However, by virtue of the timing of the agreements at Tehran and Yalta, and the long term buildup of Soviet forces in the Far East since Tehran, it is clear that news of the attacks on the two cities played no major role in the timing of the Soviet invasion; the date of the invasion was foreshadowed by the Yalta agreement, the date of the German surrender, and the fact that on August 3, Marshal
Vasilevsky reported to Stalin that, if necessary, he could attack on the morning of August 5. Furthermore, while Stalin could reasonably have concluded that an atomic bombing of Japan was imminent, it does not appear he was overly impressed with the atomic bomb's potential, certainly not so much so as to think it might compel a nation as averse to surrender as Japan into an earlier capitulation.
At 11pm Trans-Baikal time on August 8, 1945, Soviet foreign minister
Molotov informed Japanese ambassador
Satō that the Soviet Union had declared war on the
Empire of Japan, and that from August 9 the Soviet Government would consider itself to be at war with Japan.
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following
Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.
[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,
[2]Drea,
[17] Hayashi,
[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.
Soviet–Japanese War (1945) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did
And where are your sources for your claims, besides quotes?
ALL of our sources are quotes. None of us was there and none of us went to Japan and started digging through the documents ourselves. Of course the only sources are quotes.
4. This shyt is NOT revisionist. Please read the following:
-False. It's revisionist history at its finest.
Go ahead and try and explain why most of the most prominent American military, diplomatic, and intelligence leaders from the time period in question would produce anti-American revisionist history immediately before, during, and after a very popular American victory in war?
No one has explained this yet. And since it's the only thing you have to combat the clear quotes against your position, you better get around to explaining it.
on The Coli for Imperialist White America since 2012.
