abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
These are direct quotes from general officers. I am attempting to support my position that the nuclear bombs did not save any lives. I am not incorrect at all.
America, the only country to use nuclear weapons. Did they save lives?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Fine, this is Nixon retelling. The rest are direct quotes of general officers.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
'''You really cant be that fucking dumb to actually believe that.
But then again you most likely are that fucking stupid.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Believe* At least learn to spell when you call me stupid.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No. The opinion of a general, in military matters, is quite pertinent, particularly generals who were active and involved with the nuking of Japan. So don't fucking revise history and say Nukes saved lives. They did not save a single American or Japanese life. They killed 200,000 people and only 1,000 of them were military personnel. So in reply to your "you're welcome" don't pawn genocidal acts off as a favor to me. I disavowed such ways when I left the service.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I see you believing a demonstrable falsehood and clinging to it despite that it is tenuous because it is traumatic to come to the realization that you are of a genocidal people.
I can also find plenty of generals active during WW2 who didn't think it was necessary to drop nuclear bombs on Japan.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Then demonstrate the falsehood. All I've seen are a bunch of generals and pols getting their stories straight in deep retrospect. You are posting opinions whose sincerity I sharply question.
To clarify, I am questioning the sincerity of the people you've quoted. I'm not questioning yours beyond noting that you're picking cherries. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
And I am questioning that nuclear strikes save lives.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I know that. But you have only posted opinions of folks who have an interest in telling it nice and not real. Iirc when someone rebuts from a history text, you dismiss that as propaganda. We are at an impasse. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Now who is cherry picking? Generals actively involved in the management of the war are the people i am quoting. Even LeMay, although he doesn't express he had a problem with it, admits it wasn't necessary.
Trolling
New Member
Not clinging to anything, I'm prolly one of the very few on this site that is always open to opinions, anyone here can tell you that, like I've said before, I love learning new stuff and don't mind admiting when I feel I am wrong. I heard you out, looked it up and saw how some Japenese soldiers of a certain power still didn't stop fighting after the surrender.
And there's this.
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=13
By the summer of 1945 it was clear that defeat was at hand. But the decision to surrender did not come until after atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At a historic imperial conference on August 9, 1945, the emperor made clear his opinion in favor of surrendering to the allied powers led by the United States.
Following Japan's formal surrender in September 1945, there was much discussion about whether Emperor Hirohito should be punished as a war criminal. Hirohito himself frequently expressed his willingness to step down as a token of his responsibility for the war. But the U.S. authorities, including General Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964), decided that it would better serve the goals of Japanese stability to let him remain as ruler. On January 1, 1946, however, the emperor once and for all gave up any claims to being a sacred ruler by issuing a law that denied his god-like status as a descendant of the sun goddess
Read more: http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Hirohito.html#ixzz2FqJvDlj1
http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Hirohito.html
And there's this.
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=13
By the summer of 1945 it was clear that defeat was at hand. But the decision to surrender did not come until after atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At a historic imperial conference on August 9, 1945, the emperor made clear his opinion in favor of surrendering to the allied powers led by the United States.
Following Japan's formal surrender in September 1945, there was much discussion about whether Emperor Hirohito should be punished as a war criminal. Hirohito himself frequently expressed his willingness to step down as a token of his responsibility for the war. But the U.S. authorities, including General Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964), decided that it would better serve the goals of Japanese stability to let him remain as ruler. On January 1, 1946, however, the emperor once and for all gave up any claims to being a sacred ruler by issuing a law that denied his god-like status as a descendant of the sun goddess
Read more: http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Hirohito.html#ixzz2FqJvDlj1
http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Hirohito.html
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Right. And another poster exposed the real reason for their opposing the Bomb, and it is the opposite of the reason you're promoting.
I invite you to read the linked with care. cn
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/nanking.htm
You may contemn these reasons, but you cannot refute them. The generals felt CHEATED of their great glorious gore-flooded chance at payback. And that is why Japanese bowed to Americans for decades. We saved their collective ass by dropping those two frightful bombs. 200 thousand died to save maybe 50 million. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I know about it. She assumed, as you are, that I am not familiar. Now go read about how the Soviet Red Army joined in against Japan and invaded Manchuria.
Trolling
New Member
This is a hotly debated issue, and you'll get lots of info with many opinions, but much of it is based on scant evidence. The standard line in the West is, Japan, through emissaries, quietly inquired about surrendering before EITHER bomb was dropped, perhaps as early as their defeat at Midway Island, but I'm not so sure about that. In any case, the U.S. held a hard line, requiring an "Unconditional" surrender. They would not accept any surrender conditions which left Japan with any conquered territory, or with any viable military strength. This is a pretty typical demand in a major conflict - the same was true of the Allied response to early German entreaties to end the war. We also wanted Japan's emperor to step down - not be arrested or anything, just "resign" as head of state. The Japanese government refused to accept the, to them, ultimate humiliation of unconditional surrender, especially the part about the emperor. Some military commanders urged their leaders to accept that, to save themselves from what was to come, but ultimately the political leadership refused, out of pride. They DID try to surrender under less harsh terms, of their own devising, which left some small bit of their pride intact. Facing defeat for the Japanese, at that time, wasn't just "embarrassing". It was completely opposite to their culture and military tradition. Only when the specter of more bombs literally wiping Japan off the map was made shockingly clear, did they capitulate.
America was in no mood to give them an inch, after the "sneak attack" on Perl Harbor, and all the bloody fighting in the Pacific over the next five years or so. Revisionist historians like to claim the bombs were dropped to "scare Stalin" in the Soviet Union, but President Harry Truman personally gave the order for both bombs to be dropped, and this wasn't a harsh, vindictive, evil man, willing to kill countless civilians just to play nuclear poker with the Russians. Though nukes are horrible, cold math shows those two bombs SAVED lives. Far more people - Japanese, British, American, etc, likely would have died if the war had continued to its end with "conventional" fighting. Some will say "no, that's baloney - the Japanese were going to surrender anyway, even if we never dropped the bomb!". But that's bullsh*t. If that were true, they most certainly would have accepted unconditional surrender after the FIRST bomb. But they did not. Still pride got in the way, and they couldn't accept unconditional surrender, not until the grim reality of repeated nukes hit the emperor and his staff full in the face.
And the idea that Japan was "dithering" about the Hiroshima report, not knowing if it was an American bomb, and not knowing how to react to it or whatever, is also bullsh*t. They knew, because we told them. Repeatedly.
Again, there are lots of twists and turns in this story, so don't just take my word for it. You can enter you question above into a google search and get tons of info to read.
I know it's not exactly a fact but I really like this opinion from Yahoo.
America was in no mood to give them an inch, after the "sneak attack" on Perl Harbor, and all the bloody fighting in the Pacific over the next five years or so. Revisionist historians like to claim the bombs were dropped to "scare Stalin" in the Soviet Union, but President Harry Truman personally gave the order for both bombs to be dropped, and this wasn't a harsh, vindictive, evil man, willing to kill countless civilians just to play nuclear poker with the Russians. Though nukes are horrible, cold math shows those two bombs SAVED lives. Far more people - Japanese, British, American, etc, likely would have died if the war had continued to its end with "conventional" fighting. Some will say "no, that's baloney - the Japanese were going to surrender anyway, even if we never dropped the bomb!". But that's bullsh*t. If that were true, they most certainly would have accepted unconditional surrender after the FIRST bomb. But they did not. Still pride got in the way, and they couldn't accept unconditional surrender, not until the grim reality of repeated nukes hit the emperor and his staff full in the face.
And the idea that Japan was "dithering" about the Hiroshima report, not knowing if it was an American bomb, and not knowing how to react to it or whatever, is also bullsh*t. They knew, because we told them. Repeatedly.
Again, there are lots of twists and turns in this story, so don't just take my word for it. You can enter you question above into a google search and get tons of info to read.
I know it's not exactly a fact but I really like this opinion from Yahoo.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Japan wanted to spare the emperor's life. Even as a figure head, he was considered a living god to the Shinto religion. Had he been killed the Japanese would have fought Gyokusai, that was the only condition they had and ironically, after the nuclear strikes, that was the surrender signed.
"We'll surrender if you let us keep this dude alive"
"No, you'll just STFU and surrender"
"but if you kill him, we won't be able to make the rest of our people stop fighting"
**nuclear strikes**
"can we surrender now?"
"yes, and this dude you wanted us to spare can live"