America, the only country to use nuclear weapons. Did they save lives?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
You must mean the indoctrination of the Japanese youth. The ones who were being taught that any Japs taken alive would be tortured, raped and eaten by the American savages...
Click to expand...
[h=1]“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”[/h]
-- Hermann Goering
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
Is thread in response to Oliver Stones new series? I would think so...

I'm glad the series has aired as it really debunks the half-truths and hidden history that Americans either don't want to hear or just deny.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”


-- Hermann Goering
Click to expand...
World leaders are much smarter than the average person gives them credit for..

They wouldn't be world leaders if they weren't..
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
Is thread in response to Oliver Stones new series? I would think so...

I'm glad the series has aired as it really debunks the half-truths and hidden history that Americans either don't want to hear or just deny.
Click to expand...
Oliver Stone creates half-truth and hidden-history. Most don't actually believe his drivel. He writes fiction. Agenda fiction.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
OK, here is a dozen or so that I already posted.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. It was a mistake to ever drop it, they had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., speaking in public public in 1946
Click to expand...
In a private 1946 letter to Walter Michels of the Association of Philadelphia Scientists, Nimitz observed that "the decision to employ the atomic bomb on Japanese cities was made on a level higher than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Click to expand...
"Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling.

During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender. Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program. The stakes are so tremendous that it is my opinion very real consideration should be given to some plan of this kind. I do not believe under present circumstances existing that there is anyone in the country whose evaluation of the chances of the success of such a program is worth a great deal. The only way to find out is to try it out."

Under-Secretary of the Navy, Ralph Bard, In a June 27, 1945 memorandum
Click to expand...
Rear Admiral L. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy from 1944 to 1945 (and later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), replaced Bard on the Interim Committee after he left government on July 1. Subsequently, Strauss repeatedly stated his belief that the use of the atomic bomb "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion." Strauss recalled:


"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal at that time that the weapon should be demonstrated. Primarily, it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate. My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to the Japanese observers, and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a good place--satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomaria [sic] trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomaria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest, would have laid the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they had been matchsticks, and of course set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities, their fortifications at will."
Click to expand...
"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion. That was the representation I made when I accompanied General Marshall up to the White House" for a discussion with Truman on June 18, 1945."

General Henry Arnold (top officer of the army air force)
Click to expand...
"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

Major General Curtis E. LeMay, Speaking publicly September 20, 1945
Click to expand...
"I thought that if we were going to drop the atomic bomb, drop it on the outskirts--say in Tokyo Bay--so that the effects would not be as devastating to the city and the people. I made this suggestion over the phone between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and I was told to go ahead with our targets."

General Tooey Spaatz in a 1962 interview
Click to expand...
In a 1965 Air Force oral history interview Spaatz stressed: "That was purely a political decision, wasn't a military decision."
Click to expand...

Ok that is enough, but trust me, there are literally dozens of general officers and higher on the record stating that the nukes were not necessary. Your arguments were along the lines of Gyokusai and the Rape of Nanking, such that the conclusion was that the culture itself was being judged as reason for the nukes, which were for one purpose alone, to scare the USSR. Japan wanted to surrender before we nuked 200,000 civilians. Your cultural judgement, that they were hellbent as a people on fighting to the death is a bigoted view.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
OK, here is a dozen or so that I already posted.











Ok that is enough, but trust me, there are literally dozens of general officers and higher on the record stating that the nukes were not necessary. Your arguments were along the lines of Gyokusai and the Rape of Nanking, such that the conclusion was that the culture itself was being judged as reason for the nukes, which were for one purpose alone, to scare the USSR. Japan wanted to surrender before we nuked 200,000 civilians. Your cultural judgement, that they were hellbent as a people on fighting to the death is a bigoted view.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion, but you haven't shown it incorrect. And most of those quotes don't say the bombs should not have been used, just not used that way. And saying "bigoted" is purely your fabrication. It's a smear tactic, and once I thought such a dishonorable thing beneath you. cn
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That is your opinion, but you haven't shown it incorrect. And most of those quotes don't say the bombs should not have been used, just not used that way. And saying "bigoted" is purely your fabrication. It's a smear tactic, and once I thought such a dishonorable thing beneath you. cn
Click to expand...
You thought it was beneath you. I call it like I see it. You can only be an apologist for Muricuh for so long until someone calls you a bigot.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
You thought it was beneath you. I call it like I see it. You can only be an apologist for Muricuh for so long until someone calls you a bigot.
Click to expand...
Someone calling me a bigot does not make it so, especially someone to whom fact is a proven elastic commodity. Nice try though; the East German judge gives it a 5.2 ... cn
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

The nukes dropped on Japan didn't save lives and Manifest Destiny was the greatest holocaust in history perpetrated by uncle Sam upon 80 million egalitarians.
 
fb360

fb360

Active Member
abandonconflict said:
The nukes dropped on Japan didn't save lives
Click to expand...
You are making assumptions.

Do you possess the capability of history altering time travel? I've yet to meet anybody who can prove that more lives would not have been lost if the bombs didn't drop on Japan. I'm curious, why don't you fill us in.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Anyone who reads the thread will see how many generals I quoted saying that it was not necessary to vaporize 200,000 civilians since Japan wanted to surrender.

The bombs were clearly dropped in order to intimidate the USSR.
 
fb360

fb360

Active Member
abandonconflict said:
Anyone who reads the thread will see how many generals I quoted saying that it was not necessary to vaporize 200,000 civilians since Japan wanted to surrender.

The bombs were clearly dropped in order to intimidate the USSR.
Click to expand...
And you see that we clearly told you that you are retarded. Furthermore, you cannot "surrender" under your own terms. They had the opportunity, they chose not to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top