|
|
#41
08-23-2010, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#42
08-23-2010, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok, I'll bite...
"The question is not whether the Japanese were going to surrender 'willingly', but about whether they had any ability to fight on. All the evidence suggests they didn't. " So what? Spit out what it is you are trying to say. Last edited by jameson; 08-23-2010 at 02:58 PM. Reason: spelling
|
|
#43
08-23-2010, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have no doubt (lol) that where was dissension in the military ranks when it came to obliterating thousands of people for whatever reason. But in the end, the military gave it's "ok" to the bombing. You say they (Japanese) did not have the ability to fight on. I would say they no longer had the ability to "win". They certainly had the manpower (and civilians) to fight a long, drawn out, costly battle. They, the government, were willing to sacrifice millions of lives to bleed the Allies into giving favorable terms for surrender. "Winning" became retaining the Emperor, retaining some of their military gains, and no Allied occupation. Or we could have starved them into submission. There were already severe food shortages. How many would have died? Wouldn't the weakest have died first? Or we could have continued to bomb them. They had already lost something like 600,000 people on the mainland to US bombing. In another six months of intensified bombing, how may more would have been lost? Remember, all the while we are starving them too. Sure, if we (the Allies) had acceded to Japanese demands, the Japanese would have been willing to go ahead and call it a war. Then we probably would have had to go back and fight them again a few decades later. Our leaders at the time understood that. Splitter
|
|
#44
08-23-2010, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#45
08-23-2010, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#46
08-23-2010, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It may be clear enough to you AJ, but you haven't said whether you approved or disapproved of the use of the bomb. And if you are, in this context, please state why?
Your answers imply that you do not approve but you don't actually say so. I find it hard to work out where you are coming from. The Americans dropped two bombs on Japan and it ended the Second World War. I am curious to know and have you explain an alternative scenario, that would have concluded the war quickly, if you think that what happened should not have done. You seem to be seeking some kind of scapegoat for those events at this late date and from a position of 65 years hindsight. Either you think Trueman was a mass murderer who had no need to use the bomb, or there is some other reason not yet touched upon which would explain why he did. Which is it?
|
|
#47
08-23-2010, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#48
08-23-2010, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Japanese did want to end the war, but on their terms. They were putting out feelers through Russia who until the last days were "neutral" with Japan. As for having to go back and fight them again later on...that's what usually happens when you leave the job half finished. The way to win a war is to completely destroy the other side's way of life (harsh, huh?). If you do not destroy their mindset, they rebuild and come back again. We see this time and again through history. We have the same debate concerning the US Civil War. A general named Sherman marched across the south cutting railways and destroying. Then he turned north and did the same thing, just not as brutally. Could the south have won the war? No. Would they ever have stopped fighting had their heart not been cut out? No. We went to war with Iraq and left their leader in power. Then we had to go back again. We left Germany wounded and bitter after WWI, then had to go back 20 some years later. How many wars and battles did France and England fight? Plenty because neither could destroy the other. The US won every major military engagement in Vietnam and lost the war because the the North was never truly conquered. Korea is brewing again because they were never defeated and their way of life was never destroyed. It's one of the reasons no one should EVER invade Russia lol. Their people are brave and their spirit is unconquerable. The Empire of Japan, at the time, was starved for resources. Much like the German government, they believed themselves to be superior. Their focus was on expansion. Unless those mindsets were destroyed, they would have come back eventually and caused future problems. That's sort of the problem with playing nicely with dictators and other people with bad intent in the world: they bide their time and come back unless you destroy their way of life and show them that their mindset is untenable. Splitter
|
 |
|
|
Do you want it translated to baby-talk?
Linear Mode
