The most tasteless and insensitive museum exhibit ever.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Ned, my last post was for you.

[Ned]

JCC, still, the offer to surrender after TWO bombs was essentially the same as earlier - keep the Emperor.

This is why I think the use of the bomb had a lot to do with the USSR. I think Truman wanted to use to impress the Soviets. There is also some lingering doubt that some in Truman's administration wanted to delay the end of the war until the Soviet entry so that the Soviets could share in the spoils.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Ned, It is uncontrovertable truth that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering beforet the bomb, and it is undeniable truth that the only reason they did after the bombing is becasue the emperor forced them too. You may be right in that they offered conditional surrender, but as has been stated, over an over again at nauseum, that was in no way shape or form acceptable.

-Pat

Since the critical show-stopping condition was the preservation of the Emperor and given that we did accept that condition, I disagree that the conditional offer to surrender was unacceptable.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned


My point is that we in fact accepted the condition in August that was offered in June.

Things change, we didnt want the Soviets to grab Japan.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hiroshima was a military base, in fact I het you could have dropped a bomba t randam at that time and hit a military base. Hiroshima, like any other idustrial/military support center, was a legitimate target. The details of the deaths of the civilians IE burning to death in a much more brutal firebombing or being instatly killed in a flash DOES NOT MATTER.

-Pat

Pat, we dropped leaflets on all prior targets warning of an impending attack so the city could be evacuated. We did not do so in the case of Hiroshima. Up to Hiroshima, the targets were military in nature and we did try to avoid civilian casualties.

We the people of American learned of Dresden, there was massive dismay. There is little doubt that Truman said "military base" in order to disquise the truth from the public.

Civilian casualties did matter to the United States then - both to the military and to the people. We were not then as callous as you think we were. Not even the military was that callous.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Things change, we didnt want the Soviets to grab Japan.

THAT is not why Truman changed his position. I quoted you his exact words earlier. He changed his position because he was sickened of the mass slaughter of innocent kids.

[SpencerH]

He didnt care about Tokyo, but all of a sudden he cares about kids?

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH
He didnt care about Tokyo, but all of a sudden he cares about kids?

Spencer, rather than debate with me what he said, why don't you read what he said. I quoted when he said an earlier post.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As to two, I have an hard time understanding where you are coming from. The only condition they insisted upon was that they retain the emperor, and we agreed to that. Why do you insist that the facts are different?

You have no understanding of politics as is aware. Simply because we ALLOWED the Emperor to have a figurehead role does not mean the US accepted a conditional surrender. There is quite a difference between accepting a surrender with demands by the surrenderee and accepting an unconditional surrender and then allowing, out of our kindness, those things they asked for in the beginning.

It is to assert who is in charge. And no, it wasn't a conditional surrender since we decided to allow them their one request out of the kindness of our hearts.

[Cyclotron]

Imran has a point. Do you really think that the Japanese would have kept fighting even if we had said "no, tough, can't keep the emperor"?

The surrender was unconditional, but we thought it would work in our favor and help win support for the surrender among the Japanese officials and people if we let them keep their figurehead.

[Patroklos]

He is palying Monday morning quarterback, and can't separate what he sees to the same, am unconditional surrender where we gave them what they want anyways and a conditional surrender where we recognize the authority of a murderous regime to negotiate on par with us.

-Pat

[Patroklos]

Exactly, when Hirohito decided to surrender he fully anticipated having to advocate, and probobly commit suicide. I bet he had a pretty big smile on his face when we dicided to leave him.

-Pat

[Cyclotron]

It was Hirohito, I believe, who told the Japanese people in a statement to "bear the unbearable" American occupation. The retention of the emperor was probably a nice coup for Hirohito, but it was also a pretty sound decision on the part of the American command, giving some legitimacy to the American occupation.

[Ned]

I think we are splitting hairs here. Forget words. The Japanese were offering to surrender as early as June and probably earlier on essentially the same terms as they did surrender on August 13-14.

Now that we got the word "conditional" out of the way, can we move on to a discussion of whether the use of the bomb was "necessary?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Japanese were offering to surrender

CONDITIONAL surrender, yes.

on essentially the same terms as they did surrender on August 13-14.

Once again, you ignore the main difference. WE decided to let the emperor stay. WE were the ones that showed we are in charge.

can we move on to a discussion of whether the use of the bomb was "necessary?"

Ok... yes it was.