The most tasteless and insensitive museum exhibit ever.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

Rape. Refused their surrender conditions, then droped two nukes on them, and then let them have it after all? Disgusting.

[Patroklos]

What if their surrender conditon had been to keep their Chinese territory? That seems like a good exchange for not dropping nukes. The Chinses would love that one. It comes to a differenace of opinion, you believe negotiaoing with genecideal murders as well as leaving them in power and legitmizing their philosphy in Japan for the next hundred years is less damaging than dropping two atomic bombs. I believe the opposite. I am right and you are wrong.

So once again what is your arguement, sense the surrender hypothosis is false, lives would not have been saved if the bombers were not dropped, dropping them did in fact save lives, dropping them saved the rest of Japan from bieng a ruined shell as a result of Downfall, also made the Japanese a free democratic society, ended a world war, and forced mass murderers to recend power. Obviously human life means nothing too you, as you obvious prefer invasion (the option most costly in human life). Apparently you have no problems with facists and genecidal murderers staying power because you want to negotiate with them.

So far the only the only reason you oppose the bombs use was that it was "atomic." I don't like bright lights either. If you find burining to death in Tokyo to be so different than bieng killed instantly in a shock wave (for the most part), tell me the big difference that is in favor your position.

-Pat

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What if their surrender conditon had been to keep their Chinese territory?

-Pat

It wasn't. The Japanese weren't offering to surrender on a condition to be named later, but offering to surrender if the Emperor would be untouched. Not that reality seems to matter much to you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Osweld


Rape. Refused their surrender conditions, then droped two nukes on them, and then let them have it after all? Disgusting.

Exactly. This is why the Truman history revisionists were so desparate in the early post-war years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Refused their surrender conditions, then droped two nukes on them, and then let them have it after all? Disgusting.

No, good politics. You don't let them demand to you what they want. You make them surrender and then allow them, out of the goodness of your heart, to keep their requests. That is the way you do things, so that you avoid any chance of a pre-WW2 Germany occuring.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It wasn't. The Japanese weren't offering to surrender on a condition to be named later, but offering to surrender if the Emperor would be untouched. Not that reality seems to matter much to you.

Che, I am glad to see we are on the same side on this issue.

BTW, how did you feel when you saw the communist party celibration in Baghdad the day Saddam "conditionally" surrendered.

[mrmitchell]

if some German museum was displaying a death chamber in all its technological glory,

There are no Death Chamber Museums, but there are lots of Airplane Museums. If there were a DCM, then I would have no problem with its relevant content--a death chamber--being displayed in it.

Likewise, an Airplane museum usually holds airplanes...does anyone here have a good guess of what the Enola Gay is?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I am glad to see we are on the same side on this issue.

Not quite the same side. While I agree that the offer was made, I think MtG made a convincing case a year or so back when he argued that without the context o the bombing and the Soviet invasion, had the Japanese government offered to surrender, even conditionally, it would have been overthrown by diehards. I still think we should have explored the option. It's always possible that it might have saved lives. Hirohito was a war criminal, and deserved to be tried and executed, but not at the cost of a quarter million people who could have ben spared, especially when we didn' execute the monster.

BTW, how did you feel when you saw the communist party celibration in Baghdad the day Saddam "conditionally" surrendered.

Saddam is an evil, evil man. Why shouldn't they be happy to see he's gonna get what's coming to him? They suffered greatly under Saddam. The honest truth, I was happy, cuz I got to see my guys in the press, and not demonized. I just wish it had been they who got rid of Hussein.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Refused their surrender conditions, then droped two nukes on them, and then let them have it after all? Disgusting.

No, good politics. You don't let them demand to you what they want. You make them surrender and then allow them, out of the goodness of your heart, to keep their requests. That is the way you do things, so that you avoid any chance of a pre-WW2 Germany occuring.

If you think killing hundreds of thousands of people just to show that you can is good politics, I really don't care what you have to say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you think killing hundreds of thousands of peoeple just to show you can is good politics

Let's forget the part of by taking an unconditional surrender we may have stopped a Germany like revival of the Japanese country.

And war is simply politics by other means... so good politics is good war .

[Cyclotron]

This is getting too out of hand for me. I think it's been decisively shown that the Enoly Gay does not need to have an addition to its plaque, and whether or not you think Japan "deserved" the atomic bombs, well, that's another question.

PS. mrmitchell, you rock.

[Ned]

Well, Che, your position and mine are the same because I agree that all we could have done was to negotiate acceptable terms along the lines of the August surrender terms. If the government did surrender in June, but was then overthrown, I would then agree that the bomb may have been the only choice.

The problem with Michael the Great's position is he seams argue that we had to use the bomb before negotiations because we knew almost for a certainty that the military would not have accepted the surrender of the government even if that surrender protected the Emperor. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Without having tried, we will never know.

[Ned]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
This is getting too out of hand for me. I think it's been decisively shown that the Enoly Gay does not need to have an addition to its plaque, and whether or not you think Japan "deserved" the atomic bombs, well, that's another question.

PS. mrmitchell, you rock.

Perhaps we ought to "share" the plane with the Japanese. They can display it in Hiroshima and make any kind of statements they please about it.

That would be fair.

[Boris Godunov]

To lay the surrender debate to rest:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html

Note that Japan's condition of a guarantee of the sovereignity of the Emperor was outrightly rejected by the U.S. in Byrne's August 11, which specifically addresses that point by saying, in essence, "No, he will be subject to the authority of the Supreme Allied Commander." The Japanese telegram of Aug. 14 accepts that, which means their condition was not met by the U.S. They acquiesced to the Potsdam surrender terms totally. So the surrender was unconditional.

Note Truman says: "I deem this reply a full acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration which specifies the unconditional surrender of Japan"

And the document signed by the Japanese on the U.S.S. Missouri states: "(2) We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated."

[mrmitchell]

The problem with Michael the Great's position is he seams argue that we had to use the bomb before negotiations because we knew almost for a certainty that the military would not have accepted the surrender of the government even if that surrender protected the Emperor. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Without having tried, we will never know.

You're right--they might have surrendered. Then again, I might really be **** Cheney, and tofu is really made of cocaine.

IIRC, Japan as a nation had never had to surrender in over 1200 years (Hitler Channel program), and if you haven't heard all the repetitive stuff about how dedicated and nonsurrenderlike Japan was, then you haven't lived in the 20th century. Yeah, they could have surrendered--but Hitler could've successfully eliminated the D-Day invasion force, thus we should'nt've tried that. War is about calculated risks, not being nice or fair.