The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
07 Jun 2016, 4:06 pm
chessboxer wrote:
ZenDen wrote:
I wonder, chessboxer, why you bother us with such insufficient garbage. Where did you find these mopes?
You supply articles from people who are so tied up in their agenda they forget facts. If you don't like what has been said why not just spell out your agenda for us???
Huh? I've obviously touched a nerve here.
My agenda is to help answer Jacoby's original question on whether the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified by providing evidence that, contrary to what many people think, the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped.
What's your agenda?
ZenDen wrote:
Example: You (and your associates) belabor the point of unconditional surrender (and removal of the Emperor from power and a new Japanese Constitution) being a sticking point (as though this was the United States fault) in negotiations to end the war and then, after the war, claim we ignored our earlier demands.
The Facts: After the war the Emperor was "disconnected" from government power and in the new Constitution he is merely a figurehead. The new Constitution was a collaboration between our countries and was quite progressive, also allowing women the right to vote.
The fact is your chosen writers conveniently leave out all sorts of this information...and tellingly...only leaving out history that goes against their contention.
The Facts: After the war the Emperor was "disconnected" from government power and in the new Constitution he is merely a figurehead. The new Constitution was a collaboration between our countries and was quite progressive, also allowing women the right to vote.
The fact is your chosen writers conveniently leave out all sorts of this information...and tellingly...only leaving out history that goes against their contention.
Your objection to the article is quite strange here - your objection seems to be that America's actual treatment of the Emperor after the war was harsher than the author implies it was. The point of the article was that by insisting on unconditional surrender while the war was still taking place the Americans were already being unnecessarily harsh. The point of the article, and of my post, is that contrary to what most people think, the Japanese were actually willing to surrender (with one very reasonable condition) before the bombs were dropped, and it was the US policy of unconditional surrender that prevented the Japanese from doing so, and so the idea that the bombs were necessary to end the war is false.
ZenDen wrote:
And neither of your writers address the fact that, during the after war period, the U.S. spent many years rebuilding the infrastructure of Japan....'45 to '55 or so I believe. This included adding direction to the new Constitution such as not having aggressive military forces (only for defense). It was the assistance of the U.S. along with additional direction by our allies that helped Japan become a world manufacturing leader.
Again, what the US did in Japan after the war is not relevant to the question being discussed, which is whether or not the atomic bombs were necessary to get the Japanese to surrender.
Hi chessboxer, where've you been? Resting your nerve? I like to see things accurately so when you supply biased material, I mention it and hope you can do better....I'm glad you haven't permanently "gone away." It seemed to me your choice of obviously biased material showed me your personal bias, which is what prompted my question.
EXAMPLE: You just said above: "My agenda is to help answer Jacoby's original question on whether the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified by providing evidence that, contrary to what many people think, the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped."
BUT you don't say the Japanese insisted they retain their Emperor and his status, and also insisted they keep their Constitution (they said so they could control the chaos in the country after the war). The United States and our Allies did not agree and so Japan did not accept our conditions for peace and got the bombs dropped on them instead. THEY were the ones suing for peace and they made a big mistake. Fools.
After the war the Emperor was ineffective, especially after the rules for this were written into the new Constitution forged between Japan and the U.S. and it's Allies.
The facts are available to anyone who doesn't turn a blind eye to them, which I believe you have done deliberately.
YOU SAY: "Again, what the US did in Japan after the war is not relevant to the question being discussed, which is whether or not the atomic bombs were necessary to get the Japanese to surrender."
AND I SAY: Au contraire my friend. Your contention (through your chosen writers) concerned also the Constitution we resisted prior to their rejection of our unconditional peace offer. Your contention was this was a smoke screen to hide our true intentions. I show their Constitution was structured (later by us) in such a way it would be impossible or extremely difficult for them to create another threatening force; proving this was a necessary step toward peace. This was a necessary step in creating a lasting peace.
I do not think this was a small thing.....and yet you try to imply it was. If not then why do you mention it in your original post?
If you truly wish to "help answer Jacoby's original question" then please let me ask you to double check your references.
