3 ms·

The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s You are somewhat right, in that there was internal turmoil in the Japan

The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s You are somewhat right, in that there was internal turmoil in the Japanese regime that may have led to a surrender without the nuclear attacks. But the United States did not know that. The behavior of Japanese forces and command during the rest of the war gave us every reason to believe that they were going to fight a fanatical battle to the death. You have to judge people by the information they had at the time that they made the decision.

flukus 10y ago
The Japanese surrendered because they lost Manchuria, not from the nuclear bombs.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  This is true. Hirohito started looking for a way out that would allow him to at least make a deal to not be ousted as emperor of Japan, but he ideally wanted to broker deal with Russia.
wallace_f 10y ago
>The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s This is an expression of ignorance on your part, and you're slapping all those innocent victims in the face with your own opinion of what you think happened. The Japanese already offered conditions of surrender, and we didn't accept it. Give me an example of another Nation State that has ever surrendered under the terms we imposed on Japan. Germany, Italy, no other country had this imposed on them. Given our history of deplorable treatment towards the Japanese, what would you do? Everyone knew the Japanese were ready to surrender. It was a political decision: >General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nu... >The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s This is an especially god damn arrogant comment. Information does not travel as quickly as it does today: the bombings happened 2 1/2 days apart, please consider what you would do in their shoes before you pass judgment. What would you think if someone told you something that the modern world thought impossible? Read here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nu... Also, Google the Mokusatsu Incident. Even if you were right about anything, that would not do anything to explain why murdering millions of innocent civilians by fire bombing and nuclear bombing urban civilian population centers was a good idea.
- dnadler 10y ago
  "/s" means he was being sarcastic. Perhaps the joke was in poor taste, but I think you're overreacting a bit. No need for name calling.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    I didn't misinterpret the sarcasm in his post, and I do find it to be in poor taste. Awful taste. I generally find that type of sarcasm to be childish and arrogant slap in the face, and when you consider that it came packaged with ignorance I was reasonable in my response.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >The Japanese already offered conditions of surrender, and we didn't accept it. Give me an example of another Nation State that has ever surrendered under the terms we imposed on Japan. Germany, Italy, no other country had this imposed on them. This is simply false. We demanded UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER against all of the Axis powers, including Germany and Italy. >Even if you were right about anything, that would not do anything to explain why murdering millions of innocent civilians by fire bombing and nuclear bombing urban civilian population centers was a good idea. War is a horrible horrible thing. If there is ever another total war between major powers, that's what it would look like. In total war, the entire productive capacity of a nation is directed to the war effort. The distinction between military and civilian infrastructure becomes heavily blurred. E.g. typerwriter factories producing guns. Factories, farms, cities, all become valid targets. The combatants will do anything in service of victory. The "rules of war" are meaningless when world domination is in the cards. War isn't pretty, it's one of the most horrible things that can happen in this world. And by the way, you are peddling historical revisionism. A settlement that involved Japan holding on to their empire was not an acceptable outcome of the war, and was most certainly not a surrender. See http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502 written by a Professor of History at Penn State.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    No, it's actually not. You will know this if you read more history. Even Japan itself did not end up having to agree to unconditional surrender: > The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. Source: https://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-1880/dp/0316024740 https://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-188... The "unconditional surrender" wording was an official statement, but not a 100% accurate depiction of reality. >by the way, you are peddling historical revisionism What I've stated has been based in fact, and I don't appreciate you conveniently ignore the facts I took the time to contribute and calmly having the indignity to type that. You don't actually want a discussion or to know why someone might disagree with you - You're just glued to your world view. Just keep this in mind. This is a quote published in stripes.com, the US Dept. of Defenses' newspaper: >"The bomb played a part in Japan’s surrender, but it may not have been necessary, he said." Oh, and more on your supposed "unconditional surrender" and war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 If I can open a source, point you to the fact, and show you why that's wrong, but you still are latched onto your worldview without engaging in interest in understanding another's point of view, I have nothing left to say.

flukus 10y ago

The Japanese surrendered because they lost Manchuria, not from the nuclear bombs.

wallace_f 10y ago
This is true. Hirohito started looking for a way out that would allow him to at least make a deal to not be ousted as emperor of Japan, but he ideally wanted to broker deal with Russia.

wallace_f 10y ago

>The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s This is an expression of ignorance on your part, and you're slapping all those innocent victims in the face with your own opinion of what you think happened. The Japanese already offered conditions of surrender, and we didn't accept it. Give me an example of another Nation State that has ever surrendered under the terms we imposed on Japan. Germany, Italy, no other country had this imposed on them. Given our history of deplorable treatment towards the Japanese, what would you do? Everyone knew the Japanese were ready to surrender. It was a political decision: >General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nu... >The Japanese were so ready to surrender that they waited for the SECOND atomic bomb. /s This is an especially god damn arrogant comment. Information does not travel as quickly as it does today: the bombings happened 2 1/2 days apart, please consider what you would do in their shoes before you pass judgment. What would you think if someone told you something that the modern world thought impossible? Read here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nu... Also, Google the Mokusatsu Incident. Even if you were right about anything, that would not do anything to explain why murdering millions of innocent civilians by fire bombing and nuclear bombing urban civilian population centers was a good idea.

dnadler 10y ago
"/s" means he was being sarcastic. Perhaps the joke was in poor taste, but I think you're overreacting a bit. No need for name calling.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  I didn't misinterpret the sarcasm in his post, and I do find it to be in poor taste. Awful taste. I generally find that type of sarcasm to be childish and arrogant slap in the face, and when you consider that it came packaged with ignorance I was reasonable in my response.
marcoperaza 10y ago
>The Japanese already offered conditions of surrender, and we didn't accept it. Give me an example of another Nation State that has ever surrendered under the terms we imposed on Japan. Germany, Italy, no other country had this imposed on them. This is simply false. We demanded UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER against all of the Axis powers, including Germany and Italy. >Even if you were right about anything, that would not do anything to explain why murdering millions of innocent civilians by fire bombing and nuclear bombing urban civilian population centers was a good idea. War is a horrible horrible thing. If there is ever another total war between major powers, that's what it would look like. In total war, the entire productive capacity of a nation is directed to the war effort. The distinction between military and civilian infrastructure becomes heavily blurred. E.g. typerwriter factories producing guns. Factories, farms, cities, all become valid targets. The combatants will do anything in service of victory. The "rules of war" are meaningless when world domination is in the cards. War isn't pretty, it's one of the most horrible things that can happen in this world. And by the way, you are peddling historical revisionism. A settlement that involved Japan holding on to their empire was not an acceptable outcome of the war, and was most certainly not a surrender. See http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502 written by a Professor of History at Penn State.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  No, it's actually not. You will know this if you read more history. Even Japan itself did not end up having to agree to unconditional surrender: > The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. Source: https://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-1880/dp/0316024740 https://www.amazon.com/American-Caesar-Douglas-MacArthur-188... The "unconditional surrender" wording was an official statement, but not a 100% accurate depiction of reality. >by the way, you are peddling historical revisionism What I've stated has been based in fact, and I don't appreciate you conveniently ignore the facts I took the time to contribute and calmly having the indignity to type that. You don't actually want a discussion or to know why someone might disagree with you - You're just glued to your world view. Just keep this in mind. This is a quote published in stripes.com, the US Dept. of Defenses' newspaper: >"The bomb played a part in Japan’s surrender, but it may not have been necessary, he said." Oh, and more on your supposed "unconditional surrender" and war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 If I can open a source, point you to the fact, and show you why that's wrong, but you still are latched onto your worldview without engaging in interest in understanding another's point of view, I have nothing left to say.