3 ms·

>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 t

>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.

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.