Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

No. Not actually. 

Read up on it

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/atomic-bombings-japan-did-not-produce-its-surrender-204074

Quote

The existence of the MacArthur Memorandum was first revealed by reporter Walter Trohan on the front pages of The Chicago Tribune and Washington Times-Herald four days after the Japanese surrendered on August 15. He had been forced to withhold it for seven months due to wartime censorship. It was leaked to him by FDR’s chief of staff, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, who feared it would be classified top secret for decades or even destroyed. Its authenticity was never questioned by the Truman administration. According to former President Herbert Hoover in his memoir, Freedom Betrayed—Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath,  its veracity was confirmed in every detail by General MacArthur himself. It was also confirmed in the book How the Far East Was Lost by Anthony Kubek. Aside from a few other conservative sources at the time, its existence has largely been erased from this history books by the liberal establishment which sought to cover up such inconvenient truths about a conflict which it has long misrepresented as “the Good War.” This, despite the fact that World War II was the most terrible and deadly war in human history, costing the lives of seventy million people. Further, rather than destroying tyranny, the war served to greatly expand Communist tyranny to one-third of the world’s territory and people—from 170 million in 1939 to 730 million a mere decade later.

Needless to say, had FDR accepted Japan’s surrender at that time, not only would he have saved the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, airmen, and sailors who died unnecessarily, but Communist China and North Korea would not exist today due to the fact that Mao Zedong’s Red Army would not have had the sanctuary of Soviet-occupied Manchuria to fall back to rest, refit, and rearm with captured Japanese weapons. Instead, Chiang Kai Shek’s National Revolutionary Army would likely have defeated them in 1946, bringing all of China under its control. This would have saved up to 100 million lives lost to Communist mass murder and wars, not including over half a billion forced Chinese abortions and infanticides. It also would have saved the lives of nearly 100,000 U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

Posted
26 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Japan had already surrendered before that actually. The US killed civilians primarily to scare the USSR.

Incorrect on both counts.

Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Incorrect on both counts.

Technically FDR rejected Japan's offer of surrender, but the a-bombs were totally unnecessary to end the war with Japan.

Posted
17 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Technically FDR rejected Japan's offer of surrender, but the a-bombs were totally unnecessary to end the war with Japan.

 

Per AI. Go argue with them.

No, Japan did not surrender before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While there were internal discussions and peace feelers towards the Soviet Union about potential surrender terms, these did not constitute a formal offer of surrender to the Allies. The Potsdam Declaration, issued on July 26, 1945, demanded Japan's unconditional surrender, but Japan did not respond affirmatively. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, followed by the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria, ultimately led to Japan's surrender. 
 
 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Ask your AI about the memorandum FDR received on January 20, 1945, from Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

Bro. Take the loss and move on. Japan didn’t surrender before Nagasaki or Hiroshima. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

You're just wrong, but if you trust AI over historians I can't help you understand why

Is an offer of surrender that doesn't meet the terms demanded by the victor really a surrender?

Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The thing is is that they’re wholly unqualified for the jobs they hold so they dare not risk their positions by contradicting Dear Leader. Wtf else are they going to do that would pay as well if they left a cabinet job for which they’re horribly unqualified? That’s exactly why they were appointed in the first place. 

You're right. I know they're weasel afterbirth babies. That's why I asked about anybody on this board. We're like an island of survivors in Dawn of the Dead holed up in a shopping mall. 

Does this say we're exceptionally honorable by not tolerating lying, raping sociopaths? It's a bar that used to seem to be just lying on the ground; a few people might not clear it and trip, but just about everybody would clear it without effort or thought. Now it looks like the pole vault pit to MAGAs.

They love their wallow of hate and cruelty. So warm and sticky. 

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Also, they kept fighting.

FDR rejected the offer. If FDR had accepted the offer, the fighting would have ended without the need for atomic bombs eight months later.

Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

FDR rejected the offer. If FDR had accepted the offer, the fighting would have ended without the need for atomic bombs eight months later.

So, Japan didn’t surrender. Finally.

Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

FDR rejected the offer. If FDR had accepted the offer, the fighting would have ended without the need for atomic bombs eight months later.

The fighting would have ended if the Japanese offered a surrender that met FDR's terms.

They didn't do that until after Nagasaki.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

The fighting would have ended if the Japanese offered a surrender that met FDR's terms.

They didn't do that until after Nagasaki.

 

What terms were so important they had to kill 200k civilians?

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What terms were so important they had to kill 200k civilians?

The Japanese were in no position to dictate terms. Why was it so important to the Japanese not to offer an unconditional surrender?

Edited by David Dennison
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The Japanese were in no position to dictate terms. Why was it so important to the Japanese not to offer an unconditional surrender?

Do you know the terms of Japans offer?

Quote
  • Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
  • Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
  • Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
  • Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
  • Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
  • Surrender of designated war criminals.

What about this offer was so unacceptable to FDR that we needed to kill 200,000 civilians?

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Japanese were in no position to dictate terms. Why was it so important to the Japanese not to offer an unconditional surrender?

They wanted to keep the emperor as a figurehead. US officials were split and didn't want to agree to that. The real bitch of it all is that we later let him keep the throne.

Also, relying on a fucking LLM to fact check should get an instaban.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Hard to accept for some but it's true. We are the only country ever to use nuclear weapons, and it was all completely unnecessary. Cope all you want, but it's true.

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Here, read more. 
 

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/06/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-2/
 

this is all new to me, and both of these are from sources that I don’t know are trustworthy.  But it tend towards the non-conspiratorial end of things absent definitive proof, so I think I’ll remain skeptical of this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Also, relying on a fucking LLM to fact check should get an instaban.

I relied on my education from The University of Texas, but used AI to write a summary. You ok with that, sugar?

Edited by Texas Fight
Posted
20 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Do you know the terms of Japans offer?

What about this offer was so unacceptable to FDR that we needed to kill 200,000 civilians?

It was not unconditional. Those were FDR's terms.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
FDR rejected the offer. If FDR had accepted the offer, the fighting would have ended without the need for atomic bombs eight months later.

FDR had no idea the a-bomb was going to be ready or even work.
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Hard to accept for some but it's true. We are the only country ever to use nuclear weapons, and it was all completely unnecessary. Cope all you want, but it's true.

So, perhaps the targets could have been more strategic but without dropping the bombs, you’d be looking at up a million dead Americans trying to invade Japan.

Moreover, the horror of the bombs likely has something to do with them not being used since. 

Theoretically the bombs could have been avoided, but the cost would have been astronomical. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Here, read more. 
 

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/06/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-2/
 

this is all new to me, and both of these are from sources that I don’t know are trustworthy.  But it tend towards the non-conspiratorial end of things absent definitive proof, so I think I’ll remain skeptical of this. 

This blogger seems pretty argumentative and not particularly scholarly, but even setting aside his tone and motivations his analysis is focused on discrediting two historians without addressing the others such as Dennis Wainstock and Edwin Hoyt, cited in this article from Mark Weber. It was pretty common knowledge that Japan was willing to accept any terms of surrender including the exact same terms that were accepted after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To bring us full circle, it was the onslaughts from the B-29s that truly won this war for the Allied Powers. Everything after that was garbage time and Japan was already completely desperate to cease hostilities and had conveyed via McArthur to FDR the same terms that were ultimately accepted after the nukes were used.

https://ihr.org/journal/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

 

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

This blogger seems pretty argumentative and not particularly scholarly, but even setting aside his tone and motivations his analysis is focused on discrediting two historians without addressing the others such as Dennis Wainstock and Edwin Hoyt, cited in this article from Mark Weber. It was pretty common knowledge that Japan was willing to accept any terms of surrender including the exact same terms that were accepted after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To bring us full circle, it was the onslaughts from the B-29s that truly won this war for the Allied Powers. Everything after that was garbage time and Japan was already completely desperate to cease hostilities and had conveyed via McArthur to FDR the same terms that were ultimately accepted after the nukes were used.

https://ihr.org/journal/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

 

And those terms were unacceptable to FDR when he rejected them.

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Aside from a few other conservative sources at the time, its existence has largely been erased from this history books by the liberal establishment which sought to cover up such inconvenient truths

Your link’s author employs this bit of language, which puts my guard immediately up as having a political agenda. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

And those terms were unacceptable to FDR when he rejected them.

Because he wanted to kill 200,000 civilians instead of end the war. Right? That's my point. It was completely unnecessary to end the war.

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

Because he wanted to kill 200,000 civilians instead of end the war. Right? That's my point. It was completely unnecessary to end the war.

That's on Japan. His terms were clear. Unconditional surrender.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So, perhaps the targets could have been more strategic but without dropping the bombs, you’d be looking at up a million dead Americans trying to invade Japan.

Moreover, the horror of the bombs likely has something to do with them not being used since. 

Theoretically the bombs could have been avoided, but the cost would have been astronomical. 


Yup. You never know what even worse choices your bad choices kept you from. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, bluto said:

Thread turned fully boomer argument

The truth on this is that Japanese intentions, the need to drop the bomb, and the motivations of Truman are bitterly disputed by extremely credible historians and specialists 80 years later to say nothing of the fog of war and politics HST had to work through at the time. Anyone who is dogmatic on this is arguing from ideology.  It’s also extremely true that the planners who dropped the bomb had no clear understanding of the long-term fallout (ISWYDT) aside from “big boom.” 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:


Yup. You never know what even worse choices your bad choices kept you from. 

My grandfather worked in the defense sector at General Electric while they were working on the Manhattan Project and he was deployed for the invasion of Japan in 1945. This futile debate hits kinda different for me. 

Posted
4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

image.thumb.jpeg.b0d37fb17c477f3717802208945f5aab.jpeg

I have to say, this is the first one where I honestly can’t tell if it’s real or not. The capitalization looks weirder than normal, and the bugs bunny doll mention is just so lost on me. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Da Fino said:

I have to say, this is the first one where I honestly can’t tell if it’s real or not. The capitalization looks weirder than normal, and the bugs bunny doll mention is just so lost on me. 

I didn't read this in TFG's voice for once. Instead, it was that guy from SNL reading this as a monologue.

Somebody quick! Go grab him from wherever he's vacationing and drag his into the studio to tape this now.

Posted
5 hours ago, HenryJames said:

image.thumb.jpeg.b0d37fb17c477f3717802208945f5aab.jpeg

If I did not know Trump any better I would think he was playing 4D chess to knee cap Bibi. 

Posted

Kind of strange to get fixated on civilian deaths from nukes specifically in WWII - incendiaries and manufactured firestorms completely erased whole cities just as readily. The nukes were just more efficient, but we very successfully killed 100,000 and dehomed 1,000,000 in one spring night in Tokyo 1945. Just with HE and incendiary. 

The strategic bombing of Japan was a far greater cruelty than just dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. It took longer than nukes, but it killed civilians dead just the same. 

The great game changer of nukes is that one plane carries the equivalent destructive power of 334. Or more

Posted
3 hours ago, Texas Fight said:

Bro. Take the loss and move on. Japan didn’t surrender before Nagasaki or Hiroshima. 

But then again they did not surrender before the Soviets declared war in between both bombs.

At the end of the day historical consensus that everything that happened after the surrender of Germany was less the conclusion of WWII, but the beginning of the Cold War.

All of the ramifications

The US dropping nukes literally on the day the Soviets promised to enter the war,

Japan feeling betrayed by the Soviets, led to them siding with the US 100% after Truman allowed Hirohito to stay.

the Soviets invading Manchuria and giving it to Mao as a the springboard to win the Sino civil war

The Soviet capture of pyongyang and US landings at Inchon, dividing Korea.

All of it was Cold War related. That was the calculus.



×
×
  • Create New...