Truman Lied, Hundreds of Thousands Died (Congress, Iraq, 9/11, support)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to normal Western rules, yes they are. WW2 was a debasement, a degradation, of moral principles, which had already been severly damaged by WW1.
enemie?
Truman was the epitome of pondscum that walked on two legs. Every word he spoke was a lie, including the words 'and' and 'but' (to steal a comment from Hitchens on Reagan.) If you think they were that 'determined' to do anything but save their emperor from execution, you didn't read the article (or any other relevant information.)
Who? The people who burned alive in Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I have no idea, since they were never asked.
Many people burned alive on both sides
I'm absolutely unconcerned about those Japanese people who burned alive as there were millions of leaflets dropped outlining a list of cities slated for bombing to commence within days with admonishment that civilians should evactuate those cities immediately. It was not those I referred to in future generations being denied birth had the bomb not been dropped.
Your little funny face at my spelling error wasn't lost on me either and speaks volumes about your superior attitude. Again you have the luxury of not having been there and probably not even being here if those enemies weren't defeated by any means necessary.
Truman's legacy is secure enough against poolroom speculations such as yours.
If they had not used the weapons, the game plan was to fire bomb every single city in Japan.
Note that more people died in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima, so again, you have to ask what the real issue is here, was it that the bombs were "nuclear" or that a single weapon killed so many?
I can only answer for myself. I think that both were war crimes, and simultaneously crimes against the American people--even if they were too ignorant to know it. There was no good reason for Roosevelt to shove the country into a war it didn't want, but he did it anyway.
Your little funny face at my spelling error wasn't lost on me either and speaks volumes about your superior attitude. Again you have the luxury of not having been there and probably not even being here if those enemies weren't defeated by any means necessary.
It speaks volumes, I agree. Some people are more educated than others.
I have many luxuries as an American, but none of them depend on the past nuclear (or conventional) annihilation of Japanese cities as such. Japan was never going to take over the United States.
Neither was Germany, but unlike Hitler the Japanese never even pretended to want to.
Tell that to the millions of US troops who would have had to go into Japan. It is estimated that we would have suffered 900,000 dead- 50% more than all the casualities of the war in both theaters combined up to that point.
That would've been the fault of the American leadership which defrauded the American people into an unnecessary war.
There were attempts by Japan to surrender before the first bomb. Another commentary from a person who did not read the article.
Unconditionally as requested?
Tens of thousands of American POW's were held in Japanese prison camps with many dying every single day. If the bombs caused Japan to surrender one hour before they would have otherwise, saving at least one American POW, then Truman did the right thing.
Tens of thousands of American POW's were held in Japanese prison camps with many dying every single day. If the bombs caused Japan to surrender one hour before they would have otherwise, saving at least one American POW, then Truman did the right thing.
How about if allowing a cease-fire in place with a conditional surrender in July would've saved scores or hundreds of American POWs (not to mention over 100,000 Japanese non-combatants, since you obviously view them as expendible)?
(How, indeed, about not having provoked a war in the first place?)
What would've saved more lives, that, or the bombs?
When Truman lied to America that Hiroshima was a military base rather than a city full of civilians, people no doubt wanted to believe him. Who would want the shame of belonging to the nation that commits a whole new kind of atrocity.
The Japanese were killing about 150,000 Chinese, Fillipinos etc. per MONTH around that time.
Nukes brought the war to a close much sooner than it would have otherwise.
I'm not sure why you value Japanese civilians over those of other Asian countries. They only killed about 10million Chinese.
Someone doesn't know thier history very well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.