Truman Lied, Hundreds of Thousands Died (money, vote, world, radio)
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.
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.
That second statement isn't true, as you would know if you read the article.
As for the first statement, it sounds false. The Phillipines were invaded in January, 1945; my grandfather was a participant. They were on the run in China and in Manchuria as well when the bombs were dropped. So I'd like you to source or retract that statement.
It may be that the Japanese soldiers killed 150,000 people a month (including enemy soldiers), on average, during an 8-year-war. I strongly doubt they were doing anything like the same sort of damage on 6 August 1945.
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.
If the OP wants to get his panties in a wad over Truman lies and deaths he should look not at the dropping of the A-bomb but at Truman's Constitutional violation in declaring war in Korea without Congressional approval. At least our attacks upon Japan in WWII were defensive following their attacks on our naval fleet.
And there were elements who wanted to surrender before the first bomb, which you'd know if you'd studied the matter in any serious way.
But not powerful enought to actually instittue a surrender. There were even elements who did not want to start the *&^%$ war in the first place, for whatever that was worth.
They would not surrender. And they payed a very, very dear price for that. The responsibility for that begins and ends with the Tojo, the Junta, and that lackey known as Hirohito.
Its you who have not studied this seriously. Evidenced by the fact that you hide all your "points" behind attacks and insults.
Well then, why didn't they? Could it be they had NO authority and NO power to do so?
'Authority' is always dispersed.
Look at the U.S. There is a range of people in Congress, from those who were burning to hit Iraq way before 9/11 to people who thought it was disgusting even while (and after) it was happening.
But to answer your specific question: the Japanese wanted to surrender on condition that we wouldn't kill the Emperor. We didn't kill him in the end, but just to make sure they knew we could, we roasted an extra 120,000 noncombatants.
I don't care if you are left, right, center, or indifferent to politics. If you celebrate WW2 you are an ignoramus--a trained monkey. Disgusting.
If the OP wants to get his panties in a wad over Truman lies and deaths he should look not at the dropping of the A-bomb but at Truman's Constitutional violation in declaring war in Korea without Congressional approval. At least our attacks upon Japan in WWII were defensive following their attacks on our naval fleet.
Have you ever bothered to examine what we did before their attack on our naval fleet?
The secondary reason for using nuclear weapons was to prevent the Russians from continuing the war to take the rest of continental Europe into their possession. I believe another reason to drop the bombs on Japan was a well developed propaganda machine that convinced the Americans that the Japanese were no more than very dangerous pests and that we were not bombing people.
Right we go in with the Marshall Plan.... General Macarthur was loved by the Japanese that they wanted to be a State in the Union....LMAO...ask them if they wanted the Russians instead of US...
britain came to the defense of poland because of a treaty with poland. therefore britain was justified in attacking germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
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?
the japanese wanted conditions to surrender, so did the germans, however they gave no conditions for starting the wars now did they? you are looking at history with the eyes, and values of today. and that is the wrong way to look at what was going on more than 60 years ago. it was a different time, and different value systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
That second statement isn't true, as you would know if you read the article.
As for the first statement, it sounds false. The Phillipines were invaded in January, 1945; my grandfather was a participant. They were on the run in China and in Manchuria as well when the bombs were dropped. So I'd like you to source or retract that statement.
It may be that the Japanese soldiers killed 150,000 people a month (including enemy soldiers), on average, during an 8-year-war. I strongly doubt they were doing anything like the same sort of damage on 6 August 1945.
really? you believe that the phillipines were invaded in 1945? where are you getting your history, out of thin air? the japanese invaded the phillipines on december 8th 1941. and while the japanese were being pushed back on all front by 1945, they were still fighting the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadtrip75
So, Truman actually was trying to help Communist China? And you're good with that?
The Allies' primary accomplishment in WWII was to destroy the most powerful enemy of Communism in Europe and Asia. Good work, fellas!
well considering that china was NOT a communist country until AFTER world war two, and considering that japan fought against the chinese, who were ostensibly our allies at the time, we had good reason to support china. as for the soviet union, remember that hitler invaded the country despite a non aggression pact that was signed a couple of years earlier. thus hitler made an enemy of stalin, which put stalin on our side of the war. in the end, at the time hitler was the greater threat as he had already gone to war, where as stalin was in fact seeking peace.
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.