 | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | (...) I assume that you are discounting the two blaringly obvious examples for a reason? Germany? Japan? The latter we did literally bomb into submission (WoMD, to add some irony). (...) That we have committed this far (foolishly) it would seem a (...) (21 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) However, recent evidence suggests that the emporer was about to surrender, and that you yanks dropped the bomb to show the world your power. (...) Agreed Dave K (...) (21 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Deja vu all over again. IIRC we had this debate already. I forget what the outcome was... but I don't recall that statement coming out a clear winner. (21 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Maybe time to have it again then 8?) (URL) (21 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) I'd say we pretty close to literally bombed Germany into submission also... (...) Whatever the truth is here, it certainly is a case of warring them into submission, and then going in and setting the groundwork for a respected, productive (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | Immediately before WW II, was Japan a straight out monarchy, or a constitutional monarchy? I don't think I have ever looked into that precise aspect of world history. If it were a flat out monarchy, then I'd agree that we have at least one or two (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Oh no! Not the "should we have dropped 'the bomb'" debate again?!? No, despite lame attempts at recent revisionism, we had no way to know what Japan intended beyond its action (which were that the war was going to continue to the absolute (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Wrong. (URL) (which were that the war was going to (...) Wrong again. (...) Ah at last something approaching reality! 1 outta 3 aint bad. (...) Whatever you reckon. ROSCO (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) 1: I read the site before I posted, and for that matter I read the site the previous time this came up. You may wish to actually quote the exact passage that you are refering to, since what I read would seem to support me. 2: Unsupported (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) This doesn't sound to me like a country whose intentions "were that the war was going to continue to the absolute bitter end" and Truman had full knowledge of it. --- begin quote --- July 1945 - Japan's peace messages Still, the messages from (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Quite the contrary - see your quoted summary at the bottom. Japan had rejected the conditions of surrender (to whit, none) and the U.S. was under no obligation to pause in the war. In fact, it would have been a betrayal of the American people (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) You asserted that "[japan's intentions] were that the war was going to continue to the absolute bitter end". What has that to do with US obligation to pause? (...) This may be your opinion, but again has nothing to do with your original (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) They didn't accept the call for unconditional surrender, war was continuing. I'm not sure why you aren't getting it, and I'm kinda tired of having to repeat it. (...) Go back to what Dave wrote: "recent evidence suggests that the Emperor was (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) Yes, now that I was reminded that this debate was discussed earlier, and that there will probably be no 'official' consensus as to what Truman knew, we can only go by official accounts--Truman didn't know exactly what the emporer said or (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Let me again state your assertion: "we had no way to know what Japan intended beyond its action (which were that the war was going to continue to the absolute bitter end)." 1. We knew *at least* that Hirohito had proposed a peace deal (albeit (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) *IN RELATION* to what Dave said!!! "Recent evidence suggests that the Emperor was about to surrender." You keep taking it out of context and trying to assert your own argument in there. (...) "...about to surrender"??? Nope. (...) "...about to (...) (21 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
