Subject:
|
Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:33:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
415 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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?
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.
> > Using Russia as a go-between was a poor
> > choice by Japan - Russia stabbed 'em in the back. You cite endless contacts
> > with the Russians, but the specifics of what was actually passed on to the
> > U.S. are not given
>
> No, but I think "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram
> from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" says that the Japanese had thought
> about peace, and even proposed it to the Russians, and Truman knew that.
> Again, I think that contradicts your original assertion(s).
Go back to what Dave wrote: "recent evidence suggests that the Emperor was
about to surrender". Not that I have seen evidence of, and certainly not
that the Truman had any evidence of. Wanting to negotiate terms when they
had already been told that there weren't going to be any terms and "about to
surrender" are not the same thing. You keep reading something else into
that exchange and proceeding from that mis-assumption.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
