Subject:
|
Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:43:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
404 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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<--
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 wanted, and to Truman, the war was still legit, and to end
it sooner, drop the bomb--as an aside, it showed the world the capabilities,
but I believe that Truman did it primarily to end the war sooner--not to
'show off'.
So back to SH et al...
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
