Subject:
|
Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 23:16:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
427 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > 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.
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 with
conditions) to Russia. This directly contradicts the first part of your
assertion that we had no way to know what they intended.
2. We knew *at least* that they were willing to negotiate a conditional
surrender (albeit with Russia), which directly contradicts the second part
of your assumption.
I am not proceeding anywhere - I am simply pointing out the error in what
you asserted as fact.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
| (...) *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 (...) (22 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
