Subject:
|
Re: My Concession (for John mostly)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Apr 2003 03:36:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
499 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:
> > > 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)."
*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.
>
> 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.
"...about to surrender"??? Nope.
>
> 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.
"...about to surrender."??? Nope. So it doesn't contradict what I said.
>
> I am not proceeding anywhere - I am simply pointing out the error in what
> you asserted as fact.
You have yet to demonstrate that because you keep talking about something
other than what I was: "about to surrender" does not equal, "rejecting the
terms demanded and wanting to insert conditions already stated would be
rejected but that's still a peace overture". Look, Ross, this is going
round and round in circles with me trying to get you to actually address
this in the context that it was said. The problem is you keep assuming what
I said was "we had no way of knowing that Japan was willing to discuss peace
as long as we understood that they would want a conditional surrender." I
didn't say that.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
