It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

64 Years ago, Yesterday... (Warning some graphic material)

page: 10
53
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exopolitico
 

History is told by the winners. Also, the first casualty of war is the truth.


You’ve pretty much summed up the whole thread in one line.
Nice job!

peace




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oatmeal
It is honorable to save hundreds of thousands of lives by dropping just two bombs. President Truman made the right choice.


Did he?
From what I've read, Japan was willing to discuss surrender terms months before the bombings.

www.ihr.org...



America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Whine Flu
 

It's weird, I didn't see this displayed in any of the MSM


Guess what! That was the main reason I started this thread - I was surprised nothing was here on AS and I found very very little on MSM.

If only I’d of known, lol.

peace



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


star and flag, and much thanks for bringing this to the front of the line. I watched a documentary on Hiroshima on the anniversary date, I was raised in post war Japan in the 60's, moved back to the states in 69. Funny how as a small kid, I could be there and know nothing of the catastrophe that took place there. But as an adult I sought knowledge, I wanted to know why, why did my own country do this to these innocent people? The answer? War is hell. It was respected strategy, part of which was using a powerful weapon. The same theat looms over each of us every day. No one wants that to happen again, no one will ever say it was okay to kill innocents, but this is what war is about, and the japanese did, and do still understand this. If you shove someone, you might just get shoved back harder.

The pictures are horrific. The children, women, the utter destruction of life and land, are a testament to why nations should be patient with each other, find ways to compromise when needed, find a way not to 'shove' each other around.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by carnival_of_souls2047
 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santyana


Agreed.

Bt let me add I’ve never once stood up in this thread and said “Oh the poor Japanese” - or - in any way tried to gloss over or keep the truth of the atrocities committed by the Japanese hidden.

As so many have said - war is war - and all sides have committed horrendous acts.

My ‘problem’ is I don’t agree with the use of the bomb.

I believe the Japanese were actively seeking peace using the Russians as intermediates.

I believe the bomb was used to prove the *might and right* of the US military power, and to justify spending over 2.6 billion on the making of the bomb along with other reasons including the show of force to the world, to Stalin and to make sure we *got the bomb* before the German’s did.

I don't believe the use of the bomb was warranted. And I’m not alone in that belief.

Truman made a point of actively searching for targets that contained as few civilians as possible.

Instead, Hiroshima contained 5-6 civilians for every soldier.

That alone is an abomination enough.

And to those who try and make us believe ‘Those people would have died anyway’ - Show me your crystal balls and stop trying to play God. You no more know what *might* have happened than my cat does.

Thanks for your post - I appreciate and respect your view, and your respectful way of delivering it.

peace



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

Thanks for your post - I appreciate and respect your view, and your respectful way of delivering it.

peace



Thanks, Silo13, I just wanted you to know that this has been an informative thread and I respect your point of view fully, S n F worthy. It's been a while since I have thought about it but today being the anniversary of the event is as good as any to reexamine this crucial point in history.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by carnival_of_souls2047]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The Japanese did horrible things...the American did horrible things. Nobody is innocent.

Did Japan start the war? I'm pretty sure things were in motion for a long time, and it was an inevitable outcome. Why do people want to place the blame.

The thing is with war, you can always switch the blame. I could say America started the war. Japan had a history of isolationism. In the 1850s The US Navy (Perry) visited Japan to establish trade but was rejected. The US then showed the Japanese the destruction capabilities of their technology. You could say the USA started the war at that time...they basically forced Japan to modernize and end their isolationism. This eventually led to the Japan that Americans saw in WW2. Imperialism was not limited to the Japanese, they were just late to the game.

We should honor the Japanese that died from the a-bombs. They apparently saved millions of lives.

In WW2 USA placed embargoes on Japan (oil, etc.). It is said that it was because of what was happening in China. And American history books will then tell you about Pearl Harbor.

Now, what if the leading exporters of oil to the USA did the same thing today? And lets say it is done because of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. Your patriotism will tell you that it is different...but I see similarities. I see growing xenophobia and fear of outsiders in the USA (especially after 9/11).

When history repeats itself, people never seem to gain perspective.

War sucks.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
TruthParadox, it should go without saying that I don't consider children or other innocents to be the enemy and my heart as a human being goes out to those who perished in this massive conflict wether it be man, woman or child.


Well this is about the bombing of civilians. Civilians were the target.
So when you said you don't feel bad for the enemy, I assumed you were talking about the civilians America bombed.



Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
By the same token, you should feel some level of sympathy for the men, women, and children who were killed, tortured, or maimed due to an unprovoked attack by an enemy that considered us a subhuman race.


I do feel sympathy for those people...
But I think it's important to note - we also portrayed the 'japs' as a subhuman race.



Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
When I mentioned the Japanese concentration camps from my earlier post I was speaking from personal knowledge. My brother-in-law, Peter, (who is dutch) was a small boy when he was imprisoned in Indonesia along with his mother and 2 sisters (one of whom was only 6 months old) by the japanese.

Young Peter, his two sisters, and their mother lanquished in that camp for 2 years where they had witnessed horrors you couldn't possibly imagine by their hosts. One horrible day his mother witnessed the hanging of 6 year old boy to serve as a lesson to his mother for some imaginary transgression (she probably tried to steal food for her babies).

They would have died there if Japan was not forced into surrendering in the final days. They spent an entire year in a hospital after those events but they survived.


I'm sorry to hear that and I understand your point of view. But Japan was already on it's knees at this point. How much effort did America really put in diplomacy?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


I'll say this to anyone, including Japanese from Hiroshima and Nagaasaki: Too bad. You started it, we finished it, and in the manner we finished it, millions of your countrymen are still alive.

You sure were celebrating in the streets when killing Chinese. You cheered over the Phillipines. You were almighty excited to hit the United States.

That killing was really fun while it was one-sided.

But it isn't much fun on the receiving end, is it?

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

And you have to be a -SNIP- to believe that Japan was going to surrender. Never happened.

A lot of anti-American BS!

I guarantee, if it was your butt going to make the landing on the Japanese homeland, you'd be crying to end the thing before you had to hit those beaches.

Even after the first bomb was dropped, they STILL wouldn't consider such a thing, and declared that all of Japan, every man, woman and child would fight until the end.

So much for the crap wannebe history you subscribe to.

Try getting an education and reading history once in a while.

You'll learn all kinds of things you clearly didn't know before.

Mod Edit -



1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene

Terms and Conditions

[edit on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:26:34 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper

EDIT - fixed.

What part of these FACTS don't you understand?

Japan seeks peace through the Soviets


In the meantime, the Japanese government was attempting to persuade the Soviet Union to mediate a peace for Japan that would not be unconditional.

This was in response to the Emperor's request at a Big Six meeting on June 22, 1945 to seek peace thru the Soviets, who were the only major member of the Allies that had a neutrality pact with Japan at the time (Butow, pg. 118-120).

Unfortunately for all concerned, Japan's leaders were divided over precisely what terms should be sought to end the war, with the Japanese military leaders still wishing to avoid anything that the Allies would have considered a clear "surrender".

Having broken the code Japan used for transmitting messages, the U.S. was able to follow Japan's efforts to end the war as it intercepted the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's Ambassador to Moscow Sato. The messages were sent as the result of the June 22, 1945 Japanese Cabinet meeting. The conditions under which Japan was willing to surrender were not clearly spelled out in the messages, aside from a willingness to give up territory occupied during the war and a repeated rejection of "unconditional surrender".

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

· July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

· July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".

· July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).

· July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

· July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

· July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).

· July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).


And...


President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53).


If you can’t see, by the facts I’ve provided, that YES the Japanese were ACTIVELY working towards peace using the Russians as go-betweens, and Truman KNEW THIS and was ACTIVELY PROLONGING the war as to use the bomb - then I’m sorry, you’re as blinded as you say the rest of us are.


peace

[edit on 8-8-2009 by silo13]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Adding to what Dooper said just above me, not only were the Japanese not going to surrender, the emperor authorized foriegn minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union to solicit an ALLIANCE as fantastical as that sounds.

The Japanese not only did not surrender, they were still plotting to the very end any means necessary to destroy the United States.

The Japanese army staff produced a document, "The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War," which stated that the Japanese people would fight to extinction rather than surrender. This policy was adopted by the Big Six on June 6. (Togo opposed it, while all the other Big Six supported it.)

Clearly Japan was in it for the long haul. "...to extinction rather than surrender."



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I'd like to add that Japan was offered many chances near the end of July 1945 to surrender and they simply chose not too.

The allies spelled it out in the Cairo Declaration earlier and again at a later date:
"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed. We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people."

However, the document ended with this final message:

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

The next day, Japanese newspapers reported that the Declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped by leaflet into Japan, had been rejected.

Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated, "I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.

Suzuki's statement, particularly its final sentence, leaves little room for misinterpretation and was taken as a rejection by the press, both in Japan and abroad, and no further statement was made in public or through diplomatic channels to alter this understanding.

Japan never had any intentions to surrender, they were instead attempting to sway the Soviet Union into some kind of fantasy team-up so they could go for a come back in the war. If they would have surrendered unconditionally post haste, they may not have been bombed.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by chiron613
 


It is a good thing that the Nazis did not share your sentiments with regards to the use of weapons of Mass Destruction.

The Germans could have used all of the excuses that you just gave to justify the use of Chemical weapons against England to "end the war fast, to save lives".

Imagine is V-1 and V-2 bombs had been equipped with Nerve agents or radiation bombs (dirty bombs)..... Your arguments could be used to justify that. Thankfully the Germans did not use these War-Decisive weapons.

The Germans could have made hundreds of radiation bombs with the amount of Uranium-234 that they had - enough to wipe out England and end the War with the British Empire.

They even sent some to the Japanese:



"The Uranium carried by U-234 was enough to make two atomic bombs, to blow up two American cities -- 1,235 pounds of 77 percent pure uranium oxide -- unusable by the destroyed Nazi hopes, it was destined for the Japanese atomic bomb program. The U-234 executive officer supervised the opening of the containers in Washington, DC, and reports he was told that one of the Americans was Oppenheimer. It is generally believed the the uranium was taken over by the Manhattan project, but its ultimate use, if any, is lost in secrecy. It was most certainly sent to Oak Ridge, but there was probably not enough time for it to have been processed and used in the two WW2 weapons."

-www.ww2pacific.com...



*A u-boat called U-234 which was carrying U-234....




[edit on 7-8-2009 by Exuberant1]


Yes it is a good thing they didn't share the sentiments....because they were the ones trying to dominate other countries, take them over, and eradicate an entire race of people.


Last I checked the US used their "excuse" to stop a war, stop an aggressive force from domination of other countries, and save the invaded from being overthrown. I think Japan got to keep their country after we stopped them, not sure if Germany chose to use said weapons the countries they used them on would have kept theirs...



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 





From what I've read, Japan was willing to discuss surrender terms months before the bombings.


The Japanese did not try to surrender before the bombs were dropped. They tried to strike a deal with the Russians whereby they dictated the terms. They wanted to keep all conquered territory, Have none of them tried for war crimes, keep their military government intact and keep the Emperor in place. They negotiated with the Soviets, Russia, not America. The Russians turned them down and invaded after the first bomb hit.




The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a close. By August 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy effectively ceased to exist, and an Allied invasion of Japan was imminent. While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme War Council (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese. The Soviets, meanwhile, were preparing to attack the Japanese, in fulfillment of their promise to the Americans and the British made at the Yalta Conference.


en.wikipedia.org...




The reason we hit Nagasaki was to convince them we had more than one bomb because their scientists knew creating the bomb would be difficult and limiting. Even after Nagasaki, another six days went by before the surrender. Why? We have learned since that their military leaders tried to convince the Emperor and Japan's civilian leaders to fight to the bitter end. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa demonstrated this attitude. When we invaded Okinawa, the island contained 117,000 defending troops. Before its final capture, 114,000 of them had died (according to U.S. Army reports, as many as 140,000 civilians also died during the three-month battle). To surrender was a disgrace to them; and the closer we got to Japan itself, the harder they fought.


www.mercurynews.com...




The atomic bomb was dropped on August 6. It was not until President Truman addressed his nation the next day that the leaders in Tokyo understood what had happened. They were assured there was not enough uranium in the world to allow a repeat an atomic attack and that wearing white clothing would defeat the bomb. On 9 August, the Japanese ambassador to Moscow was told of the repudiation of the existing treaty as a means to bring peace nearer and at the request of its allies, a state of war existed. Two hours later, Soviet troops attacked the hollow shell of the remaining Japanese troops in Manchuria. The cabinet meeting over the night of 9-10 August was deadlocked with six in favor of surrender under certain conditions, three to fight on until after the final battle had shown Japan's will, and with five neutral members. Issues discussed that night were: that the Emperor must remain; that Japan must disarm her own troops and not surrender arms to a foreign power; and that Japan must try her own war criminals. Word came during the meeting that a second city had been destroyed by atomic attack. The meeting was moved to an audience with the Emperor who listened to the arguments on both sides and concluded that the time had come to "bear the unbearable". The Emperor had no direct authority other than the loyalty of those who would listen to him. A diplomatic message was drafted to the Allies describing Japan's conditions of accepting the Potsdam proclamation. The army felt that the troops must be keep fighting until the terms were formally agreed and broadcast this announcement : "We shall fight on to the bitter end, ever firm in our faith that we shall find life in death . . . and surge forward to destroy the arrogant enemy." The peace side decided to counteract the martial effect of that news release with an announcement of their own. This was for several reasons. The government sponsored news agency was in Morse code only and not covered by military censorship; it would speed the receipt of the Japanese offer going through diplomatic channels and could possibly postpone destruction of another city; and it was hoped that rejoicing created among the allies by an end to the war would make them unable to reject Japan's counter offer. On the morning of the 11th, the army was furious, but did not resort to violence. That evening the Emperor agreed to broadcast to the nation on acceptance of the offer.


www.ww2pacific.com...




The Japanese military leaders were not considering surrender. They were preparing a last-ditch defense of the home islands using old women and children with rocks and clubs if necessary. Only when they realized that the US had the capability of totally annihilating their culture with the atomic bomb (they didn't know we only had two) did they consider surrendering, and even then some of the leaders tried to prevent the Emperor�s surrender message from getting to the US.


wiki.answers.com...

www.bookmice.net...




The government of Japan was under the military rule of Hideki Tojo, nicknamed the "Razor." He was a high-ranking general in the Imperial Japanese Army, but acted as Prime Minster for most of the war. Above Tojo was the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito. The Emperor was not interested in continuing the war and asked Tojo to end it. Many high-ranking Japanese government officials did not wish to "lose face" to the Americans. The Code of Bushido did not allow for surrender, and they preferred the nation die in battle without shame. Tojo also tried to negotiate a separate deal from the Soviet Union, but it did not respond to the Japanese requests. The Japanese were unaware that the Americans had broken their military codes. The United States was able to read all of their military and diplomatic messages. This meant that the United States knew exactly what was going on, including the military decisions being made by the Japanese government. It became clear to the United States that Japan was not going to surrender, and would have to be invaded with ground forces.


www.scs.sk.ca...



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Oatmeal
 



www.nuclearfiles.org...



May 31
The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) reports on receiving a Japanese peace feeler through a Japanese diplomat stationed in Portugal. The Japanese diplomat says that the actual terms are unimportant so long as the term "unconditional surrender" is not used.



It seems we could have negotiated.
Their primary concern was the removal of their emperor, which never happened in the end anyway.
If there had been more talk, there's a very good chance it could have been avoided.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 





It seems we could have negotiated. Their primary concern was the removal of their emperor, which never happened in the end anyway. If there had been more talk, there's a very good chance it could have been avoided.


Japan was given opportunities to surrender, but refused...




The Potsdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1475). On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Potsdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three - (War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda - adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202). Later that day the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body - not the Big 6, not even the Emperor - that could rule as to whether Japan would surrender. And a unanimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208(43n)). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).


www.doug-long.com...




President Truman wanted to issue a letter of warning giving an opportunity to surrender before using the atomic bomb. The letter warned the Japanese government that if they did not surrender completely, Japan would suffer "complete and utter destruction." The Japanese did not reply to the official letter, but the Americans knew the answer by reading the coded messages. Japan intended to fight to the death.


www.scs.sk.ca...




There it is! The smoking gun! But it is nothing of the sort. The message Truman cited did not refer to anything even remotely resembling surrender. It referred instead to the Japanese foreign office's attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact. No American president could have accepted such a settlement, as it would have meant abandoning the United States' most basic war aims.


www.americanthinker.com...




From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.


www.cfo.doe.gov...



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oatmeal
Japan was given opportunities to surrender, but refused...


Had the terms been slightly altered by means of negotiation, they would have been far more likely to accept.




May 28
Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy argues to Secretary of War Stimson that the term "unconditional surrender" should be dropped: "Unconditional surrender is a phrase which means loss of face and I wonder whether we cannot accomplish everything we want to accomplish in regard to Japan without the use of that term."

May 28
In a State Department Memorandum of Conversation, Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew describes a meeting with President Truman that day. Grew writes: "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the Throne. If some indication can now be given the Japanese that they themselves, when once thoroughly defeated and rendered impotent to wage war in the future will be permitted to determine their own future political structure, they will be afforded a method of saving face without which surrender will be highly unlikely."


www.nuclearfiles.org...


In the end, I just don't believe we did enough to negotiate a peaceful solution.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 





From what I've read, Japan was willing to discuss surrender terms months before the bombings.


You do not discuss terms with people like this...

























posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Oatmeal
 


Please place a warning on your pictures that they are graphic and may upset viewers.

Also, the first three pictures you posted do not work.

Beyond that, you might want to add in a description of the pictures as just the pictures of atrocities alone can be misleading and allow viewers to point the finger in any direction.

I’m not siding with or against your claims, just helping the thread along here.

Thanks

Original Poster -



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 





Had the terms been slightly altered by means of negotiation, they would have been far more likely to accept.


They wanted to negotiate their peace terms.




From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.


www.cfo.doe.gov...

The defeated in war do not get to negotiate their own peace terms, Especially if they were the aggressor.




One might think that compelling substantiation would be necessary to support such a monstrous charge, but the revisionists have been unable to provide a single example from Japanese sources. What they have done instead amounts to a variation on the old shell game. They state in their own prose that the Japanese were trying to surrender without citing any evidence and, to show that Truman was aware of their efforts, cite his diary entry of July 18 [1945] referring to a "telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace." There it is! The smoking gun! But it is nothing of the sort. The message Truman cited did not refer to anything even remotely resembling surrender. It referred instead to the Japanese foreign office's attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact. No American president could have accepted such a settlement, as it would have meant abandoning the United States' most basic war aims.


www.americanthinker.com...

The Japanese were not even trying to negotiate an end to the war, they were stalling for time. They were not interested in any negotiation, let alone an altered one.




top topics



 
53
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join