Opinion of Harry Truman
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon:
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:16:04 PM
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:01:02 PM
Again, there were three choices. Maybe four.
1. Use the bomb.
2. Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces. Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million. About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3. Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission. They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4. Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm. And reinforce its armies in China. This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag. And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it. A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.
So which alternative do you prefer? I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices. I detest false choices. But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.
5. Accept Japanese surrender
I said realistic. Japan was never going to surrender.
Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.
But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.
So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl:
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
k-onmmunist:
Um, the Emperor barely had any control over Japan. Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany.
Analogy fails.
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl:
Quote from: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 22, 2009, 06:38:29 PM
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:16:04 PM
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:01:02 PM
Again, there were three choices. Maybe four.
1. Use the bomb.
2. Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces. Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million. About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3. Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission. They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4. Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm. And reinforce its armies in China. This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag. And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it. A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.
So which alternative do you prefer? I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices. I detest false choices. But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.
5. Accept Japanese surrender
I said realistic. Japan was never going to surrender.
Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.
But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.
So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?
I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon:
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:39:35 PM
Quote from: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 22, 2009, 06:38:29 PM
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:16:04 PM
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:01:02 PM
Again, there were three choices. Maybe four.
1. Use the bomb.
2. Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces. Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million. About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3. Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission. They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4. Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm. And reinforce its armies in China. This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag. And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it. A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.
So which alternative do you prefer? I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices. I detest false choices. But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.
5. Accept Japanese surrender
I said realistic. Japan was never going to surrender.
Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.
But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.
So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?
I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.
If only we had developed the bombs sooner, we might have stopped Hitler before he could massacre seven million Jews, Homosexuals, and other enemies of his evil regime.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page