Japan Was Already Beaten and Starving When We Dropped Nukes

Yeah, uh-huh. Every point in my post has been documented by literally dozens of scholars in dozens of books and articles. You don't know what your talking about, and you appear unwilling to read anything but the syrup put out by Truman apologists.

 

As opposed to the hundreds and maybe thousands of scholars in hundreds and thousands of books and articles who support the actions of Truman during the war?

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking going on in your view of things, with almost 77 years to conjure up stories.

So, what's your point?

 

Not on this planet. Unless your talking about scholars who do not specialize in Japan's surrender. Among scholars who have made a detailed study of Japan's surrender, the vast majority have concluded that the nuking of Japan was unnecessary and immoral. This has been the case since the 1990s.

Huh? Jimmy Byrnes, one of the biggest Japan haters in Truman's cabinet, if not the biggest, was "Monday morning quarterbacking"??? Byrnes was not even remotely criticizing the use of the A-bomb; he was simply being honest about the fact that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them. Admiral Halsey, Admiral Nimitz, General Eisenhower, General Fellers, General Clarke, Admiral Theobold, General MacArthur, Admiral Leahy, etc., etc., etc.--these men who were alive at the time and had inside knowledge on the issue, they were "Monday morning quarterbacking"???

You realize that we now have a lot more Japanese records, as well as American records, than we did when an ailing Henry Stimson allowed his name to be used as the ostensible author of the Truman administration's 1947 unofficial defense of the nuking of Japan, right? Because every Truman apologist has used Stimson's propaganda piece as their starting point, and then they quote far-left Japanese historians and mistranslate the few Japanese primary sources that they pretend to use, as Dr. Kawamura has pointed out.

 

Have you ever read the article? Let's find out...

To what did Byrnes say deserved full credit for the victory?

What did Byrnes say about the atom bomb?

I would ask a 3rd question - Is Byrnes to be believed...Yes or no?

 

Beating them is one thing, we had them beat when the Marianas (their inner defense line) fell, and they knew it as fact. However, the Japanese Idiots in charge decided not to surrender for another year.

 

And you clearly were not at Okinawa. Do you know how many Marines and Soldiers died in 1945? The Japanese Army showed pretty well for being "weak".

Did you, in all of your scholarly research about "government" learn the difference between an Armistice and an Unconditional Surrender?

 

Not really, he's like the perpetually offended types that are running amok these days. He'll keep on going with it until he's tired of hearing about it.

 

I'm not surprised people are still debating this issue in academia (and especially with the witch-hunts going on today) but I am not okay with the tone some people are taking. This was a war, not an a soccer game between 9-year olds. The tone suggests some kind of moral turpitude, when in fact it was a heavily weighed decision using the best available evidence.

 

Still wondering if Mikey read the Byrnes article...

 

Doubtful. People like that have no use for opposing views.

 

Not opposing views... His favorite book/author/ "source" says Byrnes said one thing...When if you read the actual article...Byrnes said near about the exact opposite.

 

That's because Mikey likes to snip things out of context so he only tells you 25-30% of the actual story; the other 70-75% invariably shows the lie of his presentation. . . like his creative editing of Magic recoveries.