Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[whichphilosophy]

Was the US bad for all the atrocities it committed in the Philippines to turn it into an obedient colony?

Was it bad for genocide in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos?

Has it ever done anything wrong?

Oh, that's right. In addition to your willful ignorance of Japan's well-documented war crimes, you also think Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are all just hapless victims of US imperialism, and didn't do anything wrong on their own.

But why stop there? You're on a roll!


Please tell me how the millions who died in China under Mao were all actually killed by the evil US imperialists, and how North Korea's mad murderous regime is actually a just and kind society wrongfully blamed for US-implemented genocide.

The Chinese issue is something else. The Chinese mainly died in the great famine from 1958 to 1962. In 1959 the Yellow River flooded. Adverse weather conditions, mismanagement, corruption and incorrect farming methods (including those adopted from the Soviet Union). China was also under blockade for many years and not even recognized as a nation for several years.

Should the US now nuke China and Korea? The US invaded Iraq leaving a mess, but didn't invade North Korea.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Oh, that's right. In addition to your willful ignorance of Japan's well-documented war crimes, you also think Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are all just hapless victims of US imperialism, and didn't do anything wrong on their own.

But why stop there? You're on a roll!


Please tell me how the millions who died in China under Mao were all actually killed by the evil US imperialists, and how North Korea's mad murderous regime is actually a just and kind society wrongfully blamed for US-implemented genocide.

The Chinese issue is something else. The Chinese mainly died in the great famine from 1958 to 1962. In 1959 the Yellow River flooded. Adverse weather conditions, mismanagement, corruption and incorrect farming methods (including those adopted from the Soviet Union). China was also under blockade for many years and not even recognized as a nation for several years.

Should the US now nuke China and Korea? The US invaded Iraq leaving a mess, but didn't invade North Korea.

Not now, but the whole purpose of stopping the spread of communism around the world was the prevent these disasters from happening to other people.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So what do you do when the defense has failed and the Japanese are committing atrocities upon your allies such as this.:
(warning-extremely graphic)

Show

View attachment 7010
View attachment 7011
View attachment 7012
View attachment 7013

I've been on the fence about posting photos of the atrocities the Japanese were committing upon the Chinese. Millions were killed in this manner and worse. Apparently some here think everything would have been sunshine and lollipops if the US had just stayed out of the fight.

These were people whom had already been defeated. The Japanese felt that, because the Chinese didn't put up a better fight, they had no honor and therefore deserved no mercy. I don't know if this attitude from some here comes from a lack of knowledge of history or just an unreasonable absolutist perspective. I hope you find those photographs disgusting because I find such attitudes almost as disgusting.

The atrocities the Japanese committed are beyond imagination, but most of the criminals including Hirohito got of Scott free. The killing of Japanese Civilians, Chinese and Korean labour conscripts as well as hundreds of allied prisoners located in Nagasaki were senseless given that the Japanese had been making peace attempts (in the usual fashion) several months earlier to the US testing its A bombs.

Further, the excuse that Japan wanted conditions is even more enfeebled when the Americans actually granted the Japanese key conditions anyway.

And as I stated before, it was a weak attempt and not much of one. They didn't even try and sit down with the US and the US gave Japan 10 days to surrender before the first bomb and reiterated their surrender after the the first dropping attack. Japan really didn't want surrender.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The atrocities the Japanese committed are beyond imagination, but most of the criminals including Hirohito got of Scott free. The killing of Japanese Civilians, Chinese and Korean labour conscripts as well as hundreds of allied prisoners located in Nagasaki were senseless given that the Japanese had been making peace attempts (in the usual fashion) several months earlier to the US testing its A bombs.

Further, the excuse that Japan wanted conditions is even more enfeebled when the Americans actually granted the Japanese key conditions anyway.

And as I stated before, it was a weak attempt and not much of one. They didn't even try and sit down with the US and the US gave Japan 10 days to surrender before the first bomb and reiterated their surrender after the the first dropping attack. Japan really didn't want surrender.

Not according to US militarists and DW Eisenhower

How do you evaluate what was a 'weak attempt?' When countries at war the communicate through neutral channels. The US had an opportunity to respond but insisted on an unconditional surrender, yet in fact it ended up meeting the Japanese key points making its actions even more asinine.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

As quoted in The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953–1956: A Personal Account (1963), p. 331
I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. (Taken from newsweek 11/11/63 US President Dwight Eisenhower, formerly WWII Supreme )

http://morallowground.com/2011/08/06/the-truth-about-hiroshima/#comment-1339960
Ralph Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy:
“The Japanese were ready for peace and they had already approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. The Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atomic bomb. It wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing.” (US News & World Report, August 15, 1960)

Paul Nitze, US Strategic Bombing Survey:
“While I was working on the new plan of air attack, I concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. Japan would capitulate by November, 1945.” (Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pp.44-45)
Japan could mount no defense of itself whatsoever against the relentless might of the American war machine. The people of Japan were completely broken by years of war and the leadership had had enough. The US had intercepted and decoded secret transmissions from Japanese foreign minister Shigenori Togo to Naotaki Sato, the Japanese ambassador in Moscow.
These messages were nothing less than attempts to negotiate an end to the war. But the Japanese wanted a way to save face and to retain their Emperor, considered a sacred figure. Right up to July 26th Sato was desperately trying to negotiate a very reasonable surrender that included retention of the Emperor in order to keep Japanese national identity and dignity intact. The US knew all about this futile effort
But Washington would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. On July 26th the Potsdam Declaration was issued, demanding just that.

Again, Dwight Eisenhower:
“Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer mandatory to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face.” (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change p.380)
General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the war against Japan, was shocked by the Potsdam demands of unconditional surrender. “Retaining the Emperor was vital to an orderly transition to peace,” he opined, fully aware that there was no way the Japanese would accept a future without their god-like monarch. But that did not mean the much-touted land invasion of Japan would have been necessary to bring the war to a close…

The Americans knew the Japanese wanted to surrender. Here is an unclassified memo (page 2)
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/23.pdf

 

[Horatio Parker]

As I read that memo, it's speculative. It only "proves" that some Americans thought the Japanese wanted to surrender.

I've read that the Russians did not pass on information regarding Japan's attempts to open negotiations. Remember, the Russians were neutral wrt Japan until the end of the war. Hitler declared war on the US hoping that the Japanese would help him with Russia, but the Japanese weren't buying.

But I agree with the point: the demand for unconditional surrender prolonged the war on both fronts. It was valuable propaganda for the enemy.

 

[bilby]

http://morallowground.com/2011/08/06/the-truth-about-hiroshima/
Ralph Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy:
“The Japanese were ready for peace and they had already approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. The Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atomic bomb. It wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing.” (US News & World Report, August 15, 1960)

Thanks to the efforts of a number of Soviet sympathizers in the Manhattan project, most notably Klaus Fuchs, The US nuclear position was known to the Russians prior to the Trinity test, and the Russians would have developed nuclear weapons whether the bomb was used or not, so this argument is vacuous.

Security by obscurity simply doesn't work; Even if the Manhattan project had been watertight from a security perspective; and even if no bombs were exploded outside the Alamogordo Bombing range, and nobody in the US, Canadian or British program had passed any secrets at all to the Soviet Union, it would have been the height of irresponsibility for the US and her allies to simply assume that the Russians had not and/or could not duplicate their research, and build a bomb of their own from first principles - after all, the Americans did it, so why not the Russians?

Bombing Japan may have been valuable as a demonstration that the US definitely had the bomb, and a means to deliver it to a distant target; But NOT bombing japan would have been completely valueless as a safeguard against other nations developing nuclear weapons.

This is perhaps the least compelling argument I have ever heard; It's the sort of truly dumb thing only a politician could utter. There were no downsides for the US in disclosing her nuclear position; because there was no reason to expect that the rest of the world were incapable of duplicating their work, with or without the knowledge of how far the US had progressed with it. Only a moron who believed that Americans were somehow special superhuman beings, upon whose miraculous discoveries the world must always wait in awe, would make such a stupid statement. A number of US politicians from the 1950s or 60s would, perhaps fit that description very well - so it is no surprise that Bard might say such a thing in 1960; But it does surprise me that anyone in 2016 (or indeed 2011, when that article was published) would consider his idiotic words worthy of repeating.

That article is a fine example of the adage that one should always be HIGHLY suspicious of anyone who makes an explicit claim to be telling "The Truth". People who are actually telling you things that are true, generally don't feel the need to make such a claim. Articles entitled "The Truth about X" are almost invariably woefully misleading sources of information about X.

BTW, I fixed your 'link'; merely colouring text in blue doesn't make it a hyperlink.

 

[whichphilosophy]

http://morallowground.com/2011/08/06/the-truth-about-hiroshima/
Ralph Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy:
“The Japanese were ready for peace and they had already approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. The Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atomic bomb. It wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing.” (US News & World Report, August 15, 1960)

Thanks to the efforts of a number of Soviet sympathizers in the Manhattan project, most notably Klaus Fuchs, The US nuclear position was known to the Russians prior to the Trinity test, and the Russians would have developed nuclear weapons whether the bomb was used or not, so this argument is vacuous.

Security by obscurity simply doesn't work; Even if the Manhattan project had been watertight from a security perspective; and even if no bombs were exploded outside the Alamogordo Bombing range, and nobody in the US, Canadian or British program had passed any secrets at all to the Soviet Union, it would have been the height of irresponsibility for the US and her allies to simply assume that the Russians had not and/or could not duplicate their research, and build a bomb of their own from first principles - after all, the Americans did it, so why not the Russians?

Bombing Japan may have been valuable as a demonstration that the US definitely had the bomb, and a means to deliver it to a distant target; But NOT bombing japan would have been completely valueless as a safeguard against other nations developing nuclear weapons.

This is perhaps the least compelling argument I have ever heard; It's the sort of truly dumb thing only a politician could utter. There were no downsides for the US in disclosing her nuclear position; because there was no reason to expect that the rest of the world were incapable of duplicating their work, with or without the knowledge of how far the US had progressed with it. Only a moron who believed that Americans were somehow special superhuman beings, upon whose miraculous discoveries the world must always wait in awe, would make such a stupid statement. A number of US politicians from the 1950s or 60s would, perhaps fit that description very well - so it is no surprise that Bard might say such a thing in 1960; But it does surprise me that anyone in 2016 (or indeed 2011, when that article was published) would consider his idiotic words worthy of repeating.

That article is a fine example of the adage that one should always be HIGHLY suspicious of anyone who makes an explicit claim to be telling "The Truth". People who are actually telling you things that are true, generally don't feel the need to make such a claim. Articles entitled "The Truth about X" are almost invariably woefully misleading sources of information about X.

BTW, I fixed your 'link'; merely colouring text in blue doesn't make it a hyperlink.

There is enough to show that Japan did want to find a way for peace as it was not winning the war. The opinion about the Russians didn't alter the validity of the statement regarding Japan.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As I read that memo, it's speculative. It only "proves" that some Americans thought the Japanese wanted to surrender.

I've read that the Russians did not pass on information regarding Japan's attempts to open negotiations. Remember, the Russians were neutral wrt Japan until the end of the war. Hitler declared war on the US hoping that the Japanese would help him with Russia, but the Japanese weren't buying.

But I agree with the point: the demand for unconditional surrender prolonged the war on both fronts. It was valuable propaganda for the enemy.

This was based on contacts by the Japanese not speculation. This is how parties at war with each other start peace talks. The demand for unconditional surrender did, yet proved farcical when the Japanese attained their key points, such as Hirohito remaining in power, the structure of government unchanged and most war criminals not being prosecuted.

Why would the Japanese make proposals for peace if they didn't want peace. There was nothing to be gained from this.

 

[bilby]

Thanks to the efforts of a number of Soviet sympathizers in the Manhattan project, most notably Klaus Fuchs, The US nuclear position was known to the Russians prior to the Trinity test, and the Russians would have developed nuclear weapons whether the bomb was used or not, so this argument is vacuous.

Security by obscurity simply doesn't work; Even if the Manhattan project had been watertight from a security perspective; and even if no bombs were exploded outside the Alamogordo Bombing range, and nobody in the US, Canadian or British program had passed any secrets at all to the Soviet Union, it would have been the height of irresponsibility for the US and her allies to simply assume that the Russians had not and/or could not duplicate their research, and build a bomb of their own from first principles - after all, the Americans did it, so why not the Russians?

Bombing Japan may have been valuable as a demonstration that the US definitely had the bomb, and a means to deliver it to a distant target; But NOT bombing japan would have been completely valueless as a safeguard against other nations developing nuclear weapons.

This is perhaps the least compelling argument I have ever heard; It's the sort of truly dumb thing only a politician could utter. There were no downsides for the US in disclosing her nuclear position; because there was no reason to expect that the rest of the world were incapable of duplicating their work, with or without the knowledge of how far the US had progressed with it. Only a moron who believed that Americans were somehow special superhuman beings, upon whose miraculous discoveries the world must always wait in awe, would make such a stupid statement. A number of US politicians from the 1950s or 60s would, perhaps fit that description very well - so it is no surprise that Bard might say such a thing in 1960; But it does surprise me that anyone in 2016 (or indeed 2011, when that article was published) would consider his idiotic words worthy of repeating.

That article is a fine example of the adage that one should always be HIGHLY suspicious of anyone who makes an explicit claim to be telling "The Truth". People who are actually telling you things that are true, generally don't feel the need to make such a claim. Articles entitled "The Truth about X" are almost invariably woefully misleading sources of information about X.

BTW, I fixed your 'link'; merely colouring text in blue doesn't make it a hyperlink.

There is enough to show that Japan did want to find a way for peace as it was not winning the war. The opinion about the Russians didn't alter the validity of the statement regarding Japan.

It does illustrate that it is the opinion of a blithering idiot who has no clue about the subject(s) upon which he is expounding. I think that's an important piece of information when evaluating an opinion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There is enough to show that Japan did want to find a way for peace as it was not winning the war. The opinion about the Russians didn't alter the validity of the statement regarding Japan.

It does illustrate that it is the opinion of a blithering idiot who has no clue about the subject(s) upon which he is expounding. I think that's an important piece of information when evaluating an opinion.

One was an observation (The Japanese were sending out peace feelers, which was not for fun). The other was an opinion about the Russians which had no bearing on this. Of course the Russians intended to develop a bomb so a wrong opinion about the Russians did not mean the information about the Japanese was wrong.

 

[blastula]

The President just made another of his vaprous bullshit speeches in Hiroshima. It had all the usual bells and whistles of a hypocritical Presidential speech used to re-justify the the gross violence we as a nation had engaged in at that location and then obtusely suggested he was interested in a world without nuclear weapons. He has a trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade working at home while he goes abroad with still another distortion of his actual position. Some have said his speech was brilliant, but a number of the nuclear war survivors who were hearing it felt while it sounded nice, the actual actions of this president's administration were nonetheless disappointing.

The classic political hypocrisy....keep a stockpile of thousands of warhead while moralizing to the rest of the world, with no intention along the lines of the speech. Also, there was NO APOLOGY FOR THE LITTLE MATTER OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON A CIVILIAN POPULATION. Obama is the drone president, the deportation president, the banker's president, and just like his pal, Hillary, the military industrial president. Disappointment is not a strong enough word to describe Obama. He is a betrayer and, like his pal Hillary, a liar as to his true intentions, saying whatever will placate the audience he is speaking to.

That can't be right. Foxnews told me Obama did apologize for Hiroshima. And Foxnews is not exactly a friend to Obama.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The President just made another of his vaprous bullshit speeches in Hiroshima. It had all the usual bells and whistles of a hypocritical Presidential speech used to re-justify the the gross violence we as a nation had engaged in at that location and then obtusely suggested he was interested in a world without nuclear weapons. He has a trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade working at home while he goes abroad with still another distortion of his actual position. Some have said his speech was brilliant, but a number of the nuclear war survivors who were hearing it felt while it sounded nice, the actual actions of this president's administration were nonetheless disappointing.

The classic political hypocrisy....keep a stockpile of thousands of warhead while moralizing to the rest of the world, with no intention along the lines of the speech. Also, there was NO APOLOGY FOR THE LITTLE MATTER OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON A CIVILIAN POPULATION. Obama is the drone president, the deportation president, the banker's president, and just like his pal, Hillary, the military industrial president. Disappointment is not a strong enough word to describe Obama. He is a betrayer and, like his pal Hillary, a liar as to his true intentions, saying whatever will placate the audience he is speaking to.

That can't be right. Foxnews told me Obama did apologize for Hiroshima. And Foxnews is not exactly a friend to Obama.

There are conflicting reports where I quoted just one. Perhaps we can ignore Fox news anyway. I think it is unlikely that he did apologize for Hiroshima or in Nagasaki where allied prisoners were also killed.

http://www.snopes.com/obama-apology-hiroshima/

The president did make an apology while he was in Japan, but it wasn't for the atomic bomb. On 25 May 2016, the President offered his "deepest regrets" for the death of a Japanese woman who reportedly had been murdered by a former U.S. Marine:

 

[Barbarian]

That can't be right. Foxnews told me Obama did apologize for Hiroshima. And Foxnews is not exactly a friend to Obama.

That's exactly why it claimed that the apology happened.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That can't be right. Foxnews told me Obama did apologize for Hiroshima. And Foxnews is not exactly a friend to Obama.

That's exactly why it claimed that the apology happened.

It's possibly also because the standard of recruitment of fox investigative reporters is the inability to find a hooker in a whorehouse.

- - - Updated - - -

That can't be right. Foxnews told me Obama did apologize for Hiroshima. And Foxnews is not exactly a friend to Obama.

That's exactly why it claimed that the apology happened.

It's possibly also because the standard of recruitment of fox investigative reporters is the inability to find a hooker in a whorehouse.

 

[Horatio Parker]

As I read that memo, it's speculative. It only "proves" that some Americans thought the Japanese wanted to surrender.

I've read that the Russians did not pass on information regarding Japan's attempts to open negotiations. Remember, the Russians were neutral wrt Japan until the end of the war. Hitler declared war on the US hoping that the Japanese would help him with Russia, but the Japanese weren't buying.

But I agree with the point: the demand for unconditional surrender prolonged the war on both fronts. It was valuable propaganda for the enemy.

This was based on contacts by the Japanese not speculation. This is how parties at war with each other start peace talks. The demand for unconditional surrender did, yet proved farcical when the Japanese attained their key points, such as Hirohito remaining in power, the structure of government unchanged and most war criminals not being prosecuted.

Why would the Japanese make proposals for peace if they didn't want peace. There was nothing to be gained from this.

I'm not disputing that the Japanese wanted to end the war. I'm pointing out that Bards memo is no proof of that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This was based on contacts by the Japanese not speculation. This is how parties at war with each other start peace talks. The demand for unconditional surrender did, yet proved farcical when the Japanese attained their key points, such as Hirohito remaining in power, the structure of government unchanged and most war criminals not being prosecuted.

Why would the Japanese make proposals for peace if they didn't want peace. There was nothing to be gained from this.

I'm not disputing that the Japanese wanted to end the war. I'm pointing out that Bards memo is no proof of that.

The memo itself only reported what had been reported earlier. There was no dispute that Japan was seeking an end to the war but the allies wanted an unconditional surrender.

http://morallowground.com/2011/08/06/the-truth-about-hiroshima/#comment-1339960
Ralph Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy:
“The Japanese were ready for peace and they had already approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. The Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atomic bomb. It wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing.” (US News & World Report, August 15, 1960)

Paul Nitze, US Strategic Bombing Survey:
“While I was working on the new plan of air attack, I concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. Japan would capitulate by November, 1945.” (Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pp.44-45)
Japan could mount no defense of itself whatsoever against the relentless might of the American war machine. The people of Japan were completely broken by years of war and the leadership had had enough. The US had intercepted and decoded secret transmissions from Japanese foreign minister Shigenori Togo to Naotaki Sato, the Japanese ambassador in Moscow.
These messages were nothing less than attempts to negotiate an end to the war. But the Japanese wanted a way to save face and to retain their Emperor, considered a sacred figure. Right up to July 26th Sato was desperately trying to negotiate a very reasonable surrender that included retention of the Emperor in order to keep Japanese national identity and dignity intact. The US knew all about this futile effort
But Washington would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. On July 26th the Potsdam Declaration was issued, demanding just that.

Again, Dwight Eisenhower:
“Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer mandatory to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face.” (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change p.380)
General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the war against Japan, was shocked by the Potsdam demands of unconditional surrender. “Retaining the Emperor was vital to an orderly transition to peace,” he opined, fully aware that there was no way the Japanese would accept a future without their god-like monarch. But that did not mean the much-touted land invasion of Japan would have been necessary to bring the war to a close…

 

[Tristan Scott]

The problem with posting what Mcarthur and Eisenhower and anyone else thought at the time as evidence that the Japanese were going to surrender, is that you are ignoring what the Japanese were saying in they're conferences. They had no intention of surrendering. This fact is well documented and I gave you the source for this at the beginning of this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did it ever occur to you that in your narrative the US is exactly as omnipresent, powerful and malevolent as the Jews are for the Stormfront crowd? I see parallels.

Not for a second.

I am talking about documented US crimes. Mass killing on an unimaginable scale. Just to stop people from doing what they wanted to do.

Do you know your behavior is typical for some when faced with facts they don't like? They blame the messenger.

The problem is you never consider whether what they want to do is proper or not, only whether they are friends or enemies of the US.

What Japan was doing in China was not appropriate, period. Thus in supporting their actions you are supporting evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what do you do when the defense has failed and the Japanese are committing atrocities upon your allies such as this.:

What do I do?

What do nations do?

They care about it if it is seen to be in their interest to care about it. Or if they think not caring about it might harm them in some way.

Nations do not operate by sympathy or empathy. They commit and ignore atrocities at will. At least the powerful ones do. The US has ignored Israeli atrocities and oppression for decades. It has actually prevented the UN from doing anything about them.

They operate under pure self interest.

So you don't give a hoot about atrocities committed by anyone opposed to the US?

An action is either right or wrong, which side does it doesn't matter. Thus you have exposed that you're a hypocrite, you're just making excuses to support anti-US countries.

- - - Updated - - -

He's operating from a simple premise: USA bad, Japan helpless victim of US imperialism.

Everything else is just a sad attempt to justify said premise.

That's insane.

I am operating under what I have said I am operating under.

Nations do things out of their perceived self interests.

All of them.

Including the US.

But some nations are highly expansionist.

Like the US having the Philippines as a colony.

Yeah, it's an insane position. That doesn't mean it's not basically your position.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The problem with posting what Mcarthur and Eisenhower and anyone else thought at the time as evidence that the Japanese were going to surrender, is that you are ignoring what the Japanese were saying in they're conferences. They had no intention of surrendering. This fact is well documented and I gave you the source for this at the beginning of this thread.

I looked for this link and couldn't find it. Can you repost, please?