Moderator: Community Team
Dukasaur wrote:Pack Rat wrote:saxitoxin wrote:HitRed wrote:"Japan had lost all her territories"
Japan in 1945 still control many areas in the Pacific and huge areas of the mainland.According to a report submitted by the Japanese Headquarters, there were in the China Theatre (excluding Manchuria), Indochina north of the 16th parallel, and Formosa over 1,385,000 Japanese troops and over half a million Japanese civilians.
Even in their weakened state the Japanese were brutal to the populations they still controlled. The war needed to end to stop the bloodletting.
I should clarify - Japan lost all her territories it had captured from the U.S. By August 1945, the U.S. had retaken the Philippines, Guam, Samoa, Kisku, and Attu without use of atom bombs.
I don't really mind if Japan kept everything else. China was the problem of the Chinese. Vietnam of France. Indonesia of the Netherlands. Korea of the Koreans. None our concern.
Had the U.S. fought Japan to a respectable, conditional peace the communists would probably not have taken over China, or - if they did - Japan would have served as an Asiatic bulwark, allowing the U.S. to stay out of Korea and Vietnam while still benefitting from Soviet and Chicom containment. If the world had a powerful Japan under a strong, constitutional Yamato monarchy today, it would be a safer and more stable place.
That's some twisted logic Saxi.
Not really. The Allies' insistence on "unconditional surrender" as the only possible outcome of the war was just an expression of their hubris. A negotiated end to the war would have saved lives and left the world less broken.
Pack Rat wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Pack Rat wrote:saxitoxin wrote:HitRed wrote:"Japan had lost all her territories"
Japan in 1945 still control many areas in the Pacific and huge areas of the mainland.According to a report submitted by the Japanese Headquarters, there were in the China Theatre (excluding Manchuria), Indochina north of the 16th parallel, and Formosa over 1,385,000 Japanese troops and over half a million Japanese civilians.
Even in their weakened state the Japanese were brutal to the populations they still controlled. The war needed to end to stop the bloodletting.
I should clarify - Japan lost all her territories it had captured from the U.S. By August 1945, the U.S. had retaken the Philippines, Guam, Samoa, Kisku, and Attu without use of atom bombs.
I don't really mind if Japan kept everything else. China was the problem of the Chinese. Vietnam of France. Indonesia of the Netherlands. Korea of the Koreans. None our concern.
Had the U.S. fought Japan to a respectable, conditional peace the communists would probably not have taken over China, or - if they did - Japan would have served as an Asiatic bulwark, allowing the U.S. to stay out of Korea and Vietnam while still benefitting from Soviet and Chicom containment. If the world had a powerful Japan under a strong, constitutional Yamato monarchy today, it would be a safer and more stable place.
That's some twisted logic Saxi.
Not really. The Allies' insistence on "unconditional surrender" as the only possible outcome of the war was just an expression of their hubris. A negotiated end to the war would have saved lives and left the world less broken.
Dukasaur, there was no other way. The fascist regimes of Germany and Japan had to be utterly destroyed and sadly the civilians had to suffer immensely. The fascist governments were given the terms and only after Hitler died and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did they consent to surrender.
We (USA) helped rebuild a better Germany and Japan. Those same suffering civilians had democracy and a strong economy that benefits both the Germans (West Germany) and Japan.
The murderous Japanese and German regimes had what was coming to them during the aggression they started with total disregard to civilian populations.
Leaving these fascists in control would of made the world less stable and the innocents to suffer more.
You reap what you sow.
only after Hitler died and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did they consent to surrender
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
saxitoxin wrote:Agree with Duk.
Also this -only after Hitler died and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did they consent to surrender
- is flatly wrong. In July 1945, Japan offered, via Switzerland, to surrender to the United States. The U.S. attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki a month later. Even Admiral Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, agreed the atom bombs were unnecessary:"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
It was 50% science experiment and 50% Truman '48 campaign stunt.
Maxleod wrote:Now mrs is siding with Imperial Japan? I thought he/she/it, being chinese, hated Japan, especially WWII Japan?
bigtoughralf wrote:I'm a big tough fella named Ralf, OT regulars simply like to fantasise about me being an Asian woman because speaking to an imaginary transexual is the closest thing they have to a sex life.
bigtoughralf wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:bigtoughralf wrote:Outside of Hollywood propaganda movies and US school textbooks it's pretty widely accepted that it was the USSR turning on Japan that prompted them to surrender, not the nuclear bombing.
Even your desperate trawling of bottom-of-the-barrel sources such as a confederation of US military museums hasn't actually turned up any that endorse your claim the bombings caused Japan to surrender. Maybe you should spend a little time screening the content of your next copy-paste-a-thon before sharing it. A high word count is not the same thing as a persuasive argument, after all.
A high word count? You have NOT refuted my Hamas post in another thread
jp4 tactic #1 - bombard people with copy-pastes
jp4 tactic #2 - change the subject entirely
jp4 tactic #3 - descend into random insults and ad hominem
Not bad jp, you've managed to run through your entire book of tricks in just two posts. Maybe you're getting better at being concise!
Votanic wrote:Hmm, I somehow accidentally posted the same post twice.... I'll just put a pretty picture here instead.
bigtoughralf wrote:jp thinks that 'Hamas is a terrorist organisation' is a good response to someone saying that there was no need to drop atom bombs on Japan.
What do you think of Biden's economic policies? Hamas is a terrorist organisation!
How do I connect my VCR to my TV? Hamas is a terrorist organisation!
What time are you coming over for dinner? Hamas is a terrorist organisation!
bigtoughralf wrote:jp thinks that 'Hamas is a terrorist organisation' is a good response to someone saying that there was no need to drop atom bombs on Japan.
What do you think of Biden's economic policies? Hamas is a terrorist organisation!
How do I connect my VCR to my TV? Hamas is a terrorist organisation!
What time are you coming over for dinner? Hamas is a terrorist organisation!
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
Pack Rat wrote:You are correct bigtoughralf, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Whew...thought for a minute that you were being silly or worse a troll.
bigtoughralf wrote:Pack Rat wrote:You are correct bigtoughralf, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Whew...thought for a minute that you were being silly or worse a troll.
Hamas have carried out a bunch of terrorist attacks including the one on October 7th. I haven't said anything to the contrary.
Saying that Israel should stop committing war crimes is not an expression of support for Hamas and all its actions, it is a statement of opposition to the Israeli government's ongoing bombing of Gazan children.
What do you think, Pack Rat? Do you think 5,000 dead children and another 25,000 orphaned (and counting) is acceptable?
bigtoughralf wrote:Pack Rat wrote:You are correct bigtoughralf, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Whew...thought for a minute that you were being silly or worse a troll.
Hamas have carried out a bunch of terrorist attacks including the one on October 7th. I haven't said anything to the contrary.
Saying that Israel should stop committing war crimes is not an expression of support for Hamas and all its actions, it is a statement of opposition to the Israeli government's ongoing bombing of Gazan children.
What do you think, Pack Rat? Do you think 5,000 dead children and another 25,000 orphaned (and counting) is acceptable?
Pack Rat wrote:bigtoughralf wrote:Pack Rat wrote:You are correct bigtoughralf, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Whew...thought for a minute that you were being silly or worse a troll.
Hamas have carried out a bunch of terrorist attacks including the one on October 7th. I haven't said anything to the contrary.
Saying that Israel should stop committing war crimes is not an expression of support for Hamas and all its actions, it is a statement of opposition to the Israeli government's ongoing bombing of Gazan children.
What do you think, Pack Rat? Do you think 5,000 dead children and another 25,000 orphaned (and counting) is acceptable?
I already answered your question.
War is hell!
Hamas needs to be destroyed, as they proved killing, torture and raping civilians. Over a thousand murdered and a couple of hundred civilians held hostage and thousands of Gazan civilians as human shields.
Hamas has refused Red Cross access to the hostages.
Enough said! Israel will hunt down and destroy Hamas leadership, wherever they hide.
On a side note, Netanyahu must go.
Pack Rat wrote:Hamas needs to be destroyed, as they proved killing, torture and raping civilians. Over a thousand murdered and a couple of hundred civilians held hostage
jusplay4fun wrote:Pack Rat wrote:bigtoughralf wrote:Pack Rat wrote:You are correct bigtoughralf, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Whew...thought for a minute that you were being silly or worse a troll.
Hamas have carried out a bunch of terrorist attacks including the one on October 7th. I haven't said anything to the contrary.
Saying that Israel should stop committing war crimes is not an expression of support for Hamas and all its actions, it is a statement of opposition to the Israeli government's ongoing bombing of Gazan children.
What do you think, Pack Rat? Do you think 5,000 dead children and another 25,000 orphaned (and counting) is acceptable?
I already answered your question.
War is hell!
Hamas needs to be destroyed, as they proved killing, torture and raping civilians. Over a thousand murdered and a couple of hundred civilians held hostage and thousands of Gazan civilians as human shields.
Hamas has refused Red Cross access to the hostages.
Enough said! Israel will hunt down and destroy Hamas leadership, wherever they hide.
On a side note, Netanyahu must go.
I thought you are the one to advice me not to feed the troll(s).
As pointed out elsewhere, ralph offers NO real refutation on many key issues. He only offers mostly impotent satire and posts dribble and drivel.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl, mookiemcgee