US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9317

On November 25 2017 08:05 Sermokala wrote:
Do you have any evidence or arguments that they weren't dropped in an effort to end the war or that it would have saved lives as an alternative to an invasion of the main Japanese island?

On November 25 2017 09:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Former editor.

On November 25 2017 09:59 Doodsmack wrote:


It is totally innocent that Trump said "Man (Person)" here.

On November 25 2017 10:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Wow, they really called him person of the year in 2016. What a garbage magazine. Good thing I don't read it. :D

On November 25 2017 10:39 PhoenixVoid wrote:

He was undoubtedly the biggest news story of last year and a symbol of America's decline or soon-to-be improved status. I can't see why he wouldn't be POTY. It's not a moral judgment on who was the best person, it's the person who was the biggest newsmaker or related to the news story of the year.

On November 25 2017 10:41 sc-darkness wrote:
Well, maybe they should consider moral judgement then. Worthy people like Bill Gates could become person of the year. Not because of Microsoft but because of charity.

On November 25 2017 10:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Wow, they really called him person of the year in 2016. What a garbage magazine. Good thing I don't read it. :D

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze, concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, they reported:

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

On November 25 2017 11:16 Nevuk wrote:
I thought the current semi consensus was that it was mostly about keeping Russia from claiming all of Europe by scaring them?

On November 25 2017 11:12 zlefin wrote:
spouting the term hordes like that pretty much discredits you as having any basis in rationality rather than foolish bias.
you're obviousyl just pushing a narrative regardless of evidence as if it were the pure unavoidable truth, which it quite plainly isn't.
and you're citing a survey that occurred after the war was over; fog of war is a thing oyu know.
that some people had some opinions doesn't mean that much, others had other opinions. that's the whole pont of things being UNCLEAR.

yes, you are a truther, you're pushing a narrative regardless of the actual facts because it's whta you want to believe to make yourself feel better. calling us nutjobs? you're just being a jerk for no valid raeson.