Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

For whomever asked


TheShiznit
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't have to research anything and spoon feed any of you too lazy to either learn or retain info for yourself. I am not bringing up an obscure quote or something, this is world history here.

 

Prior to the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan offered a surrender which would allow them to keep an Emperor. The United States said no, we don't want you to have an emperor. We sent back a counter offer and they were bickering back and forth....then we dropped the a-bombs....and then allowed them to keep the emperor of Japan. So, you read it how you want. We essentially rejected a surrender of what we ultimately gave them after the bombings.

Edited by TheShiznit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't have to research anything and spoon feed any of you too lazy to either learn or retain info for yourself. I am not bringing up an obscure quote or something, this is world history here.

 

Prior to the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Hagasaki, Japan offered a surrender which would allow them to keep an Emperor. The United States said no, we don't want you to have an emperor. We sent back a counter offer and they were bickering back and forth....then we dropped the a-bombs....and then allowed them to keep the emperor of Japan. So, you read it how you want. We essentially rejected a surrender of what we ultimately gave them after the bombings.

 

Perhaps you should rethink your first position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan offered a surrender which would allow them to keep an Emperor. The United States said no, we don't want you to have an emperor. We sent back a counter offer and they were bickering back and forth....then we dropped the a-bombs....and then allowed them to keep the emperor of Japan. So, you read it how you want. We essentially rejected a surrender of what we ultimately gave them after the bombings.

 

So, Hirohito decided that it was more important to stay in power than to protect his people from the U.S. and Soviet Union's bombs. And we're the bad guys here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to research anything and spoon feed any of you too lazy to either learn or retain info for yourself. I am not bringing up an obscure quote or something, this is world history here.

 

Prior to the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan offered a surrender which would allow them to keep an Emperor. The United States said no, we don't want you to have an emperor. We sent back a counter offer and they were bickering back and forth....then we dropped the a-bombs....and then allowed them to keep the emperor of Japan. So, you read it how you want. We essentially rejected a surrender of what we ultimately gave them after the bombings.

 

i don't believe they offered a surrender. they put out some feelers to the soviets, but were rebuffed. the allies offered the terms of the pottsdam declaration, which japan rejected. it is true those terms were harsh, but japan was in a bleak situation. at that point i am not sure whether japan had any inkling about what was coming their way as far as the atom bomb. they undoubtedly knew that rejecting the pottsdam terms meant severe air raids, blockade, and probably eventual invasion -- all of which combined would have killed many times more japanese than the two A-bombs.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of this thread.

 

The chickens coming home to roost?

 

Revisionist history 101?

 

Provide the link.... PLEASE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I called you out on it in another thread, and I think you still have your "facts" wrong - which is why you won't bohter to look them up.

 

Asking for an "unconditional surrender" - which is what the allies asked for - means that when the response is a surrender with conditions they are not surrendering. That is most likely what you are referring to, as it was presented at Yalta, but dismissed out of hands for the attachment of conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to research anything and spoon feed any of you too lazy to either learn or retain info for yourself. I am not bringing up an obscure quote or something, this is world history here.

 

Prior to the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan offered a surrender which would allow them to keep an Emperor. The United States said no, we don't want you to have an emperor. We sent back a counter offer and they were bickering back and forth....then we dropped the a-bombs....and then allowed them to keep the emperor of Japan. So, you read it how you want. We essentially rejected a surrender of what we ultimately gave them after the bombings.

 

 

U must be kin to LULU

 

u diggin a hole u wont be able to get out of

 

The rev is history and we be countin on people like u so B.H.O. makes it to the general

 

keep it comin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of theories that Japan was in peace negotiations through its Moscow ambassador. But this is the same country that supposedly extended peace to us before attacking Pearl Harbor. All I know is they really surrendered after Nagasaki. Mission accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thing is, getting the japanese to surrender even AFTER hiroshima and nagasaki wasn't easy. it took that, PLUS the USSR invading manchuria, PLUS another huge arial bombardment of the mainland from 1,000 US bombers and fighters, before the emperor finally made his radio address telling japan they were surrendering. hiroshima was august 6, nagasaki was august 9, surrender wasn't until august 15. so it's pretty f'n silly to state that they were anywhere close to surrendering before the bombs were dropped. they may have been willing to negotiate settled terms that, but those terms included a lot more than just keeping an emperor.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. We're just the guys to do it.

 

 

D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

 

Otter: [whispering] Germans?

 

Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

 

Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the [expletive deleted] happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -

 

Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

 

Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.

 

D-Day: Let's do it.

 

Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to research anything and spoon feed any of you too lazy to either learn or retain info for yourself. I am not bringing up an obscure quote or something, this is world history here.

 

Prior to the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan offered a surrender which would allow them to keep an Emperor. The United States said no, we don't want you to have an emperor. We sent back a counter offer and they were bickering back and forth....then we dropped the a-bombs....and then allowed them to keep the emperor of Japan. So, you read it how you want. We essentially rejected a surrender of what we ultimately gave them after the bombings.

 

Dave Ramsey says you are a liar. But of course he doesn't have to do research. I have to say, you are the most screwed up , lying huddler as of yet and I have been here a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it's become a popular revisionist view to suggest the Japanese government was willing to surrender to the Allies prior to the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs, thus making their use unnecessary and merciless, there are a few points that must be taken into account:

 

1. Though Hirohito was the ultimate ruler in Imperial Japan, in many ways he was just a figure head and had little direct input to the Japanese war plan. Tojo was the guy really calling the shots and he had no intention of surrendering. Only after Hirohito took the unprecedented measure of calling for Japan's surrender did his war ministers acquiesce.

2. The entire Japanese population had been mobilized for defending the home islands in the event of an American invasion. Many people conveniently wave off this point, but take one look at what happened during the invasion of Okinawa and multiple that carnage by 1000 in the event of an actual invasion of Honshu.

 

Now having said that, anyone who believes those were the ONLY reasons the US dropped the big ones is a little naïve. There were certainly other factors at work, not the least of which was to show the Soviets we had the ultimate weapon and they better not over step their bounds…. There was real concern (which proved to be accurate) that the Soviets would be difficult to deal with once the war was over and would attempt to aggressively spread their influence. Consider that as a result of officially declaring war against Japan just weeks before they finally surrendered, the Soviets laid claim to a large portion of Japan’s mainland conquests…. Which led to partitioning and further conflict. Korean War or Vietnam War anyone? Imagine this scenario being played out further if the war had drug out another few months…. A North and South Japan doesn’t seem that far fetched.

 

In retrospect, dropping the bombs may not have been ultimately necessary to end the war, but it did end sooner than it would have had we not dropped them. And that was the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information