TheShiznit Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share Posted March 17, 2008 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? We REJECTED the surrender and then after we bombed them allowed Japan to retain an emperor....the sticking point the US had...not the Japanese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 And those plaid Asian school girl skirts. Wax on, wax off took on a whole new meaning with that invention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 We REJECTED the surrender and then after we bombed them allowed Japan to retain an emperor....the sticking point the US had...not the Japanese. you are talking out of your ass, moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 ya know....these gas prices are pissin me off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 We REJECTED the surrender and then after we bombed them allowed Japan to retain an emperor....the sticking point the US had...not the Japanese. That's crazy spin right there. Go read up on the Potsdam Declaration, and its implications for the Japanese as they took time to consider it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 And those plaid Asian school girl skirts. With the knee high socks. you are talking out of your ass, moron. It's moran, moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 It was done for the greater good... Asian Pron, Wii, Nintendo, and Pat Morita would never have come about. And now Pat Morita is dead. This is not a coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 (edited) I prefer Nippon. Edited March 17, 2008 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 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. They didn't surrender after Hiroshima. While I would have preferred dropping a bomb on an atoll to show what it could do I know Truman didn't want to launch a conventional attack on the islands. I never liked dropping the bombs on cities, but it all happened before I was born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share Posted March 17, 2008 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. Believe? LOL.....the Japanese offered to fully surrender if they could keep an emperor....we said no.....then a-bombed them. they now still have an emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 They didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They surrendered after Nagasaki. 5 days after I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share Posted March 17, 2008 you are talking out of your ass, moron. LOL...good to know you think I am....would be nice to know you know I am...which you don't...otherwise you wouldn't suggest I was talking out of my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share Posted March 17, 2008 That's crazy spin right there. Go read up on the Potsdam Declaration, and its implications for the Japanese as they took time to consider it. Hmmm...wow...would have never have known that. There are plenty of periodicals out there that add things to the story...kinda like Paul Harvey, you get the rest of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 The real problem is that we didn't drop an a-bomb on every other world capitol. If we had, we would have owned the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigrocks Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 They didn't surrender after Hiroshima. While I would have preferred dropping a bomb on an atoll to show what it could do I know Truman didn't want to launch a conventional attack on the islands. I never liked dropping the bombs on cities, but it all happened before I was born. We only had two bombs ready for use... If one was dropped on an island and Japan's military leaders just shrugged, we would have only had one left to actually use against a target. I imagine that entered the thinking of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Believe? LOL.....the Japanese offered to fully surrender if they could keep an emperor....we said no.....then a-bombed them. they now still have an emperor. which should tell you how full of chit you are. even AFTER hiroshima and nagasaki, japan was responding to demands for surrender not only with the demand that they be allowed to keep an emperor, but that he would maintain power, that they would maintain an army, that japan would not be occupied, that the existing japanese government itself would try any japanese war criminals, and so on. again, these are the sorts of terms they were offering AFTER hiroshima. yet you want to argue, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, that BEFORE hiroshima, japan was happy to give up as long as they could keep the figurehead emperor the allies allowed them to keep anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share Posted March 17, 2008 Here is a historic accounting of the detailed time frame in which things happened. Who was for or against the method. My point was it didn't need to be done. Japan was offering a surrender with the inclusion of being able to keep an emperor and not having the current one charged with war crimes. Truman, like Bush, gave the process very little time to work. Here is a link: http://www.swans.com/library/art11/pgreen70.html I don't agree with this sites politics...and don't have time to go find the historical works I read in college to support my argument...you can if you want....but it is TRUE...that Japan did indeed offer surrender...but we rebuffed it...only to drop A-bombs on civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share Posted March 17, 2008 which should tell you how full of chit you are. even AFTER hiroshima and nagasaki, japan was responding to demands for surrender not only with the demand that they be allowed to keep an emperor, but that he would maintain power, that they would maintain an army, that japan would not be occupied, that the existing japanese government itself would try any japanese war criminals, and so on. again, these are the sorts of terms they were offering AFTER hiroshima. yet you want to argue, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, that BEFORE hiroshima, japan was happy to give up as long as they could keep the figurehead emperor the allies allowed them to keep anyway? They did not you idiot. Hirohito Immediately surrendered after the second bomb....he wrestled control from his advisors and immediately surrendered. What you are talking about is part of the pre-bombing surrender. And yes, they wanted to try their own war criminals....but then again...so do we. Again...winners write the history and get the spoils. Do you really believe Paul Revere rode across the countryside yelling the british are coming....FOOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 (edited) Meh, just accept the fact that it was payback for Pearl Harbor and move on. We just had bigger more destructive toys. Edited March 17, 2008 by twiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 17, 2008 Author Share Posted March 17, 2008 Meh, just accept the fact that it was payback for Pearl Harbor and move on. We just had bigger more destructive toys. There is probably a lot of wisdom in that answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Here is a historic accounting of the detailed time frame in which things happened. Who was for or against the method. My point was it didn't need to be done. Japan was offering a surrender with the inclusion of being able to keep an emperor and not having the current one charged with war crimes. Truman, like Bush, gave the process very little time to work. Here is a link: http://www.swans.com/library/art11/pgreen70.html I don't agree with this sites politics...and don't have time to go find the historical works I read in college to support my argument...you can if you want....but it is TRUE...that Japan did indeed offer surrender...but we rebuffed it...only to drop A-bombs on civilians. your link says absolutely nothing about offers of surrender made by japan, because there were none. there were factions in japan advocating surrender under the best terms they could get, and there were factions advocating fighting on to the bitter end. read this wikipedia blurb about what was taking place in japan in the run-up to potsdam... On June 30, Togo told Naotake Sato, Japan's ambassador in Moscow, to try to establish "firm and lasting relations of friendship". Sato was to discuss the status of Manchuria and "any matter the Russians would like to bring up".[12] Sato finally met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov on July 11 but without result. On July 12, Togo directed Sato to tell the Russians that, "His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."[13] The Emperor proposed sending Prince Konoe as a Special Envoy, though he would be unable to reach Moscow before the Potsdam Conference. Sato advised Togo that in reality, "unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto" was all that Japan could expect. Moreover Togo's messages were not "clear about the views of the Government and the Military with regard to the termination of the war," questioning whether Togo's initiative was supported by the key elements of Japan's power structure.[14] On July 17, Togo responded, "Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender."[15] In reply, Sato clarifed, "It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the Imperial House]."[16] On July 21, speaking in the name of the cabinet, Togo repeated, "With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms."[17] Allied cryptographers had broken most of Japan's codes. As a result, messages between Tokyo and Japan's embassies were provided to Allied policy-makers nearly as quickly as to the intended recipients. then in response to the pottsdam declaration: Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated, "I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 We REJECTED the surrender and then after we bombed them allowed Japan to retain an emperor....the sticking point the US had...not the Japanese. I don't see how that's relevant at all. The Japanese attacked us unprovoked and then refused to surrender on our terms. I'm not exactly a fan of dropping nuclear weapons on major metropolitan areas, but Hirohito absolutely had to know that the combined forces of the U.S. and Soviets would kick the crap out of his tiny country. He doesn't come off as the most rational person in the world, and I'm not sure if I can fault the Truman administration for trying to end the war as quickly as possible. It doesn't sound like Hirohito had his people's safety in mind when he made decisions, so who knows how long he would've held out and who knows how much more life would've been lost if the Allies had to invade Tokyo to put an end to the war. They did not you idiot. Hirohito Immediately surrendered after the second bomb....he wrestled control from his advisors and immediately surrendered. What you are talking about is part of the pre-bombing surrender. And yes, they wanted to try their own war criminals....but then again...so do we. Again...winners write the history and get the spoils. Do you really believe Paul Revere rode across the countryside yelling the british are coming....FOOL. What kind of "emperor" allows his advisors to formulate policy against his will? I agree with these other guys that your arguments are weak. They also appear to be based on dubious information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 They did not you idiot. Hirohito Immediately surrendered after the second bomb....he wrestled control from his advisors and immediately surrendered. What you are talking about is part of the pre-bombing surrender. And yes, they wanted to try their own war criminals....but then again...so do we. Again...winners write the history and get the spoils. Do you really believe Paul Revere rode across the countryside yelling the british are coming....FOOL. This is the dumbest trolling I have ever ever seen on The Huddle. Really, are you THIS lonely and desperate for attention? YOU come across like an ignorant jerk off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I have to say, you are the most screwed up , lying huddler as of yet and I have been here a very long time. you are talking out of your ass, moron. They did not you idiot. FOOL. YOU come across like an ignorant jerk off. Come on people now, smile on your brother... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 So the US voted against the emperor before they voted for him? Outrageous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.