“You seem more interested in flaunting your own morality than in conducting any supportable historical analysis. And your condescension is obvious, in declaring your moral take to be so unimpeachable as to be beyond challenge from the rest of us.”
That’s your opinion. We are speaking of counterfactual history, there is no solid way to support it.
Condescension…? How so? It’s not obvious. You are like almost every other person I debate with on this subject. You get angry because I don’t wish to fully follow the history channel version of war then you try to make me seem like I am getting personal and insulting. The anger is with you and your history channel BRO DuncanWaring.
Beyond challenge? Why would I think that?…you don’t know me and I’m glad.
Let me remind you of who got personal first, it was DuncanWaring
“ You do know what “starvation” means, don’t you?” WHICH IS AN OBVIOUS SLIGHT IM STUPID
“Some humanitarian you are.” WHICH MEANS IM COLD BLOODED, EVIL, RUTHLESS.
“yeah your inhumane” SOS…
You are pissed off because you want and believe with every fiber of your being fire Bombing and radiating Japanese civilians is morally justifiable because The Japanese would fight to the last man, the only alternative solution to an invasion which would kill a million Allied and 10 million Japanese was to radiate civilians to the point they surrendered. That they surrendered was proof to you the path saved millions.
Was that the only path? That’s all I was saying. The Japanese put out peace feelers, we knew it then and now, with pressure from conventional war practices like blockade and bombing combined with negotiation we might have got them to surrender. Perhaps sooner than the way we did. We were pushing UNCONDITIONAL surrender by the Democrat POTUS Eisenhower and Truman after him and the blood thirsty Stalin (Churchill seems to have given mixed messages). A completely STUPID policy. We should have allowed conditions.
All I did was to offer my opinion of an alternative that was never followed the you twist that around and make me seem as if I’m insulting you and your BRO being rude. Even other guys jumping in and insinuating I was for the axis etc. But who knows if the Japanese militarists would have allowed the more pacifist to act, who knows what the Emperor would have done? You for sure don’t.
Here is what I said: “ I don’t think we would have to have invaded just negotiate with them in a conditional manner. My grandfather was an army Air-force engineer in the 821st AEF Battalion in the SW Pacific. I certainly don’t want him to have had to have gone to Japan in a bloody invasion as I possibly wouldn’t be here now if he had.”
How is that being condescending? How is that “FLAUNTING MY OWN MORALITY”??? I’m giving my opinion that’s all.
It’s not —-you are just being argumentative and personal.
After Nagasaki was bombed, the Emperor decided to surrender, and made a recording to be played on Aug 15.
A faction within the armed forces still wanted to fight to the last man, woman and child, and attempted a coup on the night of Aug 14, disrupted by a blackout in response to a formation of B-29s on their way to another target.
Even after being nuked twice there were still some who wanted to fight on.
Any “peace” they pursued could have been nothing other than a cease-fire during which they would re-group and re-arm and start Act II of their Greater East Asia Co-Prospherity Sphere.