Replies

Hi also doesn't tell us what alternative to the bomb was available that would not have endangered American live and would have resulted in fewer Japanese deaths.

A demonstration in Tokyo Bay might have encouraged surrender. But one never knows. Buchanan does weaken his argument by refering to Hiroshima and Nagasaka. Suffice to say, Operation Keelhaul was a horror of twenty times the magnitude, and no one ever debates the poor judgement of Truman in allowing that.

The surrender was too sketchy as it was; it required sneaky maneuvering my the Emperor (who had never exercised much power but theoretically could, unless the military had him killed). We know now that there was some risk that the Emperor would be deposed for favoring surrender; most of the elites wanted to let "100 Million Die Together!" as this was the only way they stood a chance at completely preserving their privileged positions.

The Japanese population itself was not broken. There are many stories of the populations of already bombed-out cities, WEEPING and beating their chests, saying "NO, please no!" when the Emperor's surrender announcement was played on the radio. They wanted to keep fighting for their God-Emperor and die as martyers. They were bloodied as hell but no wear near prostrate.

Pat B. has now gone on record celebrating or defending BOTH of the main axis powers (let's not forget about the "courage" of Hitler!). He is clearly at worst anti-American, favoring the interests of other nations over his own, or at best stupid enough to think there would've been no harm in letting the Germans rule Europe and the Japanese rule the Pacific Rim.

Pat Buchanan is to the left what Sharpton is to the right; a moronic blowhard siphoning off the votes of the most ignorant 2% of one end of the political spectrum. I would have to guess most of his funding has actually come Democrats convinced that we are funding Sharpton!