Replies

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!

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!)

Let's not exaggerate here. Pat's off base on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but he's hardly "celebrating" or defending imperial Japan. He's just claiming Truman used more force than necessary to defeat them. I agree he's wrong on this, but how is it anti-American?

Regarding Hitler, Pat never celebrated nor defended him. You are swallowing whole a lie the left has been propagating since 1977. The "great courage" line comes from his 1977 column, "A lesson in Tyranny too soon forgotten." Here's a link.

Anyone who reads this can plainly see Pat is not celebrating or defending Hitler. He's just trying to show how so many respectable people of Hitler's time were unable to recognize the threat Hitler posed, and Pat compares them to people who fail to recognize the threat Communism posed back in 1977. Like Hitler, Communists appealed to principles of self-determination and the like to justify their aims, and some useful idiots were falling for it. Pat was trying to set them straight.

The "great courage" line is a reference to Hitler's valor in WW1, which, among other things, allowed him to put the wool over the eyes of many.