There are no foxholes in the ocean

[drgrant]

You won't listen to it if it disagrees with your set bias, so I personally don't care what you think.

Yeah I'm biased against people who are known to lie systematically without even thinking about it.

If you don't care then why did you reply to my post? I THINK SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET! MUST REPLY!

You're tired of people going after the truth

No I'm tired of commies spinning the truth to fit some bullshit, statist authoritarian/socialist agenda.

Nope, it wasn't taken lightly but if they went through with it when it wasn't 110% necessary then it's a problem.

Where's the proof that it wasn't? A quote from a general and a bunch of moonbats swailing "save the orphans" type drivel does not make it
so. There's no smoking gun of copies of a diplomatic cable from the japanese to the US stating they were willing to accept our terms of surrender unconditionally or anything like that, before the bombs got dropped. This shit is all a moonbat revisionist history fantasy, that they fap, snort and blare over constantly because they know not as many people will call them out on their bullshit.

Again, we provoked them into the war

Debatable, could have an entire (nauseating) thread on that subject alone.

and while the things they did in China were heinous, the US has done and had done similarly heinous shit for 200 years.

Typical crap lefty tactic, making an out of context comparison with an obvious chronological disparity to try to justify an opinion. It's as dumb as me saying something ****ing stupid like "The german citizens of 2014 are terrible people because their grandparents may have been nazis who roasted jews in ovens".

By that type of ****ed up logic any american who descended from a slave owner is an ******* by proxy because of something someone in his family did several generations ago.

I'm done, believe whatever you want to believe.

-Mike

 

[Burgundy41]

Yeah I'm biased against people who are known to lie systematically without even thinking about it.

If you don't care then why did you reply to my post? I THINK SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET! MUST REPLY!



No I'm tired of commies spinning the truth to fit some bullshit, statist authoritarian/socialist agenda.



Where's the proof that it wasn't? A quote from a general and a bunch of moonbats swailing "save the orphans" type drivel does not make it
so. There's no smoking gun of copies of a diplomatic cable from the japanese to the US stating they were willing to accept our terms of surrender unconditionally or anything like that, before the bombs got dropped. This shit is all a moonbat revisionist history fantasy, that they fap, snort and blare over constantly because they know not as many people will call them out on their bullshit.



Debatable, could have an entire (nauseating) thread on that subject alone.



Typical crap lefty tactic, making an out of context comparison with an obvious chronological disparity to try to justify an opinion. It's as dumb as me saying something ****ing stupid like "The german citizens of 2014 are terrible people because their grandparents may have been nazis who roasted jews in ovens".

By that type of ****ed up logic any american who descended from a slave owner is an ******* by proxy because of something someone in his family did several generations ago.

I'm done, believe whatever you want to believe.

-Mike

Uh huh, this reply says we're done especially when you can't understand the "atom bombs are justified cuz the rape of nanking vs. not agreeing the US should be nuked" comparison fits perfectly, and has nothing to do with "left or right". You're so obsessed with your football game of bullshit politics that everything has to be viewed through that lens, and it's wrong. You also can't counter anything said, so you attack the source. That's as weak as it gets. You also can't seem to understand "I don't care" not meaning "I'm not going to respond" either considering I said it about your statement about the source. Context is important drgrant.

You seem to need to believe it was fully justified, although I can't understand why. This demented nationalistic backlash to any criticism of the US is hilarious, and one MUST be a commie pinko to say anything negative about the actions of the US government. Sounds like the statism NES is always railing against...interesting. So I'm done.

 

[mg42doc]

ask the Marines that had to take ground as we were island hopping if we made the right decision.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Wisdom is sadly mostly gained through mistakes.

+1

 

[Bob P]

Uh huh, this reply says we're done especially when you can't understand the "atom bombs are justified cuz the rape of nanking vs. not agreeing the US should be nuked" comparison fits perfectly, and has nothing to do with "left or right". You're so obsessed with your football game of bullshit politics that everything has to be viewed through that lens, and it's wrong. You also can't counter anything said, so you attack the source. That's as weak as it gets. You also can't seem to understand "I don't care" not meaning "I'm not going to respond" either considering I said it about your statement about the source. Context is important drgrant.

You seem to need to believe it was fully justified, although I can't understand why. This demented nationalistic backlash to any criticism of the US is hilarious, and one MUST be a commie pinko to say anything negative about the actions of the US government. Sounds like the statism NES is always railing against...interesting. So I'm done.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/hiroshima_hoax_japans_wllingne.html

You want to play dueling articles?

The million casualty figure was based on the fighting on Okinawa. It was accurate.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/why-did-world-war-ii-end

He'll even Mother Jones.

 

[Burgundy41]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/hiroshima_hoax_japans_wllingne.html

You want to play dueling articles?

The million casualty figure was based on the fighting on Okinawa. It was accurate.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/why-did-world-war-ii-end

He'll even Mother Jones.

I'm glad you're only trying to refute a tiny shred of what I'm talking about, and at the same time proving my point.

From the Mother Jones article (will people complained you used a SUPER LEFTIST blog? Probably not, hypocritically)

"So what really caused the Japanese to finally give up? Was it America's atomic bombs, or was it the Soviet Union's entrance into the Pacific war? Hasegawa, based on meticulous research into primary sources, argues that it was probably the latter."

"In some sense, the real answer here is probably unknowable. Two events happened at nearly the same time, and they were closely followed by a third. Figuring out conclusively what caused what may simply not be possible. Probably they both played a role."

The million figure (which I'm barely talking about and is a guess AT BEST) doesn't matter anyway. It could've been way less, you don't know, nor does anyone.

Also, the MJ article references this one which uses the same researcher and comes to a slightly different conclusion (as MJ points out, and then ignores):

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/

"In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion."

"“Hasegawa has changed my mind,” says Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” “The Japanese decision to surrender was not driven by the two bombings.”"

The point? Most everything was propaganda, or twisted to serve political needs. People here are arguing against revisionism, and you're posting a source that IS revisionism and I don't think you see that.

Bottom line is people are too dug in to beliefs set in the 1940's to ever try to change them, no matter how much evidence could emerge. If Japan didn't surrender because of the atom bombs as Hasegawa says, then they weren't necessary because the Soviet attacks pushed them to surrender. Thus proving my point.

 

[MaverickNH]

My neighbor growing up was a WWII Navy veteran from the Pacific fleet. He would take me to the VFW now and again. Everyone was nearly deaf. Hardly a surprise.

 

[Gammon]

Thanks for doing what I already said someone would do, so you're just following an obvious script. Again, it ain't just him it's pretty widespread. Feel free to ignore the quotes in there from people at the time that prove it right because you don't like the source though. It's so damn lazy nowadays that everyone just goes "Oh source is liberal/conservative, nothing in it can be true" because it's a cop out because you can't counter what it says the vast majority of the time.

God damn am I tired of that nonsense.

""I was against (use of the atomic bomb) on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a post-war interview.

Oh no, the liberal commie Eisenhower!111!





While horrible, had ****-all to do with us AND if atomic bombs should be dropped on countries that commit stuff like that, the US would've been nuked to oblivion long ago. So it's hypocritical at best.

People also don't seem to understand what revisionist history is. It's not the truth, it's things being changed from the truth and the reasons the US dropped the bomb were faulty in the first place so it can't be revisonist to change it.

Also, yes it's a propaganda film by definition.



Excuse me, speak English please.

You have obviously not read "The Rape of Nanking".