The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

Discussion in 'History' started by mikegriffith1, Aug 10, 2019.

  1. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    36,567
    Thanks Received:
    7,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +26,987
    And more than many didn't care if it was used...............They weren't in charge and that is the end of it.

    It is history...........and I see you don't care about the Japanese torturing and killing POW's days after the 1st bomb dropped. Those articles that I posted.

    Japan should have surrendered earlier................period...........their fault that the U.S. brought out the big guns........aka nukes to make them surrender...............

    Do you deny the barbarism of the Japanese army.........the torture.......the rape..........and complete destruction of killing entire villages..........cities.........to every man woman and child in places like Nanking.............DO YOU????????

    You are trying to make the United States into a villian..........We didn't do this to Japanese POW's...............we didn't execute every prisoner in a camp.............we didn't starve and work them to death...............That is all Japan during the War.......Now we are supposed to cry that the decision to drop the bomb and end the War was so bad................I don't think so..........

    On Japanese atrocities.............DID THEY DO IT..................
     
  2. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    36,567
    Thanks Received:
    7,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +26,987
    AKA Anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant..................That dog doesn't hunt with me.............Your never ending outrage for the nukes is boring............you've been doing the same thing for a long time now..............and are upset that no one is really listening to you.

    That is your personal problem and not mine.
     
  3. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    36,567
    Thanks Received:
    7,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +26,987
    The decision was made to end the War.............Did the part of revenge help make up their minds..........Your damned skippy.
     
  4. Unkotare
    Online

    Unkotare Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    83,313
    Thanks Received:
    6,245
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +21,772

    It wasn’t necessary to end the war. That leaves just the revenge. Killing over 100,000 civilians in atomic incineration and its aftermath, and throwing AMERICANS into concentration camps in revenge against a military enemy? Is that what you think America is about?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Unkotare
    Online

    Unkotare Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    83,313
    Thanks Received:
    6,245
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Ratings:
    +21,772



    I never said that. You said that you had not read all of the information provided in just this one brief thread and did not care to. What would you call that if not ignorant?
     
  6. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    You should read what Omar N. Bradley says, before making false claims. Bradley does not mention Stimson in his memoir? General Bradley does make it clear that not once during the War did Eisenhower mention nuclear or atomic bombs, hence Bradley does not confirm what you claim.

    Seriously, by now, I would think you would of figured out that if you do not do the scholarly work yourself you have no idea if they are lying. In this case, you fail again. Seriously, cutting/pasting other people's work leaves you empty headed when I can quote the book.

    No mention of Stimson, "at no time during the war", did Eisenhower mention the bomb! Care to bring somebody else up, that proves you are wrong. This is almost comical, but very sad, on your part.
    omar2.jpg omar.jpg omar3.jpg [/QUOTE]
     
  7. mikegriffith1
    Offline

    mikegriffith1 Mike Griffith

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,768
    Thanks Received:
    1,464
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +6,143
    It is amazing that you could make these statements after reading my reply. I suspect you read the first paragraph and then skimmed over the rest. My reply answers every essential argument you've made about Ike's statements on nuking Japan. All of your arguments against Ike's statements follow the general thrust of Maddox's arguments, except that some of your assumptions are erroneous and are not even made by Maddox. Let's examine your arguments:

    I addressed that argument in my reply.

    No, they do not, not by any standard of sound scholarship. They are not mutually exclusive: it's just that the later version gives more detail. Nothing in the first version conflicts with the second version, and vice versa.

    That's a simplistic, sophomoric conclusion that shows you have no understanding of serious historical research. Just because one account provides more information than the other does not mean that one of them is a "lie."

    Again, the two accounts are not mutually exclusive. Even in the first account, Ike made it clear that he expressed misgivings about nuking Japan. As I mentioned in my reply, it is entirely reasonable and understandable that Ike's first account, written in 1948, would be rather circumspect, but that his later account, written 15 years later, would contain more information because he felt more at liberty to provide a fuller version.

    I notice you ignored the point that Gen. Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Eisenhower expressed strong objections to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson. Why didn't you address that point?

    LOL! Uh, as even Maddox admits, one of Stimson's aides recorded that Ike and Stimson discussed the atomic bomb! Did you even read my reply?

    Furthermore, just FYI, Truman, Stimson, and the rest of Truman's gang hated MacArthur! How can you not know this?! So it's not at all surprising that Mac was kept in the dark. Furthermore, MacArthur was not nearby when Stimson was in Potsdam, whereas Eisenhower was, and Truman and Stimson liked Ike. And, again, we have documentary evidence from one of Stimson's aides that Stimson and Eisenhower discussed nuking Japan.

    I might add that Eisenhower insisted to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, that he objected to using nukes on Japan when he met with Stimson. I mentioned this fact in my reply as well, but you ignored it.

    My, my, my. So you, who has tried to wrap your barbarism in the flag and who has questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you--here you are calling one of our greatest WW II generals, and one of our most beloved presidents, a liar. You're no "patriot."

    In point of fact, there is no credible reason to doubt that Eisenhower opposed nuking Japan before the fact. And, of course, there is no question that the more he studied the issue, the firmer he came to believe that nuking Japan was both wrong and unnecessary, as he explained in his 1963 interview with Newsweek.
     
  8. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    One account provides more information? Sure, one account, which is the lie, includes a lot more information. In this case though, one version is completely different. It is not simply that one contains more information, it is simply that it is very different account of something that seems to have never of happened.

    In one account, Ike finds out about the Atomic Bomb before the test in New Mexico. In the 2nd account Ike finds out after.

    In the 1st quote from Eisenhower's first book, Eisenhower says that he was told the bomb was soon to be detonated yet later in the same paragraph Eisenhower says he was not told that a bomb was made or was being made?

    stim ike.jpg
    stim ike 2.jpg
     
  9. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    ???? Maybe you did not update your browser, so that you can see, that my post addressing Gen Omar Bradley, with pics from the memoir, appears right before you ask your little, late, question.

    The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima
     
  10. elektra
    Offline

    elektra Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    8,329
    Thanks Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Temecula California
    Ratings:
    +2,946
    I will readdress this post, when I go back through your posts, and find the one where you say a patriot technically, posts just as I did. I can call Eisenhower a liar, for he wrote two versions of the same story. He did not merely add more information in the 2nd story. In the 2nd version, it is simply very different.

    I have addressed Eisenhower, using his words, showing that he lied.
    I have addressed Eisenhower, with your claim that Gen Omar Bradly confirms Ike's story. Bradly contradicts Eisenhower.

    Care to read what MacArthur wrote?

    You make many claims. Each one falls as if it is not a fact. Each claim you make falls like a leave from a tree.
    Now you make many more excuses and claims in regards to Eisenhower. Not one of your claims can hold water.

    Later, another day, when I am bored I will continue to show how you fail to show your OP to contain any truth.

    I still love how you used Bundy, then discredited Bundy by calling him a filthy liar. That was a class one screw up on your part. Simply showing that those who do not have facts, can not weave a credible lie.
     

Share This Page