JapanForum.com
Page 9 of 18 « First < 78 9 1011 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

JapanForum.com (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/)
-   General Discussion (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/)
-   -   Feelings Toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/35363-feelings-toward-hiroshima-nagasaki.html)

MMM 12-28-2010 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suki (Post 843815)
Ok, I should have said "non-environmental catastrophes caused by humans". That's what I meant.

And yes, the US is always involved in wars that don't concern them. Look up a timeline of US military operations carried out in the last 30 years.
You brought up Korea and Vietnam, not me, in a thread that has nothing to do with either.

You say the US is involved in conflicts that don't involve the US. However, all countries are supposed to support their allies in times of conflict. You really see who your friends are when the going gets rough. Should the US not come to the aid of its allies in times of conflict. Should we break treaties and agreements between governments because it's "not our problem"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suki (Post 843815)

Now? It's taken what, ten years? George Bush even got reelected for God's sake, that alone speaks for itself.
By how many votes? (Hint: It is negative number.)

RickOShay 12-28-2010 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 843903)
It wasn't unthinkable. The Japanese offered avenues to surrender prior to 1945. The Americans didn't take them up on it though.
Yes, that is why some higher ups in the Japanese command tried to stage a coup in order to steal the recording of the emperors surrender message to the Japanese people so that they would not be able to hear it in hopes that Japan would continue to fight on despite the dropping of two atom bombs. The fact of the matter is, is that those who were calling the shots would have preferred national suicide to surrender.

MMM 12-28-2010 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chryuop (Post 843856)
Even pushers say "we sell drugs, we don't shoot it in their veins" LOL.
True you didn't shoot the gun first, but pushed the finger that pushed that trigger. Penalties to repay fro WWI were taken to a very extreem point and brought Germany to starvation...that added to the craziness of a dwarf with mustaches created the war.

There are many ways to start a war without starting it...you just have to read between the lines. To enter the war (because Germany was becoming too strong economically) USA used a nice trick that in history was recorded many times (even my country, Italy, used it to be attacked and get help by France in middle ages). Place all you army on the border till you get attacked (Pearl Harbor).
Iraq itself was a target till the gulf war. The embargo placed by US and UN was by far unnecessary. Many people, including kids, died because no medicine could have been sent.

War is money, period. USA is the one who has the more to lose or to gain being the big power and it is obvious it wants to play a leading role...that of course creates not a good opinion in other countries.
So you are blaming the US for Hitler? I love it. I bet it was Americans that killed Jesus, too.

Aniki 12-28-2010 07:58 PM

Ronin4hire 12-28-2010 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickOShay (Post 843908)
Yes, that is why some higher ups in the Japanese command tried to stage a coup in order to steal the recording of the emperors surrender message to the Japanese people so that they would not be able to hear it in hopes that Japan would continue to fight on despite the dropping of two atom bombs. The fact of the matter is, is that those who were calling the shots would have preferred national suicide to surrender.
Not entirely true.

Most were looking for an out.

Their primary concern was surrounding the status of the Emperor.

The US was only concerned with UNCONDITIONAL surrender though.

Which is another questionable decision on the part of the US.

RickOShay 12-28-2010 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 843914)
Not entirely true.

Most were looking for an out.

Their primary concern was surrounding the status of the Emperor.

The US was only concerned with UNCONDITIONAL surrender though.

Which is another questionable decision on the part of the US.
I do not know if "most" is the proper assessment there. I would agree to "some".

Unconditional surrender was demanded because the conditional surrender at the end of WWI was part of what brought about WW2.

I would not call it questionable at all, it is what all the allies agreed upon to demand from the axis powers.

Ronin4hire 12-28-2010 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickOShay (Post 843917)

Unconditional surrender was demanded because the conditional surrender at the end of WWI was part of what brought about WW2.

I would not call it questionable at all, it is what all the allies agreed upon to demand from the axis powers.
If you're referring to the treaty of Versailles.. there were no concessions made to the losers that I'm aware of. In fact I thought the lack of concessions was the reasoning that explains how WW1 created WW2.

I didn't mean questionable as in it was at odds with what the allies demanded (though I think I remember reading somewhere that some of the other allies that were heavily involved in the European war, were less enthusiastic about ending the Pacific war as absolutely as the US had planned)

I meant questionable in terms of what the agenda was. Defeat of Japan was all but imminent after all. US intelligence supported this view.

dogsbody70 12-28-2010 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM (Post 843907)
You brought up Korea and Vietnam, not me, in a thread that has nothing to do with either.

You say the US is involved in conflicts that don't involve the US. However, all countries are supposed to support their allies in times of conflict. You really see who your friends are when the going gets rough. Should the US not come to the aid of its allies in times of conflict. Should we break treaties and agreements between governments because it's "not our problem"?



By how many votes? (Hint: It is negative number.)

I have to say here that the USA came to our rescue in WW2 after the atack on Pearl Harbour.


Just think with war in Europe and in ASIA that took a heck of a lof of forces and men.



Japan At War In Colour [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: DVD this dvd was very enlightening.

fluffy0000 12-28-2010 09:52 PM
again sorta not
 
Unconditional Surrender policy was adopted following the Casablanca Conference in Jan 1943, the Allies announced an unconditional surrender policy with respect to the Axis powers - ( Japan was part of the Axis powers which included Germany and Italy )

In 1943' the Allies including US, UK and Soviet Union agreed on almost nothing. But on the single point of ending WW2 with not just victory but also the pursuit of forcing the Axis powers into “Unconditional Surrender.”

(.., really pleased Stalin, going a long way to allaying his fears that his Western Allies might make a separate peace with Hitler.)

Before Japan was defeated both of Japans allies - Germany and Italy accepted “Unconditional Surrender”.
The application of “Unconditional Surrender” not only applied to the respective military of each Axis power but also to the entire country.
"..it was to assure for the foreseeable future that these countries would be unable to wage war again."

Sinestra 12-28-2010 10:01 PM
And another thread like clock work turns (anti-American with the usual suspects leading the charge uphill with only 2 rounds left) and becomes a giant flame war.

I have so much to say (even though MMM said most of it for me) its just not even worth it now.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39 PM.
Page 9 of 18 « First < 78 9 1011 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6