«12. . .134135136137138139140. . .270271»
Alrighty I found a better source. We know for a fact that the Japanese had offered to surrender so long as they could keep their emperor.
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth
Doesn't remotely answer my question.
Great books, invaluable lessons on life, mind numbingly long winded.
If you can get through them, I highly recommend them.
I'm curious as to wear you got your history education. No that is not a fact. You've discovered yet another fiction based on Monday morning quarterbacking. Did you even look at, let alone read the link I posted for you?
Let us review:
— Back then we had real live leaders with real live backbones that were willing to prosecute a war against those that attack this nation without pulling punches or walking way from a half done job.
— After Pearl Harbor, the United States was not going to accept anything other than a total and unconditional surrender from the Japanese.
— The Japanese culture pretty much required either victory or death. Accepting defeat was not in the Japanese warrior's make up.[1]
— That culture was so ingrained into the Japanese soldier that one soldier fought his war in the jungles of the Philippines until 1974 rather than accept surrender.[2]
— The Japanese made some inquiries to Russia about helping get better terms for a surrender, but the Russians were busy setting up their own invasion of Japan and didn't respond.[3]
— Even if Russia asked us to give Japan better terms, it would not be the unconditional surrender the United States required. (Did they really think we were going to forget about Pearl Harbor and all the death after Dec. 7, 1945?)
— In spite continuous losses, Japan's Supreme Council for the Direction of the War refused to give up, even after the second nuke took out Nagasaki.[4]
— The acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration (total surrender) came only after the Emperor himself stepped in and ordered it.[4]
— Even with the Emperor's personal intervention, members of Japan's military unsuccessfully attempted a coup and invaded the Imperial grounds.[4]
Seriously. Stop getting your history from bloggers and crackpots wanting to change history. Pick up a real history book written and reviewed by historians. Military historians would be best if World War II is your current interest.
Clearly, I misunderstood your question. Could you be more specific?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/world/asia/japan-philippines-ww2-soldier-dies/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
[4] http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japan-surrenders
Yay for me, 5 billion freedom loving, pot-smoking, gun toting, free to marry citizens.
Xyanth and Sociopia
Lol, AP US History and AP European History are offered in public schools. I'm not exactly getting a solely anti-US message here.
Seriously, your source is Atlantic Magazine. It doesn't actually cite anything itself either, its literally just the opinion of an english major. Stop acting all high and mighty. It doesn't matter whether you think the Japanese did or did not have it in them to surrender and keep their emperor, because they officially offered to. Here, HAVE A PRIMARY SOURCE!: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1945/08/19/
Its the article headlined as: "Bare peace bid US rebuffed 7 months ago."
Come on man, for someone claiming that I'm just spewing propaganda, you sure like to just bury your head in the sand when something contradicts your narrative.
What do you guys think about the concept of "state's rights"?
As a non-US citizen I always thought of it a fundamentally silly concept.
As our founders recognized the inevitability of a central government becoming tyrannical they ensured that the federal gov't had specific powers and nothing more. Therefore a politician from NY who had no stake or idea about the problems of NC couldn't impose laws or restrictions on the State. It is meant to keep the federal gov't in check and from becoming too powerful. The United States is actually supposed to be These United States, as in States that are united together for their protection. The States are meant to act as their own governments and entities and come together for security reasons (i.e. defense). Also the federal gov't is supposed to resolve issues between States, coin money, etc. Therefore all powers not given to the Fed. gov't are for the States and The People. However, that has been abused and diluted over the years and created a vast, corrupt, freedom stealing fed. gov't.
Reed audio, Phrontisteries, and Xyanth
Good job!
Public school, that explains part of it. The last two or three decades have been dedicated to rewriting history to suit the agenda of the NEA, unions and the left in general.
Great research. Good job. (I'm not kidding. I am serious.)
Did you read that part about why the surrender offers were not taken beyond Roosevelt's and then Truman's desks? If not, go back and read it again.
Now then, your position, if I understand it correctly is the United States did not have to nuke Japan as the Japanese were trying to surrender. Your implication is that we ignored the overtures for peace so we could nuke Japan a couple of times and make a point with the Russians. (Let me know if I am wrong.)
The article you found states the surrender offer came seven months prior to Aug 19, 1945. So we are talking January of 1945. The world's first atomic bomb was exploded on July 16, 1945. Back in January, before the Trinity test, no one knew if the "gadget" was going to work at all, let alone how much power the weapon would bring to the table. I find it hard to believe the United States was setting the table for a nuclear strike six months before anyone knew if it was going to work.
On July 29, 1945 the acceptable terms for Japanese surrender (unconditional) were laid out in the Potsdam Declaration.[1] the Japanese response was mokusatsu, which means "kill it with silence." This leads most people to believe the Japanese really were not serious about earlier peace overtures.
It compares a little to the current situation in Iran. Negotiations are just a stalling technique.
Some of what you spewed is propaganda. However it is the best kind of propaganda. A lie that was based in truth. Like that part about not needing to nuke Japan because they were trying to surrender.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration
The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This was set up to assure the colonies the new Federal government would not enslave or oppress them. It was a guarantee of state autonomy over local matters. Alas, over the years the states have gradually been selling their sovereign rights for federal money that comes with many sticky strings attached.
Hello, I'm old.
Right.... Do you have any evidence for this supposed infiltration and subsequent "Rewriting of history," or is it just a jingoistic conspiracy theory?
Also, none of that was officially mentioned in public school. They actually echo your message.
Yes. The surrender offer was not stated to be as official as the offer taken after the bombings, however my point still stands. The Japanese government was still clearly ready to surrender, if after negotiations similar to the negotiations after the bombings.
Relevance? If Japan was ready to surrender, it wouldn't matter whether or not we knew whether the bomb would work or not.
First of all, the eventual post-bombing Japanese surrender was in no way "unconditional," the most obvious example being the continuation of the emperor's rule. It is this lack of meaningful change in conditions that makes the bombings not worthwhile.
Find something I think is true that is an outright lie, or "a lie based in truth", and guess what? I'll change the belief. Based on the evidence, I don't think that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to achieve peace.
You seem to lack the willingness to change your viewpoint, or listen to evidence if it disagrees with your opinion (which is also the traditional justification.) Your own inability to recognize your own bias is massively disappointing.
I cant really tell where exactly he stands, whether Ancap or Minarchist or something else.
He makes some good points, but has a tendency to hijack conversations to make a point, while somewhat ignoring viewer questions.
Has he ever specified what he means by a "free society"?
>Has he ever specified what he means by a "free society"?
I assume he means a stateless society.
And yes, he does put out a lot of good material. He also has a pretty shady past though.
Every year, some veteran (or someone that knows the truth) finds out their child is being taught anything from the garbage you are spewing about Japan trying to surrender and we nuked them anyway all the way up to naming Truman as a war criminal for ordering the strike. And every year, the story makes a brief splash in local or regional news then dies while nothing changes.
This is what happened after the hippies of the 60's grew up and were actually trusted to teach our children. The problem is that these teachers are teaching our children what to think rather than how to think.
You seem confused here. How can any nation at war seriously consider an unofficial surrender overture? What led you to believe any negotiations took place when Japan officially surrendered? The Japanese never offered an unconditional surrender. That was not going to happen.(See below)
You should go back and read your own posts. You implied the United States used atomic weapons on Japan in spite of surrender overtures so they could try out their new bombs in real world conditions and show the Russian we were not to be screwed with. Six months prior to Trinity, no one knew if the weapon would even work. The timing kind of puts a hole in your conspiracy theory about why we rejected the unofficial surrender overtures.
I see the flaw in your education here. Until those bombs went off, the Japanese reaction to all official demands for an end to it were met with silence.[1] The most recent of those demands was the Potsdam Declaration.[2] All of them were met with silence. There was never a genuine attempt to surrender.
Now then, here's the biggest flaw in your education. The Japanese surrendered unconditionally.[3] When the Japanese surrendered there were no promises made about Emperor Hirohito or anything else. The Japanese were quite literally at the mercy of the allies. The decision to leave the Emperor in place was made to ease the occupation of the islands. the allies were in no way obligated to do so.
Here you go: "Based on the evidence, I don't think that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to achieve peace."
The truth is the Japanese were never going to submit to defeat and surrender to the point that would prevent them from rearming. Using nuclear weapons saved (depending on who you want to believe) between 1.25 million and 10 million lives, two thirds of which would have been Japanese.
Again, you are wrong. What I lack the willingness to do is accept disproved ideas and speculation as facts when reality contradicts them.
Who?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Japanese_reaction
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#The_Potsdam_Declaration
[3] https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-emperor-Hirohito-remain-in-power-even-with-Japan-committing-so-many-atrocities-in-the-war
Somehow this paragraph (or similar words to that effect) fell off the last post. So here it is again.
Going back to the flaw in your education, when Hirohito was left as Emperor, he was a paper Emperor with no power. He was literally a puppet figurehead whose only job was to say consoling things to the population. So yeah, the Allies left the Emperor in place, but stripped him of all power. There was even some talk of trying him as a war criminal, but MacArthur personally vetoed that if I remember correctly.
However, State governments are limited - both by their own Constitutions and by Federal provisions. For example the 13th Amendment forbids States legalising slavery. This is something that should have been dealt with at the original Constitutional Convention - but tragically was not. Indeed the original Constitution held that people held to labour (i.e. slaves) had to be returned if the escaped into another State. This stood the Common Law on its head (defining a series of Common Law judgements that one can trace back all the way to Tudor times - and then forward to Chief Justice Sir John Holt and then Chief Justice Mansfield). As Salmon P. Chase pointed out, the Common Law position is that "slavery" is a series of crimes (such as false imprisonment and assault) which can only be legalised by government statute (older layers such as Sir Edward Coke and Sir John Holt would have disputed the power of a legislature - but let us leave that aside).
As for Federal government - a lot of ink is spilt about the 14th Amendment, but only a minority of government interventions are justified by appealing to the 14th Amendment (which was actually passed with noble intent - to limit the tyranny of State governments). It is words in the original document that are the problem - specifically "general welfare" and "regulate interstate commerce" - certainly these words are ripped from their context and radically misinterpreted. However, such vague words have no place in a legal document in the first place.
Xyanth and Suwarya
Xyanth . In my experience debating with Rothbardians is an utter and complete waste of time, not just about World War II - about anything. In my youth I tried reasoning with them - providing sources and all that stuff. But it proved pointless, utterly pointless.
If the United States had wanted to attack the Soviet Union it would have nuked the Soviets - not the Japanese. Actually the United States (partly out of stupidity - partly because of a network of traitors in the American government) bent-over-backwards to try and be friends with the Soviets, only to see the effort utterly fail.
But you will never convince a Rothbardian of that - or convince them about anything else.
Try convincing them that the Confederacy was about racial SLAVERY - they will deny it, inspite of the plain words of the Constitution of Confederacy, and the well known devotion to spreading the "blessings" of the "positive good" of slavery of Jefferson Davis.
The Confederacy was not about racial slavery - this was not its purpose (even though the Confederacy was about racial slavery - this was its purpose), the Japanese Regime was about to surrender (even though it was not), the United States forced the Japanese dictatorship to go to war in 1941 (even though the United States did no such thing), the Allies were to blame for both World Wars (even though Germany was actually to blame for both of them), the United States was the "Imperialist" aggressor in the Cold War (even though it was not - Containment being defensive), Israel is the problem of the Middle East (which shows a total ignorance of the hostile nature of Islam - both Sunni and Shia, over more than a thousand years), and on and on and on...........
You are just banging your head against a brick wall Xyanth - wasting your time.
I used to do the same - 20 or 30 years ago.
They hate the West - not just the United States, the West in general.
In the end one has to say the following.
"You do what you like - but I have not wasting any more time, energy, or MONEY on you".
The Libertarian movment will never get anywhere whilst these Death-to-America (indeed Death-to-the-West) types are what people see when they come upon libertarian organisations or the Libertarian Party.
"But surely we can reason with them" - no, it does not work.
The frustrating thing is that Murray Newton Rothbard was actually a very good economist and historian of economic thought. But on anything else.......
Just to give little example from my own work (many decades ago now). Rothbard declared that Edmund Burke had been anarchist in his "Vindication of Natural Society" - but in his old age pretended that the work had been a satire and because a statist.
Every student of the work of Edmund Burke knows this is nonsense - and on multiple levels.
First the "Vindication of Natural Society" was really about mocking Bolingbroke's "natural religion" (religion without scripture). We know this because of Burke's introduction to the 2nd edition of the work (printed the following year - not in Burke's old age).
Also.....
Actually the 1790s (the period of Burke's old age - when he was dying of cancer) is when we find the short writings (against the French Revolutionaries and their fiends in other countries, including Britain) pointing out that society (property ownership and so on) is PRIOR to the state.
Burke is not an anarachist in his old age - but he is a lot closer to it (by his stressing that property and so on does NOT come from the state - so a breakdown of the system of government does not create some sort of moral Year Zero giving the new state the moral right to redistribute property and so on), than he was in his youth (when he had all sorts of interests - not just political matters).
There you go - very simple.
Now try telling a Rothbardian student any of it.
None of it will sink in.
They will just carry on writing "Edmund Burke was an anarchist when he wrote "Vindication of Natural Society" but leater became a statist and preteneded his youthful work was a satire".
So all one can do is turn one's back and walk away.
It is the same with everthing else.
I am a states rights supporter and believe the entire modern view of states rights has been irrevocably distorted by the Civil War. The Constitution lost its essence from that time onwards.
And The Confederacy was formed to combat political domination, or to ensure their own political domination, racial slavery is but a part of that fact. People tend to ignore the other aspects of states rights that thrived under The Confederacy due to the taint of slavery.
Kinda reminds me of the European Union.
Xyanth and Porcupine states
«12. . .134135136137138139140. . .270271»
Advertisement
