while Japan was still possessed of some 2,000,000 troops and over 9,000 planes in the home islands.

2 million soldiers and only 46k Americans would die? I smell bullshit

The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion and while Japan was still possessed of some 2,000,000 troops and over 9,000 planes in the home islands.

begun in 1943. Do you think I'm so dumb I don't know when the offensive started? Oh wait, looks like someone can't read his source

begun in 1943. Do you think I'm so dumb I don't know when the offensive started? Oh wait, looks like someone can't read his source


Can you read the source? It states that they had that much in 1943, not 45, you idiot.

Are you seriously going to ignore estimates from military commanders at the time?

Are you? The military commanders at the time were predicting much higher estimates than you're putting forth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

"Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high. Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians would have resisted the invasion, estimates ran up into the millions for Allied casualties"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/08/01/the-nuking-of-japan-was-a-tactical-and-moral-imperative/#7d9d9b584881

"The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that an invasion of Japan’s home islands would result in approximately 1.2 million American casualties, with 267,000 deaths."

I also have a source from the CIA that contradicts your argument but it seems doubtful you'd accept anything they say, so I'll stick with non-government sources so you can't use the "government shills" card.

Oh of course you will, you need to serve your state or you'll go to hell.

?

A really irrelevant and beside the point swipe, but even if I am some mindless government shill that doesn't change the scope or facts of this argument.

Millions of people were homeless, no oil was coming into Japan and the majority of their other imports were destroyed. The Japanese government was already considering surrender at that point too, do you think they'd just conscript everyone and charge them out?

Yes, all evidence suggested they would. Did Hitler cease fighting when Germany was in ruins and his troops out of supplies? No. Germany didn't surrender until their very capital was being overrun by Soviets. In contrast, the government of Japan was even more fanatical and could easily have been expected to fight just as hard.

When the Emperor first decided to surrender some of his own military leaders even tried to betray him in order to stop it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident


The only thing irrational is the Truman bootlicking going on here.

Or perhaps you're so infatuated with anarchism you can't bring yourself to knowledge that anything the U.S has done might have had some justification. It's hard to objectively look at a situation and admit there was no "Good" answer when you're determined to paint one party as a villain.

MGSB, what do you mean by "Skase"?

I bet MGSB's parents were govt. workers that got fucked then fed MGSB with Anarshits bullcrap.

lol...that made my day...XD...thanks, vengence

Are you? The military commanders at the time were predicting much higher estimates than you're putting forth.

Actually, that was Truman putting that ridiculous 500K estimate. If you had looked into the book I cited, you'd have known that it was much less than 500K (which was more deaths than the US had saw in the entire war).

Yes, all evidence suggested they would. Did Hitler cease fighting when Germany was in ruins and his troops out of supplies? No. Germany didn't surrender until their very capital was being overrun by Soviets. In contrast, the government of Japan was even more fanatical and could easily have been expected to fight just as hard.

Evidence from Germany suggests they wouldn't. Most of the time, folk told to resist and start a guerrilla war didn't as soon as the first American soldiers came and the local Nazi Official couldn't execute them.

When the Emperor first decided to surrender some of his own military leaders even tried to betray him in order to stop it:

And the majority told him to stop.

Or perhaps you're so infatuated with anarchism you can't bring yourself to knowledge that anything the U.S has done might have had some justification. It's hard to objectively look at a situation and admit there was no "Good" answer when you're determined to paint one party as a villain.

Or maybe you and the rest of the stathiests here have been fed Truman's bullshit estimate for your entire lives and you can't fathom him being wrong.

Still, what did you mean with "Skase"?-I know what "Barbaros" meant, but I don´t know what "Skase" means?!-You posted it in Greek.

Shut up barbarian

46,000 americans are more important 100,000 of an enemy nation

sorry

Update: Free Syrian Army, and other US-backed groups condemn the US and French terror attacks in Syria.

+1 buffloe

So the only way you can possibly justify holocaust, is through supremacist thinking?

GeneralPE, you can either be supremacist or Christian, but not both.

Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?

This is not a character attack. If GeneralPE makes a moral argument, and is hypocritical with it, I can call him out.

I'm not ignoring his argument, his argument is that Americans are better than Japanese folk. If I quote a passage from his holy book, he either must admit that his argument is wrong or that he is an apostate and guilty of heresy.

It's essentially evidence that his position is immoral. If he wasn't or is not a Christian, it's not, because the bible has no bearing on his morality. But if he is Christian, and it says that supremacism is immoral, it means that the most moral being is anti-supremacist, and therefore supremacy is immoral.

Edited 7/24/2016 02:23:54

Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus was fully capable and willing to have a meal along side unbelievers, not threaten , cajole and kill them.

Edited 7/24/2016 02:38:57

Because those people didn't intend to kill him, the same cannot be said of the Japanese.

The Japanese had already proposed a treaty. A peace treaty implies that peace would be preferable to war for the Japanese, and it implies this because they would not send a peace treaty if they would prefer war. Therefore, it is a question of peace or war, and Jesus favors peace.

Regardless of prior intentions they attacked America.

Jesus when addressed by his followers about a village that had been inhospitable to them, said that he had come to :

“to save men’s lives, not to destroy them.”

Note, Jesus forgave the Romans that had wronged them, and even disarmed a follower of his that chopped of a soldier's ear, and healed it.