Hiroshima Plus Seventy

Screw you cum guzzler. I lived in the P.I. For some years and KNOW their culture. And not from reading about it on the friggen Internet or by checking out Wikipedia, like you, ya lying, swishy walking liberal, wanna-be history revisionist ! And you STILL don't get that another poster was ranting like you, ya lying cum guzzling wanna-be history revisionist, about how the two cities that had the bombs dropped on them weren't "important" militarily. BULLSHIT on that. Nagasaki had a large naval base located in the city and Hiroshima had a large Japanese Army base located in it. The manufacturing was done at PRIVATE houses, ya dumb shit ! NOT at "public" plants. The Japanese had to try to maintain producing of critical materials, bullets, bandages, etc. by EVERY means possible as our war got closer to the home islands and the combination of B-29 raids on their manufacturing plants along with OUR submarines putting over 50% of the total tonnage sunk of their naval and merchant fleet on the bottom of the Pacific . I don't have to entertain the thought that I might be wrong, ya cum guzzling, gloryholing, lying liberal, wanna-be history revisionist, because TIME and the TRUE HISTORY are there for EVERONE with more than two brain cells to see. So that leaves YOU out cum guzzler ! Stick to working the 'holes woomby. This "history revision" thing just isn't your forte. It's TOOOOO easy to hand you your ass, like MANY people have done to your weak shit posts in this (and other) threads. but this one especially. Why don't you try spewing some of your "historical musings" on the revolution En Mejico ? Or did tu abulea tell you to never speak of how your maricon familia RAN away from " la revolution ! " ? Puto ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Even we admitted that the targets weren't military. Where have you been?

because he lives in the bowls of the libtard dungeon known as academia
and let's keep his ass there!

and i'm still waiting for Womby to tell me who the real architect of the Cold War was.

naughty list ...

IB .. you are disqualified! because you already know! no fair dude. let womby try to figger it out on his/her own Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Here's your answer; I don't give a fuck.

Screw you cum guzzler. I lived in the P.I. For some years and KNOW their culture. And not from reading about it on the friggen Internet or by checking out Wikipedia, like you, ya lying, swishy walking liberal, wanna-be history revisionist ! And you STILL don't get that another poster was ranting like you, ya lying cum guzzling wanna-be history revisionist, about how the two cities that had the bombs dropped on them weren't "important" militarily. BULLSHIT on that. Nagasaki had a large naval base located in the city and Hiroshima had a large Japanese Army base located in it. The manufacturing was done at PRIVATE houses, ya dumb shit ! NOT at "public" plants. The Japanese had to try to maintain producing of critical materials, bullets, bandages, etc. by EVERY means possible as our war got closer to the home islands and the combination of B-29 raids on their manufacturing plants along with OUR submarines putting over 50% of the total tonnage sunk of their naval and merchant fleet on the bottom of the Pacific . I don't have to entertain the thought that I might be wrong, ya cum guzzling, gloryholing, lying liberal, wanna-be history revisionist, because TIME and the TRUE HISTORY are there for EVERONE with more than two brain cells to see. So that leaves YOU out cum guzzler ! Stick to working the 'holes woomby. This "history revision" thing just isn't your forte. It's TOOOOO easy to hand you your ass, like MANY people have done to your weak shit posts in this (and other) threads. but this one especially. Why don't you try spewing some of your "historical musings" on the revolution En Mejico ? Or did tu abulea tell you to never speak of how your maricon familia RAN away from " la revolution ! " ? Puto ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

....cunt....retard....shitass. ...fucktard....am I pushing the right buttons, sewer rat? You're frothing at the mouth again.... try to spit the words out before you melt down like the wicked witch of the Ozarks....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ8WrKnLUs
. Originally Posted by lustylad

See the above post by your 'engorger' rey lingo for an example of frothing at the mouth. He's absolutely lost it.

Your question makes no sense. Stalin got what he could in spite of the bomb. Stalin advanced his timetable for "Operation August Storm" at least twice because of the bomb's existence. Stalin anticipated that if he did not get into the Pacific War quick enough, the Soviet Union would be unable to aggrandize itself with new territory in Asia or have a political presence in post-war Asia before an official truce was declared between Japan and the other Allies. Those who argue that the bomb didn't hasten the end of the war and, instead, myopically give sole credit to the Soviet attack choose to ignore how the bomb's mere existence hastened the launching of the Soviet attack. And do take note what is related in one of your cited articles; wherein, it explicitly states Truman's number one concern justifying his use of the bomb. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I never cast any doubt that the use of the atomic bombs would have hastened the capitulation of Imperial Japan, provided we kept dropping them whenever we had them in stock. My problem is that if by using the A-bombs "Truman hoped to end the Pacific War before the Soviet Union entered the fray against the Japanese," then we all know he was grossly mistaken. Stalin decided to invade anyway, right after the bombing of Hiroshima.

Why not postpone the bombing for a few more days? Stalin would have invaded Japan, and soon, because he had to do so within three months after the surrender of Nazi Germany in order to claim his "rightful spoils" as previously agreed upon, per Yalta Conference. Then we could have monitored the progress of the massive Soviet military offensive and the consequent reaction of the Japanese Supreme War Council, and appropriately formulated our war strategies. Therefore it's almost certain the Japanese would have capitulated without further losses of American lives, and without the use of the atomic bombs.

http://warincontext.org/2013/05/31/s...er-ending-ww2/

Screw you cum guzzler. I lived in the P.I. For some years and KNOW their culture. And not from reading about it on the friggen Internet or by checking out Wikipedia, like you, ya lying, swishy walking liberal, wanna-be history revisionist ! And you STILL don't get that another poster was ranting like you, ya lying cum guzzling wanna-be history revisionist, about how the two cities that had the bombs dropped on them weren't "important" militarily. BULLSHIT on that. Nagasaki had a large naval base located in the city and Hiroshima had a large Japanese Army base located in it. The manufacturing was done at PRIVATE houses, ya dumb shit ! NOT at "public" plants. The Japanese had to try to maintain producing of critical materials, bullets, bandages, etc. by EVERY means possible as our war got closer to the home islands and the combination of B-29 raids on their manufacturing plants along with OUR submarines putting over 50% of the total tonnage sunk of their naval and merchant fleet on the bottom of the Pacific . I don't have to entertain the thought that I might be wrong, ya cum guzzling, gloryholing, lying liberal, wanna-be history revisionist, because TIME and the TRUE HISTORY are there for EVERONE with more than two brain cells to see. So that leaves YOU out cum guzzler ! Stick to working the 'holes woomby. This "history revision" thing just isn't your forte. It's TOOOOO easy to hand you your ass, like MANY people have done to your weak shit posts in this (and other) threads. but this one especially. Why don't you try spewing some of your "historical musings" on the revolution En Mejico ? Or did tu abulea tell you to never speak of how your maricon familia RAN away from " la revolution ! " ? Puto ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Where's your link for the Japanese having a naval base in Nagasaki? There was no naval base in the city of Nagasaki during WW2. There was a naval base in Sasebo, which is in Nagasaki Prefecture, but that's 90km from Nagasaki, the city. I thought you didn't have to entertain the though of being wrong?

I never cast any doubt that the use of the atomic bombs would have hastened the capitulation of Imperial Japan, provided we kept dropping them whenever we had them in stock. My problem is that if by using the A-bombs "Truman hoped to end the Pacific War before the Soviet Union entered the fray against the Japanese," then we all know he was grossly mistaken. Stalin decided to invade anyway, right after the bombing of Hiroshima.

Why not postpone the bombing for a few more days? Stalin would have invaded Japan, and soon, because he had to do so within three months after the surrender of Nazi Germany in order to claim his "rightful spoils" as previously agreed upon, per Yalta Conference. Then we could have monitored the progress of the massive Soviet military offensive and the consequent reaction of the Japanese Supreme War Council, and appropriately formulated our war strategies. Therefore it's almost certain the Japanese would have capitulated without further losses of American lives, and without the use of the atomic bombs.

http://warincontext.org/2013/05/31/s...er-ending-ww2/ Originally Posted by andymarksman

Don't try to bring logic to the table. IB doesn't understand that.

1. The fact that our Founders did not abolish the institution of Slavery when they ratified the Constitution.
2.Our total decimation, (and more), of the Native Americans in the name of Manefest Destiny.
3.FDR's herding American Citizens of Japanese Heretidge into "camps" during WW-2.
4.Our getting into an un winnable conflict in Vietnam and refusing to believe that we had no business being there.
5. That we, by law, are willing to accept the fact that 98 percent of all Abortions are performed for "convenience". Originally Posted by Jackie S

Huh? That's it? That's all you got? Sheesh - you need to go talk to Michelle Obama! She can help you to expand that list of yours, although she did in a moment of weakness confess to feeling proud of her country (once).

.

I never cast any doubt that the use of the atomic bombs would have hastened the capitulation of Imperial Japan, provided we kept dropping them whenever we had them in stock. My problem is that if by using the A-bombs "Truman hoped to end the Pacific War before the Soviet Union entered the fray against the Japanese," then we all know he was grossly mistaken. Stalin decided to invade anyway, right after the bombing of Hiroshima.

Why not postpone the bombing for a few more days? Stalin would have invaded Japan, and soon, because he had to do so within three months after the surrender of Nazi Germany in order to claim his "rightful spoils" as previously agreed upon, per Yalta Conference. Then we could have monitored the progress of the massive Soviet military offensive and the consequent reaction of the Japanese Supreme War Council, and appropriately formulated our war strategies. Therefore it's almost certain the Japanese would have capitulated without further losses of American lives, and without the use of the atomic bombs.

http://warincontext.org/2013/05/31/s...er-ending-ww2/ Originally Posted by andymarksman

Truman wanted the Soviets to join the war effort; that's why he went to Potsdam to confer with Stalin.

''I've gotten what I came for - Stalin goes to war August 15th with no strings on it ... I'll say that we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed! That is the important thing.'' Truman, 18 July, 1945. (NYT)

It was Stalin alone who anticipated and reacted to how the A-bomb might negatively impact his ambitions in the Far East.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, from which you lib-retards love to cherry pick quotes out of context, unequivocally states that without the bombs, the massive and sustained aerial campaign against Japan would need to have continued for several more months. That means that the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. airmen and naval aviators would have been risked almost everyday for that same period. It also meant that tens of thousands of Japanese would have been the victims of either the bombings or starvation brought about by the bombings. You'd be the moral equivocator arguing that the U.S. -- in the mistaken name of "national honor" -- should have stood aside and allowed the Soviets to slaughter Japanese citizens the way they had the German citizens when the U.S. had the means to end the war quickly and prevent the needless deaths and injury to millions. There is no honor in enabling such slaughter. The bombs saved lives, because it was the bombs that brought about the hasty end of the war. One need only read Hirohito's message to his people to know that:

"[T]he war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives.

Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers...."

Hirohito, August 14, 1945.

Don't try to bring logic to the table. IB doesn't understand that. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The report you cited shows you to be a mental midget and a moral cretin, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

You are beyond stupid.... It doesn't matter who had the bomb, you dumbass. Originally Posted by WombRaider

That's the spirit, sewer rat! Who cares if we all ended up speaking German or Japanese at war's end? Who cares if the Nazis installed a puppet in the White House and started rounding up American Jews while the Japs occupied our West Coast and extended their campaign of genocide throughout China and the rest of Asia?

In the libtard scheme of things, there is no good and evil, only moral equivalence. I mean, there is some good in evil people and some evil in good people, so it's all the same, right? Don't confuse me with nuance here. IT DOESN'T MATTER if Hitler or Tojo had the bomb before we did. Why did we have to fight WW2 anyway?

What a fine American you are, sewer rat. Keep making us proud!
.

You are an idiot. Nobody is saying anything as stupid as that. Stalin was a fucking opportunist who saw a chance to jump in at the war's end and try to grab some of the spoils that Americans had fought and died for in the bloody Pacific War. He had to accelerate his land grab plans because he knew the A-bomb would hasten Japan's surrender. He wound up seizing the Kurile Islands - does that make him the "biggest beneficiary" of Truman's decision?

Btw, if you bothered to read your own links you would understand the history better:

"Truman hoped to end the Pacific War before the Soviet Union entered the fray against the Japanese, a development that might permit Stalin to obtain territory in Asia or demand a role in America's postwar occupation of Japan."

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You made an "opportunist move" Stalin would love to make, which reveals how despicable you really are.

Stalin invaded Manchuria, handing over all captured Japanese weapons and military equipments to his Chinese Communist cronies, consequently led to the catastrophic defeats of Chiang kai-shek's armies in Manchuria and the eventual bolshevizition of mainland China. And we are still living with its aftermath as of today, yet you dismiss it as a mere "opportunist" move by Stalin. Can anyone else be this moronic?

And of course he wouldn't overlook Korea. He did likewise to his north Korean cronies, needless to say, we are still haunted by its aftermath as of today. Another mere "opportunist" move by Stalin, according to you. Who else can get this moronic?

Over 110,000 fine Americans perished in Korea and Vietnam as a result of these "little opportuist moves" by Stalin. Yes, Vietnam. Without massive military aids from his Chinese Communist brethren, Ho Chi Minh wouldn't have made it out alive with the French. And you want to argue the lives of these fine Americans are not as significant as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You have sounded so "patriotic" in so many of your posts, however, this single piece of nonsence demonstrated you are a mere fraud.

You made an "opportunist move" Stalin would love to make, which reveals how despicable you really are.

Stalin invaded Manchuria, handing over all captured Japanese weapons and military equipments to his Chinese Communist cronies, consequently led to the catastrophic defeats of Chiang kai-shek's armies in Manchuria and the eventual bolshevizition of mainland China. And we are still living with its aftermath as of today, yet you dismiss it as a mere "opportunist" move by Stalin. Can anyone else be this moronic?

And of course he wouldn't overlook Korea. He did likewise to his north Korean cronies, needless to say, we are still haunted by its aftermath as of today. Another mere "opportunist" move by Stalin, according to you. Who else can get this moronic?

Over 110,000 fine Americans perished in Korea and Vietnam as a result of these "little opportuist moves" by Stalin. Yes, Vietnam. Without massive military aids from his Chinese Communist brethren, Ho Chi Minh wouldn't have made it out alive with the French. And you want to argue the lives of these fine Americans are not as significant as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You have sounded so "patriotic" in so many of your posts, however, this single piece of nonsence demonstrated you are a mere fraud. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Lusty, as you like to say, you got your ass handed to you here, buddy. Do you have trouble connecting the dots? Do you think all these events occur in a vacuum?

Huh? That's it? That's all you got? Sheesh - you need to go talk to Michelle Obama! She can help you to expand that list of yours, although she did in a moment of weakness confess to feeling proud of her country (once).

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You have yet to answer the question that was put to you; do you love America or do you love the idea of America? Your lack of pragmatism is your downfall in every instance.

Truman wanted the Soviets to join the war effort; that's why he went to Potsdam to confer with Stalin.



It was Stalin alone who anticipated and reacted to how the A-bomb might negatively impact his ambitions in the Far East.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, from which you lib-retards love to cherry pick quotes out of context, unequivocally states that without the bombs, the massive and sustained aerial campaign against Japan would need to have continued for several more months. That means that the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. airmen and naval aviators would have been risked almost everyday for that same period. It also meant that tens of thousands of Japanese would have been the victims of either the bombings or starvation brought about by the bombings. You'd be the moral equivocator arguing that the U.S. -- in the mistaken name of "national honor" -- should have stood aside and allowed the Soviets to slaughter Japanese citizens the way they had the German citizens when the U.S. had the means to end the war quickly and prevent the needless deaths and injury to millions. There is no honor in enabling such slaughter. The bombs saved lives, because it was the bombs that brought about the hasty end of the war. One need only read Hirohito's message to his people to know that:




The report you cited shows you to be a mental midget and a moral cretin, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again, you operate on theoretical terms. You don't know that any of that would have happened. Answer me this; why do you care about theoretical japanese deaths so much, due to starvation and such, but you don't seem to give two shits about ACTUAL japanese deaths from the bombs?

That's the spirit, sewer rat! Who cares if we all ended up speaking German or Japanese at war's end? Who cares if the Nazis installed a puppet in the White House and started rounding up American Jews while the Japs occupied our West Coast and extended their campaign of genocide throughout China and the rest of Asia?

In the libtard scheme of things, there is no good and evil, only moral equivalence. I mean, there is some good in evil people and some evil in good people, so it's all the same, right? Don't confuse me with nuance here. IT DOESN'T MATTER if Hitler or Tojo had the bomb before we did. Why did we have to fight WW2 anyway?

What a fine American you are, sewer rat. Keep making us proud!
. Originally Posted by lustylad

You have done what you do best; cherry pick a quote and then misrepresent it. The quote referred to by wakkko and now you, was referring to mankind engineering his own end. You can't see beyond your own salute. It wasn't about who got the bomb first, it was an existential comment on the bomb's existence, you stuttering buffoon. Everything just said in that post above is rendered moot. You misunderstood the initial quote, you then misrepresented my quote and spewed vile bullshit that was all predicated on the you and wakkko both being goddamn ignoramuses.

There is evil in this world, no one denies that. The difference is in how we choose to deal with it. That's the distinction you don't make. Take it further and at least make the distinction, instead of stopping at the moral equivalency bullshit. It's all random. You could just as easily have been born in Palestine. I'm pretty sure you'd feel differently if you had.

Again, you operate on theoretical terms. You don't know that any of that would have happened. Answer me this; why do you care about theoretical japanese deaths so much, due to starvation and such, but you don't seem to give two shits about ACTUAL japanese deaths from the bombs? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Unlike your asinine fantasy that people aren't killed during wars, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, U.S. casualty projections for the invasion of Japan were based on real world experiences during WWII, and not on some lib-retarded notion that smiling Japanese soldiers and/or citizens would be greeting troops of the Allied invasion force with sake and tea, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Estimated casualties

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population", high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. The estimated casualty figures later became a crucial point in postwar debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

• In a letter sent to General Curtis LeMay from General Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
  
• In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
  
• A study done by Admiral Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.
  
• A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
  
• In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).
  
• Admiral Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).
  
• Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
  
• A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

The Battle of Okinawa resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing). (wiki)

BTW, it is lib-retards like you, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, who are the moral cretins for championing a prolonged war that would have doomed millions more to death, injuries and additional suffering.