Merged Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal

[dafydd]

The Japanese commander in Malaya had ordered that every Allied POW, man, woman and child, would be killed when the first invader hit the beaches. The date for the invasion was 1 August, 1945. So the bombs saved one hundred thousand lives in that one location. There were many more saved, of course.

SHC would support the Japanese war aims. They were allies of Hitler and they were not Jewish. In one of his more farcical moves Hitler declared the Japanese 'honorary Aryans'. An ironic touch is that some of the uranium used to make the bombs was captured from a German submarine on its way to Japan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

SHC would support the Japanese war aims. They were allies of Hitler and they were not Jewish. In one of more farcical moves Hitler declared the Japanese 'honorary Aryans'. An ironic touch is that some of the uranium used to make the bombs was captured from a German submarine on its way to Japan.

One of the Japanese high command discussed the future if they were very successful with the Southern Resources Area operations.

"We will then move into the rest of Asia, including India. There we will find conflict with the Germans." Both Axis members knew they would be fighting each other when they ran out of other opponents.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is both speculative and a false dichotomy. There were more choices than nukes vs full invasion.

And you can you tell us the estimated number of dead for each scenario?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

You realize that we would have dropped up to eight more if the invasions had gone ahead? And that the Allied troops would have been sent through the drop zones 1/2 hour after the bombs fell? That expresses very well the level of knowledge we had about the effect of the bombs.

Oh, really? We just had to drop atomic bombs? We just had to invade?

This is pure nonsense.

 

[332nd]

Oh, really? We just had to drop atomic bombs? We just had to invade?

This is pure nonsense.

How so?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

And you can you tell us the estimated number of dead for each scenario?

Why, what's the relevance?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, really? We just had to drop atomic bombs? We just had to invade?

This is pure nonsense.

You're right. We could have let a few million Japanese starve to death. Old folks, sick people, small children, they would die first. By the hundreds of thousands. The Army would have kept the remaining food for itself, I've seen their plans to do this. They had to be strong to resist the invaders to the death.

What else you got?

 

[BazBear]

This is both speculative and a false dichotomy. There were more choices than nukes vs full invasion.

So please tell us what you think these better choices were.

I suppose we could have starved them while firebombing them back to the stone age, almost certainly resulting in the death millions of Japanese civilians.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Maybe he think that the US should have just walked away from the war. Thank the FSM that those in charge didn't think like him.

 

[dafydd]

This is both speculative and a false dichotomy. There were more choices than nukes vs full invasion.

More choices? Truman and Hirohito arm wrestling? A game of chess to decide it? What would you have done if you had Truman's job back then? It's easy to sit in your parent's basement and criticize. You've never been at the sharp end.

 

[kookbreaker]

This is both speculative and a false dichotomy. There were more choices than nukes vs full invasion.

Oh really? Like what? Surround the Islands for decades and watch them starve to death by the millions? That's humane.

False, baseless assumption. If it's certain Hitler would have used the atomic bomb
had he had access to it, why didn't he order the deployment of Germany's chemical weapons onto WW2 battlefields?

Several reasons:

a) Hitler had been gassed in WW1. He wasn't very fond of the stuff.

b) The Allies would have been much better at making chemical weapons

c) Germany had signed the ban in 1929 with the Geneva conventions and at least like to pay lip service to those conventions.

d) Chemical weapons aren't anywhere near as effective in mobile warfare as they were it stagnant trench warfare. In fact, they can actually interfere with advances or counter attacks.

Derp, derp?

You really are historically impaired, aren't you?

 

[kookbreaker]

Maybe he think that the US should have just walked away from the war. Thank the FSM that those in charge didn't think like him.

$5 says he brings up the laughable peace feelers some Japanese diplomats tried to put out in the waning days. You know, the ones that were basically just a call for a time-out.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

b) The Allies would have been much better at making chemical weapons

We told Hitler repeatedly that we would gas Berlin and every city we could reach if he used poison gas on the battlefield. We had a whole shipload of the stuff blow up off Italy, confirming that we had it available.

 

[dafydd]

$5 says he brings up the laughable peace feelers some Japanese diplomats tried to put out in the waning days. You know, the ones that were basically just a call for a time-out.

The Japanese were warned about the bomb but chose to ignore it.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

The Japanese were warned about the bomb but chose to ignore it.

I guess that makes incinerating women and children OK, right? I mean, they were warned and all.

You've got to love government truther logic.

 

[kookbreaker]

Not really, since I've got you guys defending the use of concentration camps and atom bombs on women and children.

Defending the use of the bomb? Sure. I'd defend its use any day of the week. As horrible as it was, all the alternatives were much, much worse. That is why you cannot come up with an alternative whatsoever.

 

[BravesFan]

Please give an example of anyone's having "defended" the internment camps. Unless your definition of "defended" is "refused to say that they were as bad as the Nazis' death camps."

As for the atomic bombs, first, many more civilians were killed by conventional bombing (which was started by the Axis powers) than by the atomic bombs, and, second, can you suggest a more humane way of ending the war in 1945 that the Allies could have reasonably accomplished?

His response (if he had the cajones to make one that he actually believes) would probably be like this:

" Kill all the Jews like Bossman Hitler said and we wouldn't have had to fight a war"

something like that. see my signature

 

[Hans]

To force the Dutch to surrender to their unprovocated attacked the Nazis bombed Rotterdam with the best science they had. Five years of war later the US bombed Hiroshima with the best science they had to force the Japanese to end the war they began

 

[SpringHallConvert]

To force the Dutch to surrender to their unprovocated attacked the Nazis bombed Rotterdam with the best science they had. Five years of war later the US bombed Hiroshima with the best science they had to force the Japanese to end the war they began

What a way to spin wholesale murder...

"Best science"

 

[Kid Eager]

What a way to spin wholesale murder...

"Best science"

You say that like wholesale murder is unacceptable, or that science shouldn't be used...