So what if the Red Army would've taken its time reaching the Japanese mainland? Kantarō Suzuki, the prime minister that took over in April of 1945, was hoping to set terms for surrender and the State Department knew it by the end of the month. A month before the Nazis surrendered, leaving Japan alone to face the Allies. The invasion you describe as being so costly was necessary because of what again? Because incendiary bombing raids by 625 B-29s day-in, day-out, month-in, month-out could never have degraded Japan's willingness to fight? Or are we supposed to accept as justification for nuclear war that another military-fanatic empire would've done it if they could've? You're offering doctrine here, not reasoning.
" was hoping to set terms for surrender", what the f___ does that mean?
Kantarō Suzuki, the prime minister, had no final say and was unpopular among the militarist, in charge at the time. It was his belief, as chairman of the Imperial Advisory Council, the war end in 1944. On the other hand: "In a widely broadcast speech picked up by Japanese news agencies, President Truman warned that if Japan failed to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration it could "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on". Wikipedia.
"..........could never have degraded Japan's willingness to fight?" They hadn't, you of course have "evidence" to the contrary?
Your offering nothing but conjecture, the proof that Japanese were willing to fight to the last dog literally, was in the arming and training of its women and children. Hardly a sign of acquiescence
It's really sad folk of your ilk don't/won't face the facts of history and would rather rewrite it, to suit whatever "agenda" you hold dear.
Don't worry. I wouldn't put so much as a scratch on your dogmatic, time-tested, Texas school board-approved version of history. You clearly need that off-the-shelf rationalization for nuclear first and second strikes very much. Have at it.
They hadn't, you of course have "evidence" to the contrary?
I shouldn't think I'd need to provide evidence that the wholesale firebombing of Japan had effects. It may be at right angles to the foregone conclusion you apparently need to maintain, but there it is.
It's really sad folk of your ilk don't/won't face the facts of history and would rather rewrite it, to suit whatever "agenda" you hold dear.
Yeah. I was probably making a sneaky try at increasing the marginal tax rate on people making over a quarter of a million dollars per year. Or treacherously try to hike the death tax. Not pointing out the victors of the first nuclear war may not be entirely honest with themselves about it. Good thing you were able to see through my wicked scheme.
So what if the Red Army would've taken its time reaching the Japanese mainland? Kantarō Suzuki, the prime minister that took over in April of 1945, was hoping to set terms for surrender and the State Department knew it by the end of the month. A month before the Nazis surrendered, leaving Japan alone to face the Allies. The invasion you describe as being so costly was necessary because of what again? Because incendiary bombing raids by 625 B-29s day-in, day-out, month-in, month-out could never have degraded Japan's willingness to fight? Or are we supposed to accept as justification for nuclear war that another military-fanatic empire would've done it if they could've? You're offering doctrine here, not reasoning.
" was hoping to set terms for surrender", what the f___ does that mean?
Kantarō Suzuki, the prime minister, had no final say and was unpopular among the militarist, in charge at the time. It was his belief, as chairman of the Imperial Advisory Council, the war end in 1944. On the other hand: "In a widely broadcast speech picked up by Japanese news agencies, President Truman warned that if Japan failed to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration it could "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on". Wikipedia.
"..........could never have degraded Japan's willingness to fight?" They hadn't, you of course have "evidence" to the contrary?
Your offering nothing but conjecture, the proof that Japanese were willing to fight to the last dog literally, was in the arming and training of its women and children. Hardly a sign of acquiescence
It's really sad folk of your ilk don't/won't face the facts of history and would rather rewrite it, to suit whatever "agenda" you hold dear.
Don't worry. I wouldn't put so much as a scratch on your dogmatic, time-tested, Texas school board-approved version of history. You clearly need that off-the-shelf rationalization for nuclear first and second strikes very much. Have at it.
I shouldn't think I'd need to provide evidence that the wholesale firebombing of Japan had effects. It may be at right angles to the foregone conclusion you apparently need to maintain, but there it is.
Yeah. I was probably making a sneaky try at increasing the marginal tax rate on people making over a quarter of a million dollars per year. Or treacherously try to hike the death tax. Not pointing out the victors of the first nuclear war may not be entirely honest with themselves about it. Good thing you were able to see through my wicked scheme.
I see your still yet, offering nothing of substance.
Did you have a "moment" ranting about "marginal tax rate". "hike the death tax", and "honesty"?
Take your meds and try to focus,....LOL