Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can someone explain?

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 4:59:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

Their infrastructure was heavily destroyed by bombing, and a city far from the capital was annihilated by a weapon the likes of which they had never seen. Naturally, there was a lot of confusion.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 6:11:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 4:59:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

Their infrastructure was heavily destroyed by bombing, and a city far from the capital was annihilated by a weapon the likes of which they had never seen. Naturally, there was a lot of confusion.

I think it had far more to do with pride than with confusion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 6:21:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 4:59:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

Their infrastructure was heavily destroyed by bombing, and a city far from the capital was annihilated by a weapon the likes of which they had never seen. Naturally, there was a lot of confusion.

The US dropped leaflets in Japanese cities warning of the attack days before the first bomb was deployed. "We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate."

They also gave an official warning to the Japanese government which said:

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

All of this happened five days before the first bomb was dropped. Then three days passed, Japan did nothing. So the second bomb dropped. Then finally, six days later the Japanese surrendered. It's indefensible behavior on the part of the Japanese.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 6:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 6:21:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:59:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

Their infrastructure was heavily destroyed by bombing, and a city far from the capital was annihilated by a weapon the likes of which they had never seen. Naturally, there was a lot of confusion.

The US dropped leaflets in Japanese cities warning of the attack days before the first bomb was deployed. "We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate."


They also gave an official warning to the Japanese government which said:

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

And the Japanese knew that we weren't bluffing how? If it were SOP to accept these kinds of threats, then any war could be won by threatening to huff, puff, and blow their house down.

All of this happened five days before the first bomb was dropped. Then three days passed, Japan did nothing.

Lol, if you think that a country can respond to an incident of this magnitude within three days, with 1940s era technology after a protracted bombing campaign, you are on something. News was probably just trickling into the capital as they pieced together what has happened. Plus there is the fact that a military surrender isn't something that gets whipped up and slammed on the table within three days, assuming perfect knowledge.

So the second bomb dropped. Then finally, six days later the Japanese surrendered. It's indefensible behavior on the part of the Japanese.

You're just trolling at this point.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 7:03:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 6:39:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 6:21:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:59:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

Their infrastructure was heavily destroyed by bombing, and a city far from the capital was annihilated by a weapon the likes of which they had never seen. Naturally, there was a lot of confusion.

The US dropped leaflets in Japanese cities warning of the attack days before the first bomb was deployed. "We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate."


They also gave an official warning to the Japanese government which said:

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

And the Japanese knew that we weren't bluffing how? If it were SOP to accept these kinds of threats, then any war could be won by threatening to huff, puff, and blow their house down.


The point is that once the bomb was dropped, there could be no remaining doubt that the Americans had and intended to use the weapon.

"Information from Hiroshima was limited, as the infrastructure had already been significantly damaged even before the 6th. However, both Asada and Hasegawa note that by that evening, and certainly by the following day, little doubt remained. Asada argues that acceptance of American technological superiority helped the army "save face" and "smoothed their acceptance of surrender" - a minister tried to persuade the military by pleading, "if we say we lost a scientific war, the people will understand" (Asada, 197).

On August 9th, the USSR declared war on Japan and Soviet armor poured into Manchuria. Coupled with the use of the atomic bomb, this utterly crippled the hope of continuing the war effort. Though Japanese forces mounted a strong defense, they were quickly pushed back. Yet, the supreme council still held on to hope that it could negotiate with the Soviets, refusing to officially declare war. Though the Prime Minister and other civilian leaders now openly declared that Japan should surrender, military leaders wished to continue the fight. Even after the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th, the supreme council still tried to push for maintaining the position of Emperor, and there was a 3-3 split for three other conditions: war criminal trials would be conducted by the Japanese, self-disarmament, and that occupation (particularly of Tokyo) should be avoided or limited wherever possible. (Hasegawa 204, Frank 291). The short span of time between bombings as well as Allied threats were made to give the impression that the US already had a stockpile of the weapons when in actuality it only had the two. A third would have come "sometime after August 19, and then the fourth bomb in the beginning of September," (Hasegawa 298). It was only until the morning of the 10th that the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams saying it would accept the Potsdam Declaration and unconditional surrender after Hirohito himself demanded the war's end."

All of this happened five days before the first bomb was dropped. Then three days passed, Japan did nothing.

Lol, if you think that a country can respond to an incident of this magnitude within three days, with 1940s era technology after a protracted bombing campaign, you are on something. News was probably just trickling into the capital as they pieced together what has happened. Plus there is the fact that a military surrender isn't something that gets whipped up and slammed on the table within three days, assuming perfect knowledge.

It wasn't just six days. The Unites States warned of the attack five days before the first bomb. Then they waited three days, and asked for surrender, citing the fact that they would continue to use the weapon. The Japanese declined the offer. So then another bomb was dropped. Then it took six days for the Japanese to accept surrender.


So the second bomb dropped. Then finally, six days later the Japanese surrendered. It's indefensible behavior on the part of the Japanese.

You're just trolling at this point.

No, I'm actually not. Japanese behavior throughout the war was indefensible, and the large majority of Japanese people today acknowledge that. They were ready to sacrifice everything in the name of national pride, and even explicitly said as much.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 7:25:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Official Surrender Transcript makes it pretty clear:

... 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....

The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

They didn't know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped.

Keep in mind the technology during that time, and keep in mind that when you drop an a-bomb on a city, chances are that all of its communications infrastructure is destroyed, and efforts to ascertain exactly what happened will take time.

Read John Hersey's Hiroshima to get a better understanding.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:06:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:00:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

They didn't know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped.

Keep in mind the technology during that time, and keep in mind that when you drop an a-bomb on a city, chances are that all of its communications infrastructure is destroyed, and efforts to ascertain exactly what happened will take time.

Read John Hersey's Hiroshima to get a better understanding.

Of course. But they knew that Hiroshima was destroyed by a single American bomb quite soon after it was dropped. The following day the Americans told them that they had dropped the bomb, and would drop more if they did not surrender.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:12:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I think he's referring to Japan's surrender, since he begins the paragraph by saying "The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. "
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:13:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

Why would the US send another atomic bomb after seeing how much destruction it caused the first time?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:16:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:13:24 PM, Defro wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

Why would the US send another atomic bomb after seeing how much destruction it caused the first time?

Lol, the US knew the atomic bomb would be devastating long before they dropped it. They sent leaflets to Japan which said "We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate."

They had tested the bomb prior to using it on Hiroshima, you know. In any case, sheer destruction was effect the US wanted to achieve by using the bomb.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:31:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:06:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:00:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

They didn't know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped.

Keep in mind the technology during that time, and keep in mind that when you drop an a-bomb on a city, chances are that all of its communications infrastructure is destroyed, and efforts to ascertain exactly what happened will take time.

Read John Hersey's Hiroshima to get a better understanding.

Of course. But they knew that Hiroshima was destroyed by a single American bomb quite soon after it was dropped. The following day the Americans told them that they had dropped the bomb, and would drop more if they did not surrender.

This is pure inanity and stupidity. Since when do you trust your opponent's assessment of how a war is being conducted?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:33:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.

He mentioned "cruel bomb" in an entirely different context. It's at best vague (but I won't even grant you that).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:33:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:33:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.

He mentioned "cruel bomb" in an entirely different context. It's at best vague (but I won't even grant you that).

Then I will maintain that you're a raving psychopath.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:35:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:33:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.

He mentioned "cruel bomb" in an entirely different context. It's at best vague (but I won't even grant you that).

Then I will maintain that you're a raving psychopath.

And apparently a lying one, too. I have already said that I think he was referring to their surrender, not to the bombing. You're clearly just upset that you've lost the argument.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:36:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:31:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:06:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:00:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

They didn't know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped.

Keep in mind the technology during that time, and keep in mind that when you drop an a-bomb on a city, chances are that all of its communications infrastructure is destroyed, and efforts to ascertain exactly what happened will take time.

Read John Hersey's Hiroshima to get a better understanding.

Of course. But they knew that Hiroshima was destroyed by a single American bomb quite soon after it was dropped. The following day the Americans told them that they had dropped the bomb, and would drop more if they did not surrender.

This is pure inanity and stupidity. Since when do you trust your opponent's assessment of how a war is being conducted?

What do you mean? Are you implying that the Japanese didn't have reason to think the US would make good on their promise?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:37:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:35:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.

He mentioned "cruel bomb" in an entirely different context. It's at best vague (but I won't even grant you that).

Then I will maintain that you're a raving psychopath.

And apparently a lying one, too. I have already said that I think he was referring to their surrender, not to the bombing. You're clearly just upset that you've lost the argument.

There is no argument. You're clearly ignoring clear context in which that speech was given. You're clearly either delusional or exceptionally calloused towards loss of human life. You obviously think that people should just be calm and carry about normally after hundreds of thousands of people you were supposed to be protecting were killed. You obviously are psychopathic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:37:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:36:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:31:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:06:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:00:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

They didn't know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped.

Keep in mind the technology during that time, and keep in mind that when you drop an a-bomb on a city, chances are that all of its communications infrastructure is destroyed, and efforts to ascertain exactly what happened will take time.

Read John Hersey's Hiroshima to get a better understanding.

Of course. But they knew that Hiroshima was destroyed by a single American bomb quite soon after it was dropped. The following day the Americans told them that they had dropped the bomb, and would drop more if they did not surrender.

This is pure inanity and stupidity. Since when do you trust your opponent's assessment of how a war is being conducted?

What do you mean? Are you implying that the Japanese didn't have reason to think the US would make good on their promise?

War is deceit.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:40:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:37:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:36:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:31:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:06:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:00:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

They didn't know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped.

Keep in mind the technology during that time, and keep in mind that when you drop an a-bomb on a city, chances are that all of its communications infrastructure is destroyed, and efforts to ascertain exactly what happened will take time.

Read John Hersey's Hiroshima to get a better understanding.

Of course. But they knew that Hiroshima was destroyed by a single American bomb quite soon after it was dropped. The following day the Americans told them that they had dropped the bomb, and would drop more if they did not surrender.

This is pure inanity and stupidity. Since when do you trust your opponent's assessment of how a war is being conducted?

What do you mean? Are you implying that the Japanese didn't have reason to think the US would make good on their promise?

War is deceit.

lol. The Americans WARNED the Japanese before bombing them WITH LEAFLETS, then bombed them, then said they would do it again. On what grounds could the Japanese possibly doubt the Americans made two bombs and intended to use them? You're going to need more than a vague platitude to win the argument.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:40:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:37:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:36:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:31:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:06:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:00:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 4:01:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone explain why Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb if they were about to surrender anyway? It seems ridiculous to think Japan was on the verge of surrender if they would allow another city to be destroyed.

They didn't know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped.

Keep in mind the technology during that time, and keep in mind that when you drop an a-bomb on a city, chances are that all of its communications infrastructure is destroyed, and efforts to ascertain exactly what happened will take time.

Read John Hersey's Hiroshima to get a better understanding.

Of course. But they knew that Hiroshima was destroyed by a single American bomb quite soon after it was dropped. The following day the Americans told them that they had dropped the bomb, and would drop more if they did not surrender.

This is pure inanity and stupidity. Since when do you trust your opponent's assessment of how a war is being conducted?

What do you mean? Are you implying that the Japanese didn't have reason to think the US would make good on their promise?

War is deceit.

lol. The Americans WARNED the Japanese before bombing them WITH LEAFLETS, then bombed them, then said they would do it again. On what grounds could the Japanese possibly doubt the Americans made two bombs and intended to use them? You're going to need more than a vague platitude to win the argument.

This is where I add to the list intellectually deficient along with your psychopathy. You think that you would trust intelligence your enemy handed you. You've never heard of psychological warfare.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:37:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:35:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.

He mentioned "cruel bomb" in an entirely different context. It's at best vague (but I won't even grant you that).

Then I will maintain that you're a raving psychopath.

And apparently a lying one, too. I have already said that I think he was referring to their surrender, not to the bombing. You're clearly just upset that you've lost the argument.

There is no argument. You're clearly ignoring clear context in which that speech was given. You're clearly either delusional or exceptionally calloused towards loss of human life. You obviously think that people should just be calm and carry about normally after hundreds of thousands of people you were supposed to be protecting were killed. You obviously are psychopathic.

Prove that my interpretation contradicts with anything in the following paragraph:

The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.

If you can't, then please stop harassing and insulting me.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:45:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:44:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:37:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:35:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.

He mentioned "cruel bomb" in an entirely different context. It's at best vague (but I won't even grant you that).

Then I will maintain that you're a raving psychopath.

And apparently a lying one, too. I have already said that I think he was referring to their surrender, not to the bombing. You're clearly just upset that you've lost the argument.

There is no argument. You're clearly ignoring clear context in which that speech was given. You're clearly either delusional or exceptionally calloused towards loss of human life. You obviously think that people should just be calm and carry about normally after hundreds of thousands of people you were supposed to be protecting were killed. You obviously are psychopathic.

Prove that my interpretation contradicts with anything in the following paragraph:

Prove that that paragraph is all the context that matters. It is not. You quoted more, read what you quoted, stop being ignorant of your own argument.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:47:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:45:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:44:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:37:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:35:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:33:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:30:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:05:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:03:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:32:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Such a drama queen lol.

I dare you to say that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the a-bombs. Your lack of empathy is verging on psychopathy.

I thought he was saying that surrendering was unbearable/insufferable.

He obviously said a lot more than that, he mentioned a "cruel bomb" and your contorting of the transcript by taking comments out of context is why such a practice is highly discouraged.

He mentioned "cruel bomb" in an entirely different context. It's at best vague (but I won't even grant you that).

Then I will maintain that you're a raving psychopath.

And apparently a lying one, too. I have already said that I think he was referring to their surrender, not to the bombing. You're clearly just upset that you've lost the argument.

There is no argument. You're clearly ignoring clear context in which that speech was given. You're clearly either delusional or exceptionally calloused towards loss of human life. You obviously think that people should just be calm and carry about normally after hundreds of thousands of people you were supposed to be protecting were killed. You obviously are psychopathic.

Prove that my interpretation contradicts with anything in the following paragraph:

Prove that that paragraph is all the context that matters. It is not. You quoted more, read what you quoted, stop being ignorant of your own argument.

Okay, then prove that he was referring to something in the preceding paragraphs, and not to surrender as the first sentence of the paragraph implies.