Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News

[homersapien 11,367]

The argument started because I said America didn't have the moral high ground in WW2 and I have plenty of reasons for it. And all you have done is justify heinous war crimes and an unjust war.  Small but non-exhaustive list of grievances: 

Unjust war

 

Well folks, you heard it hear first:  America participated in an 'unjust war" in WWII in which we didn't have the moral highground.

That's really all we need to know about Jeff.

But I have to admit, I heard it hear first.  No one shares that opinion.

Pure wacko.  

 

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

What truly appalls me about you is that I hear nothing from you about the millions and millions of Gypsys, Jews, Slavs, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Maylays and Indonesians who were the victims of Japanese and German militarism.

I've mentioned this several times? Are you even paying attention? And don't get me wrong,  I abhor their acts of barbarism, but I don't identify asJapanese or German. Our country has always been THE standard for other countries to emulate, though. If dictatorships commit heinous war crimes, that's one thing, but if a nonbarbaric and just democracy commits war crimes, it's another.  As I've said, we weren't in the world police business, and that's the way it should be.  I also said we shouldn't answer atrocities with atrocities. It truly appalls me that you can justify such. Becauss no matter how many Japanese atrocities were committed toward China, the relatively innocent citizenry shouldn't ever have to receive punishment equal to the combatants.  

Next, it amazes me that you can talk about me ignoring facts, but yet you ignored when I say the Germans and Japanese were doing war crimes for years before we went to war. Why didn't we care then?  There is zero connection from the Japanese war crimes to our bombs, zero. 

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

But apparently, you don't care about those millions of victims, or even those those Japanese civilians whose deaths the bomb very likely prevented.

Apparently, you're just as much of disingenuous fraud as Homer. I expected better out of you. You sure af don't care about those citizens,though. You only advocated Truman had to obliterate Japanese citizens and the infrastructure alike just to save political face, after all.

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Apparently you don't consider Japan's and Germany's years of attacking, slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors sufficient justification to take any means to end their madness.

Again, their crimes aren't the reason why we bombed them, much less go to war with them. You're playing loose and fast with the facts just to justify your twisted BAMN approach and its getting old. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But I have to admit, I heard it hear first.  No one shares that opinion.

The opinion is actually not new and I'm certainly not the first. However, nobody shares the opinion "he refuses to see that America held the ultimately morally superior position by dropping those atomic bombs."

That's just sick.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

6 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

The opinion is actually not new and I'm certainly not the first. However, nobody shares the opinion "he refuses to see that America held the ultimately morally superior position by dropping those atomic bombs."

That's just sick.

 

No it's rational.  To believe otherwise is a willful refusal understand the facts and circumstances.   

You have some sort of obsession with atomic weapons as being the ultimate evil but cannot seem to understand that every other option would have been worse.  

And it's not just a matter of shear ignorance.  You have have flat out said options that would have killed millions of more people - such as forced starvation - would have been preferable from a moral standpoint.  

Not that's sick.   Stupidly sick.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have some sort of obsession with atomic weapons as being the ultimate evil but cannot seem to understand that every other option would have been worse.  

Again, you don't know this. I've been lenient on critizing the USA for the radiation problems that lingered for decades because they were ignorant as well. It couldn't get any more worse. If anything you are too cavalier about dropping the bombs. Starvation was vastly effective and the persistence of that along with strategic bombardment probably would have done the trick. Y'all are passing off "likely numbers of deaths" as the gospel. It's not.

 

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have have flat out said options that would have killed millions of more people - such as forced starvation - would have been preferable from a moral standpoint.  

Again, it's an ASSUMPTION that forced starvation would have killed millions. Show me some facts or GTFO.

[aujeff11 6,243]

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

I don't recall America forcefully starving anyone. 

Quote

Operation Starvation. WTF? 

 

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

It could have taken months, a year, all while ours and other's soldiers died and our friends and allies were slaughtered because of our inaction.

This means nothing to me. It could've rained peppermints during a tornado as well...It doesn't take a year to starve them out.  Five months did enough damage to spark this quote from a Japanese commander: 

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

We agree that the mine warfare conducted by American planes during the greater East Asia War produced a very great strategical effect... When B-29s began to use Saipan as a base for mine warfare against our main islands they first interrupted communications in the Inland Sea Area and then by closing the Japan Sea ports they cut our communications and our food and raw material artery to the continent. The mine warfare coupled with the bombing raids prevented our utilizing our war strength and completely nullified our plans to the extent of forcing us to abandon them... It was indeed a far-sighted policy.”

 

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

The Japanese were defeated by August 1945. They could no longer wage war effectively. We had them back in their box

Which is, yet again, another reason why I can't justify the A-bombs. Casualties happen in war. Starvation was already in place. Their bodies were already weaker than their minds. 

 

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

I've noticed you are chopping large portion of my replies. Maybe that's your problem.

Nope. Besides, I'm responding to a post that chopped into 17 different quotes. This is our whole thread in a nutshell....

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

At least they weren't extermination camps.

That's the spirit!

7 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Do a count by belligerent and get back to me. 

Quote

We were not belligerents and we weren't under totalitarian rule. Half hearted excuses like : "But look at what the belligerents did!" doesn't work for me.Just because other known POS's do it, that doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Basically what it boils down to is that desperation and honor is what came between Japan and unconditional surrender. They were already hungry, raw resources and food were already blocked off,  there was no naval presence, no allies, and no hopes of actually winning the war. Continuing to strategically bomb the cities and continuing to surround the islands with blockades may have done the job without us losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers to famished Japanese soldiers.

 

[AUDub 11,147]

2 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

I've mentioned this several times? Are you even paying attention? 

I am and you're lying. I mean, it's a thread. It's obvious to anyone who wants to go back and read it. You're righteous indignation is nullified by what you have typed, or failed to.  

Quote

And don't get me wrong,  I abhor their acts of barbarism, but I don't identify asJapanese or German. 

No, you excuse them in light of our own. There's a matter of degrees you conveniently ignore in order to castigate us, who were the closest thing to "the good guys" that war had.

Quote

Our country has always been THE standard for other countries to emulate, though

In part because of the just nature of our participation in WW2.

Quote

If dictatorships commit heinous war crimes, that's one thing, but if a nonbarbaric and just democracy commits war crimes, it's another.

Again with the equivocation. Our goal was never to kill the Japanese and Germans to or expand an empire, or for or exterminate anyone. It was to end the war promptly. 

Quote

As I've said, we weren't in the world police business, and that's the way it should be.  

We shouldn't be, but we were in a dragged into the war by a malicious sneak attack, and were ultimately in a position to do what was right an stop Japan and Germany's agressive campaign of expansion and extermination. 

Quote

I also said we shouldn't answer atrocities with atrocities.

There's that equivocation again.

This was a total war. Thankfully, those are rare these days, but idealism takes a backseat to pragmatism. 

Quote

It truly appalls me that you can justify such. Becauss no matter how many Japanese atrocities were committed toward China, the relatively innocent citizenry shouldn't ever have to receive punishment equal to the combatants.

Again, it was a total war. A concept completely lost upon you. Every civilian death was a tragedy, but the context changes because of the nature of the war at the time. Civvie and soldier became blurred, as all of them fed the war machine in some way or another.

Had we invaded, it was expected every civilian would become a combatant. Japan had conditioned and trained them for just such a scenario. 

Quote

Next, it amazes me that you can talk about me ignoring facts, but yet you ignored when I say the Germans and Japanese were doing war crimes for years before we went to war. Why didn't we care then?  There is zero connection from the Japanese war crimes to our bombs, zero.

Becuase the American people didn't see it as our problem. We were relatively isolationist. Think of how we view the atrocities in Rwanda or North Korea today. It sucked, but it wasn't our problem. It became our problem when Japan committed a malicious sneak attack, and Germany declared war on us.

Quote

Apparently, you're just as much of disingenuous fraud as Homer. I expected better out of you. You sure af don't care about those citizens,though. You only advocated Truman had to obliterate Japanese citizens and the infrastructure alike just to save political face, after all.

A malicious lie. I never advocated any such thing. I was explaining part of his reasoning. The American people would have been outraged, and they would have been correct in their outrage too. Had we sat on our haunches waiting for them out, our boys, our allies would have been dying in droves. Tremendous amounts of blood and treasure were being spent. Anything that extended the duration of the war was the greater evil. 

His self-interest did align with a course that happened to be the correct one. Truman wanted the war over quickly, the American people wanted the war over quickly. He chose a course of action that did that, and this post facto examination of his reasoning only reinforces that fact.

Quote

Again, their crimes aren't the reason why we bombed them, much less go to war with them. You're playing loose and fast with the facts just to justify your twisted BAMN approach and its getting old. 

Their crimes are a post-facto justification. Our boys and our allies dying, the amount of blood and treasure in an extended siege or invasion was the primary justification at the time to end the war ASAP, and a reasonable one.

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Operation Starvation. WTF? 

Starvation of resources was the primary goal, not starvation of the populace. The goal wasn't to starve them to death. It was a resource denial campaign, meant to remove their ability to wage meaningful war and force a surrender, not starve them to death. Attacking enemy logistics and troop movements has been an accepted practice in war as long as war has been a thing. 

Hell, after the war, it was the liberal application of aid from the US kept an open famine from breaking out. 

Quote

This means nothing to me. It could've rained peppermints during a tornado as well...It doesn't take a year to starve them out.  Five months did enough damage to spark this quote from a Japanese commander: 

Your propensity for ignoring facts, evidence and the prevailing logic at the time is laughable. Yes, starvation would have eventually forced a reckoning, but how long is a matter of debate. In the only comparable scenario from the war, the siege of Stalingrad, the Russians out for years, eventually winning the battle. The Japanese were far more fanatical than the Russians ever were. We can only guess how long it would have taken, but given the prevailing sentiment at the time, the idea that they could hold out for an extended period was a reasonable conclusion. 

Quote

Which is, yet again, another reason why I can't justify the A-bombs. Casualties happen in war. Starvation was already in place. Their bodies were already weaker than their minds. 

The course that would have extended the war, lead to more casualties among us, them our allies, and the innocent populations of the occupied Japanses territories, is the greater evil. 

Quote

Nope. Besides, I'm responding to a post that chopped into 17 different quotes. This is our whole thread in a nutshell....

Note that in every reply, I do not chop or truncate your quotes. 

Quote

That's the spirit!

It's the truth. While the internment of the Japanese-American people is a shameful chapter in our nations history, it doesn't equate to the sins of our opposition, 

Quote

We were not belligerents...

Jesus wept. Pick up a dictionary. Haven't you ever heard the word used as a noun? The word literally translates to "one who wages war."

Quote

and we weren't under totalitarian rule. Half hearted excuses like : "But look at what the belligerents did!" doesn't work for me.Just because other known POS's do it, that doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

We didn't "do it." Our crimes, while shameful, were not commensurate with those of our opposition. Any attempt to equate reveals an abject failure at critical thinking. 

You truly hold some appalling beliefs. Beliefs which any historian, philosopher or ethicist worth their salt would laugh you out of the room for having, and the logic you use to prop them up fails, utterly. It instantly destroys any credibility you had, and I used to respect your opinion. Not anymore. You're no better than the recently banned Raptor. Ignorant and proud of it. You fail at the most basic levels of historical scholarship, ethics and logic. You spout ex-cathedra bull****, arguing by assertion, misinterpretation and equivocation. You misinterpret or strawman me with nearly every post.

I'm done. We're arguing in circles. Congratulations, the final word is yours. Good luck. I can only hope I've put a few paltry cracks in the wall of stupidity you've built up in your head.

But do me a favor. If you think I'm lying or deluded, then all you need do is go to a library (that's a big building, usually centrally located in a city or neighborhood, with a lot of books in it) and check out several books on this subject. Hopefully you remember how to read a book. Yes, I know it would be excruciating agony for you to read one, let alone several, but if you really want to fix this idiotic and simple-minded thinking, you're going to need to educate yourself. Arguing with me will not solve this problem. My usual belief would be that anyone who can read a newspaper and form a reasonable judgment of the quality of the journalism should be able to do the same thing with a book. However, in your case, you seem to believe any old bull**** you see online, so that may not be the best answer for you. Historians who write reliable histories provide sources for their work. It is in a section after the main body called the bibliography. They also footnote their work, making reference to the source of their claims, usually in reference to the bibliographical entries. If you read something in a book, and the author doesn't have a source for it, you should consider it suspect unless and until you have read further and found confirmation for it.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm batting 1 for 1. Your turn Homer. 

[homersapien 11,367]

4 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Again, you don't know this. I've been lenient on critizing the USA for the radiation problems that lingered for decades because they were ignorant as well. It couldn't get any more worse. If anything you are too cavalier about dropping the bombs. Starvation was vastly effective and the persistence of that along with strategic bombardment probably would have done the trick. Y'all are passing off "likely numbers of deaths" as the gospel. It's not.

 

Again, it's an ASSUMPTION that forced starvation would have killed millions. Show me some facts or GTFO.

Yes I do.   I know a little about the circumstances of that decision and you obviously know NOTHING.

And to suggest a forced starvation wouldn't have taken far more lives than a couple of atomic bombs is just stupid added to ignorance.

Japan - and Germany - killed millions by using starvation of a weapon.   But somehow it was going to be different for us.  

 

Q: What was the deadliest weapon of World War II?

A: Starvation, which killed 20 million people

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-1351152/Q-What-deadliest-weapon-World-War-II-A-Starvation-killed-20-million-people-THE-TASTE-OF-WAR-BY-LIZZIE-COLLINGHAM.html#ixzz4qK9Lv3zU 

 

Not only that, it was an option the US freely used, at least passively - by simply bypassing occupied islands knowing that resupply is out of the question.  

The suggestion we didn't fully understand what a forced starvation on the Japanese home islands would entail is the epitome of naivity.  "Assumption" my ass.

Ben is right when it comes to you.  While you can literally be led to the information you lack, you're not gonna drink it.  I am embarrassed you associate yourself with Auburn.

 

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Again with the equivocation. Our goal was never to kill the Japanese and Germans to or expand an empire, or for or exterminate anyone. It was to end the war promptly.

Which we did, through war crimes that killed 50,000+ people a pop(mostly civilians at that).

 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Haven't you ever heard the word used as a noun? The word literally translates to "one who wages war."

I didnt know the direct translation. I did know it meant "hostile; aggressive." Maybe you should clarify your posts because all you said was count the belligerents and get back to me. 

 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'm done. We're arguing in circles. Congratulations, the final word is yours. Good luck. I can only hope I've put a few paltry cracks in the wall of stupidity you've built up in your head.

I'm glad you're finally done. Digging your heels in trying to forcefeed me the crazy belief that we were morally superior for dropping the A-bombs when I already told you five times that it wasn't going to work is the stupidest thing anybody could ever do. The namecalling only suggests that  you're flustered and a fraud of an intellectual as well. You can block me. I don't give a crap. 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Historians who write reliable histories provide sources for their work. It is in a section after the main body called the bibliography. They also footnote their work, making reference to the source of their claims,

You got something right; I'll be damned. But you still seem flustered. Cognitive dissonance is really kicking your ass at this point.

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

However, in your case, you seem to believe any old bull**** you see online

I don't know what bull**** you're talking about. What noncredible sources did I share with you that were bull****? 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

We didn't "do it." Our crimes, while shameful, were not commensurate with those of our opposition. Any attempt to equate reveals an abject failure at critical thinking. 

I showed you FDR's 1939 radio broadcast  "crimes against the consciousness of humanity speech." If he can call it that then, why can't we call it that now? Did I try to equate our crimes with the Holocaust or the like? The intent is different; I get that. The mechanism that we used while aiming for the "juggler" is the mechanism more fitting for dictators and brutes though.

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

It's the truth. While the internment of the Japanese-American people is a shameful chapter in our nations history, it doesn't equate to the sins of our opposition,

Again, just because a dictator from a totalitarian government treated others worse than we do, that doesn't mean we get off clean with the internment. Like you said, it is shameful and it is also an embarrassment to our nation's history. 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

You truly hold some appalling beliefs.

Again, I'm not the one claiming moral superiority by dropping the A- bombs. Let's be fair here. 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Note that in every reply, I do not chop or truncate your quotes. 

Note that I haven't done anything differently.  17 quotes, dude...

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Starvation of resources was the primary goal, not starvation of the populace.

We blocked, sent away, or sank their ships, regardless of whether oil or food was on the ships. WTF? Maybe you should go to the brick building called a "library," as well. 

"The main objectives of Operation STARVATION were to prevent the importation of raw materials and food into Japan, prevent the supply and movement of military forces, and disrupt shipping in the Inland Sea."

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Hell, after the war, it was the liberal application of aid from the US kept an open famine from breaking out.

How are our actions after the war even relevant? 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

In part because of the just nature of our participation in WW2.

We benefited greatly from WW2, no doubt!  I said this earlier when you gave some BS about how building the bomb put us in debt. Roosevelt truly got the "arsenal of democracy that he really wanted.

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

There's a matter of degrees you conveniently ignore in order to castigate us, who were the closest thing to "the good guys" that war had.

Britain had less war crimes( And OBVIOUSLY NOT SENDING SHIPMENTS OF FOOD TO INDIA DOESNT COUNT AS A WARCRIME) but whatever. When the legit Allies are Britain, USA, and the USSR, then just maybe there isn't a morally superior highground to be had. PERIOD. 

 

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

There's that equivocation again.

Saying that we "answered atrocity with atrocity isn't equivocation." It's calling a spade a spade, even at the risk of stepping on your toes.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yes I do.   I know a little about the circumstances of that decision and you obviously know NOTHING.

And to suggest a forced starvation wouldn't have taken far more lives than a couple of atomic bombs is just stupid added to ignorance.

Japan - and Germany - killed millions by using starvation of a weapon.   But somehow it was going to be different for us.  

 

Q: What was the deadliest weapon of World War II?

A: Starvation, which killed 20 million people

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-1351152/Q-What-deadliest-weapon-World-War-II-A-Starvation-killed-20-million-people-THE-TASTE-OF-WAR-BY-LIZZIE-COLLINGHAM.html#ixzz4qK9Lv3zU 

 

Not only that, it was an option the US freely used - by bypassing occupied islands. 

The suggestion we didn't fully understand what a forced starvation on the Japanese home islands would entail is the epitome of naivity.  "Assumption" my ass.

Ben is right when it comes to you.  While you can literally be led to the information you lack, you're not gonna drink it.  I am embarrassed you associate yourself with Auburn.

 

 

You are still lost. Don't let @Bigbens42 see you linking sites from dailymail either. I didn't even do that, but yet his head still exploded. 

And again, we used starvation as a weapon. 

[homersapien 11,367]

5 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Basically what it boils down to is that desperation and honor is what came between Japan and unconditional surrender. They were already hungry, raw resources and food were already blocked off,  there was no naval presence, no allies, and no hopes of actually winning the war. Continuing to strategically bomb the cities and continuing to surround the islands with blockades may have done the job without us losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers to famished Japanese soldiers.

 

Exactly.  You have just described the rationale for using the bombs.  We saved millions of lives by doing so.

Have you read any books about the end of WWII?    Can you cite just one?

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

I'm glad you're finally done. Digging your heels in trying to forcefeed me the crazy belief that we were morally superior for dropping the A-bombs when I already told you five times that it wasn't going to work is the stupidest thing anybody could ever do. The namecalling only suggests you're flustered and a fraud of an intellectual as well. You can block me. I don't give a crap. 

I think you misunderstand what's going on here.

I - for one - gave up on trying to educate you with the facts.

My job is to keep exposing you as a fool for stubbornly denying them and continuing to post.

A an proud Auburn grad (twice), I figure it's my responsibility to defend my school's reputation.

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Have you read any books about the end of WWII?    Can you site just one?

Homophones are a bitch huh? You even underlined it which makes it 

 

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  You have just described the rationale for using the bombs.  

Nope, I illustrated why we didn't need the A-bombs. You're just like Ben. Willing to distort and twist anything to fit your own agenda.

[aujeff11 6,243]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I figure it's my resonsibility as an proud Auburn grad (twice).

Who exactly are you exposing? 

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Who exactly are you exposing? 

The guy who said this:

" I said America didn't have the moral high ground in WW2 and I have plenty of reasons for it. And all you have done is justify heinous war crimes and an unjust war.  Small but non-exhaustive list of grievances: 

Unjust war"

To describe WWII as an unjust war is just dispicable display of ignorance on the subject.  It's a direct insult to the hundreds of thousands US servicemen - and women - who lost their lives in the conflict. It's a shameful display of ignorance.

And you didn't respond directly to my question. Have you read any books on the subject?

Assuming you haven't - which seems like a reasonable think I'd suggest you start with "The Fleet at Flood Tide: America at Total War in the Pacific" by James D Hornfischer and work your way backwards.  Hornfischer is one of my favorite historian, as he writes so well. And this is his latest piece of work.

There's a few more listed on this site you might want to try: https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945/dp/0345548701

 

I was going to ask you if you actually attended Auburn, but frankly I don't want to know.  I'd rather keep assuming you didn't.  

I'm done - for real - this time.  

Enjoy your reading.  

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

To describe WWII as an unjust war

Peace by brutality. To a few countries the war was needed, but even then, the three major allies carried out sick war campaigns at times. For Britain, the allied forces bomb-o-caust on Dresden, Germany

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's a direct insult to the hundreds of thousands US servicemen - and women - who lost their lives in the conflict.

The Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars were unjust as well. By your logic, I'm directly insulting those soldiers as well even though they didn't have any say when they were ordered to go to war.

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'm done - for real - this time.  

 

I don't believe you. 

 

 

"An island nation, Japan was vul­ner­able to a block­ade of essen­tial food and stra­tegic mate­rials. On this date in 1945 the U.S. Army Air Forces and the U.S. Navy, hoping to put the final nail in the enemy’s cof­fin, kicked off Oper­a­tion Star­va­tion, the aerial mining of Japa­nese waters. Three nights later 85 more “miners” followed suit. By begin­ning the night­time aerial dropping of mines (even­tually 12,000 mines) in rivers and coastal waters, Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay’s Mari­anas-based B‑29 Super­for­tresses accessed Jap­anese waters too shallow or close to land for Allied sub­ma­rines to en­force a sea block­ade. The five-month-long aerial cam­paign saw the near destruc­tion of Japa­nese coastal shipping and shipping lanes, halting Japan’s im­por­ta­tion of criti­cal raw mate­rials and food and forcing the aban­don­ment of 35 of 47 vital con­voy routes. Adding LeMay’s in­cen­di­ary raids on ur­ban and mili­tary-in­dus­trial areas to the destruc­tive mix reduced Japan’s over­all pro­duc­tion in 1945 by two-thirds com­pared with the year before. Already in 1940 rice—the chief item in the Japa­nese diet—had been sub­ject to rationing due to bad har­vests in the Japa­nese colony of Korea and the demands of the Japa­nese mili­tary in China (since 1937) and South­east Asia (since 1941). Fish, the other dietary staple, had all but ceased to be dis­trib­uted in some areas in 1944. Food supplies were so mea­ger that the aver­age Japa­nese citi­zen was living at or near star­va­tion level. Ave­rage civil­ian caloric in­take in 1945 was 78 per­cent of the mini­mum needed for health and phys­i­cal per­for­mance. By the end of June the civil­ian popu­la­tion began to show signs of panic. Experts pre­dicted deaths by star­va­tion would exceed seven mil­lion were Japan to some­how mus­ter the will and resources to wage war through 1946. With the bene­fit of hind­sight, Japan’s for­mal sur­ren­der on Septem­ber 2, 1945, was in­ev­i­table even with­out Hiro­shima and Naga­saki, with­out Soviet en­try into the war on August 8, 1945, and with­out the ghastly num­ber of cas­u­alties pro­jected by in­vading the Japa­nese island of Kyū­shū in late 1945 and the main island of Hon­shū in April 1946 (Operation Downfall). But the hor­rors of the Paci­fic Is­lands cam­paign were so fixed in the minds of Allied leaders that the fire-and-sword stra­te­gy of using atomic wea­pons appeared to be the least costly way to bring World War II to an end."

 

The bolded portion is exactly what I've been saying the whole time. While y'all were projecting we would lose thousands upon thousands of lives by fighting against "never surrender" soldiers (like they were on speed or something), I kept trying to say it wouldn't be like that at all. The soldiers would've been famished, malnourished to the point of their bodies breaking down, mentally exhausted, and very aware that there was no hope in winning the war. Like I said in this same thread, try going to the gym one evening after merely not eating for that day alone; you will not perform at all and you will be a zombie. Maybe use some common sense as well as the library. 

http://ww2days.com/japan-targeted-for-starvation-2.html

[aujeff11 6,243]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And you didn't respond directly to my question. Have you read any books on the subject?

The question isn't pertinent to the conversation other than to give you a false sense of intellectual superiority and I have no desire or obligation to answer it, indirectly or directly. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

 

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#hindsigh

Check my newly edited post three posts up and read this, then accept your ass whippings. 

@Bigbens42 @homersapien

Strategic Bombing Survey:

We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender....

 

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

......

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

Still waiting on @Bigbens42 and @homersapien to accept that the bombs were unneccessay and that there were greater alternatives to dropping the Atomic bombs. 

They probably won't though because they were the same cowards that were so willing to insult my intelligence numerous times in lieu of having a legitimate discussion, so willing to ignore key facts throughout the whole discussion while accusing me of playing loose with the facts, and so willing to distort a great points by maliciously distorting my own words for their own advantage. 

 

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

This survey was done after the fact. It was conducted using captured documents and post war interviews with Japanese personnel. The fact is, the Japanese military authority had a continuous propaganda machine that stifled any information contrary to what they wanted getting out to the public. So our military strategists had no way of knowing these facts and opinions.

"3. The limitations of air control deserve special mention. It was never completely possible to deny the air to the enemy. It was considered that we had control of the air when the enemy could not operate in it without prohibitive losses in relation to results achieved, while our own planes could operate in it at will and with acceptable risk of loss. The Japanese increased their ratio of results achieved to losses by adopting Kamikaze tactics. This was a measure of desperation, but the results obtained were considerable and, had they been much greater, might have caused us to withdraw or to modify our strategic plans. The principle involved indicates the degree to which defensive air control must be improved or enemy bases kept beyond the range of enemy suicide planes or guided missiles from such land or sea as we propose to use.

4. Given air control, there were also limitations as to the specific results which could be achieved in exploiting such control by aircraft carrying conventional high-explosive bombs. Fox holes, underground emplacements and other prepared defenses could not in many cases be reduced, and it was necessary to eliminate remaining ground forces in costly close-range fighting even though these forces were isolated and completely cut off from supplies and reinforcements."

Selective quotes from your same article

 

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

The fact remains that the Germans started WWII and there is no moral equivocation to that fact. They murdered millions of their own people in the name of racial purity. They bombed civilians and military alike without discriminating. The fact is that if they hadn't diverted their air forces away from exclusive military targets, they would have defeated the British before we ever got into the war. The Japanese had invaded Manchuria and China, prior to the economic blockade of their country. They savaged the Chinese people brutally and ruthlessly. They attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor with the intent of destroying our Pacific Fleet, forcing us to sue for peace on their Empirical demands. They would have conquered the entire Pacific Rim and all of Asia, if they had been successful. So don't go down that path of WWII not being a morally justified war. It's utter nonsense.

[AUDub 11,147]

Shameful