Would the SILENT "Unrecommenders" of Hiroshima threads dare to comment on WHY?

Why you would choose that the past be forgotten?

Or, possibly, why you would choose DU not be associated with contemplation?

Or, why perhaps you choose to "Unrecommend" anonymously?

And your broad brush attack and calling others Freeperish is both against the rules and childish.

n/t

Sorry people around here are being idiots. :(

Negative recs suck.

:nuke:

K&U for being an anti-Unrec thread.

:kick:

Threads that tell the truth, get a rec.


Threads that are about anti-US propaganda, get an unrec.

Truman's action was correct. And saved lives.

that's hilarious!

btw, don't all lefties spout "anti-US propaganda"?

...since you would apparently have been OK with 2,000,000 Japanese civilian deaths that would have occurred if we invaded Japan instead of dropping the bombs.

was to this:

"Threads that tell the truth, get a rec.

Threads that are about anti-US propaganda, get an unrec."


according to Rwingers everything the left says is anti-American.
eom

that they use unrec to vote down points of view that they don't agree with.

That's what many of us said would happen at the start.

Maybe I misunderstood, I thought you were saying you unrec'd a hiroshima thread because you disagreed with the viewpoint in it.

There's so much parsing of words, I can't tell what you are actually saying.

but what you you said is what I thought would happen and what has happened.

So what?

gimme a fucking break.

saved American lives, maybe,

but we slaughtered 140,000 innocents.

:kick:

Where we won a brutal war and now look back and tell all those who fought and worked to end the war that they did the wrong thing, it was evil, etc and so on.

It was a war, extremely brutal and vicious, we may not have made all the right choices but who does in life - especially in a world war.

I didn't unrec any of them, it does us good to remember how terrible war is, and maybe - just maybe - dropping those bombs and people seeing how terrible they were helped to prevent such from ever occurring again.

Next you'll be saying the Bataan Death March wasn't just a nature hike.

(I don't do smilies, so those who are sarcasm impaired should take note)


With no sarcasm, however ...

The war ended in a fashion that saved lives, as horrific as it was. There's no dispute about that, is there? Compared to the bombings of Germany by the Allies, the missions that ended Japan's 50 years of terrorizing a large part of the world saved lives.

It was 20 years of terror, not fifty.

The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the firebombing of Dresden - OR the attacks on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Yes, an invasion of the home islands might have been as bad as, or worse than, Okinawa, and cost us up to 100,000 killed and 2,000,000 Japanese deaths. OTOH, an invasion might not have been even necessary if the first bomb had been dropped 10 miles off shore from Tokyo, where the entire ruling class including the emperor would have seen the blast.

"They didn't surrender after the first bomb destroyed Hiroshima". They didn't know WHAT HAPPENED to Hiroshima. It took two days for them to get any good information out of the region because the devastation was so complete. They thought it was another massive firebombing, like the one that killed more than 100,000 people in Tokyo. It took the second single bomb to convince them - a convincing that would have been unnecessary if the high command had seen the first bomb with their own eyes.

Look into the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894, events in Korea subsequent to this leading to the absorption of that place into the Japanese Empire, and the conduct of Japanese forces in China subsequent to the taking of Tsingtao from Germany, as well as Japanese activities during the Russian Civil War in Siberia and the Maritime Provinces. 'Fifty years' is no stretch, though to give them their due, Japanese military behavior towards Russians during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 was impeccable....

Nor, for that matter, are you correct about the impact on 'the high command' of the Imperial Japanese military of the atomic weapons. It is true that the attack made a decisive impact on the mind of the Emperor, but despite his godly status in official ideology, this was not quite the same thing as 'the high command'. It still took a direct order from god, i.e. the Emperor, to secure actual surrender, and even this was resisted by a serious attempt at a coup sprung by leaders within the Guards division at the Palace. The prevalent opinion among the highest military leadership was that the destruction of these cities made no essential difference to the situation, and that the U.S. could not have any great number of the devices employed on hand: essentially sound calculations both....

Tell the people of Taiwan, who were captured by the Japanese in 1895 and subjected to harsh Japanese rule until 1945, that Japan wasn't terrorizing the region.

I have a degree with high honors in History. I've lived in that region of Asia.

Whatever you think you know about that region, you are misinformed.

Your suggestion that merely exploding the bomb off shore would have done the job flies in the face of History. Even with both bombs dropped on targets, many wanted the Emperor to resist surrendering.

with the neg-rec feature, it's right in your face.

:puke:

duh. It is such a over simplification of a very complex topic on war strategy and the reality of what was very common in world war II, I see no importance in the thread. Those could not possible recommend it to anyone.

I'm sure I could look back to last August and see the exact same people saying the exact same things.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating yourself?

:crazy:

Oh, K & U

Hitler should have won instead of us bombing plants in Germany because civilians were targeted in bombing runs in Germany. Oh wait, civilians were targeted in England in Germany so England should have won. In other words: war is not a peaceful gentlemanly game of chess.

There could be all sorts of reasons, each of them equally valid and invalid, for unreccing something.

But I suppose I don't have to click on them.

And no, I didn't unrec this one.

:eyes:

could be many reasons for someone unrec'ing something. Why let it trouble you?

I really don't understand why folks get so worked up about it. :shrug:

and I did unrec this thread.

Sid

Perhaps they are not willing to take time to think out a post and actually write one, baring their feelings & thoughts, but they are more than ready to fart in a full elevator, and then depart at the next floor.

Even if I do not agree with a reply, if I take the time to click & read, and feel strongly, I prefer to at least post why I do not agree.. I never feel obligated to "un-rec" anyone's post..but that's just me, I guess..

SCD<------- un-rec virgin :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

saying that is bad, that they cause so much destruction and are sad about that?

there are many of us, who, while believing the bombing of the 2 cities was the right call, also feel that these weapons should never ever be used again.

So, please don't presume that anybody and everybody who agreed with Truman's decision back then behaves like Freepers who blithely suggest we use atomic weapons on any country who even so much as farts in our face.


You know, "pacifists" can also get too self-righteous. Please don't ever forget that.

I wonder if the Japanese beat themselves up every year on December 7? Answer: No

True story: Back in the 70's, the local WWII airshow one year focused on the war in the Pacific. There were recreations of Pearl Harbor, Midway & other battles in the Pacific, and Hiroshima. Guess which one the Japanese bitched about? Guess which one they were NOT embarrassed to see re-created & were actually quite pleased to watch?

dg

taking a dump in it.

Such is the new <0 world of DU.

My mistake.

Sorry about that.

That's possible as well, isn't it?

Imo of course.

Auto unrec for the unrec whiner.

It is profoundly stupid or profoundly dishonest (take your pick) to castigate the US for its role in WWII every year without providing the context of Japan's genocide on the Asian mainland--which apparently most DUers, (and most Japanese) have quite happily forgotten! :hi:

It saved the lives of thousands of Japanese soldiers.

At least according to certain nationalistic Japanese revisionists, the moral and intellectual equivalent of our Hiroshima/Nagasaki defenders.

comes *before* Japan's invasion of the Asian mainland. It's a really fun place! :silly:

Some of their research is still under wraps. My uncle worked on some of it & it scared him to death what they COULD have done, because once a bio-agent is released, there's no stopping it.

I think they had really crappy options & did the best they could with what they had.

As for Ike, he was more involved in the European theatre than the Pacific. Had they dropped the bomb on Berlin, I'd give his opinion more consideration.

dg

I don't recommend threads that throw up some ill formed thought by a poster.

As for the other threads to which you allude, I've unrecommended several of them, because they're ridiculous versions of the events and have no place on the Greatest Page. You're entitled to your opinion on the topic. You're not entitled to have your opinion joined or respected by others.

I'd rather talk about it and defend the decision as the thing to do.

There's far too much revisionism and hand-wringing about it.

I don't think I've unrec'd any of them, but I saw many red flags that might have tempted me.

Even if it means killing hundreds of thousands at once and leaving the rest to die of radiation poisoning. We are the best country and the best people who have ever lived. Ever. Anywhere.
:sarcasm: (as if this was necessary)

Myself I don't. Usually.