Try this, Tim:
"1 : of, relating to, or being a conclusion"
They gave their conclusions; I forwarded them to you. They said that in ALL PROBABILITY the war would have been over by the end of October. It is clear and simple to me. If you still have problems with it, please do not bring them to me, because I don't have any more time to waste on what appears to me to be a frivolous lack of effort on your part.
You in effect said that the report puts an end to doubt, question, or uncertainty
I gave you the conclusions of the report. You can doubt it if you wish to. The report was written in response to the American Secretary of War to address American interests at a time when the majority of Americans still had deep hurts and a bitter hatred for the Japanese; so if you wish to doubt it, be my guest!<gg> Do you think they might have had a bias, LOL!!
"The Survey's complement provided for 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. Sixty percent of the military segment of the organization for the Japanese study was drawn from the Army, and 40 percent from the Navy. Both the Army and the Navy gave the Survey all possible assistance in the form of men, supplies, transport, and information. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with subheadquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland."
It concluded that the war as it was being waged would end by the end of 1945
It didn't say that. You added in the "as it was being waged" part. It most assuredly says NOTHING about the necessity of bombing or firebombing more civilians, and thus increasing the civilian casualties in order to end the war. It says nothing because such a conclusion is ludicrous and unfit to even be discussed. How ridiculous.
Indeed, Tim? How many civilians were there left who had houses to firebomb? How many were left to bomb, Tim? And why would kiling all of the civilians be a requirement for surrender, when civilians do not make that decision? You were thinking perhaps of a civilian coup, eh?
The Report said:
"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."
Now if you think the opinion of a massive study established by the US Secreatary of War is prejudiced against American interests, then that will be your rather strange opinion, won't it?
"If we stopped attacking them they would not be so convinced of inevitable defeat"
This statement indicates to me that you have not read any of the links I have posted over the last two weeks. It is a statement completely at odds with all the facts.
Of course, they knew defeat was inevitable!!! They were trying to SURRENDER for pities sake!!. But they did not want their divine throne humiliated.
Do you really have such a low opinion of Japanese intelligence, Tim, that you believe seeing 66 cities burned to the ground and 30% of all homes destroyed, and the dead and dying everywhere, while you have no supplies and no defense, does not indicate to them that they are at the absolute mercy of their foe?!! 30% of the country was homeless! People were dead and dying with no supplies coming in; nothing to break the naval blockade, or the air supremacy--absolute total helplessness.
Good God, man! You must really think they are stupid.
"but the worst case scenario was much worse then the atomic bombing."
The worse case scenariio was (I quote): "If Truman takes the political flak and negotiates a conditional surrender, we have no starvation; if not, then we have some; but in all probability, none past October." I asume you are working with this as you responded to it, and did not add any of your own ideas about martians or an atom bomb from Austria or anything else.
The "possibility" of some starvation FAR worse than the atomic bomb, eh Tim? Ok, Tim. I don't think I wish to discuss this particular question any further with you.
That doesn't answer the question
It answers the last question and the quote which you referenced. If you are referring again to yesterday's question, you did not make it clear.
In any event, I thoroughly answered that question, so I am surprised if you were referring to it again. I spoke clearly about the principles of self defence, and I painstakingly contrasted it with murder. It is inhuman and unjust to murder innocent people.
Whether they are POW's, or whether they are tiny children: if they are innocent they should not be targeted for death. |
