Yes I added it, and in the context of this dicussion it makes no sense not to add
Firstly, you expressed it as if it was taken from the report rather than an interpolation of your own. This gives a false impression and an unearned credibility; on that basis alone it makes perfectly good sense not to add it.
It also makes sense not to add it, because it has nothing to do with the truth but is a carry-over of a myth which you refuse to let go of. Japan was helpless; she was cut off from gas, oil, food, and supplies. 66 cities had already been burned to the ground. It was obvious enough that the whole country could be burned up from the air--entirely at the American pleasure. There was no doubt that they could bomb from the air till there wasn/t anything living or moving.
They had been trying for months to find a way to surrender with "honour." Your idea that they were unaware of their helplessness as they starved and burned is a rather cruel mockery. I hope you are getting some satisfaction from the things you are saying.
air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure
This certainly does not imply any further bombing of noncombatants. You seem fixated on this idea that the only way to win a war is to kill all the civilians. The report could have said: "Certainly, by Dec. 31, they would have surrendered, IF we bombed and burned the remainder of the civilians. There were no "ifs" about committing genocide, Tim. I don't know what you are smoking, but I am having difficulty believing that you are being serious in your posts.
Why are you so desperate to interpolate this ludicrous nonsense into a massive report that considered every single word with extreme care and with an eye on American interests? Why don't you just accept the fact that the war was over, and that Japan wanted to discuss the terms, but America did not?
The worst case scenario was 5 or more months of heavy bombing and total blockade and/or a massive invasion.
So you disagree with the Report, and with all the reports, and with all the testimony of the leaders, and the participants at the time. And you disagree because...well, because you say so! I wonder how much money they wasted on that damn report?
Imagine! sending out all those people to sift through all the evidence for FACTS--when all along, Tim the Time Traveller had them safely stashed away in his speedy machine!
<gg>Yes, Sireee! The SBR commissionmed by the US Secretary of War to address US interests was out to lunch when it said the worse that would have happened was surrender by the end of December WITHOUT invasion, without even Russia!!
I see that I'm wasting my time--soooo...
To clarify
Nothing to clarify. The only reason you kill innocent people is accidentally, or in self defence--the latter gainsaying the assumption.
If the only, or the "best" way you can come up with to end a war is by killing babies while they suckle the breast, then perhaps you are just trying to be more obtuse than is necessary.
Undoubtedly, you have great reasons for trying to justify what most healthy people abhor and condemn; but, with all due respect...I don't think I am interested in hearing them.
I need to get a little fresh air if you do not mind. Perhaps we will talk again. |
