-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Now Japanese is playing victims of war just because they got nuked, so Japanese are innocent victims of war and they demand apology? haha what a joke.
They are the ones who started war, invaded of whole Eastern, South Eastern Asia, murdering and raping like breathing and after a half century, they are claiming innocent victims.
Just another example of how Japanese relentlessly justified and distorted their war crimes.
The difference between two Axis counties, Germany and Japan is simple. Germany got rid of whole Nazi party and had them either executed or jailed for rest of their lives, never had chance to rise to political power in Germany again, in the meantime Japan had the most of war criminals just got away with it, then grabbed the political power in Japan once again, they just changed name of the party and played innocent victims, justifying and denying the whole thing over and over, and it just worked, as you can see they got to play victims and some people in Thai actually believe they were real victims.
Last edited:
No you were just talking shit "Asians hate Japanese" it's just not true ... but since when did truth matter when you can just make massive generalist statements with zero evidence to back it up ...
Germans are apologetic to their history. Japanese are still denying and reversing their war crimes ... back that up with evidence not just rhetoric
Japanese being hated all over Asia to this day is not just the war crimes during the war ... again where's your evidence?
Post what you want, opinions are like arseholes after all, but when you get called for BS don't cry like a baby.
You disagreed with this post, which is historically correct. Not on just the old "wiki" , but several historical documents from ( amazingly ) various countries.
" The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."
I ask again, respectfully, would you endorse the use of Nuclear weapons to end a war today ? When is it acceptable, and if you open this ugly can of worms, how on earth can it be closed. Your opinion on Japan aside, dropping atomic bombs, on civilians, is a war crime. Only one country has undertaken this.
The Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26th, 1945, calling for unconditioned surrender. The Japanese rejected it.
I supplied the link to the WHOLE article. Please if u have time read it.
The bombing were war crimes. Japan was crushed.
The bombings were a statement to the Russians more than anything. The anglo-americans had already started to worry about the power of Russian bear before the end of the war. Dropping the bombs was the yanks saying 'we have them and we will us them'. A serious war crime
As far as I know Japan has never asked for an apology, but I stand to be corrected.
Your knowledge of history seems a little bit shallow ... both German and Japanese leaders were prosecuted by the allies IMT in Europe and IMTFE in the Far East, it was the same prosecuting authorities who made decisions it wasn't "Germany got rid of whole Nazi party" or "Japan had the most of war criminals just got away with it" the allies, and fundamentally the US made all the prosecuting decisions not the losing countries. If the US let a load of Japanese off that was their call.
There are a list of German companies that were part of the Nazi war machine, VW, Hugo Boss, Bayer they are still around today as are many Japanese companies, so what?
Trying to identify 2019 Japan with 1945 Japan? are you serious?
So you're actually admitting to them violating the treaty LOL. The victims and neighboring countries gives a fuck. Japan has always made use of their arms whenever they built it up.
You guys posted the evidences yourselves.
"Demands for an apology and compensation have been a recurring topic in Korean, Taiwanese, and Chinese politics. Western nations are also demanding long overdue actions from the Japanese government, most notably through the United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121 voted in 2007. Criticisms regarding the degree and formality of apology, issued as a statement or delivered person-to-person to the country addressed, and the perception by some that some apologies are later retracted or contradicted by statements or actions of Japan, among others."
Other than these official statements by the governments, what other proof do you want? Do you have evidence of French hating British? Asking for evidence on hatred or love? Can you prove you love your family? Ya know... demanding for evidence in an argument usually is desperate move LMAO.
This is 100% correct. It was a power statement with grave consequences. Its not just the hundreds of thousands that were instantly vanished, but decades of suffering, deformities and so on. A sad day in history.
All of that is speculation. Why? Because Japan was not willing to surrender. They rejected the Potsdam Declaration of 1945 which explicitly states:
"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."
Not to mention, the warning leaflets that were dropped prior to the bombings, telling the civilians to evaluate and their leaders to surrender.
That Son’s a bit good, eh?!
ochfacepalm:
ochfacepalm:Do you see what a hypocrite you are? You keep using this shit to defend japan against their crimes. Yet you lots still bring up the atomic bomb LMAO.
That Son’s a bit good, eh?!
But what about Stoke on a rainy Tuesday night?
I thought most of the sonny fan boys were just tourists, but at the Dortmund game for each goal we scored they went fucking nuts! 
Was well impressed tbf
Was well impressed tbf
Well you are the one masking Japanese as victims, and I was being sarcastic about their demand for apology.
Germany did got rid of whole Nazi party, can you name any of Nazi politicians who came back to power after the WW2? None. However in Japan, things gone completely different, yes some of their leaders got prosecuted, but most political leaders survived the prosecution and came back to power, they become MPs and leaders of Japanese politics.
And you are talking Volkswagen and Hugo Boss etc. for they got away from it, but they are civilians, it's not like the same Nazi political leaders have same political power in their country. Japan just had same politicians who are responsible for WW2 even after the WW2, they never admit, nor regret their crimes.
Trying to identify 2019 Japan with 1945 Japan? Yes, I am fucking serious, their true identity hadn't changed a single bit since 1945. You know what they are up to in 2019? Their prime minister and ruling party are trying to discard "the Peace Constitution" just to make Japan war mongering country once again. They say it's normalizing their country. Their "normal" is the Imperial Japan, when they enjoyed murdering and raping whole eastern Asia.
General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.
***
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):
It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:
The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):
concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
***
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:
Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):
When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:
The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]
British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”
The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives. - Global Research
Good night and good luck.
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.
***
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):
It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:
The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):
concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
***
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:
Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):
When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:
The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]
British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”
The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives. - Global Research
Good night and good luck.