The Dumbmest President Ever

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:41 pm

You may recall that a few weeks ago, Obama spoke of three former Presidents making prisoner swaps at the end of wars that took place on their watch, "much like this swap" he said convincingly.

CNN News carried this quote, “This is what happens at the end of wars, Barack Obama boasted Tuesday when he was asked about swapping American Army Sgt. Deserter for five vicious Taliban terrorists. "That was true for President George Washington... That was true for President Abraham Lincoln and that was true for President FDR. That’s been true of every combat situation, that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back... And that’s the right thing to do.

Really? (BS)

That statement blatantly demonstrates that the most powerful man in the World and two term President of the United States lacks even a grade school level of knowledge of American History; specifically, history as it relates to three of our most famous presidents and it demonstrates again that we have essentially elected a foreigner who has no understanding of the very country that he reigns supreme over.

Then again, he was educated at an Ivy league school so you can't expect too much.

What's wrong with his statements? Let's keep it simple-- EVERYTHING is wrong!

George Washington did not become president until six years after the Revolutionary War ended in 1783. By 1789 there were no longer any prisoners for him to exchange.

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in mid April of 1865. The Civil War ended the following month. He was still dead at that time. No deals were made to exchange prisoners after the war. All prisoners were simply freed.

FDR died of a stroke before the end of WWII. Like Lincoln, he stayed dead after the war so he couldn't do what this jerk says he did.

You'll recall that Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, ending World War II. He made no deals for prisoners. We went in and released them when necessary.

None of the Presidents that Obama noted were in office at the ends of those wars, making it impossible for them to make any sort of prisoner swaps, let alone the 5 for 1, plus unspecified cash, for a deserter and traitor by our "57 States" president.

It should be pointed out that countless deserters and traitors were shot or hung during all three of the aforementioned wars.

What amazes one even more than the ignorance of Obama is that he has managed to surround himself with a staff that is just as clueless.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:06 pm

Well, his only real mistake was in possibly implying that Washington was President during his efforts to negotiate Prisoner exchanges with the British during and after the Revolution. And perhaps stating that such swaps always took place at the end of the war.

Washington and Prisoners of war.

Prisoners of WarGeorge Washington's Mount Vernon

As for lincoln,

Prisoner exchanges took place throughout the Civil war. And Lincoln approved them.

and FDR,

You should read "Train to Crystal City" by Jan Jarboe Russell

There were several Prisoner Exchanges before WWII was over, beginning in 1943. I am fairly Certain that FDR was alive and well, then.

http://ww2today.com/19th-october-1943-d ... r-exchange

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:29 pm

Lon;1473231 wrote: CNN News carried this quote,,,Well, I'm not sure about any of that, but I'm pretty sure that the president, and for that matter most English speakers, at least know how to spell 'dumbest".

First of all, the quote is not from CNN (Cable News Network), but from CNS (Cybercast News Service), a ranting, raving ultra-right-wing propaganda mill.

I can't deny that the prez made such a statement, but I would like to see it documented from a RELIABLE source. We all have bad days from time to time, I have one myself once in a while.

If you want to see stupidity in the White House, you need look no further than the president's addled-brained predecessor and some of his pronouncements - we could start with "Mission Accomplished".

Barack Obama is the president because he was the people's choice - twice. I would have preferred Hillary but I voted for him twice with no regrets, especially considering his opposition in both elections.

Hopefully in 2016 at age 76 I will have the opportunity to see Hillary succeed him. Considering the bunch of right-wing morons who will be on the other side, she will probably be elected decisively - one can only hope.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:47 pm

LarsMac;1473234 wrote: Well, his only real mistake was in possibly implying that Washington was President during his efforts to negotiate Prisoner exchanges with the British during and after the Revolution. And perhaps stating that such swaps always took place at the end of the war.

Washington and Prisoners of war.

Prisoners of WarGeorge Washington's Mount Vernon

As for lincoln,

Prisoner exchanges took place throughout the Civil war. And Lincoln approved them.

and FDR,

You should read "Train to Crystal City" by Jan Jarboe Russell

There were several Prisoner Exchanges before WWII was over, beginning in 1943. I am fairly Certain that FDR was alive and well, then.

19th October 1943: Disabled PoWs repatriated in Prisoner Exchange

I understand prisoner exchange.

We get one deserter, they get five solid terrorists ready kill again.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:55 pm

tude dog;1473239 wrote: I understand prisoner exchange.

We get one deserter, they get five solid terrorists ready kill again.

Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with the swap. But then I wonder why it didn't come out that he may be a deserter, until after he got home.

Up til then all the right-wingnuts were on the Prez about letting the guy languish.

Soon as the guy gets on the bus, the wingnuts turned their tune.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:30 pm

LarsMac;1473241 wrote: Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with the swap. But then I wonder why it didn't come out that he may be a deserter, until after he got home.

Good question. I would imagine releasing such information would only complicate his release.

LarsMac;1473241 wrote: Up til then all the right-wingnuts were on the Prez about letting the guy languish.

As well we should.

LarsMac;1473241 wrote: Soon as the guy gets on the bus, the wingnuts turned their tune.

No kidding.

I don't believe anybody changed a tune. We all want to see even that deserter bought home.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:51 pm

Hey Lon! Still posting those viral emails, huh.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:05 pm

Good show. Now it's been clearly demonstrated that IS can get the upper edge to free its own by kidnapping others to hold to ransom, for that is what it is. The precedents mentioned here have all been official Prisoners of War, exchanging like for like. IS terrorists are not Prisoners of War, as there is no war. War is declared by the Governments of recognised countries. IS is just a terrorist organisation. By ceding to their demands they have just given IS the Green Flag for further infractions, making things far more dangerous for innocent civilians.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:29 am

I plead guilty and apologise for copying and posting without verifying. Hell's Bell's, I am not even a conservative.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:04 pm

Lon;1473273 wrote: I plead guilty and apologise for copying and posting without verifying. Hell's Bell's, I am not even a conservative.

No problem. It was interesting, and I learned something. What else can you ask for in life?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:26 pm

Lon;1473273 wrote: I plead guilty and apologise for copying and posting without verifying. Hell's Bell's, I am not even a conservative.

As i tell my employees: Consider your ass chewed...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:24 pm

I'd have thought the dumbest had to be GW Bush - attacked by saudi terrorists he invades iraq and bankrupts the country in the process.

Most destructive Prime minister maggie thatcher or tony blair I think that ones a draw.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:49 pm

gmc;1473291 wrote:

Most destructive Prime minister maggie thatcher or tony blair I think that ones a draw.
Maggie Thatcher I would definitely agree. She was the one that made Capitalism & Privatisation what it is now - selling off the NHS. A totally inefficient Public Transport system, making the selling of Council properties a right, whilst at the same time denying the Councils the right to rebuild to replace the ones they HAD to sell (note, not CHOSE to sell - HAD to). Put Council Social Housing into the hands of Private Housing Associations. She made the rich Bankers richer still. Closed nearly all of British industry. We had a thriving motor industry before she came along. Now there are no British makes remaining. Brought about the biggest recession ever previously known.

In my view, Tony Blair's biggest mistake was becoming Bush's puppet & getting involved in a war that was clearly illegal, now that the true facts have been brought out into the open & regrettably that is the one thing that he will always be remembered for. Others may cite the economic collapse. However, this was primarily an international thing & nothing to do with UK politics per se. The rest of it, over here was primarily the result of greedy mismanagement by the Bankers that Maggie Thatcher had favoured so much & had handed all that power over to them in the first place.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:05 pm

Lon;1473231 wrote:

It should be pointed out that countless deserters and traitors were shot or hung during all three of the aforementioned wars.

What amazes one even more than the ignorance of Obama is that he has managed to surround himself with a staff that is just as clueless.

It should also be pointed out that President Obama has accomplished in life, a whole lot more than you have. If I am wrong, then pleses feel free to prove yourself more worthy than he. He is one of the more intelligent presidents we have ever had;

I have enjoyed emmensely how this has shaken up prejudice white men so much. Oh how I have enjoyed it.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:08 pm

Mickiel;1473343 wrote: He is one of the more intelligent presidents we have ever had;

I don't doubt his intelligence. He still authorises US planners to destabilize foreign governments, though, and he still authorizes the US Armed Forces to bomb foreigners in the resulting ungovernable zones. It's shameful the man made no effort to rein back these killers on his payroll in all these years of his responsibility.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:52 pm

spot;1473344 wrote: I don't doubt [Obama's] intelligence. He still authorises US planners to destabilize foreign governments, though, and he still authorizes the US Armed Forces to bomb foreigners in the resulting ungovernable zones. It's shameful the man made no effort to rein back these killers on his payroll in all these years of his responsibility.spot, meet FourPart (on a related thread):

It's only a matter of time (and not a very long time at the current rate) when rightly or wrongly the rest of the world will decide that enough is enough & decide that it's time to totally blitz those countries that sympathise / support the extremists. Even those countries that have, to date, been most tolerant are now having public opinion roused against the Islamists (note, that Islamist is not necessarily the same as an Islamic, although it's understandable that 90% of the non-Islamic populace will not be aware of this - or even care). In their campaign of violence to promote their cause, as with all terrorist campaigns, they just end up shooting themselves in the foot.

I sort of agree, or maybe disagree, with you both. It's a matter of perspective.

Added later: Harry Truman killed a lot of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - of course, they weren't considered innocent at the time - but in doing so he ended in a few days a war that would have continued for months with enormous loss of life on both sides. Something to consider with regard to radical Islam.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:59 am

Mark Aspam;1473398 wrote: Added later: Harry Truman killed a lot of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - of course, they weren't considered innocent at the time - but in doing so he ended in a few days a war that would have continued for months with enormous loss of life on both sides. Something to consider with regard to radical Islam.

If not years.

It also strikes me that another solution would be to threaten (and have the guts to follow through) that any further attacks would result on a strike on Mecca.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:38 am

Mark Aspam;1473398 wrote: Harry Truman killed a lot of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - of course, they weren't considered innocent at the time - but in doing so he ended in a few days a war that would have continued for months with enormous loss of life on both sides.I doubt even Truman thought that was the case. His rush was to get the bombs exploded before the war stopped. The war would have been over within weeks without any invasion of the mainland regardless.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:34 am

spot;1473404 wrote: I doubt even Truman thought that was the case. His rush was to get the bombs exploded before the war stopped. The war would have been over within weeks without any invasion of the mainland regardless.What is your source? If you can name a RELIABLE historian, not a nutcase screwball, who agrees with you please name him and give a reference.

Added later: Here are Truman's own words, from a radio address:

We have used against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

Thousands and thousands of American soldiers and Japanese soldiers too.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:43 am

Mark Aspam;1473237 wrote: Well, I'm not sure about any of that, but I'm pretty sure that the president, and for that matter most English speakers, at least know how to spell 'dumbest".

First of all, the quote is not from CNN (Cable News Network), but from CNS (Cybercast News Service), a ranting, raving ultra-right-wing propaganda mill.

I can't deny that the prez made such a statement, but I would like to see it documented from a RELIABLE source. We all have bad days from time to time, I have one myself once in a while.

If you want to see stupidity in the White House, you need look no further than the president's addled-brained predecessor and some of his pronouncements - we could start with "Mission Accomplished".

Barack Obama is the president because he was the people's choice - twice. I would have preferred Hillary but I voted for him twice with no regrets, especially considering his opposition in both elections.

Hopefully in 2016 at age 76 I will have the opportunity to see Hillary succeed him. Considering the bunch of right-wing morons who will be on the other side, she will probably be elected decisively - one can only hope.

Gee, look no further than CNS for reliable.

“This is what happens at the end of wars, Obama said in Brussels. “That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that’s been true of every combat situation — that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that’s the right thing to do.

WASHINGTON POST

Taliban are not terrorists.

The 2012 Benghazi attack was because of a YOUTUBE VIDEO.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:15 am

Lon;1473231 wrote: ....... That statement blatantly demonstrates ........ again that we have essentially elected a foreigner ......

Oh, shut it ....... for Christ's sake.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:10 am

Mark Aspam;1473405 wrote: What is your source? If you can name a RELIABLE historian, not a nutcase screwball, who agrees with you please name him and give a reference.
I'd start with Truman's diary. It's online in full at the Truman Library but I've picked the days I was looking for from a PBS account. I'm sure they match.

Here's the two days that strike me... I'll add bolding for the relevant sentences.

July 17, 1945

Just spent a couple of hours with Stalin. Joe Davies called on Maisky and made the date last night for noon today. Promptly at a few minutes before twelve I looked up from my desk and there stood Stalin in the doorway. I got to my feet and advanced to meet him. He put out his hand and smiled. I did the same, we shook, I greeted Molotov and the interpreter and we sat down.

After the usual polite remarks we got down to business. I told Stalin that I am no diplomat but usually said yes and no to questions after hearing all the arguments. It pleased him. I asked him if he had the agenda for the meeting. He said he had and that he had some more questions to present. I told him to fire away. He did and it is dynamite -- but I have some dynamite too, which I am not exploding now. He wants to fire Franco, to which I wouldn't object and divide up the Italian colonies and other mandates, some no doubt that the British have. Then he got on the Chinese situation told us what agreements had been reached and what was in abeyance. Most of the big points are settled. He'll be in the Jap war on August 15. Fini Japs when that comes about.

We had lunch, talked socially, put on a real show, drinking toasts to everyone. Then had pictures made in the backyard.

I can deal with Stalin. He is honest, but smart as hell.

July 18, 1945

Ate breakfast with nephew Harry, a sergeant in the field artillery. He is a good soldier and a nice boy. They took him off Queen Elizabeth at Glasgow and flew him here. Sending him home Friday. Went to lunch with P.M. at 1:30, walked around to British headquarters. Met at the gate by Mr. Churchill. Guards of honor drawn up. Fine body of men -- Scottish Guards. Band played "Star-Spangled Banner." Inspected guard and went in for lunch. P.M. and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time.

Entries from President Truman's Diary . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

Any problems with the source or its meaning?

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:04 am

That is a good source for part of the info.

Yes, the Japanese has suggested to Stalin that they wished to surrender, but they insisted on terms, while the Allies agreed at Yalta that they must unconditionally surrender, which the japanese continuously refused to do.

And there were a number of conversations around that, and the bomb was the alternative to an actually invasion of Japan.

I suppose we could have waited until the Russians declared War in them, in and let them invade Japan.

FRom Entries from President Truman's Diary . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

July 18, 1945

Ate breakfast with nephew Harry, a sergeant in the field artillery. He is a good soldier and a nice boy. They took him off Queen Elizabeth at Glasgow and flew him here. Sending him home Friday. Went to lunch with P.M. at 1:30, walked around to British headquarters. Met at the gate by Mr. Churchill. Guards of honor drawn up. Fine body of men -- Scottish Guards. Band played "Star-Spangled Banner." Inspected guard and went in for lunch. P.M. and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time.

Stalin's luncheon was a most satisfactory meeting. I invited him to come to the U.S. Told him I'd send the battleship Missouri for him if he'd come. He said he wanted to cooperate with the U.S. in peace as we had cooperated in war, but it would be harder. Said he was grossly misunderstood in the U.S. and I was misunderstood in Russia. I told him that we each could help to remedy that situation in our home countries and that I intended to do my part at home. He gave me a most cordial smile and said he would do as much in Russia.

We then went to the conference and it was my job to present the ministers' proposed agenda. There were three proposals, and I banged them through in short order, much to the surprise of Mr. Churchill. Stalin was very much pleased. Churchill was too, after he had recovered. I'm not going to stay around this terrible place all summer just to listen to speeches. I'll go home to the Senate for that.

July 25, 1945

We met at 11:00 a.m. today. That is, Stalin, Churchill and the U.S. president. But I had a most important session with Lord Mountbatten and General Marshall before that. We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley era, after Noah and his fabulous ark. Anyway, we think we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling -- to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused a crater six hundred feet deep and twelve hundred feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower a half mile away, and knocked men down ten thousand yards away. The explosion was visible for more than two hundred miles and audible for forty miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10. I have told the secretary of war, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.

Sources: Harry S. Truman Library, Papers of Harry S. Truman. Diary, July 17, box 333, president's secretary's files; diary, July 16, "Ross, Mr. and Mrs. Charles G. (handwritten)" box 322, president's secretary's files.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:04 am

spot;1473411 wrote: Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time.

Entries from President Truman's Diary . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

Any problems with the source or its meaning?

What was satisfactory about Stalin's answer to the Emperor's telegram? I really don't believe Stalin delayed the "peace" so we could drop the bombs.

We wanted more than "peace". Nothing less than total surrender would do.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:21 am

LarsMac;1473412 wrote: That is a good source for part of the info.

Yes, the Japanese has suggested to Stalin that they wished to surrender, but they insisted on terms, while the Allies agreed at Yalta that they must unconditionally surrender, which the japanese continuously refused to do.

tude dog;1473413 wrote: We wanted more than "peace". Nothing less than total surrender would do.

The Japanese didn't surrender unconditionally. Terms were agreed. Is that something you're unaware of?

What I bolded strikes me as coherent account of what Truman thought was the case - those were my words in my post. Unless people think he lied in his private diary?

Truman thinks Stalin is honest.

Stalin has told him Russia will have declared war on Japan by August 15th.

Truman believes "Japs will fold up before Russia comes in", that is, before August 15th.

Truman is "sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland" - not if, but when. Which means he intends dropping the bomb before August 15th, not to bring the war to an end (the "Japs will fold up before Russia comes in") but because dropping it is his intention: not if, but when.

Hiroshima Day, for those with short memories, is August 6th. I "really don't believe Stalin delayed the "peace" so we could drop the bombs" either.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:31 am

No verification or accreditation but I have always been under the impression that America was hoping the hostilities would continue until the bomb was ready so they could test it.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:53 am

spot;1473414 wrote: The Japanese didn't surrender unconditionally. Terms were agreed. Is that something you're unaware of?

What I bolded strikes me as coherent account of what Truman thought was the case - those were my words in my post. Unless people think he lied in his private diary?

Truman thinks Stalin is honest.

Stalin has told him Russia will have declared war on Japan by August 15th.

Truman believes "Japs will fold up before Russia comes in", that is, before August 15th.

Truman is "sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland" - not if, but when. Which means he intends dropping the bomb before August 15th, not to bring the war to an end (the "Japs will fold up before Russia comes in") but because dropping it is his intention: not if, but when.

Hiroshima Day, for those with short memories, is August 6th. I "really don't believe Stalin delayed the "peace" so we could drop the bombs" either.

The terms were all set by the Allies. The Japanese were not allowed to set conditions to their surrender.

That is what is generally referred to as "unconditional Surrender"

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:12 am

LarsMac;1473417 wrote: The terms were all set by the Allies. The Japanese were not allowed to set conditions to their surrender.

That is what is generally referred to as "unconditional Surrender"

I agree that's labelled "unconditional Surrender". It is not, regardless of the use of the word, unconditional. It's a bogus word in this context.

The surrender document unconditionally accepts the surrender terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

The Potsdam Declaration includes, among other clauses, for example:Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

By all means label it an unconditional Surrender, but don't fool people into thinking there were no terms or conditions agreed.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:17 am

spot;1473411 wrote: I'd start with Truman's diary....Any problems with the source or its meaning?None at all. I don't see anything there about winning the war within a few weeks without the A-bomb, but rather with the assumption that it would be used.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:37 pm

spot;1473419 wrote: I agree that's labelled "unconditional Surrender". It is not, regardless of the use of the word, unconditional. It's a bogus word in this context.

The surrender document unconditionally accepts the surrender terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

The Potsdam Declaration includes, among other clauses, for example:Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

By all means label it an unconditional Surrender, but don't fool people into thinking there were no terms or conditions agreed.

Japan had no choice but to accept the Allies conditions. Of course as an incentive to sign the Allies promised we would not do to them what they did to those they conquered .

Allies set the conditions, Japan take it or leave it.

As far as hastening the end of the war I found this to be very interesting. I don't believe it is any secret Stalin wanted on the cheap to gather the spoils.

THE SOVIET FACTOR IN ENDING THE PACIFIC WAR:

Abstract

The drama of ending the Pacific War was a race between Stalin and Truman and a rac e

between Soviet entry into the war against Japan and the atomic bombs in forcing Japan t o

surrender in the Pacific War. The atomic bomb test in New Mexico led Truman to issue th e

Potsdam Proclamation that insisted on unconditional surrender by Japan without consultatio n

with Stalin. In response, Stalin hastened the date of attack by two weeks . The atomic bomb on

Hiroshima at first convinced Stalin that he had been beaten in the race, but Japan's approach to

Moscow for mediation prompted Stalin to move up the date of attack further by forty-eigh t

hours. He succeeded in joining the war in the nick of time . The Soviet entry into the war playe d

a more important role in Japan's decision to surrender than the atomic bombs on Hiroshima an d

Nagasaki.

I haven't read the whole paper, but far as I can tell another contributing factor.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:05 pm

Where in the quote does it say anything about Japan surrendering to the Russians? It says that they asked for Peace, which isn't surprising, seeing as they didn't want to see Russia allying itself with America against them & wanted Russia to stay out of it.

If Russia had got involved in the war against Japan we could well be looking at a Tokyo Wall by now.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:27 pm

tude dog;1473423 wrote: Japan had no choice but to accept the Allies conditions. Of course as an incentive to sign the Allies promised we would not do to them what they did to those they conquered .

Allies set the conditions, Japan take it or leave it.

As far as hastening the end of the war I found this to be very interesting. I don't believe it is any secret Stalin wanted on the cheap to gather the spoils.

THE SOVIET FACTOR IN ENDING THE PACIFIC WAR:

I haven't read the whole paper, but far as I can tell another contributing factor.

Tht is certainly NOT TRUE. The U.S. "wanted" unconditional surrender but they didn't get it. Japan DID "have a choice" and it was that choice (condition) that the Americans had no choice but to agree with. To put it in layman's terms, Japan had the U.S. by the balls.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:08 pm

tude dog;1473423 wrote: Japan had no choice but to accept the Allies conditions.

We have a different understanding of words. Perhaps you have heard of Winston Churchill in this context, describing choice:We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_shall_ ... he_beaches

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:11 pm

Mark Aspam;1473420 wrote: None at all. I don't see anything there about winning the war within a few weeks without the A-bomb
That's *exactly* what Truman says he thought. You ignored my post entirely. Let's try again.

Truman thinks Stalin is honest.

Stalin has told him Russia will have declared war on Japan by August 15th.

Truman believes "Japs will fold up before Russia comes in", that is, before August 15th.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:18 pm

High Threshold;1473429 wrote: Tht is certainly NOT TRUE. The U.S. "wanted" unconditional surrender but they didn't get it. Japan DID "have a choice" and it was that choice (condition) that the Americans had no choice but to agree with. To put it in layman's terms, Japan had the U.S. by the balls.

OK, Japan had a choice to not accept.

The alternative, Operation Downfall.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:09 pm

tude dog;1473435 wrote: OK, Japan had a choice to not accept.

The alternative, Operation Downfall.

But that is the whole point, Tude. The U.S. said it would accept nothing but unconditional surrender or the war would continue. Japan said stuff it. National suicide meant nothing to Japan. Pride and honour were more important than life itself. They were perfectly willing to take it to the last man and so they did not accept the American terms .... they made their own terms .... and the U.S. accepted that instead. The U.S. was bluffing. History has proven that. Now we might have an interesting debate on whether or not Japan merely called the bluff or if they honestly were willing to fight to the last man. There would be at least two starting points. 1. The fact that the Japanese really did fight to the man in their battles. 2. The fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb because they did not think the U.S. had the capability to drop a second one, thus calling what they assumed was a bluff. But the main point is that it was Japan that dictated the conditions of surrender ¦.. not the U.S.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:57 am

High Threshold;1473452 wrote: But that is the whole point, Tude. The U.S. said it would accept nothing but unconditional surrender or the war would continue.

Wasn't just the United States.

The Potsdam Declaration or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender is a statement that called for the surrender of all Japanese armed forces during World War II. On July 26, 1945, United States President Harry S. Truman, United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Chairman of the Nationalist Government of China Chiang Kai-shek issued the document, which outlined the terms of surrender for the Empire of Japan as agreed upon at the Potsdam Conference. This ultimatum stated that, if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction."[1][2]

Potsdam Declaration-Wikipedia

That is basic history.

High Threshold;1473452 wrote: Japan said stuff it.

Where did that come from?

Far as I can find the initial response was nothing like that. I keep coming across this word Mokusatsu.

Japanese Response. The initial response to the Declaration by Suzuki Kantaro, the Japanese Prime Minister, was mokusatsu, which has the literal meaning "to kill with silence." Allied translators interpreted this to signify a contemptuous rejection, but there is controversy over whether this correctly captured the nuances of the word. An interesting discussion of this issue can be found at Translator's Cafe, where the following plausible translations are offered by Ellen Kapusniak:

take no notice of

pass (over) ((a matter)) in [with] silence

refuse [do not deign] even to comment ((on..))

ignore (by keeping silence)

This suggest that the translation of mokusatsu as "contemptuously reject" is somewhat too strong. Boyd Lafayette De Mente offers some cultural context:

One of the most common and important time factors in Japanese negotiations or discussions about serious matters was - and still is - the use of time gaps or breaks. Their people involved simply stop talking. They may just sit and remain silent (often with their eyes closed), get up and leave the room for short periods, or hold low-voiced side conversations with their colleagues.

Japanese negotiators and others develop varying degrees of skill in using these time gaps to their own advantage - so much so that there is a special term used in reference to the process: mokusatsu (mohkuu-sahtsuu), which means "killing with silence".

Mokusatsu refers to the idea of "killing" the other party's case or proposition by letting it die in the vacuum of silence.

Potsdam Declaration-The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia

High Threshold;1473452 wrote: National suicide meant nothing to Japan. Pride and honour were more important than life itself. They were perfectly willing to take it to the last man and so they did not accept the American terms .... they made their own terms .... and the U.S. accepted that instead The U.S. was bluffing. History has proven that..

I don't know where all that come from. Maybe you could help me out with that?

High Threshold;1473452 wrote: Now we might have an interesting debate on whether or not Japan merely called the bluff or if they honestly were willing to fight to the last man. There would be at least two starting points. 1. The fact that the Japanese really did fight to the man in their battles. 2. The fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb because they did not think the U.S. had the capability to drop a second one, thus calling what they assumed was a bluff. But the main point is that it was Japan that dictated the conditions of surrender ¦.. not the U.S.

I must thank you HT. I learned a word and some details of the Japanese surrender.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:38 am

tude dog;1473472 wrote: Wasn't just the United States.

Hardly matters.

tude dog;1473472 wrote: Where did that come from?

Well, that's the translation. What they actually said was, ãã‚Œã‚’è©°ã‚è¾¼ã‚€! ã—ã‹ã—ã€ãã‚Œã‚’è¦‹ã¦ã„ãªã„ã€‚ ã“ã‚Œã¯ç§ã®è§£é‡ˆã§ã‚ã‚‹ã€‚

tude dog;1473472 wrote: I don't know where all that come from. Maybe you could help me out with that?

I really don't see your (the) point. The quote, “"prompt and utter destruction" is nothing more than whistling in the dark. No one even had the capabilities to “utterly destroy Japan in the first place. And “promptly is simply an appendix to the inability to utterly destroy it.

Are you telling me that you haven't seen any documentaries on how the Japanese fought to the last man all through South-East Asia? The interviews with allied soldiers who fought there?

tude dog;1473472 wrote: I must thank you HT. I learned a word and some details of the Japanese surrender.

What word was that? “Fact or "è§£é‡ˆ"?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:08 am

What about the firebombing ?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:23 am

High Threshold;1473474 wrote: Hardly matters.

Well, that's the translation. What they actually said was, ãã‚Œã‚’è©°ã‚è¾¼ã‚€! ã—ã‹ã—ã€ãã‚Œã‚’è¦‹ã¦ã„ãªã„ã€‚ ã“ã‚Œã¯ç§ã®è§£é‡ˆã§ã‚ã‚‹ã€‚

I really don't see your (the) point. The quote, “"prompt and utter destruction" is nothing more than whistling in the dark. No one even had the capabilities to “utterly destroy Japan in the first place. And “promptly is simply an appendix to the inability to utterly destroy it.

Are you telling me that you haven't seen any documentaries on how the Japanese fought to the last man all through South-East Asia? The interviews with allied soldiers who fought there?

What word was that? “Fact or "è§£é‡ˆ"?

I'll cut to the chase.

As long as you just make things up, there is no reason to go any further with this.

Thanks for reminding me of what it is like dealing with a bore. (that means you HT)

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:00 pm

spot;1473433 wrote: That's *exactly* what Truman says he thought. You ignored my post entirely. Let's try again.

Truman thinks Stalin is honest.

Stalin has told him Russia will have declared war on Japan by August 15th.

Truman believes "Japs will fold up before Russia comes in", that is, before August 15th.I guess I miss your point. Hirohito announced the surrender on the 15th.

The surrender was, for all practical purposes, unconditional. Japan was allowed certain amenities in the interest of harmony. Attempts by other posters to this thread, not yourself, to mischaracterize the surrender are ridiculous.

But then, the theme of the thread, that Obama is "the dumbmest [sic] president ever" are equally silly. As I stated previously, one need only look back as far as the current president's predecessor to refute that claim!

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:50 am

tude dog;1473479 wrote: I'll cut to the chase. As long as you just make things up, there is no reason to go any further with this.

Me too. No more jokes, friendly jabs, or "making things up". Japan surrendered on the CONDITION that the Emperor would remain on the thrown. They would have otherwise fought on.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:08 am

There is a subtle difference between a condition & an understanding. Japan surrendered unconditionally, with the understanding that Emperor Hirohito would remain symbolic Head of State. This was also beneficial to the Americans as it helped them to introduce a new political system.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 2 | 1945: Japan signs unconditional surrender

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:05 am

FourPart;1473713 wrote: There is a subtle difference between a condition & an understanding. Japan surrendered unconditionally, with the understanding that Emperor Hirohito would remain symbolic Head of State. This was also beneficial to the Americans as it helped them to introduce a new political system.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 2 | 1945: Japan signs unconditional surrender

No, It wasn't “also beneficial to the Americans. By all accounts it was only beneficial to the Americans. Japan had proved its' willingness to die for the Emperor. So the bottom line is that without the Emperor Japan would have fought to the last man standing – something the Americans were not even capable of doing. It is common knowledge that Japan proper would be a series of battles unlike anything seen all throughout WW II. That situation defies all definition and no language is rich enough to put it into words. Make no mistake, allowing the Emperor to stand was THE CONDITION, a conclusion that was no secret, a fact that was cloaked only by a thin layer of verbal evasion. Of course, you can call it an “understanding or even a gift if you like. That's the sort of sour grapes spin only the the victor can afford. I'm sure that you already know that.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:11 am

High Threshold;1473720 wrote: 1. Japan had proved its' willingness to die for the Emperor. So the bottom line is that without the Emperor Japan would have fought to the last man standing...

2. It is common knowledge that Japan proper would be a series of battles unlike anything seen all throughout WW II.

3. Make no mistake, allowing the Emperor to stand was THE CONDITION, a conclusion that was no secret, a fact that was cloaked only by a thin layer of verbal evasion. Of course, you can call it an “understanding or even a gift if you like. That's the sort of sour grapes spin only the the victor can afford. I'm sure that you already know that.1 & 2. I'm not sure how hypothetical assertions - guesses if you will - can be described as "the bottom line" or as "common knowledge". It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Also, if a third bomb had been dropped, it's very likely that there would have been no emperor to die for.

3. The history benders and rewriters such as yourself are the ones responsible for making the mistakes.

Supposing is fine, claiming supposition to be fact only damages the credibility and reputation of the supposer.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:11 am

Mark Aspam;1473721 wrote: 1 & 2. I'm not sure how hypothetical assertions - guesses if you will - can be described as "the bottom line" or as "common knowledge". It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Also, if a third bomb had been dropped, it's very likely that there would have been no emperor to die for.

3. The history benders and rewriters such as yourself are the ones responsible for making the mistakes.

Supposing is fine, claiming supposition to be fact only damages the credibility and reputation of the supposer.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that my use of the expression “common knowledge to describe Japanese willingness to die in Japan's defense rather than lose face over the honour of their Emperor would have been best referred to as GUESS work.

You base your own hypothetical historical event upon the possibility of a third bomb removing the Emperor ¦... in some undeclared fashion ¦. thus rendering Japan's fidelity (anyway) redundant. Actually, I declare a third bomb non-existent by way of retrospective knowledge, which must be at least equally valid as your assumption that a third bomb “could have been dropped.

You refer to me as a HISTORY BENDER and a REWRITER who's responsible for “the mistakes, though I really don't know what mistakes those might be. Perhaps you'll tell me, eventually.

And then (thanks to my habit of SUPPOSING) I have damaged my CREDIBILITY and REPUTATION. I “suppose (Lord how incurable I am!) I ought to give thanks for any pre-suppository credibility and reputation you allotted me until now.

All in all a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:06 pm

High Threshold;1473722 wrote: I ought to give thanks for any pre-suppository credibility and reputation you allotted me until now.

A suppository might actually help! Get it out!

Added later: Seriously though, you're a lot like the dude on another thread who keeps insisting that science proves religion and disproves its own laws.

Re-writing history may be entertaining to the re-writer, that's about as far as it goes.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:31 pm

The Japanese surrender was unconditional, plain & simple - See 2nd paragraph.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:12 pm

FourPart;1473728 wrote: The Japanese surrender was unconditional, plain & simple - See 2nd paragraph.

Spoilsport!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:17 pm

FourPart;1473728 wrote: The Japanese surrender was unconditional, plain & simple - See 2nd paragraph.