The US did not win the war against Japan in WW II.

Your problem is clear: You have never bothered to look up the term "UNCONDITIONAL". Or perhaps the definition is just too complicated for you?

 

> copy <

 

Office.

 

OP

The US hasn't won any wars at all to the best of my knowledge? At least not in modern history.

 

That is an interesting point. It has to be broken down into two columns of what constitutes a "war". Most of us are in agreement to the definition but the "sour grapes" crew twist themselves into pretzels in an attempt to look good. What I mean is, I have heard Americans claim the US didn't lose the war in Vietnam simply because "war" was never declared .... therefore it wasn't a "war" to lose in any case. So, taking that into consideration we have to ask ourselves, "Do we rate the Amerian win/lose rate by the standard notion or by the American "bad losers" version?

Most Americans agree that the U.S. (seldom do they think in terms of the "Allies") won the war against the Nazis. Did they? Well, if they discount the Allies as a whole then I guess the U.S. didn't win it. The Russians secured the Nazi surrendered first. The surrender to the U.S. (read western Allies) came later in a staged ceremony. So who won it?

Then if we take the "bad loses" notion of "war" then I suppose the U.S. didn't win a "war" in Grenada either.

Maybe you are right in saying "The US hasn't won any wars at all ... "

 

Maybe the only War the "US' won was the War of Independance.........oh........hang on.......nah. They needed the Frogs.

But.....let's make no mistake. The (ultimate) intervention of the US in the War in Euope was pivotal. That it was dragged into the Pacific War was fortuitous for at least Australia......and a dumb mistake by the Japs. It is all hypothetical......but.......I ask.......if they did not attack Pearl Harbour, would the Yanks have let the Japs advance right down into Australia? My guess is.......yes.

 

I did qualify it as 'At least not in modern history anyway.'?

 

Yes.....but while I am in the mood for brick bats, Ima not letting the POMs off the hook. You deserted us (yes us, loyal Australia) in Singapore. Mind you, you also left many thousands of your own stranded there. Rule Britannia!

 

Yep, we've screwed up a few times too.

 

No problems on my end. Unconditional surrender means that the enemy surrenders with no terms or guarantees whatsoever.

As the Potsdam Proclamation was a list of surrender terms, we weren't demanding unconditional surrender.

And more to the point, we outright rejected Japan's request for a promise that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power. Japan did NOT get the condition that they requested.

 

Funny, ain't it. The Yanks blame most of the failures during that war on the Germans but fail to give any credit to the French for winning it. Where were we now ... ? Oh yeah .... who "won" that war?

Without question.

I disagree with you. You say "dragged in" and what the Yanks "would have let" the Japanese do. Attacking Pearl harbour was a wise move by Japan. Their backs were against the wall, put there by the American fleet in the first place. The only real mistake Japan made (from where I am sitting, that is) was not assuring the American carriers were in port at the time of the attack.

 

You are wasting my time and anyone else's who might want to get to grips with history and/or revisionary balderdash.

 

If Japan had not started a war with us, our fleet would not have been any threat to them whatsoever.

Not at all. Anyone who wishes to recognize and dismiss revisionary balderdash will find the facts that I posted to be invaluable.

 

So your issue is we showed the Japanese mercy, okay, what should we have done?

 

* "Japan ......... started a war"?
* "would not have been any threat to them"?

You really know very little about it, huh.

 

Correct.

I know everything about it. That is why I've been able to correct all of these untrue claims about the surrender terms.

 

You are out of your mind.

 

what's interesting is that they didn't surrender the 'people' or the 'land', but rather just their 'armed forces'... splitting hairs... meh

anywho, one could ponder if the japs had better intel they'd have known the usa had 'blown their whole wad' with the three 'bombs'...

 

That's true. Apparently, Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb because they didn't think the U.S. had another one and that the threat to bomb a second time was only a hoax. They had to rethink after the second one was dropped but still, they vowed to fight on if their condition wasn't met. One wonders how they would have coped after a third one .... what was going on in their heads? I know they felt that life without the Emperor would be no life at all but still cannot fathom why they thought so.

 

it's called 'indoctrination'... one need look no further than the usa & it's current state to understand how powerful it can be

 

Say no more. This fellow I have been chatting with (on this very thread) seems to think Japan decided to bomb Pearl Harbour without any provocation.

 

No. My facts are all in order.

Well, it's true. Nothing wrong with pointing out the truth.

 

That would have been very bad intel. We were about a week away from dropping the next A-bomb when Japan surrendered.

We were going to produce another seven A-bombs over September and October, another five in November, and then a minimum of seven a month from December on.

 

And your problem is clear. You have never bothered to look up the wording of the Potsdam Declaration. Where the term "Unconditional Surrender" is very specific and limited.

That is what was demanded of Japan, and that was done. There was never a blanket demand for the surrender of the entire Empire of Japan, only for their armed forces.

You really should stop this nonsense, because your being untruthful of the actual demands is an embarrassment to yourself.

 

One sees some pretty strange **** on the internet. Your post is proof. I guess to you this looks like winning: