Trump compares Iran air strikes to bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki

"The intelligence says, 'We don't know, it could have been very severe.' That's what the intelligence says. So I guess that's correct, but I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration."

This kind of rambling is concerning. If you look at videos of former presidents the contrast is apparent.

Couldn't this orange clown be more stupid, alienated, and narcissistic?

The most pathetic thing is his hordes of naive, fanatical low educated followers.

"The intelligence says, 'We don't know, it could have been very severe.' That's what the intelligence says. So I guess that's correct, but I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration."

What a moron.

Then using the same logic may be Mr. Trump would like to see Gaza ended in similar manner!!?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was not already discussed.

Couldn't this orange clown be more stupid, alienated, and narcissistic?

He’s kinda right in a militaristic sense

The most pathetic thing is his hordes of naive, fanatical low educated followers.

So you were able to survey 77 million people and could determine who’s educated and who’s not? You actually have that kind of time?

At least rational people around the globe from all countries see Trump as a clown and his MAGA support crew as B Grade show ponies around him.

Guarantee not a western alliance leader thinks highly of Trump.

What an absolute tool.

--What a moron.

The Mullahs?

Care to explain what Trump meant by "we don't know" + "could have been severe" + "that's correct" + "obliteration"?

Complete idiot. Never fails to amaze me.

Care to explain what Trump meant by "we don't know" + "could have been severe" + "that's correct" + "obliteration"?

I wouldn’t know, like you, I don’t have access to the intel he was shown to confirm anything.

At least rational people around the globe from all countries see Trump as a clown and his MAGA support crew as B Grade show ponies around him.

That’s ok, people can think what they want, we also have opinions about those people, goes both ways.

Guarantee not a western alliance leader thinks highly of Trump.

They don’t have to like him, being an American first President is not about being liked by the world. I and most American first conservatives couldn’t care less whether our President is admired or not, I care what he does to improve the lives of the nation in any capacity.

Yes, just the man of peace talking.

In truth, more like granddaddy at his age.

"When you look at Hiroshima, if you look at Nagasaki, that ended a war, too," Trump said, referring to a pair of U.S. nuclear strikes on Japan in 1945 that essentially ended World War II. "This ended a war in a different way.

Potty brains is leaking a lot these days!!!

I wouldn’t know, like you, I don’t have access to the intel he was shown to confirm anything.

Totally agree sir, you don’t have access to intelligence!!!

These bombs came be jammed with a GPS jammer with a drone flying in the same area,in near proximity to jammer the bomb would be blinded from satellites contact

He’s kinda right in a militaristic sense

No. No he isn’t. He’s an absolutely out of his mind narcissist. I bet he still thinks he’s getting ‘noble’ prize.

He couldn't find either of the cities on a world map.

What if Iran destroyed their nukes,Hamas came close,started a raging fire ,burned out of control for hours at Sdot Michal, Israel nukes are 20 miles from Tele Aviv

Totally agree sir, you don’t have access to intelligence!!!

None of us, but thanks for repeating what I just said.

No. No he isn’t.

I disagree

He’s an absolutely out of his mind narcissist. I bet he still thinks he’s getting ‘noble’ prize.

Yeah, ok, if you think so, lol

"The intelligence says, 'We don't know, it could have been very severe.' That's what the intelligence says. So I guess that's correct, but I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration."

Stable genius ramblings

The Israeli and American strikes on Iran are much more like Pearl Harbor. They started something. Not ended it.

Trump is an historically ignorant idiot. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending the war.

As Army Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, who was in charge of summarizing intercepted, decoded Japanese messages, said:

“We brought [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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.”

“We brought [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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.”

He was mistaken.

This damning accusation was also made by Adm. William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, who said publicly the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out…” “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

Pretty ridiculous comparison.

There is no certainty the conflict between Israel and Iran is finished. Highly likely, in fact, it will continue in some form.

Bass4funk

he wasn’t shown any intel before he made his stupid comment of obliteration which came seconds after the bombs were dropped.

He’s a Moran: you can continue to defend him if you want but nothing will alter the fact that he is indeed a moron.

The Israeli and American strikes on Iran are much more like Pearl Harbor. They started something. Not ended it.

Wrong. Proxy forces (Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis) funded directly by Iran started it

Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, a notorious “hawk” who commanded the Twenty-first Bomber Command, made the case emphatically.

“The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russian entering and without the atomic bomb.” A shocked reporter asked: “You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb? Had they not surrendered because of the atomic bomb?”

Gen. LeMay replied: “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” And LeMay didn’t shy from repeating his position. In November 1945, he said publicly it was “obvious that the atomic bomb did not end the war against Japan. Japan was finished long before either one of the two atomic bombs were dropped. “

None of us, but thanks for repeating what I just said.

Yes sir, you don’t have access to intelligence!!!

Adm. William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war.

"the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued:

"[I]n being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.

bass4funk

Today 07:35 am JST

Totally agree sir, you don’t have access to intelligence!!!

> None of us, but thanks for repeating what I just said.

What he said was different and he's probably thanking you also for confirming it

He wasn't completely wrong. The bombs made the imperial military surrender and turn the country into what we see today. One that yearn peace and never war. Without the strikes, the war would have continued and be so bloody that nothing would have been left except suffering upon suffering.

Sometimes a brutal trashing is what you need to give one the lesson it need. Trump hit on Iran was definitely the key point that broke the Iran will to continue and seek a cease fire.

asdfgtr

Today 07:44 am JST

Trump is an historically ignorant idiot. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending the war.

> As Army Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, who was in charge of summarizing intercepted, decoded Japanese messages, said:

> “We brought [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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.”

Average American probably don't care

Donald Trump just compared U.S. airstrikes in Iran to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, those Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The ones that flattened cities and changed the course of history.

Apparently, dropping conventional bombs is now “basically the same” as nuclear annihilation. Next up: comparing a paper cut to open-heart surgery.

And the saddest part? A surprising number of Americans seem to think the Japanese should be grateful as it saved millions of Japanese lives as well as American lives had the war continued.

Couldn't this orange clown be more stupid, alienated, and narcissistic?

The most pathetic thing is his hordes of naive, fanatical low educated followers.

Democracy, bless its heart, is only as clever as the people casting the votes. In America, the electorate doesn’t just choose a leader—they choose a mirror. The President, whether it’s a distinguished gentleman like Trump or a accomplished lady like Kamala Harris, is essentially the nation’s selfie.

Now, if we lived in a world ruled by meritocracy—where exams decided leadership—well, let’s just say some candidates might not make it past the multiple-choice section. Trump and Harris would d be politely shown the door by a stern invigilator with a clipboard and a raised eyebrow.

he wasn’t shown any intel before he made his stupid comment of obliteration which came seconds after the bombs were dropped.

Prove it. You guys make these outlandish comments without a single shred of evidence

He’s a Moran: you can continue to defend him if you want but nothing will alter the fact that he is indeed a moron.

Well, you can think that if you like, it’s a free world, but half the country doesn’t and guess what, when you wake up tomorrow, he will still be President so…

"the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Factually he’s just in incorrect here. The Japanese hadn’t accepted the Potsdam declaration even after Nagasaki and the Emperor had to force 3 members of the big 6 (the only group capable of issuing a surrender) to vote to surrender.

Trump shouldn't be allowed in public. He just looks really, really, dumb whenever he opens his mouth. Even facts that show something he gets credit for doing, he gets wrong. So sad.

Most people learn that "facts" are more important than "opinion", but Trump is doing everything he can to prevent fact-based US Govt agencies from being able to do their jobs. Every US Govt department that has anything to do with facts has been gutted - because Trump is afraid of facts that constantly prove he is wrong.

What he said was different

Happens in politics

and he's probably thanking you also for confirming it

I’m not confirming anything, I’m in the same boat as you.

Six out of the seven five-star generals and admirals in the U.S. military at the time of the Hiroshima bombing reportedly opposed its use. They believed that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that the bombing was unnecessary. 

The generals and admirals who reportedly voiced opposition include:

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy:

Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, he called the atomic bomb a "barbarous weapon" and believed Japan was already defeated. 

Fleet Admiral Ernest King:

Chief of Naval Operations, who felt the air-sea blockade would have been sufficient to force surrender. 

General Dwight D. Eisenhower:

Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe, who expressed his belief that Japan was ready to surrender. 

General Henry "Hap" Arnold:

Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, who believed the atomic bombs were unnecessary due to the effectiveness of conventional bombing. 

General George C. Marshall:

Army Chief of Staff, who also reportedly opposed the bombing. 

Admiral Chester W. Nimitz:

Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, who believed Japan was on the verge of collapse.

And the saddest part? A surprising number of Americans seem to think the Japanese should be grateful as it saved millions of Japanese lives as well as American lives had the war continued.

This is literally a fact that has been confirmed by both Japanese and American historians.

If Japan had a little more backbone this would mean a breaking up of relationships until a formal apology is given.

Not going to happen of course.

They believed that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that the bombing was unnecessary. 

They were wrong. If Japan was on the verge of surrender before Hiroshima, why didn’t they surrender immediately afterwards? If they were on the verge of surrender why did it take the emperor himself convincing half the council to vote for surrender (it required an unanimous vote)?

Yesterday he confused "supercells" with "sleeper cells" when talking about terrorism...

Today he blurts out more nonsense...

Every day he gives us more and more evidence he is deep into dementia and senility...

25th Amendment time clearly...

Donald Trump just compared U.S. airstrikes in Iran to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, those Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The ones that flattened cities and changed the course of history.

Yes

Apparently, dropping conventional bombs is now “basically the same” as nuclear annihilation. Next up: comparing a paper cut to open-heart surgery. 

Apples to Oranges argument

And the saddest part? A surprising number of Americans seem to think the Japanese should be grateful as it saved millions of Japanese lives as well as American lives had the war continued. 

The Japanese also justified the bombing of Pearl Harbor saying that, they could have targeted women and children, but they didn’t. Not sure what that insane logic conveyed, but all those men who died on that tragic day were also someone’s child, I really don’t want to hear the blame being solely put on the laps of America, go back to how it started.

Democracy, bless its heart, is only as clever as the people casting the votes.

I agree.

Trump is an historically ignorant idiot. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending the war.

It absolutely did. According to Togo’s own diaries the Emperor approached him declaring his desire to end the war as a result of Hiroshima and Togo agreed to try to convince the big six to surrender. The emperor was then the one who directly convinced the big 6 to surrender after Nagasaki.

Prove it? The intel from the pentagon came out saying the damage was far less than what Trump said. Don’t you follow the news? That’s from the pentagon not the so-called ‘fake news media’ obviously Trump got it wrong

"I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki”

Ok then. Go with that instead of what your addled walnut chose to.

It absolutely did.

Somehow, the popular narrative became: “We had no choice.” As if all these admirals and generals who opposed were just extras in the background, sipping coffee while Truman made history.

It’s not that Americans are willfully ignorant—it’s just that the story they were told came with a neat ending, a moral victory, and no footnotes. And let’s be honest, footnotes don’t fit on bumper stickers.

In America,you can sue anyone,if you do not have a lawyer and contest the complaint in a court,a judge will rule against by default,by law

In America,you can sue anyone,if you do not have a lawyer and contest the complaint in a court,a judge will rule against by default,by law

And I would bring a case against you for a frivolous lawsuit

Oh dear.

Somehow, the popular narrative became: “We had no choice.” As if all these admirals and generals who opposed were just extras in the background, sipping coffee while Truman made history.

WW2 was 80 years ago now and arguably the most researched event in human history. We have access to more details on the war now in 2025 than generals at the time did. Every single shred of historical evidence points to the bombs not only ending the war quicker (as described by my examples earlier) but also saving lives in the avoidance of an invasion or blockade. You just haven’t looked into these things so you’re ignorant on them. It’s okay to not know what your talking about but your inability to bring up any substantive arguments is just embarrassing

You could clearly see the evidence of the RESULT of the Terror bombing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Show us the evidence of this Iran terror bombing result. Clearly show that Iran were still out bombing Israel for days after. Another Art of the failure.

“We had no choice.”

Nobody says this. The argument is that it saved lives by avoiding an invasion or blockade. The “no choice” statement must exist in whatever fantasy world you’re living in

There is a huge difference between the Iran strikes and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In those cases the US was a combatant, as far as I know the combatants in the Israel-Iran war are Israel and Iran.

.

The man is depraved.

.

Anyway, there is no historical comparison to a 12-day skirmish and WWII. Even the most ardent Trump supporter must see that.

Can’t imagine the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being quiet about this.

Happens in politics

Definitely sir, you are a very important politician!!!

I’m not confirming anything, I’m in the same boat as you.

Yes sir, when you don’t have access to intelligence you cannot confirm anything.

Hope you have a life jacket!!!

The comparison is dumb, and insensitive, but it looks like the ceasefire is holding.

Give Trump his "win", and lets just be glad this part of the conflict is over, for now at least.

I really don’t share President Trump similarity. Iran air strikes to bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki has more of a quality, trait that signalled the end of hostilities in either example.

Iran/Israel is a 12-day conflict.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki despite the devastation in Hiroshima, Japan Imperial government did not surrender, it took another nuclear weapon Nagasaki.

The context of such use of force, the significance, the immense destruction, the profound impact.  I suggest the underlining detest and loathing both Iran/Israel have for each other over many decades will never simply melt away.  

President Trump media press events bring his unique use of dramatic political theatre.

U.S. President Donald Trump compared the impact of American air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to the end of World War II on Wednesday, arguing that the damage was severe even though available intelligence reports were inconclusive.

His ignorance is show to the world (but maga are blind and deaf). It will not end well for him and his country.

I'm not scrolling through the whole thread, but can I safely assume the usual suspects have already declared that Trump is right, and somehow blamed Democrats for...oh, anything at all?

Definitely sir, you are a very important politician!!!

?

Yes sir, when you don’t have access to intelligence you cannot confirm anything.

None of us can

Hope you have a life jacket!!!

Worry about yourself

Well, despite losing one Nobel nomination this week he gained another so he’s back where he started and still in the running. Don’t stop believin’ maga, dream a little dream.

"I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war. This ended the war," Trump said.

I can see the logic, but he stepped into a hornets nest with this one. Sometimes Trumps tendency for hyperbole runs away with him, this is one case. He should have skipped that remark.

While he makes rambling, incoherent comparisons with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many watching the horrific scenes of sadistic mass-killings in Gaza and the West Bank have long been making more relevant and disturbing comparisons of the Jews of Israel with the Germans of the 1930s and '40s. "NEVER AGAIN" rings hollow to the ears of anyone who knows their history.

Stick a live microphone in front of Trump's mouth and he'll reflexively say something stupid. It's the nature of the beast.

His right-leaning supporters had argued loudly beforehand that such military intervention was inconsistent with Trump's domestic-focused "Make America Great Again"

Lazy journalism again and the title was perfectly designed for effect as well. Hey JT at least you know your market. You have the blood nicely boiling before breakfast.

An alternative non-deranged version, if I could be so bold, one that doesn’t immediately make peoples heads swim in a sea of conflicting emotions would be to say that the American action was a spectacular success of precision strikes , one that played out in the dead of night and will put the fear of god in other potential foes thinking that America had lost their grit. The likes of North Korea, our Chinese friends, Russia will all be taking pause at the actions of this according to the readers orange dimwit that they are all ten times smarter than. It’s a beautiful look guys. The 12 day war comes to and end. It has a nice ring. Not a single American life lost. Irans capabilities decimated. Mission complete. Mike drop. :p

Guarantee not a western alliance leader thinks highly of Trump.

and Guru, despite the mob thinking that there is power in numbers , there isn’t ( it’s just noise ) you don’t have to be liked to be effective. In fact a good leader doesn’t seek to be liked, they seek to have the courage to make the difficult decisions for the bigger picture and the greater good. I know that’s a hard concept for you guys to digest. Trump can be a bit of a clown and extremely effective at the same time. I wonder what the sentiment is like right now within the U.S military compared to under the previous administration. Probably better than in here.

To finish, watch NATO and pretty much all of the free world alliance come straight back to the big T mans table, they are smart enough to know there’s a difference between dealing with reality in a pragmatic manner and playing silly click bait politics catering to mobs.

Well, despite losing one Nobel nomination this week he gained another so he’s back where he started and still in the running.

I don’t think he cares nearly as much as liberals like to think.

Don’t stop believin’ maga, dream a little dream.

Nothing to dream, it happens or it doesn’t.

Well, despite losing one Nobel nomination this week he gained another so he’s back where he started and still in the running. 

I don’t think he cares nearly as much as liberals like to think.

I think he wants one. You know he has a bee in his bonnet about it.

Again, you’re historically illiterate. WW2 was 80 years ago now and arguably the most researched event in human history. We have access to more details on the war now in 2025 than generals at the time did. Every single shred of historical evidence points to the bombs not only ending the war quicker (as described by my examples earlier) but also saving lives in the avoidance of an invasion or blockade. You just haven’t looked into these things so you’re ignorant on them. It’s okay to not know what your talking about but your inability to bring up any substantive arguments is just embarrassing

The “Boom. Done.” school of diplomacy. Quite popular in certain circles. Less so among civilians who were, shall we say, vaporized.

Every single shred of historical evidence points to the bombs not only ending the war quicker (as described by my examples earlier) but also saving lives in the avoidance of an invasion or blockade.

How to tell when one cannot debate: just say there is no debate and that it was all backed by “every single shred of historical evidence,” which, as we know, is a phrase that instantly ends all debate. Much like a mushroom cloud.

It’s okay to not know what your talking about but your inability to bring up any substantive arguments is just embarrassing

We’ve got hindsight. Eighty years of it. Turns out, history isn’t written by the victors—it’s revised by the researchers.  I simply prefer my history with nuance, not napalm.

"The intelligence says, 'We don't know, it could have been very severe.' That's what the intelligence says. So I guess that's correct, but I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration."

Gibberish.

He’s not looking or sounding well.

I think he wants one. You know he has a bee in his bonnet about it.

Obama got one. Carter got one. Wilson got one. Roosevelt got one. Four democrats, including a black man. And Trump will only get one out of pity, or to shut him up, or if he manages to persuade Musk to buy the entire Nobel committee and fill it with people like Stephen Miller.

They were wrong. If Japan was on the verge of surrender before Hiroshima, why didn’t they surrender immediately afterwards? If they were on the verge of surrender why did it take the emperor himself convincing half the council to vote for surrender (it required an unanimous vote)?

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and invaded Manchuria with overwhelming force. But no, that couldn’t possibly have influenced Japan’s decision.  It was definitely the second atomic bomb, dropped just one day later, that did the trick. Because nothing says “strategic necessity” like nuking a city before anyone’s had time to read the morning paper.

Japan was nowhere near surrendering. I mean, sure, they were sending peace feelers through the Soviets, their cities were being firebombed into oblivion, their navy was at the bottom of the Pacific, and they were rationing rice like it was gold dust—but surrender? Clearly not desperate enough.

And the saddest part? A surprising number of Americans seem to think the Japanese should be grateful as it saved millions of Japanese lives as well as American lives had the war continued.

This is literally a fact that has been confirmed by both Japanese and American historians.

Facts are whatever you say to be true. We do need to acknowledge that I agree.

It is a fact, confirmed by historians. You know, the kind of fact that sounds suspiciously like a moral justification dressed up in a lab coat. 'We saved millions of lives!'—by ending them first.

It’s the kind of logic where dropping two atomic bombs is considered humanitarian aid. Next up: firebombing as a form of urban renewal."

More of the daily signs that Trump has dementia. His nephew insists Trump is exhibiting the same signs as other members of Trump’s family, a family with a history of dementia. His father, sister, cousins.

Seems like a cocktail of narcissism and dementia. He posts on social media an average of more than once per hour for 24 hours. The White House no longer transcribes his speeches, press conferences or comments like other presidents to hide his words from the public.

Could he be the first sitting president who ends up in straitjacket?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki despite the devastation in Hiroshima, Japan Imperial government did not surrender, it took another nuclear weapon Nagasaki.

Your own people, several top American military leaders—including Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Admiral Leahy—later stated they believed the bombings were unnecessary and that Japan was already defeated. There's goes JBone's “every single shred of historical evidence."

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, in Racing the Enemy, argues that Japan’s surrender was more influenced by the Soviet invasion than the atomic bombs.

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, argues that the bombings were not necessary to end the war and were instead used to assert U.S. dominance over the Soviet Union.

Yes, American patience was in short supply—after all, the war had only been going on for six years, and Japan had only just begun peace overtures through the Soviets. Why wait a few more days to see if diplomacy might work when you’ve got a shiny new bomb to test on live targets? Let's try it out.

The U.S. had intercepted Japanese communications indicating a willingness to negotiate—just not unconditional surrender. But instead of clarifying terms or offering a demonstration of the bomb on an uninhabited island, the decision was made to drop it on cities. Twice.

And ironically, the one condition Japan wanted—to keep the emperor—was ultimately granted anyway. So you vaporized two cities to end a war that might have ended on nearly the same terms through diplomacy. Efficient? Perhaps. Necessary? That’s where the debate lives.

Obama came to Hiroshima and paid his respects

Trump offends both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

America is in the guttter

bass4funk

Yeah you do.

> No, I don’t or just showed me where I was so desperately concerned whether Trump be nominated for a Nobel. Take your time.

You have posted many times that Trump would be more deserving than the Obama award.

If Trump can end the war in Gaza and restore it and its people. If he can end the war in Ukraine and restore it and its people. If he does not invade Greenland and Panama, then he will deserve the Peace Award.

The “Boom. Done.” school of diplomacy. Quite popular in certain circles. Less so among civilians who were, shall we say, vaporized.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets

How to tell when one cannot debate: just say there is no debate and that it was all backed by “every single shred of historical evidence,” which, as we know, is a phrase that instantly ends all debate. Much like a mushroom cloud.

I’ve posted plenty of evidence in this thread that supports my argument. You’ve posted 0

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and invaded Manchuria with overwhelming force. But no, that couldn’t possibly have influenced Japan’s decision.  It was definitely the second atomic bomb, dropped just one day later, that did the trick. Because nothing says “strategic necessity” like nuking a city before anyone’s had time to read the morning paper.

The Soviet Union declared war after Hirohito had gone to Togo and expressed his desire to surrender. Hirohito was the one who convinced the remaining 3 “no” votes on the big six 2 surrender. In sum: the person who convinced Japan to surrender had declared his desire to before Soviet declaration of war. Get your timeline straight

Japan was nowhere near surrendering. I mean, sure, they were sending peace feelers through the Soviets, their cities were being firebombed into oblivion, their navy was at the bottom of the Pacific, and they were rationing rice like it was gold dust—but surrender? Clearly not desperate enough.

No, they weren’t. A minor party with no political power to issue a surrender had sent feelers. These feelers were not approved by any members of the big 6. The big 6 was the only political power in Japan that had the power to issue a surrender. This is all next to the fact that the IJA had amassed 900,000 troops in Kyushu for operation Ketsugo in preparation for an invasion. Why do you amass troops if you’re preparing to surrender? Again, please educate yourself on the topic

Facts are whatever you say to be true. We do need to acknowledge that I agree. 

It is a fact, confirmed by historians. You know, the kind of fact that sounds suspiciously like a moral justification dressed up in a lab coat. 'We saved millions of lives!'—by ending them first. 

Instead of typing out all this cope you could have found any sort of evidence that would suggest an invasion or some other means would have ended the war with less deaths. You don’t have that kind of evidence though so you’ll keep coping

JB , Japanese were bomb, because the American thought less of Japanese,that why they single out for destruction,are you an American ,like me

No, they weren’t. They were bombed because the US wanted to force a surrender without committing to a full blown invasion of the mainland. Military planners estimated that a US invasion of Japan could have resulted in anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million Allied casualties, with a similar number expected for the Japanese. Some of the most dire predictions suggested as many as 1.7 to 4 million casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 deaths for the Allies.

Hirohito was the one who convinced the remaining 3 “no” votes on the big six 2 surrender. In sum: the person who convinced Japan to surrender had declared his desire to before Soviet declaration of war. 

Tōgō and Yonai were actively in favor of seeking peace, while others, particularly Anami and Umezu, were more resistant. This 3–3 split meant that no consensus could be reached, but it also meant that the door to surrender was not closed—it was ajar. Apparently 200,000 vaporized lives were not worth the wait.

It is historically inaccurate to assert that Japan was wholly unwilling to surrender prior to the bombings. The United States had intercepted Japanese communications (via the MAGIC intercepts) and knew of Japan’s interest in ending the war.

To suggest that Japan was wholly unwilling to surrender and that the atomic bombings were the only way to end the war is a simplification bordering on propaganda. The reality is far more nuanced, and the moral, strategic, and political dimensions of the decision deserve sober, critical examination—not jingoistic justification.

You have posted many times that Trump would be more deserving than the Obama award.

I never said that. I said, Obama got a NPP for 2 reasons, being the first black President and for NOT being GWB.

If Trump can end the war in Gaza and restore it and its people. If he can end the war in Ukraine and restore it and its people. If he does not invade Greenland and Panama, then he will deserve the Peace Award.

Again, don’t know don’t care, he will do it the way and how he thinks this should go, not up to me or you to make demands or requests on how he deals with these geopolitical issues.

Joe Biden?

If you look at videos of former presidents the contrast is apparent.

--despite losing one Nobel nomination this week he gained another so he’s back where he started and still in the running. 

I don’t think he cares nearly as much as liberals like to think.

“If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds.”

“Well, they should give me the Nobel Prize for Rwanda. And if you look to Congo, or you could say Serbia, Kosovo, you can say a lot of them. You could say, I mean, the big one is India and Pakistan. I should’ve gotten it four or five times.”

“I would think the Abraham Accords would be a good one, too. They won’t give me a Nobel Peace Prize because they only give it to liberals.”

“It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.”

--The Whiner in Chief

Tōgō and Yonai were actively in favor of seeking peace, while others, particularly Anami and Umezu, were more resistant. This 3–3 split meant that no consensus could be reached, but it also meant that the door to surrender was not closed—it was ajar. Apparently 200,000 vaporized lives were not worth the wait.

Wrong. It means it was closed because a unanimous vote was required to issue a surrender. These remaining 3 members of the big 6 had no desire to surrender until Hirohito stepped in. Hirohito who both mentioned to Togo he wanted to surrender after Hiroshima was bombed and who stated in his surrender address that the bombs were the reason for his surrender

It is historically inaccurate to assert that Japan was wholly unwilling to surrender prior to the bombings. The United States had intercepted Japanese communications (via the MAGIC intercepts) and knew of Japan’s interest in ending the war.

They were unwilling to surrender. They were willing to come to terms. Terms of which I earlier stated and were in no way acceptable by the allied powers. Japan never responded to the Potsdam declaration. If they were willing to negotiate a surrender, why did they never try to negotiate or even respond to Potsdam?

To suggest that Japan was wholly unwilling to surrender and that the atomic bombings were the only way to end the war is a simplification bordering on propaganda. The reality is far more nuanced, and the moral, strategic, and political dimensions of the decision deserve sober, critical examination—not jingoistic justification.

Japan was wholly unwilling to surrender before the atomic bombings as I’ve shown through my arguments and just the mere fact that they didn’t surrender before the bombings. If you want to argue that other means could have ended the war then fine but you must concede that more people would have died as a result than died from the bombs.

I’m not some big Trump supporter, but I still say we dodged a bullet when Harris lost.

I will be in Kyoto next week. As an American, I apologize for the ignorance of Mr. Trump. Actually, I can not apologize enough for what he has said today. No comparison. Period.

"The intelligence says, 'We don't know, it could have been very severe.' That's what the intelligence says. So I guess that's correct, but I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration."

Incoherent babbling.

While Trump was rambling at his press conference in the photo, the press was giggling. They aren't used to hearing and seeing this behavior.

Japan never responded to the Potsdam declaration. If they were willing to negotiate a surrender, why did they never try to negotiate or even respond to Potsdam?

The declaration, issued on July 26, 1945, by the U.S., Britain, and China demanded unconditional surrender and made no mention of the Emperor’s fate—a critical issue for Japan.

Japan had already been seeking Soviet mediation to negotiate peace terms that would preserve the imperial institution.

The declaration was presented as a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, not a basis for negotiation. In diplomatic terms, it was not a genuine invitation to dialogue.

quercetum

I am English, hafu, mixed race, I choose to take Japanese citizenship.

I have all my late J Grandma memoirs, bequeathed to me.

Grandma a staunch conservative, a child when the horrors Hiroshima, Nagasaki occurred, her indoctrination is without question.

Grandam even as a child would have given her life to her Emperor, never/no question of surrender.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki brought the realities of complete annihilation into focus even with the fire bombing of Tokyo.  

Surrender was inevitable.

President Trump analogy is ill advised, thought through.

Rather than comparting them to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, Trump should have compared them to Imperial Japan’s surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor.

If he does not invade Greenland and Panama, then he will deserve the Peace Award.

You forgot Canada.

@Woody Lee... that would involve Nuking Israel.

"The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had assessed that the strikes had set back Iran's nuclear program by just a few months, despite Trump and administration officials saying it had been obliterated."

Funny! U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency without names. The deep state is plain shameless they are not ashamed of carrying water for the Murrahs.

The declaration, issued on July 26, 1945, by the U.S., Britain, and China demanded unconditional surrender and made no mention of the Emperor’s fate—a critical issue for Japan.

They never even responded to the declaration, let alone offered to negotiate terms. If you are on the brink of surrender like you claim, why didn’t they offer terms? Why didn’t they respond? It’s because they weren’t willing to surrender. I’ll remind you again: preparation for Ketsugo had already been underway (stationing 900,000 Japanese troops in Kyushu in preparation for an invasion).

I’ll also remind you the Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced. The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived". Does that sound like an empire “ready to surrender”?

Japan had already been seeking Soviet mediation to negotiate peace terms that would preserve the imperial institution.

No, they hadn’t. Stop lying. Togo was the only person who was open to sending any kind of feeler. The rest of the ruling council had no part in it or desire to surrender

The declaration was presented as a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, not a basis for negotiation. In diplomatic terms, it was not a genuine invitation to dialogue.

What a ridiculous statement. If they were willing to negotiate surrender terms they would have responded in some way or approached the Allies in a formal way to discuss surrender terms. Japan never once approached the Allies to offer a surrender and when terms were presented to them they didn’t respond.

Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending the war.

Rubbish.

Japan was wholly unwilling to surrender before the atomic bombings as I’ve shown through my arguments 

I believe you are confusing "take it or leave it" as diplomatic largesse and an invitation to negotiate.

Japan’s proposed terms—retaining the Emperor, no occupation trials for military leaders, and self-disarmament—were not accepted at the time. However, after the bombings, the U.S. did allow Japan to retain the Emperor, which suggests that negotiation was possible and that the U.S. ultimately conceded on the most important Japanese demand.

One might observe, with no small degree of astonishment, that your interpretation of Japan’s response to the Potsdam Declaration betrays a rather striking inability to consider the matter from the Japanese perspective.

The declaration, after all, was deliberately vague on the fate of the Emperor—an omission not merely diplomatic, but existential for Japan’s ruling structure and cultural identity.

To interpret Japan’s cautious silence as outright unwillingness to surrender is to mistake strategic hesitation for obstinacy, and to conflate a lack of immediate compliance with a lack of intent.

Imagine telling an American farmer, “You can keep your land, but we won’t say whether you get to keep your truck, your dog, or your shotgun.” And when he pauses to think it over, you holler, “Guess you don’t want peace then!” That’s baiting someone into a corner and calling it generosity.

It's akin to a loan rep telling an American suburban couple, buried in mortgage debt, with foreclosure looming over their heads:

"You can keep your house... maybe. But we’re not going to tell you if you’ll still have a roof, a driveway, or the right to refinance your loan."

They pause—naturally—because the terms are vague and the stakes are enormous. And then you shout: "Guess you don’t want financial stability!"

This mirrors how the Potsdam Declaration told Japan to surrender unconditionally but didn’t clarify whether the Emperor—the cornerstone of Japan’s national identity—would be preserved. Japan hesitated not because it rejected peace or as you seem to be saying "weren't gonna surrender," but because it didn’t know what peace would actually look like.

The Japanese perhaps weren’t rejecting peace—they were trying to understand what peace actually meant. When the terms are unclear and the consequences existential, hesitation isn’t defiance—it’s survival instinct.

@Capuchin... this started decades ago. Pay attention.

That was a stupid thing to say.

My guess is that he doesn't want to attack Iran any further. So he's pretending that those attacks were so huge and effective that there is no need to continue, rather than showing that he has been intimidated by Putin and Xi.

I believe you are confusing "take it or leave it" as diplomatic largesse and an invitation to negotiate.

Then Japan could have offered their own terms, which they never did.

Japan’s proposed terms—retaining the Emperor, no occupation trials for military leaders, and self-disarmament—were not accepted at the time. However, after the bombings, the U.S. did allow Japan to retain the Emperor, which suggests that negotiation was possible and that the U.S. ultimately conceded on the most important Japanese demand.

You realize this argument completely debunks your earlier argument that the Allies were unwilling to negotiate, right? The fact that Japan was able to negotiate the terms of surrender to include keeping the Emperor just shows that the Allies would have in fact negotiated, because they did negotiate.

The declaration, after all, was deliberately vague on the fate of the Emperor—an omission not merely diplomatic, but existential for Japan’s ruling structure and cultural identity.

If it’s vague why don’t you offer terms and come to the table to negotiate? Your argument makes no sense. If you want to retain the emperor you formally meet to negotiate surrender terms.

To interpret Japan’s cautious silence as outright unwillingness to surrender is to mistake strategic hesitation for obstinacy, and to conflate a lack of immediate compliance with a lack of intent.

What are you talking about? Do you think the Americans had mind readers in their ranks or something? When you don’t respond to surrender terms and you don’t offer your own that is clear evidence of an unwillingness to surrender. Combine that with the stationing of troops in Kyushu and the glorious death of 100 million campaign it can’t get more obvious

This mirrors how the Potsdam Declaration told Japan to surrender unconditionally but didn’t clarify whether the Emperor—the cornerstone of Japan’s national identity—would be preserved. Japan hesitated not because it rejected peace or as you seem to be saying "weren't gonna surrender," but because it didn’t know what peace would actually look like.

Again, a completely ridiculous statement that is treating the Japanese government like it’s a baby. If Japan wanted clarification on the fate of the emperor they could have formally reached out. They didn’t. You’re arguing like the Allies could read their minds.

The Japanese perhaps weren’t rejecting peace—they were trying to understand what peace actually meant. When the terms are unclear and the consequences existential, hesitation isn’t defiance—it’s survival instinct.

The terms were very clear. If the Japanese didn’t like the terms they should have offered to negotiate. They didn’t.

bass4funk

Again, don’t know don’t care, he will do it the way and how he thinks this should go, not up to me or you to make demands or requests on how he deals with these geopolitical issues.

Relax. It's too hot for stress.

You realize this argument completely debunks your earlier argument that the Allies were unwilling to negotiate, right? The fact that Japan was able to negotiate the terms of surrender to include keeping the Emperor just shows that the Allies would have in fact negotiated, because they did negotiate.

The arguments was diplomacy over detonation. That both sides were open to negotiation made what ensued unnecessary. Ambiguity and the time to digest the fine lines is taken as no response. Bomb. Done.

US can use ground penetration radars ,to see an indent in the mountains,from a satellite,it obviously they are insecure if the results

The arguments was diplomacy over detonation. That both sides were open to negotiation made what ensued unnecessary. Ambiguity and the time to digest the fine lines is taken as no response. Bomb. Done.

Japan wasn’t open to negotiation because they never attempted to reach out to the allies to negotiate and never responded to the Allies surrender declaration. They were also actively preparing for an invasion which signals they were still willing to keep fighting

“If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds.”

“Well, they should give me the Nobel Prize for Rwanda. And if you look to Congo, or you could say Serbia, Kosovo, you can say a lot of them. You could say, I mean, the big one is India and Pakistan. I should’ve gotten it four or five times.”

“I would think the Abraham Accords would be a good one, too. They won’t give me a Nobel Peace Prize because they only give it to liberals.”

“It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.”

He’s got a very strong point and argument, but he hasn’t mentioned anything about the guy as of recent. So…

I worry so much about the future of the Democrat party

He’s got a very strong point and argument

Your point was that Trump doesn't care about getting a Nobel Peace Prize. He clearly does.

And he won't get one because he doesn't deserve one.

I’ll also remind you the Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced. The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived". Does that sound like an empire “ready to surrender”?

Empires are not monoliths are they?  While leadership promoted total resistance, we now know there were differing views within Japan’s military. Hindsight.

No wonder Trump's IQ is so low.

Totally clueless.

Spends all his time watching Fox News t figure out what to do everyday.

“If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds.”

More Obama obsession...maybe he's confusing Obama and Biden again...

“Well, they should give me the Nobel Prize for Rwanda. And if you look to Congo, or you could say Serbia, Kosovo, you can say a lot of them. You could say, I mean, the big one is India and Pakistan. I should’ve gotten it four or five times.”

He called the former countries $%^&holes, and India says he had nothing to do with any settlement...

“I would think the Abraham Accords would be a good one, too. They won’t give me a Nobel Peace Prize because they only give it to liberals.”

More weak whining...

“It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.”

He’s got a very strong point and argument, 

ROFL...he sounds like a two-year old having a tantrum - which is what he is...

Empires are not monoliths are they? While leadership promoted total resistance, we now know there were differing views within Japan’s military. Hindsight.

In Japan it was. The U.S.’s assessment of casualties and resistance was based on data gained from Okinawa in which citizens died at extremely high rates after being conscripted into the IJA. The Japanese military also promoted 100% obedience to the higher up, who as I’ve mentioned numerous times were resistant to surrender. There was even an attempted military coup after surrender was declared

Repetition is the sincerest form of emphasis.

Im restating my core argument because you’ve failed to substantively argue against it

I cannot speak for Hiroshima or Nagasaki and how they feel about Trump evoking them, but Hiroshima does have a Peace Park. The US attacking Iran with bombers was an act of aggression, not an act of peace.

Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending the war.

It’s such a braindead take only spouted by historical brainlets who know nothing of history and just want to hate America. Hirohito, the man who forced the surrender, literally stated it was a result of the bombs in his surrender speech

JboneInTheZone

It’s such a braindead take only spouted by historical brainlets

Well, sadly there are lots of people who have very very strong opinions about complex situations, based solely on legacy media news. Imagine what a world you'd live in if your information intake comes from CNN and experts on "the View"...

Trump now claims that pilots called him to say they were disappointed to hear reports it wasn’t obliterated. Oh my. He says he wants to defend the honor of the brave pilots.

Ironically, an amendment to a bill to rehire veterans fired by Trump was blocked by every Republican in the House today. Heroes or trash, Republicans can’t decide.