Happy Holidays!

[Vrede too]

Maybe, but lumping all name changes together is false equivalency.

Is SoupySales defending slavers and traitors again? Then, is he not bothered by all the veterans of wars other than WW1 losing their day of recognition?

The US declaring May 8 to be WW2 "Victory" Day is just false.

Once again the lifelong cowardly "bone spurs" Chickenhawk in Chief shows his disdain for the military. It's not even surprising anymore, though MAGA adoration for him is.

[neoplacebo]

The sign at the Nagasaki Peace Park says that it was August 6th, or maybe the 9th...I don't remember 1945 when they got stomped by an atomic bomb. The actual war did not end until a couple of weeks later. I always wondered whether the Japanese would have kept going if they knew that those two bombs were the only ones we had.

[Vrede too]

The sign at the Nagasaki Peace Park says that it was August 6th, or maybe the 9th...I don't remember 1945 when they got stomped by an atomic bomb. The actual war did not end until a couple of weeks later. I always wondered whether the Japanese would have kept going if they knew that those two bombs were the only ones we had.

Hiroshima on August 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th. 80 years.

People make a strong case that Japan was on the verge of surrendering regardless of the atomic bombs and Truman knew it. We were firebombing their cities to ashes, anyhow. It's said that the decision to use the nukes was more about trying to scare the USSR into staying in line. That went well.

[neoplacebo]

The sign at the Nagasaki Peace Park says that it was August 6th, or maybe the 9th...I don't remember 1945 when they got stomped by an atomic bomb. The actual war did not end until a couple of weeks later. I always wondered whether the Japanese would have kept going if they knew that those two bombs were the only ones we had.

Hiroshima on August 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th. 80 years.

People make a strong case that Japan was on the verge of surrendering regardless of the atomic bombs and Truman knew it. We were firebombing their cities to ashes, anyhow. It's said that the decision to use the nukes was more about trying to scare the USSR into staying in line. That went well.

I remembered that one was August 6th, which was the first one. I've net read anything asserting the Japanese were on the vergw of surrender; I've read stuff over why Truman dropped the second bomb. The conventional reasoning was that doing dso would bring the war to a sooner end. I'm not sure I can go with that verge of surrender thing.....toward the end they were even more fanatical. I mean, they sure didn't start out with the kamikaze stuff. It was a desperate act. In that time, the Japanese sense of "honor" just didn't recognize surrender as an option.

[Vrede too]

Hiroshima on August 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th. 80 years.

People make a strong case that Japan was on the verge of surrendering regardless of the atomic bombs and Truman knew it. We were firebombing their cities to ashes, anyhow. It's said that the decision to use the nukes was more about trying to scare the USSR into staying in line. That went well.

I remembered that one was August 6th, which was the first one. I've net read anything asserting the Japanese were on the vergw of surrender; I've read stuff over why Truman dropped the second bomb. The conventional reasoning was that doing dso would bring the war to a sooner end. I'm not sure I can go with that verge of surrender thing.....toward the end they were even more fanatical. I mean, they sure didn't start out with the kamikaze stuff. It was a desperate act. In that time, the Japanese sense of "honor" just didn't recognize surrender as an option.

Many Americans question the use of nukes:

70 years after Hiroshima, opinions have shifted on use of atomic bomb

The morality of use is debated:

Was It Right?
Most of the debate over the atomic bombing of Japan focuses on the unanswerable question of whether it was necessary. But that skirts the question of its morality.

... American cryptanalysts had been reading high-level Japanese diplomatic ciphers and knew that the government in Tokyo was eagerly pressing the Russians for help in obtaining a negotiated peace. The sticking point was narrow: the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender; the Japanese peace faction wanted assurances that the imperial dynasty would remain. Truman knew this at the time.

We had options other than invasion.

... No nation could long resist destruction on such a scale—a conclusion formally reached by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey in its Summary Report (Pacific War): “Japan would have surrendered [by late 1945] even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war [on August 8], and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” ...

Was the Atomic Bomb Justified? A Controversial Debate
The Ethical Dilemma of the Atomic Bomb

There's lots more out there if one googles something like "Was the atomic bombing of japan justifiable?" It's an 80 year old debate and I'm not going to try and settle it here. I'm just saying that there's a credible alternative view out there and people will seize on different elements of the historical record to justify their side.

Personally, I oppose the deliberate or indifferent mass targeting of civilians, whether by firebomb, drone or nuke, and whether it's Japan, Dresden, Gaza or at the Gaza border on Oct 7, Ukraine, WTC, Haiphong, etc.

[O Really]

I don't know whether it's better to drag out the destruction and killing and hope for a win through attrition, or just give it your biggest and best shot and try to get it over with. I may have mentioned, in WWII my pop was cannon fodder Marine Lieutenant in the South Pacific, where the average lifespan of a Lieutenant hitting the beach was about 5 minutes. He found the Japanese much more willing to die than to surrender, even if they were outmanned, out-weaponed, and down to their last ammunition rounds.

[GoCubsGo]

I don't know whether it's better to drag out the destruction and killing and hope for a win through attrition, or just give it your biggest and best shot and try to get it over with. I may have mentioned, in WWII my pop was cannon fodder Marine Lieutenant in the South Pacific, where the average lifespan of a Lieutenant hitting the beach was about 5 minutes. He found the Japanese much more willing to die than to surrender, even if they were outmanned, out-weaponed, and down to their last ammunition rounds.

There's really no right answer, just opinions. It's been debated for the last 80 years.

[neoplacebo]

Hiroshima on August 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th. 80 years.

People make a strong case that Japan was on the verge of surrendering regardless of the atomic bombs and Truman knew it. We were firebombing their cities to ashes, anyhow. It's said that the decision to use the nukes was more about trying to scare the USSR into staying in line. That went well.

I remembered that one was August 6th, which was the first one. I've net read anything asserting the Japanese were on the vergw of surrender; I've read stuff over why Truman dropped the second bomb. The conventional reasoning was that doing dso would bring the war to a sooner end. I'm not sure I can go with that verge of surrender thing.....toward the end they were even more fanatical. I mean, they sure didn't start out with the kamikaze stuff. It was a desperate act. In that time, the Japanese sense of "honor" just didn't recognize surrender as an option.

Many Americans question the use of nukes:

70 years after Hiroshima, opinions have shifted on use of atomic bomb

The morality of use is debated:

Was It Right?
Most of the debate over the atomic bombing of Japan focuses on the unanswerable question of whether it was necessary. But that skirts the question of its morality.

... American cryptanalysts had been reading high-level Japanese diplomatic ciphers and knew that the government in Tokyo was eagerly pressing the Russians for help in obtaining a negotiated peace. The sticking point was narrow: the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender; the Japanese peace faction wanted assurances that the imperial dynasty would remain. Truman knew this at the time.

We had options other than invasion.

... No nation could long resist destruction on such a scale—a conclusion formally reached by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey in its Summary Report (Pacific War): “Japan would have surrendered [by late 1945] even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war [on August 8], and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” ...

Was the Atomic Bomb Justified? A Controversial Debate
The Ethical Dilemma of the Atomic Bomb

There's lots more out there if one googles something like "Was the atomic bombing of japan justifiable?" It's an 80 year old debate and I'm not going to try and settle it here. I'm just saying that there's a credible alternative view out there and people will seize on different elements of the historical record to justify their side.

Personally, I oppose the deliberate or indifferent mass targeting of civilians, whether by firebomb, drone or nuke, and whether it's Japan, Dresden, Gaza or at the Gaza border on Oct 7, Ukraine, WTC, Haiphong, etc.

Yeah, the issue has been analyzed by many in various ways. At the time, and even prior to the initial test, even the physicists were not sure what would happen. Some believed it would set off an uncontrollable chain reaction in the atmosphere. Once that didn't happen, they went ahead. I'm not advocating for or defending use of nuclear weapons, then or now. I even felt a sense of shame and guilt while at Nagasaki Peace Park, even more so since as far as I could tell, I was the only American around.

[Vrede too]

Back to the OP, Thursday is the stupidly named "Victory Day for World War II". Do y'all think it'll be marked by anyone as such other than by a "Truth" Social post by King Tang?

Another stupidity I noticed: World War II wasn't victorious over anything. The Allies were. Same with "Victory Day for World War I" on November 11th.

Donald Trump Says He's Renaming Veteran's Day, And People Are Like "Lol What"

...



November 11 is Veteran's Day, btw....

What about the other veterans?

Other people are saying they had to double-check if it was real (It is.)

Next he's gonna say that Captain America character is based on him...

No word on what this will cost. DOGE?

No word yet on when Bone Spurs Survivors Day will be.