is anyone capable of reasonable and rational thoughts?

By U.S. Navy investigation board - U.S. Navy military archieves, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1359036

here's an excerpt of a comment made on a facebook post:

(remember i spent much of my time in school during my youth reading about WW2 and doodling P-51 mustangs in class while i should have been working out long division problems--i became much better at drawing a P-51 than calculating the square root of a rat's ass)

what i mean to say is some will take a grain of truth and blow that little grain completely out of proportion for ideological purposes. i'm thinking a lot about japan's attempts to surrender before the a-bombs were used and the overall situation at the time.

now, using the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki was barbaric...i won't argue about that with anyone--but in the context of the situation, president truman and the U.S. government and the allies were looking at a physical invasion of japan which would have very likely resulted in a horrible, prolonged bloodbath for both sides.

beside the incomprehensible casualty factor, few people remember how the russians went into manchuria against the LARGE japanese force still there on august 9, 1945 (which, once the invasion and battle of japan were underway could be diverted from the asian continent to the home islands with some difficulty--likely suffering heavy losses resulting from allied bombing of troop ships). once again, in the context of the times, the united states government did NOT want the soviets to become too much involved in the political reconfiguration of asia.

we all ought to know what happened in east and southeast asia, anyway. let's discuss that at a later time.

so. the japanese were talking surrender. the islands were already in shambles. that's why the bombs ought not to have been used.

millions of ill-informed people accept this simplistic logic.

ONCE AGAIN, LET'S THINK WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIMES WITH SOME DEGREE OF OB-JECT-IVITY

never mind that if an invasion had taken place, unspeakable numbers of japanese civilians and military personnel would have perished during the final battle for the home islands. what's more, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind curtis lemay and chester nimitz would have continued unrelenting air and naval bombardment of the islands, resulting in further heavy casualties.

the revisionists also conveniently sidestep the fact xx bomber command had been area bombing japanese cities with incendiary ordnance starting in 1944, a brutal practice which would have likely continued for the duration of the conflict.

curtis lemay. remember him and what he was about? if you don't, do some reading.

now, when a well informed, rational head of state whose nation has endured four brutal years of unrestricted warfare and its accompanying casualties is presented with facts like those i've laid out (and probably many more which were and still may be classified) what is the choice?

unpolluted by partisan ideological blinders. (although the soviets were a serious consideration for several obvious reasons)

WHAT...IS...THE...CHOICE?

right.

you are going to put an end to this pacific war shit any way you can.

TAIG. (that's All I Got)