After reading this NYT article on the Nagasaki bombing, U.S. was truly pathetic

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
306,215
Reputation
-34,287
Daps
616,552
Reppin
The Deep State
They collapses because they spent their entire budget on weapons... Did you research this stuff or is this something you heard? No disrespect, I am just curious because that is actually totally untrue... The Russians never planned to attack America.. Not once. Look at CIA reports in the 60s when the Russians were at their strongest... The CIA said that the Russians had no interest in conflict with the U.S.
They collapsed because their ideology was bullshyt and their policies were bullshyt

We can admit this without you trying to deflect blame for their internal incongruences

I swear when it comes to the USA, ya'll cape for anyone but the USA as long as it makes you all pretend to be enlightened about not falling for "propaganda" and being "enlightened" and "open minded" and "worldly"

no...you're just guilty that in a world of zero-sum morality and ultimate power, that the USA keeps winning and everyone else has to use emotional arguments to try and convince everyone else that the USA is cheating when in fact no one else has been able to beat us at conflicts THEY started.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
306,215
Reputation
-34,287
Daps
616,552
Reppin
The Deep State
Read the fukking quotes. It wasn't just me who doesn't think the bomb saved American lives, it was General Eisenhour, General MacArthur, and pretty much everyone who mattered through the whole structure except the politicians who did it. And even then, former president Hoover AND former president Roosevelt never would have done that shyt.






Wait a second....you're talking about being scared of "Russia invading the USA" scenarios, and you're calling me too thick-headed for politics?

:russ:

When has Russia EVER threatened to invade the USA? When has Russia EVER had the capacity to bring their troops across the fukking ocean and invade a nation whose territory they could never, ever, ever have the slightest chance of controlling? When had Russia EVER tried to bully anyone other than the countries in their vicinity?

:francis:

Think about why Russia signed that deal with Germany and Japan in the first place. They never wanted control of the whole world, and they knew they could never get it. They wanted total power over everything within their own sphere of influence. And by bombing Germany and Japan into the ground, we fed right into their hands and gave them MORE power than they had ever had, not less.

Keep on talking like us killing 200,000 people in Japan is the reason why the Soviet Union collapsed 46 years later.

:mjlol:
They didn't want to control the whole world?

Word to North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Argentina, most of post colonial africa, China, and Eastern Europe, huh? :sas1:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
306,215
Reputation
-34,287
Daps
616,552
Reppin
The Deep State
"Look guys, I shyt on the USA...look how great my education was. I'm so immune to the lies now. Everyone else is telling the truth and doesn't have an agenda. The USA is just a big bad bully and everyone else has the true way to prosperity!" :troll:

:mjlol:

The shaming in here is absurd.

Lets not forget Japan had a nuke program.

lets not forget we beat the Ruskie's to their nuke program.

Lets not forget Germany was invested in a nuke program

That shyt HAD to be used sooner or later.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
306,215
Reputation
-34,287
Daps
616,552
Reppin
The Deep State
The amount of hoops ya'll jump through to pretend to be enlightened and well-read on here is astounding :dead:

"Lemme quote everyone who approved the first nuke as being against the nuke...that'll show them!" :pachaha: :mjlol:

These dummies :snoop:

Dude claims to be aware of how politics works but can't fathom any of these policy leaders fearing not being on record as rejecting nukes since they don't wanna incur that PR backlash :heh:...all these guys knew full well what they were doing :whoo:

Look at how people treat the Iraq War now :wow:....dudes straight acting like they weren't in charge of the shyt :why:
 

CHL

Superstar
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
13,456
Reputation
1,480
Daps
19,580
LOOK, GUYS! fAm! I have 61,000 pOSts AnD NeGAtiVE 3910 REP!:troll::wow::pachaha::whoo: :why:

THEsE DuMmIES :snoop::wow: :pachaha::whoo: :why:

dO YOu LIke MY FOnT? :wow: :pachaha::whoo: :why:

#HEGEMONY:wow: :pachaha::whoo: :why:

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:
 
Last edited:

Misanthrope

None of the above '16
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
1,223
Reputation
250
Daps
3,123
1. The bomb was NOT necessary for Japan to surrender. Japan had been trying to surrender for months.
2. An invasion was NOT necessary. An invasion was never, ever necessary. In fact, we could have invaded fewer islands, had fewer casualties, and ended the war months earlier if we hadn't fukked shyt up with the stupid fukking Potsdam declaration, which everyone who knew anything about Japan stated was a huge fukking mistake.
3. The bomb was NOT the reason Japan surrendered. Japan surrendered because Russia was about to invade and because in the end, America let them keep the emperor, the condition they'd been asking for all along.
4. This shyt is NOT revisionist. Please read the following:

1. 3.
2. Japan was attempting in June/July to surrender under some terms, but they ignored neutral countries like Switzerland and the Vatican to try to negotiate with the Soviets [smh]. They ignored the Potsdam declaration to try to simp to the Soviets. The Soviets were purposely shytting on the effort in order to start their own invasion of Japan. They declared war on August 8, 1945, and could have been in Hokkaido by the end of the month.

2. We weren't the only dudes at Potsdam, and America wasn't fighting a uni-lateral war against Japan. All the Allied powers had beef with Japan and territorial ambitions. While I agree that America had no idea of the meaning of the Emperor to the Japanese people, and how they would not surrender without the Emperor being kept as leader, Churchill, and Chiang Kai-Shek were at that conference as well. People who knew better pushed through that declaration. Maybe if they hadn't been shytting on China so hard for the last 15 years, they could have gotten a better deal.

Unless you're saying ALL these people were American...

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R67561%2C_Potsdamer_Konferenz%2C_Konferenztisch.jpg


4. A lot of the people in your post were high-level military types advocating for either a blockade [mass starvation] or more conventional fire-bombing [also a mass-killer]. As for the political people, most of those quotes are revisionist. They saw the destruction and revised their opinion. MacArthur was on point though.

Do I admit that Potsdam was fukked up? Yes. But we weren't the ONLY nation that sent it out fukked it up.

Do I think that the war could have been ended without dropping the nukes? Sure. But I doubt they would have surrendered before they lost Okinawa which was in late June 1945, because Okinawa was the battle that let us base our planes and ships close enough to Japan to finally stop their shipping or direct bomb the country.

Do you think that after Okinawa, even without Potsdam, that an unbombed Japan would have surrendered to America before the Russians stepped foot onto the Home Islands? Remember, the Russians were lying out their ass, in order to break the treaty they had with Japan, get into their land, and spread communism hopefully into Japan itself.

This is my opinion, but a partitioned Japan would have killed more Japanese people than the nukes. [See Examples: North Korea, Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, Vietnam, East Germany].
 
Last edited:

Ghanaian Armor

Colonel
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
1,147
Reputation
-290
Daps
2,030
Reppin
Queens, NY
I'll preface with this: I have been studying Japanese and Asian history since I was 14. I love Japan and have a Japanese Wife. Regardless...

Where did you get the crazy idea that Japan was "trying" to surrender?

Let me tell you something, Japanese government was posturing at best. As some other guys mentioned above there are a million and one geopolitical factors that went into deciding on the atomic bomb as the approach and no one answer is 100% correct. But for the purposes of my response I will focus on merely the point of this: The U.S. was exhausted on the Euro front and knew Public Opinion would soon reach a breaking point. The Japanese government did not appear sincere in their desire to cease expansion. Thus the decision was made. It's no one's fault but the Japanese and I'll explain why below.

The short version: Hiroshima and Nagasaki is karma for the atrocities Japanese soldiers committed in China upon the civilians there. They did a number of science experiments upon POWs which included innocent civilians. The deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison to the number of Chinese raped and killed. Just like many of the Nazis never stood up and said this was wrong, ultimately personal responsibility has to be taken when things get this out of hand. All parties must be held responsible this includes the Japanese. They didn't just want to conquer China they wanted to annihilate them and considered them to be sub-human. The Japanese at that time thought they were similar to the Germans and genetically superior to all Asians. The types of atrocities committed on your fellow Man was unforgivable. Putting a bullet in the head of an enemy soldier is a completely different thing than torturing unarmed civilians who are not resisting subjugation.

Here's the long version:

The fact remains is after Iwo Jima our military intelligence determined we did not have the spare troops to fully invade Japan. And with current public opinion and funds already stretched to the max in Europe they were more or less correct on this point. And you have to realize as a President you must take risks and gambles, many times on WHAT YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW FULLY. All we knew was that actions speak louder than words and the Japanese actions in the pacific showed they had no regard for human lives other than their own and in order to drive the message home we would have to make devastating decisions.

We knew the Japanese government was capable of sending 15 year old boys as Kamikaze pilots. Now how far do we extend our assumptions? It was extended long enough to gauge that a mainland invasion would be impossible because both Russia and the U.S. were too invested on the European front. And this was mostly true. Wars depend on the public. Once public perception and feedback goes to the shytter you are operating on borrowed time as a military commander you must show results and show them quickly.

People have very little patience for long Wars in the post-industrial era. Now this is proof the U.S. does not learn from it's mistakes because in reality the ferocity of Iwo Jima rivaled that of trench warfare but paled in comparison to the Korean War where you had babies being used to hide grenades in their diapers. The Vietnamese used this same tactic. America had no idea what it was getting into when it came to fighting non-Caucasian nations. Therefore they felt drastic measures needed to be taken to save lives on both sides. So do I feel they were morally wrong by dropping the bomb - Yes, but what act of War is morally correct? How many more Japanese would have died had a mainland invasion be determined to be necessary? Probably a hell of a lot more. Also guess what - Winter time was fast approaching and that was almost certainly a factor as well - It always is in combat. The reality is our forces were exhausted in Europe and the American people would not approve extending the War to finish off Japan. Yet if Japan were not neutralized all of Asia would fall to them.

Why it's the Common Man's fault as well:

Don't tell me Japan was "Trying" to surrender. You either surrender or you don't. They were trying to NEGOTIATE more territory from the Russians and salvage national pride they weren't trying to surrender. This is not about legacies of groups of people anymore this is about GOVERNMENTS. And as a citizen of any Government you are responsible for determining if it is properly representing you. I am not sure what made the Japanese so incredibly dense when it related to their government during that time period. There were wars waged in the past over opening their economy. So how do they go from being isolationist to imperialist? One extreme to another. Ultimately this is not the first time this discussion was had publicly and as we know none of their actions during WWII were defensive in nature. I'm not sure why the soldiers subscribed to this foolishness that was handed down from the military generals. Everyone knows the Emperor has little to no idea what is happening in the "Real World" this has been the case since the Shogun days, hence the necessity for the existence of a military commander. So the reality is the military commander everyone knows is the true leader and the Emperor has ALWAYS been a religious figurehead. He has never had any power. So why in God's name would you not question at this point in time the General's intentions when IN THE PAST Shoguns have been overthrown in mutiny SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE SPECIFICALLY BEING ACCUSED OF TREACHERY AND TREASON TO THE EMPEROR AND THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES?

What we should be asking is the question of why the people blindly subscribed to the Generals in that time when this was NEVER THE CASE in the past...Shoguns were always questioned and CHALLENGED hence the need for ninjas back then, because there was ALWAYS a subversive group. WHY was there little to no subversive groups in Japan during this time? The U.S. obviously had the same question otherwise the bomb would not have even been considered. Large 1st world powerful nations prefer not to get their hands dirty. Proxy wars are the way these nations wield their power by empowering groups that align with their interests and sentiments. The answers vary but none is conclusive or decisive in telling why there was such a dumb blind allegiance to the people in control at that time during Japan's imperialism era.
 
Last edited:

Ghanaian Armor

Colonel
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
1,147
Reputation
-290
Daps
2,030
Reppin
Queens, NY
As a side note I think it's hilarious that RAF would get flak for Dresden when the UK was practically COMPLETELY DESTROYED by the end of the war. Everything in the UK has been built from the ground up again 50% of their buildings were fukking rubble.

WAR is WAR atrocities will happen that is why it is in our best interest to AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS...Because it should be assumed to be a ZERO SUM game where nobody will come out the Winner. Let's stop pointing fingers at governments and political parties and reflect on how we as individuals are responsible for what our governments do.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,826
Reppin
the ether
This ass clown

Did you even read what you quoted or where it came from?

These are all POST-HOC DISCUSSIONS

Lie.

General Dwight Eisenhower's conversation was from July 1945.
General MacArthur's statement about being appalled was from July 1945.
Former President Herbert Hoover's statement to President Truman was from June 1945.
Ellis Zacharias's open opposition was from as early as May 1945.
Paul Nitze's statement was from summer 1945.
Another one I didn't quote - in July 1945, General Robert Eichelberger wrote "a great many people feel Japan is about to fold up".
Another one I didn't quote - 65 Manhattan Project scientists signed a petition asking Truman NOT to drop the bomb on Japan BEFORE the bomb was dropped.

All those men thought that Japan was already ready to surrender BEFORE we ever dropped the bomb, and the ones who knew it was coming were deeply bothered.

Of course the other men, who weren't even briefed on the bomb, couldn't have made statements specifically referring the bomb beforehand. But those statements were made almost immediately after the war, mostly within the first year afterwards.



Dude claims to be aware of how politics works but can't fathom any of these policy leaders fearing not being on record as rejecting nukes since they don't wanna incur that PR backlash :heh:...all these guys knew full well what they were doing

Lie.

There was not going to be any fukking "PR backlash". At that time the USA was drunk with victory and the American public heavily approved the use of the nuclear bomb. The Gallup poll taken immediately after the atomic bomb showed that 85% of Americans supported it. The public believed that "the bomb was necessary to end the war and save our troops, because that's the bullshyt lie they were fed by the politicians and their subservient media. Truman, the guy who actually had to fight for re-election, STRONGLY supported the use of the bomb, and he won in a landslide.

YOU are the one who is showing revisionist history. All these men who opposed the bomb didn't say these things for political reasons. They were stating the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the public wanted to hear. 85% of America approved of the bomb. Saying you didn't want to drop it, then as now, could get you branded anti-American, a traitor, or caring about the enemy devils more than your own troops.



THEY

WERE

NOT

DEFEATED

Lie.

Japan had no air support, no naval power, most of the armies still left no longer had any artillery, and they had no way to resupply. The country's population stuck on an island, with a naval blockade easy as hell if you think they're somehow going to build more weapons to send to their marooned troops. Even where there were still soldiers, they were just sitting there abandoned and powerlessness, absolutely no way to project their power.

Of course, I already quoted people who knew far, far more than you saying exactly that. Even if they didn't want to support dropping the bomb, what did all these major American military leaders have to gain by supposedly lying when they said that Japan was already defeated?



Japan was not this cuddly little rabbit like you're making them out to be.

The deal was unconditional surrender....and they chose not to abide by that. Even still, they didn't admit defeat after the first one.

Point to where I made Japan out to be a cuddly little rabbit?

Oh, you weren't referring to my statements, you're referring to the statements of our actual military and intelligence structure at the time of the war.

The deal being "unconditional surrender" was a stupid-ass idea, part of the problem. And in the end, we let them keep their emperor anyway, so what was the fukking point of not telling them that sooner?

And what's this bullshyt, "they didn't admit defeat after the first one"? We gave them two fukking days. In a war-torn country back in 1945, it took a little more than 2 days to figure out that a previously unknown weapon had just destroyed an entire city and then discuss the repercussions. Hell, they didn't surrender until SIX days after the 2nd bomb. If you think the 2nd bomb was the reason they surrendered, then why let them take 6 days to talk it over after the 2nd one when you only gave them 2 days after the first?

As many have already said, they didn't surrender because of the bombs, they surrendered because Russia was ready to invade and because we said they could keep their emperor. If bombing could make them surrender, they would have surrendered after the fukking fire-bombing of Tokyo, which was just as bad. The bombs weren't dropped to force surrender, they had other objectives.



They didn't want to control the whole world?

Word to North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Argentina, most of post colonial africa, China, and Eastern Europe, huh? :sas1:

Lie.

When the fukk did the Soviet Union control Cuba, Argentina, most of post colonial africa, or China?

You're probably one of those morons who thinks that all Communists are the same, and doesn't even realize that China and Russia didn't even like each other.

As for North Korea and Eastern Europe, that's the exact "sphere of influence" I was talking about. They wanted to control the nations on their border, not invade the superpower on the other fukking side of the world.



Lets not forget Japan had a nuke program.

lets not forget we beat the Ruskie's to their nuke program.

Lets not forget Germany was invested in a nuke program

Japan and Russia had completely useless nuke programs. Japan was years, possibly decades, from even thinking of getting a nuke. Russia only got a nuke because they were being fed the details from OUR program, and it still took them another four years.

The only country who had a remote shot of getting a nuke was Germany, and they still didn't have nearly the resources to devote to their program that we did, and were far behind us in the program. Once Germany was out of the picture, no one was worried about anyone else getting a nuke in the slightest.



But all of these "minds" you quote were gung-ho for it when it came time to drop the bomb, so all of this goalpost moving just shows how much of a fraud you want to be when it comes to representing the mentality of people who had to make that decision
The amount of hoops ya'll jump through to pretend to be enlightened and well-read on here is astounding :dead:

"Lemme quote everyone who approved the first nuke as being against the nuke...that'll show them!"

Lie.

You dumb fukker - which one of those guys who I quoted "approved the first nuke"? Name them.

You're making a complete and total lie. I quoted their actual quotes. You disputing them?

Oh, I get it. You think you know what General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, and the rest of them thought better than what the men themselves say they thought.

Do you even know who made the decision to drop the bomb? The decision was initially made by Truman and the Interim Committee. You know who was actually on that committee?

Secretary of State Stimson
George L. Harrison, President of the New York Life Insurance Company
James F. Byrnes, President Truman's personal representative, no official position
Ralph A. Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy, who is on record as DISSENTING from the committee's final position
William L. Clayton, Assistant Secretary of State
4 Los Alamos scientists: Drs. Arthur H. Compton, Enrico Fermi, E. O. Lawrence and J. Robert Oppenheimer


That's it. Four scientists, two other guys with no position in the military or government, and two guys from the State Department made the decision to kill 200,000 civilians of an already-defeated country. NOT the far more knowledgeable government, military, and intelligence leaders that I quoted.

Oh, and what did those scientists say about their decision?

"We didn't know beans about the military situation," Oppenheimer later said. "We didn't know whether they [the Japanese] could be caused to surrender by other means or whether the invasion [of Japan] was really inevitable. . . . We thought the two overriding considerations were the saving of lives in the war and the effect of our actions on the stability of the postwar world."

So basically, the entire military consideration for dropping the bomb was made by a lackey of President Truman, the Secretary of State, and a guy from a life insurance company. That's it. And they made that decision back in June, NOT in August when Japan was that much more clearly defeated.
 

Nomad1

Tupac KONY and GOAT
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
13,666
Reputation
4,006
Daps
39,357
Reppin
Toronto
Yup.

I'm gonna insert something new into this conversation. If you consider yourself a logical person, I suggest you consider it deeply before replying. And I'm speaking to all the following people:















It's not all ya'all fault that you're all full of shyt. You weren't around then, and you clearly haven't read the statements of the knowledgeable people that were. But let's get a few things straight.

1. The bomb was NOT necessary for Japan to surrender. Japan had been trying to surrender for months.
2. An invasion was NOT necessary. An invasion was never, ever necessary. In fact, we could have invaded fewer islands, had fewer casualties, and ended the war months earlier if we hadn't fukked shyt up with the stupid fukking Potsdam declaration, which everyone who knew anything about Japan stated was a huge fukking mistake.
3. The bomb was NOT the reason Japan surrendered. Japan surrendered because Russia was about to invade and because in the end, America let them keep the emperor, the condition they'd been asking for all along.
4. This shyt is NOT revisionist. Please read the following:


"It is my opinion that 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... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - Norman Cousins, consultant to General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Southwest Pacific Area

"Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." - Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, in charge of psychological warfare on General MacArthur's staff

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into war...The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life...
We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." - Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz, Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight Eisenhower reflecting on the event 18 years later

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent."

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe

"[When he heard] 'the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary." - Biographer William Manchester describing the reaction of General Douglas MacArthur to the Potsdam declaration

"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over." - former president Herbert Hoover two months before the bomb was dropped

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs....The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." - Herbert Hoover reflecting after the bomb was dropped

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision...If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer." - Joseph Grew, former Ambassador to Japan and Under Secretary of State when the bomb was dropped

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." - John McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War when the bomb was dropped

"I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb." - Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy when the bomb was dropped

"It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world..." - Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy when the bomb was dropped

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment...It was a mistake to ever drop it...[the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it...It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. - Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet

"I didn't like the atom bomb or any part of it." - Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, Commander in Chief of U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations (King believed that a naval blockade would force Japan into surrender without any invasion or bombs ever being necessary.)

"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air....
it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." - Commanding General of U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold

"Arnold's view was that it [the dropping of the atomic bomb] was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it." - Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, deputy to Hap Arnold

"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." - Major General Curtis E. LeMay, Commander of the Twenty-First Bomber Command

"if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." - General Carl Spaatz, in charge of U.S. Army Air Force Operations in the Pacific when the bomb was dropped

"Both men...felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used." - former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman, describing the opinions of General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, Commander of the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force, and General Frederick L. Anderson, Deputy Commanding General at USASTAF

Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped. - General Claire Chennault, Army Air Forces Commander in China

"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."
"The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." - Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence when the bomb was dropped

"[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia." - Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, Chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section

"we brought them [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." - Brigadier General Carter Clarke, military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables for Truman

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945." - Paul Nitze, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Group

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - Paul Nitze, reporting the Survey's conclusions. Nitze would later become U.S. Secretary of the Navy

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan.... The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.... The hoary claim that the bomb prevented 500,000 American combat deaths is unsupportable." - J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, publishing in the academic journal Diplomatic History

“First, intelligence and other advice to President Truman, in significant part based on intercepted and secretly decoded Japanese cable traffic, indicated that from at least May 1945 on, Japan wished to end the war and seemed likely to do so if assurances were given that the emperor would not be eliminated. Second, similar advice to the president suggested that the shock of Soviet entry into the war (expected in early August) would likely tip the balance, almost certainly if combined with assurances conce rning the emperor. Third, Truman was advised by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, Admiral Leahy, the acting Secretary of State Joseph E. Grew, and others to let Japan know that the emperor would not be eliminated; contrary to the claims of some historians, Truman made clear that he had no serious objection to offering such assurances.” - historians Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird, writing in the Christian Science Monitor

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." - Albert Einstein as quoted in the New York Times, 1946



:ohhh::dwillhuh::whoo:

Read that shyt. Military commanders across the table knew that Japan was READY TO SURRENDER and that the bombs WERE NOT NECESSARY. It was a political fukking decision made to test out the power of the bombs and intimidate Russia, and to ensure that we took control of Japan's surrender and not Russia.

The viewpoints of the American soldiers contradict what actually happened in the battlefield and the intercepted communications of Japanese government officials and Military leaders;

-Japan was not surrendering.. The emperor and military had an ideology instilled in the population; "Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide... To the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner."
-They had a value system called "Bushido" (stems from the Samarai era, which advocated people to die to the very end as a warrior, and this was adopted by militarists and the population); "They were indoctrinated from an early age to revere the Emperor as a living deity, and to see war as an act that could purify the self, the nation, and ultimately the whole world."
-The Americans received diplomatic messages that revealed, for the most part, that Japan was going to fight to the end; "Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end." There was some people that did not want Japan to fight in the war and attempted to speak to European figures, but there is no proof that they were apart of or were spokespersons for the Japanese government. "Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials....however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government."
- After the Americans intercepted communications from people within the Japanese government, this was concluded; The Japanese inner cabinet which consisted of 6 men (Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army, General Yoshijiro Umezu), all in secrecy devised a plan to have Russia to be the mediator of an end of war plan (not a surrender, as the big 6 put it, but peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists which Japan thought was themselves), in which Japan can still have its Imperial institutions and order. Despite this, there was no concrete plan to end the war and the official position of the country was to "fight to the end". My proof? Some remnants within the Japanese government wanted to create an initiative to have Japan "surrender" in the war despite the June 1945 conference with Japanese military leaders and the emperor making an initiative to "fight to the end" in the war, but the Military did not support this. A recording between Japanese ambassador to Japan named Naotake Sato and Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo shows that Japan was literally not going to surrender; Togo added: "Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender. Togo's reply, quoted in the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, 1945, was adamant: American policymakers could read for themselves Togo's rejection of Sato's proposal--with not even a hint that a guarantee of the Imperial House would be a step in the right direction"
-We know have communications between Japanese military leaders which shows that they were not going to surrender and in fact, they were (correctly) anticipating an invasion of Japan's mainland, specifically in the island of Kyushu. The Japanese army devised a plan called "Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive)" Japan's armed forces were determined to fight to the end in their homeland against an Allied invasion. Japan began to prepare for an invasion of Kyushu; "From mid-July onwards, Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades". Japan thought that they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, "they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement.". Clearly this shows that Japan was NOT going to surrender and that President Truman was at odds; Should he continue with Operation Olympic and invade Japan's homeland (which would cost the lives of millions) or drop a Nuclear bomb.

TLDR;
In summation what you showed were viewpoints of American Military men, and what I showed was actual communications between Japanese government and military officials, for the former, they were divisive and couldn't agree to an end of war plan, for the latter, they showed no signs of ending the war and they were preparing a mainland invasion of Kyushu and wanted to fight to the bitter end. This isn't revisionist history, Japan was the Nazi's of Asia and America justly bombed the fukk outta these people;
"War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,826
Reppin
the ether
We weren't the only dudes at Potsdam, and America wasn't fighting a uni-lateral war against Japan.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Potsdam was a bad idea, and many of our own people knew that. The fact that people from other nations co-signed a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea.

The actual Potsdam declaration was only cosigned by three nations. US, Britain, and China. Britain knew even less about the Japanese than we did, and China wanted the war to keep going until Japan was completely and utterly destroyed and would have loved for the Japanese emperor to be gone for good. So they're not exactly the ones we can dump that decision off on, are they?

And fukk yeah Japan did horrid fukking shyt in World War 2. If anyone ever tries to start a thread claiming otherwise, I will shyt on them hard. But in my entire life, I have NEVER heard someone trying to defend Japanese actions in WW2 as moral.

We're talking about Americans here, and it was only Americans who made the decision to drop the atomic bomb. Someone else's ethical failings can NEVER be the excuse for your own ethical failings.



4. A lot of the people in your post were high-level military types advocating for either a blockade [mass starvation] or more conventional fire-bombing [also a mass-killer]. As for the political people, most of those quotes are revisionist. They saw the destruction and revised their opinion. MacArthur was on point though.

Read the results of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. That panel had NO reason to be revisionist or to find anything other than the military truth. And they found that without any more bombing at all, and without Russian invasion, Japan still would have surrendered before November 1, which wouldn't have been long enough to result in "mass starvation".

And those political quotes can't all be revisionist - Truman and Bard at least are on official record from June 1945 as opposing the drop as it was done.

Yes, some of the military types argued for a blockade. They wanted to put it in Japanese hands rather than causing the killing themselves.



Do you think that after Okinawa, even without Potsdam, that an unbombed Japan would have surrendered to America before the Russians stepped foot onto the Home Islands?

You know when the initially planned starting date for the Russian invasion was? August 15th.

The choice wasn't "drops the bombs or partition Japan". Japan didn't want partition either - they would have surrendered to us in a heartbeat to avoid Russian invasion even if we had never dropped the bombs, as long as we just assured that we'd let them keep the emperor, which we did.
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,826
Reppin
the ether
Now this is proof the U.S. does not learn from it's mistakes because in reality the ferocity of Iwo Jima rivaled that of trench warfare but paled in comparison to the Korean War where you had babies being used to hide grenades in their diapers. The Vietnamese used this same tactic. America had no idea what it was getting into when it came to fighting non-Caucasian nations.

Let's put this bullshyt up front and center. Apparently, Caucasian nations like the USSR, Germany, Britain, and the US themselves are the standards of wartime morality, while those "non-Caucasian nations" are brutal demons.

Dude, seriously, fukk you. Even if the rest of your post hadn't been total bullshyt as well, this alone is enough to show where your sentiments lie, you racist fukk.

Learn some fukking history about White atrocities before you come in here :cape: for White people and how they're morally superior to non-White armies in warfare.



Let me tell you something, Japanese government was posturing at best.
The Japanese government did not appear sincere in their desire to cease expansion.
Don't tell me Japan was "Trying" to surrender. You either surrender or you don't.

"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."
"The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." - Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence when the bomb was dropped

"[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia." - Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, Chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section

"we brought them [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." - Brigadier General Carter Clarke, military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables for Truman

"Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." - Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, in charge of psychological warfare on General MacArthur's staff

The intelligence officers who knew exactly what the Japanese were saying, not just through their official statements but through the intercepted cables that we had completely hacked, said that it was clear that the Japanese WERE seeking to surrender. They just wanted assurances that they could keep the emperor. Of course, there was some division on the decision within the government, as there is in every government. But if we had just given them the fukking assurance that we ended up giving them in the end anyway, we could have assured that the decision-makers we wanted to come out on top did so.



The viewpoints of the American soldiers contradict what actually happened in the battlefield and the intercepted communications of Japanese government officials and Military leaders;
In summation what you showed were viewpoints of American Military men, and what I showed was actual communications between Japanese government and military officials, for the former, they were divisive and couldn't agree to an end of war plan, for the latter, they showed no signs of ending the war and they were preparing a mainland invasion of Kyushu and wanted to fight to the bitter end.

False. As I just showed above, the very intelligence officials who were reading and intercepting those cables agreed with the military men that Japan was ready to surrender. Of course there were some saber-rattling statements - that happens in EVERY war to the moment of surrender (remember the stupid shyt that Iraqi PR guy was saying?), and no one in the Japanese hierarchy wanted to look "weak" before the actual surrender was made. But it was abundantly clear that the Japanese wanted to end the war as soon as they could - and not only the intelligence community reading their cables, but the US Strategic Bombing Survey undertaken immediately afterwards, agreed on this.

And you didn't show us, "what actually happened in the battlefield and the intercepted communications of Japanese government officials and Military leaders." You showed us the cut-and-pasted opinions about those things from a pro-bomb apologist. And, not surprisingly, chose not to state the source of your quotes or provide a link. It's a bunch of bullshyt.


"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - Paul Nitze, reporting the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Group's conclusions. Nitze would later become U.S. Secretary of the Navy

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan.... The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.... The hoary claim that the bomb prevented 500,000 American combat deaths is unsupportable." - J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission


Here's a gigantic hole in your entire argument, @Nomad1. All that shyt you quote about the Japanese fighting to the bitter end? If that was really so ingrained, the atomic bomb wouldn't change any of it. As many have pointed out, the firebombing of Tokyo was already just as bad as any of the atomic bombings were. All this bullshyt attempt to make the Japanese appear like war-loving beastish devils devoid of reason doesn't fly logically, because they'd STILL be war-loving beatish devils devoid of reason after the bomb, too. The bomb wasn't the reason they surrendered, and they were still the same nearly-defeated nation before those two bombings as they were afterwards.



The fact remains is after Iwo Jima our military intelligence determined we did not have the spare troops to fully invade Japan.

There was never any need to invade Japan, as has already been pointed out. Also, you're full of shyt saying that we didn't have spare troops to do it. But it was completely unnecessary.



We knew the Japanese government was capable of sending 15 year old boys as Kamikaze pilots.

Except they had no planes left.



It was extended long enough to gauge that a mainland invasion would be impossible because both Russia and the U.S. were too invested on the European front.

What kind of bullshyt are you talking about? Did you see what the Russian troops did to the Japanese army in Manchuria? It would have been simple for the Russia/US to invade Japan. But completely unnecessary.



People have very little patience for long Wars in the post-industrial era.

You keep saying this, "little patience, long wars" shyt when the Strategic Bombing Survey conducted in the immediate aftermath of the bombing concluded that the war would have been over before November 1 even if there was no more bombings, no US invasion, and no Russian invasion. what the hell was public opinion going to do between September and November that would have jeopardized the war effort?



WAR is WAR atrocities will happen that is why it is in our best interest to AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS...Because it should be assumed to be a ZERO SUM game where nobody will come out the Winner. Let's stop pointing fingers at governments and political parties and reflect on how we as individuals are responsible for what our governments do.

I completely agree with all this.

Exposing how horrific a decision dropping the atomic bomb was is PART of how I take responsibility for what my government does, expose how horrible a decision a war is, and work to try to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future.

If I sat around justifying it and demonizing my enemy, that would be a good way to pacify the public into accepting it again.
 
Last edited:

Nomad1

Tupac KONY and GOAT
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
13,666
Reputation
4,006
Daps
39,357
Reppin
Toronto
False. As I just showed above, the very intelligence officials who were reading and intercepting those cables agreed with the military men that Japan was ready to surrender. Of course there were some saber-rattling statements - that happens in EVERY war to the moment of surrender (remember the stupid shyt that Iraqi PR guy was saying?), and no one in the Japanese hierarchy wanted to look "weak" before the actual surrender was made. But it was abundantly clear that the Japanese wanted to end the war as soon as they could - and not only the intelligence community reading their cables, but the US Strategic Bombing Survey undertaken immediately afterwards, agreed on this.

Here's a gigantic hole in your entire argument, @Nomad1. All that shyt you quote about the Japanese fighting to the bitter end? If that was really so ingrained, the atomic bomb wouldn't change any of it. As many have pointed out, the firebombing of Tokyo was already just as bad as any of the atomic bombings were. All this bullshyt attempt to make the Japanese appear like war-loving beastish devils devoid of reason doesn't fly logically, because they'd STILL be war-loving beatish devils devoid of reason after the bomb, too. The bomb wasn't the reason they surrendered, and they were still the same nearly-defeated nation before those two bombings as they were afterwards.
-This isn't true. (1) Japan was building up an army at Kyushu b/c they were preparing for an Allied invasion. This is true and supports the argument that Japan was not ready to surrender. (2) Japan's official stance was to "fight to the end". However, there was (as I noted before) remnants of Japanese government officials that wanted to of an end-to-war initiative, but they were heavily divided and some didn't take the initiative seriously because there was no concrete plan. (3) My entire argument has no hole; the Japanese men, women, children, and people of military uniform were willing to fight to the end, but the Japanese Emperor decided (after the Second bomb was dropped) that the Japanese were going to surrender on America's terms. Despite this, there were pockets of Japanese military men that didn't accept Japan's defeat up until the 1970's.
 

Ghanaian Armor

Colonel
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
1,147
Reputation
-290
Daps
2,030
Reppin
Queens, NY
@The Dankster - Regarding your comment on Caucasian vs. Non-Caucasians in War. It is undeniable that Asians are heavily barbaric along with Arabs. Can you defend putting grenades and chemical explosive weapons in children's underwear? Nobody is saying CACs are holy, untouchable, righteous and just. But these two races take things to extreme levels and they are certainly things that Africans do not do on the regular basis in African civil wars and conflicts.

Now as far as the survey - Yes I've heard they have claimed Japan would have surrendered before Winter but I don't really buy it. The Emperor barely knew what the fukk was going on until the last minute. Now the problem with your comment on they wanted to sue for peace etc etc. First off fighting to keep the Emperor in was stupid as fukk. It is the ignorance of the Emperor which is the exact reason why the U.S. government demanded greater clarification and restrictions on his role because the absence of knowledge SHOULD NOT vindicate you from the abuses of control of your subordinates. Hence why Nixon had to resign in disgrace after Watergate.

I respect your opinion as there is evidence to the contrary supporting your viewpoint that there was never any need to invade Japan. Granted, we could have simply blockaded their food supply from Asia and waited until the people revolted from famine. Now this is where my public opinion sentiment comes in - Had we taken that option and drew things out longer, public opinion would have had time to shift. I am not even going to bring in our dynamic with the Russians as that adds another element of complexity not needed for the purposes of this discussion. However, the Russians COULD HAVE tried to invade from the North but then guess what would have happened - There would certainly be more Kamikaze situations arising along the Manchuria and Korean border. Did you think that they would have not used Korean POWs as body shields in a last ditch effort? This behavior was not beyond them best believe.

Here's the biggest fact of them all however that contributed to the bombings as well: JAPAN MADE NO PEACE OFFERINGS DID NOT OFFER TO GIVE UP ANY TERRITORIES AS EVEN A GESTURE OF A CEASE FIRE TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS.

The fact remains is that the former U.S. territory Philippines was invaded and therefore if they had merely shown the willingness to concede that territory along with exiting China completely that would have been suffice to begin talks. As a Nation, you can't just ask for peace and not show with actions that you're serious about it.
 
Last edited:
Top