You guys can't even address the arguments made by the long Peace theory.Stir what pot?
Look at that projection though.
Where's @Rhakim, at least he's well read enough to actually address it.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Do you agree with Truman's decision?
- Thread starter acri1
- Start date
Where's @Rhakim, at least he's well read enough to actually address it.
The US didn’t have much of a choice, after the Pacific campaign, they didn’t want to invade the home Islands, probably woulda been Vietnam x100.
They then spread the narrative that it was the Japanese that didn’t have the heart for the fight after the bomb. Somethings never change.
They then spread the narrative that it was the Japanese that didn’t have the heart for the fight after the bomb. Somethings never change.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
I think you are drunk posting againThat man said he doesn't even fight for local issues because we can't make change.
These dudes are just disgruntled anticapitalist.
12 was a sice, but it’s really like 30 years without some military involvement. It
U.S. Military Actions and Wars, 1775 - 1994 | American Experience | PBS
It’s like five years since WW2.
Oldschooler
All Star
If you invented it first it was only a matter of time before you ended up dropping it on people. The atomic bomb wasn't just for Japan. It was for all other countries to see. It spiraled the US to be the world's number 1 economy and leading nation. It was a matter of time before the Russians got it and then the rest of the allies. The atomic bomb represents peace by fear.
So to answer the question it depends which side you're on.... I view the post war Japanese people as nothing but a peaceful people. However the Japanese as a disciplined and cultured society made a terrible mistake by allowing their leaders to essentially join the wrong side of the battle. That was a grave mistake that costed them a lot in the end.
US had to drop the bomb and they made the right decision. Maybe they could have dropped it on a small town or country side instead to allow the Japanese a bit more time to surrender.
So to answer the question it depends which side you're on.... I view the post war Japanese people as nothing but a peaceful people. However the Japanese as a disciplined and cultured society made a terrible mistake by allowing their leaders to essentially join the wrong side of the battle. That was a grave mistake that costed them a lot in the end.
US had to drop the bomb and they made the right decision. Maybe they could have dropped it on a small town or country side instead to allow the Japanese a bit more time to surrender.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and the US intervened by providing weapons, training, logistics, and advisors to Afghan freedom fighters. That started in 1979 and ended around 1992.
Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) - Wikipedia
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Are you in good faith attempting argue:
- We have seen less major conflicts between world powers?
- When we do see conflicts there is less death per 100k?
- That since WWII society has experienced modernization at a rate much higher than any time before?
I'd also argue that your view of what is peace is largely more stringent due to the more peaceful world you've lived in as a result of WWII's conclusion. The very fact that you're only speaking on local, regional, and civil war kind of affirms the thesis. Perspective matters.
The major powers argument is flawed and myopic due to being Eurocentric.
What you’re saying is that since there were no world wars since World War Two, that the bombs expedited that in some accepted scholarly ways, and that in and of itself made dropping them the right thing.
The reason that doesn’t make any sense is because of the obviously western narrative. After the Napoleonic wars there was no longer any conflict between the great powers that remained safe for the brief Franco Prussian war towards the end of the century. Using that logic the defeat of Napoleon was good for the world and world history as it lead to the alliance between France and England. The reason why that argument is nonsense is because the world powers hastened their exploitation of the world and colonialism intensified. So to then say it was a peaceful time then and look at the lack of casualities due to major conflict is a totally white supremacist way of understanding history.
Reality
Make your own luck.
Morally, it's a horrendous choice.
On the other hand, realize that you're facing:
*A Soviet invasion & resulting loss of life (not that this was a priority)
*Soviet occupation of Japan & domination of the region
*Probable line-stepping-driven direct conflagration across Asia and Europe between the US and the Soviets (ended up trading for indirect)
I'm not sure how many bombs the US had completed or near completion at the time, but two alternative deterrent shows of force would have been test bombing, or bombing a military target.
Dropping that shyt on a civilian population was kind of a policy statement in addition to a show of force though.
On the other hand, realize that you're facing:
*A Soviet invasion & resulting loss of life (not that this was a priority)
*Soviet occupation of Japan & domination of the region
*Probable line-stepping-driven direct conflagration across Asia and Europe between the US and the Soviets (ended up trading for indirect)
I'm not sure how many bombs the US had completed or near completion at the time, but two alternative deterrent shows of force would have been test bombing, or bombing a military target.
Dropping that shyt on a civilian population was kind of a policy statement in addition to a show of force though.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Really the question is: what made the Japanese fold? Atomic bombs or imminent Russian invasion?
Absolutely right, the Napoleonic Wars and other similar European conflicts were the developmental stages of what would become the World Wars. They didn’t stop Imperialism and it’s toxic effects on the planet. It just kicked the can down the road and created room for more imperial rivalry.
You’d have to say a combo of both. Just like it wasn’t one particular thing that brought down the Third Reich but rather a combination of things. The atom bomb might’ve prevented Japan from being partitioned between America and the Soviets cuz I think only Stalin might’ve been capable/willing to join in on an invasion of the Japanese home islands with the way he was beatin they ass in Manchuria.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Fair. But my question can be looked at in two ways:
- What's the split? 50/50? 60/40 - Bomb? 60/40 - Invasion? Or.....
- If only the bombs were dropped, would Japan have surrendered as quickly? If only the invasion was imminent would Japan have surrendered as quickly? Or in either case at all?
I can see that being the case. America by that point already destroyed their naval fleet and their Air Force was pretty much wiped out from kamikaze bullshyt and failed operations.
I think the Soviets invading might’ve tipped the scales to make things beyond tenable for Imperial Japan. However, had it been just the atom bomb itself I doubt it would’ve compelled the Japanese to continue for longer. The atom bomb became the radical solution to the ineffective strategic bombing campaign. Moreover, Japan didn’t really have any allies left to lean on to offset America’s growing advantage in the war.
If I were to give it a ratio it’s prolly 60/40 in favor of the Soviet invasion. As savage as the atom bomb was, there were still hardcore extremists within the cabinet that wanted to continue with the war until the Emperor broke the stalemate. Stalin entering the war might’ve made things more sketchy for Japan since they would’ve had to contend with the Soviets whom were already in the region and had no qualms with taking territory. Whereas America, while being a player in the Pacific, didn’t have land literally right on Japan’s doorstep especially since the Philippines we’re headed for independence.
It’s a close call, but to your point Stalin might’ve been the monkey wrench that made Japan scream uncle. But they wouldn’t of been able to sustain multiple atomic strikes. Not to mention, they hadn’t yet targeted bigger cities like Tokyo.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
If they had dropped a bomb like that right next to Tokyo, I think the bomb ending the war theory would hold more weight.
Facts, it’s virtually impossible that Japan keeps the war going if they strike Tokyo which would’ve most likely been next if not Yokohama or Kyoto at least. Especially if they were successful in dropping the bomb close to the intended target. Emperor most likely is killed as is his cabinet.
I think the question tho is if the Emperor is killed like that would that shock the population into surrender or would it conjure up a feeling of revenge that makes peace near impossible. I think the practical difficulties that comes with nuclear strikes would’ve overcame what fight they might’ve had left.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Pre-WW2 Japanese were different. But if the Emperor died by nuke, after seeing the devastation and then watching people writhe in pain for days and watching their skin melt within 24 hours. That would have made them end it quick. Definitely, IMO, wouldn't have taken longer than a week.