Poll Says That A Majority Of Millenials Believe Dropping A-Bombs Was Wrong

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But it remains that it was the bomb's mere existence that determined the date for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, and it was the second A-bomb used against Nagasaki that drove Hirohito to ignore the advice of his advisors and agree to the allied demand for unconditional surrender against the recommendations of his advisors: which precipitated an incipient but failed coup by those who wished to continue to fight.

then 2nd bombing did not prompt Hirohito to agree to the surrender. it was the russian invasion of the 4 japanese islands that factored in his decision to surrender to U.S.

they also used the U.S. nuke bombing as a way to save face and to give credit to U.S. instead of the Russians.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Agreed, but he probably would have first let the U.S. and other allies bleed for a while like he let the Poles bleed when they rose up against the Nazis towards the end of the war.

Poles & japanese are 2 very different people in a very different circumstances..

i doubt he would do this in the case of the japanese, considering he'd want the entire country and not share it with his temporary allies.

may i remind you that the U.S. invasion was set for november 1945. I doubt he'd wait that long for the U.S. to be ready.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

then 2nd bombing did not prompt Hirohito to agree to the surrender. it was the russian invasion of the 4 japanese islands that factored in his decision to surrender to U.S.

they also used the U.S. nuke bombing as a way to save face and to give credit to U.S. instead of the Russians.

The fundamental facts remain unchanged: it was the bomb's existence that prompted Stalin to initiate the Soviet attack on 9 August 1945, and it was the second bomb that was the catalyst for Hirohito's decision to end the war by accepting the terms dictated in the Potsdam Declaration -- unconditional surrender -- without the consent or approval of all of his military advisors. While it's true that the loss of Manchuria was a great shock, despite that, many advisors still advocated a final, decisive battle for the homeland. Extant records show that Hirohito did not take deliberate action to end the war by overriding the indecision of Japan's Supreme Council until after he received news of the bombing of Nagasaki. Furthermore, Hirohito's remarks to his cabinet members directly addressed the destructive power of the bomb and Japan's inability to nobly defend itself -- in a final and decisive battle for the homeland -- against such a rain of death and destruction; hence, the A-bomb did substantively bring about an end to the war.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Poles & japanese are 2 very different people in a very different circumstances..

i doubt he would do this in the case of the japanese, considering he'd want the entire country and not share it with his temporary allies.

may i remind you that the U.S. invasion was set for november 1945. I doubt he'd wait that long for the U.S. to be ready.

You misunderstand. The Soviets and Poles were supposedly fighting a common enemy: the Nazis. However, Stalin, rather than aid the Poles in their struggle against a common enemy, purposefully halted the westward advance of his Soviet armies so that the Nazis and Poles could slaughter each other so that the Poles who remained would be those too cowardly to resist, and, of course, there would be fewer Nazis to fight. There's no reason to believe that Stalin wouldn't have used the same ploy and permit the slaughter of Japanese and Americans, Brits Aussies, etc., to the same end. Stalin, in fact, did use that tactic during the Korean War. He was quite willing to allow (agitate for) the Chinese, N. Koreans and NATO forces to expend treasure and blood to advance Soviet political goals.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[snip]

Extant records show that Hirohito did not take deliberate action to end the war by overriding the indecision of Japan's Supreme Council until after he received news of the bombing of Nagasaki. Furthermore, Hirohito's remarks to his cabinet members directly addressed the destructive power of the bomb and Japan's inability to nobly defend itself -- in a final and decisive battle for the homeland -- against such a rain of death and destruction; hence, the A-bomb did substantively bring about an end to the war.

Hirohitos's remarks was a cover for the real reason to save face as I mentioned in the previous post.

The extant records you mention only scratch the surface of what went on. there was alot more going behind the scenes and there is the timing issue after the bombing took place. they acted as if the whole thing wasn't that much of a priority.

and yes, I'm aware of the attempted coup involved in that decision.

This article was written 3 years ago.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/...an-stalin-did/

Stalin, in fact, did use that tactic during the Korean War. He was quite willing to allow (agitate for) the Chinese, N. Koreans and NATO forces to expend treasure and blood to advance Soviet political goals.

Korean war was not a NATO operation. it was outside their purview.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

nonetheless, Stalin being who he is, a stubborn asshole, would have attempted the invasion had japan not surrendered to U.S.

and he was late to the game. a non-factor. his hatred of Hitler delayed him. did you know that Germany and Japan had a plan to link up and control all of Eurasia? two things stopped that .. Hitler's stupid plan to "crush Russia" and thus cause the three Longest sieges in military history .. where they could have easily bypassed Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. thus easily defeating the USSR.

what invasion of japan would have happened if Germany had not botched Operation Barbarossa?

Japan never had any chance to move out of China into the USSR proper. for one reason only .. the US Navy and USMC

Ollie Stone that libtard faggot claims the USSR won WWII .. because they lost the most troops. ahahahahaha. all of those troops carried AMERICAN weapons. and all of them fought to the death because of two reasons. first, Stalin would have executed any retreating troops. and Hitler, total maniac that he was, initiated a "scored earth" policy in invading Russia. most Russians hated Stalin due to his purges and gulags.

they had little choice but to fight to the bitter end against Germany given Stalin's policies.

Ollie Stone is a libtard faggot. he doesn't understand anything about WWII. fuck him.

who cares if he was in the Nam. he's still a libtard fagoot. fuck him

[Yssup Rider]

Poor WWE. He was born with a silver DICK in his mouth.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and he was late to the game. a non-factor. his hatred of Hitler delayed him. did you know that Germany and Japan had a plan to link up and control all of Eurasia? two things stopped that .. Hitler's stupid plan to "crush Russia" and thus cause the three Longest sieges in military history .. where they could have easily bypassed Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. thus easily defeating the USSR.

yes I know about the link up between germany & japan.

Operation barbarossa was a brilliant plan that ended up being failure because he had sidetracked the german army to go into the Caucus region in southern russia where they had oil there.

you're prolly right germany might've bypassed Moscow, Leningrad & Stalingrad if they had a sane leader in charge but that is a what if scenario.

[snip]

Ollie Stone that libtard faggot claims the USSR won WWII ..

now now, be fair to Ollie Stone. He does have a point about Russia, however, only techniically.

Besides the British Empire, Russia was at war with germany in summer 1941. U.S. didn't engage the germans until late 1942. the eastern front was a major theater during that period.

this thread isn't about Germany.

stick to the topic.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Poor WWE. He was born with a silver DICK in his mouth.

who's WWE?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Hirohitos's remarks was a cover for the real reason to save face as I mentioned in the previous post.

The extant records you mention only scratch the surface of what went on. there was alot more going behind the scenes and there is the timing issue after the bombing took place. they acted as if the whole thing wasn't that much of a priority.

and yes, I'm aware of the attempted coup involved in that decision.

This article was written 3 years ago.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/...an-stalin-did/

Apologists and revisionists who maintain that the "bomb didn't defeat Japan" willfully ignore how it was the bomb that dictated the Soviet timetable for its invasion of Manchuria. Apologists and revisionists who maintain that the "bomb didn't defeat Japan" willfully ignore how it was the bomb that prompted Hirohito's historically unprecedented act of ignoring the counsel of his advisors and offer to surrender unconditionally to the allies. One cannot claim that it was the Soviet invasion alone that brought about the end of the war in the Pacific in light of the fact that it was the bomb that drove the timetable for Soviet involvement. One cannot claim that the bomb was merely a "face saving excuse" when it was the one factor Hirohito deliberately addressed as being wholly beyond the human and materiel resources of Japan to defend against. To term his concern as a mere "excuse" is to deny his genuine concern for the welfare of his people and ignore that it was the bomb that drove him to extricate Japan from that unholy war by whatever means he could.

And these three studies unapologetically subscribe to and advance the theory that the bomb did indeed bring about the end of the Pacific War.

• Allen, Thomas B. and Norman Polmar. Code Name Downfall: The Secret Plan to Invade Japan—and Why Truman Dropped the Bomb. New York: Simon and Shuster. 1995. Pp. 352.
  
• Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Random House, 1999. pp. xx, 484.
  
• Glantz, David M., LTC. The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945: ‘August Storm’. London: Crown House, 2003. pp. xxvii, 451.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Korean war was not a NATO operation. it was outside their purview.

Meant U.N. forces.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Poor WWE. He was born with a silver DICK in his mouth.

YOU were born with a shit-crusted dick in YOURS, assup piggy mamboolah !

[JD Barleycorn]

Actually Stalin had agreed at Yalta to attack Japan within 90 days of the surrender of Germany. He knew about the bomb but like us he didn't know if it would work but the attack on Japan was just in time for the USSR to claim some of the loot. In Manchuria, the Chinese returned after the Soviet occupation to find all the machines missing and only foundation bolts in the floor.

[I B Hankering]

Until April 12, 1945, Stalin knew substantially more about the Manhattan Project than did Vice President Truman, and Truman told Stalin at Potsdam that the U.S. had a new and powerful, never seen before weapon. Meanwhile, Stalin had already initiated his own atomic project; so, he did have an understanding of the nature of the new and terrible weapon.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

may i remind you that the U.S. invasion was set for november 1945. I doubt he'd wait that long for the U.S. to be ready.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually Stalin had agreed at Yalta to attack Japan within 90 days of the surrender of Germany. He knew about the bomb but like us he didn't know if it would work but the attack on Japan was just in time for the USSR to claim some of the loot.

This is it! Truman wanted "this weapon to be used against Japan between now and August 10th." He hoped to force the prompt capitulation of Imperial Japan by dropping the Bombs before the impending Soviet military offensive takes place, thus denying Stalin the pretense to the spoils. It turns out that Truman failed miserably to dissuade the Soviets because Stalin decided to go in anyway.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Agreed, but he probably would have first let the U.S. and other allies bleed for a while like he let the Poles bleed when they rose up against the Nazis towards the end of the war.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Poles & japanese are 2 very different people in a very different circumstances..

And Germans too. Wondering why Stalin launched his June offensive without waiting for the Allies and Germans bled each white in Normandy....

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Operation barbarossa was a brilliant plan that ended up being failure because he had sidetracked the german army to go into the Caucus region in southern russia where they had oil there.

you're prolly right germany might've bypassed Moscow, Leningrad & Stalingrad if they had a sane leader in charge but that is a what if scenario.

The argument is that Hitler should have kept thrusting his armors straight to Moscow instead of diverting them to Ukraine in the summer of '41.