I can't speak to the nuclear program in North Korea other than to say if one was there Stalin would have wanted it !! The islands were considerably more than "just a bonus" to the Soviets. Soviets/Russia long for ice free ports.Originally Posted by samiam
Wart
The atom bombs completely broke the Japanese will to fight. Not of the soldier in the field or the people in the factories, but they weren't meant to do that... the man on the street was not going to be the source of a peace movement in Imperial Japan. What the bombs were meant to do, and what they did quite gloriously, was to crush the resolve of the leadership to continue. In the face of the destruction we so easily released on them, the war cabinet went from staunchly pro-war, to wavering, to irreconcilably split. It was finally the emperor who broke the stalemate and made the decision to quit. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was certainly part of the conversation, but was in no way decisive, and to imagine that the Soviets in any significant way helped force the end of the Pacific War or hastened it is either facetious or ignorant. Or maybe some of each.
Ya know, generally I try to only present my point. But seems there must too often be an insult in responses so I'll follow custom.
SB you are an uninformed dumb ass.
Wart
True. But the point that EVERYONE understood was that German and Japan firebombings required a large number of airplanes whereas Hiroshima and Nagasaki only required ONE airplane and ONE bomb each to destroy the whole city.
Of course, three airplanes were on each nuke run, but one was a camera plane and the other an instrumentation plane. Only one was NEEDED to destroy the whole city.
The facts that Japan realized were:
Before: Hundreds of bombers = ONE destroyed city
After: Hundreds of bombers = ALL OF JAPAN destroyed
Japan was unaware that we only had the two we dropped (plus the fat-man style bomb tested at Trinity).
As it was, the Japanese military STILL didn't want to surrender and in fact tried to find and destroy Hirohito's surrender recording before it was broadcast to the people.
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Exactly. Major Hatanaka lead the attempted coup d'état. (The Major had the good sense to shoot himself later.)
Wart
my flag was out,as it is oin on nationaly recognized holidays?i fly it in bad weather too,i try to keep her lit up always ,but you know,sher looks just a purty in the late evening rain
No insult intended. I'll break down what I meant, so that I'm clear: Stating something purporting to relate history that is simply not supported by the massive historical record must either be based on a flippant attempt to misrepresent history (facetious), or be based on a lack of knowledge of what really happened (ignorant). Or, it could be a combination of those two factors-- for instance, a thesis based on a flawed concept of history that is presented in a way meant to rile people up (a la LAGC). I don't use those words as insults, I use them according to their true meanings (and I should apologize for writing something that even hints at tangentially comparing you in any way to LAGC... that would be an insult). If you're unable to understand that, or take exception to the fact that you're either wrong because you're willfully trying to twist things or you're wrong because you don't know any better, there's not much I can do to help you. But in either case, you're still wrong.
Bottom line, I've never seen any credible historians give any weight to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria as being in any way decisive to the Japanese decision-making. Perhaps some pro-Soviet, left-wing apologists have touted this and you've jumped on their bandwagon, since I doubt you get your history out of old USSR textbooks, but I'll say again what I've said above: Do some reading on what transpired in the war cabinet during 8/45. As I said, it would be wrong to say Manchuria wasn't discussed, but the reason the Emperor decided Japan couldn't go on was the fact that his cities were being vaporized one by one. If believing that makes me "an uninformed dumbass," then I guess so are the world's most distinguished historians.
Last edited by Sergis Bauer; 12-09-2011 at 11:42 PM.
Based on my understanding of WW-II history, my impression is that all the Soviets did was hope to get their "piece of the pie" by declaring war on Japan AFTER the Hiroshima bomb was dropped (and one day before Nagasaki).
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Yes.....very specific (and easy to give) pie slices. The Kurils and Sakhalin were of far more importance to the Soviets than to the allies or even Japan.
...declaring war on Japan AFTER the Hiroshima bomb was dropped (and one day before Nagasaki)
Late in the evening of August 8, in accordance with Yalta agreements but in violation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan.
Soon after midnight on August 9, the Soviets invaded the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo.
Later that day (August 9) the US dropped a nuke on Nagasaki.
Wart
And militarily, the Soviet invasion had little to do with Japanese decision making. HOWEVER, the invasion broke the neutrality agreement between the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan and that action greatly influenced Japanese decision making. The Japanese had been using the Soviets to negotiate better terms of surrender.Bottom line, I've never seen any credible historians give any weight to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria as being in any way decisive to the Japanese decision-making.
The Allied powers were calling for UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Unconditional surrender was just not possible for the Japanese as they viewed the Emperor as a god. No emperor equated to no further reason to exist.
Finally, with the Soviet Union now formally an enemy and no longer available to negotiate for Japan and the Allies signalling the Emperor could remain, Japan surrendered.
Wart
The Japanese surrendered because the UNCONDITIONAL terms of surrender were changed to conditional in that the Emperor was allowed to remain. Truman was actually guided well in this crucial phase of the war.
Had the terms of surrender remained UNCONDITIONAL, Japan would have fought on through at least December 1945 and probably longer.
Allied (and Japanese) casualties would have been massive.
Wart
Last edited by Warthogg; 12-10-2011 at 12:54 PM. Reason: dual Warts
We were reading the Japanese cables (Code Purple) but even within Japanese communications the terms to surrender were not perfectly clear.
Wart
Warthogg, I see where you're going, and you are kind of splitting hairs a bit compared to your broader earlier posts, but I have way fewer disagreements with your redacted position. I will say, the Japanese knew an attack by the Soviets was inevitable-- in fact, earlier in the war the Japanese army wanted to attack the USSR from the east. Yamamoto, being a navy guy, superceded them and decided to strike further into the Pacific... leading to the Battle of Midway. Doolittle's raid was instrumental in this regard-- by humiliating Japan at the hands of the Americans, it essentially shut down the dissent from the army, which by encouraging Japan to overreach in the Pacific and NOT open a second front against the USSR, arguably led to the overall Axis defeat.
Also, you're (mostly) right about the deal to keep the Emperor in power. It should be noted that technically Japan's surrender was still unconditional. Publicly, Byrnes made it clear that if the Emperor would remain at all it would be entirely at the discretion of the Supreme Allied Commander, but under the table MacArthur did assure the Emperor that he would be allowed to continue ruling if the other Allied terms were met.
Last edited by Sergis Bauer; 12-10-2011 at 02:30 PM.
Yup
And ultimately we did allow Japan to retain their Emperor; as Truman biographer Robert Donovan described it, "accept a condition but call it unconditional surrender." (Robert Donovan, "Conflict and Crisis", pg. 99). As Truman wrote in his diary on August 10, 1945 regarding the Japanese request to keep the Emperor, "Our terms are 'unconditional'. They wanted to keep the Emperor. We told 'em we'd tell 'em how to keep him, but we'd make the terms." (Ferrell, pg. 61).
Wart
As this post went on I tried to bring a more narrow focus.
Wart
Yes El D, my flag is illuminated and always up.
Wart
You noticed that less and less of us called BULLSHIT as you clarified your position? Sergis Bauer was right, however. Your earlier posts were BROAD STROKES which you retreated from, or rather clarified. When you got to the fine details, it was obvious you knew your history, but people rightfully criticized your previously overly broad pronouncements. The more NUANCED observations you made in your later posts would NOT have elicited a hostile response from me. Just for the record.
And one more thing, you guys do know your history! Kudos to that. We can argue interpretation all day long, but at least the knowledge is there. It is far superior to see than the Twilight Zone alternate reality bullshit I see from the LEFT all day long.
In the beginning I was posting strictly from memory but finally I had to sink so low as to go check facts !!You noticed that less and less of us called BULLSHIT as you clarified your position? Sergis Bauer was right, however. Your earlier posts were BROAD STROKES which you retreated from, or rather clarified. When you got to the fine details, it was obvious you knew your history, but people rightfully criticized your previously overly broad pronouncements. The more NUANCED observations you made in your later posts would NOT have elicited a hostile response from me. Just for the record.
And one more thing, you guys do know your history! Kudos to that. We can argue interpretation all day long, but at least the knowledge is there. It is far superior to see than the Twilight Zone alternate reality bullshit I see from the LEFT all day long.
.................................................. ...........
August 1945 has held my interest for a long time now. High drama never to be replicated on any stage.
Later Eisenhower said we should not have used Atomic weapons. I disagree as we HAD TO KNOW the bombs worked as atomic weapons were going to be used to blast an invasion corridor during the X Day invasion.......if the bombs worked that is.
On the invasion, casualty estimates varied widely but there is ONE known number. We, the US, ordered 500,000 Purple Hearts. To the best of my knowledge we are still using Purple Hearts from that order.
Wart
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks