The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan....Stalin Did - Aug 6, 1945

[Shogun]

thats really all true and i dont really care.




so nyah nyah.

I run this shyt

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Technically the atomic bombs did end the pacific theater. But I was referring to Hitler killing himself because he was too afrai of America's nuclear capability. I;ve literally never heard anyone think that.

the point of this article was to disprove that

 

[Shogun]

the point of this article was to disprove that

I'll be honest, I didn't read it yet. I will, but its college football day
I was assuming it was making the argument that the Japanese were all but defeated by the Russians before America dropped them things. If thats the case, the bombs still did technically end the conflict, even if it is the article's contention that Russia did most of the heavy lifting.

But again, I didn't read it yet so I'm mostly talking out of my ass

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I'll be honest, I didn't read it yet. I will, but its college football day
I was assuming it was making the argument that the Japanese were all but defeated by the Russians before America dropped them things. If thats the case, the bombs still did technically end the conflict, even if it is the article's contention that Russia did most of the heavy lifting.

But again, I didn't read it yet so I'm mostly talking out of my ass

I feel ya....sooo much football

I dont wanna spoil it because they present a lot of good, relevant and concise evidence

 

[ProfessionallyTrill]

good read

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Upping this as today is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima

 

[mbewane]

Japan was gonna capitulate before the bombs were dropped. But the US wanted to make a statement.

For all the talk of rogue nations, axis of evil etc, the US are still the only country to use nuclear bombs in a conflict. Twice.

 

[TravexdaGod]

Japan was gonna capitulate before the bombs were dropped. But the US wanted to make a statement.

For all the talk of rogue nations, axis of evil etc, the US are still the only country to use nuclear bombs in a conflict. Twice.

Japan considered a mediated peace with the Western Allies with the Soviet Union acting as an intermediary, but refused surrender and an occupation of the country. The bombs were initially supposed to be used on Japan as a tactical weapon in conjunction with the planned invasion (and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was supposed to tie down Japanese troops there while the Allies invaded Japan), but the Americans decided to use them to break the Japanese resolve and shock them into surrender rather than the costly measure of invading the country since decrypts revealed that the Japanese were debating amongst themselves as to what to do. People seem to forget or not realize that the Japanese wanted to continue fighting AFTER the bomb on Hiroshima was dropped, and that those who wanted to continue fighting and repel the anticipated Allied invasion unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the government AFTER the Soviets broke off relations and invaded Manchuria (with the second bomb being dropped on Nagasaki later the same day) and AFTER the Emperor broke the deadlock and told the Cabinet to accept the Potsdam terms (and AFTER his speech explaining to the Japanese people why they had to surrender, which alluded to the atomic bombs and NOT to the Soviet invasion as the reason).

And I love how people cherry-pick the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, and conveniently ignore every other atrocity that went on during the war (especially Japan's savage conduct and brutal occupation in this context), the circumstances that lead to the bombs being used, their impact on bringing a bitter conflict to a relatively quick end without "an Okinawa from end of Japan to the other", how the impact of the bombs wasn't fully understood at the time like it was later on, and how there was still bitter fighting against large numbers of Japanese troops throughout Asia until the end of the war in the Pacific. So many of us would rather project our prejudices onto history rather than see it for what it is. Had any other nations developed nuclear weapons before the U.S., they surely would have used them. The Japanese should have surrendered unconditionally when they had the chance -- what else would you have proposed to have been done against an aggressive, militaristic enemy that refused to surrender unconditionally, when blockading and aerial bombardment was not changing their minds, and after great sacrifice you possess a weapon that could end the war without further great losses to either side and change warfare forever?

 

[Blackking]

I'M NOTICING A LOT OF PRO-RUSSIA PROPAGANDA LATELY, BROTHER!

Call it natural progression.... and its not that people really like putin or Russia.

 

[88m3]

Japan was gonna capitulate before the bombs were dropped. But the US wanted to make a statement.

For all the talk of rogue nations, axis of evil etc, the US are still the only country to use nuclear bombs in a conflict. Twice.

France's use of nuclear weapons in Algeria.

 

[the cac mamba]

Japan was gonna capitulate before the bombs were dropped. .

bullshyt

and for the record, the argument that killing japanese civilians saved american cilvilians is valid. because american soldiers were still "civilians". these were young men with families, not some motherfukkers plucked outta thin air with no purpose in life besides dying on those fukkin islands.

so for Japan to say yea you'll have to take our whole island and fight everyone on it, and for us to say and drop those bombs, isnt as inhumane as its made out to be

 

[blackzeus]

^^^^So this didn't end the war?

 

[Idaeo]

Any WWII history buffs should visit the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb museum if you get the chance. The Japanese viewpoint of how the events leading to the bombing happened are pretty interesting to say the least.

 

[Poitier]

Post information that you learn in grade school, brehs.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Japan considered a mediated peace with the Western Allies with the Soviet Union acting as an intermediary, but refused surrender and an occupation of the country. The bombs were initially supposed to be used on Japan as a tactical weapon in conjunction with the planned invasion (and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was supposed to tie down Japanese troops there while the Allies invaded Japan), but the Americans decided to use them to break the Japanese resolve and shock them into surrender rather than the costly measure of invading the country since decrypts revealed that the Japanese were debating amongst themselves as to what to do. People seem to forget or not realize that the Japanese wanted to continue fighting AFTER the bomb on Hiroshima was dropped, and that those who wanted to continue fighting and repel the anticipated Allied invasion unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the government AFTER the Soviets broke off relations and invaded Manchuria (with the second bomb being dropped on Nagasaki later the same day) and AFTER the Emperor broke the deadlock and told the Cabinet to accept the Potsdam terms (and AFTER his speech explaining to the Japanese people why they had to surrender, which alluded to the atomic bombs and NOT to the Soviet invasion as the reason).

And I love how people cherry-pick the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, and conveniently ignore every other atrocity that went on during the war (especially Japan's savage conduct and brutal occupation in this context), the circumstances that lead to the bombs being used, their impact on bringing a bitter conflict to a relatively quick end without "an Okinawa from end of Japan to the other", how the impact of the bombs wasn't fully understood at the time like it was later on, and how there was still bitter fighting against large numbers of Japanese troops throughout Asia until the end of the war in the Pacific. So many of us would rather project our prejudices onto history rather than see it for what it is. Had any other nations developed nuclear weapons before the U.S., they surely would have used them. The Japanese should have surrendered unconditionally when they had the chance -- what else would you have proposed to have been done against an aggressive, militaristic enemy that refused to surrender unconditionally, when blockading and aerial bombardment was not changing their minds, and after great sacrifice you possess a weapon that could end the war without further great losses to either side and change warfare forever?

I want to respond or dap your post but you have too many words and my mind is fried right now.

welcome to the coli.