Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[Arakan]

And anyway: all this proves my point that the bombings were not necessary from a military pov.

What Dante and TP basically said was exactly what the Soviet histography said: the US dropped the atom bombs only so that Japan surrenders before the Soviets got "properly" involved.

Thank you, Dante. We can close the case. The bombings were not necessary from a military pov. If the US feared high casualties, they could always have given the job to the Russians (who certainly didnt fear the casualties).

Would that have been better for the Japanese civilians? No.

But finally we made some progress in the discussion.

[TerraPrime]

Been thinking about the counterfactuals and such of the two bombs. Here's a scenario:

 

First bomb will be used on a small, deserted island off the coast of Japan. Bomb it, then invite them to go take a look. 

 

Two weeks later, if they have not surrendered, pick 10 cities in Japan and leaflet the areas warning of the impending use of the atomic bomb at one of these locales within the next 3 days. Then pick 1 of the cities and drop the atom bomb on it. 

 

I think both bombs will still be required, but the total casualty will be much lower. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Why do people ignore the fact that Japan was ready to surrender, with the only pre-condition that their leaders not be tried for war crimes?  I mean, if body count is what people are going on for decisions, why ignore the one saved the most lives?

 

You have a source on that? Everything I've read said that the Japanese wanted to keep Manchuria and Korea ,though I guess the Soviet invasion might have brought them back to reality on that one.

 

Also, what specifically does "leaders not be tried for war crimes" mean? Does it at least mean that everybody with influence in the imperialist military government not be allowed to take part in post war government? Well, MacArthur fucked that part up, but at least was a completely different system of government.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

First bomb will be used on a small, deserted island off the coast of Japan. Bomb it, then invite them to go take a look. 

 

 

  http://s1336.photobucket.com/user/Lumpy67/media/Godzilla%20Deal%20with%20it_zps409ghh8g.gif.html

 

 

 Cold-blooded.

[DanteGabriel]

Oh. So Stalin was going to sacrifice 500,000 plus soldiers in order to hand over Japan to the US. Like a guy winning a stuffed animal for his sweetheart at the carnival.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Oh. So Stalin was going to sacrifice 500,000 plus soldiers in order to hand over Japan to the US. Like a guy winning a stuffed animal for his sweetheart at the carnival.

 

 Was going to post something similar. Once Germany was off the table, U.S./Soviet relations went to shit. The only counterfactual you could offer that allows for Soviet/U.S. cooperation involving the Japanese endgame would have to allow for Germany still being in play. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Dante,

doesnt change the fact that the Japanese military command was shocked of how EASILY the Soviets destroyed the Kwantung Army.

The Manchurian Offensive was a strategic and tactical masterstroke. The Japanese military command didnt expect such swift curbstomp.

The defeat of the Kwantung army changed evth in the eyes of the Japanese Military leaders. It was the primary reason why Japan surrendered. From there one can speculate if the atom bombs where necessary from a Military pov. I say no. And Eisenhower agrees.

Anyway, it's the same stuff as with Overlord. It was Bagration which basically decided the war in Europe. Overlord was important but not decisive. Obviously in cold war era Bagration was downplayed by US histography, same as Manchuria Offensive. You deny that?

Fortunately, we have British histography.

 

Speaking about the historiographies of different countries, it is probably no coincidence that you as a German are always harping on about how invincible the Red Army was and how it could have conquered everything. Coping strategy, and all that. 

[Arakan]

Oh. So Stalin was going to sacrifice 500,000 plus soldiers in order to hand over Japan to the US. Like a guy winning a stuffed animal for his sweetheart at the carnival.

Well, I said indirectly: QUID PRO QUO.
Deal. I wrote: Deal.

But anyway: you already made my case. The bombs were not military necessary. Other options were possible if the Japanese wouldnt have surrendered.

But they did. After the Manchurian Offensive. Which according to current historical reseach was the main factor to push the Japanese Military command to surrender (the two bombs were secondary in their decision making process).

Why is that so hard to accept? The Japanese military command thought it's better to surrender to the US than to the Soviets (after a hypothetical Soviet Invasion). And they were right. It's the same stuff as in Europe.

It was that fear that drove the Japanese military command. I urgently recommend to read the newest historical research results.

The bombs were not necessary to push Japan to surrender. The fear of a Soviet invasion (with all the consequences of which the Japanese military command was relatively well aware) would have been sufficient.

Obviously one can make the case that the Japanese got a better deal. But you dont need the bombs.

[Howdyphillip]

I am not ignoring this.
Fortunately WW2 is becoming more of an historical event with each passing year which means better/more objective historical analysis.

In times of cold war there was not a lot of objective history in terms of WW2. This changes.

I mean it speaks for itself that almost no one in the West knows about the Manchurian Offensive of August 1945 and what effect it had on the Japanese military (the same American history completely exaggerates the Western Front 1944/45 while British historians KNOW EXACTLY where the war was won/lost).

I give it 10 years and it will become mainstream knowledge that the military necessity of the atom bombs was secondary and that after the horrendous defeat in Manchuria the Japanese military would have surrendered WITHOUT dropping the bombs.

People should stop read Cold War era history books and embrace the new. but still too much ignorance in this thread. We even saw idiotic dumbass statements, quoting Patton. Halleluja.

Out of all of the arrogant, misguided, and asinine things that you have said in this thread, this may just be the dumbest one yet. As someone who has a degree in history, Let me convey the knowledge to you that the best study of a time period always comes from the actual time period itself. When people look back on historical events, it almost universally is tainted with revisionist ideas.

The one you are proposing is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Go back to learning your history from Oliver Stone.   

[Arakan]

 
Speaking about the historiographies of different countries, it is probably no coincidence that you as a German are always harping on about how invincible the Red Army was and how it could have conquered everything. Coping strategy, and all that. 

Oh Jesus...the historical facts speak for themselves. Germany was beaten in the East. I accept that fact.

And stop your defamation. I never said that the Red Army was invincible or could conquer evth.

[Arakan]

Out of all of the arrogant, misguided, and asinine things that you have said in this thread, this may just be the dumbest one yet. As someone who has a degree in history, Let me convey the knowledge to you that the best study of a time period always comes from the actual time period itself. When people look back on historical events, it almost universally is tainted with revisionist ideas.

The one you are proposing is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Go back to learning your history from Oliver Stone.   

Yep. Right.
No cold war era bias in histography, on all sides. Make me laugh.

Oh Jesus.

Spare me your condescending tone.
I wrote about objectivity. And objectivity is getting better now AFTER the end of the cold war.

For obvious reasons. Furthermore more archives in the East are now accessible for WW2 research, post 1991. yep, you with your degree in history should actually know it, shouldnt you?

[Howdyphillip]

Yep. Right.
No cold war era bias in histography, on all sides. Make me laugh.

Well, stop laughing a minute and think how preposterous your supposition that the Japanese surrendered because they were more terrified of a Soviet Army invading in US Navy boats than the nuclear bombs that were detonating on their cities.

 

I don't personally believe that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets was justified, but to argue they were not the reason the war stopped is ludicrous and delusional.  

[Arakan]

And what asinine things have I said?
Nothing. I denied the military necessity of the bombs. Seems I awoke a hornet nest.

[TrueMetis]

Well, stop laughing a minute and think how preposterous your supposition that the Japanese surrendered because they were more terrified of a Soviet Army invading in US Navy boats than the nuclear bombs that were detonating on their cities.

 

I don't personally believe that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets was justified, but to argue they were not the reason the war stopped is ludicrous and delusional.  

 

I don't know, invading Soviets on the backs of their war bears would scare me.

 

Or have I been playing to much Red Alert 3 lately?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Obviously one can make the case that the Japanese got a better deal. But you dont need the bombs.

 

 Tell that to Robert Shaw.

 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9S41Kplsbs

[Arakan]

Well, stop laughing a minute and think how preposterous your supposition that the Japanese surrendered because they were more terrified of a Soviet Army invading in US Navy boats than the nuclear bombs that were detonating on their cities.
 
I don't personally believe that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets was justified, but to argue they were not the reason the war stopped is ludicrous and delusional.  

I suggest you research the topic. But try not to be biased. Read works from different sides. This is what historical research is all about.

Your last sentence and the way you formulated it, makes me wonder what your former history professor would say. I do expect a natural scepticism and open-mindness of someone who has to mention he has a degree in history, not using words like delusional.

But as I said: research the topic from all angles, US, British, Russian, Japanese. Don't use words like delusional.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Oh Jesus...the historical facts speak for themselves. Germany was beaten in the East. I accept that fact.

And stop your defamation. I never said that the Red Army was invincible or could conquer evth. But why am I wasting words to someone who neglects the scale of the Balkan front and talks big a tertiary axis partner like Finland (who at the end of the day played a smaller role than the Hungarians).

What does "The Red Army in 1945 was a war machine without comparison" mean to you? Sounds pretty close to "invincible" to me :)

 

The Balkan Front did not become important until 1944, when the Soviets were invading across the entire Eastern Front. Prior to this the conflicts there were anti-partisan warfare, handled by garrison troops* and Nazi friendly Balkan partisans. Hardly an important front for most of the war, in other words. 

 

Obviously you "accept" that Germany was beaten in the East. What you also do is talk up the Red Army as some incredible super army with infinite amounts of troops and materiel, that neither the Americans nor anyone else would have stood a chance against. Probably because only such a force could have defeated glorious Germany.

 

 

 

 

*Which in WW2 usually meant the least capable units, in terms of equipment, training and so on.  

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Well, stop laughing a minute and think how preposterous your supposition that the Japanese surrendered because they were more terrified of a Soviet Army invading in US Navy boats than the nuclear bombs that were detonating on their cities.

 

I don't personally believe that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets was justified, but to argue they were not the reason the war stopped is ludicrous and delusional.  

 

Yet some historians say exactly that.

[Arakan]

I once again recommend Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.

[Arakan]

What does "The Red Army in 1945 was a war machine without comparison" mean to you? Sounds pretty close to "invincible" to me :)
 
The Balkan Front did not become important until 1944, when the Soviets were invading across the entire Eastern Front. Prior to this the conflicts there were anti-partisan warfare, handled by garrison troops* and Nazi friendly Balkan partisans. Hardly an important front for most of the war, in other words. 
 
Obviously you "accept" that Germany was beaten in the East. What you also do is talk up the Red Army as some incredible super army with infinite amounts of troops and materiel, that neither the Americans nor anyone else would have stood a chance against. Probably because only such a force could have defeated glorious Germany.
 
 
 
 
*Which in WW2 usually meant the least capable units, in terms of equipment, training and so on.  

Khaleesi you have not an idea of the Balkan front. Nazi friendly Balkan partisans proves it :). And of course roughly 2 million Yugoslav deads (plus many Italians, Hungarians, Germans, Albanians). Not counting the hubdreds of thousands of Greek, Romanians, Bulgarians. The Balkan front was secondary but Finland was tertiary.

And stop putting me in some rightwing shit. Facts are facts. 90% of German war casualties happened in the East.