Of course Pavel!!
But I said " The thought that the A-bombs saved my life is a horrible thought"
...
I wanted to make clear that it is better that a war is ended by an army than by A-bombs, at least in my eyes.
Talking with people from all over this earth is really wonderful. We can learn so much from each other.
The Soviet Union was the last hope of Japan to sign a peace treaty with the US&Co. After Japan lost the Soviet Union's neutrality, it was clear that the war over. A-bombs were unnecessary if we speak about the end of war with Japan. If we speak about the beginning of the cold war with the USSR, A-bombs were necessary for the US. They wanted to demonstrate the nuclear weapon that the Soviets didn't have at that moment. Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the victims of the Pacific war. They were victims of the cold war. There is nothing "justifed" in A-bomb attacks. It was a sadistic and cynical crime against humanity committed by the US in order to gain some geopolitical proftis.I think the use of Nuclear weapons were justified.
Are you saying Nazi were polite in Belorussia and they didn't rape, kill, torture, starve, murder the civilians? Japanese did the same things in Asia. Americans raped half of Vietnam. I wonder why you feel angrier with the Soviet acts than with the same acts done by Americans, Japanese or Nazi? Is it because Chinese, Soviet and Vietnamese victims are lesser people? Sounds like a new Hitler to me.The Soviet killed hundreds of thousands of German civillians; they raped, pillaged, tortured, starved and murdered.
More Japanese were killed in conventional fire-bombing (~500,000 in Tokyo alone) than from the A-bombs.
She said that those fire-bombs should have been dropped on the palais of the emperor instead of the houses from Tokyo citizens.
The Soviet Union was the last hope of Japan to sign a peace treaty with the US&Co. After Japan lost the Soviet Union's neutrality, it was clear that the war over. A-bombs were unnecessary if we speak about the end of war with Japan. If we speak about the beginning of the cold war with the USSR, A-bombs were necessary for the US. They wanted to demonstrate the nuclear weapon that the Soviets didn't have at that moment. Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the victims of the Pacific war. They were victims of the cold war. There is nothing "justifed" in A-bomb attacks. It was a sadistic and cynical crime against humanity committed by the US in order to gain some geopolitical proftis
Are you saying Nazi were polite in Belorussia and they didn't rape, kill, torture, starve, murder the civilians? Japanese did the same things in Asia. Americans raped half of Vietnam. I wonder why you feel angrier with the Soviet acts than with the same acts done by Americans, Japanese or Nazi? Is it because Chinese, Soviet and Vietnamese victims are lesser people? Sounds like a new Hitler to me.
they did not care at all even after warIn America, the perception is that the Soviets stalled and dragged their feet for the whole war about engaging with Japan. And they only did so after we dropped the A-bomb, because then they saw we were going to beat Japan, and they wanted to grab whatever Japanese territory they could before the war ended.
On Sakhalin, Soviet forces moving southwards from August 10 encountered the Japanese 88th Division along the line of fortifications near the border with the Soviet sector of the island. The defenders objective was to buy time for civilians to flee by ship to Hokkaido. Six thousand residents of Maoka (now Kholmsk) on the western coast had already been evacuated when the Soviet attack commenced before dawn on August 20. Soviet warships entered the harbor, firing on the town and the 18,000 refugees waiting to be evacuated. Civilians were machine-gunned as they ran towards the hills in an attempt to escape the Soviet troops pouring off the warships. Japanese records suggest that approximately 1,000 people were killed that morning. After reporting the happenings of the previous few hours, the final message from the last of nine young telephonists at the exchange at Maoka, 22 year-old Itoh Chie, ended with these poignant words.[11]
To everyone back in Naichi [Japanese mainland]. To our friends at the Wakkanai Exchange... Soviet soldiers have just entered the building here in the Maoka Exchange. This will probably be the last message from Karafuto [Sakhalin]. The nine of us have stayed at our posts right through to the end, and it wont be long before all nine of us will have departed for the next world.
The Soviet troops are coming closer. I can hear their footsteps getting nearer. Everyone in Wakkanai, sayonara, this is the end. To everyone in Naichi, sayonara, sayonara.
In America, the perception is that the Soviets stalled and dragged their feet for the whole war about engaging with Japan. And they only did so after we dropped the A-bomb, because then they saw we were going to beat Japan, and they wanted to grab whatever Japanese territory they could before the war ended.
Interesting that America talks about the Soviet Union stalling at all, after joining the war only in 1944 when seeing that the end was close. Russians didn't fear Hitler Germany, why do you think they would fear Japan?
Interesting that America talks about the Soviet Union stalling at all, after joining the war only in 1944 when seeing that the end was close. Russians didn't fear Hitler Germany, why do you think they would fear Japan?
We live in a world where information is a few taps of a keyboard and a click away. This sort of nonsense shouldn't be acceptable from a high school student, let alone a goddamn 43 year old. I'm sorry, but what's up with this? I am so frustrated right now.
The same thing that the US did in Europe. They jumped into the onland war in Europe the very last minute when all the hard bloody work was done. Then they took all plaudits on victory and held the western world to ransom. I see you have no problems with that. Why do you have problems with Soviets when they did the same thing in the Pacific as the US did in Europe? Double standards policy is a very common thing the US politics, now and then. I do wish one day the school education in the US will be better than now. Maybe they will stop being the most monolingual nation in the world and will be able to read things written not in English only. No doubt by this they will widen their intellectual horizon.In America, the perception is that the Soviets stalled and dragged their feet for the whole war about engaging with Japan. And they only did so after we dropped the A-bomb, because then they saw we were going to beat Japan, and they wanted to grab whatever Japanese territory they could before the war ended.
I doubt that it happens any time soon. Neither Japan nor the US, that played the key role in bringing the Soviet/Russian-Japanese relationships to the current stage, are not ready to move on. Kuril Islands themselves at that time was not a very important thing for the USSR. The main target was to repay back for the Japanese violation of the Treaty of St-Petersburg. Japan broke its obligations and explained it that Japan won the Russo-Japanese war and therefore was within its rights of the winner to forget about the previous obligations and dictate new rules. When the Soviets got a chance to pay back, they did it. Still almost right after the end of WWII the Soviets were ready to return two islands (Shikotan and Habomai) and negotiate about the rest of two (Kunashir and Iturup). The US couldn't accept the loss of Iturup, the island from where the Japanese went to bomb Pearl Habour. It was an American dream to open the US military base there. The US gave an ultimatum to Japan: if you give up Iturup, the US will not return Okinawa to Japan. Okay. After Japan got Okinawa back, they didn't need to listen to the US anymore about the territorial dispute with Soviets. They should have negotiated with the USSR directly. They were not smart enought to do so. The Japanese idea of diplomacy is anti-diplomacy, means no negotiations and no compromises. The same style brought them to nowhere about the Nothern Korean abductees. And there is no sign that they are going to change this policy any time soon. Japan was a closed country for centuries. It couldn't not affect their mentality. When I ask Japanese about Kuril Islands, I always get only one answer: "Those islands were always Japanese." I ask them: "If you think nobody can get Japanese territories, why did Japanese take the territories that were not Japanese in Asia during the WWII?" And I also got one answer: "Because we needed new territories." Lovely. Everything that is in favor for Japan is always a right thing to do. In fact Soviets, when they took something Japanese, were the only ones who gave Japan a lesson on history: you are the same as all others and you are equal in front of the the law of war. Japan, after centuries of isolations, was surpised with a new thing- international laws and is still in mild shock. If they keep the same policy as they have now, and I think they will, the situation will not change. Nowdays the treaty is not actual for Russia anymore. The J-companies work in Russia without peace treaty and are not going anywhere.I'm only hoping that Russia and Japan can be reconciled and sign a peace treaty. The war is long over and we must move on (not meaning that we should forget the innocent victims of the war).
It does not matter. If Stalin seriously wanted to invade Hokkaido, he would have done that. Luckily for Japan he was too busy with building communism in the Eastern Europe.Japan was still fighing against Russia in notheran hokkaido after 15th Aug.
The same thing that the US did in Europe. They jumped into the onland war in Europe the very last minute when all the hard bloody work was done. Then they took all plaudits on victory and held the western world to ransom. I see you have no problems with that. Why do you have problems with Soviets when they did the same thing in the Pacific as the US did in Europe? Double standards policy is a very common thing the US politics, now and then. I do wish one day the school education in the US will be better than now. Maybe they will stop being the most monolingual nation in the world and will be able to read things written not in English only. No doubt by this they will widen their intellectual horizon.
Are you the same poster "noyhouser" who posted this (see post #22 in this thread)?:You haven't addressed any of the points I've made about why the Manchurian invasion alone would not have capitulated Japan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------noyhouser said:The Manchurian invasion could have ended the war on its own.
Many prominent Americans thought it was wrong to drop the bombs on a beaten enemy, just about every top commander in the Pacific. MacArthur said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Leahy, Spaatz, Clarke, LeMay, King and Nimitz. General Eisenhower in his memoirs called Truman's decision to use the atom bombs political and not military: "Japan was already defeated. Dropping the bombs was completely unnecessary and no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Are you saying all those guys were wrong? Moreover, Martin Sherwin said the war probably have ended in July if the Americans agreed to the retention of the Emperor. If the guarantee of the Emperor had been given (it was given later any way), the war would have been over without A-bombs and the Soviet help. The American choice was between diplomacy and the warfare. The US chose the latest. The US had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including exacting revenge for Pearl Habour and demonstaring a new weapon to the USSR before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific. Until then the US were eager to have Soviet help, which Stalin promised as soon as the Nazis were beaten. Truman, one of the less bright US President, entered the world history as the only human who used nuclear weapon against humans. He felt justifed in dropping the atom bombs in order to prevent the spread of communism in Europe by intimidating the USSR. Instead of the desired effect that the US had wished for, the Soviets responded more hostilely and thus the Cold War began.The motivation that the bomb was only used as a piece of Cold War thinking doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Atomic bombs were always considered a weapon to end the war without involving massive Allied casualties.
And mine were that they operate the same way as Nazi in Belorussia, Japanese in Asia or Americans in Vietnam. You obvioulsy have no problems with their operations but you have problems with Soviets when they did the same. I wonder why.My comments were aimed at how the Soviet Army operates
With all my respect to the US soldiers who had to die in North Africa, my post was irrelevant to the African things. It was about the second front in Europe that the US opened when the end of the war was clear. The US act saved some thousands of lives that could probably have been lost if the war in Europe lasted a few months longer (let's assume without the US help) and nobody never argues this fact, at least not in my alma mater. That is why the behavior of the US seems strange when they feel bad about the value of the Soviet help in the Pacific.It may not be Europe, but I think you knooow...
It is about 9% of the US population. Yes, it does sound monolingual to me.The USA has 28 million Spanish speakers.. does that sound pretty monolingual to you?
With all my respect to the US soldiers who had to die in North Africa, my post was irrelevant to the African things. It was about the second front in Europe that the US opened when the end of the war was clear. The US act saved some thousands of lives that could probably have been lost if the war in Europe lasted a few months longer (let's assume without the US help) and nobody never argues this fact, at least not in my alma mater. That is why the behavior of the US seems strange when they feel bad about the value of the Soviet help in the Pacific.
It is about 9% of the US population. Yes, it does sound monolingual to me.
Are you the same poster "noyhouser" who posted this (see post #22 in this thread)?:
Many prominent Americans thought it was wrong to drop the bombs on a beaten enemy, just about every top commander in the Pacific. MacArthur said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Leahy, Spaatz, Clarke, LeMay, King and Nimitz. General Eisenhower in his memoirs called Truman's decision to use the atom bombs political and not military: "Japan was already defeated. Dropping the bombs was completely unnecessary and no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Moreover, Martin Sherwin said the war probably have ended in July if the Americans agreed to the retention of the Emperor. If the guarantee of the Emperor had been given (it was given later any way), the war would have been over without A-bombs and the Soviet help. The American choice was between diplomacy and the warfare. The US chose the latest.
The US had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including exacting revenge for Pearl Habour and demonstaring a new weapon to the USSR before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific. Until then the US were eager to have Soviet help, which Stalin promised as soon as the Nazis were beaten.
He felt justifed in dropping the atom bombs in order to prevent the spread of communism in Europe by intimidating the USSR. Instead of the desired effect that the US had wished for, the Soviets responded more hostilely and thus the Cold War began.
And mine were that they operate the same way as Nazi in Belorussia, Japanese in Asia or Americans in Vietnam. You obvioulsy have no problems with their operations but you have problems with Soviets when they did the same. I wonder why.
Its not germane how depraved the Nazis were because they weren't going to invade Japan in 1945.
Back then, I'm sure there were many who felt the Japanese would make good "lab rats" to test the effects of the bomb.