For some strange reason, Russians think EVERYTHING happens for a political reason and that politics trumps all. Must have something to do with their education.
Think about this, folks: if the Japanese had surrendered at the same time as the Germans, no bomb would ever have been dropped. None was ready. The bomb was originally intended for use against the Germans but they were defeated before bombs were ready.
Had I been the commanding general or the president contemplating invading Japan and told I could try two bombs to see if they could defeat the Japanese you’d have to be a certifiable nutcase not to give it a try. Immoral? Tell that to the marines and army who would have had to storm the beaches in Kyushu. To top it all off, it worked. Maybe if you were standing first in line behind the ramp that would drop on the beach one wouldn’t be quite so sanctimonious about this.
Geez, Schmidt a lot of merican missile technology came from Nazi Germany. A little balance please.
Give me a bfeak, Rising Sun. It regularly goes over 40 degrees here and I guarantee you no American car ever overheats in this weather. Puleeze!
This is mostly a fantasy I think. We know how deceptive the Japanese were and their practice of using haragei to hide their real motives. The approaches to the Russians were very tentative and insincere, and the Russians, who had motives of their own, were not interested in promoting an early Japanese surrender.
Namvet this will happen just as soon as pigs pass over my house to make a landing at San Antonio International. Also, when I need a parka in hell to protect myself from the cold is when such an apology will be forthcoming.
Indeedy. Unfortunately, as I am currently finding out, it is rather easy to slow things down with bad management. Of the sort currently being inflicted upon me 
On the contrary mr royal.
The Stalin had very big motives to take the possible Japane surrender.
This would be the great political success for him- probably in the jule of 1945 the Japanes were ready to leave the Mongolia and CHina, the single condition that the Japnes demanded to save for them- the Japanes monarhy ( Imperor) and leave the territories Home Islands for them( they clearly saw what was happand with GErmany in 1945- the country has been splitted on several parts
Certainly Stalkin never leave them the Sakhalin and Kuril Islands.But he enen did not going to land on the Japane Home Islands ( well except may be Hokkaido)
SO the possible Soviet assistence on Japane surrended could bring the big political benefit for USSR - it could take whole Manchguria and China without Red Army involving into the battles.
But hardly the UK/US was wanted the Soviet benefit in 1945 .
They wae the blody total war with Japes without rules, and hardly they could greeted the Uncle Joe surrender cooperation:)
So they prefered to declare the UNCONDITIONAL surrender in Tehrain conference in june 1945.
This was just an obvuois attempt not to let Japane gone out of war.
But if the decision to nuke a Japane has been sunctioneb by Politics, not by the Hight Military Command.
So there is no doubt that the Political aspects were very importaint in summer 1945, weren’t it?
Think about this, folks: if the Japanese had surrendered at the same time as the Germans, no bomb would ever have been dropped. None was ready. The bomb was originally intended for use against the Germans but they were defeated before bombs were ready.
Germany has been fully crashed ,and cuptured before the “surrender”
They simply had no other way.The Japane , who in may of 1945 still controlled a great territories did not hurry.
Just imageine if the possible Soviet-Allied war would have been started in june-august - the Japane would have got a great Chance to survive.
Of course! As Stalin put it:“War as a Continuation of Policy by Other Means”
Not everything. Some of it is done out of lust for women or money… Some of it out religious/ideological reasons. But in the world of politics by far most of it is done for a political reason.
Must have something to do with their education.
Ohh, that is right!
Actually, Clausewitz said it.
Strictly, it is, in the general sense if not strict translation as various versions exist in English ‘war is a continuation of politics by other means’.
Ok, let me requote myself:
Comprende?
Strictly, it is, in the general sense if not strict translation as various versions exist in English ‘war is a continuation of politics by other means’.
Right. It was just a copy-paste glitch.
Si. 
I did never suspect that Stalin read a Clausewitz:)
Comprende
Si
Down with Spanish:)
There is too much troubles with english for me:)
we were talking about the CCCP at that time but, yes. It did.
And so, you expect Uncle Joe to sit idly while all of the asian countries are bieng capitalized… I mean look at the Korean War…
Could some of you guys help me out on this [I could be barking up the wrong tree]:)…
It’s just that I’m not too sure about the posting of ‘‘we had to drop the bombs to save up to a million men in the invasion’’ theory these days.
Because according to the detailed study by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering and would have done so before Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu.
They say in part…
…Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Surveys opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, and the Russians had not entered the war…
As the survey was done AFTER the war, it was no help at the time of the bombing, and the Americans thought the invasion might be necessary, [if I was lined up to invade I’d sure want them dropped if I thought it would end the war] so they went ahead and dropped them, fair enough, but ‘‘if’’ you believe the only detailed survey that I know of, is correct in their findings, does the casualties in the invasion have any value as a reason for dropping the bombs from TODAYS posters?
On the other hand, if you think the survey got it all wrong, and the Japanese still wouldn’t have surrendered, then I guess we’re back to square one, and those posts will keep on coming.:mrgreen:
It still has complete value.
If the planners at the time had known what the Survey authors think they worked out later, the war time planners wouldn’t have bothered planning the invasion. The Survey is a useful historical analysis, but it’s not necessarily accurate on every point nor, given its focus on bombing, does it always pay sufficient attention to the whole strategic and political picture.
Historical decisions have to be viewed from the perspective of those who made them on the basis of knowledge available to them at the time, which in Japan’s case was every indication that it would fight to the death for every inch of ground. Which is exactly what the military leadership in Japan was preparing the military and the civilian population for.
Dropping the atom bombs was still the correct strategic and tactical decision for the commanders at the time. As Japan’s immediate surrender demonstrated.
Without the atom bombs, there is every likelihood that Japan would have resisted until the population was ground down and the land laid waste by the invaders. That was certainly the intention of Japan’s military leaders.
The Yanks did the Japanese people as a whole a huge favour by nuking Japan, terrible though the results were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a small proportion of that population, by bringing about Japan’s capitulation and avoiding millions more Japanese casualties. The Yanks also did a huge favour to all the service people on both sides who would have been killed and injured in an invasion which was avoided by the atom bombs.
It’s worth remembering that if the invasion had gone ahead, more nukes would have been used in tactical roles. Fortunately the surrender avoided that, and a whole lot more misery for both sides.
Chuckle, I KNEW this was going to happen when I posted that.
Let’s see if I can expand it a bit.
First, I’m not saying that AT THE TIME it was the wrong decision to drop the bombs, as the survey was done AFTER the war, so there was no way they knew AT THE TIME when the Japanese would surrender, so there’s no argument with the decision there.
But what I’m trying to get at is that TODAY, we know that according to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, there would most probably be no invasion at all.
So following on from that info, is it right, that posters of TODAY, who know those facts, still say we had to drop them because of the invasion, an invasion that we NOW know would never take place.
Phew, I hope that’s understandable, 
[I’m beginning to think that I am barking up the wrong tree.]:mrgreen:
I knew you knew that, so I posted purely to avoid you being disappointed by someone not doing what you knew was going to happen.
Possibly. I can’t see the wood for your tree.
Have you been reading Derrida or some other deconstructionist, or have you just found the mother lode of super cannabis and temporarily blown your mind? :mrgreen:
Seriously, are you saying that, assuming we accept the Survey’s conclusions, modern arguments based on anything to do with the proposed invasion of Japan are irrelevant because that invasion would soon have proved unnecessary if the atomic bombs had not been dropped?
If so, the next step in that argument has to be that the invasion would have proved unnecessary because Japan would have surrendered before the intended date of the invasion, because that was the only thing that was going to avoid the invasion proceeding.
Given Japan’s extensive preparations to resist an invasion, and the strength of Japanese desire and actions to resist invaders for centuries, I can’t see any prospect of Japan surrendering on terms acceptable to the Allies without being nuked.
Or am I barking up a tree different to the one you’re barking up?