Why did Imperial Japan surrender?

[Symmetry]

This is what the book in my WW2 class said too. Just want to note, upon many American requests for Russia to commit troops to an invasion, Russia pussy footed the shit out of us and didn't invade until the last possible second. Sure, I play my risk games the same way and it is a winning strategy, but if Russia had kept their word perhaps the bombs would never need to have been dropped in the first place.

Actually the Soviets followed the agreed upon timeline at Yalta of joining the pacific theater 3 months(exactly) after victory in Europe. Not unreasonable considering they had pulled troops from the far east to stop the German invasion. They also didn't half ass it they committed well over 1.5 million troops as well as thousands of tanks and aircraft.

The two views are not mutually exclusive. Waiting for the last day of the three month-deadline is the equivalent of waiting until the last possible second.

Yes, the Yalta agreement gave a deadline, but as with most deadlines, there is no crime in going forward sooner, only later. Germany was crumbling fast by early February; Russian troops could easily have been heading east by the end of March and could have entered the war against Japan 90 minutes after the German surrender instead of 90 days. That's if the Russians had been interested in helping their allies after having received so much help from them in the previous four years, instead of just being able to say "look, we stuck to the agreement!"

Given that the USSR suffered the greatest casualties of the war, and basically fought alone against Nazi Germany for a significant portion of it with no real assistance, and given that most of the arguments posted so far for the use of atomic bombs lean heavily in favour of "it was done to screw over the Russians", perhaps they had a good reason to be wary of the countries that claimed to be their allies.

[notyou2]

Tripe.

All of it.

... And don't tell me I don't know WW2 history.

The bombs were dropped for a combination of reasons.
The main two being...
1) end the war and save US lives
2) retaliation for Pearl Harbor

We did not drop the bombs because Russia was about to invade. That is tripe. We had been asking Russia to enter the Pacific War... they were war-weary and happy to let us do the heavy lifting at this time.
(Granted they had done most of the bleeding in Europe so u can understand their view.)

Russia entered the war at the last minute AFTER we dropped the first bomb... Primarily so the US would not be able to take full credit for Japan's surrender and also so they would have a seat at the table. This thread is attempting to turn history upside down.

There is some truth to the facts regarding the Emperor... and how we could have had a negotiated peace without the bombs.

We would not have had a surrender without the bombs... and the US people would not have had closure.

My op wasn't about the reasons for the Americans dropping the bombs. Rather it was for the reasons behind Japanese surrender.

The traditional explanation or at least popular explanation is that Nuclear bombs made Japan surrender, the argument being made is that Soviet involvement in the pacific theater was a greater contributing factor.

It's true Russia entered the pacific war after the first bomb was dropped but their entry was along a predetermined schedule established at the Yalta conference. At Yalta it was agree that the Soviets would join the war three months after victory in Europe. The Soviets kept to the agreement and launched their campaign exactly 3 months after German surrender. Their involvement was no minor thing either it involved over 1.5 million troops several thousand tanks and aircraft as well as 26 thousand artillery pieces. Such a force isn't thrown together in a few days in order to spite another country.

I believe the Japanese leaders didn't want the Japanese people to experience from the US and USSR what they had done to Manchuria and other places.

[Symmetry]

Tripe.

All of it.

... And don't tell me I don't know WW2 history.

The bombs were dropped for a combination of reasons.
The main two being...
1) end the war and save US lives
2) retaliation for Pearl Harbor

We did not drop the bombs because Russia was about to invade. That is tripe. We had been asking Russia to enter the Pacific War... they were war-weary and happy to let us do the heavy lifting at this time.
(Granted they had done most of the bleeding in Europe so u can understand their view.)

Russia entered the war at the last minute AFTER we dropped the first bomb... Primarily so the US would not be able to take full credit for Japan's surrender and also so they would have a seat at the table. This thread is attempting to turn history upside down.

There is some truth to the facts regarding the Emperor... and how we could have had a negotiated peace without the bombs.

We would not have had a surrender without the bombs... and the US people would not have had closure.

My op wasn't about the reasons for the Americans dropping the bombs. Rather it was for the reasons behind Japanese surrender.

The traditional explanation or at least popular explanation is that Nuclear bombs made Japan surrender, the argument being made is that Soviet involvement in the pacific theater was a greater contributing factor.

It's true Russia entered the pacific war after the first bomb was dropped but their entry was along a predetermined schedule established at the Yalta conference. At Yalta it was agree that the Soviets would join the war three months after victory in Europe. The Soviets kept to the agreement and launched their campaign exactly 3 months after German surrender. Their involvement was no minor thing either it involved over 1.5 million troops several thousand tanks and aircraft as well as 26 thousand artillery pieces. Such a force isn't thrown together in a few days in order to spite another country.

I believe the Japanese leaders didn't want the Japanese people to experience from the US and USSR what they had done to Manchuria and other places.

I agree with the sentiment, but no- the general Japanese opinion on the horrors of Manchuria was and is to ignore them, or to consider them as a kind of favour in terms of the liberation of the East from Western colonialism.

Unsurprisingly, when I visited South Korea and China, I met people who knew virtually no English beyond the basics and "I hate Japan".

Basically Manchuria simply isn't an issue for the vast majority of Japanese people. Partly because they don't know about it, partly because those who do don't want to take responsibility for it, and partly because Japanese culture tends towards not discussing problems that could cause internal division.

[patches70]

Given that the USSR suffered the greatest casualties of the war, and basically fought alone against Nazi Germany for a significant portion of it with no real assistance, and given that most of the arguments posted so far for the use of atomic bombs lean heavily in favour of "it was done to screw over the Russians", perhaps they had a good reason to be wary of the countries that claimed to be their allies.

Given that Russia had a treaty with Germany and together both nations smashed Poland from two sides then Russia sowed the seeds for the spilling of her own blood. Russia enabled Germany to take the path of war. Stalin was just as despicable as Hitler.

The world would have been well served had we listened to Patton.....

[Symmetry]

Given that the USSR suffered the greatest casualties of the war, and basically fought alone against Nazi Germany for a significant portion of it with no real assistance, and given that most of the arguments posted so far for the use of atomic bombs lean heavily in favour of "it was done to screw over the Russians", perhaps they had a good reason to be wary of the countries that claimed to be their allies.

Given that Russia had a treaty with Germany and together both nations smashed Poland from two sides then Russia sowed the seeds for the spilling of her own blood. Russia enabled Germany to take the path of war. Stalin was just as despicable as Hitler.

The world would have been well served had we listened to Patton.....

Russia got screwed with its treaty with Germany. How is that an argument for the USSR trusting its later allies?

[patches70]

Russia got screwed with its treaty with Germany. How is that an argument for the USSR trusting its later allies?

Russia conspired with Germany for the invasion, destruction and sacking of Poland. I'm happy that the Finns later kicked the snot out of Russia. Russia didn't get anywhere near what they deserved for their crimes.

As for trusting the Allies, Stalin didn't trust his own mother. He was a paranoid lunatic. He didn't trust anyone. We sure as hell would be stupid to trust them!

If it weren't for the Allies supplying Russia with raw materials they would have been screwed. We threw them a lifeline until a second front could be opened against Germany.

So what if Russia bore the brunt of the war? They were as much at fault as Germany for the war. Germany might have thought twice before invading Poland if they didn't have a secret agreement with Russia on how to divide the spoils Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.
Good that they got screwed by Germany. That's what happens when a couple of lunatics get together. It's like two crazy murderers agreeing to off some home owner. After the deed is done one murderer turns on the other and tries to kill him. That second murderer goes running to the cops saying "help me! help me! He tried to kill me!" Sure, the cops will go after the other guy but the second guys should pay for his malfeasance.
Russia didn't have any choice but to "trust" the allies. Stalin never trusted, for good reason. He was an evil son of a bitch and it was one of the greatest mistakes to allow him to live after WWII.

Screw Russia. Or, more specifically, screw Stalin. He was just as bad if not worse than Hitler. We should have dropped a bomb on Moscow and sent Stalin shuffling off to Hell a bit earlier.

[Symmetry]

Russia got screwed with its treaty with Germany. How is that an argument for the USSR trusting its later allies?

Russia conspired with Germany for the invasion, destruction and sacking of Poland. I'm happy that the Finns later kicked the snot out of Russia. Russia didn't get anywhere near what they deserved for their crimes.

As for trusting the Allies, Stalin didn't trust his own mother. He was a paranoid lunatic. He didn't trust anyone. We sure as hell would be stupid to trust them!

If it weren't for the Allies supplying Russia with raw materials they would have been screwed. We threw them a lifeline until a second front could be opened against Germany.

So what if Russia bore the brunt of the war? They were as much at fault as Germany for the war. Germany might have thought twice before invading Poland if they didn't have a secret agreement with Russia on how to divide the spoils Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.
Good that they got screwed by Germany. That's what happens when a couple of lunatics get together. It's like two crazy murderers agreeing to off some home owner. After the deed is done one murderer turns on the other and tries to kill him. That second murderer goes running to the cops saying "help me! help me! He tried to kill me!" Sure, the cops will go after the other guy but the second guys should pay for his malfeasance.
Russia didn't have any choice but to "trust" the allies. Stalin never trusted, for good reason. He was an evil son of a bitch and it was one of the greatest mistakes to allow him to live after WWII.

Screw Russia. Or, more specifically, screw Stalin. He was just as bad if not worse than Hitler. We should have dropped a bomb on Moscow and sent Stalin shuffling off to Hell a bit earlier.

Poland doesn't exactly have a great history when it comes to the second World War either.

[oVo]

The idea that detonating two atomic bombs in Japan did not have an impact on decisions made to end the war in the Pacific is absurd. The terms of surrender proposed by Japan prior to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unacceptable and going nowhere.

patches... Russian leaders may not have "paid" for their wartime and post war sins, but the general population there certainly did.

[Symmetry]

The idea that detonating two atomic bombs in Japan did not have an impact on decisions made to end the war in the Pacific is absurd. The terms of surrender proposed by Japan prior to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unacceptable and going nowhere.

patches... Russian leaders may not have "paid" for their wartime and post war sins, but the general population there certainly did.

Could you post the proposed terms of surrender prior to the bombings? I'd be interested in what the The Japanese and the US were proposing, and what each side conceded.

[PLAYER57832]

Weren't there some Japanese soldiers out in the Pacific somewhere that were never told that WWII had ended and were still hiding out for the next 20 something years?

Not sure if it was 20 years, but a long time afterward, yes. More to do with isolation and lack of central control than any unwillingness of Japan to surrender.

[PLAYER57832]

The idea that detonating two atomic bombs in Japan did not have an impact on decisions made to end the war in the Pacific is absurd. The terms of surrender proposed by Japan prior to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unacceptable and going nowhere.

patches... Russian leaders may not have "paid" for their wartime and post war sins, but the general population there certainly did.

Could you post the proposed terms of surrender prior to the bombings? I'd be interested in what the The Japanese and the US were proposing, and what each side conceded.

Here is one link that seems credible:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
and excerpt that appears to answre your question, symmetry:

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."

On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."

In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: "Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses." (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)

America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.

[patches70]

Poland doesn't exactly have a great history when it comes to the second World War either.

What did Poland ever do? Did Poland have aspirations of world conquest like Stalin and Hitler? Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone? I'm not sure what you're getting at blaming Poland for anything.

patches... Russian leaders may not have "paid" for their wartime and post war sins, but the general population there certainly did.

Certainly they did. That suffering could have been avoided if the Russian Leader had been sane.

I put forth though that even before the war started the Russian people were suffering. Purges, secret police, murder, starvation, injustice, gulags, slave labor, slavery. All under the auspices of the Great Stalin. Some 30 million Russians died under Stalin before the first shot of WWII was ever fired.

The Russian and German murdering Polish officers, teachers and political leaders, to the tune of of 30,000 piled into mass graves is a testament to Russian and German intentions. Genocide, committed by both nations.

I won't sit around and listen to some fool defending Russia like they were on some noble mission of saving Europe from Nazi overlords. That is what symmetry is doing, defending Stalin. Once Russia was invaded they surely had no choice but to fight. I'd of done the same in their position. But trust the Russians? No way. Stalin couldn't be trusted. He was insane. Nor did Stalin ever fully trust the Allies nor the Allies fully trusted Russia. Russia caused their own troubles by her own actions. Everyone wants to ignore Russia's malfeasance up to and during the war. I don't forget that though. They were an Ally only by necessity, no other reason. That in itself is no basis for trust at all.


Contrary to the adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not always true. If Germany hadn't betrayed Russia, Stalin would have happily assisted in running over France and England and the rest of Europe. No matter what Germany and Russia would come to blows eventually.

[Baron Von PWN]

This is what the book in my WW2 class said too. Just want to note, upon many American requests for Russia to commit troops to an invasion, Russia pussy footed the shit out of us and didn't invade until the last possible second. Sure, I play my risk games the same way and it is a winning strategy, but if Russia had kept their word perhaps the bombs would never need to have been dropped in the first place.

Actually the Soviets followed the agreed upon timeline at Yalta of joining the pacific theater 3 months(exactly) after victory in Europe. Not unreasonable considering they had pulled troops from the far east to stop the German invasion. They also didn't half ass it they committed well over 1.5 million troops as well as thousands of tanks and aircraft.

The two views are not mutually exclusive. Waiting for the last day of the three month-deadline is the equivalent of waiting until the last possible second.

Yes, the Yalta agreement gave a deadline, but as with most deadlines, there is no crime in going forward sooner, only later. Germany was crumbling fast by early February; Russian troops could easily have been heading east by the end of March and could have entered the war against Japan 90 minutes after the German surrender instead of 90 days. That's if the Russians had been interested in helping their allies after having received so much help from them in the previous four years, instead of just being able to say "look, we stuck to the agreement!"

Could they though? What were Soviet troop deployments in the far east 90 minutes after German surrender? They began to replenish troop levels in the eastern theater shortly after Stalingrad but that was from the low levels they had been at after pulling troops out. Even when the Soviets did invade the Japanese had well over a million troops in Northern Asia. Its true the Soviet Union received allot of help from the allies, but from the Soviet perspective it seemed like token assistance. The Soviet view was that the allies had delayed as much as possible with opening a western front and did so only after Soviet victory against the Germans was clear.

[saxitoxin]

I would just like to say that ...

(1) Prior to the atom bombing, Japan offered to surrender to the United States on identical terms to those demanded - with the exception that the inviolability of the Emperor would be guaranteed and that only U.S. forces would be involved in the occupation of the home islands (which happened anyway even if it hadn't been guaranteed). This was revealed after Truman lifted his censorship restrictions in an August 19, 1945 story by Wally Trohan in the Chicago Tribune based on information leaked by Roosevelt's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, and confirmed by Gen. MacArthur, both of whom denounced the atom bombing. I've linked to this in another thread.

My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion.

(2) Poland got what it deserved. The annexation of Czechoslovakia was only possible because the absolute dictatorships that ran pre-war Poland and Hungary had moved their armies to the eastern border of Czechoslovakia and repeatedly threatened attack on various trumped-up grounds, seeking to take advantage of the worsening situation in Europe for a quick land grab. The Czechoslovak army could easily have defended itself against a German attack, had it not been spread across their entire border due to Polish and Hungarian sabre rattling.

(3) Stalin was justified in attacking Poland to simply reclaim Soviet territory that had been seized by the dirty Poles during the 1920 Soviet-Polish conflict when Poland sought to take advantage of the instability in the years following the Great October Revolution by making a quick land grab.

[Baron Von PWN]

We should have dropped a bomb on Moscow and sent Stalin shuffling off to Hell a bit earlier.

Just what the world needed after ww2, ww3.

[Symmetry]

Poland doesn't exactly have a great history when it comes to the second World War either.

What did Poland ever do? Did Poland have aspirations of world conquest like Stalin and Hitler? Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone? I'm not sure what you're getting at blaming Poland for anything.

It massacred its Jews on an unprecedented number in Europe. Other countries don't even come close.

[saxitoxin]

Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone?

Yes and yes.

(1) Poland launched an unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union in 1920, resulting in the death of more than 40,000 Russian and Belarus troops and loss of historic Russian territory.

(2) In 1938, prior to one German ever setting foot on Czechoslovak soil, Poland invaded and captured Zaolzi, which was an area of CZ inhabited by nearly a quarter million people.

• Poland has a history of wickedness and aggression toward the Czechs and the Slovaks. Even years later, in the 1968 international police intervention into Czechoslovakia, the DDR refused to contribute troops to Warsaw Pact forces due to the great crimes of the German people against the Czechs and Slovaks, however, Poland had no problem participating.

[Dukasaur]

Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone?

Yes and yes.

(1) Poland launched an unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union in 1920, resulting in the death of more than 40,000 Russian and Belarus troops and loss of historic Russian territory.

(2) In 1938, prior to one German ever setting foot on Czechoslovak soil, Poland invaded and captured Zaolzi, which was an area of CZ inhabited by nearly a quarter million people.

• Poland has a history of wickedness and aggression toward the Czechs and the Slovaks. Even years later, in the 1968 international police intervention into Czechoslovakia, the DDR refused to contribute troops to Warsaw Pact forces due to the great crimes of the German people against the Czechs and Slovaks, however, Poland had no problem participating.

Exactly.

And the Poles were intending to annex all of Silesia, eventually. Zaolzi was meant to be only the first step.

[oVo]

Some 30 million Russians died under Stalin before the first shot of WWII was ever fired.

I don't know about those figures, the estimate of Russian fatalities in World War II
is 18 Million and 10 million of that number is civilians.

[Dukasaur]

Some 30 million Russians died under Stalin before the first shot of WWII was ever fired.

I don't know about those figures, the estimate of Russian fatalities in World War II
is 18 Million and 10 million of that number is civilians.

Yeah, patches was a bit off. The commonly accepted number is that Stalin killed 30 million during his entire career, counting before, during, and after the war.

Still, does it really matter? I've always thought these debates about "who's worse: Hitler or Stalin?" are a bit pointless. After you've killed your first 10 thousand or so, you've pretty much earned the right to sit at Atilla's table in the Infernal Banquet Hall. Whether you sit beside Atilla or down beside Caligula doesn't make much difference to those of us who aren't there.

[jimboston]

The U.S. craved war because it and the UK have historically opposed European unity and have sought to impose English morays such as English language, common law and Anglicanism on the world at large.

Saying we craved war is silly.

Some segment of the population certainly did... another big chunk wanted us to join on the side of Germany!

The majority would have been happy to sit it out.
--------------------

There is no such thing as "European Unity". The closest experiment to that... The current EU... is on the verge of collapse because they can't agree on how to solve their fiscal crisis.
--------------------

I do agree the UK and the Us have tried to impose our cultural standards on the world. This is good and bad.

Bad because in today's world we do this in a half-hearted manor, and that will never work. If you want to impose you culture on another you have to be brutal about it, or don't bother trying.

Good because when the UK did this right in the 18th and 19th centuries they transformed the world for the better. Look at the countries transformed (not half-heartedly, but fully transformed) by the UK and they are all "1st World" modern countries with stable governments, the rule of law, and (comparatively) strong economies.

If you took the top 10 countries in the world... More than half (easily) are English speaking with English common law.

Saxi?

[PLAYER57832]

Some 30 million Russians died under Stalin before the first shot of WWII was ever fired.

I don't know about those figures, the estimate of Russian fatalities in World War II
is 18 Million and 10 million of that number is civilians.

Yeah, patches was a bit off. The commonly accepted number is that Stalin killed 30 million during his entire career, counting before, during, and after the war.

Still, does it really matter? I've always thought these debates about "who's worse: Hitler or Stalin?" are a bit pointless. After you've killed your first 10 thousand or so, you've pretty much earned the right to sit at Atilla's table in the Infernal Banquet Hall. Whether you sit beside Atilla or down beside Caligula doesn't make much difference to those of us who aren't there.

True, however the reality is likely that Imperial Japan was actually worse than both., with a few other groups (like the Pol Pot) giving them all a run for their money.

[PLAYER57832]

Tripe.

All of it.

... And don't tell me I don't know WW2 history.

The bombs were dropped for a combination of reasons.
The main two being...
1) end the war and save US lives
2) retaliation for Pearl Harbor

We did not drop the bombs because Russia was about to invade. That is tripe. We had been asking Russia to enter the Pacific War... they were war-weary and happy to let us do the heavy lifting at this time.
(Granted they had done most of the bleeding in Europe so u can understand their view.)

Russia entered the war at the last minute AFTER we dropped the first bomb... Primarily so the US would not be able to take full credit for Japan's surrender and also so they would have a seat at the table. This thread is attempting to turn history upside down.

There is some truth to the facts regarding the Emperor... and how we could have had a negotiated peace without the bombs.

We would not have had a surrender without the bombs... and the US people would not have had closure.

The funny part is that this "tripe" is apparently not disputed by most experts on the war. I long believed the above as well. But.. carry on.

[BigBallinStalin]

Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone?

Yes and yes.

(1) Poland launched an unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union in 1920, resulting in the death of more than 40,000 Russian and Belarus troops and loss of historic Russian territory.

(2) In 1938, prior to one German ever setting foot on Czechoslovak soil, Poland invaded and captured Zaolzi, which was an area of CZ inhabited by nearly a quarter million people.

• Poland has a history of wickedness and aggression toward the Czechs and the Slovaks. Even years later, in the 1968 international police intervention into Czechoslovakia, the DDR refused to contribute troops to Warsaw Pact forces due to the great crimes of the German people against the Czechs and Slovaks, however, Poland had no problem participating.

Exactly.

And the Poles were intending to annex all of Silesia, eventually. Zaolzi was meant to be only the first step.

WAIT! This is all new to me.

Which book/article discusses this?

[saxitoxin]

Did Poland threaten her neighbors? Was Poland a threat to anyone?

Yes and yes.

(1) Poland launched an unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union in 1920, resulting in the death of more than 40,000 Russian and Belarus troops and loss of historic Russian territory.

(2) In 1938, prior to one German ever setting foot on Czechoslovak soil, Poland invaded and captured Zaolzi, which was an area of CZ inhabited by nearly a quarter million people.

• Poland has a history of wickedness and aggression toward the Czechs and the Slovaks. Even years later, in the 1968 international police intervention into Czechoslovakia, the DDR refused to contribute troops to Warsaw Pact forces due to the great crimes of the German people against the Czechs and Slovaks, however, Poland had no problem participating.

Exactly.

And the Poles were intending to annex all of Silesia, eventually. Zaolzi was meant to be only the first step.

WAIT! This is all new to me.

Which book/article discusses this?

The history books. Many topics are forbidden to discuss in the west and intentionally omitted in the curriculum of the government-run schools if they are at odds with the official narrative of the 20th century.

The Polish Ambassador to the Hitlerian Court, Józef Lipski, met repeatedly with Germany about the best way Czechoslovakia could be carved-up between Germany, Poland and Hungary. After WWII Lipski formed the so-called "Polish Government-in-Exile" in London, which was a farcical anti-communist collaborator gang upon whom NATO bestowed legitimacy as Poland's exiled dissident resistance from the overbearing communist oppressors, etc. etc., the usual propaganda based in delusion and fantasy. These collaborators are now all feted as "heroes" and "courageous dissidents" even though they lit the match of WWII.

• The Polish invasion of Slovakia was the reason Czechoslovakia chose to surrender rather than fight Germany. The CZ Army was most modern in Europe and could field 30 divisions on mobilization, versus Germany's 38. The USSR also tasked a bomber wing to the airfield at Bratislava to help CZ defend against a German attack should CZ request it. But CZ knew they couldn't defend being invaded from three sides by Germany, Poland and Hungary at the same time, even with Soviet aid. After the British and French sold the Czechs and Slovaks down the river, only Stalin was ready to stand by and aid them, just like only Stalin accepted thousands of communist, Roma and Jewish refugees from Germany in the 30s when immigration by those classes was banned by the US and UK.

WWII was - like WWI - entirely a war of Britain's manufacture in which Germany played role of pliant dupe. When Britain got in over its head it had to then dupe the US into entering the war - as it did in WWI - but then got surprise burned by the US under Truman's conniving, which had not been expected as the UK capitalist class owned Roosevelt. The salutations for all victories and moral leadership belongs to the USSR.