WW II ~ Atom Bomb or Russia = Japan's Surrender in WWII ???

[DudleySmith]

Foreign policy after 1945:

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

Despite all the criticisms and the various policy defeats that Kennan suffered in the early 1950’s, containment in the more general sense of blocking the expansion of Soviet influence remained the basic strategy of the United States throughout the cold war. On the one hand, the United States did not withdraw into isolationism; on the other, it did not move to “roll back” Soviet power, as John Foster Dulles briefly advocated. It is possible to say that each succeeding administration after Truman’s, until the collapse of communism in 1989, adopted a variation of Kennan’s containment policy and made it their own.

Viet Nam fit in quite well with this policy and FDR's post-war legacy agenda to de-colonize Asia, Africa, etc. and create independent states out of former European colonies. The Soviets, meanwhile, embarked on imperialist expansion hoping to take over many of the old European colonies.


The 'Long Telegram', Keenan sent to the State Dept.

This Day In History

76 years ago today, George Kennan, an American diplomat living in Moscow, sent an 8,000-word telegram to Truman’s State Department...

www.trumanlibraryinstitute.org

76 years ago, George Kennan, an American diplomat living in Moscow, sent an 8,000-word telegram to President Truman’s State Department. Today, “The Long Telegram” is regarded as a foundational U.S. document, right up there with the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers and George Washington’s Farewell Address. As a sign of its enduring significance, the telegram’s 75th anniversary appears on top-ten lists of historic moments to note in 2021.


In his telegram to Washington, Kennan provided U.S. policy recommendations based on his analysis of the cultural and historical forces that shaped the motives of Soviet leaders and influenced Soviet conduct around the globe. Kennan asserted that the “problem of how to cope with [the Soviet] force in [is] undoubtedly greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face. It should be point of departure from which our political general staff work at present juncture should proceed.” He was correct. Kennan’s Long Telegram spurred intellectual policy debate that formed the basis of American policy towards the Soviet Union for the next 25 years, including the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan.

 

[eagle1462010]

They elected FDR President four times, and then elected Truman.

So. Doesnt mean he was a dumb ass in the War. His Legacy is Ukraine war of today. Poland being inbthe USSR til Reagan.

And of course the govt can spend on anything it pleases to todays result.

 

[Open Bolt]

Evidence indicates that Japan was trying to broker surrender terms with Stalin when Harry Truman refused to negotiate.

It wasn't Truman who refused to negotiate. It was Japan.

What Japan sought with Russia was their help in escaping the war by ending it in a draw without surrendering.

At issue was the pardon of the Emperor which was accomplished anyway after two Bombs were dropped.

The Emperor was not the issue until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

What Japan actually asked was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity. We refused this request and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

That's what negotiations are about. Doesn't it beat reducing the civilian populations of two cities to black shadows on the wall?

There were no negotiations. Japan was refusing to negotiate.

 

[Open Bolt]

Aug 14, 1965, page 1 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated Aug 14, 1965, page 1.

www.newspapers.com

Fake news. Never happened.

 

[Open Bolt]

This psychotic compulsion to disgrace FDR and TRuman on the part of far rightwingers even to the extent of sniveling over the poor Japanese and Nazis is just becoming another sick joke, and a major reason why they can't beat left wing psychos in elections by more than trifling percentages. They're as dishonest and loony as AOC and Bernie.

Umm.... Where is your reading comprehension?

It is the far left who are savaging FDR and Truman here. And it is rightwingers who are defending FDR and Truman here.

I will admit that I do strongly differ with FDR on some policy issues, but I certainly do not fault either FDR or Truman for their leadership in fighting WWII.

And we won the Cold War because of Democrats, too,

Actually that was Reagan.

Rubbish. They went bankrupt in 1973 because of LBJ's escalation in Viet Nam, and his defeat of the Viet Cong in 1968, and his taking on Israel in 1967 costing their Arab allies that year's war and the 1973 war, along with his support for numerous African states, all derived out our containment policy and strategy, thank you President Truman.

Reagan's defense spending was a large part of it too.

Reagan didn't do squat, he was just sitting there with his thumbs up his ass trying to look awake.

Reagan increased defense spending.

He did run guns to the Iranians and cocaine to American ghettos, though.

Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with cocaine. That was Bill Clinton who was smuggling in cocaine through Arkansas.

Selling guns to Iran got the hostages freed. It was a good move.

 

[Unkotare]

Aug 14, 1965, page 1 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated Aug 14, 1965, page 1.

www.newspapers.com

On this very thread I have provided direct quotes from our military leaders of the day, and historical documents supporting the obvious fact that the bombs were not necessary or moral, but some faceless blips of light on a computer screen just repeating "no, no, no!" over and over should be given greater credence? I don't think so. Next will follow more "no, no, no!" At this point, this thread does not deserve to be located in a "History" forum. Maybe a move to the Flame Zone is in order.

 

[Open Bolt]

On this very thread I have provided direct quotes from our military leaders of the day, and historical documents supporting the obvious fact that the bombs were not necessary or moral,

Whether the justice bombs were necessary or moral is an opinion, not a fact.

I find the two justice bombs to have been incredibly moral. The second justice bomb should have been dropped on Kyoto though instead of on Nagasaki.

but some faceless blips of light on a computer screen just repeating "no, no, no!" over and over should be given greater credence?

Your suggestion that any of those military leaders or historical documents support you or contradict me is entirely untrue.

The whining of those military leaders was indeed pathetic, but all of that pathetic whining does not contradict anything that I have said. Neither does it support your fake news article.

I don't think so. Next will follow more "no, no, no!"

It is proper that your outrageously untrue claims are denied.

At this point, this thread does not deserve to be located in a "History" forum. Maybe a move to the Flame Zone is in order.

There is certainly no history in the fake news that you keep posting.

But those of us who correct your untrue claims do help to defend and protect history.

 

[Mac-7]

Whether the justice bombs were necessary or moral is an opinion, not a fact.

I find the two justice bombs to have been incredibly moral. The second justice bomb should have been dropped on Kyoto though instead of on Nagasaki.



Your suggestion that any of those military leaders or historical documents support you or contradict me is entirely untrue.

The whining of those military leaders was indeed pathetic, but all of that pathetic whining does not contradict anything that I have said. Neither does it support your fake news article.



It is proper that your outrageously untrue claims are denied.



There is certainly no history in the fake news that you keep posting.

But those of us who correct your untrue claims do help to defend and protect history.

I have been arguing with this guy for a long time with no success

Thw sad thing that he says he’s a public school teacher

 

[elektra]

There was no Japanese surrender before the bombs were dropped. Japan did not stop fighting. The facts of history show Japan strengthening their defenses.

A war is not over until one side quits. People here are stating the USA should of quit fighting before Japan.

Surrender to japan?

 

[elektra]

No military leader stated not to drop the bomb.

No general or Admiral said do not drop the bomb.

Nobody here has posted anything showing any US leader at any level stating do not drop the bomb.

 

[DudleySmith]

Umm.... Where is your reading comprehension?

It is the far left who are savaging FDR and Truman here. And it is rightwingers who are defending FDR and Truman here.

I will admit that I do strongly differ with FDR on some policy issues, but I certainly do not fault either FDR or Truman for their leadership in fighting WWII.

[/QUOTE]

Unkotare, Whitehall, Griffith etc. are not left wingers, they are Republicans and libertoons. You must not be familiar with their posting histories.

Actually that was Reagan.



Reagan's defense spending was a large part of it too.



Reagan increased defense spending.



Reagan had nothing whatsoever to do with cocaine. That was Bill Clinton who was smuggling in cocaine through Arkansas.

Selling guns to Iran got the hostages freed. It was a good move.

All rubbish. The Soviets went bankrupt in 1973, largely over Viet Nam, and after that the world went through its energy crisis and global food shortages, and the Western nations opted to bring the Soviet collapse to a soft landing rather than let it fall into chaos and have all those nukes fall into the hands of crazies. This was started under Nixon, a man Reagan hated. The Soviets limped along almost entirely dependent on western wheat and U.S. imports of refined petroleum products. Saint Ronald was just 'there' when Gorbachev finally ousted the hardliners, wandering around waiting for somebody to tell him what to do, and did nothing much, except encourage ME govts. to escalate terrorism against the U.S. and suck up to Iranians, and help Nicaraguan gangsters run cocaine into the U.S. He also was enthusiastic about 'outsourcing' and encouraging illegal immigration, along with ignoring anti-trust violations, and bank regulations.

'Selling guns to the Iranians' was flat stupid; American policy was never to negotiate with terrorists, especially those who ran a country that committed an act of war against the U.S. All he accomplished was more terrorism against us and our allies. OPEC and crop failures killed the Soviet Union, not Saint Ronald. All Saint Ronald did was order gold plating on old battleships the Navy didn't want and announced a fictitious 'Star Wars' pork program.

 

[Open Bolt]

Unkotare, Whitehall, Griffith etc. are not left wingers, they are Republicans and libertoons. You must not be familiar with their posting histories.

Well I admit that I'm not familiar with their posting history. I'm relatively new here, and general politics has bored me to tears for the last few years.

But in my experience it is the far left that gets upset over our dropping of the justice bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All rubbish. The Soviets went bankrupt in 1973, largely over Viet Nam, and after that the world went through its energy crisis and global food shortages, and the Western nations opted to bring the Soviet collapse to a soft landing rather than let it fall into chaos and have all those nukes fall into the hands of crazies. This was started under Nixon, a man Reagan hated. The Soviets limped along almost entirely dependent on western wheat and U.S. imports of refined petroleum products. Saint Ronald was just 'there' when Gorbachev finally ousted the hardliners, wandering around waiting for somebody to tell him what to do, and did nothing much, except encourage ME govts. to escalate terrorism against the U.S. and suck up to Iranians,

That is incorrect. Reagan was behind a huge arms buildup that helped to push the Soviet economy over the edge.

I still remember how the left opposed his military spending, and sneered at them when he made his famous tear down this wall speech.

and help Nicaraguan gangsters run cocaine into the U.S.

That wasn't Reagan. That was then-governor Bill Clinton who was letting cocaine be smuggled in through Arkansas airports.

'Selling guns to the Iranians' was flat stupid;

I disagree. It got the hostages freed.

American policy was never to negotiate with terrorists, especially those who ran a country that committed an act of war against the U.S.

I disagree. We should always pay ransoms.

We should have our military hunt down and kill hostage takers. But we should still pay ransoms to get our people freed in the meantime.

Think of it as being like bank robberies. We don't have bank tellers resist bank robbers. We have them meekly hand over all the money. But we then have the FBI hunt down the bank robbers.

Paying ransoms will prevent hostages from being killed or held in captivity for years. Having the military hunt down and kill the hostage takers after the hostages are freed is a perfectly good way of managing the threat.

All he accomplished was more terrorism against us and our allies.

He accomplished freeing the hostages.

Our response to Iran's acts of war against us should have been to have the US Air Force massively bomb Iran (conventionally of course) after we got the hostages out.

OPEC and crop failures killed the Soviet Union, not Saint Ronald. All Saint Ronald did was order gold plating on old battleships the Navy didn't want and announced a fictitious 'Star Wars' pork program.

That is incorrect. There were all sorts of weapons programs. The MX missile in the US. The Pershing II and ground launched cruise missile in Europe. There were modernizations of our conventional forces as well.

 

[Mushroom]

Then how did the fighting with the Soviet Union continue for another 3 to 4 weeks

Technically, according to them they were "securing" their "occupation zone". Much as there was even some sporadic fighting in Germany for months after it surrendered.

The Soviets as should be known had no interest in "occupation", they were all about advancing their frontier and annexing territory. With most of Eastern Europe they ultimately had to turn it over to countries that existed prior to the war, but in territory that was held by the Japanese they simply took and annexed it. Others (like Manchuria) it was also those who wanted Japan out, but wanted their independence again (or even to retain their nominal independence as Manchuko). And they knew that if the Soviets (liberated them), their new taskmasters would be as brutal as the Japanese were.

 

[elektra]

Technically, according to them they were "securing" their "occupation zone". Much as there was even some sporadic fighting in Germany for months after it surrendered.

The Soviets as should be known had no interest in "occupation", they were all about advancing their frontier and annexing territory. With most of Eastern Europe they ultimately had to turn it over to countries that existed prior to the war, but in territory that was held by the Japanese they simply took and annexed it. Others (like Manchuria) it was also those who wanted Japan out, but wanted their independence again (or even to retain their nominal independence as Manchuko). And they knew that if the Soviets (liberated them), their new taskmasters would be as brutal as the Japanese were.

Technically, two opposing armies were fighting, killing one another. It was every bit, a war.

 

[Open Bolt]

Aug 14, 1965, page 1 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated Aug 14, 1965, page 1.

www.newspapers.com

Historians take notice of Walter Trohan:

Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? (Part 1)

Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? Short answer: no. Long answer: also no, but it's a bit complicated.

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? (Part 2)

What if Japan did offer nearly-full surrender terms to the US in early 1945? In the 1940s, just this was claimed — but it's not very likely.

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

The verdict:
Fake news. Never happened.


It is also notable how historians (the real ones) have gone for so long without even noticing Walter Trohan's existence.

People who cite Walter Trohan, are not historians. They never were. They never will be.

 

[Mushroom]

It is also notable how historians (the real ones) have gone for so long without even noticing Walter Trohan's existence.

People who cite Walter Trohan, are not historians. They never were. They never will be.

And I notice that none of those screaming Japan was trying to surrender even comment on the actual telegrams sent between Togo and the Ambassador to the Soviet Union.

I actually find it hilarious that they actually ignore real proven history and historical documents, and instead chase off of moonbeams and unicorn farts because that is what they want to believe in.

How about a single one of those that screams over and over that Japan was about to surrender show any proof of that at all in the telegrammed instructions from Tokyo to Moscow. Which in fact the Ambassador constantly castigated them for their failure to grasp reality, and that they needed to get serious about ending the war before it was too late. But all the messages from Togo simply said the same thing. Force through a peace treaty (NOT surrender), and only agree to give up territory that Japan had already lost (while insisting that any lost territory be returned).

It is kind of hard to argue otherwise, when the actual telegrams themselves are a matter of public record. First from US codebreakers, then from the Japanese archives themselves. They only differ slightly, and that is all entirely due to translation.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Well I admit that I'm not familiar with their posting history. I'm relatively new here, and general politics has bored me to tears for the last few years.

But in my experience it is the far left that gets upset over our dropping of the justice bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



That is incorrect. Reagan was behind a huge arms buildup that helped to push the Soviet economy over the edge.

I still remember how the left opposed his military spending, and sneered at them when he made his famous tear down this wall speech.



That wasn't Reagan. That was then-governor Bill Clinton who was letting cocaine be smuggled in through Arkansas airports.



I disagree. It got the hostages freed.



I disagree. We should always pay ransoms.

We should have our military hunt down and kill hostage takers. But we should still pay ransoms to get our people freed in the meantime.

Think of it as being like bank robberies. We don't have bank tellers resist bank robbers. We have them meekly hand over all the money. But we then have the FBI hunt down the bank robbers.

Paying ransoms will prevent hostages from being killed or held in captivity for years. Having the military hunt down and kill the hostage takers after the hostages are freed is a perfectly good way of managing the threat.



He accomplished freeing the hostages.

Our response to Iran's acts of war against us should have been to have the US Air Force massively bomb Iran (conventionally of course) after we got the hostages out.



That is incorrect. There were all sorts of weapons programs. The MX missile in the US. The Pershing II and ground launched cruise missile in Europe. There were modernizations of our conventional forces as well.

The Abrams, the Bradley, the B1B the list of programs goes on and on. The USSR had always depended on quantitative superiority to offset our qualitative superiority. All of Reagan's upgrades made that impossible. They had to attempt to match our quality working from a far inferior technological and fiscal base. It broke their society.

 

[Polishprince]

I'm sure the threat of having Japan overrun by stalinist thugs was something the emperor considered when making the decision to surrender.

The Japanese always laughed about the Pearl Harbor job they did against us in Hawaii and considered Americans to be "stupid". They weren't as anxious to deal with Russian overlords, and it had to be part of their calculus.

 

[Litwin]

 

[AZrailwhale]

View attachment 643580

Nice propaganda poster. The Russian troops did as much and far worse to not only Germany, but countries they weren’t even at war with INCLUDING Ukraine.