Stryder50
Platinum Member
So this is a thread~topic started on another message board/forum with a somewhat history focus ~ only the political bias there means it could be subject to some distortions. Also, it would appear to be a topic of interest here; ... so presenting those posts of such there that I can redo here; without also doing those of others whom might not have approve of in put here ...
So my OP on the other site;
............
The following article link builds upon the old canard of the Regressive Leftist ideology that the USA didn't need to use the atomic bombs upon Japan to encourage a surrender and avoid the costs of actual invasion of Japan to end the war in the Pacific, during World War Two (WWII).
The issue and debate here would be how much did Soviet actions, three months after the end of the War in Europe, contribute to compelling Japan to surrender? Were Soviet Russia invasions in Manchuria, Korea, and Japan's Northern Islands key factors or just "icing on the cake" in form of opportunist land grabs?
The author of the article I'm about to link here would seem to be either a bit deficient in history or deliberately biased in understating the USA's role in defeating Japan. The USA spent those four years combating the best of quantity and quality of Japan's military, and compelling Japan to draw off some of the best of it's Northern Occupation Forces, thereby making the Soviet Russian efforts in mid-late 1945 much easier than they would have been.
Here's the article and link which is source to this thread topic. I'll do my more extensive slice-n-dice later when have more time, but present now for reference sake;
The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did
Have decades of nuclear policy been based on a lie?
...
The U.S. use of nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II has long been a subject of emotional debate. Initially, few questioned President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, in 1965, historian Gar Alperovitz argued that, although the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan’s leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary. Obviously, if the bombings weren’t necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. In the years since, many others have joined the fray: some echoing Alperovitz and denouncing the bombings, others rejoining hotly that the bombings were moral, necessary, and life-saving.
Both schools of thought, however, assume that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with new, more powerful weapons did coerce Japan into surrendering on Aug. 9. They fail to question the utility of the bombing in the first place — to ask, in essence, did it work? The orthodox view is that, yes, of course, it worked. The United States bombed Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9, when the Japanese finally succumbed to the threat of further nuclear bombardment and surrendered. The support for this narrative runs deep. But there are three major problems with it, and, taken together, they significantly undermine the traditional interpretation of the Japanese surrender.
...
So my OP on the other site;
............
The following article link builds upon the old canard of the Regressive Leftist ideology that the USA didn't need to use the atomic bombs upon Japan to encourage a surrender and avoid the costs of actual invasion of Japan to end the war in the Pacific, during World War Two (WWII).
The issue and debate here would be how much did Soviet actions, three months after the end of the War in Europe, contribute to compelling Japan to surrender? Were Soviet Russia invasions in Manchuria, Korea, and Japan's Northern Islands key factors or just "icing on the cake" in form of opportunist land grabs?
The author of the article I'm about to link here would seem to be either a bit deficient in history or deliberately biased in understating the USA's role in defeating Japan. The USA spent those four years combating the best of quantity and quality of Japan's military, and compelling Japan to draw off some of the best of it's Northern Occupation Forces, thereby making the Soviet Russian efforts in mid-late 1945 much easier than they would have been.
Here's the article and link which is source to this thread topic. I'll do my more extensive slice-n-dice later when have more time, but present now for reference sake;
The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did
Have decades of nuclear policy been based on a lie?
...
The U.S. use of nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II has long been a subject of emotional debate. Initially, few questioned President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, in 1965, historian Gar Alperovitz argued that, although the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan’s leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary. Obviously, if the bombings weren’t necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. In the years since, many others have joined the fray: some echoing Alperovitz and denouncing the bombings, others rejoining hotly that the bombings were moral, necessary, and life-saving.
Both schools of thought, however, assume that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with new, more powerful weapons did coerce Japan into surrendering on Aug. 9. They fail to question the utility of the bombing in the first place — to ask, in essence, did it work? The orthodox view is that, yes, of course, it worked. The United States bombed Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9, when the Japanese finally succumbed to the threat of further nuclear bombardment and surrendered. The support for this narrative runs deep. But there are three major problems with it, and, taken together, they significantly undermine the traditional interpretation of the Japanese surrender.
...
