A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[Oozlefinch]

If Japan wanted a conditional surrender then they shouldn't have fought to the last man in Okinawa and committed Kamikaze attacks on the ships.

They also should not have publicly stated that they were ignoring Potsdam, and never even attempted to contact the Allied Powers.

If they had even bothered in July to try and communicate with the Allied Powers, this could have been resolved by the end of the month. But they did not even bother, so the results of what came afterwards are all on them.

 

[Craig234]

Yea, this is why I generally ignore your posts, but this caught my eye.

No reason to interact with you, is there.

 

[Craig234]

The nukes (as devastating as they were) actually provided the easiest way out with the fewest casualties.

No, the easiest way out with the fewest casualties was sending them the message that they could surrender without the emperor being subject to war crimes. But that wouldn't have let us kill hundreds of thousands to send a message to Stalin.

Anyway history is history and it is always easy to second guess a decision somebody else made.

Ya, all this easy second guessing about the Holocaust someone else decided. It's easy to condemn it after the fact.

There was actually an unintended beneficial consequence. The devastating results of these relatively low yield atomic bombs kind of showed the world that nobody didn't ever want to go down that path again, especially with much higher yield weapons.

As you look around for every justification for the killing, that's one of the possible arguments.

It might even have some truth.

But you don't want to be too casual about saying killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was a good thing because it might have made the dangers of nuclear war clearer. Maybe we should intentionally have a nuclear accident kill 100,000 in a US city, because it will get the world to take nuclear safety more seriously and prevent a bigger disaster. It's a good thing.

 

[Robertinfremont]

We did a lot of that stuff by proxy. (More convenient to have Lucca Brasi do your dirty work than Vito Corleone himself.) Reagan said that one of the most bloodthirsty of the rulers, Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala, had gotten a "bad rap." Montt conducted political trials in the absence of the defendants. The verdicts were phoned in and the defendant would be taken out and shot. After some democracy came to Guatemala, he was sentenced to a hefty prison term (80yrs) for genocide and crimes against humanity, including "massacres, rapes and torture." He was also found to have conducted deliberate "acts of genocide" by an UN organization. Naturally he had received support from the US thru the CIA. The courts eventually showed some mercy, more than he ever did, precluding jail time for his senility.

Earlier in Guatemala, armed had abducted and "disappeared" dozens of labor leaders on two occasions from meetings they were holding. A janitor told inquiring reporters that it was the military that came. His mutiliated body was found a few days later.

An incident from my own work highlighted the situation in El Salvador and US hypocrisy. A Salvadoran guy phoned me to say that his brother had witnessed a death squad kidnapping in the capital and feared he had been identified. He wanted advice on what to tell his brother to do. Due to contacts with GOP senator Wilson's office, I got a phone number of a US embassy person in San Salvador. These were his exact words as I remember them after I told him the story: "I don't care, I am leaving in a couple of weeks. He's a dead man. Tell him to get out of the country." This was at a time when Reagan was granting asylum to less than 3% of Salvadorans saying there was nothing for them to flee. (Grant were less than 1% o Guatemalans, but several times that rate to Nicaraguans and 70% percent of Poles, the latter countries days at the beach compared to Guatemala and E.S. at the time.)

As to Grenada, how unacceptable for a country of 100,000 the size of Detroit (and probably safer to invade) to decide its own foreign policy? A leftist government comes to power. One of its moves is to expand the length of its airport to promot direct flights for tourism purposes to be able to receive direct flights from big planes, per a previous recommendation by the US aid agency. Canadian and American assistance was involved, with soMe work done by (horrors!) Cubans. Reagan seized on that as an example of their perfidy, done so that large Soviet planes could land there. Then, days after the tragedy of the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, two days later we invade Granada in a great example of "wag the dog" politics. Things eventually turned out ok. Grenada is a democracy. And guess what? The insidious airport was finished. Named after the leftist Maurice Bishop whose election initiated Reagan's hostility, well before he was killed.

The US invasion following the Lebanon reminded me of the guy steaming in the bar who just got beaten badly in a fight by a guy he underestimated when in walks scrawny Grenada...

Yes the US has not equaled what you describe. But we were a vicious "junior partner" in mass abuses. And our leader still has a taste for atrocities, praising dictators and suggesting that the US should itself commit war crimes.

I will say one thing about your posts, you sure love the left in any country.

As to your Reagan did this or that, I will wait for proof. As to Trump supports dictators, that too I shall wait for proof. I believe the woman I sat with at a meeting at Hayward, CA was the daughter of Rios Montt.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yet another derail.

You are aware that the leader that was praised there was Juan Peron, right? The nation he led was a classic example of a Socialist government.

Oh, and the word you want is not neo-NAZI, it is neo-fascist. They are not even close to the same thing, and do not mean what you think they mean.

But the love for them? Well, talk to Hollywood and the "Liberal Elites", they are the ones that praise old Juan. Make movies and musicals about his dead wife, and talk about how at least he made the trains run on time (sorry, wrong fascist leader).

Yes, Argentina did take in Nazis who fled Germany. But they also took in Fascists who fled Italy. The government there had been proto-fascist for decades, not really a surprise. And yes, during the last Junta they were targeted, but there does not appear to be any targeting because they were Jews, simply because they opposed the government. And in fact if anything it is higher now than ever before, because of immigration in the last few decades have shifted some of the demographics.

Now can we please get back to the topic?

The leaders that were praised were after Juan Peron. They were the military, responsible for tens of thousands of “disappeared.” I was privileged to attend a workshop given by a Jewish scholar talking about Argentina. He opened with the saying that “Jews are like other people, only more so.” By that he meant that a lot of people suffered under the Argentine military, only Jews more so. He described incidents where Jews were beaten and forced to kneel before crucifixes. He noted that attacks on Jewish scientists weakened Argentina’s efforts on, I believe, nuclear power, or some other scientific effort. I organized logistics on an international conference on the treatment of torture victims, and of all the participants, the Argentines said they had to treat victims clandestinely. I had to reimburse their airfare in cash, such was the fear they had of the junta. I also had the honor of translating for the “Grandmothers of the Disappeared,” Argentine women who searched for their murdered daughters children, kids who were “adopted” by their mother murderers in some cases. Check out the movie “The Official Story” for more details. Bottom line: the Reagan administration offered support to those monsters.

Postscript: the grandmothers attended a dance at our meeting. Me and a friend decided to ask the women to dance, as they were sitting alone. As it happened, the band decided to play the Hokey Pokey. So I had to translate “put your left foot in, put your left foot out... “ They spoke of it afterwards as some folk dance.

 

[vegas giants]

President Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here."

They weren't just words for him. His greatest point of pride as a World War I battery commander was that he never lost a man under his command. Not one.

So how prepared do you think he was going to be to waste hundreds of thousands on invading Japan if he didn't have to?

I'll be perfectly frank with you... I don't think it would have mattered worth a damn if everyone around the planning table was unanimous in being against the bomb (And they weren't - if anything, at the time, they were unanimously for it.), President Truman was going to do the same thing Lincoln did... his vote was going to be the one that overruled all the others.

They were pretty unanimous no invasion was necessary. Truman was a idiot

 

[vegas giants]

If Japan wanted a conditional surrender then they shouldn't have fought to the last man in Okinawa and committed Kamikaze attacks on the ships.

That was as strong signal that they had no intention of bending the knee.

The nukes (as devastating as they were) actually provided the easiest way out with the fewest casualties.

Anyway history is history and it is always easy to second guess a decision somebody else made.

There was actually an unintended beneficial consequence. The devastating results of these relatively low yield atomic bombs kind of showed the world that nobody didn't ever want to go down that path again, especially with much higher yield weapons.

Why? Why not give them what we ended up giving them anyway?

 

[maxparrish]

They were pretty unanimous no invasion was necessary. Truman was a idiot

LOL...they weren't even "unanimous" with themselves, let alone with each other. Quote mining a few sentences over a lifetime of statements, actions, and both flippant and well considered opinion AND THEN reading a "unanimous" policy prescription into that is the sort of shoddy and discredited intellectual ploys used by creationists use to discredit evolution.

Just how is it that Truman "was an idiot" when these so-called folk were "unanimous" before the bomb was dropped that the Japanese had to either be invaded or more city massive city destruction was required, and only that could make the the Japanese surrender, whether they knew they were defeated or not?

In fact Nimitz, Arnold, and LeMay were only unanimous ONCE: in their support for using the A-bomb before they were used and then years later making a sentence or two of unsupported speculation that maybe...kinda...shoulda their own personal war strategy should have been followed...which, is neither unanimous with their own historic stance NOR with each other.

The bottom line is that the onset of a moment of post-war regret and wishful thinking, some with their own agenda, DOESN'T constitute Truman being the idiot.

 

[Nickyjo]

I will say one thing about your posts, you sure love the left in any country.

As to your Reagan did this or that, I will wait for proof. As to Trump supports dictators, that too I shall wait for proof. I believe the woman I sat with at a meeting at Hayward, CA was the daughter of Rios Montt.

You need proof that Reagan invaded Grenada a few days after the disaster in Lebanon? You need proof that Ríos Montt was sentenced to a long prison term? You need proof that Reagan restored aid to tyrants in Latin America, aid that Carter had cut off? Easy to find. Google it. You will also find statements of support by Trump for Duterte, admiration for Saddam’s tactics, and, of course, his endorsement of war crimes (“take out their families“) and pardons of those who committed them. Our military wanted to prosecute their own for murder and Trump overruled them. By his logic, we should posthumously pardon the Germans we executed for their actions against the resistance in occupied Europe, when they would hang several people at random in retaliation for bombings or assassinations. Trump’s instincts to take out their families are right out of the fascist playbook. Hardly pro-life by the way, as I assume “their families” might include pregnant women and their unborn children.

As to supporting the left, I also have supported the resistance in Eastern Europe, working professionally on behalf of Soviet political prisoners. One of the more inspiring things I remember about the Polish resistance after the Soviet crackdown was a message of solidarity sent to the Chilean resistance against Pinochet from Poles combating the Russian incursion. The Poles had a clarity of thought about repression that escaped Reagan.

 

[maxparrish]

No, the easiest way out with the fewest casualties was sending them the message that they could surrender without the emperor being subject to war crimes. But that wouldn't have let us kill hundreds of thousands to send a message to Stalin.

You're in a rut, and keep repeating a straw man - a fantasy of your own making. There is nothing in the literature that supports the notion that there was a point of contention, let alone one that was pivotal to the parties, regarding the emperor being subject to war crimes.

If you believe it so, please cite the communiques or public statements by the Japanese government, and responses by the US government, to such demands. If you can't please have the minimal integrity to drop it and do some reading of the academic and diplomatic literature, rather than the unsupported disinformation blathered on left wing websites.

One place you might start is by reading the work of someone who was Japan's most distinguished Japanese diplomatic historian, Sadao Asada, and his 1998 research article "The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration" in particular. Rather than play the "victim card" over Hiroshima, as Japanese tend to do, Dr. Asada reviewed not only the literature but also primary sources in Japan and came to the same conclusion as others in mainstream western histography: there was no opportunity for peace UNTIL the A-bomb provided the Japanese an excuse to make surrender acceptable.

Conclusion

The above analysis has shown that in August 1945 Japan's peace party made the maximum political use of the atomic bomb to end the war. To them the bomb was "a gift from
Heaven," "a golden opportunity," and "a psychological moment" to end the war; they saw the bomb as "assisting" their peace efforts and as a means for the military to save face. ... Regarding the bomb as if it were a natural calamity also inhibited soul-searching reflection on the war that Japan had started and lost. An embodiment of scientific advances that went beyond their imagination, the superbomb protected Japan's ruling elite from squarely facing the agonies of their nation's unprecedented surrender.

On August 15, 1945, the day the emperor's rescript of surrender was broadcast, Murobuse Koshin, a liberal journalist of the old generation, lamented that all "responsibility" had been placed on two "unexpected events," the atomic bomb and the Soviet entry into the war. "Nothing is said about the government's ignorance, mistakes, and impotence." The government's responsibility for the war and defeat was thus conveniently shelved. ...

There is nothing in Asada's definitive essay regarding your nonsense about the Emperor and a demand for immunity from war crimes, and certainly not as the only necessary concession for a peace agreement.

The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration | Pacific Historical Review | University of California Press

 

[maxparrish]

For those people who enjoy research and reading books, rather than just pulling ignorances from their arse, I recommend the following:

Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B. Frank

The Most Controversial Decision (Cambridge Essential Histories) . Miscamble, Cambridge University Press.

Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 by Giangreco, Giangreco. Naval Institute Press.

Imperial Japan's World War Two by Gruhl, Werner. Taylor and Francis.

Truman and the Hiroshima Cult (Rhetoric & Public Affairs) by Newman, Robert P.. Michigan State University Press.

Weapons for Victory by Maddox, Robert James. University of Missouri Press.

Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism Edited By Robert James Maddox, University of Missouri Press

The last book can be downloaded for free at: Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism | Robert J. Maddox, Robert J. Maddox | download

 

[Craig234]

While the good posts on the topic aren't even really getting replies, here's another good article.

It notes that dropping the bombs wasn't even really a decision, it was a plan put in place with the building of the bombs; it was more a question whether Truman should abort the plan.

It has various interesting details, including 66 scientists on the project who wanted the bomb dropped in an empty area, whose petition never even got to Truman; and it includes clear evidence that that purpose for the bombs was not 'military targets', but the largest possible psychological effect by destroying cities and killing civilians. Once again, the 'military targets' thing is good propaganda.

Hiroshima: How America sleepwalked into the atomic age.

 

[Robertinfremont]

You need proof that Reagan invaded Grenada a few days after the disaster in Lebanon? You need proof that Ríos Montt was sentenced to a long prison term? You need proof that Reagan restored aid to tyrants in Latin America, aid that Carter had cut off? Easy to find. Google it. You will also find statements of support by Trump for Duterte, admiration for Saddam’s tactics, and, of course, his endorsement of war crimes (“take out their families“) and pardons of those who committed them. Our military wanted to prosecute their own for murder and Trump overruled them. By his logic, we should posthumously pardon the Germans we executed for their actions against the resistance in occupied Europe, when they would hang several people at random in retaliation for bombings or assassinations. Trump’s instincts to take out their families are right out of the fascist playbook. Hardly pro-life by the way, as I assume “their families” might include pregnant women and their unborn children.

As to supporting the left, I also have supported the resistance in Eastern Europe, working professionally on behalf of Soviet political prisoners. One of the more inspiring things I remember about the Polish resistance after the Soviet crackdown was a message of solidarity sent to the Chilean resistance against Pinochet from Poles combating the Russian incursion. The Poles had a clarity of thought about repression that escaped Reagan.

No, I know when Reagan invaded Grenada and when the action at Lebanon took place. I wonder why you link the two events?

Reagan played no role in the funds going to Central America from Saudi Arabia. Mistakenly believed to come due to Reagan, which is false.

As to Montt, my only claim is I believe I sat next to his daughter in CA one evening and she told me things that happened vs her father.

You totally misunderstand Trump. And that is a FACT.

By the way they so appreciate Reagan in Poland they installed a statue to him there.

 

[Robertinfremont]

For those people who enjoy research and reading books, rather than just pulling ignorances from their arse, I recommend the following:

Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B. Frank

The Most Controversial Decision (Cambridge Essential Histories) . Miscamble, Cambridge University Press.

Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 by Giangreco, Giangreco. Naval Institute Press.

Imperial Japan's World War Two by Gruhl, Werner. Taylor and Francis.

Truman and the Hiroshima Cult (Rhetoric & Public Affairs) by Newman, Robert P.. Michigan State University Press.

Weapons for Victory by Maddox, Robert James. University of Missouri Press.

Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism Edited By Robert James Maddox, University of Missouri Press

The last book can be downloaded for free at: Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism | Robert J. Maddox, Robert J. Maddox | download

Have you read this book yet?

View attachment 67290592

 

[Oozlefinch]

The leaders that were praised were after Juan Peron.

That would be the military Junta. And I don't know of anybody that praised them after the first year.

If you want to go on and on about these sidebars, then make another thread dedicated to them. This is not the place, this thread is about Japan.

 

[vegas giants]

LOL...they weren't even "unanimous" with themselves, let alone with each other. Quote mining a few sentences over a lifetime of statements, actions, and both flippant and well considered opinion AND THEN reading a "unanimous" policy prescription into that is the sort of shoddy and discredited intellectual ploys used by creationists use to discredit evolution.

Just how is it that Truman "was an idiot" when these so-called folk were "unanimous" before the bomb was dropped that the Japanese had to either be invaded or more city massive city destruction was required, and only that could make the the Japanese surrender, whether they knew they were defeated or not?

In fact Nimitz, Arnold, and LeMay were only unanimous ONCE: in their support for using the A-bomb before they were used and then years later making a sentence or two of unsupported speculation that maybe...kinda...shoulda their own personal war strategy should have been followed...which, is neither unanimous with their own historic stance NOR with each other.

The bottom line is that the onset of a moment of post-war regret and wishful thinking, some with their own agenda, DOESN'T constitute Truman being the idiot.

Then show me your evidence for your claims. You say they supported using the bomb and have zero evidence for that.


Dude claim anything you want. It's a free country. Claim truman was an alien and Nimitz was his lover for all I care.



But it is dismissed unless you have the evidence to back it up.


I have given verifiable evidence....the very words from their mouths.



You guys give nothing.



Your claims are dismissed

 

[vegas giants]

Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"

 

[Oozlefinch]

There is nothing in Asada's definitive essay regarding your nonsense about the Emperor and a demand for immunity from war crimes, and certainly not as the only necessary concession for a peace agreement.

And that one of the first things that Emperor Showa attempted to do during the occupation was to abdicate. And General MacArthur refused to accept it.

In fact, he offered to abdicate multiple times. The first was right after the occupation started. The second was in 1948 as the War Crimes trials were coming to a close, and he offered to abdicate and even let himself be put on trial, if it would save those facing justice. That also was refused. The final time was in 1951, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was close to being signed and the occupation ended. He again tried to abdicate, stating he would renounce the throne and all titles and take up life as a civilian. That way his son could take the throne without any influence from his reign.

That also was rejected.

So if it was so damned important that the Emperor not be removed or tried, why did he offer that himself later?

What people tend to not grasp is that the person of the Emperor is not even important, just that there is an Emperor of the Imperial Line on the throne.

"The King is dead, long live the King."

This is a concept that far to many seem completely unable to grasp. The closest we have in modern days is probably the Pope. Which Cardinal throws off their red robes and sits their butt in the Chair of Saint Peter really does not matter, so long as the butt of some high ranking Catholic occupies it. The Catholic population also largely could not care less, so long as it is a Catholic butt. In Japan, it is much the same. So long as one of the Imperial Line has their butt on the Chrysanthemum Throne.

This is why once again we have seen a return of "Cadet Houses" into the line. I already discussed their being removed in 1947, but so far there has been one cadet line restored.

And for those that do not understand and are to lazy to look up what that means, let me explain. A "Cadet House" is when a member of the royal line branches off. They are no longer in line of secession, but are still of the Imperial Blood Line. And under Japanese law and traditions, their children could ascend to the throne if no others were alive or able. After Emperor Emeritus Akihito's younger brother Prince Yoshi got married, their father created the first (and only) cadet house and elevated him to Prince Hitachi. But he had no children, so that cadet house will die with him.

It is hoped that the 2nd in line Prince Akishino is fruitful, because the entire 2,500 year old dynasty still rests on his head (or other parts). The hope is that in another decade or so he has many sons, so they can repopulate the cadet houses and not be reliant upon a single line to keep the lineage alive.

 

[vegas giants]

Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering. Even more, he had seen signs for weeks that the Japanese were actually already looking for a way out of the war. His idea was for the United States to tell the Japanese about the bomb, the impending Soviet entry into the war, and the fair treatment that citizens and the Emperor would receive at the coming*Big Three*conference. Before the bombing occurred, Bard pleaded with Truman to neither drop the bombs (at least not without warning the population first) nor to invade the entire country, proposing to stop the bloodshed.[15]

 

[vegas giants]

Historian*Tsuyoshi Hasegawa*wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[102]*Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the*Potsdam Declaration*signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[103]*As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[104]*Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland*... It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy*...[105]

Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,[106]*it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.

 

[vegas giants]

Ward Wilson*wrote that "after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons", and that the Japanese Supreme Council did not bother to convene after the atomic bombings because they were barely more destructive than previous bombings. He wrote that instead, the Soviet declaration of war and*invasion of Manchuria*and*South Sakhalin*removed Japan's last diplomatic and military options for negotiating a*conditional*surrender, and this is what prompted Japan's surrender. He wrote that attributing Japan's surrender to a "miracle weapon", instead of the start of the Soviet invasion, saved face for Japan and enhanced the United States' world standing.[108]

 

[maxparrish]

Have you read this book yet?

View attachment 67290592

"Invalid attachment" appeared.

 

[maxparrish]

Historian*Tsuyoshi Hasegawa*wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[102]*Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the*Potsdam Declaration*signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[103]*As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[104]*Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland*... It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy*...[105]

Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,[106]*it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.

For someone who constantly screams about references and links, why is it you NEVER provide either? Seriously guy, what gives?

 

[maxparrish]

Ward Wilson*wrote that "after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons", and that the Japanese Supreme Council did not bother to convene after the atomic bombings because they were barely more destructive than previous bombings. He wrote that instead, the Soviet declaration of war and*invasion of Manchuria*and*South Sakhalin*removed Japan's last diplomatic and military options for negotiating a*conditional*surrender, and this is what prompted Japan's surrender. He wrote that attributing Japan's surrender to a "miracle weapon", instead of the start of the Soviet invasion, saved face for Japan and enhanced the United States' world standing.[108]

For someone who constantly screams about references and links, why is it you NEVER provide either? Seriously guy, what gives?

 

[vegas giants]

For someone who constantly screams about references and links, why is it you NEVER provide either? Seriously guy, what gives?

Allow me to quickly remedy that.

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia


Any other links you would like provided?