The US beating Japan in WW2 is a common myth
here is a different perspective: The soviets were the reason Japan surrendered
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
Japan surrendered not because of dropped nukes but because they were terrified of Soviet invasion over Hokkaido after Manchuria fell.
WITH WHAT BOATS
I
T
H
W
H
A
T
B
O
A
T
S
OK
>>1078211
PLEB TIER OBSERVATION
le baltic fleet over again
>>1078227
its not a new theory at all. And with what boats? they were beginning to move against japan in China (since they invanded there)
>>1078211
no
>>1078266
Well, your theory has been discussed, and the Soviet Pacific Fleet wasn't adequate for an amphibious invasion of the home islands.
>>1078211
not new. I see that you recently read the latest book by ul
>>1078211
Look, buddy, you clearly lack even the faintest bit of knowledge on the Pacific War aside from one internet article so it's probably best if you don't go spreading this nonsense around anywhere else. The Soviet contribution was notable but it wouldn't have resulted in Japan's total capitulation unless it was backed by a US naval and air assault campaign and a threat of invasion. And at any rate the success of the soviets against the Kwantung army is partially a result of the attrition it took sending units off to the Pacific.
>>1078211
Yes, the Soviet invasion that would have materialized with the massive fleet the Soviets didn't have in the Pacific.
And the absolute shit-stain performance on the Kuril islands would have assured the Japanese that the Soviets weren't going to manage any amphibious attacks anytime soon.
>>1078266
I'm assuming he means the Soviet's ability to project power in Manchuria was dependent on American support. To say America played no role Soviet action in Manchuria ignores that the bulk of forces in the far east were equipped with American-made equipment.
In fact the terms of lend-lease specified that equipment the Soviet Union did not intend to pay for was sent East anyway to Vladivostok. The equipment the Soviets did keep, for example the Liberty ships which the USSR kept in service until the late 70's, were the basis for any projection in the far east.
>>1078211
Did anyone ever think the opposite?
Japan lost 100s of cities to millions of bombs. What's two cities to two bombs to them?
The emperor was mortified of the Soviets, and what 1500 year old bourgeois dynasty wouldn't?
>>1078321
>Did anyone ever think the opposite?
Several generations of westerners, hundreds of millions of people over decades; still do.
can anyone help? >>1078316
>>1078321
And what if Tokyo was bombed (which was next in line)?
>>1078437
>what if Tokyo was bombed (which was next in line)?
You got it backwards.
>>1078457
I didn't know Tokyo was hit with an atomic bomb
>>1078495
>The Operation Meetinghouse air raid of 9–10 March 1945 was later estimated to be the single most destructive bombing raid in history.[2]
What difference, at this point, does it make?
>>1078510
An atomic bomb is psychological.
>>1078336
The irony being that more Japs died fighting the Americans is dismissed when "more Germans died fighting the Soviets" is the immediate fall back for any discussion about the role of the Western Allies in Europe.
>>1078546
I'm not sure about what point are you trying to make but soviets captured more than half million japanese and claimed to have killed eighty thousands while suffering only something like eleven thousand deads.
Soviets faced one million soldiers in manchuria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29
>>1078586
jap had terrible war tech and supplies, especially in manchuria.
I have a seriously hard time believing the Japs weren't terrified of nuclear destruction. I mean, even today, Japan has very strong feelings about the nukes and I'd imagine those feelings were even stronger around the time they were dropped.
What an absolute fucking meme. This bullshit is only propagated by Russians and Russiaboos. The Soviets did fuck-all in the Pacific. It was all the Americans. That's why they and the Soviets are the only real powers of note in WWII. The Soviets won in Europe and the Americans won in Asia.
>>1078211
I have a hard time believing that weapons which literally caused a global Cold War wouldn't put fear into the Japanese. I'm sure Russia may have been a factor too, but it sounds like total bullshit to me to think the Japs weren't terrified of the weaponry when they still have an extreme stigma about them today.
![11lpgf8[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NAkoc5q.jpg "11lpgf8[1].jpg")
>>1078607
Soviet liberators were even worse than nukes.
>>1078586
The Soviets faced one million starved, conscripted reservists who knew the war was already over.
>>1078617
>who knew the war was already over
Soviets invaded on 9th august, japanese surrender was signed on 2nd september.
>>1078586
I'm pointing out that using the Eastern Front "who killed more of who" metric, of 2,300,000 total Japanese military deaths the bulk came from fighting the Western Allies. Even if the entire Kwangtung Army was slaughtered to a man.
>>1078637
And Okinawa fell in June. Nowhere on the home islands had been safe from bombing for the better part of a year. The war was already over.
>>1078650
In japan soviets were the western allies.
>>1078659
And if this board was written in slant-eyed chicken scratch that would be relevant.
>>1078637
Nigga the war was lost well before the surrender
>>1078686
edgy
>>1078211
Does it matter who beat who? Japan lost in WW2. Having arguments about who 'beat them' doesn't do much.
>>1078637
Do you think the average nip was retarded? There's a reason why they stopped bothering with warships and planes and started focusing on suicide boats and Ohkas.
All the Soviets could do was invade the Kuril Islands. That was 6 days after they surrendered.
russia continues to illegally occupy the Kurils.
I really wish vatniks would fuck off and stop shitting up every goddamn board with their presence
>>1078776
Japanese signed surrender on 2nd september, Kuril operations ended on 1st september.
>>1078808
but they announced the cease fire and surrender before invasion of the kurils.
Why is it the minute the Soviet Union fell and no longer a threat, everyone out side the United States, gets on this historical revisionism meme about how the Soviets won ww2 and America didn't do anything?
>>1078834
It's cool to hate america
I wish they would have invaded.
We could have nuked them both.
>>1078302
>>1078306
>>1078307
That implies that the Japanese surrendered because of the threat to their home islands. The counterpoint is that they may have been holding out for an uti possidetis peace settlement where they could keep Manchuria and Korea. After losing them to the Soviets, uti possidetis became only marginally better than the unconditional surrender to the Americans that they went with.
Last book I read on this was Bix's Hirohito, which IIRC accorded the bombs and the Russians similar importance.
>>1078211
The original question in that article is if they were necessary, something that could only be answered in the hypothetical even with the benefit of hindsight.
Considering nuclear deterrence is still working, its hard to argue their use had no positive effects. There hasn't been a shooting war between super powers since. You can't just say X number of Japanese and Allied lives were saved by it, you'd have to include all the lives spared in further wars we have no way of predicting. Considering the 20th century was, by most accounts, the bloodiest in history that number would probably be pretty high.
>>1078834
/his/ is full of edgy contrarians, get used to it.
>philosophy is better than science
>christianity gud
>communism gud
>>1078851
>being a Christian is contrarian
>>1078851
>Implying science isn't part of philosophy
>>1078760
That's nice for the common person who's knowledge of history need only be an elementary who, what, when, where, why.
For politicians, political analysts, and historians of all levels (us), digging into details does actually matter.
>>1078211
>Western Allies in the Europe advance into Germany after the best of the Wehrmacht were killed fighting the Soviets in the eastern front
>Nah you were fighting the volksturm and the old guys, we were fighting the Tiger IIs and shit, Soviets did everything
>Nah the West didn't do shit, Mother Russia killed the most people, stop saying you won the war
>Soviets in the Siberia advance into Manchuko after the best of the Japanese were killed fighting the Western Allies and China in Singapore, the Philippines and the Pacific
>Guadalcanal? Midway? What's that?
>Nah man it was us the Soviets who totally beat the Japanese by killing those starving soldiers you guys didn't do shit.
????
>>1078868
>>1078834
Because the Soviets censored and controlled so much of even their own documentation and records that they ended up destroying their own credibility on the subject.
To the outside world it looked like Western revisionism and politicking to rely on or show preference to western and especially German sources.
Now that the Soviet archives are finally been opened and interrogated we're finally learning just how much of the accepted history is accurate and historians like Glantz can make an entire career out of correcting it.
>>1078885
Except even Glantz won't say that the Soviets would have just conquered Germany on their own without a western front. All he says is that the eastern front was a larger fight.
>>1078884
and so on and so on
>>1078881
None of the island engagements in the Pacific were anywhere near the scale of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Also, the Soviets were fighting the nips long before we were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
>>1078905
>None of the island engagements in the Pacific were anywhere near the scale of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Just put Okinawa and the Phillippines campaigns (which happened at the same time) together and it'd be bigger than the scale of the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. Meanwhile the US, UK and China were fighting the Japanese in China and Burma and the USN was blockading IJN military ports in Truk and Rabaul. And this was all late-war, well after the worst was over.
>Also, the Soviets were fighting the nips long before we were.
Are you also going to cite the Japanese involvement in the Russian Civil War as a basis for the Soviet Union's contribution? They fought a battle and signed a neutrality pact for 6 years, that battle didn't do shit in defeating Japan in world war II.
>>1078211
No, Japan surrendered because the US gave favorable surrender conditions, such as keeping the emperor and not blasting Japan back to the 16th century. The only thing the Soviets did was make Japan back down on the condition of keeping some of their territories, since they were no longer under Japanese control.
>>1078905
Oh get over yourself, 550,000 Chinese Muslim Cavalrymen armed with swords killed nearly as much Japanese out of an 850,000 strong force in 1939 as the Soviets with three times that number, rocket launchers and IS-3s in 1945.
>>1078894
He was asking about the historical revisionism meme. Glantz on the subject;
>...the most important factor in the creation of the existing perverted view of the war is the collective failure of Soviet historians to provide Western and Russian readers and scholars with a credible account of the war. Ideology, political motivation, and shibboleths born of the Cold War have combined to inhibit the work and warp the perceptions of many Soviet historians.
>While many Soviet studies of the war are detailed, scholarly, and accurate as far as they go, they cover only what State officials permit them to cover and either skirt or ignore those facts and events considered embarrassing by the State. Unfortunately the most general works and those most accessible to Western audiences tend to be the most biased, the most highly politicized, and the least accurate. Until quite recently, official State organs routinely vetted even the most scholarly of these books for political and ideological reasons. Even now, 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, political pressure and limited archival access, prevents Russian historians from researching or revealing many events subject to censorship in the past.
>These sad realities have undercut the credibility of Soviet (Russian) historical works (fairly or unfairly), permitted German historiography and interpretation to prevail, and, coincidentally, damaged the credibility of those few Western writers who have incorporated Soviet historical materials into their accounts of the war. These stark historiographical realities also explain why, today, sensational, unfair, and wildly inaccurate accounts of certain aspects of the war so attract the Western reading public and why debates still rage concerning the war’s direction and conduct.
It's just easier to blame the West, as seen so often on /his/.
>>1078936
>Just put Okinawa and the Phillippines campaigns (which happened at the same time) together and it'd be bigger than the scale of the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria.
In terms of US forces vs. Soviet forces, yes, but not in terms of Japaneses ground forces involved, it would seem. You're also strawmanning like crazy in this post and the last. Yeah we killed a bunch of them, but the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had a disproportionate strategic impact (per >>1078843, >>1078947, or the OP)
>>1079052
>In terms of US forces vs. Soviet forces, yes, but not in terms of Japaneses ground forces involved, it would seem.
Would you also like to include the the Battle of Burma that was also occurring, and Iwo Jima as well? Or the remaining garrison in Truk and Rabaul in 1945? My point is that a thousand small battles in the Pacific both killed far more and accomplished far more than the Soviets arriving in the eleventh hour to hammer in a last-minute blow to a foregone conclusion.
>Yeah we killed a bunch of them, but the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had a disproportionate strategic impact
No, it didn't. Compared to what? Compared to the annihilation of the Japanese Navy and Army Air Force? Compared to the hundreds of the actual Kwantung Army that were killed fighting the Chinese?
The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria was a nail in the coffin, but negligible compared to the nails the Chinese hammered in at Guangxi and Hunan, the US hammered in at Okinawa and Midway, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Great Britain hammered in at Imphal. The United States would have won without it in the same way the Soviet Union may have won in Europe without the west.
>>1079052
>but the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had a disproportionate strategic impact
Before you say I'm strawmanning again, let's look at the posts you ennumerated.
>After losing them to the Soviets, uti possidetis became only marginally better than the unconditional surrender to the Americans that they went with.
No, having Kyoto and Tokyo go up in flames because they thought the US was all coked up with Atom Bombs made surrendering marginally better than having its two capitals evaporated.
And the other post >>1078947, literally says
>No, Japan surrendered because the US gave favorable surrender conditions, such as keeping the emperor and not blasting Japan back to the 16th century.
Again, he mentions
>The only thing the Soviets did was make Japan back down on the condition of keeping some of their territories, since they were no longer under Japanese control.
Which apparently is disproportionate? Meanwhile, the US and UK had already made Japan back down on the condition of keeping the Phillippines, Indochina, Burma, China, Borneo, Papua New Guinea, most of the South Pacific and India in the meantime with the same tactic of driving them off the land. But yes, the Soviet Union won it all by convincing the Japanese they couldn't keep Manchuria. As opposed to mass starvation, the nonexistence of half of the Japanese military and the vaporization of two of Japan's remaining cities.
>>1079113
>Compared to what?
Compared to the atomic bombings, per the OP.
>No, it didn't.
It may have precipitated Japanese surrender, per the OP.
I thought there was some creedance to the soviet/japan theory in that war time comunication between japanese forces and comand talked a lot about manchuria and the soviets while the atomic bombs featured very little
>>1079165
>Compared to the atomic bombings, per the OP.
At most they were of equal importance, and both were of minimal importance compared to allied contributions in completely eliminating the IJN and isolating much of the IJA.
>It may have precipitated Japanese surrender, per the OP.
Again, the straw that broke the camels back does not preclude the bricks that others had already placed upon it.
>>1078227
(gunboats)
>>1079251
(boats)
(with guns)
>>1078227
More like
W I T H W H A T E X P E R I E N C E
The US already handed them landing craft as per the Lend Lease. They still did not have the experience to handle amphibous landings and the invasion of the Kurils proved that.
I'm just reading the wikipedia entry on the battle of Shumshu and...
>Soviet officers later often said that the operation demonstrated the difficulty of amphibious invasions of enemy territory and Soviet shortfalls and inexperience in amphibious warfare, and cited the Soviet experience on Shumshu as a reason for not invading the island of Hokkaido in the Japanese Home Islands.[11][12]
That's as close as anyone can get to the Soviets going "we fucked up bigtime". AND THEY MANAGED TO OCCUPY THE KURILS.
The atomic bombs werent much of a concern to japan....they had allready endured a frebombing run that had devastated 50+ cities and tho hiroshima and nagasaki were in the top ten destruction wise neigther was actualy number one(if i remeber right) also there was a meeting proposed to discuss the bombings and it was cancled becuase the japanese cabinate didnt see much important to talk about....it was just 2 more bombed cities to them
>>1079195
It's not a resolved issue, there are historians on both sides, most notably Hasegawa, who states that the Soviet Union's entrance dominates over the bombs, and Asada, who alleges that the soviet entry was only a secondary concern over the war.
>http://apjjf.org/-Tsuyoshi-Hasegawa/2501/article.html
>http://www.mconway.net/page1/page15/files/Shock%20of%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf
There are strong arguments from quotes on both sides as well, so this is one that probably won't be resolved anytime soon.
>When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas.
In other words, the US oil embargo retarded Russian and Japanese expansion into Asia without even putting boots on the ground.
The only thing Russians were good at during WWII was sending their own men to their deaths like lemmings.
>>1079236
>At most they were of equal importance
That's what we're arguing about. Specifically that wasting two more cities (after firebombing many previously) was less important to Japanese high command than the loss of their pre-1937 continental possessions and a solid chunk of the remaining IJA.
>and both were of minimal importance compared to allied contributions in completely eliminating the IJN and isolating much of the IJA.
I can get on board with that.
>>1079291
Nigga, that sounds to me like the Japanese lying through their teeth to take credit away from the US.
>>1079338
>That's what we're arguing about. Specifically that wasting two more cities (after firebombing many previously) was less important to Japanese high command than the loss of their pre-1937 continental possessions and a solid chunk of the remaining IJA.
I'm not so sure of that.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Imperial_intervention.2C_Allied_response.2C_and_Japanese_reply
>At 04:00 on August 9 word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had broken the Neutrality Pact,[30] declared war on Japan,[81] and launched an invasion of Manchuria.[82]
>However, the senior leadership of the Japanese Army took the news in stride, grossly underestimating the scale of the attack. With the support of Minister of War Anami, they started preparing to impose martial law on the nation, to stop anyone attempting to make peace.[85] Hirohito told Kido to "quickly control the situation" because "the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us."[86]
>The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the Emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, but they needed a guarantee of the Emperor's position. Navy Minister Yonai said that they had to make some diplomatic proposal—they could no longer afford to wait for better circumstances.
So they were clearly still discussing a diplomatic exit after news of the Soviet invasion occurred, well before the news of Nagasaki arrived at 11:00.
>In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the United States)
It's only after Truman's announcement that they were ready to drop another one that the war council and cabinet finally crumbles and lets Hirohito have his way.
>>1079350
It's not like there aren't westerners in it too. Hasegawa bases his arguments on Glantz' initial arguments, and there are westerners supporting Asada's arguments as well:
>https://muse.jhu.edu/article/270759/pdf
>https://networks.h-net.org/system/files/contributed-files/bernstein-hasegawaroundtable.pdf
It's not a really cut-and-dry topic, particularly because they happened so close to each other.
Lets be honest the Soviet Union was just the best country ever and was better than the USA in every possible way.
Of course this is going to make Americans mad because they're North Korea tier brainwashed to believe socialism is all about standing in breadlines in between trips to the Gulag.
It was even doing just fine up until Gorbachev started believing the American propaganda and fucked the country up. Then the even bigger Kool-Aid drinker Yeltsin stepped in and fucked it up even more.
>Free healthcare
>Free education
>Full employment
>Non-existent homelessness
>Lots of food
>Stable economy
>Won WW2 basically single-handedly
How can capitalists even compete?
>>1079350
Because Japan is notorious for its communist sympathies.
>>1078321
>1500 year old dynasty
>>1079350
But Sadao Asada and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa are both Japanese?
>>1078211
Kek you are wrong. Its because the British fought the Japs in Burma. The Japanese forces in Burma outnumbered the ones in the pacific by thousands. Americans literally contributed a navy and two nukes, that's it.
>>1079393
>burma campaign even significant
>this is what bongs believe
>>1079285
The two nukes killed as many people as the entire fire bombing campaign. Anyone who spouts the muh firebombing was worse than nukes meme simply doesn't understand the facts or is incapable of the simple logic required to put things into perspective.
>>1079366
Nice troll post. Too obvious though I'm afraid, maybe post it on /pol/ it will get some bites there.
>>1078947
>No, Japan surrendered because the US gave favorable surrender conditions
US demanded and got unconditional surrender.
>>1079402
Just as predicted, western shills cannot handle the concept that everything they've been taught to believe from birth is wrong.
>>1079398
There was 4 times more Japanese troops in the Burma campaign than on the pacific islands. Americucks literally didn't even fight a fraction of the Japanese army.
>>1079405
Dude, seriously, too obvious.
>>1079405
>better country
>collapses
Hmmmmm why would that happen if they were superior?
>>1079407
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign
>Japan: 316,700 (1944)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Campaign_(1944%E2%80%9345)
>Japan: 529,802[3]
????
>>1079413
>Leader comes to power who actually believes anything the US government says.
>Everything instantly implodes
Social democrats, not even once.
>>1079418
>better country
>collapses
>>1079423
>USA
>Loses to third world communists
>>1079428
>tries to country beaten by goat farmers
>collapses
>>1079428
>USSR
>talking to anybody about losing to third worlders
>>1079438
~compete with
>>1079428
>USSR
>Loses to third world shit hole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
>>1079438
>>1079439
>>1079446
>USA funds Islamic fundamentalist militants
>Has been paying for it for the last few decades with the blood of their citizens.
God is a communist.
>>1079451
>Fights Islamic fundamentalist militants
>Collapses
>>1079451
>6,878 Americans dead in Iraq and Afghanistan
>9,268 Russians dead in Chechnya by Russian casualty counts
Worth :^)
>>1079462
>+near 2,996 dead in 9/11
>>1079480
>celebrates 9/11
>Never mind, collapsed
>>1079482
>Collapsed basically the second wine-stain boy so much as looked at capitalist reforms.
This is what you get when you trust revisionists.
>>1079480
>300 dead in Dagestan
>385 dead in Beslan
>170 dead in that Moscow theatre
>140 in Budyonnovsk
>71 in Grozny
>52 in Mozdok 2003
>94 in Nazran
>224 in that Egypt plane
It all adds up :^)
>>1079480
Yo senpai can you show me a map of the USSR in 2016? Don't worry i'll wait.
>>1079501
Unfortunately the USSR is gone.
And as expected in its absence Eastern Europe fucking sucks.
>>1079489
>China makes capitalist reforms
>Doesn't fucking collapse
Well you may have a point there. Maybe the problem isn't that the Soviet Union was communist. Maybe the problem is that it's full of Russians.
>>1079507
>Implying eastern Europe was ever good
> needs massive fleet
> needs massive fleet
> needs massive fleet
> needs massive fleet
Will you stop this meme? Massive fleet is required only if USSR vs Japan duke it out alone. I.e. in scenario where US exits the war.
Realistic scenario means SU and US will beat Japan together, with US lending ships to Soviets. Which is why it doesn't matter how many ships Soviets have. Not to mention the whole "no fleet" thing is grossly exaggerated.
Dick-waving (Soviets vs Japan) scenario implies that Soviets get _time_. And (judging by the Soviet industrial capability) they'll get enough of a fleet/airforce to Normandy the shit out of Japan by 1946.
>USSRaboos
Top kek
>>1079413
> Hmmmmm why would that happen if they were superior?
Does a better country always win?
Is the new regime always better then the one that was before?
This is some /pol/-tier logic here.
>>1079569
>A realistic scenario
>1946
There's no realistic scenario that lasts until 1946. Leslie Groves reported to Marshall that there'd be a third bomb by the 17th of August, which would just convince the nips that the prisoner telling them that they had 100 atomic bombs ready was right and then surrender.
Plus wouldn't a real dick-waving scenario be just the USSR taking on Japan alone while Stalin parts the sea of Japan?
Great so now the USSR won the European front and the pacific front
>>1079489
>attempts to save itself after years of being out-competed by a superior nation
>collapses
>>1079403
It was only unconditional on paper, because the allied powers agreed they had to go for unconditional surrenders, and not give axis powers autonomy after the war. Obviously some things were off the table, and that's why the war continued as long as it did. It was fighting over exactly what the conditions of surrender would be.
There were numerous secret communications says "if you "unconditionally" surrender, we can guarantee X, Y and Z"
Those sure look like conditions to me.
>>1079605
We aren't even discussing winning or losing, but surviving or collapsing under the weight of your own failings.
>>1079605
If the better nation's economy no longer functions, its member states revolt and its citizens greet its collapse with apathy, is it so wrong to wonder what part of it was so much better?
>>1079606
> quotes realistic scenario
> replies to the unrealistic one
You butthurt overwhelmed you, anon.
>>1079632
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
Economy has nothing to do with USSR's collapse. It was purely political thing. This should've been obvious for anyone, except we need to elect Republicans somehow.
The reason Japan surrendered was because the military coup that wanted to stay at war never materialized and the Japs and the Emperor who had wanted to negotiate peace for 2 years now finally were allowed to surrender.
You can say the Soviets taking Manchuria was the trigger for that, but if the Soviets were the trigger, the US was the gun and the Chinese were the sights.
>>1079671
Nah, economy was huge. Everyone was broke except the government. They literally couldn't compete in any sector with the West except oil. The military was in shambles because of the dead weight economy, and you can only keep everyone unhappy but docile for so long before it all falls to pieces.
The USSR could only survive as long as it was made up of a Union of Soviet States. When all the satellites said "Fuck you we're leaving" and took a massive chunk of industry with it the USSR was doomed to completely collapse.
>>1079712
You could just as easily say the bombs gave the Emperor an excuse to sue for peace.
>>1079725
>You could just as easily say the bombs gave the Emperor an excuse to sue for peace.
Interestingly, Asada argues that this was a reason the IJA hard-liners who suggested they keep fighting the Russians agreed to surrender. By saying that they were "losing to superior science," they could avoid any suggestion that their military fucked up.
>Despite the "twin shocks" of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, the army men still insisted on a fight to the finish. In the end they accepted surrender partly because the atomic bomb paradoxically helped them save "face." There was a strong feeling among the army's leaders that Japan had been "overwhelmed by America's scientific prowess." On August 8 Miyazaki wrote, "Technically Japan seems about half a century behind" the United States.'l Colonel Ogata Ken'ichi, military aide-de-camp to the emperor, unburdened himself in his diary: "Our foe must be given credit for the great power of the atomic bomb and remarkable progress in science and technology. I admit I must admire their achievement."112
>By saving the army men's "face," such attitudes toward America's scientific achievements smoothed their acceptance of surrender.
From http://www.mconway.net/page1/page15/files/Shock%20of%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf
as cited earlier.
>>1079725
The Emperor had wanted peace well before the bombs dropped. It was military hard liners that had assassinated and murdered every pro peace Japanese for 100 years now. They finally backed down in 1945, just short of killing the Emperor himself. He was too important, even to such sadists as they were.
>>1079747
Yes and? He still needed an excuse and opportunity to really sue for peace.
>>1079772
His excuse was that he didn't want to see his people slaughtered like cattle by a superior foe. The military faggots were the only ones who waiting for an "excuse" to surrender.
>>1079786
And he's a puppet, so he needs an excuse to justify why he should be able to sue for peace. Seeking an excuse to do something implies you already want to do it.
>>1078211
This theory relies on the idea that the obliteration of two cities with two bombs killing over 200000 people had no influence on their surrender. If this is true then no discussion of the nukes would be happening right now. Japan would not have countless cultural references to it. For the last half century the world has dealt with the trauma two nukes can deal on a civilian population, and the horror nuclear war can bring. Please tell me more how those bombs did not matter
>>1079799
I mean, the guys who really just didn't want to surrender tried to do a coup and capture the Emperor and kill his supporters and failed miserably, enough of the military guys just decided to accept defeat to place them in the minority beforehand, which is half the reason the coup failed.
>>1079806
And if you are right OP, then perhaps more nukes should have been dropped. If the Soviets were the deciding factor then using more nuclear weapons would not have mattered. The nukes in your logic were merely a curiosity
>>1079813
Yes, and?
>Emperor: Guys, there's two nukes and we lost Manchuria, don't you think it's time?
>Generals: Y-yeah, I guess...
>*Dons top hat*
>>1079838
More like
>hory shitu, ree rost our whor navy
>hory shitu, everythin is fieur
>hory shitu, dat city just exproded
>hory shitu, dat city exproded too
>hory shitu, the Russians are here
>hory shitu I don wanna die rike all those kids I strapped to frying bombs
>>1078211
Stalin entering the war meant that mediation between the US and Japan through USSR is impossible, so it MAY have had influence on army clique's power decreasing(Army wanted to defend to the last man) but Soviets weren't really a threat to home isles.
>>1078774
>There's a reason why they stopped bothering with warships and planes
Because both of those require far more fuel than suicide vessels.
As in warship and plane has to come back from action and waste fuel by doing it.
>atomic bomb was planned on Tokyo soon after
>implying this wouldn't have devastated Japan to the point of utter collapse
It is an absolute fucking meme to say the a-bombs did nothing. They killed as much as years worth of firebombing did in a single effort.
>>1078612
>Soviet occupation does more damage to a country's gene pool than high levels of radiation
>>1078211
Yes, because the Soviets certainly had the naval assets to undertake an invasion of Japan.
>>1079569
>Will you stop this meme? Massive fleet is required only if USSR vs Japan duke it out alone. I.e. in scenario where US exits the war.
No, you kind of need a massive fleet to ship multiple divisions across the water, and then supply them once they've hit the beachhead.
In Overlord, to ship 5 divisions for the beach attack, you needed over 5,000 vessels, almost none of which were warships. And that's crossing the channel, not the literally hundreds of kilometers from either a port in Russia proper or occupied Korea.
You do need a massive fleet to invade against any kind of meaningful opposition.
>Realistic scenario means SU and US will beat Japan together, with US lending ships to Soviets. Which is why it doesn't matter how many ships Soviets have. Not to mention the whole "no fleet" thing is grossly exaggerated.
And the U.S. would do this why? Especially since ever since Truman became president, you had a rapidly souring position between the two, ongoing disputes over how Manchuria was to be handled, and the rather obvious notion that the Soviets aren't going to give up anything they take if they do allow it.
>Dick-waving (Soviets vs Japan) scenario implies that Soviets get _time_. And (judging by the Soviet industrial capability) they'll get enough of a fleet/airforce to Normandy the shit out of Japan by 1946.
Unless they build ships on their baltic and black sea ports, disassemble them, rail them to Vladivostok for re-assembly (good luck stopping all the leaks) to make this fleet, you don't have the resources of the whole soviet union, you have the shipbuilding capacity of the east coast of Siberia, which isn't much.
NO
THIS CAN'T BE POSSIBLE
YOU CAN'T BE POSSIBLY TELLING ME THAT AMERICA WOULD LIE AND AGGRANDIZE THE EVENTS LEADING TO AND FOLLOWING THE NUCLEAR BOMBS?
>>1078336
Europeans just swallowed the story and didn't bother with anything else because it was a campaign that didn't concern them in any way whatsoever.
>>1078527
You can bet your ass that firebombings are also psychological. Nobody predicted that nukes would become the boogeymen they have become today back then.
>>1078851
>christianity gud
>communism gud
They are good silly anon
>>1081965
by years you mean days right?
the fire bombings killed more ppl in one week than both a bombs together educate yourself kiddo
>>1078834
Because the US has literally become the Soviet Union 2.0 tier liberator of nations in modern times
>ITT: Ivans, Ahmeds and Pedros trying to rewrite history of their irrelevant nations.
>>1079621
>There were numerous secret communications says "if you "unconditionally" surrender, we can guarantee X, Y and Z"
Go ahead and provide some sources for even one of these numerous secret communications.
>>1082750
>the fire bombings killed more ppl in one week than both a bombs together educate yourself kiddo
Looks like it's time to educate some kiddos. Fun fact: roughly half of all Jap civilian deaths from strategic bombing was from the two atom bombs.
>>1085252
>inb4
>dude it's secret lmao
>>1078211
(you)
