History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[Traitorfish]

Don't get me wrong, I think part of the reason for the use of the Atomic Bomb went along the lines of "we built the damn thing, of course we're going to use it." Second, I think their thought process was that the American casualties would be significantly high rather than the Japanese ones (certainly they would be higher than they were when they used the atomic bomb). Through the fog of war, however, it is impossible to know what the other side is going to do. In retrospect, I think it's probably fairly likely that Japan was close to the breaking point and would have surrendered relatively easily. But, after Okinawa, I don't think an American belief to the contrary was unjustified.

I buy that the Americans could reasonably over-estimate the Japanese capacity and will to exist. But the "nuke 'em for their own good" argument relies not only on stiff military resistance, but on the suicidal enthusiasm of civilians, for which no substantial proof has been mustered. The Germans could never put together their Volkssturm, why would the Japanese? The only clear difference is that the Germans are white, so we assume that they retain some basic level of rationality even in the throes of Nazism, while the Japanese, so they will naturally bow to the order of the Oriental hive-mind.

I mean, the whole logic of it is contradictory. The Japanese will hurl their children at machine gun nests, but drop a couple of bombs on them and it's hands in the air? It's crap, but people buy into it because the alternative is admitting something very unpleasant about how the United States wages its wars.

Isn't this what actually happened during the island-hopping?

Many Japanese soldiers showed an unusual reluctance to surrender, not all, but many. But soldiers aren't civilians, and there's no reason to assume that the entire nation of Japan would mobilise, termite-like, to commit glorious suicide.

 

[CaptainLost]

Here is a thread to keep this argument going if people want to. Let's not let this thread get congested with arguments that definitely are worth their own thread.

(And, I put it in the off-topic forum because it kind of doesn't have to do with history, as Louis pointed out.)

 

[CaptainLost]

You think that "Do you think any compensation is sufficient for those kinds of inhumane acts?" is a history question? It's a normative policy question about what should be done today.

Oh. I guess I should read back further when I post about things like this

 

[CaptainLost]

All right I've got a question :
Do you think the Axis could have won after September 3rd, 1939? And I'll define "winning" as ending up with more territory than they had before that date.

 

[awesome]

Did the US compensate Japan (enough) for the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Do you think any compensation is sufficient for those kinds of inhumane acts?

we also rebuilt their country and economy, so yes.

What I don't understand was why the US didn't just launch the bomb off to the sea near the shore of Japan. And why 2 bombs, one was enough. The Japanese government didn't even know what happened until after both bombs had been dropped and the Americans asked for their surrender.

mostly because we could. we pretty much would do anything it took to win at that point.

All right I've got a question :
Do you think the Axis could have won after September 3rd, 1939? And I'll define "winning" as ending up with more territory than they had before that date.

well, they did get more territory after 1939. but, could they have actually won the war? maybe. invading russia was a bad idea. if hitler kept russia as an ally it might have worked.

 

[Ajidica]

if hitler kept russia as an ally it might have worked.

Until 1946 or so. Soviet records indicate that Stalin was planning an invasion of central Europe around 1946.

 

[awesome]

Until 1946 or so. Soviet records indicate that Stalin was planning an invasion of central Europe around 1946.

probably true. war might well have gone on that long, too.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

we also rebuilt their country and economy, so yes.

We did that for our benefit, not theirs. We needed markets postwar for our economy, and we were very afraid of them going over to The Reds.

mostly because we could. we pretty much would do anything it took to win at that point.

I think my favorite part is where you pretend this is a valid excuse for murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

By the way, this wasn't what it would take to win, it was what it would take to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. We could have ended the war before, but Roosevelt and Co. swore themselves not to have a negotiated peace with the enemy.

But nope, it's those Japanese defending their home islands that are crazy and bloodthirsty.

well, they did get more territory after 1939. but, could they have actually won the war? maybe. invading russia was a bad idea. if hitler kept russia as an ally it might have worked.

The Soviet Union was never a German ally. Germany and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact, not an alliance. Neither was obliged to defend the other, merely not to attack the other.

 

[Agent327]

That must be why Germany received strategic goods form the USSR and was allowed to train their military on Soviet territory.

I thought this was a Q & A thread, not a propaganda thread.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That must be why Germany received strategic goods form the USSR and was allowed to train their military on Soviet territory.

Such an agreement does not an alliance make, as we have been through a dozen times.

I thought this was a Q & A thread, not a propaganda thread.

Indeed, so quit polluting it.

 

[jackelgull]

That must be why Germany received strategic goods form the USSR and was allowed to train their military on Soviet territory.

I thought this was a Q & A thread, not a propaganda thread.

What's the difference? All information contains some kind of propaganda of some sort.

My AP US. History text book basically worships the Spanish as kindly benefactors to the New World who built a mighty and good empire that benefitted the natives by creating a mestizo society and ignored/ side stepped some of the more troubling practices of the Spaniards in the New World. By contrast they call the English poor empire builders who didn't attempt to commit the noble task of interbreeding with the natives and bring culture into the New World, and accuse them of marginalizing the natives unlike the Spanish. The information is true, it is just warped.

 

[Agent327]

A good thing this thread isn't called Ask The AP US History Book then.

Such an agreement does not an alliance make, as we have been through a dozen times.

Nor did I say so. But saying the USSR and Nazi Germany 'didn't have an alliance' is not the whole answer.

Feel free to go through it a dozen more times. If you mention facts, mention all the facts.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think it's physically possible to mention every conceivable fact about a situation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Nor did I say so. But saying the USSR and Nazi Germany 'didn't have an alliance' is not the whole answer.

So then what was the purpose of your post?

Feel free to go through it a dozen more times. If you mention facts, mention all the facts.

I see no reason to present facts unless they are relevant. I'm not spouting them for smart-person brownie points on the interwebs.

 

[Agent327]

I don't think it's physically possible to mention every conceivable fact about a situation.

Obviously. But 'the USSR and Nazi Germany didn't have an alliance' is not the same as 'the USSR and Japan didn't have an alliance'. As to wit: the USSR and Nazi Germany did have a military alliance to crush Poland. Written in the 'non-agression pact'. I would say that is a bit of a relevant fact, wouldn't you agree, Cheezy?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, I would not, because the agreement about Poland and Eastern Europe was about spheres of influence, not about direct and coordinated military action. Again, an agreement not to bother the other party, not an agreement about mutual cooperation.

Staying out of each others' way and walking down the road arm in arm are two completely different things. How you fail to understand this is baffling, but it is probably due to your irrational hatred of the Soviet Union.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: Guys, keep it civil, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Agent327]

No, I would not, because the agreement about Poland and Eastern Europe was about spheres of influence, not about direct and coordinated military action. Again, an agreement not to bother the other party, not an agreement about mutual cooperation.

Staying out of each others' way and walking down the road arm in arm are two completely different things. How you fail to understand this is baffling, but it is probably due to your irrational hatred of the Soviet Union.

Oh, I don't hate dead objects. I just like to point out relevant facts. You know, those things that are the substructure for ideologies.

So, in conclusion, an agreement to attack Poland and divide up Eastern Europe in respective influence spheres is not an alliance and is in fact the exact same as a non-aggression pact between the USSR and Japan resulting in no cooperation whatsoever. Glad that's clear.

Now can we move on to some more questions and relevant answers please.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I understand that English may not be your first language, so I will give a very minor bit of leeway. However, seeing as you phrased it exactly the same way I did when I said that this wasn't the case, you won't be getting much.

The Secret Protocols were an agreement about spheres of influence. That is not the same thing as military cooperation nor is it the same thing as mutual defense. The Soviets entered Poland when they did because they were afraid the Nazis would not honor their agreement about spheres of influence in Poland and Lithuania, not because of some pre-arranged mutual attack on Poland. The Nazis and Soviets did not cooperate against Poland, they agreed to stay out of each others' way in Poland. The USSR was not bound by any agreement to invade Poland at any time, much less to do so in cooperation with the Nazis.

I did not say it was exactly the same as the Japanese non-aggression pact. What I said was that it was a non-aggression pact and not an alliance. So in the sense that it was a non-aggression pact, yes, it was the same as the Japanese treaty, which was very much not an alliance. However, the rest of the stipulations are not enough to categorize the M-R Pact as an alliance, because it lacks the essential quality of an alliance: mutual defense.

No alliance. Yes non-aggression pact.

Now stop trying to get the last word in with a change of the facts and act as if you came out right all along.

 

[daft]

We did that for our benefit, not theirs. We needed markets postwar for our economy, and we were very afraid of them going over to The Reds.



I think my favorite part is where you pretend this is a valid excuse for murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

By the way, this wasn't what it would take to win, it was what it would take to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. We could have ended the war before, but Roosevelt and Co. swore themselves not to have a negotiated peace with the enemy.

But nope, it's those Japanese defending their home islands that are crazy and bloodthirsty.



The Soviet Union was never a German ally. Germany and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact, not an alliance. Neither was obliged to defend the other, merely not to attack the other.

Quite brilliant, on all points, dear sir.
I salute a fellow socialist!