Pearl Harbor could have been stopped, but was allowed in order to give America pretext for entering the war. Japan was already trying to surrender when the nukes were dropped, but their surrender was rejected.
The ONLY reason the nukes were dropped was to demonstrate to the world that the USA has the technology for nukes, and was willing to use it. Unless it was demonstrated, the threat of nukes could be written off as a bluff, and therefore would lose its deterrent effect. Given they could have demonstrated it in a way that didn't cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, but that hardly makes the same psychological impact now does it?
Topic: State Duma chief suggests trying US for WWII nuke attacks (Read 1167 times)
Even if Russia may have been planning it, America was the only one who actually dropped the fucking things and on civilian populations no less, I've no sympathy for fingerpointing when it comes to nukes.
Using nuclear bombs was a necessary evil because it saved a likely net amount of lives as what would have had to have happened if the US had to invade Japan instead of them surrendering
The last statement is a US state-approved lie, constructed after the fact to justify bombing. The reality was that the Soviet Army almost completely broke the Japanese resistance, and US had to prevent Japan falling/surrendering to the Soviets at any cost.
Japan had acquired jet engine technology from Germany. They had several engines in various stages of construction when they abruptly surrendered. If we had not bombed them into surrendering when we did, we would have soon lost that capability, because our bombers were all slow prop-driven planes that couldn't have survived a jet fighter defense.
But why is it less moral to kill someone with a nuclear weapon than to kill them with fire bombs? Almost no one ever mentions that the US bombed Tokyo and other cities, even though more were killed in Tokyo than either of the nuked cities.
The Japan of the '30s and '40s was a vicious thug nation--much different than the civilized nation of today. One book that tries hard to be fair but reveals the thuggery anyway is Ghost Soldiers. All war is bad and should be avoided if reasonably possible, but sometimes it's not possible.
japan had no chance to win the war and no ressources to prolong a fight.
also russia was preparing to declare war to japan.
to be honest they coulda have just waited on mainland asia and watch the japs burning their last oil.
my opinion is that it was just about the message ; directed at moscow and the world to show who the new superpower is.
By that time, Russia (USSR) not only was preparing to declare war (as per Yalta agreement between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt). It was in the state of war with Japan and a landing of Soviet troops was already in the works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Kuril_Islands
You are right about the directed threat at Moscow - the bombings were to show who's the boss.
https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-would-kill-an-estimated-108-million-soviets-104-million-chinese-and-2-3-million-poles-more-evidence-on-siop-62-and-the-origins-of-overkill/
russia had a neutrality treaty with japan from 1943.
which they then officially cancled with the declaration of war on 8/9 august 1945.
although of course we know today it was planned beforehand and russia started to move troops much earlier to east asia ( because of the yalta summit like you said)
the atomic bombs were dropped on 6 and 9 august.
the short timeframe between the drops should also give a hint about the true purpose.
Using nuclear bombs was a necessary evil because it saved a likely net amount of lives as what would have had to have happened if the US had to invade Japan instead of them surrendering
The last statement is a US state-approved lie, constructed after the fact to justify bombing. The reality was that the Soviet Army almost completely broke the Japanese resistance, and US had to prevent Japan falling/surrendering to the Soviets at any cost.
Japan had acquired jet engine technology from Germany. They had several engines in various stages of construction when they abruptly surrendered. If we had not bombed them into surrendering when we did, we would have soon lost that capability, because our bombers were all slow prop-driven planes that couldn't have survived a jet fighter defense.
But why is it less moral to kill someone with a nuclear weapon than to kill them with fire bombs? Almost no one ever mentions that the US bombed Tokyo and other cities, even though more were killed in Tokyo than either of the nuked cities.
The Japan of the '30s and '40s was a vicious thug nation--much different than the civilized nation of today. One book that tries hard to be fair but reveals the thuggery anyway is Ghost Soldiers. All war is bad and should be avoided if reasonably possible, but sometimes it's not possible.
japan had no chance to win the war and no ressources to prolong a fight.
also russia was preparing to declare war to japan.
to be honest they coulda have just waited on mainland asia and watch the japs burning their last oil.
my opinion is that it was just about the message ; directed at moscow and the world to show who the new superpower is.
By that time, Russia (USSR) not only was preparing to declare war (as per Yalta agreement between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt). It was in the state of war with Japan and a landing of Soviet troops was already in the works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Kuril_Islands
You are right about the directed threat at Moscow - the bombings were to show who's the boss.
https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-would-kill-an-estimated-108-million-soviets-104-million-chinese-and-2-3-million-poles-more-evidence-on-siop-62-and-the-origins-of-overkill/
Using nuclear bombs was a necessary evil because it saved a likely net amount of lives as what would have had to have happened if the US had to invade Japan instead of them surrendering
The last statement is a US state-approved lie, constructed after the fact to justify bombing. The reality was that the Soviet Army almost completely broke the Japanese resistance, and US had to prevent Japan falling/surrendering to the Soviets at any cost.
Japan had acquired jet engine technology from Germany. They had several engines in various stages of construction when they abruptly surrendered. If we had not bombed them into surrendering when we did, we would have soon lost that capability, because our bombers were all slow prop-driven planes that couldn't have survived a jet fighter defense.
But why is it less moral to kill someone with a nuclear weapon than to kill them with fire bombs? Almost no one ever mentions that the US bombed Tokyo and other cities, even though more were killed in Tokyo than either of the nuked cities.
The Japan of the '30s and '40s was a vicious thug nation--much different than the civilized nation of today. One book that tries hard to be fair but reveals the thuggery anyway is Ghost Soldiers. All war is bad and should be avoided if reasonably possible, but sometimes it's not possible.
japan had no chance to win the war and no ressources to prolong a fight.
also russia was preparing to declare war to japan.
to be honest they coulda have just waited on mainland asia and watch the japs burning their last oil.
my opinion is that it was just about the message ; directed at moscow and the world to show who the new superpower is.
That initiative is still up:
Intl tribunal should try 1945 US nuke attacks on Japan - Duma chief
http://www.rt.com/politics/311657-duma-chief-urges-international-tribunal/
Intl tribunal should try 1945 US nuke attacks on Japan - Duma chief
http://www.rt.com/politics/311657-duma-chief-urges-international-tribunal/
Quote
The State Duma speaker says it’s necessary to create an international court to look into the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, noting that America’s modern policy has borrowed a lot from the cynical approach of its former leaders.
Speaking at a roundtable meeting in the Moscow Institute of International Relations on Wednesday, Sergey Naryshkin said the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary for the military campaign against Japan. He added that the thousands of civilians killed by the atomic bombs had not been involved in crimes of the Japanese military.
...
Speaking at a roundtable meeting in the Moscow Institute of International Relations on Wednesday, Sergey Naryshkin said the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary for the military campaign against Japan. He added that the thousands of civilians killed by the atomic bombs had not been involved in crimes of the Japanese military.
...
Using nuclear bombs was a necessary evil because it saved a likely net amount of lives as what would have had to have happened if the US had to invade Japan instead of them surrendering
The last statement is a US state-approved lie, constructed after the fact to justify bombing. The reality was that the Soviet Army almost completely broke the Japanese resistance, and US had to prevent Japan falling/surrendering to the Soviets at any cost.
Japan had acquired jet engine technology from Germany. They had several engines in various stages of construction when they abruptly surrendered. If we had not bombed them into surrendering when we did, we would have soon lost that capability, because our bombers were all slow prop-driven planes that couldn't have survived a jet fighter defense.
But why is it less moral to kill someone with a nuclear weapon than to kill them with fire bombs? Almost no one ever mentions that the US bombed Tokyo and other cities, even though more were killed in Tokyo than either of the nuked cities.
The Japan of the '30s and '40s was a vicious thug nation--much different than the civilized nation of today. One book that tries hard to be fair but reveals the thuggery anyway is Ghost Soldiers. All war is bad and should be avoided if reasonably possible, but sometimes it's not possible.
I saw a part of the untold history of the united states and they say America knew for some time that the Japanese were prepared to surrender because of the soviets from intercepted information. The nuclear weapons had nothing to do with it because as you said the firebombing had been worse already and the destruction was nothing new. And jet fighters would still need time to be built and required materials to build and maintain that they wouldn't have.
Using nuclear bombs was a necessary evil because it saved a likely net amount of lives as what would have had to have happened if the US had to invade Japan instead of them surrendering
The last statement is a US state-approved lie, constructed after the fact to justify bombing. The reality was that the Soviet Army almost completely broke the Japanese resistance, and US had to prevent Japan falling/surrendering to the Soviets at any cost.
Japan had acquired jet engine technology from Germany. They had several engines in various stages of construction when they abruptly surrendered. If we had not bombed them into surrendering when we did, we would have soon lost that capability, because our bombers were all slow prop-driven planes that couldn't have survived a jet fighter defense.
But why is it less moral to kill someone with a nuclear weapon than to kill them with fire bombs? Almost no one ever mentions that the US bombed Tokyo and other cities, even though more were killed in Tokyo than either of the nuked cities.
The Japan of the '30s and '40s was a vicious thug nation--much different than the civilized nation of today. One book that tries hard to be fair but reveals the thuggery anyway is Ghost Soldiers. All war is bad and should be avoided if reasonably possible, but sometimes it's not possible.
It's a good thing Stalin didn't kill any civilians.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
If you are aiming at the repressions and genocide of the Russian and Soviet population by Gzhugashvili, then yes, there were investigations, and denouncements after his death. You might not have been keeping up with the Soviet history to know that, though.
Using nuclear bombs was a necessary evil because it saved a likely net amount of lives as what would have had to have happened if the US had to invade Japan instead of them surrendering
The last statement is a US state-approved lie, constructed after the fact to justify bombing. The reality was that the Soviet Army almost completely broke the Japanese resistance, and US had to prevent Japan falling/surrendering to the Soviets at any cost.
Recommended watching: Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the United States" series. Look it up on YouTube.
Part of Vlad Putin's charming coterie of rogues, no doubt? 
He is Vladimir.
Part of Vlad Putin's charming coterie of rogues, no doubt?
It's a good thing Stalin didn't kill any civilians.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
If you are aiming at the repressions and genocide of the Russian and Soviet population by Gzhugashvili, then yes, there were investigations, and denouncements after his death. You might not have been keeping up with the Soviet history to know that, though.
Using nuclear bombs was a necessary evil because it saved a likely net amount of lives as what would have had to have happened if the US had to invade Japan instead of them surrendering
The atomic bombings are more known, but the fire-bombings of cities like Dresden and Tokyo killed far more civilians. If they're going to raise the spector of war crimes, might as well get it right.
This would be an excellent point, if they were serious and weren't really just digging a needle in Obama for his economic meddling.It's a good thing Stalin didn't kill any civilians.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
Ah! Excellent!Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
But wait! If they're allowed to go back 70 years and prosecute for crimes against humanity, why stop at 70? How about the crucifixion of the Lord? Let's go get those Romans and try them before the Russian court. The Italians can stand in their stead.
It's a good thing Stalin didn't kill any civilians.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
If you are aiming at the repressions and genocide of the Russian and Soviet population by Gzhugashvili, then yes, there were investigations, and denouncements after his death. You might not have been keeping up with the Soviet history to know that, though.
There were denouncements on the use of nukes too after-the-fact. So I guess everything is squared?
It's a good thing Stalin didn't kill any civilians.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
If you are aiming at the repressions and genocide of the Russian and Soviet population by Gzhugashvili, then yes, there were investigations, and denouncements after his death. You might not have been keeping up with the Soviet history to know that, though.
It's a good thing Stalin didn't kill any civilians.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
Otherwise they would have to start an investigation there too.
There is nothing good for anyone, it's very dangerous.
How do you mean? Dangerous to drag the not-so-old history up? Let's forget and forgive and cross our fingers that nothing like this happens again? Because the signal the first time around is that it's perfectly ok to nuke cities...
State Duma chief suggests trying US for WWII nuke attacks
http://rt.com/politics/217787-naryshkin-russia-hiroshima-trial/
There is nothing good for anyone, it's very dangerous. http://rt.com/politics/217787-naryshkin-russia-hiroshima-trial/
Quote
The Russian Lower House speaker wants to instigate an international investigation into the 1945 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US military – a possible crime against humanity with no statute of limitation.
“Next year we will have the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trial and also the same anniversary of the first and only nuclear bombings of two civilian cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not incidental that I mention these events together. I think we should discuss this topic together with lawyers and specialists in international law – for crimes against humanity have no statute of limitation,” Sergey Naryshkin told the presidium of the Russian History Society.
The Russian parliamentary chief recalled that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly justifiable from the pure military position, as the defeat of Japan was practically decided after the Soviet Army’s victories in Manchuria.
“The nuclear bombing of two peaceful cities was a pure act of intimidation resulting in the deaths of several thousand Japanese civilians. Let us get back to this issue within the next year,” Naryshkin said.
The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place in early August, 1945, and resulted in the deaths of between 150,000 and 250,000 people, most of them civilians. The US authorities said the demonstration of force sped up Japan’s capitulation and prevented a land operation on the island that could have inflicted heavy casualties to the US military. At the same time, the two attacks, especially the Hiroshima bombing, have been repeatedly denounced by the international rights community as fundamentally immoral and violating the spirit of conventions that banned the use of weapons of mass destruction against the enemy’s civilian population.
Japanese officials and international rights activists raise the issue of the bombings to this day, noting that the radioactive fallout damaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s children, causing various illnesses in some, and costly medical checks and constant fears for the health of the rest.
“Next year we will have the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trial and also the same anniversary of the first and only nuclear bombings of two civilian cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not incidental that I mention these events together. I think we should discuss this topic together with lawyers and specialists in international law – for crimes against humanity have no statute of limitation,” Sergey Naryshkin told the presidium of the Russian History Society.
The Russian parliamentary chief recalled that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly justifiable from the pure military position, as the defeat of Japan was practically decided after the Soviet Army’s victories in Manchuria.
“The nuclear bombing of two peaceful cities was a pure act of intimidation resulting in the deaths of several thousand Japanese civilians. Let us get back to this issue within the next year,” Naryshkin said.
The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place in early August, 1945, and resulted in the deaths of between 150,000 and 250,000 people, most of them civilians. The US authorities said the demonstration of force sped up Japan’s capitulation and prevented a land operation on the island that could have inflicted heavy casualties to the US military. At the same time, the two attacks, especially the Hiroshima bombing, have been repeatedly denounced by the international rights community as fundamentally immoral and violating the spirit of conventions that banned the use of weapons of mass destruction against the enemy’s civilian population.
Japanese officials and international rights activists raise the issue of the bombings to this day, noting that the radioactive fallout damaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s children, causing various illnesses in some, and costly medical checks and constant fears for the health of the rest.
The atomic bombings are more known, but the fire-bombings of cities like Dresden and Tokyo killed far more civilians. If they're going to raise the spector of war crimes, might as well get it right.
The victors write history and I doubt anyone on the allied side will be tried.
The atomic bombings are more known, but the fire-bombings of cities like Dresden and Tokyo killed far more civilians. If they're going to raise the spector of war crimes, might as well get it right.
Jump to: