(December 4, 2022 at 9:42 am)Helios Wrote: I have heard the Soviet theory and I don't buy it.

Look at the condition of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.  Then look at the current condition of Warsaw.  Or Bucharest.  Or Prague.  Or just about any Eastern European city.  Japanese cities are thriving, industrialized, modernized cities even after being nuked.  Eastern Europe is still poor and underdeveloped and undereducated.  Even if the USSR wasn't the reason Japan surrendered, in hindsight, it certainly worked out for them in the long run.  

Japan was paying attention to how the allies treated conquered nations: Russia wanted to build satellite states with no independence and were little more than Soviet colonies.  Western nations wanted to rebuild and reform them into democratic states like the UK and America.  When they knew they were losing the war regardless, they delayed a bit to try to get better terms of surrender from the allies but when the USSR turned its attention to Japan, the only term they cared about was to keep the soviets out of Japan.

Yes, I am aware of the evidence of the theory I simply don't buy it.

(December 4, 2022 at 5:34 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I find it interesting, though, that the best person you chose to support Ye’s nightmarishly anti-Semitic views is a Jewish teenager.

I'm certain that was intentional -- an attempt to enlist a victim of Nazis in defending a defender of Hitler. "See? Even Anne Frank shares the same views as this neo-Nazi cuntmuffin!"

Misleading rhetoric is rarely accidental.

An immensely popular musician and celebrity has horrible delivery. That seems to suggest the question of why might be relevant.

(December 4, 2022 at 9:42 am)Helios Wrote: I have heard the Soviet theory and I don't buy it.

Toland in The Rising Sun documents that the Soviets joining the war against Japan was indeed a big factor in Japanese cabinet discussions regarding surrender, alongside the A-bombs. From Wiki:

Quote:These "twin shocks"—the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the Soviet entry—had immediate profound effects on Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki and Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō, who concurred that the government must end the war at once.[95] 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.[96] Hirohito told Kido to "quickly control the situation" because "the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us."[97]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_...d_Nagasaki

(December 4, 2022 at 9:25 am)TaraJo Wrote:

(December 4, 2022 at 3:02 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: I used to work with veterans and others when I lived in Sydney.

One particularly interesting old gent I got to know was named Fritz.  He was Dutch and was a young boy in what is now Indonesia when the Japanese invaded.

He spent several years in a Japanese internment camp.

I remember him quite specifically mentioning the nervousness of the guards as news of setback after setback for the Japanese military came in.

The guards grew more brutal each time and there were plans, overheard from the guards, to slaughter the remaining prisoners before they retreated.

The dropping of the atomic bombs and the Japanese surrender saved the lives of everyone in the camp, and who knows how many others?

I'm still forced to question how much the atomic bomb influenced Japan to surrender.  What I've heard is that Japan was more afraid of the USSR (which is understandable when you look at what they did to Eastern Europe for the next 50 years) and having to surrender to them, even with atomic weapons being used.  So, if those deaths still could have been prevented without using nuclear weapons, wouldn't that be the preferable option?

It's important to remember that in the months leading up to the Hiroshima bombing, the Allies and firebombed and virtually destroyed more than 60 Japanese cities (the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed over 100 000 people and destroyed more than a quarter of a million buildings in a single night).

I find it telling that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom-bombed, it took the Japanese another six days to surrender. A persistent rumour is that word was gotten to the Imperial Command that a third bomb was going to be dropped on Tokyo, and that's what triggered the surrender.

I don't think the Russian factor had a lot to do with it, as Russia didn't declare war on Japan until the day Nagasaki was bombed. If Japan had surrendered when the Allies demanded it, they wouldn't have been surrendering to Russia at all.

Boru

(December 4, 2022 at 11:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 4, 2022 at 5:34 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I find it interesting, though, that the best person you chose to support Ye’s nightmarishly anti-Semitic views is a Jewish teenager.

I'm certain that was intentional -- an attempt to enlist a victim of Nazis in defending a defender of Hitler. "See? Even Anne Frank shares the same views as this neo-Nazi cuntmuffin!"

Misleading rhetoric is rarely accidental.

What do you think Anne Frank was referring to when she said "in spite of it all"?

(December 4, 2022 at 9:51 am)TaraJo Wrote: Look at the condition of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.  Then look at the current condition of Warsaw.  Or Bucharest.  Or Prague.  Or just about any Eastern European city.  Japanese cities are thriving, industrialized, modernized cities even after being nuked.  Eastern Europe is still poor and underdeveloped and undereducated.  Even if the USSR wasn't the reason Japan surrendered, in hindsight, it certainly worked out for them in the long run.  

Japan was paying attention to how the allies treated conquered nations: Russia wanted to build satellite states with no independence and were little more than Soviet colonies.  Western nations wanted to rebuild and reform them into democratic states like the UK and America.  When they knew they were losing the war regardless, they delayed a bit to try to get better terms of surrender from the allies but when the USSR turned its attention to Japan, the only term they cared about was to keep the soviets out of Japan.

Prague is one of the most beautiful cities I've visited, perhaps partly because it hasn't turned into a set of modern high-rise buildings.

(December 4, 2022 at 2:57 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote:

(December 4, 2022 at 11:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm certain that was intentional -- an attempt to enlist a victim of Nazis in defending a defender of Hitler. "See? Even Anne Frank shares the same views as this neo-Nazi cuntmuffin!"

Misleading rhetoric is rarely accidental.

What do you think Anne Frank was referring to when she said "in spite of it all"?

Nazis. She was referring to Nazis. A semantically equivalent statement would be, ‘Nazis aside, people have good hearts.’ 

If she was alive today, she might phrase it, ‘People who say out loud that Kanye West is a hate-filled mentally disturbed fucktard renew my belief that most people are basically good.’

Boru

(December 4, 2022 at 2:57 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote:

(December 4, 2022 at 11:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm certain that was intentional -- an attempt to enlist a victim of Nazis in defending a defender of Hitler. "See? Even Anne Frank shares the same views as this neo-Nazi cuntmuffin!"

Misleading rhetoric is rarely accidental.

What do you think Anne Frank was referring to when she said "in spite of it all"?

It's not what she meant at the heart of my point --nor whether she's right or wrong (I happen to think it's the latter). It's the reasons for you picking her to quote, of all people. It's transparently for rhetorical purpose. You should just own it instead of falling back on your usual sophistry.