Politics Generations

[Zoraptor]

I'm about 90% sure Stalin knew about Trinity at Potsdam- but thought the effects were being exaggerated.

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

as you observe, have been down this road before. your ignorance continues in spite o' our best efforts to educate, which is expected. you also misrepresent, which is understandable but inexcusable as is well-trod.

Yes, and you've produced the same debunked theories you did last time, linking to the post where everyone had got bored of debunking you as if it means anything.

Quote

and again, is not suggestion russian invasion were sole reason for capitulation, but try and claim planned soviet invasion o' hokkaido were mythical is laughable in 2019.

Yes, plan developed on 19th August 1945. As you were told last time, that's 4 days after Japan had already surrendered. OK, so that's a mistake whoever wrote your badly researched FP article initially foisted on you along with claims that Hokkaido's defences were weak, but you've been told before that that plan was for an unopposed invasion after the surrender, ignored it and gone back to the well again. That's also why the 'invasion plan' involved an intimidating regimental sized initial invasion force using a terrifying 6 (!) landing craft. More Japanese would have died laughing than in the fighting.

The soviets had 15% casualties in basically unopposed landings. They didn't have the ships, they didn't have the logistics. Swoop in and grab Hokkaido unopposed? Worth considering, ultimately not tried. Try and grab it opposed? Didn't have the capability and wouldn't until... April 1946, maybe. Japan had more than enough reason to and did surrender 8 months before that.

[Gromnir]

now you are being ridiculous to the point o' obtuse. is zor's suggestion first plans for soviet invasion began on the 19th, four days after the japanese surrender? puhlease. "Reporting on the plan of operation of the 87th rifle corps to the island of Hokkaido and the southern part of the islands of the Kurile chain." is not brainstorming but report o' a plan 'bout to be implemented. as stated elsewhere, and as would be apparent if you weren't so low-effort, the soviets had had such plans for a considerable time and the link is simple the report o' the existing plan. 

the soviet attack were to take place two months before the US invasion o' japan, which were scheduled  for nov 1, 1945. did you even read the link? august 24, 1945 were proposed start o' soviet invasion with reconnaissance beginning on the 19th. "All that was missing was a final go-ahead from Stalin. On Aug. 16 the Soviet leader asked U.S. President Harry S. Truman to acquiesce in this “modest wish” or risk offending “Russian public opinion.” Although just months earlier, the U.S. War Department had considered letting the Soviets occupy Hokkaido and even part of Honshu, Japan’s largest island, Hiroshima had clearly changed things for Truman. " perhaps is zor's contention that august 16, the day stalin sought final go-ahead, one day after surrender, were the first day the plan to invade Japan were contemplated by the soviets?

HA!

no, serious. is your position the soviets only came up with plan post august 15 and then set their invasion date o' august 24? above you suggest how utter impractical an amphibious landing o' hokkaido would be, but is now your argument that in spite o' the odds 'gainst them, and how obvious impractical an amphibious assault o' hokkaido would be, the document were somehow indicative o' first stages o' soviet planning with actual operation to begin in less than ten days?

plan just sprung out o' stalin's head, fully realized, like haephestus cracking open zeus' skull and athena striding forth as a full-grown goddess. 

BWAHHHHAAAHHHHAAAA!!!

oh, and our "debunked" theories come with linkies and actual support. more low effort from zor, eh? professors hasegawa, frank, radchenko and kort, to name a few. 

hasegawa quoting frank as an example

As Frank writes, “the Soviet Navy’s amphibious shipping resources were limited but sufficient to transport the three assault divisions in several echelon. The Red Army intended to seize the northern half of Hokkaido. If resistance proved strong, reinforcements would be deployed to aid the capture the rest of Hokkaido. Given the size of Hokkaido, the Japanese would have been hard pressed to move units for a concerted confrontation of the Soviet invasion. The chances of Soviet success appeared to be very good.”[66] Soviet occupation of Hokkaido was thus within the realm of possibility.

regardless, the proposed soviet invasion were hardly mythical and is consensus rather than fringe. 

zor, as is typical, mistakes his own ignorance for debunked.  *chuckle* son, you are having a sonny liston-on-the-canvas moment and you don't even realize. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 25, 2019 by Gromnir
weird format issue

[BruceVC]

13 hours ago, Elerond said:

Because Japanese were bad people. It is same why bombing of Dresden is not considered as war crime.

 

These bombings really shouldnt been seen as war crimes, there are several fundamental reasons for this

Elerond if you truly want to understand parts of history then you have to try to adopt the same mindset as the people who lived in that era and understand what were there  considerations, fears and goals ....and most importantly you will see there reality. Then you will have a more favorable or rather a more balanced  view of certain events like the bombings in Japan.

If the USA had invaded mainland Japan to finally get Japan to surrender it was predicted they would lose 1 million soldiers fighting the fanatical Japanese loyalists

Why should  the US lose that many men when the war was basically over, Japan wasnt a threat at this stage to anyone as most of there army had been destroyed  but they still had the Emperor and the general ideology of Totalitarianism  which the army still followed. This ideology could only be eradicated  will with  Japan surrendering and admitting defeat

So the cities had to be bombed to ensure this and to prevent the inevitable lose of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, the Pacific campaign was a brutal and merciless series of battles and after Okinawa and Iwo Jima and the horrendous loss of life no one in the US wanted another ground invasion to conquer the final bastion of the Japanese  . I would strongly recommend anyone interested in how terrible this campaign was to read  the book below,its evocative and brilliant. Its called Goodbye Darkness

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19801.Goodbye_Darkness

 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

one wonders what mitch learned, if anything, from this moment. for a man deeply concerned 'bout legacy, am hopeful the senator reflects 'pon how his actions today is deciding how he will be remembered tomorrow.  

[HoonDing]

I think we can all agree two nukes weren't enough.

[Gromnir]

25 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

I think we can all agree two nukes weren't enough.

gonna reply serious to silly.

two were probable the right number, but am not thinking both needed be dropped on japanese cities.  in mid-late 1945, the US did not have an arsenal o' a-bombs in any great numbers. am gonna be honest and admit we do not know numbers o' bombs available as we recollect a few estimates from our university years, and we were in school before the recent turn o' the century. our info is dated. more than 2 bombs. less than 20. truman were trying to get maximum impact with limited supply.

however, am thinking there is a strong argument that if the hiroshima bomb had been a test viewable by the world, many lives coulda' been saved. 

"The notion that the atomic bombs caused the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, has been, for many Americans and virtually all U.S. history textbooks, the default understanding of how and why the war ended. But minutes of the meetings of the Japanese government reveal a more complex story. The latest and best scholarship on the surrender, based on Japanese records, concludes that the Soviet Union’s unexpected entry into the war against Japan on Aug. 8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier. Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war . As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa writes in his book “Racing the Enemy,” “Indeed, Soviet attack, not the Hiroshima bomb, convinced political leaders to end the war.” The two events together — plus the dropping of the second atomic bomb on Aug. 9 — were decisive in making the case for surrender."-- gregg herken

so indulging in admitted scifi speculative fiction, imagine US sets off test bomb which obvious doesn't convince the japanese to surrender 'cause hiroshima bomb did not. perhaps a second bomb being dropped on a city woulda' been necessary, but mayhap soviets declaration and intent to invade would been 'nuff to convince the japanese to surrender w/o further loss o' life. in any event, am thinking is possible to argue it were unnecessary to drop bombs on a populated city.

that said, such a conclusion requires much after-the-fact second-guessing. truman were not benefiting from hindsight afforded by decades o' scholarship. President got limited nuclear arsenal and he cannot know or trust what soviets will do... and clearly the US were poor at guessing what japanese would think or do. sure, by the end o' the war the US could routine read japanese mail, but such were less helpful in predicting how japanese would arrive at their decisions.

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

9 hours ago, BruceVC said:

These bombings really shouldnt been seen as war crimes, there are several fundamental reasons for this

Elerond if you truly want to understand parts of history then you have to try to adopt the same mindset as the people who lived in that era and understand what were there  considerations, fears and goals ....and most importantly you will see there reality. Then you will have a more favorable or rather a more balanced  view of certain events like the bombings in Japan.

If the USA had invaded mainland Japan to finally get Japan to surrender it was predicted they would lose 1 million soldiers fighting the fanatical Japanese loyalists

Why should  the US lose that many men when the war was basically over, Japan wasnt a threat at this stage to anyone as most of there army had been destroyed  but they still had the Emperor and the general ideology of Totalitarianism  which the army still followed. This ideology could only be eradicated  will with  Japan surrendering and admitting defeat

So the cities had to be bombed to ensure this and to prevent the inevitable lose of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, the Pacific campaign was a brutal and merciless series of battles and after Okinawa and Iwo Jima and the horrendous loss of life no one in the US wanted another ground invasion to conquer the final bastion of the Japanese  . I would strongly recommend anyone interested in how terrible this campaign was to read  the book below,its evocative and brilliant. Its called Goodbye Darkness

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19801.Goodbye_Darkness

 

 

So in other words "Because Japanese were bad people."

My grandparents served in WWII, during time when Soviet air forces fire bombed Finland's cities freely and then they lived the time when Finland had to pay Soviet Union compensation of cost of those bombs that destroyed cities where they lived. So I have some knowledge of mindset of people who lived in that era.

[Guard Dog]

Trump is now accusing Obama of treason: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-accuses-obama-of-treason-for-spying-on-his-2016-campaign

It's usually a good idea to know the definition of a word before using it. But, I guess not for elected kings. 

[smjjames]

I think he may have already done that for the same allegation? Maybe he should try a new allegation rather than recycling an old one, you know, to keep it fresh. /s

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Trump is now accusing Obama of treason: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-accuses-obama-of-treason-for-spying-on-his-2016-campaign

It's usually a good idea to know the definition of a word before using it. But, I guess not for elected kings. 

Something really funny about this quote -  " “I have never ever said this, but truth is, they got caught spying. They were spying,” said Trump who then added, “Obama.”  "

Imagining him pausing for a second or two before blurting out Obama's name.

[pmp10]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

So in other words "Because Japanese were bad people."

My grandparents served in WWII, during time when Soviet air forces fire bombed Finland's cities freely and then they lived the time when Finland had to pay Soviet Union compensation of cost of those bombs that destroyed cities where they lived. So I have some knowledge of mindset of people who lived in that era.

Because their deaths saved lives of people far more innocent then themselves.

I haven't heard how much invading and occupying Finland has done before being Soviets attacked but it seems to me a bit different situation.

[Zoraptor]

13 hours ago, Gromnir said:

no, serious. is your position the soviets only came up with plan post august 15 and then set their invasion date o' august 24? above you suggest how utter impractical an amphibious landing o' hokkaido would be, but is now your argument that in spite o' the odds 'gainst them, and how obvious impractical an amphibious assault o' hokkaido would be, the document were somehow indicative o' first stages o' soviet planning with actual operation to begin in less than ten days?

Plans change when circumstances change and Japan surrendering is a big change that allowed consideration of a land grab because, well, Japan had surrendered so theoretically would not fight back. They didn't have the resources for an opposed landing, they knew it and the Japanese knew it. That's why their plan calls for them to, basically, cruise into a port unopposed rather than launch a proper amphibious assault. Your sources are using incorrect information. You've been told that multiple times and choose to ignore that.

Quote

As Frank writes, “the Soviet Navy’s amphibious shipping resources were limited but sufficient to transport the three assault divisions in several echelon. The Red Army intended to seize the northern half of Hokkaido. If resistance proved strong, reinforcements would be deployed to aid the capture the rest of Hokkaido. Given the size of Hokkaido, the Japanese would have been hard pressed to move units for a concerted confrontation of the Soviet invasion. The chances of Soviet success appeared to be very good.”[66] Soviet occupation of Hokkaido was thus within the realm of possibility.

Wow, a supposed advocate of your theory and it's within the realm of possibility, and that's the straw you build your argument on? That's about 20,000 men, delivered piecemeal, and despite the claims of your sources they'd be outnumbered more than 5 to one- and that if they could be delivered in one go. And again 15% casualties- at a rate of 2:1 against them- taking the relatively unimportant Kurils with only a slightly smaller force and with the large majority of its 80k defenders having surrendered without a shot being fired; with 6 landing ships, 6. Yours is a fringe theory barely supported even by your own sources let alone by anyone mainstream.

[Gromnir]

still no support, eh?

zor claims, which clear fly in the face o' the modern consensus, also ignore fact the soviets were indeed planning on going forth with an amphibious invasion o' hokkaido. the REPORT o' the plan long in development (fact you wanna fight on this point is revealing the extreme lengths zor will go to ignore reality) reveals the soviets were less than ten days away from launching such an improbable attack. as such, while zor thinks such an invasion were ludicrous, is clear the soviets were intent on making such an attack and from statements by japanese military, it were obvious the japanese feared such.

but yeah, hasegawa quoting frank is easily ignored and we should instead rely 'pon zor's fringe theories which has been utter repudiated in last few decades. 'course zor ain't actual provided any support, so there is that too. the guy from the fp article, professor radchenko is clearly a hack who got sources wrong, though his facts is aligning with the aforementioned hasegawa, frank, kort and others.

regardless, is good to know the training has stuck. this particular dog whistle is undeniable effective. were a relative side-issue to topic being discussed and nevertheless, zor comes running in response.

whatever. as usual, Gromnir is gonna be the one to quit from fatigue. zor has  complete gone 'round the bend. 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Elerond]

6 hours ago, pmp10 said:

Because their deaths saved lives of people far more innocent then themselves.

I haven't heard how much invading and occupying Finland has done before being Soviets attacked but it seems to me a bit different situation.

I would argue that bombing civilians after winning the war didn't save any lives, it was done in order to force Germany and Japan to surrender without conditions.

You know that USA, UK, France, Soviet Union and etc countries found that it was Finland fault that Soviets invaded it and Finland had to pay massive war reparations for Soviet Union, give up quite large areas of land to Soviet Union, including one of Finland's oldest cities. Also Finland war time president was convicted for crimes against Soviet Union and put to prison.

But anyway purposefully bombing civilian targets in order to cause terror is considered to be a war crime although in reality it is always overlooked by tribunals.

[Zoraptor]

The 'guilt' was for the Continuation War though, not the Winter War and whatever the (certainly real) justifications for the Continuation War it was fighting alongside the nazis; and the western Allies did seriously consider declaring war on the soviets in 1939 in support of Finland but would not have been able to do anything; and which would have made for an interesting dynamic later. You did get out of it without an imposed political solution/ occupation or annexation which was significantly better than many countries got. In theory Finland's situation was identical to the Baltic countries that got reannexed, ie independent from Russia post revolution. Albeit Grand Duchy of Finland had a lot more autonomy even when she was part of Russia.

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

'course zor ain't actual provided any support, so there is that too.

I don't have to prove anything- I can't, as I cannot prove a negative- but you have to prove that the soviets were going to invade and that that was a major factor in the Japanese surrender, because that's your assertion. All I have to do is point out that your sources are fringe, and their facts incorrect.

As for dog whistling, you've written far more than I have on the matter while saying... nothing. If it's a dog whistle you're the one hearing it.

[BruceVC]

On 10/25/2019 at 6:39 PM, Elerond said:

So in other words "Because Japanese were bad people."

 

Its so funny you made this point because you right but I was hoping you wouldn't notice it, so in other words I misunderstood your post to Hurlshot because I thought you were being sarcastic.  Sorry about that. But the interesting thing is after I made my post I realized you weren't being sarcastic as you not like that when you make points  and in fact my entire post  can be characterized as " "Because Japanese were bad people." if you read it a certain way 

But just to explain further so you understand where I was coming from. I want to share this extra information so you understand  my broader view on this topic which comes up sometimes in RL.

Lets say Hurlshot  had raised the question outside any internet  forum maybe in a school classroom or even a normal debate, he basically asked " why weren't the bombings  of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seen as war crimes or some sort of holocaust ", even though your answer is not incorrect its an over simplification and also it can be seen as a generalization. So in other words its not detailed enough to adequately answer the question to a certain audience. The question is relevant to certain opinions  and some views people have that  I have debated with but  I am well aware this doesn't apply necessarily to anyone on this forum , occasionally I had exchanges with people who use this point as an example of USA\Western hypocrisy or rather history being selective about these types of events. 

Of course most people are well meaning when they raise this and normally its because the idea of killing 300k civilians by dropping the bombs   cannot be justified by them or accepted. This is a normal view for people living in the year 2019

Which is why the historical precedent is very important about " why the USA did it ". And as I mentioned in my previous post there were reasons for this that were applicable at the time and made sense.

I will ague that most of the remaining Japanese army were prepared to fight to the death, part of there ideological view was surrender was for cowards and anathema to there core beliefs and because this was there primary homeland how could they accept terms ?

So somehow you needed to find a way to get the Japanese  Emperor to accept surrender and I doubt  a protracted land invasion would have had the same result

Finally of course the terrible loss of civilians lives will be seen as a tragedy. But considering the outcome it was  part of the overall strategy that was necessary to end the war 

Edited October 26, 2019 by BruceVC

[ComradeYellow]

Joe Biden is posturing as the aggressively anti-Russian/Putin candidate and is maintaining the dangerous Cold War McCarthtyist Trump = Russia narrative.  If these two parties aren't stopped than we may well accept fascism as the correct evolutionary norm of neoliberalism.

[smjjames]

39 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Joe Biden is posturing as the aggressively anti-Russian/Putin candidate and is maintaining the dangerous Cold War McCarthtyist Trump = Russia narrative.  If these two parties aren't stopped than we may well accept fascism as the correct evolutionary norm of neoliberalism.

'these two parties', yet you only attack one party in your post, I wonder who the second party is here? hm?                       

[ComradeYellow]

2 minutes ago, smjjames said:

'these two parties', yet you only attack one party in your post, I wonder who the second party is here? hm?                       

The Republican Party, which is also dangerous because it is now openly channeling racist and sexist undertones which is also a key ingredient of fascism.  Two wings of the same bird.

[Zoraptor]

ISIS 'Caliph' Al Baghdadi allegedly killed in Syria.

Skeptical personally, since it was supposedly in Idlib- 3km from the Turkish border even- and while Idlib is rife with jihadis there's very little ISIS presence and as little sympathy for them, as the other jihadis wiped them out there after an extremely bitter struggle and they fought against each other very regularly. If most of the groups there got wind of him being there the US would not need to launch a raid to kill him, he'd be strung up on principle.

Zawahiri and especially Joulani seem a lot more likely as a high value target in Idlib.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Zoraptor

[ShadySands]

John Kelly says words

"I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President," Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Saturday.

 

 

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

ISIS 'Caliph' Al Baghdadi allegedly killed in Syria.

Skeptical personally, since it was supposedly in Idlib- 3km from the Turkish border even- and while Idlib is rife with jihadis there's very little ISIS presence and as little sympathy for them, as the other jihadis wiped them out there after an extremely bitter struggle and they fought against each other very regularly. If most of the groups there got wind of him being there the US would not need to launch a raid to kill him, he'd be strung up on principle.

Zawahiri and especially Joulani seem a lot more likely as a high value target in Idlib.

I noticed this story on various networks and it seems credible, he apparently used his suicide vest to kill himself because US special forces were about to kill/capture him. I dont blame him,  that is the first decision he has ever made that I can guarantee you I  would agree with him on. He would have spent the rest of his life on Guantanamo Bay as an isolated prisoner. death is preferable in certain realities  

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-leader-isis-targeted-u-s-raid-n1072506?yptr=yahoo

I am sure it is him, I hope it is him because he has to face accountability for his egregious war crimes and the huge part he played in the creation and sustainability of ISIS

For me its not fundamentally going to change the reality of how ISIS operates nowadays as since the Caliphate was destroyed ISIS has become more of an amorphous group that doesn't need or require the a leadership structure as the basic brutal belief  is practiced by several examples of groups affiliated to ISIS ....yes this will upset ISIS disciplines who knew he was still alive but just like AQ the group will continue as its about the belief. Its appalling that anyone would practice this corruption of the Koran but this what extremists do

 

 

[pmp10]

On 10/26/2019 at 4:03 AM, Elerond said:

I would argue that bombing civilians after winning the war didn't save any lives, it was done in order to force Germany and Japan to surrender without conditions.

[...]

But anyway purposefully bombing civilian targets in order to cause terror is considered to be a war crime although in reality it is always overlooked by tribunals.

It's just too bad both Japanese and German militaries disagreed about the war being lost.
As long as they were willing to trade off their own population to hold on to their territorial gains this was always going to be the natural course of the war.
And besides that, there were very good reasons to reconstruct these countries which could only happen during occupation.

[BruceVC]

On 10/26/2019 at 4:03 AM, Elerond said:

I would argue that bombing civilians after winning the war didn't save any lives, it was done in order to force Germany and Japan to surrender without conditions.

You know that USA, UK, France, Soviet Union and etc countries found that it was Finland fault that Soviets invaded it and Finland had to pay massive war reparations for Soviet Union, give up quite large areas of land to Soviet Union, including one of Finland's oldest cities. Also Finland war time president was convicted for crimes against Soviet Union and put to prison.

But anyway purposefully bombing civilian targets in order to cause terror is considered to be a war crime although in reality it is always overlooked by tribunals.

I would argue Germany wasnt bombed to end the war, yes Dresden occurred but it was considered a legitimate target in the German war machine

Unfortunately Hitler and a few of his closest confidants like Goebbels  refused to surrender and they made a final stand in Berlin, there were also SS regiments and other German forces  that fought literally a street to street with the Soviets in the final days of the final attack against Berlin

Now the Allies couldnt be sure of just using a bombing campaign to kill or force Hitler to surrender considering Hitler was living in a bunker at the end and I doubt this would have worked. So it was necessary for a ground campaign and soldiers clearing the streets 

There is a huge difference between the reasons for the bombing of Dresden and why nuclear weapons were used in Japan, the Allies didnt have the same concerns about when Germany would be defeated and if there would be a huge, unacceptable loss of  US soldiers fighting some fanatical remnants of the Nazi army, Yes of course there was real German resistance throughout the final offensive to get to Berlin. But you  had a very different and much less effective German army that made the final stand. And the Soviets also played a huge role in defeating the Germans from the East. So final predictions for loss of soldiers in the Berlin attack was much lower than the prediction of 1 million US who might have been killed invading Japan using a traditional island attack strategy 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, ShadySands said:

John Kelly says words

"I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President," Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Saturday.

 

 

Doesn't that sound like something on of Kim Jong Il's minions would say?