this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
184 points (96.9% liked)
GenZedong
4289 readers
94 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah we can't be totally sure until afterwards, but the same is true for letting the peace process actually be attempted as planned. Hindsight works both ways, and given the US admitted it was doing it just to intimidate the Soviets, and the alternative was sitting around for a bit longer and negotiating till that ran dry it is clearwhat the wrong choice was
In war, the neutral position is to assume that the enemy won't surrender. Why are you arbitrarily putting the "correct" time to negotiate just before the atom bomb? Why not a year before? What made this time so special except for the ad hoc context.
Shithole US sucks and obviously did it for the wrong reasons. But A single firebomb raid killed as many as the atom bomb. While you're negotiating, the US is still gonna be firebombing shit. A few extra months of war, or even blockade, would have outweighed the casualties of the bomb. Now the US wasn't doing this for humanitarian reasons of course, but the first bomb was the least bad option done for the wrong reasons.
Second bomb was absolutely just a dick-measuring contest with the Soviets.
The least bad option is stopping the bombings. Japan was at a point when kamikaze attacks didn't do shit to the navy sitting on their shores. Time had been bought, oil was nonexistent. The horrors of the firebombing of Tokyo dont make the nukes justified. You can cease bombings during negotiations.
And the time before the bomb dropped was the correct time, the Soviets had entered the war against Japan, Japan's chance at negotiating through a third party was now gone and the walls where closing in. This was the plan. The Soviets stayed out until that point with the intention of the Allies being literally to use that as leverage. The door was left open on purpose
https://books.google.com/books?id=rddhxSKGQ9oC&dq=soviet+neutrality+pact+1941+denounce&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q=soviet%20neutrality%20pact%201941%20denounce&f=false
The US drops the first bomb August 6th, August 7th the USSR declares war on Japan (technically telling Japan on the 8th and with the caveat that the USSR would consider itself at war from the 9th on). So yeah I'm gonna go with prior to the Soviets entering the war as per the United States own wishes, as the ideal time for negotiations. The US had broken Japan's codes and was reading messages like this from Ambassador Sato
Again, this is absolutely true but only really knowable ad hoc. If you have a source stating the conditions of Japan were known at this point, it would change my perspective.
Correct, but for the US it's likely to be one or the another. Even in a theoretical blockade, the amount of people who starve would probably outweigh the bomb. There are no good options in war, use of the first atom bomb was probably the one with the least casualties.
You can but you're allowing the enemy to re-group. We shouldn't trust the genocidal Japanese government to act in good faith just like we shouldn't trust the Nazis. Every day still at war meant Japan was still slaughtering people in camps.
Which does not say "We must surrender immediately." It says, "If we don't, we'll have to fight Russia as well." One ambassador saying that surrender is a good option is not the Government of Japan saying so.
They had no means to do anything. They had been restricted to the home islands. Also you keep saying "ad hoc" but I think you misunderstand that the navy keeps track of whether or not enemy planes sink their freaking ships. You can kinda keep track of that "hey did that plane blow you the fuck up or did it get shot down" and then get the answer. Pilots keep track of their fucking kills, that is not ad hoc information. The navy tracked the damage done by kamikaze.
They had no fucking navy, Yamato was sent out for a suicide mission and it didn't even get the chance, it got sunk almost instantly. The military couldn't do much of anything.