Yeah, naval blockade a country for years on end so that they give up.
This I can agree on. Also the fact that if their own troops chanced upon Russia/China, they would be fighting yet another war against a lot of people
That is a bullshit argument - mass murdering civilians to prevent 'needless military casuality' is called a war crime.
And when have I said that it's not a war crime? Even so, the nuclear weapons dropped on Japan certainly had the desired effect. If I was an American general at that point, I would have used it too - enemy nation's civilians or my country's soldiers?
your countries' soldiers signed up to fight, civilians did not. This is basic to modern military ethics.
Those civilians would have most likely formed militias. That's how it went in Vietnam too. Add to that the Soviets were also planning to go into Japan, what with their dispute over the Kurile. The nuclear bombs were the most effective solution to all of America's problems back then, despite how unethical the actions were, and horrifying the effects were(however as everyone knows, geopolitics and ethics never go hand in hand)
@GaudaNaresh @ww2historian @sachincba The level of indoctrination the Japanese had was equal to jihadi radicalization levels, maybe even more. You know how both the Soviet and US stint in Afghanistan went against jihadis, now imagine a country full of them. They were literally the original jihadis lmao
Irrelevant and obtuse. Most likely they wouldn't have formed militias, as its not the most likely outcome. Either way, you don't mass murder civillians based on what they may do.
So ?
Except, the nukes were not the solution at all. As i said, Japan didn't surrender due to nukes. It surrendered due to Stalin declaring war on Japan and invading Manchuria - their last remaining source of coal and iron.
And ???
No. That is called more yankee propaganda. The level of indoctrination Japan had were no different than that of any allied nation in the 1940s and they were by far the most civilised of the main sides in ww2 - Nanjing included.
That's why only the japanese did kamikaze attacks en masse?(jihadi behavior)
Japan fights, it is indoctrination. US fights, it is the world's mission. That is how propaganda works.
they were not the only ones to engage in suicidal charges/attacks in ww2. Simply the only ones to do it on a plane. which is expected, as Japan was the true paradigm revolutionary of naval warfare in ww2.
I didn't say anything about morality. The US saw the bomb as an "economic" alternative to a full scale invasion of Japan that'd cost more lives (American lives especially). And the Allies certainly didn't care about shooting kids, Hitler's boyscouts in Berlin weren't spared. The nuke was the preferable option. It was war, nobody cared about morality.
The japanese didnt surrender due to nukes. They surrendered due to Russia invading Manchuria. Perhaps the even more economic alternative for US would've been for it to twiddle its thumbs and wait for Stalin to sign the order after his morning coffee exactly 30 seconds after hitler offed himself.
russia good america bad comrade! we get it
No, its the chain of events. Japan's surrender came within 24 hrs of Russia invading Manchuria. US nuked Japan weeks prior and jack shyte happened. Ergo, basic logic states that the causal factor for Japanese surrender was Russian invasion of Manchuria, not magic bomb of Murrica.russia good america bad comrade! we get it
Yeah, the japanese were definitely more scared of the soviets than the americans
It's been one year
I would have hoped they did adapt
