It's hard to point to an incident when terrorism has achieved a political objective. It causes those harmed to hate those killing civilians. Do you really think Hamas planned Israel's assault which has taken the lives of thousands of their fighters and many of their top leaders? It is far better to get the enemy to kill your civilians - …
It's hard to point to an incident when terrorism has achieved a political objective. It causes those harmed to hate those killing civilians. Do you really think Hamas planned Israel's assault which has taken the lives of thousands of their fighters and many of their top leaders? It is far better to get the enemy to kill your civilians - that will gain you support from the outside. And a terror campaign inside Russia would be very difficult to pull off. Assume that the SVR and the GRU have penetrated the Ukrainian government at every level. This is a civil war and retaliation is easily arranged when everyone looks the same and speaks the same language. If the SVR identifies a Ukrainian terrorist cell, I would not want to be a member of anyone's family. I spent ten years of my life doing a deep dive of our portion of the war in Vietnam, and vendetta drove much of the violence. But there's one difference. The red terror/white terror took place inside South Vietnam - not North Vietnam. I would not want to plan a sustained terror campaign inside Russia.
I've spent years of my life studying and writing about the Pacific War. The bombs were not terrorism - they were a device aimed to get the war over with before either the US Army invaded Kyushu or the US Navy blockaded Japan and starved them out. Get back to me when Ukraine starts igniting atomic bombs inside Russia.
This article is very compelling. Paraphrasing it :
the Japanese were not particularly concerned with atomic bombs since the US air force had already destroyed 68 Japanese cities, many of them were far more devastated than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. What they were concerned with is the Soviet Union. And on 9 August 1945 the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, and declared war on Japan. They easily overran Manchuria and were preparing to be in Japan proper (Hokkaido) in 10 days - months earlier than US forces were likely to be. Although the Japanese had already realised they had lost, they were hoping to inflict high casualties on US forces when they invaded, in order to get better surrender terms, ideally via the Soviet Union as a mediator. When the Russians invaded, that option evaporated, and Japan was now facing an impossible fight against two great powers from different directions. And that is why they surrendered, not because of the atomic bombs.
Relevant is the very interesting (and little known) is the battle of Nomonhan (known as Khalkhin Gol in Russia), which you can read about here:
Stuart D. Goldman
"Nomonhan 1939, The Red Army's victory that shaped World War II"
Indeed. Anyone who has spent years of their life studying and writing about the Pacific War should know this stuff. The fact that some don't shows how effective propaganda can be when it is in such volume that it crowds out what little objective information there is.
In the British election campaign, Farage has introduced a little bit of truth about how NATO provoked the Ukrainian war. He has been attacked from all sides by the fooled and by the conscious liars. In an extraordinary but hardly surprising political intervention, the British Ministry of Defence issued an official statement attacking him and repeating the lies he had criticised. I haven't seen anyone in the mainstream decry this blatant election interference.
Exactly. And the bombs were dropped to send the Russian a message. And it only hastened the invasion of Manchuria. Those GM and grr and whatever are ignorant to facts and live on provoking people in these discussions.
That's not particularly compelling given it doesn't go into detail about what was happening in Tokyo. Explaining the Japanese government's operation prior to the end of WWII is beyond the scope of a post here, except to indicate that Hirohito had only limited control over his own government and assassinating him or compelling his acquiescence to a military coup even at that late date was possible. He wanted to end the war, and the atomic bombings and fire bombings of cities were the main reasons why, other than not seeing any likelihood of victory. The Soviet invasion just multiplied his issues. There was actually a coup attempt at the end, intending to sabotage his radio message to the nation. The timing of the surrender was basically when the forces aligned in Tokyo. No one claims Hirohito was some kind of powerful ruler or focused enough on the ball. He was weak and easily led astray.
The part that is clearly not pointed out is that according to the Yalta terms, the invasion of Hokkaido would have entitled the Soviets to an occupation zone in Japan and a portion of Tokyo. The US was not interested in that outcome, so the bombs dropped to get the surrender done before Soviet influence was felt in Japan. As it happens, Stalin wasn't all that intent on carrying through with this - it wasn't a core interest of his, and he cancelled the invasion two days before it was to go off. But it was a big fear in the US that it would happen.
Toland's book will give you better information sourced from participants.
"Although the Japanese had already realised they had lost, they were hoping to inflict high casualties on US forces when they invaded, in order to get better surrender terms..."
Reminiscent of our current belligerent, prosecuting the war while losing, *hoping to get better surrender terms...*
It's hard to point to an incident when terrorism has achieved a political objective. It causes those harmed to hate those killing civilians. Do you really think Hamas planned Israel's assault which has taken the lives of thousands of their fighters and many of their top leaders? It is far better to get the enemy to kill your civilians - that will gain you support from the outside. And a terror campaign inside Russia would be very difficult to pull off. Assume that the SVR and the GRU have penetrated the Ukrainian government at every level. This is a civil war and retaliation is easily arranged when everyone looks the same and speaks the same language. If the SVR identifies a Ukrainian terrorist cell, I would not want to be a member of anyone's family. I spent ten years of my life doing a deep dive of our portion of the war in Vietnam, and vendetta drove much of the violence. But there's one difference. The red terror/white terror took place inside South Vietnam - not North Vietnam. I would not want to plan a sustained terror campaign inside Russia.
These are wise words. And it is worth remembering the Russian experience in. Chechnya, and the outcome.
>It's hard to point to an incident when terrorism has achieved a political objective
I will give just two "minor" examples: August 6th and August 9th 1945
I've spent years of my life studying and writing about the Pacific War. The bombs were not terrorism - they were a device aimed to get the war over with before either the US Army invaded Kyushu or the US Navy blockaded Japan and starved them out. Get back to me when Ukraine starts igniting atomic bombs inside Russia.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
This article is very compelling. Paraphrasing it :
the Japanese were not particularly concerned with atomic bombs since the US air force had already destroyed 68 Japanese cities, many of them were far more devastated than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. What they were concerned with is the Soviet Union. And on 9 August 1945 the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, and declared war on Japan. They easily overran Manchuria and were preparing to be in Japan proper (Hokkaido) in 10 days - months earlier than US forces were likely to be. Although the Japanese had already realised they had lost, they were hoping to inflict high casualties on US forces when they invaded, in order to get better surrender terms, ideally via the Soviet Union as a mediator. When the Russians invaded, that option evaporated, and Japan was now facing an impossible fight against two great powers from different directions. And that is why they surrendered, not because of the atomic bombs.
Relevant is the very interesting (and little known) is the battle of Nomonhan (known as Khalkhin Gol in Russia), which you can read about here:
Stuart D. Goldman
"Nomonhan 1939, The Red Army's victory that shaped World War II"
Naval Institute Press , Annapolis, Maryland 2012
ISBN 978-1-59114-339-0
and here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
Indeed. Anyone who has spent years of their life studying and writing about the Pacific War should know this stuff. The fact that some don't shows how effective propaganda can be when it is in such volume that it crowds out what little objective information there is.
In the British election campaign, Farage has introduced a little bit of truth about how NATO provoked the Ukrainian war. He has been attacked from all sides by the fooled and by the conscious liars. In an extraordinary but hardly surprising political intervention, the British Ministry of Defence issued an official statement attacking him and repeating the lies he had criticised. I haven't seen anyone in the mainstream decry this blatant election interference.
Well, it's an existential election for the other parties this go 'round.
Have you ploughed your way through Coox's book?
I'm just a dilettante, so I don't know all the writers in the field.
Which book do you mean ?
Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939 (1985) by Alvin D. Coox 978-0804711609
Exactly. And the bombs were dropped to send the Russian a message. And it only hastened the invasion of Manchuria. Those GM and grr and whatever are ignorant to facts and live on provoking people in these discussions.
That's not particularly compelling given it doesn't go into detail about what was happening in Tokyo. Explaining the Japanese government's operation prior to the end of WWII is beyond the scope of a post here, except to indicate that Hirohito had only limited control over his own government and assassinating him or compelling his acquiescence to a military coup even at that late date was possible. He wanted to end the war, and the atomic bombings and fire bombings of cities were the main reasons why, other than not seeing any likelihood of victory. The Soviet invasion just multiplied his issues. There was actually a coup attempt at the end, intending to sabotage his radio message to the nation. The timing of the surrender was basically when the forces aligned in Tokyo. No one claims Hirohito was some kind of powerful ruler or focused enough on the ball. He was weak and easily led astray.
The part that is clearly not pointed out is that according to the Yalta terms, the invasion of Hokkaido would have entitled the Soviets to an occupation zone in Japan and a portion of Tokyo. The US was not interested in that outcome, so the bombs dropped to get the surrender done before Soviet influence was felt in Japan. As it happens, Stalin wasn't all that intent on carrying through with this - it wasn't a core interest of his, and he cancelled the invasion two days before it was to go off. But it was a big fear in the US that it would happen.
Toland's book will give you better information sourced from participants.
https://www.amazon.com/Rising-Sun-Decline-Japanese-1936-1945/dp/0812968581
"Hirohito had only limited control over his own government and assassinating him or compelling his acquiescence to a military coup"
Reminiscent of the Usurper of Kiev
The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself
It always rhymes.
Wife will be thrilled that you used an ABBA lyric, lol.
"Although the Japanese had already realised they had lost, they were hoping to inflict high casualties on US forces when they invaded, in order to get better surrender terms..."
Reminiscent of our current belligerent, prosecuting the war while losing, *hoping to get better surrender terms...*
Weren't they also battling the Chinese, and losing, by that time? Yes, the nukes were totally unnecessary.