Military Review

The victory over Japan was not won by a bomb, but by Stalin ("Foreign Policy", USA)

73
The victory over Japan was not won by a bomb, but by Stalin ("Foreign Policy", USA)

US application of nuclear weapons against Japan during the Second World War has long been the subject of debate filled with emotions. At first, few doubted the correctness of President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But in 1965, the historian Gar Alperovitz (Gar Alperovitz) stated that although the bombs forced the Japanese to immediately announce the end of the war, the leaders of that country would still like to capitulate, and would have done so before the American invasion planned for 1 in November. Consequently, there was no need to use these bombs. And since the bombing was not needed to win the war, it means that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. Over the past 48 years, many have gotten into this scramble: someone echoes Alperovica and condemns the atomic bombings, and someone hotly argues that the bombings were highly moral and necessary because they saved lives.


However, supporters of both points of view proceed from the fact that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a new, more powerful weapon really forced Japan to capitulate on August 9. They do not even question the usefulness and expediency of the bombing, do not ask whether they gave the result. The generally accepted point of view is this: yes, of course, they gave the result. The United States struck atomic strikes on Hiroshima on 6 in August, and on Nagasaki on 9 in August, and then the Japanese finally realized the danger of further bombardment, broke down and capitulated. Such a narrative line has the strongest support. But there are three serious flaws in it, and if we consider them together, they significantly weaken the traditional view of the causes of Japanese surrender.

Time

The first problem of traditional interpretation is timing. And this is a very serious problem. In the traditional view, everything is simple: the US Air Force bombed Hiroshima with the 6 nuclear weapon of August, three days later they drop another bomb on Nagasaki, and the next day the Japanese signal that they intend to surrender. One can hardly blame American newspapers for such headlines: “Peace in the Pacific. Our bomb did it! ”

When American textbooks tell about Hiroshima stories, there the main and decisive date is called August 6 - the day of the first atomic bombing. All elements of this narrative are focused on prehistory: how they decided to create a bomb, how secret investigations were going at Los Alamos, how the first very impressive trials went, and how the climax came in Hiroshima. In other words, this is the story of Bomb. But within the framework of the Bomba story, it is impossible to objectively analyze the decision of Japan to capitulate. The “Story of the Bomb” already suggests that the role of the Bomb is central.

From the point of view of the Japanese, the most important day of the second week of August 1945 of the year was not 6, but 9 of August. That day, the High Council met to discuss the question of unconditional surrender - the first time during the war. The High Council consisted of six main members of the government who, in fact, controlled Japan in 1945. It was a kind of internal office. Until that day, Japanese leaders did not seriously consider the question of surrender. Unconditional surrender (as the Allies demanded) was a very bitter pill, and it was difficult to swallow it. The United States and the United Kingdom have already convened tribunals in Europe to try war criminals. And what if they decide to prosecute the emperor, whom the Japanese considered a sacred figure? What if they get rid of it and completely change the form of government? The situation in the summer of 1945 was bad, but Japanese leaders did not even want to think about abandoning their traditions, beliefs and lifestyle. Until 9 August. What could have happened to make them suddenly and decisively change their point of view? What made them sit down and for the first time after the 14 years of war, seriously discuss the issue of surrender?

It was hardly a bombing of Nagasaki. The bomb was dropped late in the morning of August 9. This happened after the Supreme Council began its meeting on the question of surrender. BUT news Japanese leaders learned about the bombing only after noon, when a break was announced at the council meeting, because it reached an impasse, and the meeting of the entire cabinet was necessary to continue the discussion. If we talk about timing and time, the bombing of Nagasaki could not become a cause and incentive for their decision.

And the bombing of Hiroshima for this role is not very suitable. The bomb on this city was dropped three days earlier. What is this crisis such that it takes three days to start discussing it? The main feature of the crisis is a sense of approaching catastrophe and an irresistible desire to start acting as soon as possible. Could Japanese leaders think that Hiroshima created a crisis, and then wait three days without discussing this problem?

16 October 1962, 8’s 45 minute minutes in the morning, President John F. Kennedy sat in bed reading the morning papers when national security adviser McGeorge Bundy came to him and informed that the Soviet Union was secretly deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba. During 2 hours and 45 minutes, a special committee was created, they chose and notified its members, brought them to the White House and sat down at the table to discuss what to do in such a situation.

President Harry Truman 25 Jun 1950 of the year rested in Independence, Missouri, when North Korea sent its troops for the 38 th parallel and invaded South Korea. Secretary Acheson called him that Saturday morning and broke the news. During 24 hours, Truman flew past half of America and sat down with his chief military and political advisers at the Blair House guest house (the White House was undergoing repairs) to discuss priority response measures.

Even General George Brinton McClellan (George Brinton McClellan), who commanded the Potomac army of northerners in 1863, during the civil war (President Lincoln said sadly about this man: "He is so slow!") Lost all 12 hours when he was given a captured copy order of General Robert Lee (Robert E. Lee) on the invasion of Maryland.

These leaders, like the leaders of any other country, reacted to the imperative demands arising from the crisis. Each of them took decisive action in a short time. How to compare this kind of behavior with the actions of the Japanese leadership? If Hiroshima really caused the crisis, which eventually forced the Japanese to capitulate after the 14-year war, then why did they wait three days before starting the discussion?

Someone may say that such a delay is quite logical. Most likely, they did not immediately realize the significance of the atomic bombing. Perhaps they did not know that it was an atomic weapon, and when they understood and realized the full horror of the consequences of its use, they naturally decided that they would have to capitulate. Unfortunately, this explanation does not fit with the facts.

First, the governor of Hiroshima, on the day of the atomic bombing, reported to Tokyo that the city had been hit, as a result of which a third of the population had died, and two-thirds of Hiroshima had been destroyed. This information has not changed in the next few days. Thus, the final result of the bombing was clear from the very beginning. Japanese leaders learned the approximate results of the atomic attack on the first day, but did not act.

Secondly, a preliminary report by a team of ground forces specialists, who examined the circumstances and consequences of the bombing of Hiroshima, and also collected evidence of what happened, was prepared and handed over to August 10 only. In other words, the report reached Tokyo after the decision to surrender was made. An oral report (to the military commander) sounded on August 8, however, the details of the bombing became known only two days later. Consequently, the decision to capitulate was not based on a deep understanding of the horrors that occurred in Hiroshima.

Thirdly, the Japanese military at least approximately, but understood what atomic weapons are. Japan had a nuclear weapons program. Some militaries noted in their diaries that Hiroshima was destroyed by nuclear weapons. War Minister Anami Korechika, on the night of August 7, even consulted with the head of the Japanese nuclear weapons program. Therefore, the statement that the Japanese leadership knew nothing about nuclear weapons is not tenable.

And finally, there is one more problem with the deadlines, which creates a big problem. 8 August Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori arrived at Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro and asked him to convene a High Council to discuss the atomic strike on Hiroshima. However, the board members refused. So the crisis did not grow day by day, until, finally, it did not manifest itself in all its magnitude on August 9. In explaining the actions of Japanese leaders with an emphasis on the “shock” of the bombing of Hiroshima, they should have considered the fact that they were holding a meeting to discuss the August 8 bombing, but then they decided that this question was too insignificant. And the next day they suddenly decided to meet and discuss the terms of the surrender. Either these people had an attack of collective schizophrenia, or there were some other events that became the real reason for the discussion of surrender.

Scale

In terms of history, the use of the atomic bomb may seem to be the most important single event in the war. However, from the point of view of modern Japan, atomic bombing is not easy to distinguish from other events, as it is not easy to isolate a single raindrop in the midst of a summer thunderstorm.

In the summer of 1945, the US Air Force launched one of the most intense urban destruction campaigns in world history. In Japan, 68 cities were bombed, and all of them were partially or completely destroyed. An estimated 1,7 million people were left homeless, 300000 were killed and 750000 were injured. 66 aviation the raids were conducted with conventional weapons, and two used atomic bombs. The damage caused by non-nuclear airstrikes was colossal. All summer, from night to night, Japanese cities exploded and burned. In the midst of all this nightmare of destruction and doom, it could hardly have come as a surprise that one blow or another did not make much of an impression - even if it was delivered by an amazing new weapon.

The B-29 bomber flying from the Mariana Islands, depending on the location of the target and the height of the attack, could carry a bomb load weighing from 7 to 9 tons. Usually 500 bombers made raids. This means that with a typical non-nuclear means of aerial attack, 4-5 kilotons fell on each city. (A kilo-ton is a thousand tons, and it is a standard measure of the power of a nuclear weapon. The Hiroshima bomb's power was 16,5 kilotons, and the bomb of 20 kilotons fell on Nagasaki.) During normal bombing, the destruction was uniform (and therefore more effective); and one, albeit a more powerful bomb, loses a significant part of its destructive force at the epicenter of the explosion, only raising dust and creating a pile of debris. Therefore, it can be argued that some airstrikes using conventional bombs in their destructive power approached two atomic bombings.

The first bombardment using conventional means was carried out against Tokyo at night with 9 on March 10 1945. It became the most destructive bombing of the city in the history of wars. Then in Tokyo, about 41 square kilometer of urban territory burned down. Approximately 120000 Japanese died. This is the biggest loss from the bombing of cities.

Because of how they tell us this story, we often imagine that the bombing of Hiroshima was much worse. We think that the death toll goes beyond any limits. But if you make a table by the number of people who died in all 68 cities as a result of the bombings in the summer of 1945, it turns out that Hiroshima is in second place by the number of civilians who died. And if you count the area of ​​destroyed urban areas, it turns out that Hiroshima is the fourth. If you check the percentage of destruction in cities, then Hiroshima will be in 17-th place. Obviously, in terms of the extent of the damage, it fits perfectly into the parameters of the air strikes using non-nuclear means.

From our point of view, Hiroshima is something extraordinary, something extraordinary. But if you put yourself in the place of the Japanese leaders in the period preceding the strike on Hiroshima, the picture will look quite different. If you were one of the key members of the Japanese government at the end of July - beginning of August 1945, you would have something like the following sensation of city air strikes. On the morning of July 17, you would be informed that four cities were subjected to air strikes at night: Oita, Hiratsuka, Numazu and Kuvana. Oita and Hiratsuka are half destroyed. In Kuvan, the destruction exceeds 75%, and Numazu suffered the most because 90% of the city burned to the ground.

Three days later, you are woken up and reported that three more cities were attacked. Fukui destroyed on 80 over percent. A week goes by and three more cities are bombed at night. Two days later, overnight, the bombs fall on another six Japanese cities, including Ichinomiya, where 75% of buildings and structures were destroyed. 12 August you go to your office, and they report to you that four more cities were hit. Among all these messages, there is a slip of information that the city of Toyama (in 1945, it was about the size of Chattanooga, in Tennessee) was destroyed by 99,5%. That is, the Americans razed to the ground almost the entire city. On August 6, only one city was attacked, Hiroshima, but according to reports, the damage was enormous there, and a new type of bomb was used during an air strike. How much does this new airstrike stand out from other bombings that lasted for weeks, destroying entire cities?

Three weeks before Hiroshima, the USAF raided 26 cities. Of these, eight (almost a third) were either destroyed completely or more strongly than Hiroshima (if we consider how many cities were destroyed). The fact that 1945 cities were destroyed in Japan in the summer of 68, creates a serious obstacle for those who want to show that the bombing of Hiroshima was the cause of Japan’s surrender. The question arises: if they capitulated because of the destruction of one city, then why did they not capitulate when 66 of other cities were destroyed?

If the Japanese leadership decided to surrender because of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this means that they were alarmed by the bombings of the cities as a whole, that the attacks on these cities became a serious argument in favor of surrender. But the situation looks completely different. Two days after the bombing of Tokyo, retired Foreign Minister Sidehara Kijuro expressed an opinion that many senior leaders openly adhered to at the time. Sidehara said: “People will gradually get used to being bombed every day. In time, their unity and determination will only grow stronger. ” In a letter to a friend, he noted that it is important for citizens to endure suffering, because "even if they die, hundreds of thousands of civilians are injured and suffer from hunger, even if millions of houses are destroyed and burned," it will take time for diplomacy. It is appropriate to recall that Sidehara was a moderate politician.

Apparently, at the very top of state power in the High Council, the mood was the same. The High Council discussed the question of how important it is for the Soviet Union to maintain neutrality - and at the same time, its members did not say anything about the consequences of the bombing. From the surviving protocols and archives it is clear that only two times were mentioned at the meetings of the High Council of the bombing of cities: once in passing 1945 of the year in May and the second time in the evening of August 9, when an extensive discussion took place on this issue. Based on the available facts, it is difficult to say that the Japanese leaders attached at least some importance to the airstrikes on the cities - at least in comparison with other pressing problems of wartime.

General Anami 13 of August noticed that atomic bombings were no more terrible than the usual air strikes that Japan had been subjected to for several months. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than conventional bombing, and if the Japanese leadership did not attach much importance to it, without considering it necessary to discuss this issue in detail, how could atomic attacks on these cities force them to surrender?

Strategic importance

If the Japanese were not bothered by the bombing of cities in general and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what worried them? The answer to this question is simple: the Soviet Union.

The Japanese were in a rather difficult strategic situation. The end of the war was approaching, and they lost the war. The decor was bad. But the army was still strong and well supplied. Nearly four million people were under arms, and 1,2 of a million of them were guarding the Japanese islands.

Even the most uncompromising Japanese leaders understood that it was impossible to continue the war. The question was not whether to continue it or not, but how to complete it under the best conditions. The allies (the United States, Great Britain and others — recall that the Soviet Union was still neutral at the time) demanded “unconditional surrender.” The Japanese leadership hoped that it would somehow manage to avoid military tribunals, preserve the existing form of state power and some of the territories occupied by Tokyo: Korea, Vietnam, Burma, parts of Malaysia and Indonesia, much of eastern China and numerous islands in the Pacific.

They had two plans for obtaining optimal surrender terms. In other words, they had two strategic options for action. The first option is diplomatic. In April, 1941, Japan signed a neutrality pact with the Soviets, and this pact expired in 1946. A group of mainly civilian leaders led by Foreign Minister of Togo Shigenori hoped that Stalin would be able to be persuaded to act as an intermediary between the United States and allies on the one hand, and Japan on the other to resolve the situation. Although this plan had little chance of success, it reflected quite sound strategic thinking. In the end, the Soviet Union is interested in ensuring that the terms of the settlement are not very favorable for the United States — after all, increasing American influence and power in Asia would invariably mean a weakening of Russian power and influence.

The second plan was a military man, and most of his supporters, who were led by Army Minister Anami Koretik, were military men. They pinned their hopes that when the American troops began the invasion, the ground forces of the imperial army would inflict huge losses on them. They believed that if they succeed, they will succeed in knocking out more favorable conditions from the United States. This strategy also had little chance of success. The United States was determined to achieve an unconditional surrender from the Japanese. But since there was concern in US military circles that the loss of the invasion would prove to be exorbitantly large, there was a certain logic in the strategy of Japan’s high command.

To understand what is the real reason that forced the Japanese to capitulate - the bombing of Hiroshima or the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, we must compare how these two events affected the strategic situation. After the atomic strike on Hiroshima as of 8 in August, both options were still in force. You could also ask Stalin to mediate (there is an entry in 8 August in Takagi’s diary, which shows that some Japanese leaders were still thinking about bringing Stalin in). It was also possible to try one last decisive battle and inflict great damage on the enemy. The destruction of Hiroshima had no effect on the readiness of the troops for stubborn defense on the shores of their native islands. Yes, behind them one city became smaller, but they were still ready to fight. They had enough ammunition and shells, and if the army’s combat power had decreased, it was very insignificant. The bombing of Hiroshima did not prejudice any of the two strategic options for Japan.

However, the effect of the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, its invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different. When the Soviet Union entered the war with Japan, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator - now he was an adversary. Therefore, the USSR destroyed the diplomatic option of ending the war with its actions. The impact on the military situation was no less dramatic. Most of the best Japanese troops were on the southern islands of the country. The Japanese military rightly assumed that the first target of the American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once powerful Kwantung Army in Manchuria was extremely weakened, since its best units were transferred to Japan to organize the defense of the islands. When the Russians entered Manchuria, they simply crushed the once elite army, and many of their units stopped only when the fuel ran out. The 16 Soviet Army, which numbered 100000 people, landed troops in the southern part of Sakhalin Island. She received an order to break the resistance of the Japanese troops there, and then, during 10-14 days, prepare for the invasion of Hokkaido, the northernmost of the Japanese islands. Hokkaido defended the 5-I territorial army of Japan, which consisted of two divisions and two brigades. She focused on fortified positions in the eastern part of the island. A Soviet offensive plan called for a landing in the west of Hokkaido.

You do not have to be a military genius to understand: yes, you can hold a decisive battle against one great power, landed in one direction; but it is impossible to repel an attack by two great powers, leading an offensive from two different directions. The Soviet offensive wiped out the military strategy of the decisive battle, as it had previously devalued the diplomatic strategy. The Soviet offensive was decisive in terms of strategy, because it deprived Japan of both options. And the bombing of Hiroshima was not decisive (because she did not rule out any Japanese options).

The entry of the Soviet Union into the war also changed all the calculations concerning the time left to complete the maneuver. Japanese intelligence predicted that US troops would land only a few months later. The Soviet troops could actually be on Japanese territory in a matter of days (within 10 days, to be more precise). The offensive of the Soviets has mixed all plans concerning the timing of the decision to end the war.

But the Japanese leaders came to this conclusion a few months before. At a meeting of the High Council in June 1945 of the year, they stated that if the Soviets entered the war, "this will determine the fate of the empire." The deputy chief of staff of the Japanese army, Kawabe, said at that meeting: "Maintaining peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is an indispensable condition for the continuation of the war."

Japanese leaders stubbornly refused to show interest in the bombing that destroyed their cities. It was probably wrong when the airstrikes began on March 1945. But by the time the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima, they were right, considering the bombing of cities to be an inessential intermedium that does not have serious strategic consequences. When Truman uttered his famous phrase that if Japan does not capitulate, its cities will be subjected to “destructive steel shower”, few people in the United States understood that there was almost nothing to destroy there. By August 7, when Truman voiced his threat, in Japan there were only 10 cities with a population of more than 100000 people who had not yet been bombarded. 9 August hit Nagasaki, and there are nine such cities left. Four of them were located on the northern island of Hokkaido, which was difficult to bomb because of the large distance to Tinian Island, where American bombers were stationed. War Minister Henry Stimson struck out the ancient capital of Japan from the list of targets for bombers, as it had an important religious and symbolic meaning. So, despite Truman’s formidable rhetoric, only four major cities remained in Nagasaki in Japan that could be subjected to atomic strikes.

The thoroughness and scope of the bombings of the US Air Force can be judged by the following circumstance. They bombed so many Japanese cities that they were eventually forced to strike at settlements with a population of 30000 people and less. In the modern world, such a town and a city is difficult to call.

Of course, it was possible to repeatedly strike at cities that had already been bombarded with incendiary bombs. But these cities were already destroyed on average by 50%. In addition, the United States could drop atomic bombs on small cities. However, there were only six such pristine cities (with a population from 30000 to 100000) in Japan. But since 68 cities had already seriously suffered from bombing in Japan, and the country's leadership did not attach any importance to this, it was hardly surprising that the threat of further air strikes could not make a big impression on them.

Comfortable story

Despite these three powerful objections, the traditional interpretation of events is still very much influencing people's thinking, especially in the United States. There is a clear reluctance to look into the eyes of the facts. But this can hardly be called a surprise. We need to remember how convenient the traditional explanation for the bombing of Hiroshima is emotionally - for both Japan and the United States. Ideas retain their power because they are true; but unfortunately, they can remain valid from the fact that they meet the needs from an emotional point of view. They fill an important psychological niche. For example, the traditional interpretation of the events in Hiroshima helped Japanese leaders achieve a number of important political goals, both domestically and internationally.

Put yourself in the place of the emperor. You have just subjected your country to a destructive war. Economy in ruins. 80% of your cities destroyed and burned. The army was defeated, having suffered a series of defeats. The fleet suffered heavy losses and does not leave the bases. People are starving. In short, war has become a disaster, and most importantly, you lie to your people, not to tell them how bad the situation really is. People will be shocked to learn of the surrender. So what do you do? Recognize that you suffered a complete failure? Make a statement that you have seriously miscalculated, made mistakes and caused great damage to your nation? Or explain the defeat amazing scientific achievements that no one could predict? If you put the blame for the defeat on the atomic bomb, then all the mistakes and military mistakes can be swept under the carpet. Bomb is the perfect excuse for losing a war. Do not have to look for the guilty, do not need to conduct investigations and trials. Japanese leaders will be able to say they have done their best.
Thus, by and large, the atomic bomb helped remove the blame from Japanese leaders.

But having explained the Japanese defeat by atomic bombing, three more very specific political goals were achieved. First, it helped to preserve the emperor’s legitimacy. Since the war was lost not because of mistakes, but because of a miracle weapon that appeared unexpectedly at the enemy, it means that the emperor will continue to enjoy support in Japan.

Secondly, it caused international sympathy. Japan waged war aggressively, and showed particular cruelty to the conquered peoples. Other countries must have condemned her actions. And if you turn Japan into a victim country that was inhumanly and dishonestly bombed with the use of a terrible and cruel tool of war, then you can somehow redeem and neutralize the most vile deeds of the Japanese military. Drawing attention to the atomic bombings helped create more sympathy for Japan and quenched the desire for the most severe punishment.

Finally, claims that Bomb provided victory in the war flatter the American winners of Japan. The American occupation of Japan officially ended only in 1952, and all this time the United States could change and redo Japanese society at its discretion. In the early days of the occupation, many Japanese leaders feared that the Americans would want to abolish the institution of the emperor. And they had another fear. Many of Japan’s top leaders knew that they could be brought to trial for war crimes (when Japan surrendered, the Nazi leaders had already tried it in Germany). The Japanese historian Asada Sadao (Asada Sadao) wrote that in many post-war interviews "Japanese officials ... obviously tried to please their American interviewers." If Americans want to believe that a bomb has provided victory in a war, why should they be disappointed?

Explaining the end of the war with the use of the atomic bomb, the Japanese largely served their own interests. But they served American interests too. Once the war was secured by a bomb, the idea of ​​America’s military might is increasing. The diplomatic influence of the United States in Asia and around the world is growing, and American security is becoming stronger. Spent on the creation of a bomb 2 billion dollars was not in vain. On the other hand, if it is acknowledged that Japan’s entry into the war was the reason for the surrender of the Soviet Union, the Soviets will be able to declare that in four days they did what the United States could not do in four years. And then the idea of ​​military power and diplomatic influence of the Soviet Union will be strengthened. And since at that time the Cold War was already in full swing, the recognition of the decisive contribution of the Soviets to the victory was equivalent to rendering assistance and support to the enemy.

Looking at the issues raised here, it is disturbing to realize that the evidence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki underlies all that we think of nuclear weapons. This event is irrefutable proof of the importance of nuclear weapons. It is important for gaining a unique status, because the usual rules do not apply to nuclear powers. This is an important measure of nuclear danger: the Truman threat to subject Japan to a “destructive steel shower” became the first open atomic threat. This event is very important for creating a powerful aura around nuclear weapons, which makes it so significant in international relations.

But if Hiroshima’s traditional history is questioned, what should we do with all these conclusions? Hiroshima is the center point, the epicenter, from which all other statements, claims and claims spread. However, the story that we tell ourselves is far from reality. What do we now think about nuclear weapons, if its colossal first achievement — Japan’s miraculous and sudden surrender — turned out to be a myth?

Ward Wilson is a senior fellow at the British American Security Information Council and the author of the book Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons. This article is an adapted excerpt from this book.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kind
    kind 8 June 2013 15: 44 New
    34
    The Yankees bombed Japan in impotent rage when its fate was a foregone conclusion. Thus, they tried to avenge their shame in pearl harbor. Later, in Vietnam, they burned the jungle with napalm with the same impotent rage.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 8 June 2013 15: 49 New
      20
      Quote: Good
      The Yankees bombed Japan in impotent rage when its fate was a foregone conclusion.


      There is a version that they wanted to intimidate the USSR, Soviet intelligence officers collected the melted fragments of buildings and other materials, recorded eyewitness accounts, among our victims of the atomic bomb were our compatriots. In Hiroshima and its environs, a small colony of nine Russian emigrants lived. They survived .....
      1. Ivan.
        Ivan. 8 June 2013 16: 34 New
        +9
        Quote: Vadivak
        There is a version that they wanted to intimidate the USSR,

        And this is so, but we must not forget that all major events are multifaceted and have an impact in different planes. This is only one of the goals that they set for themselves, and even if they did not set, they should be taken into account.
      2. Egoza
        Egoza 8 June 2013 17: 22 New
        17
        Quote: Vadivak
        There is a version that they wanted to intimidate the USSR,

        Absolutely right! By and large, the Americans did not care where to bomb and whom. They had to scare the USSR, look at the reaction of I.V. Stalin, when he finds out about a new and such a terrible bomb ... miscalculated. I.V. Stalin perfect calmly took this news. And the Americans concluded that Russia also has something there. Therefore, they did not dare to start a new war. This time from the USSR.
        1. cartridge
          cartridge 8 June 2013 20: 25 New
          22
          The political genius of Stalin is the main weapon of the USSR during the years of war and peace!
    2. Tarpon
      Tarpon 8 June 2013 15: 54 New
      19
      Japan’s nuclear bombing is more of a signal to the USSR about who is now steering. But, Uncle Sam’s expectations did not materialize, Stalin’s knees didn’t shake.
      1. Genady1976
        Genady1976 8 June 2013 16: 44 New
        +8
        Quote: Tarpon
        Japan’s nuclear bombing is more of a signal to the USSR about who is now steering. But, Uncle Sam’s expectations did not materialize, Stalin’s knees didn’t shake.

        that’s how they wanted to scare Stalin
        If it weren’t for Stalin and the Soviet Army, amers would have fought 5 years ago
        even the Americans themselves
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 9 June 2013 00: 54 New
          -11
          But the Japanese do not know, they objectively assess the deadline for resistance November-December. Actually, the amers kicked the Japanese ass full.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 9 June 2013 02: 33 New
            +6
            They kicked something, of course, not without it. Of course, having only 30 shock ABs against a dozen in total for the Japanese, it was not so difficult to do this. However, the Americans only planned to land on the Japanese islands in 1946. And the losses that would have to be incurred in this case, they estimated at a million of their soldiers. The most interesting thing is that they were ready to make such sacrifices and only in order to prevent the creation of a communist regime in Japan. Which was not entirely improbable, since the Communist Party in Japan, in spite of any persecution, existed. Given that the Communist Parties at the time were ruled from Moscow, even after the abolition of the Comintern, and given Stalin's practical and strategic mind, it is not a fact that the Japanese communists would not have been able to acknowledge the possibility of retaining nominal decorative imperial power. And that, under the communist Stalin, private entrepreneurship developed quite well, for example, if it was necessary, then they found a common language with the church. And this quite allowed the Japanese communists to dock with the Japanese monarchists and nationalists. And it threatened to "blush" Japan. Therefore, all the hopes of the Japanese for a "general battle" is nothing more than a utopia that filled the minds of Japanese strategists throughout the war. Japan had to be finished off at any cost. But Stalin's mediation was the same utopia. And not even because Stalin did not want him, but because Stalin would not have been listened to over the Ocean. The USSR was no longer needed for the defeat of Japan, as for the defeat of Germany. Therefore, Stalin's only option for "saving" Japan would be to enter the war on its side. Which, of course, was contraindicated for the USSR, because it was time to "collect stones." In such a situation, Stalin's decision to enter the war against Japan has two aspects. The first - purely practical - political moment. Return lost territories to Russia and acquire a zone of influence in Korea and Manchuria. Because it would be unrealistic to get all this from the amers after the defeat of Japan. But there was another mission of the Soviet soldiers, who entered the war with Japan. We remember the readiness of the "Empire of Good" to sacrifice a million of its soldiers (and not for the sake of liberation, but for the sake of oppression). But for every American soldier, there would be several Japanese killed. Both military and civilians. Thus, the campaign of the Red Army was a manifestation of mercy. Once again, our soldiers saved several million Japanese and Americans with their lives.
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 9 June 2013 11: 04 New
              +2
              Before the defeat of the Comintern, the Communist Parties were not governed from Moscow. The Comintern ruled the USSR, so it will be much more accurate. Stalin chopped off the tentacles of this organization, pushing it away from one control lever after another, but until the last moment these guys viewed Russia as a piece of wood in the furnace of the world revolution. It is dangerous to "think" in cliches, because practically all of them are psycho-viruses aimed at destroying effective thinking.
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 9 June 2013 14: 50 New
                +1
                Well, that's not what I mean. It's just that the Comintern was also stationed, as it were, in the Union. T. b. "hand of Moscow".
      2. akendram
        akendram 8 June 2013 23: 26 New
        +1
        Truman spoke to Stalin about the bomb in Postdam. I agree about the demonstration of military power, although if Hiroshima was before Postdam, the division of spheres of influence could be different. In any case, the USSR was neither hot nor cold from this bombing.
    3. Ivan.
      Ivan. 8 June 2013 16: 27 New
      +4
      Quote: Good
      So they tried to avenge their shame in pearl harbor

      They also organized it as in the case of "Benya Ladny". Then terrorists had not yet been invented and had to use the usual meanness and lies with bases.
      1. Dilshat
        Dilshat 8 June 2013 19: 57 New
        +5
        I wanted to say the same thing. In media, I heard a version that the United States forced Japan to enter the war with it. Using an economic blockade, it cut off access to raw materials and resources in South Asia. Japan then strengthened its influence in the region.
    4. Andrey_K
      Andrey_K 8 June 2013 16: 36 New
      +4
      What kind of malice?
      The Americans had to test weapons for living purposes.
      For this purpose, cities that were not affected by other bombings (since they were not industrial) were specially chosen - to look at the effects of the atomic bomb in its purest form.
    5. Army1
      Army1 8 June 2013 18: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: Good
      In Vietnam, they burned the jungle with napalm with the same impotent rage.

      Yes, my grandfather told me there was a village, and it is not there, but this napalm can not even be extinguished with water, the cries of tormenting people, and even their home ...
    6. smart ass
      smart ass 8 June 2013 19: 27 New
      +4
      Dump a. There was no sense in bombing Japan to achieve victory. This is clear even to the wild raccoon that grew up in the jungle of New Zealand. The only reason to intimidate the USSR and make Stalin more accommodating. Why am I sure about this ?? Yes, because the US Air Force inflicted more damage on the empire than a. bomb.
      Tokyo bombing - bombing of the Japanese capital by the U.S. Air Force on March 10, 1945. The air raid involved 334 strategic B-29 bombers, each of which dropped several tons of incendiary bombs and napalm. As a result of the fire tornado, fires quickly spread in residential neighborhoods built up with wooden buildings. Killed at least 80 thousand inhabitants, the more likely number of dead - over 100 thousand person. 14 bombers were lost.
      Just compare the losses.


      The need for Tokyo bombing has been mixed and controversial. General Curtis LeMay later declared: “I think if we lost the war, then I would be tried as a war criminal” [4]. However, he believes that the bombing saved many lives, pushing Japan to surrender. He also believes that if the bombing continued, a ground invasion would no longer be necessary, since by then Japan would have suffered enormous damage. The historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa in Racing the Enemy (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005) argues that the main reason for surrender was not atomic strikes or bombardment by incendiary shells of Japanese cities, but the Soviet attack, which terminated the neutrality pact between the USSR and Japan and the fear of the Soviet invasion .
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 8 June 2013 19: 40 New
        +8
        Quote: Clever man
        Tokyo bombing - bombing of the Japanese capital, p

        The author is Curtis LeMay, a diligent student of the English butcher general Harris, each of his "Lancaster" - an arsonist carried 96 14,5 kg napalm (gasoline + phosphorus) bombs and 108 kg 1,8 (!) Thermite bombs in the bomb bay. If napalm instantly spread in all directions, then the termite was not extinguished at all: the thermite bomb can be dropped into water, but it will burn under water. So Harris burned Hamburg in 1943,

        So having absorbed the valuable experience, another pyromaniac appeared. After more than two years, he will arrange his “fire storm” - and it will be called “Hiroshima”.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 24 January 2014 11: 32 New
          0
          They also tell the story of Würzburg, wiped out from the face of the Earth. Destroyed for only one reason - "ideal conditions for the bombing have developed over the city."
    7. Alx1miK
      Alx1miK 8 June 2013 19: 43 New
      +1
      Very interesting article. Strange, but I did not think about such a development of events.
    8. Kolya
      Kolya 8 June 2013 23: 31 New
      +3
      The cynicism of American propaganda is astounding: they called the killing of hundreds of thousands of people an atomic bomb for other Japanese, thereby psychologically buying their location, because the dead already do not care and you say you will live. A glaring fact: only the American atom was aimed at the destruction of man. So stop mumbling bullshit supporters of American democracy, look at the facts!
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 9 June 2013 00: 58 New
        -4
        And in many ways they are right, the quick end of the war is the fastest way to reduce losses, how many would have died when landing, when millions of armies clashed and there were civilians in this mess.
      2. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 9 June 2013 09: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Kohl
        the killing of hundreds of thousands of people by the atomic bomb they called salvation for other Japanese

        But you do not find similar the imperative of a frank war by Jews against Arabs and calling it self-defense. But one of the most peaceful Jews, Begin, sending his brothers to the war said:
        "You Israelis should not be compassionate when you kill your enemy. You should not sympathize with him until we destroy the so-called Arab culture, on
        the ruins of which we will build our own civilization "

        For me, both of them (Israel and the USA) behave very similarly. Mutual influence?
    9. Basarev
      Basarev 24 January 2014 11: 26 New
      0
      Even in exactly the same impotent malice, the Americans were pushing the Mujahideen with the Stingers, realizing that the USSR had begun to win the Afghan war, and only Gorbachev could stop this victorious attack. And now the bearded men beat NATO aircraft with the same stingers
  2. Obliterator
    Obliterator 8 June 2013 15: 50 New
    +7
    In general, on June 22, 1945, the emperor at a meeting of the High Council expressed his desire to end the war. The question was: on what conditions? The second time the question of surrender was raised on August 9, after the USSR entered the war. No atomic bombs were considered on it. On August 9, no decision was made. The Council continued to work on August 10. Finally, Prime Minister Suzuki said the emperor’s decision would be a council’s decision. The emperor spoke in favor of surrender, for the reason "because the declaration does not contain any requirement that affects the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler." So no one showed anyone who was the boss. And the atomic bomb didn’t blow anyone’s morale. More importantly, the Japanese economy was already on its last legs.
  3. stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 8 June 2013 15: 53 New
    15
    The victory over Japan was not won by the bomb, but by Stalin
    The victory over Japan was not won by the bomb, but by the Red Army together with the Pacific Fleet and the Amur Flotilla.
    Blitzkrieg in its purest form, by all the rules of military art.
    Only the allies, as always, managed to "fill up" - several ships of the Soviet Navy were blown up on mines "freshly placed" by the Amrykans in the area of ​​the proposed amphibious landing.
    Landing plans, of course, shared. But no one expected this meanness.
    The answer was very symbolic.
    The act of surrender of Japan, on our part, was signed by a little-known lieutenant general whose name remained only in the encyclopedia (Korobchenko?)
    1. Captain45
      Captain45 9 June 2013 00: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      The act of surrender of Japan, on our part, was signed by a little-known lieutenant general whose name remained only in the encyclopedia (Korobchenko?)

      In my opinion, Derevianko.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 9 June 2013 02: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: Captain45
        In my opinion, Derevianko.

        Thank you.
        I was too lazy to crawl into the search engine.
        hi
    2. Bekzat
      Bekzat 9 June 2013 02: 09 New
      +2
      I welcome everyone, for Stalkerwalker, I also want to add that the plans of the Soviet Union included the capture and occupation of Hokkaido.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 9 June 2013 02: 33 New
        +4
        Quote: Bekzat
        The Soviet Union was the capture and occupation of Hokkaido.

        Thank you.
        I wrote about this 2 a day ago in another thread - I did not repeat myself.
        Allies on this issue gave a full affront, also threw mines for completeness of sensations.
        I. Stalin wanted to repay the same coin for southern Sakhalin. Not fused.
    3. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 9 June 2013 09: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      whose name is left only in the encyclopedia (Korobchenko?)

      Empire of Japan - Shigemitsu Mamoru, Minister of Foreign Affairs
      Empire of Japan - Umezu Yoshijiro, Chief of General Staff
      - Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies, US Army General Douglas MacArthur
      USA - Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz
      Republic of China - First Class General Xu Yongchang
      Great Britain - Admiral Bruce Frazer
      USSR - Lieutenant General Kuzma Derevyanko
      Australia - General Thomas Blamy
      Canada - Colonel Lawrence Cosgrave
      Free France - General Jean-Philippe Leclerc
      Netherlands - Lieutenant Admiral Emil Helfrich
      New Zealand - Vice Aviation Marshal Leonard Isitt
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 9 June 2013 14: 07 New
        +3
        Quote: Hedgehog
        USSR - Lieutenant General Kuzma Derevyanko

        Thank you
        hi
  4. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 8 June 2013 16: 09 New
    +7
    Soviet soldiers broke the ridge of Japanese imperialism, and the amers only bombed Japan and didn’t really want to meddle there, they knew that they would get it in the face. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an intimidation to the whole world - we are so cool peppers.
    1. omsbon
      omsbon 8 June 2013 18: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      Japanese imperialism was broken by the Soviet soldiers,

      It seems to me that this fact is indisputable, but it is indisputable for us. Therefore, I think that bringing to the attention of a foreign inhabitant of WWII's true history will play into the hands of Russia, but the ways of bringing it can be different (films, articles, media, etc.)
  5. My address
    My address 8 June 2013 16: 09 New
    +2
    Article is logical. I repeat for the twentieth time - a hypothesis explaining known facts becomes theory. This is a postulate.
  6. sergo0000
    sergo0000 8 June 2013 16: 20 New
    10
    Just do not believe that the conclusions are made and published by the American! recourse
    1. not good
      not good 8 June 2013 19: 22 New
      +4
      It’s even surprising that it’s an American, because most Yankees really think that it was they who defeated Hitler, and even more so Japan.
  7. Ivan.
    Ivan. 8 June 2013 16: 23 New
    +7
    An interesting article, once again convinced that the allies (the satanic trinity - Pyndostan, Judodostan and Naglosaksia) prefer to fight with the population and not with the troops. The peoples for them are a bargaining chip in the struggle for absolute power and how skillfully they justify obliteration, together with the population of cities in Germany and Japan. How are persecuted doubters in the myths of the Holocaust, the need for nuclear bombing in Japan. And now, all the same, only the methods of warfare have changed due to their increased influence on everything and everything from within the countries themselves.
  8. individual
    individual 8 June 2013 16: 35 New
    +3
    The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States held for revenge on the shameful defeat of Pearl Harbor.
    The United States could not survive such a defeat of its base in December 1941, which served as America’s entry into World War II.
    The rancor of the SSA has no limit.
    1. Genady1976
      Genady1976 8 June 2013 16: 49 New
      +1
      The rancor of the SSA has no limit.[/ Quote]
      no, they are not vindictive just evil and the memory is good
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 8 June 2013 17: 25 New
        +7
        Quote: Genady1976
        no, they are not vindictive just evil and the memory is good

        I agree with the fact that they are angry, but I doubt that the memory is good. Otherwise, they wouldn’t lift their paws on Russia laughing
      2. Bekzat
        Bekzat 9 June 2013 02: 11 New
        +3
        For Gennady 1976, there is a version that the United States knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor, but since the states have a crisis, and industry and the economy need to be raised, they sacrificed a military base, having removed their aircraft carriers from there before, but left the rest of the ships.
    2. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 8 June 2013 17: 34 New
      +9
      Quote: individ
      The rancor of the SSA has no limit.

      Do not be offended, I will correct you a little.
      Paskudstvo USA has no limits!
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 8 June 2013 18: 22 New
        +5
        And let me correct you too ...
        they don’t raise a paw .. but a tail ...
        Very ..gender ..
        who knows the habits of animals ... there is no need to explain anything to him.
        .
        It was correctly said - any truth is multifaceted.
        So this is all and must be considered.
        One thing is clear - the bombing did not break the will of the Japanese.
        Broke - we ... who went "Through the Gobi and Khingan". Who had an "order - not to open fire". And then - "Order - to cross the border".
        How many times I watch these films - frost on my skin .....
  9. Muxauk
    Muxauk 8 June 2013 16: 54 New
    +4
    bomb the city by 99.5% ??? It does not take so much to win the war, to level everything to the ground, this is called "democracy" ...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 8 June 2013 21: 59 New
      +4
      Quote: MuxaHuk
      raze it to the ground it's called "democracy" ..

      This is called genocide and at least crime against humanity. Their place on the bench of war criminals at the court in The Hague. IMHO.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 8 June 2013 22: 08 New
        +5
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Their place on the bench of war criminals

        Where there !!!
        The son of the Nazis, the president of Germany, urges Russia to repent of the Soviet past ...
        And our fifth column (Gozmans with Svanidzi) sing the same songs.
  10. ausguck
    ausguck 8 June 2013 17: 01 New
    +4
    Honestly, I am surprised that such an article was written by an American author .... he will not greet him now from all progressive mankind, he must invent this (!), The Soviet Union forced Japan to surrender! All the advanced scientific forces of the Anglo-Saxon world must stand up for historical justice and argue with good reason that ignorant Amer Yankees and heroic little British Tommy defeated Japan and especially Germany, with the invaluable support of the glorious and recklessly brave, numerous French and Polish partisans. ...something like that! ))))))) laughing
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 8 June 2013 17: 26 New
      +4
      Quote: ausguck
      Honestly, I am surprised that such an article was written by an American author ...

      Well, not all there. There are normal and educated people too.
  11. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 8 June 2013 17: 14 New
    +5
    Quote: sergo0000
    Just do not believe that the conclusions are made and published by the American! recourse


    Especially when you consider that in the US they won Germany. For Russia, it’s
    not news.
  12. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 8 June 2013 17: 21 New
    +3
    Quite obvious things that are understood by every rational person in the United States begin to understand only now. Better late than never.
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 8 June 2013 17: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Kowalsky
      Quite obvious things that are understood by every rational person in the United States begin to understand only now. Better late than never.

      Unfortunately, these are few. The official history in the United States does not change and is unlikely to change, at least the truth that gives "+" to us will always be either silent or altered.
  13. Reyngard
    Reyngard 8 June 2013 17: 44 New
    -28
    Here I read you here and wonder: this is a bunch of Stalinists, or how7 Get together and overthrow Pukin! So why yell? Choose me - I’ll shoot everyone, including you! PS I will not answer the idiotic comments, at least get tired!
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 8 June 2013 17: 55 New
      +7
      Quote: Reyngard
      Get ready and overthrow Pukin!

      Who needs it, let him do it himself!
      Quote: Reyngard
      at least get tired!

      The minus is precisely for this. Consider the wish come true. angry
    2. подводник
      подводник 8 June 2013 18: 09 New
      10
      Kakashonok (Reyngard) is trying to attract attention in this way ....
      ZY If I am banned, it is only from the supply of a poop .... let's see how he does not respond to comments ....
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 8 June 2013 19: 00 New
        +5
        That's when they choose me ...
        .............. first of all I will find Reinhard ... (Poop) ..
        and make him shoot everyone - whom I say ...
        and I will .. voluptuously ... wash my hands .....
        Because I’ll be in the back ... with an equalizer of chances ... Nagan is called, like Colt.
        and don’t even ... never!
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 8 June 2013 19: 42 New
          +2
          Quote: Igarr
          don’t even ... never!


          Igor Vladimirovich .....
  14. satellite
    satellite 8 June 2013 18: 21 New
    +1
    It was interesting to look at Stalin’s reaction when they told him that the US had tested a nuclear bomb, it’s hard to keep calm in such an environment. Why are we all the time catching up?
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 8 June 2013 19: 26 New
      +3
      Quote: satelite
      Why are we all the time in the role of catching up?

      Probably for a very simple reason. And Soviet science did not have as much money for new developments as there was in the USA.
      “A gift to the American continent,” said his colleague on work in the field of electronics about Vladimir Kozmich Zvorykin.

      Tell what this Russian is famous for?
      Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky, Russian and American aircraft designer and industrialist. Born in Russia

      I hope you know who he worked for and for what reason. Less well-known Russians in the states are much more. Unfortunately.
      1. ISO
        ISO 8 June 2013 21: 27 New
        +5
        Quote: satelite
        "Why are we all the time in the role of catch-up?"
        What a pancake they are all fast, like sunflower oil with milk. The years of "stagnation" taught us that our industry was sufficiently developed, it was. We all forget that until 1917 in Russia it was not possible to assemble a car without imported parts, and the culture of production and technological discipline began to hatch only after 1944. In principle, it is impossible to make a technological breakthrough in all industries. And thank God that then the resources were allocated so that it was enough for two victories in a row. No wonder the fat English hog admired Stalin that he took power in a thoroughly agrarian country and left it with nuclear weapons.
  15. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 8 June 2013 18: 25 New
    +4
    Quote: Reyngard
    Here I read you here and wonder: this is a bunch of Stalinists, or how7 Get together and overthrow Pukin! So why yell? Choose me - I’ll shoot everyone, including you! PS I will not answer the idiotic comments, at least get tired!

    This is not Stalinism, this is history, and Stalin is there, unlike you. And yelling
    you, choose this from Russia there will be nothing left. And in general they have already erupted.
  16. Diviz
    Diviz 8 June 2013 18: 35 New
    -1
    and you kind of sang if you were blackmailed and threatened with nuclear weapons. all done. Japan is a tiny country. I heard there that they were teaching: the Soviet Union used nuclear weapons against them.
    1. Igarr
      Igarr 8 June 2013 19: 03 New
      +2
      Let's start with the fact that at least you will learn to put punctuation marks.
      And use uppercase letters.
      How much for the exam in Russian?
      Or five years ... early?
  17. Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 8 June 2013 19: 14 New
    +3
    Quote: satelite
    It was interesting to see the reaction of Stalin when he was told that the US had tested a nuclear bomb

    Incidentally, Churchill's memoirs contain a description of just such a moment. On July 24, 1945, in Potsdam, US President Truman informed Stalin that the US "now has weapons of extraordinary destructive power." So, according to Churchill, Stalin reacted completely calmly, thanked for the information and did not touch on this topic anymore. The Allies were impressed by this reaction. It didn't work to scare me with a miracle weapon. They began to suspect that this time too, "Uncle Joe" had an "ace up his sleeve".
    Soon, a conversation took place between Stalin and Kurchatov (or not with him, but with one of the nuclear scientists), during which the leaders were assured that our nuclear weapons development was being carried out as planned, according to plan (again, I don’t remember, seemingly with mid 42nd). That is, no panic arose.

    And, here, I found a more accurate statement of events:
    http://svr.gov.ru/history/stage06.htm
  18. Black
    Black 8 June 2013 19: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: Good
    The Yankees bombed Japan in impotent rage when its fate was a foregone conclusion. Thus, they tried to avenge their shame in pearl harbor.

    "in impotent rage." Is it an atomic bomb in the head, powerless? What shame are you talking about in PX? There was no shame. There was a clear and skillful operation by Truman to drag the country into the war.
    Bombing is nothing but a fist to Moscow.
    1. kind
      kind 8 June 2013 22: 24 New
      -1
      First there was pearl harbor, which the Americans pro. Sra. Li. Truman's "skillful" reaction was a belated reaction to the Yalta conference, where Stalin lulled him to sleep. Study history dear!
  19. smart ass
    smart ass 8 June 2013 19: 58 New
    +1
    67 Japanese cities bombed during World War II
  20. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 8 June 2013 20: 26 New
    +3
    It is unimpressive to drop a nuclear bomb on civilians, and there was already an example of Dresden. But the destruction of the millionth Kwantung Army in a month looks damn cool and makes you respect.
  21. Fofan
    Fofan 8 June 2013 20: 56 New
    +2
    What do we now think about nuclear weapons if its colossal first achievement — Japan’s miraculous and sudden surrender — turned out to be a myth?
    best idea in the article! Well, the sequel should go like that?
    Nuclear weapons - it’s not scary, and although it can harm the country, it’s not so omnipotent! and these Russians already have all the missiles rusted, and even if one or two break through the pro, then nothing will happen from the usa!
  22. Zeus
    Zeus 8 June 2013 21: 02 New
    +1
    Yes, the same thing is everywhere, those in power think of their w, and they sneeze on the people. How many have been bombed there, how many have died out of starvation, how many terrorists are blowing up, to a shit. The main thing is how to fill your wallet.
  23. tixon444
    tixon444 8 June 2013 21: 59 New
    +5


    Alan E. Mayer
    "Bad luck"

    I woke up from a severe pain in my whole body. I opened my eyes and saw a nurse standing by my bed.
    “Mr. Fujima,” she said, “you are lucky; you managed to survive the bombing of Hiroshima two days ago.” But now you are in the hospital, nothing more threatens you.
    A little alive from weakness, I asked:
    - Where I am?
    “In Nagasaki,” she answered.
  24. reichsmarshal
    reichsmarshal 8 June 2013 22: 12 New
    +3
    The article as a whole is interesting, but there are a number of serious additions. First, Japan's main winner is not the United States or even the USSR. The decisive factor was the depletion of Japan's economic resources associated with a long war in China (against the armies of Mao Tse Tung and Chiang Kai Shi, many thousands, albeit semi-partisan ones). The funds for this war could be more effectively used for the needs of the Imperial Navy. Secondly, both the defeat of the Kwantung Army and the landing in Japan (assault on the main Japanese islands) could have been successfully (and without "unacceptable and excessive" losses) carried out by the US Army and Navy. Of all the ground forces battles between narrow-eyed and mattress toppers, the Japanese won only the Philippines at the beginning. 1942, and also a relative "heroic" success - Attol Tarava. Thirdly, the confrontation between the USSR and Japan was, on the whole, inevitable due to the massive provocations of the Japanese in the Far East, as well as due to the need to take back what was lost in 1905. Separate respect to JV Stalin, who was able to return all his "little blood" (while the US and Japan were bleeding each other).
  25. kind
    kind 8 June 2013 22: 18 New
    +3
    Quote: Igarr
    Let's start with the fact that at least you will learn to put punctuation marks.
    And use uppercase letters.
    How much for the exam in Russian?
    Or five years ... early?

    Igor, everything is correct. As the captain of the 72st rank Janissaries said, in the film "XNUMX meters" - "There is a Great Russian language", and "I scratch myself in the most immodest places reading this (an illiterate report)!
  26. survivor
    survivor 8 June 2013 23: 19 New
    0
    Well what can I say about this? first of all, the United States used atomic bombs not to achieve the surrender of Japan, but as an act of intimidation of the USSR. to be sure, but if the USSR won another war, then neither America nor Great Britain, as a major power, speech would not have been. But history does not tolerate "if". how it happened, it happened. only the fact remains. for the period of 1945 the USSR was the most popular state among the broad strata of the world's population, with a powerful, victorious army and a progressive state system! It is these two factors that could serve as a catalyst in the change of state systems in other countries. The ruling circles of these countries could not allow this.
    1. Day 11
      Day 11 8 June 2013 23: 53 New
      +1
      Why I say EVERYTHING-Stalin was the GREATEST man! Our land gives birth to such people about once every hundred (100) years !!!
  27. projdoha
    projdoha 9 June 2013 00: 15 New
    +1
    It was a conspiracy, Japan could not afford to surrender at that time, as it had enough strength to withstand amers. But she could not resist our troops (this proves the failure of Japanese forces on the mainland). Accordingly, the question arises: how to lie under America so that people do not rebel? Answer: ask amers to drop the atomic bomb!
    What has been done .. I want to remind you that there are no accidents, remember at least Pushkin)
  28. 0255
    0255 9 June 2013 00: 48 New
    0
    An interesting article, otherwise I also thought that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the Japanese capitulate. But now Japan is an ally of the United States, not dreaming of barbaric bombing.
  29. Severok
    Severok 9 June 2013 01: 54 New
    0
    Sooner or later, but history will take revenge on the falsifiers, only they will not know about it anymore.
  30. riding
    riding 10 June 2013 06: 50 New
    -1
    Ward Wilson’s article partly explains post-war Japan’s tolerance of nuclear bombs: Japan surrendered due to new weapons, from which civilians suffered huge losses. To recognize the defeat of the Kwantung Army by Soviet troops as the main factor in defeat is to acknowledge the weakness of the Japanese army with all its kamikaze ..