Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Re read Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War" tonight (ok, not all 950 pages but the relevant parts) and takes the same stance ie the the army were very reluctant to surrender and it was only the 2nd bomb that made the Emperor force the army to accept terms. The war was far from over.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
Some horrific stuff about the end of war in China too @Stu_of_Kunming
Gar Alperovitz's book 'The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb' is the most thorough and forensic analysis of events and decisions that led up to the use of the atomic bomb on Japan and all of it's 864 pages are relevant to that decision.
I'm not suggesting that Japanese conduct during the second world war wasn't barbaric or denying that there was a diehard kamikaze faction in the army that opposed any surrender - but, as I've pointed out, most leading US military, political, and diplomatic figures believed that Japan was on the brink of collapse and that offering to allow the emperor to remain would have brought about surrender, without a need to use the bomb, or a contested invasion.
And if Roosevelt had lived a little longer and Truman not taken over that might have happened:
All valid but the US couldn't know exactly what was going on in the Japanese high command and that there were different factions, some very keen to keep on fighting.
The existing evidence, the kamikaze etc, suggested the Japanese were prepared to fight to the end.
Gar's views are disputed by other historians, as is the case with most history
I don't have twitter, and don't have the skills to completely unravel what is happening here. However there are a lot of people digging out others for whatever reason, and mentioning Jews and Jewishness in a very nasty peppers what little I can make of it. I don't see Jeremy Corbyn mentioned, I presume some Labour MP's are, but the implication is that this is talk amongst Labour party people, although not official Labour party people. Maybe. It highlights a very unpleasant.... well what?... corner of the Labour party? The general cultural trope of all Labour party members? An example of Labour party Policy? A faction cheered on by Corbyn to behave this way? A faction behaving this way and deliberately ignored by Jeremy Corbyn? The new culture in the half million person membership? A small group that Corbyn has yet to challenge, or the Labour party has yet to discipline?
If I was clear about who said what, and were able to cross reference their names against any party membership list, then i would expel the nasties from the party. or get the Party structures to start moving and expel them.
I am not being disingenuous if I say that the (presumably twitter) exchange is not easy for me to follow, there does not appear to be a recognisable chronology about it to get me started.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
So when you grew up and understood the religious bigotry involved in your support, you carried on anyway. Never mind Ben, Corbyn is rumoured to be a closet Catholic as well.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
So when you grew up and understood the religious bigotry involved in your support, you carried on anyway. Never mind Ben, Corbyn is rumoured to be a closet Catholic as well.
Oh dear, so being having Celtic as a Scottish team makes you a bigot?
That will be all Celtic people too, all bigots according to you. Oh dear, oh dear.
Is that just Celtic fans, some of whom support Palistine but I guess you haven't really thought that through, if at all, or Rangers fans as well?
So so desperate to attack me that you show yourself up as someone with no grasp of reality.
He has the potential to be a great Prime Minister in the tradition of a European social democrat
( anyone who thinks this is the hard left are stupid or on a mild hallucinogenic drug. Politics has raced to the right in this country in the last 20 years )
@seth plum - after a mundane day at the big house I’ve just read through this thread. To you sir, my hat is off. You have raised an intelligent, decent son.
I don't have twitter, and don't have the skills to completely unravel what is happening here. However there are a lot of people digging out others for whatever reason, and mentioning Jews and Jewishness in a very nasty peppers what little I can make of it. I don't see Jeremy Corbyn mentioned, I presume some Labour MP's are, but the implication is that this is talk amongst Labour party people, although not official Labour party people. Maybe. It highlights a very unpleasant.... well what?... corner of the Labour party? The general cultural trope of all Labour party members? An example of Labour party Policy? A faction cheered on by Corbyn to behave this way? A faction behaving this way and deliberately ignored by Jeremy Corbyn? The new culture in the half million person membership? A small group that Corbyn has yet to challenge, or the Labour party has yet to discipline?
If I was clear about who said what, and were able to cross reference their names against any party membership list, then i would expel the nasties from the party. or get the Party structures to start moving and expel them.
I am not being disingenuous if I say that the (presumably twitter) exchange is not easy for me to follow, there does not appear to be a recognisable chronology about it to get me started.
Given earlier posts about government sponsored online actions against Corbyn and supposed anti-semetism from 2016, despite him signing earlier EDM condemning violence against Jews, it might be safe to assume that some comments on Labour social media sites might not actually be from Labour supporters. I mean a given for being a leftie is anti-racist. Has nobody heard of false news. Could Henry cross reference all future anti-semetic posts to their Labour membership numbers.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
So when you grew up and understood the religious bigotry involved in your support, you carried on anyway. Never mind Ben, Corbyn is rumoured to be a closet Catholic as well.
Oh dear, so being having Celtic as a Scottish team makes you a bigot?
That will be all Celtic people too, all bigots according to you. Oh dear, oh dear.
Is that just Celtic fans, some of whom support Palistine but I guess you haven't really thought that through, if at all, or Rangers fans as well?
So so desperate to attack me that you show yourself up as someone with no grasp of reality.
I recall an ex-Addick - Paul Elliot being asked on TV whether playing in the Glasgow derby was the biggest game he had played in during his career. He said no, because the rivalry was based on bigotry. I think it is an inescapable fact about Rangers and Celtic and I am always pleased when either get beaten.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
So when you grew up and understood the religious bigotry involved in your support, you carried on anyway. Never mind Ben, Corbyn is rumoured to be a closet Catholic as well.
Oh dear, so being having Celtic as a Scottish team makes you a bigot?
That will be all Celtic people too, all bigots according to you. Oh dear, oh dear.
Is that just Celtic fans, some of whom support Palistine but I guess you haven't really thought that through, if at all, or Rangers fans as well?
So so desperate to attack me that you show yourself up as someone with no grasp of reality.
There are thousands of Celtic supporters who are not religious bigots but few with your supposed sensibility to racist/religious predudices.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
So when you grew up and understood the religious bigotry involved in your support, you carried on anyway. Never mind Ben, Corbyn is rumoured to be a closet Catholic as well.
Oh dear, so being having Celtic as a Scottish team makes you a bigot?
That will be all Celtic people too, all bigots according to you. Oh dear, oh dear.
Is that just Celtic fans, some of whom support Palistine but I guess you haven't really thought that through, if at all, or Rangers fans as well?
So so desperate to attack me that you show yourself up as someone with no grasp of reality.
There are thousands of Celtic supporters who are not religious bigots but few with your supposed sensibility to racist/religious predudices.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
So when you grew up and understood the religious bigotry involved in your support, you carried on anyway. Never mind Ben, Corbyn is rumoured to be a closet Catholic as well.
Oh dear, so being having Celtic as a Scottish team makes you a bigot?
That will be all Celtic people too, all bigots according to you. Oh dear, oh dear.
Is that just Celtic fans, some of whom support Palistine but I guess you haven't really thought that through, if at all, or Rangers fans as well?
So so desperate to attack me that you show yourself up as someone with no grasp of reality.
There are thousands of Celtic supporters who are not religious bigots but few with your supposed sensibility to racist/religious predudices.
Or hatred of Corbyn.
There are so many contemptible politicians and the current Tory Party seems to have a monopoly which is something I assume I can agree with Henry, but add Blair and Farage to the list. But I ignore them. Henry's crusade exceeds the Mail, quotes out of context, a 1996 meeting with "terrorists" who eventually negotiated the GFA with politicians from both sides, possibly kick-started by Corbyn. I don't give Bojo and his like any braintime but I admire Prague's pursuit for concrete reasons. Mud slinging at Corbyn on CL by one poster exceeds the right wing press. False News?
@seth plum - after a mundane day at the big house I’ve just read through this thread. To you sir, my hat is off. You have raised an intelligent, decent son.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Re read Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War" tonight (ok, not all 950 pages but the relevant parts) and takes the same stance ie the the army were very reluctant to surrender and it was only the 2nd bomb that made the Emperor force the army to accept terms. The war was far from over.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
Some horrific stuff about the end of war in China too @Stu_of_Kunming
The massacre museum in Nanjing is one of the most harrowing places I've been in my life, I never understood the hatred of the Japanese I come across on a daily basis here, until I visited. It really opened my eyes.
A truly abhorrent people, I have no issues whatsoever about the use of nuclear weapons at the time, the Japanese would never have surrendered and are still yet to apologise.
I think was annoys Henry isn't just Corbyn (I'm sure he detests many other politicians equally if not more, but he can confirm that if he can be arsed) but the blind eye his supporters turn to Corbyn's obvious failings. Anti-Semitism is serious, making overtures to people from extreme groups (be they terrorists or freedom fighters in your opinion) from one side only is serious. Particularly serious if you want to be painted as the man of peace.
I actually think Corbyn is a fundamentally decent man, and i like a lot of his policies, but I don't like hypocrisy from either him or a section of his support.
Interesting thread. Nice diversion from the daily shitshow that the Tories have been responsible for since 2010. The front of the house is sinking into the ground, but lets sort out that dripping tap in the downstairs loo first...
Interesting thread. Nice diversion from the daily shitshow that the Tories have been responsible for since 2010. The front of the house is sinking into the ground, but lets sort out that dripping tap in the downstairs loo first...
He's the leader of the opposition, HE is the alternative to the front of the house falling down at the moment
I don't have twitter, and don't have the skills to completely unravel what is happening here. However there are a lot of people digging out others for whatever reason, and mentioning Jews and Jewishness in a very nasty peppers what little I can make of it. I don't see Jeremy Corbyn mentioned, I presume some Labour MP's are, but the implication is that this is talk amongst Labour party people, although not official Labour party people. Maybe. It highlights a very unpleasant.... well what?... corner of the Labour party? The general cultural trope of all Labour party members? An example of Labour party Policy? A faction cheered on by Corbyn to behave this way? A faction behaving this way and deliberately ignored by Jeremy Corbyn? The new culture in the half million person membership? A small group that Corbyn has yet to challenge, or the Labour party has yet to discipline?
If I was clear about who said what, and were able to cross reference their names against any party membership list, then i would expel the nasties from the party. or get the Party structures to start moving and expel them.
I am not being disingenuous if I say that the (presumably twitter) exchange is not easy for me to follow, there does not appear to be a recognisable chronology about it to get me started.
Given earlier posts about government sponsored online actions against Corbyn and supposed anti-semetism from 2016, despite him signing earlier EDM condemning violence against Jews, it might be safe to assume that some comments on Labour social media sites might not actually be from Labour supporters. I mean a given for being a leftie is anti-racist. Has nobody heard of false news. Could Henry cross reference all future anti-semetic posts to their Labour membership numbers.
An impossible task, (as you knew when you set it as a benchmark) to give numbers but since you have asked, I will post links to examples of blatant Antisemitism from Labour party members (and we know they are members because they are councillors and candidates).
I will remind you that you asked for examples.
Meanwhile, Some Chelsea fans were singing antisemitic songs last night (despite having a Jewish owner).
Now, by Harvey's twisted logic ALL Chelsea fans are bigots. That's how it works in Harveyworld.
I think was annoys Henry isn't just Corbyn (I'm sure he detests many other politicians equally if not more, but he can confirm that if he can be arsed) but the blind eye his supporters turn to Corbyn's obvious failings. Anti-Semitism is serious, making overtures to people from extreme groups (be they terrorists or freedom fighters in your opinion) from one side only is serious. Particularly serious if you want to be painted as the man of peace.
I actually think Corbyn is a fundamentally decent man, and i like a lot of his policies, but I don't like hypocrisy from either him or a section of his support.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Re read Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War" tonight (ok, not all 950 pages but the relevant parts) and takes the same stance ie the the army were very reluctant to surrender and it was only the 2nd bomb that made the Emperor force the army to accept terms. The war was far from over.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
Some horrific stuff about the end of war in China too @Stu_of_Kunming
The massacre museum in Nanjing is one of the most harrowing places I've been in my life, I never understood the hatred of the Japanese I come across on a daily basis here, until I visited. It really opened my eyes.
A truly abhorrent people, I have no issues whatsoever about the use of nuclear weapons at the time, the Japanese would never have surrendered and are still yet to apologise.
In no way defending Japanese actions in WW2 (the cannibalism is another shocking episode) but I don't agree at all with "A truly abhorrent people".
All people of Japan now are not responsible for the horrific crimes of the war any more than all the people of Germany now are responsible for the crimes of the third Reich.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Re read Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War" tonight (ok, not all 950 pages but the relevant parts) and takes the same stance ie the the army were very reluctant to surrender and it was only the 2nd bomb that made the Emperor force the army to accept terms. The war was far from over.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
Some horrific stuff about the end of war in China too @Stu_of_Kunming
The massacre museum in Nanjing is one of the most harrowing places I've been in my life, I never understood the hatred of the Japanese I come across on a daily basis here, until I visited. It really opened my eyes.
A truly abhorrent people, I have no issues whatsoever about the use of nuclear weapons at the time, the Japanese would never have surrendered and are still yet to apologise.
In no way defending Japanese actions in WW2 (the cannibalism is another shocking episode) but I don't agree at all with "A truly abhorrent people".
All people of Japan now are not responsible for the horrific crimes of the war any more than all the people of Germany now are responsible for the crimes of the third Reich.
I don't agree with the comparison, how Germany/Germans have acted after the war is almost the complete opposite of Japan.
As far as I am aware, there are no shrines to Hitler within Germany, there are many commemorating war criminals in Japan, in fact, a Hong Kong resident made the news today for starting a fire at one. Of course, I don't think we can blame/hold responsible all Japanese people, but as a nation, they have never taken any responsibility for their actions during WW2. In fact, many deny these things ever happened or claim the women involved were willing participants.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
That is one view but it is disputed that 1. Japan was already defeated. They still had large armies in Japan and in China and Burma. 2. that the "peace feelers" were from the ruling military group. Truman couldn't know what was going on with the Emperor and the various peace and war parties. Certainly there were strong parties wanting to continue the war. Peace might have come without the bomb or an invasion but that is clear only with hindsight.
I don't doubt that Truman wanted to use and test the bomb both to impress the Soviets (Stalin hadn't been that impressed when told and maybe already knew) but also to show the Japanese what would happened if they didn't surrender.
Re read Anthony Beevor's "The Second World War" tonight (ok, not all 950 pages but the relevant parts) and takes the same stance ie the the army were very reluctant to surrender and it was only the 2nd bomb that made the Emperor force the army to accept terms. The war was far from over.
Even then some army officers tried to stop the broadcast of Emperor's surrender.
I had forgotten the extent to which the Japanese used chemical warfare.
Some horrific stuff about the end of war in China too @Stu_of_Kunming
The massacre museum in Nanjing is one of the most harrowing places I've been in my life, I never understood the hatred of the Japanese I come across on a daily basis here, until I visited. It really opened my eyes.
A truly abhorrent people, I have no issues whatsoever about the use of nuclear weapons at the time, the Japanese would never have surrendered and are still yet to apologise.
In no way defending Japanese actions in WW2 (the cannibalism is another shocking episode) but I don't agree at all with "A truly abhorrent people".
All people of Japan now are not responsible for the horrific crimes of the war any more than all the people of Germany now are responsible for the crimes of the third Reich.
I don't agree with the comparison, how Germany/Germans have acted after the war is almost the complete opposite of Japan.
As far as I am aware, there are no shrines to Hitler within Germany, there are many commemorating war criminals in Japan, in fact, a Hong Kong resident made the news today for starting a fire at one. Of course, I don't think we can blame/hold responsible all Japanese people, but as a nation, they have never taken any responsibility for their actions during WW2. In fact, many deny these things ever happened or claim the women involved were willing participants.
Very true, and I accept that the comparison is not exact in terms of post-war contrition, but the actions of some Japanese are not the fault of all Japanese. You know where that road leads.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
So when you grew up and understood the religious bigotry involved in your support, you carried on anyway. Never mind Ben, Corbyn is rumoured to be a closet Catholic as well.
Oh dear, so being having Celtic as a Scottish team makes you a bigot?
That will be all Celtic people too, all bigots according to you. Oh dear, oh dear.
Is that just Celtic fans, some of whom support Palistine but I guess you haven't really thought that through, if at all, or Rangers fans as well?
So so desperate to attack me that you show yourself up as someone with no grasp of reality.
I don't have twitter, and don't have the skills to completely unravel what is happening here. However there are a lot of people digging out others for whatever reason, and mentioning Jews and Jewishness in a very nasty peppers what little I can make of it. I don't see Jeremy Corbyn mentioned, I presume some Labour MP's are, but the implication is that this is talk amongst Labour party people, although not official Labour party people. Maybe. It highlights a very unpleasant.... well what?... corner of the Labour party? The general cultural trope of all Labour party members? An example of Labour party Policy? A faction cheered on by Corbyn to behave this way? A faction behaving this way and deliberately ignored by Jeremy Corbyn? The new culture in the half million person membership? A small group that Corbyn has yet to challenge, or the Labour party has yet to discipline?
If I was clear about who said what, and were able to cross reference their names against any party membership list, then i would expel the nasties from the party. or get the Party structures to start moving and expel them.
I am not being disingenuous if I say that the (presumably twitter) exchange is not easy for me to follow, there does not appear to be a recognisable chronology about it to get me started.
Given earlier posts about government sponsored online actions against Corbyn and supposed anti-semetism from 2016, despite him signing earlier EDM condemning violence against Jews, it might be safe to assume that some comments on Labour social media sites might not actually be from Labour supporters. I mean a given for being a leftie is anti-racist. Has nobody heard of false news. Could Henry cross reference all future anti-semetic posts to their Labour membership numbers.
An impossible task, (as you knew when you set it as a benchmark) to give numbers but since you have asked, I will post links to examples of blatant Antisemitism from Labour party members (and we know they are members because they are councillors and candidates).
I will remind you that you asked for examples.
Meanwhile, Some Chelsea fans were singing antisemitic songs last night (despite having a Jewish owner).
Now, by Harvey's twisted logic ALL Chelsea fans are bigots. That's how it works in Harveyworld.
You're literally calling Corbyn antisemitic because of actions of low level Labour councillors. Hence my Celtic reference. Do you not have any self awareness?
Comments
The existing evidence, the kamikaze etc, suggested the Japanese were prepared to fight to the end.
Gar's views are disputed by other historians, as is the case with most history
I don't see Jeremy Corbyn mentioned, I presume some Labour MP's are, but the implication is that this is talk amongst Labour party people, although not official Labour party people. Maybe.
It highlights a very unpleasant.... well what?... corner of the Labour party? The general cultural trope of all Labour party members? An example of Labour party Policy? A faction cheered on by Corbyn to behave this way? A faction behaving this way and deliberately ignored by Jeremy Corbyn? The new culture in the half million person membership? A small group that Corbyn has yet to challenge, or the Labour party has yet to discipline?
If I was clear about who said what, and were able to cross reference their names against any party membership list, then i would expel the nasties from the party. or get the Party structures to start moving and expel them.
I am not being disingenuous if I say that the (presumably twitter) exchange is not easy for me to follow, there does not appear to be a recognisable chronology about it to get me started.
That will be all Celtic people too, all bigots according to you. Oh dear, oh dear.
Is that just Celtic fans, some of whom support Palistine but I guess you haven't really thought that through, if at all, or Rangers fans as well?
So so desperate to attack me that you show yourself up as someone with no grasp of reality.
( anyone who thinks this is the hard left are stupid or on a mild hallucinogenic drug. Politics has raced to the right in this country in the last 20 years )
A truly abhorrent people, I have no issues whatsoever about the use of nuclear weapons at the time, the Japanese would never have surrendered and are still yet to apologise.
I actually think Corbyn is a fundamentally decent man, and i like a lot of his policies, but I don't like hypocrisy from either him or a section of his support.
It's why labour really ought to be doing better on the subject
I will remind you that you asked for examples.
Meanwhile, Some Chelsea fans were singing antisemitic songs last night (despite having a Jewish owner).
Now, by Harvey's twisted logic ALL Chelsea fans are bigots. That's how it works in Harveyworld.
All people of Japan now are not responsible for the horrific crimes of the war any more than all the people of Germany now are responsible for the crimes of the third Reich.
As far as I am aware, there are no shrines to Hitler within Germany, there are many commemorating war criminals in Japan, in fact, a Hong Kong resident made the news today for starting a fire at one. Of course, I don't think we can blame/hold responsible all Japanese people, but as a nation, they have never taken any responsibility for their actions during WW2. In fact, many deny these things ever happened or claim the women involved were willing participants.