4 ms·

Hirohito himself calls this a lie: But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of

Hirohito himself calls this a lie: But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

hef19898 3y ago
I don't see the contradiction: Japan lost the war in the Pacific by then (the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage). The USSR entered war, but had yet to actively fight imperial Japan (while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest). Also, Germany had lost, and most of the troops and resources bound in Europe could be redeployed now. Re atomic bombs: The enemy so was only the US (in practical terms, the other allies did not play a major role, except the fighting in India that Japan had already lost a year prior), and yes, the atomic bombs were devastating. But Hihoroto himself said, it was much more than just the two atomic bombs being dropped.
- InTheArena 3y ago
  Go check out Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War for a pithy rebuttal to this point of view - but the idea that Soviet entry was a equal reason to the atomic bomb is a minority view (at best saying it nicely) in the historical community, but rather a very successful propaganda effort that Stalin launched shortly after the war to justify his taking of larger portions of asia.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Ah, the guy who claimed WW2 was a Stalin and not an Axis thing? Well, that is a minority view at best. At worst, it is repeating a bunch Nazi appologist views about the whole affaire. Heck, he even claims a seperate UK-Germany peace after the Battle of France was a potential thing, talking fringe theories ignoring historical facts here... But hey, if ypu need to justify the use of WMDs against civilians, every excuse is a good one I guess.
    - InTheArena 3y ago
      Both Hitler and Stalin believed a separate peace was possible - and if Halifax or Chamberlain led the government, rather then Churchill, and if Churchill had actually been open to the communication with the Nazis that met his famous quote that if he thought he could get out of it by only giving up Gibraltar he would, the story might be different. Hitler was gobstocked. Your claim Sean as a Nazi apologist to discredit him literally are repeat soviet propaganda lines. In fact Putin recently made all of these arguments again to justify his invasion of Ukraine - I trust you see the irony. War is hell - and atomic war is hell. War isn’t justifiable, and yet war is part of human nature. This is something that Historians have studied since there were historians. Ignore that research at your peril. The WW2 and modern conflict historians have done just that.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Oh, Hitler believed a lot things... Bad for both, that Churchill was prime minister, right? Also, I didn't say Stalin's War is Nazi apologist BS, just that it seems borderline to some BS that was spread right after the war. Which makes sense, since it was the early days of the Cold War. Churchil was never in favor of a seperate peace, nor someone else in the Allied camp. Every declaration made that extremely clear. Claiming otherwise is delusional.

hef19898 3y ago

I don't see the contradiction: Japan lost the war in the Pacific by then (the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage). The USSR entered war, but had yet to actively fight imperial Japan (while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest). Also, Germany had lost, and most of the troops and resources bound in Europe could be redeployed now. Re atomic bombs: The enemy so was only the US (in practical terms, the other allies did not play a major role, except the fighting in India that Japan had already lost a year prior), and yes, the atomic bombs were devastating. But Hihoroto himself said, it was much more than just the two atomic bombs being dropped.

InTheArena 3y ago
Go check out Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War for a pithy rebuttal to this point of view - but the idea that Soviet entry was a equal reason to the atomic bomb is a minority view (at best saying it nicely) in the historical community, but rather a very successful propaganda effort that Stalin launched shortly after the war to justify his taking of larger portions of asia.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Ah, the guy who claimed WW2 was a Stalin and not an Axis thing? Well, that is a minority view at best. At worst, it is repeating a bunch Nazi appologist views about the whole affaire. Heck, he even claims a seperate UK-Germany peace after the Battle of France was a potential thing, talking fringe theories ignoring historical facts here... But hey, if ypu need to justify the use of WMDs against civilians, every excuse is a good one I guess.
  - InTheArena 3y ago
    Both Hitler and Stalin believed a separate peace was possible - and if Halifax or Chamberlain led the government, rather then Churchill, and if Churchill had actually been open to the communication with the Nazis that met his famous quote that if he thought he could get out of it by only giving up Gibraltar he would, the story might be different. Hitler was gobstocked. Your claim Sean as a Nazi apologist to discredit him literally are repeat soviet propaganda lines. In fact Putin recently made all of these arguments again to justify his invasion of Ukraine - I trust you see the irony. War is hell - and atomic war is hell. War isn’t justifiable, and yet war is part of human nature. This is something that Historians have studied since there were historians. Ignore that research at your peril. The WW2 and modern conflict historians have done just that.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Oh, Hitler believed a lot things... Bad for both, that Churchill was prime minister, right? Also, I didn't say Stalin's War is Nazi apologist BS, just that it seems borderline to some BS that was spread right after the war. Which makes sense, since it was the early days of the Cold War. Churchil was never in favor of a seperate peace, nor someone else in the Allied camp. Every declaration made that extremely clear. Claiming otherwise is delusional.