Dan’s answer to “This book was readable, but seems to contain some serious misinformation. The authors stated that …” > Likes and Comments
Like
I can't than you enough. Really. Finally an answer, and a book to read. Much appreciated
Well, to be fair, I just got this reply from one of the authors, Martin Sherwin (Although I still think ithe issue is not so cut and dried):
1/. The first and most important is that the Japanese (especially the military) had been seeking better surrender terms than unconditional surrender at least since May. They were counting on the Soviets to act as mediators with the USA on their behalf hoping that by offering to return all the territory seized by Japan during the Russo-Japanese War would buy Stalin’s cooperation.
2/. If the Soviets declared war on Japan even the Japanese hard line military leaders understood that everything they planned re the USA invasion was for naught. They could not fight a two front war.
3/ The Japanese government was even more anti-communist than the Americans. The possibility of the Soviets participating in the occupation was their worst nightmare. They were convinced that Stalin would seize Hokkaido (as he indeed intended to do). So they were hoping that by engaging the USSR as a mediator they would prevent the Soviets from declaring war on Japan.
4/ When the Soviets declared war on August 8 suddenly surrendering to the USA was Japan’s best option. The Soviet declaration changed everything. The only thing the atomic bombing of Hiroshima did was to move the Soviet declaration of war up by 3 days.
5/. Truman, Byrnes and all the intelligence analysts knew that the war was over if the Soviets entered the war against Japan. Lots of reports confirming that. Truman wrote same in his diary. I have attached a video interview in which Byrnes says it was important to end the war before the Russians came in. That’s why the atomic bomb was used.
5/. That is what Oppenheimer came to believe after the war. In 1946 he said and wrote that the bomb was used “on an essentially defeated enemy.” But he, like so many others, silenced this argument as anti-Soviet sentiment began to control and distort the history that led to Hiroshima.
Thank you sounds so trite. but it's not. I will cross research until I literally start hallucinating- there's no practical purpose-it doesn't make me a hit at parties.. it makes me realize I'll never really know.. but hey everyone needs a hobby. :/ Thank you for not replying with "No they weren't going to surrender, idiot." or one of it's forms which is somehow supposed to convince me.
#5 The anti Soviet sentiment/distortion is not surprising but still deeply disturbing, that's but one instance of warped "truth' and yet people will still firmly believe everything the gov't tells them. Scary.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Bettie
(new)
Jul 17, 2021 04:14PM
I can't than you enough. Really. Finally an answer, and a book to read. Much appreciated
reply
|
flag
Well, to be fair, I just got this reply from one of the authors, Martin Sherwin (Although I still think ithe issue is not so cut and dried):1/. The first and most important is that the Japanese (especially the military) had been seeking better surrender terms than unconditional surrender at least since May. They were counting on the Soviets to act as mediators with the USA on their behalf hoping that by offering to return all the territory seized by Japan during the Russo-Japanese War would buy Stalin’s cooperation.
2/. If the Soviets declared war on Japan even the Japanese hard line military leaders understood that everything they planned re the USA invasion was for naught. They could not fight a two front war.
3/ The Japanese government was even more anti-communist than the Americans. The possibility of the Soviets participating in the occupation was their worst nightmare. They were convinced that Stalin would seize Hokkaido (as he indeed intended to do). So they were hoping that by engaging the USSR as a mediator they would prevent the Soviets from declaring war on Japan.
4/ When the Soviets declared war on August 8 suddenly surrendering to the USA was Japan’s best option. The Soviet declaration changed everything. The only thing the atomic bombing of Hiroshima did was to move the Soviet declaration of war up by 3 days.
5/. Truman, Byrnes and all the intelligence analysts knew that the war was over if the Soviets entered the war against Japan. Lots of reports confirming that. Truman wrote same in his diary. I have attached a video interview in which Byrnes says it was important to end the war before the Russians came in. That’s why the atomic bomb was used.
5/. That is what Oppenheimer came to believe after the war. In 1946 he said and wrote that the bomb was used “on an essentially defeated enemy.” But he, like so many others, silenced this argument as anti-Soviet sentiment began to control and distort the history that led to Hiroshima.
Thank you sounds so trite. but it's not. I will cross research until I literally start hallucinating- there's no practical purpose-it doesn't make me a hit at parties.. it makes me realize I'll never really know.. but hey everyone needs a hobby. :/ Thank you for not replying with "No they weren't going to surrender, idiot." or one of it's forms which is somehow supposed to convince me. #5 The anti Soviet sentiment/distortion is not surprising but still deeply disturbing, that's but one instance of warped "truth' and yet people will still firmly believe everything the gov't tells them. Scary.
