Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "WatchMojo.com"
channel.
-
2600
-
3
-
+TJ Andersen Makes it sound as if the Bombs caused the Japanese leaders to surrender.
WRONG
Japanese leaders had already come to terms with the fact that the war was over. It was down to the terms, and the status of their "God" Emperor.
Instead of leading to the Japanese surrender, dropping the Bombs might have led to a US invasion to become necessary, instead of avoiding it.
The immediate result of Hirohito declaring the surrender of the Japan, was that a revolt and coup attempt was launched by a small radical group of officers.
It was avoided in the nick of time.
By a hairs breadth, dropping the bombs almost led to a new Japanese leadership, which would have continued the fight resulting in millions of more dying, including hundreds of thousands of US soldiers (sic).
Strangely enough, historians will gladly use hindsight or "put yourself in their shoes" to confirm the conclusion they wish us to believe. According to them, "fat Goering was stupid for not building heavy bombers" (hindsight, and not "put yourself in his shoes"), and "in May 1940, stupid British and French military leaders, were still fighting the last war" (hindsight, not "put yourself in their shoes").
These conclusions have been repeated so often over time, that people don't even recognize them as classical cases of hindsight anymore.
So, according to the very same logic of hindsight, I can also say that "dropping the Bombs, could have led to an invasion becoming necessary, rather than avoid it..."?
Isn't that ironical?
Isn't it ironical that the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who would have died (sic,), if an invasion had been necessary, were actually saved by Japanese officers who thwarted a coup attempt by radical peers?
Isn't it ironical, that it was not the misguided 'logic' of our own leaders, who thought that their reasoning was 'universal', but the actions of a few Japanese soldiers in Tokyo, which 'made an Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary'.
3
-
+Chance Magruder Makes it sound as if the Bombs caused the Japanese leaders to surrender.
WRONG
Japanese leaders had already come to terms with the fact that the war was over. It was down to the terms, and the status of their "God" Emperor.
Instead of leading to the Japanese surrender, dropping the Bombs might have led to a US invasion to become necessary, instead of avoiding it.
The immediate result of Hirohito declaring the surrender of the Japan, was that a revolt and coup attempt was launched by a small radical group of officers.
It was avoided in the nick of time.
By a hairs breadth, dropping the bombs almost led to a new Japanese leadership, which would have continued the fight resulting in millions of more dying, including hundreds of thousands of US soldiers (sic).
Strangely enough, historians will gladly use hindsight or "put yourself in their shoes" to confirm the conclusion they wish us to believe. According to them, "fat Goering was stupid for not building heavy bombers" (hindsight, and not "put yourself in his shoes"), and "in May 1940, stupid British and French military leaders, were still fighting the last war" (hindsight, not "put yourself in their shoes").
These conclusions have been repeated so often over time, that people don't even recognize them as classical cases of hindsight anymore.
So, according to the very same logic of hindsight, I can also say that "dropping the Bombs, could have led to an invasion becoming necessary, rather than avoid it..."?
Isn't that ironical?
Isn't it ironical that the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who would have died (sic,), if an invasion had been necessary, were actually saved by Japanese officers who thwarted a coup attempt by radical peers?
Isn't it ironical, that it was not the misguided 'logic' of our own leaders, who thought that their reasoning was 'universal', but the actions of a few Japanese soldiers in Tokyo, which 'made an Allied invasion of Japan unnecessary'?
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The West's obsession with Hitler as the "starter" of WW2, hides the fact that Stalin "the enabler" of WW2 is still viewed positively, even today.
Stalin got his first chance to "enable" a war between GB, France and the Fascist states (led by Germany) in the Spanish Civil War.
Unfortunately for Stalin, Paris/London didn't take the bait, and stayed out...
The next chance was Czechoslovakia.
His "promises" of an alliance, or "aid" was obviously another attempt to lure Paris/London into a trap.
Chamberlain defused that one...
Then there was Poland.
The minute Hitler started his threats and schemes, Stalin must have known he had Paris/London in the vice.
There would be no way either Paris or London, would/could possibly ignore or compromise any Fascist invasion of Poland.
Unlike Spain or Czechoslovakia, it was vital to the Balance of Power scheme set up in 1919.
He would enable it, then hang back and get out the popcorn and chips as the West destroyed itself in the geopolitical nightmare it had created for itself at Versailles.
1