Stalin's POV on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Die Rote Fahne]

So, I'm a history type of guy, and i'm talking to some idiot who is your usual reactionary who thinks Pear Harbour was terrorism and the a-bombs on Japan were 100% justified.

It got me thinking. What was Stalin's view on the dropping of the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Seriously, why does Stalin's opinion matter on this? What about the majority of the communists during that time?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Seriously, why does Stalin's opinion matter on this? What about the majority of the communists during that time?

I'm interested in the question from a historical point of view.

I know the majority of communists opinions on the issue. Or I can at least give an educated guess taht they opposed it.

But Stalin wasn't the majority of communists. Did he oppose it? Why or why not?

[Muzk]

I couldn't find a particular statement by Stalin to these things, but I found some interesting things to Stalin + nuclear weapons
Truman Tells Stalin, July 24, 1945

Most of the groups and individuals who had considered the subject -- from the Scientific Panel to the writers of the Franck Report -- believed it necessary to inform the USSR of the imminent success of the Manhattan project. Failure to do so, they believed, would guarantee a post-war atmosphere of suspicion and hostility.

At the Potsdam Conference, however, President Truman chose to tell Stalin only that the U.S. possessed "a new weapon of unusual destructive force." Truman's decision raises an obvious question: Since Stalin would learn of the existence of the atomic bomb the day it was used, if he did not know already, what purpose could be served by Truman's tactic?

Truman's announcement to Stalin can be seen here from the accounts of the different observers. Each describes the same event, but the event appears in a different light to each observer. Did the "master politicians" Truman, Churchill, and Byrnes know what they were doing? Or did they make a tragic blunder?



In his memoirs, Truman wrote that he told Stalin that the United States had "a new weapon of unusual destructive force." Apparently, the President did not tell Stalin the new weapon was an atomic bomb, and the Soviet leader did not ask or show any special interest. He merely nodded and said something. "All he said was that he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make good use of it against the Japanese," Truman wrote. Across the room, I watched Stalin's face carefully as the President broke the news. So offhand was Stalin's response that there was some question in my mind whether the President's message had got through. I should have known better than to underrate the dictator. Years later, Marshal Georgi K. Zhukov, in his memoirs, disclosed that that night Stalin ordered a telegram sent to those working on the atomic bomb in Russia to hurry with the job.

On the question of when Stalin was to be told, it was agreed that President Truman should do this after the conclusion of one of our meetings. He did so on July 24th, so briefly that Mr. Churchill and I, who were covertly watching, had some doubts whether Stalin had taken it in. His response was a nod of the head and a brief "thank you." No comment.

Soviet Marshal Georgii Zhukov

I do not recall the exact date, but after the close of one of the formal meetings Truman informed Stalin that the United States now possessed a bomb of exceptional power, without, however, naming it the atomic bomb.
As was later written abroad, at that moment Churchill fixed his gaze on Stalin's face, closely observing his reaction. However, Stalin did not betray his feelings and pretended that he saw nothing special in what Truman had imparted to him. Both Churchill and many other Anglo-American authors subsequently assumed that Stalin had really failed to fathom the significance of what he had heard.
In actual fact, on returning to his quarters after this meeting Stalin, in my presence, told Molotov about his conversation with Truman. The latter reacted amost immediately. "Let them. We'll have to talk it over with Kurchatov and get him to speed things up."
I realized that they were talking about research on the atomic bomb.
It was clear already then that the US Government intended to use the atomic weapon for the purpose of achieving its Imperialist goals from a position of strength in "the cold war." This was amply corroborated on August 6 and 8. Without any military need whatsoever, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on the peaceful and densely-populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


source: http://www.dannen.com/decision/potsdam.html

[TheGodlessUtopian]

[QUOTE=Propagandhi;1830946]So, I'm a history type of guy, and i'm talking to some idiot who is your usual reactionary who thinks Pear Harbour was terrorism and the a-bombs on Japan were 100% justified.

I believe the bombs were justified.The alternative (Operation: Downfall) would have killed many,many more people (Estimated american casualties could as been as high as one million while the japanese could of been in the tens-of-millions).So I don't really see how someone could say the the bombs weren't justified when the other route was so much more gruesome.

Regardless,whether or not, Pearl Harbour was terrorism the japanese were crazy imperialists who had a psychotic plan to conquer the world.So lets remember that unless they were dealt with conflict was inevitable.I'm aware that our diplomatic and economic ties with them wasn't exactly the strongest.....and we weren't doing anything to help the situation,but needless to say,no matter how messed up our trade or relations was that doesn't give the,at the time,The Empire of Japan,the right to slaughter our troops without pysical provocation (from the way your talking that's how you're making it sound).I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

[Paul Cockshott]

I know the majority of communists opinions on the issue. Or I can at least give an educated guess taht they opposed it.

why not?
The majority of communists must have been chinese fighting Japan, did they oppose Hiroshima?

[M-26-7]

the japanese were crazy imperialists who had a psychotic plan to conquer the world.

Whereas the U.S.A. was.....?

[Victory]

[QUOTE=Propagandhi;1830946]
Regardless,whether or not, Pearl Harbour was terrorism the japanese were crazy imperialists who had a psychotic plan to conquer the world.So lets remember that unless they were dealt with conflict was inevitable.I'm aware that our diplomatic and economic ties with them wasn't exactly the strongest.....and we weren't doing anything to help the situation,but needless to say,no matter how messed up our trade or relations was that doesn't give the,at the time,The Empire of Japan,the right to slaughter our troops without pysical provocation (from the way your talking that's how you're making it sound).I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

Please somebody restrict this retard.

The US made no provocation towards Japan?
USA were practically destroying Japans entire economy through embargos, so that the only way for Japan ever gaining back stability was to wage war against USA.
They were forced into war, again due to USA's nature of placing embargos against anybody who isen't acting in their interests.

Whilst USA pursues the policies that it does, it's never not justified to, in your words, "slaughter US troops".
They aren't innocent in anyway, they bear the emblem of the stars and stripes and swear to support a government which has caused more suffering than Adolph Hitler would ever even dream of doing in a lifetime.

Terrorism my fucking ass.

[DenisDenis]

[QUOTE=Propagandhi;1830946]So, I'm a history type of guy, and i'm talking to some idiot who is your usual reactionary who thinks Pear Harbour was terrorism and the a-bombs on Japan were 100% justified.

I believe the bombs were justified.The alternative (Operation: Downfall) would have killed many,many more people (Estimated american casualties could as been as high as one million while the japanese could of been in the tens-of-millions).So I don't really see how someone could say the the bombs weren't justified when the other route was so much more gruesome.

Regardless,whether or not, Pearl Harbour was terrorism the japanese were crazy imperialists who had a psychotic plan to conquer the world.So lets remember that unless they were dealt with conflict was inevitable.I'm aware that our diplomatic and economic ties with them wasn't exactly the strongest.....and we weren't doing anything to help the situation,but needless to say,no matter how messed up our trade or relations was that doesn't give the,at the time,The Empire of Japan,the right to slaughter our troops without pysical provocation (from the way your talking that's how you're making it sound).I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

About Pearl Harbor, I read somewhere that the americans knew the
japanese were comming to destroy their fleet and moved the new vessels
away from the island while old and mostly obsolete ships were ordered to
remain in the port.
The reason behind all this was that a good slaughter by the japanese would
turn public opinion around and would justify an entry into the war by the
population which were, at the time, against any military intervention.
If this is true than I believe this is a very awefull way to "pursuade" the US
population, and alot of innocent and useless deaths could be prevented.
As I understand , US citizens can look into old documents of that periode?
Perhaps someone can verify all this?

[Victory]

As for the accusation of Stalin supporting the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that’s a complete fucking fabrication.

Why would a Communist Leader, who was sending hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops to the far east in order to defeat Japan, knowing not only that Japan would easily be defeated by the Soviet Union, but also knowing that if Japan were defeated and the Soviet Union were the defeaters, Socialism would almost certainly triumph in the far east.
The Soviet Union had everything to gain by defeating Japan itself. It would gain influence in the far east and it would strike a huge physiological effect towards USA and it’s supporters. Can you image the Soviet Union, defeating the country which successfully plotted Pearl Harbour and brought the mighty USA into war, but were instead defeated by the ideological enemy, the Soviet Union.
The nuclear attacks against Japan were the last thing Stalin wanted, as he knew it would have a terrible physiological effect on the Communist movement in the Soviet Union and abroad, and he also knew that if USA dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, there would be little hope of spreading the revolution to Japan and the far east.

The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not only attacks against Japan, they were also attacks against the Soviet Union as a ploy to intimate the Communist movement and psychologically effect supporters of the Soviet Union.

Anybody who thinks Stalin would support USA dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, is in my eyes, as dumb as the worst kind of fascist.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I believe the bombs were justified.The alternative (Operation: Downfall) would have killed many,many more people (Estimated american casualties could as been as high as one million while the japanese could of been in the tens-of-millions).So I don't really see how someone could say the the bombs weren't justified when the other route was so much more gruesome.

Regardless,whether or not, Pearl Harbour was terrorism the japanese were crazy imperialists who had a psychotic plan to conquer the world.So lets remember that unless they were dealt with conflict was inevitable.I'm aware that our diplomatic and economic ties with them wasn't exactly the strongest.....and we weren't doing anything to help the situation,but needless to say,no matter how messed up our trade or relations was that doesn't give the,at the time,The Empire of Japan,the right to slaughter our troops without pysical provocation (from the way your talking that's how you're making it sound).I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

What the fuck? No, seriously, what the fuck? Swallowing too much nonsensical propaganda, abandoning all sense and material reality lately, have we? What is this utter nonsense?

"psychotic plan", "conquer the world", nonsense. It was a plan of imperial domination in the region, just like the United States, there's no fundamental difference, no "psychotic nature", here present, and the United States sought confrontation.

Those "estimated losses" are ridiculous and if memory serves me right the actual estimate was around 150,000, the one-million+ nonsense being exaggerations to sell to the American public the slaughter of over 500,000 civilians that were killed by the nuclear war and the persistent fire-bombing of civilian population that went on prior.

The Japanese had suffered tremendous losses during the invasion of Okinawa, and without the use of the atomic bombs, they probably would have surrendered within a month or so, as their resources were dwindling and the war had taken a great toll; but the United States would not accept a conditional surrender, they wanted Japan on its knees and to submit utterly and completely and integrated into its (US's) imperial dominion; and Truman wanted to show Stalin what a big powerful man he was, especially now with his new modern time-fashionable murder-toy.

(And let's not forget that the Soviets were marching in through Korea and planned the liberation of Hokkaido, the U.S. was willing to go to great lengths to avoid any increased socialist influence in the region, as they showed with post-war intervention in Japanese politics to thwart any socialist or perceived socialist organisations.)

What kind of position is this, anyway? Imperialist versus imperialist and you somehow take the fucking side of the UNITED STATES ARMY, not the millions of civilians murdered for naught? Is that some sort of deformed nationalism or what?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I believe the bombs were justified.

hooooo boy...SO IT BEGINS.

You've already been kinda taken to task for this, but I'll just throw in my two cents:


The alternative (Operation: Downfall) would have killed many,many more people (Estimated american casualties could as been as high as one million while the japanese could of been in the tens-of-millions).So I don't really see how someone could say the the bombs weren't justified when the other route was so much more gruesome.

Actually Japan had been pretty much defeated at that point. They had been expelled from the island peripheries surrounding Japan, they were hemmed in by the U.S. Navy, and their heavy industry and military manufacturing capabilities were mortally wounded due to (amoungst other things) America's ruthless campaign of firebombing Japanese cities. They were on the losing end of a brutal war of attrition just before the atomic bombs (take a look at accounts of ordinary Japanese civilians in regards to the food supply at that point), and no longer had sufficient agency to mount major offensives against Allied forces.

In addition, many of the major American minds at that time (including Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Nimitz) disputed that the atomic bomb drops were necessary to win the war.


Regardless,whether or not, Pearl Harbour was terrorism the japanese were crazy imperialists who had a psychotic plan to conquer the world.

That's totally ahistorical crazy talk! It's akin to saying that Hitler wanted to take over the world and force everyone to speak German.

Even in the most ultranationalist of Japanese political circles, the idea of "conquering the world" was non-existent. Most Japanese ultranationalists in the 30's felt that the world would be divided into roughly three political spheres: Japan's sphere (Asia), Germany's sphere (Europe), and the USA's sphere (the Americas).

I would also argue that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just as much a warning to the USSR (which had recently declared war on Japan) not to attempt to annex Japan into it's economic bloc as it was a final nail in the Japanese war effort's coffin.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

[QUOTE=Wanderer;1831016]

Please somebody restrict this retard.

The US made no provocation towards Japan?
USA were practically destroying Japans entire economy through embargos, so that the only way for Japan ever gaining back stability was to wage war against USA.
They were forced into war, again due to USA's nature of placing embargos against anybody who isen't acting in their interests.

Whilst USA pursues the policies that it does, it's never not justified to, in your words, "slaughter US troops".
They aren't innocent in anyway, they bear the emblem of the stars and stripes and swear to support a government which has caused more suffering than Adolph Hitler would ever even dream of doing in a lifetime.

Terrorism my fucking ass.

Wow do you even hear yourself? "The only way for Japan ever to gain back their stability was to wage war against the U.S"? Where to begin?

#1: Think of it this way,if our economy was being destroyed by a foreign power would that give us a right to "wage war" against that country,then upon victory occupy their land? No it wouldn't.I believe you're being a hypocrite when you say you hate the U.S for their imperialist military actions (that by the way improves the economy) yet at the same time support Japan's very same actions.Try looking at events from a lens that isn't obscured by pure hatred and maybe you'll catch your own hypocrisy before it leaves your mouth.

#2: "Swear to support a government which has caused more suffering then Adolph Hitler even dream of doing in a lifetime" Damn.....say that to the tens-of-millions of murdered people in the concentration camps.Or to the millions of other people killed in the fighting hitler had a big hand in starting.Guess what that is just it "starting".Back in the pre world war 2 era our military was pathetic,so needless to say we weren't exactly looking to start wars (Hitler did that).As a country we've certainly made mistakes and done horrible things but that doesn't mean we haven't also done good (two quick examples would be helping liberate europe from fascism (bet I'm going to get it by daring to suggest that hitler needed to be disposed of) and of freely distributing food to all those starving third world countries,thereby effectively saving hundreads-of-millions of lives.....of course this is after we supposedly starved them via capitalism,a occurrence which I still don't understand fully)."They're not in any way innocent".So does that mean it would be ok for someone to kill you based off the mistakes of communist leaders?No matter what the true nature of America is many individuals enlist in the military not because they want to help conquer the world but because it's the best way to lift their family out of poverty.Most are terribly ignorant of any politics that run their tour in whatever country they are stationed in.At the very least their innocent in that respect.

#3: "Please someone restrict this retard" For the love of god try to act like an adult and refrain from making such juvenile attacks.Doesn't help your argument in any way.

[Os Cangaceiros]

#1: Think of it this way,if our economy was being destroyed by a foreign power would that give us a right to "wage war" against that country,then upon victory occupy their land? No it wouldn't.I believe you're being a hypocrite when you say you hate the U.S for their imperialist military actions (that by the way improves the economy) yet at the same time support Japan's very same actions.Try looking at events from a lens that isn't obscured by pure hatred and maybe you'll catch your own hypocrisy before it leaves your mouth.

In a war between two imperialist nations, it's completely unacceptable in my opinion to support one of them in any way, shape or form, which is what you did when you voiced support for the nuclear annihiliation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't understand how a self-proclaimed leftist can stomach such actions.



The second Roosevelt's administration saw the guarantee of American access to foreign markets as vital to ending the Depression and the threat of internal upheaval that went along with it. Assistant Secretary of State Francis Sayre, chairman of Roosevelt's Executive Committee on Commercial Policy, warned: "Unless we can export and sell abroad our surplus production, we must face a violent dislocation of our whole domestic economy."22 FDR's ongoing policy of Open Door Empire, faced with the withdrawal of major areas from the world market by the autarkic policies of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and Fortress Europe, led to American entry into World War II, and culminated in the postwar establishment of what Samuel Huntington called a "system of world order" guaranteed both by global institutions of economic governance like the IMF, and by a hegemonic political and military superpower.

In 1935, a War Department memorandum described the emerging Japanese threat in primarily economic terms. Japanese hegemony over Asia, it warned, would have "a direct influence on those people of Europe and America who depend on trade and commerce with this area for their livelihood." Germany, likewise, was defined as an "aggressor" because of its trade policies in Latin America.23

After the fall of western Europe in the spring of 1940, Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long warned that "every commercial order will be routed to Berlin and filled under its orders somewhere in Europe rather than in the United States," resulting in "falling prices and declining profits here and a lowering of our standard of living with the consequent social and political disturbances."24

Beginning in the Summer of 1940, the CFR and State Department undertook a joint study to determine the minimum portion of the world the U.S. would have to integrate with its own economy, in order to provide sufficient resources and markets for economic stability; it also explored policy options for reconstructing the postwar world.25 The study group found that Germany's continental system was far more self-sufficient in resources, and more capable of autarky, than was the United States. The U.S. economy could not survive in its existing form without access to the resources and markets not only of the Western Hemisphere, but of the British Empire and Far East (together called the Grand Area). But the latter region was rapidly being incorporated into Japan's economic sphere of influence. FDR made the political decision to contest Japanese power in the Far East, and if necessary to initiate war. In the end, however, he successfully maneuvered Japan into firing the first shot.26

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In a war between two imperialist nations, it's completely unacceptable in my opinion to support one of them in any way, shape or form, which is what you did when you voiced support for the nuclear annihiliation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't understand how a self-proclaimed leftist can stomach such actions.

I never proclaimed myself a leftist.....I'm still in the process of researching/learning.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I never proclaimed myself a leftist.....I'm still in the process of researching/learning.

So learn.

The bombs were an unjustifiable war crime.

[Outinleftfield]

[QUOTE=Wanderer;1831016]

I believe the bombs were justified.The alternative (Operation: Downfall) would have killed many,many more people (Estimated american casualties could as been as high as one million while the japanese could of been in the tens-of-millions).[QUOTE]

Argument from false dichotomy.

There is plenty of evidence from what envoys were telling the United States that the Japanese were close to asking for a conditional surrender and the only condition would've been getting to keep their emperor, which the United States wound up doing in order to keep Japan stable during the occupation.

The United States didn't have to either nuke Japan or send troops in. The United States could've kept up conventional bombing of military targets in Japan while surrounding it with ships. Its inconceivable that Japan would still not surrender at the point of every military target bombed, especially if at some point the US was able to kill Japan's top military brass in a bombing.

The real reason was to show off its new "toy" to intimidate the Soviet Union. Another reason could've been that if the US didn't force Japan into a quick surrender the USSR would invade Japan too and there would've been a North Japan and South Japan or even an all-communist Japan.

[TwoSevensClash]

[QUOTE=Wanderer;1831016]

Please somebody restrict this retard.

The US made no provocation towards Japan?
USA were practically destroying Japans entire economy through embargos, so that the only way for Japan ever gaining back stability was to wage war against USA.
They were forced into war, again due to USA's nature of placing embargos against anybody who isen't acting in their interests.

.
The reason for the embargo was to stop Japan from waging war and dominating asia. So your saying that by the USA refusing to sell Japan supplies for Japans imperialist war Japan was justified in attacking the US?

[TwoSevensClash]

Pro-Atomic bombers should keep in mind that Japan was willing to surrender. But the USA and England wanted an unconditional surrender. Japan was actually trying to get the Soviets to get better terms for Japans surrender. As for Stalin I could see him being glad that the bombings stopped the war. Cause this brought the end of Soviet soldier combat deaths.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd imagine Stalin might have been against their use, but not for the same reasons that any normal person is opposed to it.

I don't know much of this history either, but my understanding is that the US dropped the bombs in part to end the conflict before Russia could enter into the conflict against Japan - thus taking away the possibility of having to divide Japan's spoils after WWII as the allies did in Europe and other parts of the world.

It was a also a pretty clear message from the US to all the world's powers (though IMO directed squarely at any postential plans of Russia to have more involvement in Asia): back the fuck off we are crazy and have the biggest boom in the world.

[Red Commissar]

There was an interesting mainstream documentary which interviewed Robert McNamara (Yeah, I know) called "Fog of War". It went through parts of his life, from his time in WWII to Department of Defense during Vietnam. Part of the World War II part dealt with his time with the aerial bombardment of Japan that led up to the nuclear bomb. Like other posts here he was of the opinion that the firebombing had already broken Japan (in the second video) and the use of nukes was excessive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKE4uuef754
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCYcgOnWUM

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Did Stalin ever issue some sort of statement on the bombs? Muzk relates statements about Stalin's awareness of the Manhattan Program, and Zhukov's own stance on it.

If Stalin never issued a formal statement, it was probably in order not to rock the boat in foreign affairs, coming off WW II and needlessly increasing tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Though I imagine somewhere there must've been a statement internally in the party. Better yet, how did Soviet historians treat it? The history books? I'd be interested in seeing that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd imagine Stalin might have been against their use, but not for the same reasons that any normal person is opposed to it.

I don't know much of this history either, but my understanding is that the US dropped the bombs in part to end the conflict before Russia could enter into the conflict against Japan - thus taking away the possibility of having to divide Japan's spoils after WWII as the allies did in Europe and other parts of the world.

It was a also a pretty clear message from the US to all the world's powers (though IMO directed squarely at any postential plans of Russia to have more involvement in Asia): back the fuck off we are crazy and have the biggest boom in the world.Wow, I got a negative rep and was called an "Anti-Stalin class traitor" for this post? This is hardly my most anti-Stalin post. Wow, after never receiving any negative reps before I get two in one day!:lol:

[Victory]

[QUOTE=Victory;1831045]

Wow do you even hear yourself? "The only way for Japan ever to gain back their stability was to wage war against the U.S"? Where to begin?

#1: Think of it this way,if our economy was being destroyed by a foreign power would that give us a right to "wage war" against that country,then upon victory occupy their land? No it wouldn't.I believe you're being a hypocrite when you say you hate the U.S for their imperialist military actions (that by the way improves the economy) yet at the same time support Japan's very same actions.Try looking at events from a lens that isn't obscured by pure hatred and maybe you'll catch your own hypocrisy before it leaves your mouth.

#2: "Swear to support a government which has caused more suffering then Adolph Hitler even dream of doing in a lifetime" Damn.....say that to the tens-of-millions of murdered people in the concentration camps.Or to the millions of other people killed in the fighting hitler had a big hand in starting.Guess what that is just it "starting".Back in the pre world war 2 era our military was pathetic,so needless to say we weren't exactly looking to start wars (Hitler did that).As a country we've certainly made mistakes and done horrible things but that doesn't mean we haven't also done good (two quick examples would be helping liberate europe from fascism (bet I'm going to get it by daring to suggest that hitler needed to be disposed of) and of freely distributing food to all those starving third world countries,thereby effectively saving hundreads-of-millions of lives.....of course this is after we supposedly starved them via capitalism,a occurrence which I still don't understand fully)."They're not in any way innocent".So does that mean it would be ok for someone to kill you based off the mistakes of communist leaders?No matter what the true nature of America is many individuals enlist in the military not because they want to help conquer the world but because it's the best way to lift their family out of poverty.Most are terribly ignorant of any politics that run their tour in whatever country they are stationed in.At the very least their innocent in that respect.


The goal of Japan was not to conquer USA, but to regain it's own stability which the USA was preventing Japan from doing.
I don't support Japan in any way, but I defend their right to independence and not being forced into war by a superpower because it wasn’t serving the interests of US imperialism and Capitalism.
I consider it entirely justified to attack USA if they are making acts of war, which sanctions put forward by a government are. - The same way the US's sanctions against North Korea are acts of war.

Sorry, but you speak of Adolph Hitler killing tens of millions in concentration camps in the 12 years Nazi Germany existed. Well, the US government has caused the deaths of more than 100 million people in the last 5 years alone, through deprivation of food and resources. I think by the difference in numbers you can see the lesser evil.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

[QUOTE=Wanderer;1831230]

The goal of Japan was not to conquer USA, but to regain it's own stability which the USA was preventing Japan from doing.
I don't support Japan in any way, but I defend their right to independence and not being forced into war by a superpower because it wasn’t serving the interests of US imperialism and Capitalism.
I consider it entirely justified to attack USA if they are making acts of war, which sanctions put forward by a government are. - The same way the US's sanctions against North Korea are acts of war.

Sorry, but you speak of Adolph Hitler killing tens of millions in concentration camps in the 12 years Nazi Germany existed. Well, the US government has caused the deaths of more than 100 million people in the last 5 years alone, through deprivation of food and resources. I think by the difference in numbers you can see the lesser evil.

I'm getting tired of hearing that without proof to back it up.......links/specific examples please.Just as you wouldn't take my word on the over 70 million people Mao killed,I'm not gonna take your word on how many people we've killed without evidence to back it up.So links please.

[Victory]

[QUOTE=Victory;1831589]

I'm getting tired of hearing that without proof to back it up.......links/specific examples please.Just as you wouldn't take my word on the over 70 million people Mao killed,I'm not gonna take your word on how many people we've killed without evidence to back it up.So links please.
More than 25 million people die every single year through deprivation of food and resources, brought on by Imperialism and Capitalism. - Capitalism continues because the US Government continues to pursue Capitalism the ability to dominate economies of other countries. If Capitalism in the US was to fall, so would Capitalism worldwide and the US imperialist interest along with it.
I don't think you need me to find links detailing how many people die ever year through like of resources.

And you keep referring to the US as "We". I'm not targeting you or the US people specifically, I'm targeting the US government and the US Ruling Class which continue to support the Capitalist system in the United States.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm getting tired of hearing that without proof to back it up.......links/specific examples please.Just as you wouldn't take my word on the over 70 million people Mao killed,I'm not gonna take your word on how many people we've killed without evidence to back it up.So links please.

70 million, is that the classic RUMMEL NUMBER? Fuck Rummel and his shitty historiography, he inflates everything by millions and millions, I think he reads old books put out by intelligence services and do some crappy math so as to get the highest numbers he can. He outdoes even the Black Book in nonsensical estimates.

[Victory]

70 million, is that the classic RUMMEL NUMBER? Fuck Rummel and his shitty historiography, he inflates everything by millions and millions, I think he reads old books put out by intelligence services and do some crappy math so as to get the highest numbers he can. He outdoes even the Black Book in nonsensical estimates.

It is, but it's also what is taught in every high school to students.
Can you believe it, I was taught in college that Joseph Stalin killed 80 milllion people. Even Rummel diden't stoop to that level.

Of course I protested against the teacher's total fabrication and argued to the head of A-Levels that she should be sacked.
The teacher in question was the highest form of a conservative and had been spoonfed everything she knew about history.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, I got a negative rep and was called an "Anti-Stalin class traitor" for this post? This is hardly my most anti-Stalin post. Wow, after never receiving any negative reps before I get two in one day!:lol:

I've only gotten two neg reps in my time posting here: one from The Anarchist Tension that merely said "disagree", and a mysterious one recently from my pal GracchusBabeuf that merely said "Stalinist :(". Kind of offtopic, but just thought that I'd share that...

[Raúl Duke]

USA were practically destroying Japans entire economy through embargos
but to regain it's own stability which the USA was preventing Japan from doing. Stability? The embargo was a military one, not an economic one. It was over Japan's aggressive policy in the rest of Asia. It's nothing like the embargoes against Cuba or N. Korea


I consider it entirely justified to attack USA if they are making acts of war, which sanctions put forward by a government are. - The same way the US's sanctions against North Korea are acts of war. I find it quite dumb the decrying about Japan's Oil embargo and comparing it to North Korea's economic embargo when N. Korea is not an imperialist nation while Japan was. Partly because that's in the past and not as important as other things (like whether the nuclear attack was justified or not, which is a side issue of this thread) and partly because Japan was imperialist at the time. Arguing about justification regarding starting an intra-imperialist conflict and which side is "more righteous" is stupid (for leftists) since in the end the working class lose and die.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor might have made some sense strategically (initially) towards the overall plan yet it isn't a "justified" action in any sense outside of Japan's war strategy (and in that it failed).

Also, the embargo was brought about due to Japanese intervention across Asia (Korea, Manchuria, China); from a strategic sense it dampened the Japanese imperialist war-effort against the Chinese. In reverse, this aided Chinese resistance (although in a very limited sense).

Now on about the nukes, personally I'm of the opinion that they weren't justified. No act of aggression from any imperialist or ruling class are justified, especially not against civilains.

[Shokaract]

I was in a similar situation. I was talking to a libertarian friend who thought that "Who attacked first?" was a valid argument. (Because a military attack on a military installation justifies the killing hundreds of thousands of civilians)

How frustrating. The guy you're talking to doesn't realize that an unwarranted attack on civilian targets, resulting in so much death and suffering, is a lot more like an act of terrorism..

This isn't really an answer to your question on Stalin, but you may find it useful in your conversation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwbEyZc_YY

Hasegawa Tsuyoshi, author of Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, argues convincingly that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the reason why Japan surrendered.

[Wanted Man]

I believe the bombs were justified.The alternative (Operation: Downfall) would have killed many,many more people (Estimated american casualties could as been as high as one million while the japanese could of been in the tens-of-millions).So I don't really see how someone could say the the bombs weren't justified when the other route was so much more gruesome.

Regardless,whether or not, Pearl Harbour was terrorism the japanese were crazy imperialists who had a psychotic plan to conquer the world.So lets remember that unless they were dealt with conflict was inevitable.I'm aware that our diplomatic and economic ties with them wasn't exactly the strongest.....and we weren't doing anything to help the situation,but needless to say,no matter how messed up our trade or relations was that doesn't give the,at the time,The Empire of Japan,the right to slaughter our troops without pysical provocation (from the way your talking that's how you're making it sound).I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

I always got the impression that the Japanese were already seeking a peace agreement at that point. The whole "psychotic, suicidal, honour-bound Japanese fanatics" angle on Japan is always played up in the US to defend the nuclear bombings. They make it sound as if not using the bombs would mean that the US would "have to" kill tens of millions of Japanese in a bloody ground war.


The majority of communists must have been chinese fighting Japan, did they oppose Hiroshima?

I suppose it did not register on their radar as much as their own battle. I really doubt that they would have understood the implications at that point. But it would be interesting if anyone could find documentation on this, on how they experienced this period.


As for the accusation of Stalin supporting the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that’s a complete fucking fabrication.

Why would a Communist Leader, who was sending hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops to the far east in order to defeat Japan, knowing not only that Japan would easily be defeated by the Soviet Union, but also knowing that if Japan were defeated and the Soviet Union were the defeaters, Socialism would almost certainly triumph in the far east.
The Soviet Union had everything to gain by defeating Japan itself. It would gain influence in the far east and it would strike a huge physiological effect towards USA and it’s supporters. Can you image the Soviet Union, defeating the country which successfully plotted Pearl Harbour and brought the mighty USA into war, but were instead defeated by the ideological enemy, the Soviet Union.

To what extent was the USSR capable of landing in Japan and occupying it?


I've only gotten two neg reps in my time posting here: one from The Anarchist Tension that merely said "disagree", and a mysterious one recently from my pal GracchusBabeuf that merely said "Stalinist :(". Kind of offtopic, but just thought that I'd share that...

I sometimes get negrep in retaliation for what I give to others, so I can have no complaints either.

[Wanted Man]

Mao wrote at the time:


The Soviet Union has sent its troops, the Red Army has come to help the Chinese people drive out the aggressor; such an event has never happened before in Chinese history. Its influence is immeasurable. The propaganda organs of the United States and Chiang Kai-shek hoped to sweep away the Red Army's political influence with two atom bombs.[26] But it can't be swept away; that isn't so easy. Can atom bombs decide wars? No, they can't. Atom bombs could not make Japan surrender. Without the struggles waged by the people, atom bombs by themselves would be of no avail. If atom bombs could decide the war, then why was it necessary to ask the Soviet Union to send its troops? Why didn't Japan surrender when the two atom bombs were dropped on her and why did she surrender as soon as the Soviet Union sent troops? Some of our comrades, too, believe that the atom bomb is all-powerful; that is a big mistake. These comrades show even less judgement than a British peer. There is a certain British peer called Lord Mountbatten. He said the worst possible mistake is to think that the atom bomb can decide the war.[27] These comrades are more backward than Mountbatten. What influence has made these comrades look upon the atom bomb as something miraculous? Bourgeois influence. Where does it come from? From their education in bourgeois schools, from the bourgeois press and news agencies. There are two world outlooks and two methodologies, the proletarian world outlook and methodology and the bourgeois world outlook and methodology. These comrades often cling to the bourgeois world outlook and methodology and often forget the proletarian world outlook and methodology. The theory that "weapons decide everything", the purely military viewpoint, a bureaucratic style of work divorced from the masses, individualist thinking, and the like -- all these are bourgeois influences in our ranks. We must constantly sweep these bourgeois things out of our ranks just as we sweep out dust.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_01.htm

[Red Commissar]

Yeah, Mao's interpretation of why the bomb's were dropped is as Jimmie Higgins said on the last page in the thread, and has been posed as one of the reasons for the bomb being dropped. Obviously I'm more inclined to believe this account, considering the United States knowing the Soviet Union would become its rival in the post-war world, and they were going to draw the line in the sand. The United States sent a message to the Soviet Union and it did stop them from advancing further into Asia after their operation in Manchuria.