I will get into the current topic, I just wanted to address some interesting posts early in this thread:
Poland is keenly aware they're next.
Poland is a member of NATO, they are untouchable as far as Russia is concerned. That is the point of all this. In reality Russia is not the least bit concerned about being attacked, nukes make that a non-starter. Starting conflicts with their neighbors makes it impossible for them to join NATO where it becomes impossible for Russia to turn them into a vassal state.
Not to defend Putin, but I think people are seriously underestimating the historic and diplomatic burden of the situation. Here are some important key factors that have provoked Russia's encroachment:
1) NATO Eastward Expansion
Russia has been very skeptical of NATO's progressive eastward expansion. The first one happened in 1999, when Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary joined the NATO. In 2004, the Baltic states followed and while the Sovjets made it clear that they did not approve of this, none of these states were close to their borders. Russia was willing to live with it until the Bukarest summit, when NATO annexed the Ukraine. In 2008, Russia considered this a direct threat to their sovereignty. The NATO Eastward Expansion as driven forward by the West
in a very foolish, hasty and callous way.
Calling what NATO does when adding new members "expansion" is in and of itself a mischaracterization. It enlarges. NATO is not a conquering army like the Mongols, bringing new territories under it by force and annexing them. Those countries have to ASK to join NATO and there is a whole list of requirements they have to meet in order to do so, including not being in current conflict with their neighbors. A nation can even leave if it wants to.
Not long ago I came across this European peace clock:
It was reading 76 years, 1 month 1 day and 18 hours. It saddens me greatly that we might have to reset it now
LOL Who maintains this clock? Did 1956 (Hungary), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) and the 90's Post-Yugoslavian wars completely escape their notice? This clock should have been reset a few times by now. 76 years of European peace is an extremely liberal estimate.
I've had the argument with many people. I believe it to have been wrong to nuke innocents. The argument against me was better for a quick resolve. I can see that as the Japanese weren't giving up, however I think nuking cities of innocents to be so very wrong. That wasn't fair at all. It changed the face of war that still permeates today. Remember the 'cold war' afterwards between the US and Russia?
Kill a million to save millions in 2 nuclear bombs? That was brutal. The nuclear bombs were aimed at the innocent. Wiped out generations. Changed the world we live in. Japanese were beaten into submission with the death of innocent people.
What was the name of the bombs again? oh yeah 'Big boy' and 'Little boy'.
Contentious view I know but I deem it to be absolutely barbaric. I can see both points but I consider the war was already over without that being needed. It was , in my opinion, an absolute slaughter of people not even fighting.
The purpose of the bombings was not to kill innocents. I can not think of a single war in modern history that ended simply because civilians were killed. This may surprise you: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (especially by 1945 standards) legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army, the site of the Imperial Naval Academy and the home port of the Japanese Navy. Nagasaki was home to several factories that supported the war effort, making torpedoes and ammunition. It was also a Naval port and given it's location it was usually the last stop for troops shipping off to the mainland. If they had the ability to affect it, it would have doubtlessly been the initial stop for troops returning from the mainland to defend the home islands as the Americans closed in. However, the IJN had been almost completely destroyed by that point and any oversea troop movements would have literally been blown out of the water by the American Navy.
Bombing cities was typical at the time. No one considered it a war crime (except, ironically, the Germans when it started happening to them. Goebbels called it "bomb-terror"). Industries that supported the war effort as well as political headquarters were in cities. The fact that they were surrounded by civilians could not be helped. A very important thing to remember is that bombing then is nothing like today. You basically had to mass hundreds of planes to fly over an area and bomb the shit out it with the driving doctrine being quantity over quality. You basically dropped your bombs and hoped they hit their targets. 50% accuracy was considered great, and that was during the daytime when you could see what you were flying over.
The most important thing to remember: The US spent months dropping thousands of leaflets telling civilians to leave the major cities because they were going to be bombed to hell and back, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And they did. The government evacuated virtually everyone that could not work in a factory or hold a rifle (children, elderly) to the countryside or just outside the cities.
Plenty of cities were bombed. Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Berlin, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Dresden etc. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no different. The bomb was used for a practical test of it's effectiveness and shock the enemy into surrender. Which it barely did. Even after the second bomb and surrender was decided upon there was and attempt to
overthrow the emperor for giving up. Outside of surrendering after Germany was defeated, the bombs were the best outcome for Japan. I can not imagine how much further behind schedule they would be if the US and Soviets had to take over the entire country in a land invasion and march into Tokyo to end the war. So many more people would have died just from starvation and the entirety of the country would have been ravaged.
With Germany screwed Japan would have no allies, Italy was a nothing by that stage. Could have sued for peace then. What happened to the emperor after the war? He lived long but lost his power. Always found it weird how them invading China was basically a precursor to everything.
The Potsdam Declaration was made in July. Japan could have surrendered then, they chose not to.
Britain and France: Holy fuck America we're getting screwed here, send help!
America: Not yet, maybe later. Have some supplies instead.
War could have been shorter. Was only after Pearl Harbour, years after the war started that America threw their hat in the ring properly.
Are you seriously faulting America for not jumping into a war where no one had attacked them or conspired to attack them and had no treaty obligations? Especially after we told you guys the treaty of Versailles was too harsh and would not sign on to it? Britain and France screwed themselves with their greed in 1918, their lack of preparedness in the interwar years, their appeasement in the late 30s, and their abysmal performance against the Wehrmacht. None of that was America's fault. Be thankful for those supplies. Thousands of men were killed by the Kriegsmarine bringing them to your islands.
Fast forward to today and America is rightfully criticized for sticking it's nose in where it does not belong. I criticize FDR a lot but he played the war situation perfectly and only got fully involved when it was justified.
World War II taught America 2 very bad lessons:
1. War spending is good for the economy.
2. The rest of the world can not be relied upon to be left to it's own devices. We did it twice and World Wars sprang up. Time to stick our foot in every door. It is no surprise when we get our toes stepped on.
America is not the world's policeman. Not now. Not in 1940. Also, the US Army was nowhere near ready for mobilization in 1940.
The bombings did help, but Japan was already mostly destroyed by previous bombings. I don't think they gave a shit about the atomic bombs. Like you said, they would fight with bamboo sticks if needed, but losing the people that would give them a chance to fight back (Manchurian Army)? Nah, that was a lost fight. Not only that, but if the Soviets managed to wipe their asses, they would be another divided country, with the Soviets and US on each side.
There was no chance of the mainland armies returning to the home islands. The Imperial Navy was all but gone by that point along with their air power. The US had complete mastery of the seas and the air and the British Royal Navy was on their way to tip the scales even further. The soldiers were on the other side of the Sea of Japan and none of them could swim that far.
Why does the west keep pushing NATO closer and closer to Russia 30 years after the Warsaw Pact ended?
The real question is: "Why do these countries near Russia keep wanting to join NATO?"
Answer: So they do not go through what Ukraine is going through right now.
The end of the Socialist regime in Moscow did not mean the end of the need for national defense. Ask anyone from the former Yugoslavian states, Georgia and Ukraine.
