The why of the Georgia/Russia conflict.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by spot

I'll offer the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War), Washington, D.C.
1 July 1946:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/...ry.html#jstetw

"The Japanese had already sued for peace, with the only condition being the safety of the emperor. And most historians agree that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is what finally triggered the complete unconditional surrender. Note that after the unconditional surrender, the US guaranteed the safety of the emperor, making the final terms equal to what the Japanese were asking for far before Hiroshima and Nagasaki." - from someone else's web discussion of the same question, I don't feel like re-wording what's there and it says what I wanted to write.

The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore has a detailed chapter on the timing and on Truman's motives as described first-hand in his personal diary. The US deliberately strung out agreement with the Japanese simply in order to be able to demonstrate the bombs to Stalin.

Hindsight is wonderful and it's easy to ascribe motives after the event. Would a nuclear war have been more likely if the results hadn't been seen in 1945? perhaps Stalin would have been more ready to keep manchuria and push harder in 1947 and taken over the rest of germany if they hadn't known the US had nuclear weapons ready to deploy. Who knows. I am of the opinion it was the right decision. We can argue the toss elsewhere if you like it's kind of off topic here. More people were killed by the firestorms started the wooden cities of Japan (using techniques learned from the British) than by the two nuclear weapons.


Realistically there is not a lot nato can do about Georgia without all out war. The question is how to pull back from the brink. Looks like Putin is now winding the Americans up to make the point. All the benefits from the end of the cold war pissed away. I doubt russia will try and reclaim poland, latvia, Czechoslovakia etc etc.

I blame the vikings, if they hadn't settled in Russia none of this would have happened. That's it let's blame the swedes, cause all this trouble over the years and stay neutral when the **** hits the fan.

[spot]

Originally Posted by gmc

Hindsight is wonderful and it's easy to ascribe motives after the event.

No, that's the relevance of the Truman diary, it was written as events progressed and discusses the bomb, Stalin and the countdown to accepting the Japanese offer of unconditional surrender with reservations on the Emperor (which were on offer by the Japanese before the bombs were used and were identical to the terms finally agreed). That's contemporary material, not hindsight.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by gmc

just In Case It Happens. I Told You So:d Goodbye And Thanks For All The Fish.

[guppy]

Your article was very interesting Scrat.i wondered why russia had invaded Georgia too. Thanks for posting this.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by spot

No, that's the relevance of the Truman diary, it was written as events progressed and discusses the bomb, Stalin and the countdown to accepting the Japanese offer of unconditional surrender with reservations on the Emperor (which were on offer by the Japanese before the bombs were used and were identical to the terms finally agreed). That's contemporary material, not hindsight.

I've read the truman diaries. I didn't put my point very well. I don't dispute the validity of what you say. In hindsight dropping the bomb seems a terrible thing to do because we now fully understand the consequences but in 1945 people didn't see the world as we do now and to judge actions taken with a 21st century perspective and morality is a difficult thing not to do. This was total war remember there were terrible things done on all sides. Stalin was already changing from uncle joe to the bogey man how to warn him off? He wasn't exactly thinking like 21st century man either. In isolation perhaps it seems a heinous act, in the context of the times I'm not so sure.

Both Hitler and Stalin would have used the nuclear bomb if they had had it first. Hitler came very close. On balance it was probably preferable the americans got it before stalin.