>>58336929
Because it's widely agreed that terror bombing really doesn't work, and only serves to galvanize civilian populations against you.

>it's another "doesn't understand Just War Theory" thread
Most attacks against civilians escalate the conflict. Nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 presented a very rare example of escalate to deescalate. Normally this concept utterly fails because the enemy simply becomes enraged and driven to resist even at the cost of their own destruction, but in the case of Japan they honorably accepted their defeat.

>>58336942
>but in the case of Japan they honorably accepted their defeat.
Good way to say "accepted that the only way they were going to still be named Japan and still have an Emperor was by immediately surrendering, with the military government being a trade for not having 90% of their officers hanged"

>>58336929
>Attacks with the intent to terrorize and kill civilians won the most important war in human history.
terror effect was secondary and arguably had a negative effect

bombing campaigns main purpose was to reduce enemy capability to construct weapons of war and induce economic dislocation
its biggest effect was simply to force germans to spend money on defending industrial areas far from the battle area in the form of bomber-hunters and 88mm guns and shells
every 88mm AA shooting at a B-17 is a gun not hitting tanks

the second effect is that it constrained growth
while bombing could never actually destroy german industry as fast as it could grow, it did force compromises to reach the same target
truck production was severely curtailed, bomber production stagnated, and spare parts production was limited in favor of hulls

>>58336929
The soviets still had to fight street by street to remove the last of the third reich.

And it was only after the soviets declared war on Japan thats they surrendered.

>>58336953
>still be named Japan and still have an Emperor was by immediately surrendering, with the military government being a trade for not having 90% of their officers hanged
They actually weren't even promised that and there was a coup by the military as a result.

>>58336929
>>58336942
There's a little bit more to it than that. The Japanese were very intent on getting invaded and turning that campaign into such a massive fucking meat grinder that the US would call it quits and settle for a conditional surrender. The atomic bombings, however, made it clear that they weren't going to get the invasion, and America was going to kick up its heels and kill every last fucking Jap on Earth from the safety of 25,000 feet. With their "kill fucktons of gaijin" plan revised down to the point where they were going to get maybe double digits of kills before they all died, they finally accepted that there was no way they were getting out of this on their own terms.

>>58337350
This. I'm pretty sure I read there was a conversation in Japan just after the second bombing, where someone asked how many times the US could do this and a scientist replied "basically every two weeks forever". In reality it would be several months until the next serviceable bomb was ready.

Attacks on military targets won the war, getting away with war crimes doesn't make it right though. Nuclear weapons are the reason we haven't had a global total war since, as it would destroy us all.

But back in the 1940s, which is now like 80 years ago, they just had total sieges on civilian cities for territory. These days, people wage wars for complex reasons and political goals, proxy wars as well. War has evolved from Germany doing what it did, we have NATO now, but it was what made WWII possible.

>>58337375
The lowest form of warfare is directly attacking civilian targets. But, the nazis were just going around taking countries and land without asking anyone like that would be allowed. They sowed the wind, reaped the whirlwind.

>>58337387
And, the Holocaust, they had to be stopped and they even sacrificed their own citizens to hold on to power. The nazis destroyed Germany ultimately, bringing this fate upon the people. If hitler truly cared about Germany, he wouldn't risk the entire nation in a bid at world domination.

>>58336929
because they won inspite of terrorizing civilians, the allies were able to field far greater resources and despite the memes better practical tech meaning a victory against the axis was inevitable, in terms of trying to get them to capitulate faster those terror bombing campaigns failed with the only exception being the nukes, and those barely worked thanks to the Emperor, who already wanted out for a while

>>58337361
The 2 weeks cope has been around longer than I thought

File: shock-and-awe.jpg (186 KB, 1200x792)

186 KB JPG

>>58336929
>Why isn't it the answer for wars afterwards?

It is. Its just referred to as "Counter-value strike", "Shock and Awe" , "Collateral damage" , "COIN", "Humanitarian intervention" and other hebrew terms

>>58336929
You could have not been more wrong. Seriously, how did you manage to not say anything right?

>>58337361
We had six at the time. Others were needed for possible use in Europe…or points further East.

daily reminder that USA dropped a nuke on top of an hospital

File: IMG_0039.jpg (258 KB, 1600x1200)

258 KB JPG

>>58337395
The comedy of this of course is the reverse that is inevitable due to the nature of it all.

Firebombing Tokyo didnt win the war though. Destroying military targets wholly in a single strike did.

File: 1602569422565.webm (2.95 MB, 1280x720)

2.95 MB WEBM

>>58339749
What do you think made japan surrender? the leaflets?
Countries during the cold war constantly sought ways that they could turn as many foreign cities and their occupants into piles of ash without the same happening to themselves.

>>58336957
Yeah if anything strategic bombing caused Germanys Luftwaffe to lose all its best trained pilots over time. (In addition to bombing ball bearing factories etc)

Once all the battle hardened experienced pilots died, then USA had free reign for tactical air support

>>58336929
you are a worthless retard

>>58336929
It has been the answer for wars afterwards, for every war after there have been more civilian casualties than soldier casualties.

>>58339798
Would’ve been KINO if we used all six at once, on communists

File: 1508345414046.gif (1.2 MB, 500x500)

1.2 MB GIF

>>58339823
Yes, I suppose civilians can be considered military targets if you need them to build military equipment and supply material.
Everything's a military target if you're brave enough.

>>58339864
Had Patton lived, you would have.

>>58336929
Because it wasnt very effective, tactical bombing is much more worth the effort

>>58339859
>>58340102
it's a troll

>>58336929
ww2 was total from the start, germany and japan openly executed and tortured POWs and civilians. there was no escalation ladder.

in nearly all wars in human history there are unwritten rules, things which both sides dont do because it will make the other side escalate and do things you really dont want them to do.

if you stage attacks to kill an terrorize many of the enemy's civilians they will do the same to yours

>>58336953
>with the military government being a trade for not having 90% of their officers hanged"
Implying any officers would have been left after an invasion and the following bloodbath.

>>58340125
This is why war ultimately is a weak institution.

File: Japanese boy bombing.jpg (421 KB, 1024x763)

421 KB JPG

>>58336929
>Attacks with the intent to terrorize and kill civilians won the most important war in human history.
It didn't. It terrorized and killed lots of innocent civilians in the Axis-occupied and home countries, but had remarkably little impact for the amount of resources expended.

The "strategic bombing won the war" is a false narrative made up to attempt to morally justify the wanton slaughter of about a million men, women, and children by Allied bombing.

>>58340125
>germany and japan openly executed and tortured POWs and civilians
Because execution and torture only happen in total war, right?

>>58340203
war is weak because its a net drain on resources and a massive one with no benefits/anything being produced

>>58336929
its not particularly efficient

This talks about the topic at length:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzFJ1Aumt1o
https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/

>>58340125
>>58340213
>>58340238
>>58340245
it's a troll faggots

>>58340230
No, it’s weak because it does not completely eradicate the enemy.

>>58340120
>>58340278
whiny retard

>>58336929
Reap the whirlwind Kraut.

>>58340406
Did it seem like a condemnation of the strategic bombing of civilians to you? It wasn't.

>>58340299
seethe more retard

>>58336929
Akshually it settled opinion that attacks on the cities in general produced subpar result.
What really made Big Impact was attacks against synthetic fuel factories by USAF bombers and attacks against railroad locomotives by USAF fighter -bombers. That was very specific targets requiring high accuracy. Nothing like British night bombing of the cities.
There was another point of vulnerability: ball bearing factories. Allies bombed them made huge damage, as Germans themselves noted if those continued it was over for Germany... but allies estimated daamge as light and stopped these attacks.

Lesson about strategic bombings:
1. Cities bombings have poor efforts/results ratio
2. Exists several narrow critical points. Destruction of them wins war.
3. Concentrated efforts against one point is much more effective than spreading attacks. If need to achieve critical levels of damage.
4. Critical points require high accuracy.
5. Battle damage assessment is extremely important and difficult to archiece. Signal intelligence not even close to insider information.
If allies had spy reporting ball bearing situation in Germany, allies could've won in 1944. But they didn't have such spy.

>>58336929
Afterwards, nukes gave the bombed states the ability to strike back.

>>58336929
They won the war by killing soldiers. They just terrorized the civilians for shits and giggles.

>>58337395
>And, the Holocaust,
Didn't happen althougheth

>>58339812
Doesn't matter, the Shockwave would have toppled it anyways

>>58340125
Well, chemical/biological weapons would still have been escalation in WWII, but your point is still valid

>>58341763
true
although by the later stages it was simply the matter of it not being economically feasible to produce effective chemical/bio weapons even if they wanted to

>>58336929
Because the terror bombing did literally nothing to make Germany or the Soviet Union surrender when both sides did it. And in the case of Japan, it wasn't killing civilians that got them to surrender, it was the idea that the leaders themselves were going to get vaporized.

>>58337361
>>58339798
So what happened was we dropped the first bomb, and the Japanese high command were like "come on, it's not like they have ANOTHER of those things, we gotta call their bluff man, this is our one chance".
Then we dropped a second one and they went "oh fuck, who knows how many of those things they have". In reality we had a couple more and couldn't really afford to keep dropping them but they didn't know that.

>>58336929
>Attacks with the intent to terrorize and kill civilians won the most important war in human history.
Remind me again how long it took the Blitz to break the will of the British to resist? I just can't recall that famous photo of the day Churchill looked at some V-1 wreckage and made the decision to pack it in.
Citybusting got disproven on both sides of the war. I've seen theories that the firebombing efforts in Dresden only helped stiffen failing German morale and diverted resources that would have been more effectively used on crippling military and industrial targets.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are so different on a level of scale that to class them with conventional bombing raids as "attacks with the intent to terrorize and kill civilians" is analogous to saying that both a slingshot and the Saturn V rocket series are "manmade devices to propel a load over a distance" -- trying to pretend they're essentially the same thing stretches the definition so far as to be almost meaningless.

>>58337387
You can say whatever you want about krauts. WW1 was about securing palestine and WW2 was germans vs jews, and the jews won, now everyone that helped them is realizing the gravity of the situations. The germans were destroyed in ww2. then punished afterwards , which continues today. They were the jews enemies. USA is the direct ally of the jews and look how they have eviscerated this nation. WW2 wasnt fought by american people, it was coerced via propaganda out of New York city. Fake and gay. Just like you. Hero

>>58340458
No winds sown no whirlwinds reaped. Gooks didn't carpet bomb American cities so there's no diplomatic justification for the same degree of escalation.

>>58337395
germany fought the entire world twice, and the jews once. They paid for it. Now the actual world dominating force has taken total power. Congrats

>>58337375
>Nuclear weapons are the reason we haven't had a global total war since, as it would destroy us all.
Well no, it wouldn't. In fact the entire reason nuclear winter exists as a concept is because when scientists said that nuclear war would destroy the world, someone pointed out to them "hold on, isn't that just admitting that you think only white and East Asian countries matter because it's not like anyone else is going to get nuked, I mean how are people living in tribal africa going to be affected by nuclear war, no one is going to nuke them. No one is going to nuke Brazil and they grow enough food and produce enough electricity to sustain themselves." So they desperately tried to create a scenario where they could go, "no see, it would affect EVERYONE."

>>58341886
We're talking about civilizations here. Australia would probably have some fallout. Also wherever the subs are lurking, all bets are off if they're off the coast of Argentina or some faraway shithole or the Suez canal.

>>58336929
top of my head, Rotterdam was the only instance of terror bombing ever working
having said that, it wasnt the bombing itself that made the dutch capitulate, it was Germany threatening to do it to other dutch cities
it was also supposed to be a smaller (and more accurate) stuka attack, but someone along the line figured a whole lot of He111s would do the trick

>>58336942
>Normally this concept utterly fails because the enemy simply becomes enraged and driven to resist even at the cost of their own destruction, but in the case of Japan they honorably accepted their defeat.
They knew they lost well before the strategic bombing started. They were in the process of resisting at the cost of their own destruction throughout the bombing. US strategic bombing survey noted that firebombing Tokyo hurt production, but effects were minimal because they were already so thoroughly fucked.

File: gigachin.jpg (23 KB, 235x242)

23 KB JPG

>>58341860
>it was never about the joos, only Rome

>>58336929
better methods have been discovered

>>58342471
>We're talking about civilizations here.
Which again, just points out that the third world might as well not exist.

>>58336929
Hasn't been a war on the scale since. Also if civilians didn't want to get bombed they wouldn't support wars.

>>58339691
Very low IQ

Strategic bombing works when it specifically targets industry.
Terror Bombing is at best a distraction that diverts your enemies attention, it's not actually that effective and can be fairly easy to mitigate with shelters.

>>58343595
Tldr: putting people underground is easy, putting factories underground is hard.

File: Bell-Atlanta_B-29-25-BA_S(...).jpg (268 KB, 1800x1291)

268 KB JPG

>>58336929
>terrorize and kill civilians
When high-altitude bombing wasn't cutting it and was going to either hit the target or, by a wide margin, go off target and strike civilians anyway
>won the most important war
Still had to require the Allies to take (Dresden was bombed so the Soviets could move in unopposed). In the case of Imperial Japan, it was both the factor of losing cities to one bomber dropping a single bomb, after nights in which dozens to hundreds of B-29s would fire bomb cities. Add that with the military losses in the island chains and then Manchuria to the Soviets.
>why isn't it the answer for wars afterward
Unlike in Europe and Japan, wars shifted to wars of containment rather than conquest. North Korea resisted bombing, even after their country's infrastructure, to a literal extent, was mostly flattened (to the point where bomber crews complained about lack of targets).
North Vietnam withheld because Operation Rolling Thunder had, for the longest time, had targets of little if any strategic importance tied to them while major civilian populations were overlooked. Towns were leveled and civilians still died. Operation Linebacker I & II were merely negotiations and hadn't won a war but simply brokered a fraught peace between North & South Vietnam, something Nixon could pin as a victory.
The bombardment of Bosnia and Yugoslavia five years later hadn't done much to change the Status Quo in those conflicts. Republika Srpska and Yugoslavia had nominally avoided outright defeat and occupation wasn't the aim, but just to coerce a cessation of hostilities.
In the case of Ukraine, Russian bombardment has proven disastrous and if it were to increase to a more fever pitch, it may have the result same as the "end" of Vietnam. That being said, Russia hasn't this capacity to mimick American Air Force bombing nor does it want to if it's end goal is the complete annexation of Ukraine.

>>58342528
Rotterdam surrendered before the bombings even happened but due to an error in communication the pilots didn't got the message and bombed it anyway
bit of a fuckup that could have been easily avoided
but on topic, terror bombing doesn't work.
even the nukes are debatable; the mutts always try to spin it as some miracle weapon that ended the war, but conveniently leave out the soviet involvement and the japs wanting to negotiate peace weeks before the bombs were dropped
>it's not an atrocity if you win
pretty much sums up the morally questionable actions of the allies

>>58336942
>Nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 presented a very rare example of escalate to deescalate.
I'd argue they didn't even do that. Japan was on the brink of a mega-famine. Its industrial capacity was completely exhausted. They were planning to force people to fight with spears. The Empire of Japan surrendered because that faggot Hirohito and the top zips in the military saw their enemy had a weapon that could instantly delete them. Not some peasant, not a Korean meatshield, not a private or even a captain, one of them, one of The Real People. So they cried uncle, because dying is for the rubes.

File: 20230505_093404.jpg (115 KB, 2048x1265)

115 KB JPG

>>58344416
Soviets had no way to threaten mainland Japan, at best they had taken away one of the Japanese bargaining chips by taking Manchuria and starting on Korea.
The Japanese could have offered a deal by either giving the US their colonies or denying them to the USSR and they lost that option when the USSR made their move.
IMO however this still would not have been enough to convince the Japanese to
unconditionally surrender.
They understood the difficulty of any US invasion attempt and the alternative, in their minds, was being hanged by a war crimes tribunal.
The timing of their decisions around the bombs makes it seem quite likely that it was the primary factor in their decision to surrender, knowing that the US had multiple bombs and would continue attacking.

>>58340552
Targeting ball bearing production had negligible impact due to stockpiling and production facilities in southeast Europe. Speer himself noted that if the Allies had focused strategic bombing on fuel production and railways they would have crippled Germany much faster.

>>58336929
Actually the attacks om civilians were a waste of time.
Anglos are just evil.

WW2 and the scars of strategic bombing is specifically why the Soviets after the war made sure all of their industrial and military centers were FAR away from population centers.
On one hand, this is a smart move in terms of a nuclear war as now they don't have much reason to nuke the cities. On the other hand, they're suffered logistical and supply chain issues to this day because of this decision.

>>58343952
It should be noted that if your enemy is getting all of its materiel from factories located in other nations that you can't bomb then strategic bombing is going to lose a lot of its effectiveness if you can't interdict shipping.

File: immense disappointment.png (135 KB, 575x175)

135 KB PNG

>>58336929
>Attacks with the intent to terrorize and kill civilians won the most important war in human history.
>Why isn't it the answer for wars afterwards?

Because it didn't. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets consistently only served to harden the population's resolve to back their government and fight to the bitter end.

Who came to this conclusion? The US Air Force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey

>>58345928
This is true, but it turns out that if you bomb the infrastructure (and, due to technology of the era, the housing for the workers) along with the factories themselves you get a far better effect on industry than if you just hit the factories.

So killing civilians isn't the point, and modern day bombs are too accurate to "accidentally" hit apartments for workers, but if you happen to kill a substation powering a neighborhood along with the factory (with an entire shift inside) you get disproportionate effects compared to just hitting the factory at night when no one is there.

As for killing noncombatant, non working civilians, ie mothers and the elderly? No fucking point. A country geared for total war will just shove them in a mass grave and move on, if anything you've made it easier since now there are less non-productive mouths to feed.

File: B-58 Hustlers over the Kremlin.jpg (1.14 MB, 3427x1539)

1.14 MB JPG

>>58346625

Yeah but that's not "terror bombing" in the sense OP suggests where the goal is to cow a fearful population into submission by awesome displays of firepower and the willingness to use it on them. Dehousing would be better classified as "disruption" of civilian infrastructure where the goal is to overload public services and cause decreases in worker efficiency.

It obviously doesn't make a difference to the victims but one method has some logic (albeit the extremely inhumane kind) behind it while the other is basically a chimpout, African militia-tier logic, but with more refined technique.

>>58341863
>Gooks didn't carpet bomb American cities so there's no diplomatic justification for the same degree of escalation.
Ah, so the US should've let the japs bomb their cities too just to be fair! Right? Pearl Harbor wasn't already enough of a reason to bomb'em back to the stone age.

>>58346958
>Pearl Harbor wasn't already enough of a reason to bomb'em back to the stone age?
*

File: 1643116676018.png (435 KB, 880x752)

435 KB PNG

>>58345425
>Anglos are just ev---ACK.

>>58345396
Speer also said, regarding the Second Battle of Schweinfurt:
>Albert Speer, Hitler’s minister of
armaments, recalled that this raid had cut production of ball bearings by two-thirds at a time when the Germans had already exhausted their reserves due to production lost in the 17 August raid. He further noted that attempts to buy bearings from Sweden and Switzerland had scant success, in part because of Allied preemptive purchases. Only the substitution of slide bearings whenever possible and the Allied failure to follow up the attack prevented catastrophe for the Luftwaffe.
Taken from "Bombing the European Axis Powers" by Davis.

File: 1672360763510.png (10 KB, 411x718)

10 KB PNG

>>58347054
epic fail

>>58336940
we call it strategic bombing in these parts

>>58339798
We really only had 3 that worked though it wouldn't be until the Mark 4s made by the Z Division of Los Alamos in 1949 did they have more nukes available.

>>58348328
As well as the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project that took over for the Manhattan Project.

>>58337012
>The soviets still had to fight street by street to remove the last of the third reich
Not really
Pretty sure Germany controlled more territory at the moment they surrendered than they did at the start of the war, once you count shit like the entirety of Norway and Denmark plus Northern Italy still under Nazi rule

File: 1685158373270004.png (119 KB, 575x175)

119 KB PNG

>>58345928
>No subsequent city raid shook Germany as did that on Hamburg; documents show that German officials were thoroughly alarmed and there is some indication from interrogation of high officials that Hitler himself thought that further attacks of similar weight might force Germany out of the war.

>These studies show that the morale of the German people deteriorated under aerial attack The night raids were feared far more than daylight raids. The people lost faith in the prospect of victory, in their leaders and in the promises and propaganda to which they were subjected . Most of all, they wanted the war to end. They resorted increasingly to "black radio" listening, to circulation of rumor and fact in opposition to the Regime;

>The mental reaction of the German people to air attack is significant. Under ruthless Nazi control they showed surprising resistance to the terror and hardships of repeated air attack, to the destruction of their homes and belongings, and to the conditions under which they were reduced to live. Their morale, their belief in
ultimate victory or satisfactory compromise, and their confidence in their leaders declined, but they continued to work efficiently as long as the physical means of production remained. The power of a police state over its people cannot be underestimated.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421958.pdf

>>58336942
>>58336929
By the end of WW2, Japan and Germany had drafted such a large amount of their populations it was arguable if there were any civilians left; merely untrained militia and home guard determined to fight for the state.
Terror bombing is counterproductive when you're attacking people who don't have any state loyalty, making enemies of potential allies. Your average Middle Easterner or Chinaman, for instance, has no loyalty to their head of state and would gladly work for you under the hypothetical conquest of their land. Bombing them is wasteful and likely to turn them against you.

>>58341886
Yes, a global nuclear war would negatively affect everyone on the planet

File: ponzi1668802519704212.jpg (193 KB, 1200x948)

193 KB JPG

>>58350006
Well, not *everyone* on the planet...

File: life_36_hour_war.jpg (144 KB, 695x960)

144 KB JPG

>>58344416
This is where you are wrong, but most countries don't have the stomach for this plan.
Absolutely annihilate their population, All of it in atomic fire. Blessed by the holy fallout. Nothing grows there anymore. Salt the ground with zinc that has soaked up neutrons, or Co-60.
That is what TOTAL WAR is.
It hasn't happened since Roman times, or in the Old Testament.

File: Sorry_Bomb.jpg (28 KB, 600x412)

28 KB JPG

>>58340125
>58353850

>>58336942
>>58336953
>>58337350
The USA nuked Japan, because they were scared SHITLESS of the Soviet Union rolling over Europe and Japan. It was a warning directed exclusively towards Moscow.

The US didnt give a shit how many Japanese children were going to die in an invasion, let alone expendable US soldiers.

>>58348627
And what does that have to do with the fact that the Soviet Union was pushing towards Berling with 20 armies and outnumbered the Wehrmacht day 1 of Operation Barbarossa?

Terror bombing only works, when youre trying to subjugate a helpless little nation like in Rotterdam.

>>58336942
>but in the case of Japan they honorably accepted their defeat.
The military was more than willing to keep fighting until the bitter end, it took MULTIPLE calls from the emperor to get them to stand down.
The entire history of Japan in the second world war is a messy case of ideology running out of control.

>>58336929
The west invented weapons to protect civilian lives not terrorise them
Earthquake bomb
Bunker buster
Nuclear weapon
Firebomb
To name a few

>>58353980
This is a myth that was literally invented by the KGB.

>>58354979
erm, source?

>>58354979
>>58353980
>>58356655
why is this board full of such gay lefty shit?

>>58339823
>Jet stream makes Norden bombsight unusable
>Japs put their military targets in the middle of cities anyway
Why not just dump napalm on the city so that we can make sure we hit the military targets? It's not like Japs are as human as Germans anyway and therefore deserving of daylight bombings trying to get accurate hits on military targets.

>>58346777
>It obviously doesn't make a difference to the victims but one method has some logic (albeit the extremely inhumane kind) behind it while the other is basically a chimpout, African militia-tier logic, but with more refined technique.
This is true, but a really important distinction has to be made whether you're doing it with industrial capability and willingness to see it through to the end (ie The USAAF/RAF during WW2) or you're doing it just to fuck up civilians. Syria dropping barrel bombs or Russia bombing Syrians would be the latter. Syria doesn't have the capability to exterminate most of it's population through airpower so any attempt to do so is no better than indiscriminate terror bombing, and Russia at the time DID have the capability to do it but didn't want to, which makes it indiscriminate terror bombing.

Really the best way to put it is this: If you're not the USAF and you're not trying to rip the entire industrial base out of a nation from underneath, or you're not a second rate air force using nukes, you need to seriously sit down and consider whether what you're doing is a war crime. It doesn't matter what your stated or believed reason or technique is.

>>58336942
The use of atomic weapons on Japan did nothing to end the war. The invasion of Manchuria by the USSR is what got the USA to accept CONDITIONAL surrender from the Japs. Turns out that terror bombing + demanding unconditional surrender is a shit tactic. Very epic war crime though. Only thing better was the bombing campaign in Europe
>bomb the Germans so much that hundreds of thousands of people starve to death
>the USSR screeches about this being a genocide
>western allies go along with it because history is written by the victor

>>58341860
Most based post ITT

>>58353980
This desu. On top of the projected casualties being absurdly overinflated as an ex post facto justification of nuking civvies three days apart, the fact that the USA quickly changed its tune on unconditional surrender and didn’t carry out extensive “war crime” tribunals in the aftermath of the war should show you what the real intentions of the US were

>>58341886
A global thermonuclear war would lead to widespread release of soot into the atmosphere, which would cause massive loss of plant life and lead to worldwide famine and death of millions. If you can’t make food everyone dies, it’s a pretty simple concept retard.

>>58358739
1.) America received an unconditional surrender.
2.) USSR wasn’t going to be invading fucking Japan you retard. Do you think they were going to jump across the Sea of Japan after retaking Manchuria? You people are delusional

>>58359285
>A global thermonuclear war would
definitely hit all the major cities first, which are the absolute source of ALL the problems with the world. Instant african/aztec-mutt reduction, instant jew reduction. it's worth the losses

>>58358758
>On top of the projected casualties being absurdly overinflated as an ex post facto justification
expected casualties were expected to be on the low end, because the japanese had actually placed more divisions to oppose the landings than originally planned for
they produced 500,000 purple hearts in anticipation for the campaign because the seriously believed a minimum of that many casualties, at the minimum they expected more combat dead than the entire
NW european campaign

>the fact that the USA quickly changed its tune on unconditional surrender and didn’t carry out extensive “war crime” tribunals in the aftermath of the war should show you what the real intentions of the US were
the US acquiesced on only a single demand, that the emperor not be removed from power afterwards, because thats an insanely small request
japan otherwise kept none of their expected negotiations, losing all of their overseas holdings

>>58359346
Sorta correct
it's even funnier than that
if the US was using the atom bomb merely to deter the Soviets, why were the Americans transferring hundreds of transport ships to speed of the Soviet invasion of the Kurils and (potentially) Hokkaido in Project Hula? all the American actions were to bring the war to an end quickly

>>58354004
>And what does that have to do with the fact that the Soviet Union was pushing towards Berling with 20 armies
It has everything to do with what the post war bombing survey concluded on how the bombings effected populations resolve. There is a link to the survey which details effects of the strategic bombing campaign which was more focused on material than psychological effects.

>>58359438
While the Soviets were giving false offers to mediate so the war wouldn't end before they could make the land grab.