Poll of the Day > We should have nuked the Soviet Union immediately after their invasion of Japan

(+) Yeah! (+)

After the Soviet cleanup duty of Japan in their invasion of September 1945, Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad should have been nuked.

Would have saved the entire world from communist regimes. The Soviet Union was no better than Nazi Germany, and our "alliance" was only because we shared a common enemy (albeit, for completely different reasons).

We liberated half of Europe from a (Non-Marxist) socialist regime, while the other half got tyrannized by another (Marxist) socialist regime.

Did you get a job yet?
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

We liberated half of Europe from a (Non-Marxist) socialist regime

I always find it cute how conservatives try and paint the Nazis as a socialist government, even though they went through great pains to imprison and kill all the actual socialists they could find.
---

Living in a game of Civilization
---

darkknight109 posted...

I always find it cute how conservatives try and paint the Nazis as a socialist government, even though they went through great pains to imprison and kill all the actual socialists they could find.

You mean after the National Socialist German Worker's Party outlawed all other political parties, and imprisoned and murdered those that competed against their power?

I always thought icoyar liked Communism?
---

Arent Russia and Japan still fighting World War II?

Like literally, they never ended it because of an island or something...
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Arent Russia and Japan still fighting World War II?

Like literally, they never ended it because of an island or something...

No. The Soviets invaded Japan in September 1945 as we requested them to do so, following their surrender.

Some Japanese soldiers "fought" World War II until around 1975, with soldiers stranded on islands, all by themselves, waiting 30 years for something to happen.

green dragon posted...

I always thought icoyar liked Communism?

He certainly likes receiving handouts from the government.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

After the Soviet cleanup duty of Japan in their invasion of September 1945, Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad should have been nuked.

Would have saved the entire world from communist regimes. The Soviet Union was no better than Nazi Germany, and our "alliance" was only because we shared a common enemy (albeit, for completely different reasons).

We liberated half of Europe from a (Non-Marxist) socialist regime, while the other half got tyrannized by another (Marxist) socialist regime.

I like how you are inaccurately using "socialist" as a buzz word to try attacking modern politicians when the real terms you should be using is fascist and communist.

Not even sure what you're trying to accomplish, do you think we're going to fall for that nonsense?

BlackScythe0 posted...

I like how you are inaccurately using "socialist" as a buzz word to try attacking modern politicians when the real terms you should be using is fascist and communist.

Socialists can be fascists too. Is it uncomfortable to have your party aligned with the Nazis?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

I like how you are inaccurately using "socialist" as a buzz word to try attacking modern politicians when the real terms you should be using is fascist and communist.

Socialists can be fascists too. Is it uncomfortable to have your party aligned with the Nazis?

I'm not a republican?

BlackScythe0 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

I like how you are inaccurately using "socialist" as a buzz word to try attacking modern politicians when the real terms you should be using is fascist and communist.

Socialists can be fascists too. Is it uncomfortable to have your party aligned with the Nazis?

I'm not a republican?

Socialist.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

I like how you are inaccurately using "socialist" as a buzz word to try attacking modern politicians when the real terms you should be using is fascist and communist.

Socialists can be fascists too. Is it uncomfortable to have your party aligned with the Nazis?

No, you probably meaning authoritarian. Socialism counts as enlightenment politics. And fascism is reactionary against enlightenment movement. The socialism in national socialism was about something really different. Hitler said in one of his speeches(I don't have time to find the exact qoute at this time, so this is from my head): "Our socialism is not about giving from rich to poor. It is about helping fellow countrymen. Rich or poor. You should always look out to help out each other".

Kyuubi4269 posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

I like how you are inaccurately using "socialist" as a buzz word to try attacking modern politicians when the real terms you should be using is fascist and communist.

Socialists can be fascists too. Is it uncomfortable to have your party aligned with the Nazis?

I'm not a republican?

Socialist.

What?

Sarcasthma posted...

green dragon posted...

I always thought icoyar liked Communism?

He certainly likes receiving handouts from the government.

is that why he looks like Vladimir Lenin?
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I always find it cute how conservatives try and paint the Nazis as a socialist government, even though they went through great pains to imprison and kill all the actual socialists they could find.

You mean after the National Socialist German Worker's Party outlawed all other political parties, and imprisoned and murdered those that competed against their power?

Exactly - including the communists and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, a.k.a. the actual socialists.

I have no idea where this "Fascism is actually left-wing" bullshit first popped up, but it's wrong and dangerously so. There's a certain brand of conservative that is vehemently in denial that their political ideology could ever be associated with evil, which is both staggeringly revisionist and wilfully blind. People should be willing to face the ugliness on the fringes of their movements and that appears to be something that only right-wingers (or, more specifically, a subset of right-wingers) lack the fortitude to do - I've never seen a leftist try to claim that "Communism is actually a right-wing form of government" or some other such nonsense, and the communist dictatorships of the mid-20th century have just as much blood on their hands as the far-right fascist governments of the early century.

And it's not like this is hard to figure out. Nazism was born out of the Freikorps, groups of paramilitary vigilantes that emerged from World War I as one of the strongest right-wing anti-communist forces in the country, who thought little of butchering accused leftists wherever they found them. Prior to the start of World War II, Hitler was a darling of the American right, who saw him as one of the most effective fighters against the spread of communism in all of Europe (and given that antisemitism was not uncommon in right-wing politics of the day, Hitler's anti-Jewish policies were, if not publicly lauded, at least privately admired) - Henry Ford even wrote a creepy ode to Hitler in the German version of his private right-wing, virulently antisemitic newspaper, the Dearborn Independent (and the feeling was mutual - Hitler gave a shout-out to Ford in Mein Kampf and called him an inspiration).

Seriously, learn your history before you spout off this sort of nonsense.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Exactly - including the communists and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, a.k.a. the actual socialists.

lol

"Socialism is always just hijacked by dictators, nothing to do with Socialism, nope."

The Nazis operated from a stance of government regulation rather than individual negotiation, Left-wing.

The Nazis made a stamp system to earn a car and holiday from the government, Socialist.

The Nazis seeked to unify Europe as a single entity of Grossdeutschland rather than minimising governance, Left-wing.

You need to remember that Nationalism isn't exclusively right wing, and certainly isn't the primary defining factor.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Exactly - including the communists and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, a.k.a. the actual socialists.

I have no idea where this "Fascism is actually left-wing" bullshit first popped up, but it's wrong and dangerously so. There's a certain brand of conservative that is vehemently in denial that their political ideology could ever be associated with evil, which is both staggeringly revisionist and wilfully blind. People should be willing to face the ugliness on the fringes of their movements and that appears to be something that only right-wingers (or, more specifically, a subset of right-wingers) lack the fortitude to do - I've never seen a leftist try to claim that "Communism is actually a right-wing form of government" or some other such nonsense, and the communist dictatorships of the mid-20th century have just as much blood on their hands as the far-right fascist governments of the early century.

And it's not like this is hard to figure out. Nazism was born out of the Freikorps, groups of paramilitary vigilantes that emerged from World War I as one of the strongest right-wing anti-communist forces in the country, who thought little of butchering accused leftists wherever they found them. Prior to the start of World War II, Hitler was a darling of the American right, who saw him as one of the most effective fighters against the spread of communism in all of Europe (and given that antisemitism was not uncommon in right-wing politics of the day, Hitler's anti-Jewish policies were, if not publicly lauded, at least privately admired) - Henry Ford even wrote a creepy ode to Hitler in the German version of his private right-wing, virulently antisemitic newspaper, the Dearborn Independent (and the feeling was mutual - Hitler gave a shout-out to Ford in Mein Kampf and called him an inspiration).

Seriously, learn your history before you spout off this sort of nonsense.

First of all, that is that those two paragraphs saying basically "Nope. It is right wing because it is right wing, and several influential individuals who hated communism loved Hitler".

There is a reason why the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact was signed, and one week later, Germany invaded Poland. The Soviet Union declined to intervene, but eventually caused a war shortly afterwards when the Soviet Union was invaded in 1941, and started the fighting between the two countries in World War 2. Between 1939 and 1941, there was propaganda between the two countries praising them.

https://www.thoughtco.com/nazi-soviet-non-aggression-pact-1779994

The pact was signed, because the two ideologies are similar. But in truth, it was basically a short-term peace treaty between two genocidal dictators which cost 72 million lives from across all continents except Antarctica in order to preserve freedom from one of these monsters, and for punishment for genocide. Germany decided to invade the Soviet Union first.

Why does ICOYAR think that we had an extra three nukes lying around in the first place?

We didn't have nukes for *years and years* after those nukes dropped. Most of the scientists were disgusted by what the bomb was used for and the effects for it. So they just all up and left, and people were using their leftover notes (which were mostly incomplete) to actually complete nuke factories. Eventually they did, but everyone seems to forget that the nukes were purely experimental when they dropped.

The machismo political leanings after the war saying we had a surplus of nukes were a straight up lie. It took like a decade to actually mass produce them.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Why does ICOYAR think that we had an extra three nukes lying around in the first place?

All that matters is that the Japanese thought we did.
The only three nukes in the arsenal were blown up already. It was another year before the fourth one was operational.

There could have been a rush (about a couple weeks or so) on the fourth bomb, but the two dropped on Japan got the job done already.

Questionmarktarius posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

Why does ICOYAR think that we had an extra three nukes lying around in the first place?

All that matters is that the Japanese thought we did.
The only three nukes in the arsenal were blown up already. It was another year before the fourth one was operational.

There could have been a rush (about a week or so) on the fourth bomb, but the two dropped on Japan got the job done already.

And if we did develop them quicker (as in MUCH quicker), we could have vaporized Berlin in the process before the Soviets got there.

It is too bad we didn't develop the nukes faster, because millions of lives would have not only been saved, but we would have wiped out all tyranny from the map in one year.

TheWorstPoster posted...

It is too bad we didn't develop the nukes faster, because millions of lives would have not only been saved, but we would have wiped out all tyranny from the map in one year.

That would make the US itself a huge tyrant.

Carpet-bombing fucked up Germany and Japan pretty hard anyway. Nukes are just quicker about it.
Dresden: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1994-041-07%2C_Dresden%2C_zerst%C3%B6rtes_Stadtzentrum.jpg
Tokyo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg
Hiroshima: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

Questionmarktarius posted...

All that matters is that the Japanese thought we did.

Oh, no I completely agree that the perception of America having an arsenal of nukes was important. It's just that ICOYAR is suggesting using more nukes than we had at the time.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

Did you get a job yet?

---

*sigh* No. We should not have.

Don't think people didn't think of it though. The American's wanted Japan rearmed and ready to fight against the Communists but it was Japan who said no. I'm pretty sure they would have pushed for something similar with France and West Germany given the chance. The fact is that, even if they were successful in dropping a nuke or two, fighting Russia is not an easy task. Most of the allies forces were exhausted fighting Germany and Japan and, while this did affect the Russians, it affected the Brits and American's more if not worse. This isn't to mention a sudden and massive bought of confusion on the homefront as the American's went to war with the people they had just allied with naught a year before. Even under perfectly ideal circumstances they would have been stuck having to push through the occupied eastern Europe in a constant slog just as bad as what the German's went through on top of the united American and Japanese forces being stuck fighting all of the Russian eastern flank, communist China, Korea, and Vietnam at once. Even if victory could be obtained the cost would have been so immense in terms of lives and resources it's likely that every nation in the new 'Allied Powers' would have been horribly crippled if not fallen into open rebellion and turmoil. And this is assuming the BEST situations in which the Communist powers basically act like an inept pushover relying on zerging the allies and scorched earth as opposed to things like 'tactics'.

Simply put, it wasn't viable. Much more realistically it would have resulted in both sides engaging in a slug-fest killing millions with little to no border gains, MAYBE some losses on Russia's eastern front, but nothing anywhere near 'worth it', and then nukes would get lobbed around by both sides resulting in Eastern Europe and likely a decent chunk of Asia being turned into radioactive wastelands. Most likely Germany and large parts of France and England would be nuked as well.

It wasn't perfect by any means, but, all things considered, it turned out far better than it could have been. IMO the real screw-up was in failing to properly aid the Republic of China against Mao. Had Mao not come to power, while the RoC might not have been the friendliest towards America (certainly not as friendly as Taiwan is today) it would doubtless be much less friendly towards Russia than the CCP is. If war broke out the RoC likely wouldn't help Russia and might even side with America.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

IMO the real screw-up was in failing to properly aid the Republic of China against Mao. Had Mao not come to power, while the RoC might not have been the friendliest towards America (certainly not as friendly as Taiwan is today) it would doubtless be much less friendly towards Russia than the CCP is. If war broke out the RoC likely wouldn't help Russia and might even side with America.

The US was the one who pushed for the bad China. We wanted what is now Taiwan to be recognised but the US vetoed the rest of NATO like they did with the standard ammo.
---