Anyway we could get a disaster trouble from Japan like a second front ( compared with Germany))). For example, Grigory could not move to the West from 1941-1945. Ohh. He was in action 8 years… Terrible thing.
But it’s very interesting to discuss about it, and I knew a lot news 76 years old )))
Because of Your topic.
Very glad and thank for You.
Thanks 
for sharing this very interesting information and stories. Also a very heartfelt welcome to the forum. Have you ever been to Monino, I loved that ate museum and they use veterans as guide. My guide started as a tailgunner on the Ilyushin 4.
Hello , Chewie.
Gunner in IL 2 - very deadly profession)))
I even lived in Monino because of grandpa, who had a lot old friends pilots from Far East 1938.
My first foto behind M50 ( titanium one) is 50 years old. But when U are small boy, U could not understand how dangerous to be a military pilot, even in a peace time. Only romantic stories and Antoin de Saint-Exupéry ))))). I understand it 20 years ago, when I got into a cabin of Petlyakov 2. Cramped space, I remember his story, when hi parachuted out off blamed aircraft ( like out off foxhole)))) , trying to rich our territory…… Cessna 172 is a Bentley for compare.
U are welcome any time in Monino, my friend. We have some new ( old ))) aircraft
Awesome, I can recommend Monino to anyone and sadly a lot of Soviet aeronautical history didn’t make it over to the West or is downplayed;(. I will return to Moscow some day, tons of things to see there and tours to take.
Actually I know about cramped cockpits as I have logged flying time in a Mig-15 UTI which is the fastest jet I logged time in (so far😈). There is a place in Santa Fe that allows certification. You need a pilots licence and Medical to fly with them. (Just so no one drives down to find out They are not allowed to fly).
It is incredibly cramped and I flew with a late 1940s design hot ejection seat. See below. These planes are never safe but you can manage risks. So very different from the “American car with wings” Cessna 172.
Yes, I agree with U , Chewie, about unknown aeronautical artefacts in Monino. Not only suborbital inventions early 50s, and huge titanium hypersounder M50 from Cold War , but at first- STRATOSTAT, stratospheric balloon between two wars period. Even in Russia it’s not famous events, but it were very dangerous and heroically missions. A lot of stratonauts were dying in mission because of hypothermia ( higher than 22 km) and hypoxia and explosions.My grandpa told me about some strange exams in pilots school in early 30s , when they had to handle electric voltage up to 50-60 volts or stay in a cold water… I strongly recommend U and other hosts to find Russian pseudo-documentary movie (2004) «First on the Moon» ( Первые на Луне), about Soviet desperate attempt to launch to the Moon. That movie has awards , it was rewarded according to his deserts.
And many thanks to U for knowledge and interest in Soviet Russian aeronautics, I will be glad to be U company in excursion in Monino or Kubinka ( it’s new huge museum near Moscow)
Well, a little late for a newcomer to drop into this very interesting topic. Of course I know the arguments from boths side, and maybe it was a combination of both.
But, I have often wondered what would have happend if US had approached Japan at an earlier time with the setup that it actually ended up with. The emperor still in power and so on. An honorable surrender so to say.
Anyway, because US in fact already had a naval blokade in place it could easily choose just to wait for Japan to starve to surrender.
I guess the discussion for using the A-bomb at all will come up later in its own topic.
Thanks for your reaction, much appreciated Finn! I created this topic to get a discussion going on the matter and I believe this was achieved 
. As harsh at it may seam, I do believe the USA and USSR already were involved in their own cold war so both were trying to get best pickings and territory. This is my main reason for putting this topic up for discussion.
My reaction to this is which is more humane? Bombing them or starving them? I don’t think there is a good answer but since the rice crop had failed in 1945, I would guess far more would have starved then died from the A bombings.
As we see the number of casualties from radiation and burning, in hindsight, maybe it would have been more humane to give a demonstration first before hitting them hard but, as I stated earlier, the USA were adamant on stating their ruling position in the cold war, which already started. Also Dan, and thanks for your admission, I do believe that humane consideration had already left the building centuries ago. Alas we humans don’t deserve the title, in my humble opinion.
I could have supported the demonstration but I’m not sure how I see that working. Maybe it would have been better to have Truman see the actual test but when and how. I think very little thought was given to this until after the trinity test. Truman I believe authorized use before he even got back to the USA.
For those that believe that the A bomb wasn’t the reason Japan surrendered, I do not believe they would agree that a demonstration would do any good. How do you shake Japan’s will to die to protect the emperor. You could not negotiate because they had just reaffirmed unconditional surrender at Potsdam. I just don’t see how it happens
The only way I can see it happening is if they announced it to the world at Potsdam. But Truman didn’t trust the Russians. Bad idea to keep Truman in the dark until after Roosevelt’s death as well.
Dan: I agree with you that Japan was put into a corner, with no escape route. And my point is: was it the right approach? Was there an alternative that could have worked if US had taken the deep rooted Japanese mindset into account? That would be the humane alternative to starving or A-bombs
Japan put themselves in the corner. The United States was also in a corner. The whole alliance said unconditional surrender. The public was tired of war but expected total victory. An absolute about face would have confused the public, angered many and betrayed the alliance.
It required more skill at negotiating than we had available.
I appreciate your observations Dan, they consider the context of the moment, which is critical to understanding the decisions made in history.
I’m also one who is bothered by Monday morning ‘ifs and buts’ on history itself. I prefer fully understanding what happened and why, and leaving it right there.
Interesting dialog-many thanks all.
You are very welcome. I learn a lot from these conversations.
I was thinking of how it might gone on.
The US issued a surrender or be attacked by new and terrible weapons warning. An inventive approach would have been a personal letter to the emperor asking if there was a way to find peace short of killing millions. Assure them we do not want to destroy Japan but they must acquiesce to draconian terms now to have a chance to save Japan for the future. I don’t know. Japan had not offered to surrender at all up to that point. I don’t know if we even knew what kind of offer to make. I do have a sneaking suspicion that any side diplomacy would have enraged the Russians and I don’t think we could have afforded that.
I couldn’t agree more with you John, and also much appreciate Dan’s active contribution to this topic and forum, so let’s stay actively in contact, in anticipation of the ultimate conclusion by the team of this great Army
I did not realize that USSR were not at war with Japan until this point. I certainly wouldn’t want to fight them.
I’ve learned something. Certainly the Russians sacraficed greatly and we owe a great deal to them as they ground down the Gemans releiving other theaters of war. But they primarily served themselves. And we don’t forget the agreement with Hitler in the early par of the war.
You are assuming what the Timeghost team is going to do and say. IF you have paid attention to War Against Humanity’s CONDEMNATION of strategic bombing … then you know they are going to very critically examine if the strategic NUCLEAR bombing of Hiroshima was justified.
In a hypothetical world were we can know that not using the bomb, AND not invading in operation downfall, would still result in Japan surrendering; then we can conclude that using the bomb was unjustified.
However, if Japan was going to continue to use barbaric, inhumane tactics in China and south east Asia then it is a good thing we made darn sure they stopped. To not do so would’ve been to say we value the lives of 100’s of millions of those people less than the populations of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. (Then there is the fact that a class of submarine armed with bio weapons were stationed in the prefectures that contain Hiroshima and Nagasaki…https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-057/h-057-2.html In fact according to that source Japan had two I-400 subs underway to carry out that attack on SF and LA planned for August 22nd 1945. My mothers birthday as luck would have it.)
I think one should treat japan surrender as multi factor rather than one sole factor
whenever this comes up and people give an either or question, the best answer for which made Japan give, is a single word. and that word is yes, the answer to the question of which made em give up is a simple yes, nothin else to it really, cause the bombs got the big boys at home to give, and the invasion made the boys overseas (especially in china) realize they were beat and finally give, made everyone give up a lot easier than with just one or the other
TLDR: they both made em surrender, just different places got more affected in the choice by different stuff