Japan offered several surrenders prior to the nuclear holocausts. They were rejected for several reasons. The potsdam conference is the most publicized example of the rejection of Japan's surrender which was a "conditional surrender" requiring ONLY that Japan keep it's Emperor. I dont know if it was Raes or Celv that said that the nuclear bombs were less devastating than a ground sally - but really the point is moot. The bombs weren't to gain surrender from Japan, they were to intimidate Russia.
Thing is, Japan's oft-cited offers to surrender pre-Potsdam (the actual Japanese response to Potsdam was silence, if I recall correctly) weren't actually coming from the Japanese
government. They came from government officials close to the Emperor, yes, but not from the people who were actually running the country and the war, nor were they from the Emperor himself. It'd be something along the lines of, say, the Secretary of the Interior proposing surrender terms while the Pres/VP/JC are all still alive.
And I've already
told you the reason the bomb was dropped. Intimidating the Soviets was a side benefit. Keeping the Soviets out of Japan was the primary goal.
As for this:
Pchan said:
ABSOLUTELY.
The Vietnam War, such as it was, began under the auspices of the French colonial government. It wasn't until
after the French suffered one of the more humiliating military defeats of the 20th century that they withdrew from their southeast Asian colonies.
At that point, the country was divided in a temporary measure, and hostilities resumed very quickly, albeit at a low level, when the South Vietnamese government started arresting communists, and the North Vietnamese government started assassinating the South Vietnamese government.
Within 4 years, the divided Vietnam was openly at war.
Now, the thing is, a lot of people refer to the whole France vs Indochina issue, where France refused to surrender its colonies, as the First Indochina War. Mostly because of the broader scale, since France was basically pissing off the entire region at that point, but it tends to overshadow the fact that the ugliness that engulfed much of that part of the world over the 20 or so years after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu was merely a continuation of the same conflict.
And finally this:
Sharpe said:
You haven't got the slightest idea about German civilians during WWII. Don't make yourself look like a fucking idiot by thinking you do please.
The phrase, which I'll run by everyone here again, though I tend to overuse it, is "Tacit Approval".
And besides, it must also be noted that Hitler rose to power through largely legitimate means. Once he
got there, of course, he started rewriting the rules, but his rise to power was due to the support of the German people.
It's not as if Hitler conquered the country in a military coup and enslaved the German people. For the most part, they
loved Hitler. He offered them a scapegoat for the past, a future of economic promise, and the return of national pride. Had someone assassinated Hitler after the annexation of the Sudetenland, he probably would have gone down in history as one of the greatest German leaders ever. As it is, he was given ample opportunity to prove that he was utterly batshit insane.
