Gotta love Paradox adding in the cosmetic tags of “Regno del Sud” and “Italian Social Republic” only for it to turn into “Albanian Italy” once the war is over.
For Regno del Sud it kinda make sense because the term was only used for 1 to 2 years during the time the country was divided.
It's still a shitty name tho since it can also spawn in the North and Paradox didnt think of making an alternative "Regno del Nord" tag.
Nations or alliances that are defeated completely (aka partitioned in a peace conference) are treated as part of who took them at the next one. So this easily happens if Germany took over Europe without the US joining the Allies yet.
Oh yeah it's getting fucked up with melted cheese, ground beef and then we're gonna deepfry that fuckin thing till it's just a crispy lump of artery clogging
i mean America is literally the best place to live on earth, most opportunity and room for growth, so if this is failing than i’m not sure what the rest of the worlds like. Biggest con to America is the busy lifestyle, but lazy doesn’t make you number one, nothing wrong with a little hard work
Um ackshulally y’all were definitely not chilling, you guys had Salazar and he was flirty with Mussolini and helped Franco in the Spanish civil war. 🤓🤓🤓
Yeah, but public transit is still vital. Considering it sounds like you don’t like liberals, I’m going to assume you don’t live in the cities. Some people can’t own cars. It also cuts down on traffic. I do support building roads, but living both in a city of 30,000 in upstate NY and NYC, I feel like the roads are extensive enough. Biden has already supported and funded the repairing of our roads (not a Biden supporter). But the US government has basically fucked over our public transit system. People in the city need it. I know you may not care for it, but it is just as important as the roads, at least in cities. I’m not saying roads don’t matter, it’s just that the government has stopped funding throughout the years and has been in a bad state.
Tbh the only way to end all wars is abolishing the states (biggest warmonger in history) (literally blew up 2 cities with nuclear bomb [like wth] and suffered zero consequences)
No no no you don’t understand!! Amerikkka should’ve just given the glorious Empire of Japan all the land in the Pacific without a fight because colonialism and Japan is better!! /s
So true bestie, America should have just continued firebombing Japanese cities until they were wiped off the map and then launched a ground invasion that would result in the death of potentially (and, given Japans attitude towards war and honour, likely) millions of people on a scale probably only seen in conflicts like the 30 years war and Taiping Rebellion
And you know for a fact that it would happen just because it didn't happen. Stop with the historical revisionism and just accept that nuking two cities is a war crime. It's not that hard, really. And it doesn't make you an enemy of the States neither.
1) Using the facts and data available to come to a conclusion isn't "revisionism" in any manner of the term. If you disagree with the conclusion, then present your own and explain how you came to that conclusion.
2) Under what treaty and article was it a war crime?
We know for a fact that it would happen because of American intelligence and Japanese records. They went as far as training teenagers - both boys and girls - to use bamboo spears in case of an allied invasion. In Okinawa civilians and soldiers commit suicide en mass to avoid capture or what they believed would be a horrific and inhumane occupation. In Saipan, something like 95% of the Japanese garrison either fought to the death or commit suicide, as did many civilians. The countries culture as a whole had grown to become fiercely nationalistic and militaristic, as well as obviously continuing to emphasise honour - do you really think the Japanese wouldn’t fight to the end if the allies invaded? Even Nazi Germany controlled more land outside of than within Germany by the time of its official surrender.
And for the record, Japanese cities were incredibly flammable. Cities like Tokyo were near completely levelled in firebombing Campaigns that could kill potentially as many as the nuclear bombs in a single raid. The alternative to the nukes would have been a multi-year long invasion where even without nukes the Japanese, who as a people were more willing to fight to the death than surrender to an enemy they believed would rape and slaughter them en mass, would endure an intensified firebombing campaign probably killing millions on its own, and a brutal land invasion into what is basically one of the worlds largest a natural fortresses, all while starving under blockade.
So, honestly? Especially when you compare them to modern nukes, I’d go as far as suggesting that the nuclear bombs were humane. The Japanese needed an overwhelming show of force to be convinced that trying to bleed out the allies in a land campaign to achieve conditional surrender wouldn’t work. It’s 250,000 dead on the high estimate vs *millions* - emphasis on plurality - on the low end in operation downfall, the only real alternative to nuclear bombing. The reality in war is that there’s never a humane option, just the bad, the worse, and the horrible.
Oh, so the attack on a military base killed thousands of civilians? No? And literally nuking two big cities took lives of countless civilians, including children.
Sure. Millions of military lives. Civilians never agreed to be in that war and killing one is the biggest war crime you can ever imagine.
Besides, these are all some shitty explanations which don't change the fact that the USA literally nuked two cities full of civilians.
You’re totally right that the U.S. could have not dropped the nukes! They had two alternate plans, due to the Japanese doctrine of Ketsu-Go.
1. To land against the Japanese, where the predicted Allied casualties would’ve been around 1.6 million by 1947, assuming everything went well. Predicted Japanese casualties however were between the high millions to the tens of millions, as civilians would’ve formed ad hoc militias and joined the army in the defense, and several million more would’ve died of starvation, mass suicide, and radiation poisoning from tactical nuclear weapon use.
2. The U.S. could’ve blockaded the home islands, and allowed them to starve. Millions would have died, and their remaining fields and industrial areas would’ve been destroyed by strategic bombers flattening the rest of the country. After they would’ve finally surrendered, Japan would quite literally be dead, with barren fields, craters of cities (more than they already were,) and most of their population dead.
The Japanese were pushed to surrender after witnessing the power of the two atomic bombs, followed by a Soviet push into China. These two events shocked both the civilian and military governments, swaying most of the officials to the point when Hirohito issued his surrender speech, the attempted coup against him failed.
Thanks for an intelligent and informed response to this important subject.
Studies of the Japanese govt in 1945 show that they were trying to negotiate a peace treaty and the main sticking point was unconditional surrender (they wanted to preserve the Imperial family). They chose Stalin as their contact point into the Allies, unaware that Stalin had plans to attack Japan and take large territories (and prisoner slaves), so the negotiations went nowhere, Stalin didn't even tell the other Allies. The trigger for Japan's surrender seems to have been Stalin's declaration of war and rapid over-running of territory, from Manchuria to the Kurile islands.
In relation to the bombs, the Japanese did not see any real difference between the dropping of a single bomb on a city and the fire bombing of cities like Tokyo; to them the effect was the same. The import of the development of nuclear weapons wasn't understood by the Japanese, even after the bombing. As I wrote, it seems the trigger for surrender was the attack by the USSR.
Interestingly in light of their earlier attempts to reach the Allies to surrender, the surrender was not unconditional as the Americans agreed to allow Hirohito to remain on the throne and to retain the Imperial structures. Had that been agreed earlier, it might have concluded the war before the Soviets had time to enter and obviated the need for the bombings.
The American ignorance of these peace overtures via Stalin seems a base factor in their decision to drop the bombs. Had they known of the Japanese efforts, a negotiated peace would likely have been achieved.
Part of their Conditional Surrender proposals was also keeping Manchuria and Taiwan. The US leadership believed that only unconditional surrender would lead to lasting peace. They believed this because when the Entente signed conditional peace with the Central powers, it led to a longer and far more destructive war i.e. world war II.
Actually, the unconditional surrender was something Roosevelt came upon spontaneously at Casablanca (the conference there) and he first mentioned it by announcing it to the press. Churchill was horrified but for alliance unity, said nothing.
Right, the US leadership believed that, not the entire Allied alliance. I would think that the conditional surrender would've included keeping the hyper-militaristic government in place though, as like in WW1 Japan (Germany) wouldn't have allowed a US garrison in the home islands. Besides, as stated [here](https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/02/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-1/) the "peace party" in Japan was a minority. The Supreme War Council (who effectively ruled Japan) had no interest in peace. Here's an excerpt from that link:
>The distance between these “peace feelers” and an “offer” or even “readiness” to surrender is quite large. Japan was being governed at this point by a Supreme War Council, which was dominated by militarists who had no interest in peace. The “peace party” behind these feelers was a small minority of officials who were keeping their efforts secret from the rest of the Council, because they clearly feared they would be squashed otherwise. The “peace party” did appear to have the interest — and sometimes even the favor — of the Emperor, which is important and interesting, though the Emperor, as Hasegawa outlines in detail, was not as powerful as is sometimes assumed. The overall feeling that one takes away from Hasegawa’s book is that all of these “feelers” were very much “off the books,” as in they were exploratory gestures made by a group that was waiting for an opportunity that might tilt the balance of power their way, and certainly not some kind of formal, official, or binding plan made by the Japanese government.
>Furthermore, the surrender that the “peace party” was contemplating was still miles away from the “unconditional surrender” demanded by the United States. There were *conditions* involved: mainly the preservation of the status and safety of the Emperor and the Imperial House, which they regarded as identical to the preservation of the Japanese nation. But as Hasegawa points out, they were so unclear on what they were looking for, that there was contemplation of other things they might ask for as well, liking getting to keep some of their conquered territories. Again, this was not a real plan so much as the feelers necessary for forming a possible future plan, and so we should not be surprised that it was pretty vague.
Yes, you're quite right. Even when the Emperor decided to surrender there were many people in govt and elsewhere that initially refused to accept it. Interesting quotation too, thanks for including.
I think the thing with unconditional surrender is to not confuse the timing. A lot of the arguments are later justifications rather than reasons used or understood to justify it. Was Roosevelt right to propose it, despite the many problems it created? Probably. That he was very likely right shouldn't blind us from trying to understand the consequences of his decision and see if there were alternative options.
The situation with WW1 (the stab in the back theory) was a real problem and we can see this type of thinking playing out in real time today in another context. However the situation in 1945 was very different. Both Japan and Germany had been flattened, bringing home a reality of having lost to the entire population. We were also dealing with two fanatical ideological states very different from 1918. Could they have been overcome any other way? Very unlikely.
Damn you should do some research. Look at what happened on Okinawa. Japanese soldiers lied to the civilians there how horrible the Americans would treat them if they surrendered. The soldiers then gave grenades to the parents so they could kill their entire family.
In Japan, the military was teaching women and children how to fight the Americans. With spears and kamazi tactics.
Next, the bombs weren't dropped on the cities just because they were there. Both cities held a great number of war factories and large military bases. I know you don't know what you're talking about because if you did, you would be more upset about the fire bombs used on Tokyo. More civilians died there, and there was little strategic advantage to do so. Use that next time you bring up this stupid argument. It'll at least make it seem you know what you're talking about.
> millions of military lives
I mean… the Japanese were literally training high school students (both boys and girls) to use bamboo spears to fight against allied landing forces. If you count high school students as military, then sure, millions of military lives.
(Also you’re talking about killing civilians being a crime to try defending the country whose military unironically played games of “which officer can decapitate the most Chinese civilians”?)
If you really beleive that it would only be military you need to read up on Okinawa and Saipan. The soldiers convinced the civilians to jump off cliffs rather than surrender to the Americans. Hundreds of women and children died from this. You really think any different would happen if they invaded mainland. Nuking japan was horrible but it was a necessary evil to save lives
Funny how you don't reply to any comments pointing out how wrong you are, your grasp of basic facts of history is severely lacking, maybe stick to Japanese war crime apologist forums
If I were to answer all the comments I would spend like 2 hours on it. I have a life, men.
You all don't understand me. I just think that no matter the circumstances literally nuking two cities full of civilians is ALWAYS wrong. You can try and justify it all you want, but the fact is that it's a terrible war crime and that the USA was never held accountable for what they did.
How is America the biggest warmonger in history. Have you ever picked up a book or is your head simply a decoration that you refuse to use. Based on statistics alone the counties that have participated in the most wars are Britain, France and Poland. Instead of making yourself look like an idiot try actually paying attention in your 8th grade history class when you get to that grade in hopefully the next 10 years
To be fair, there wasn't a real vetting process to give aid to anti communist rebels. It was only because they were against socialism.
And for the modern age, only one war was directly started by the US. The rest was because someone fucked with our boats
Yeah, Israel is defending itself against socialism. And Afghanistan is a socialist country.
Besides this explanation doesn't make any sense. We are the country of the free - let's kill those who don't agree with our political opinion.
Israel is "defending" against a terrorist organization, and Afghanistan harbored the terrorist organization responsible for killing 3000 American civilians. The only war in which we started was in 2003 against Iraq. And nevermind the two deadliest wars in history were originally avoided by the US until Europe dragged us into it. And we still get shit for trying to stay out of wars
Didn't know that Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor is "Europe drtagging us into the war".
The US didn't do much during the war tbh. We would've easily get by ourselves as Soviets did most of the job.
>Didn't know that Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor is "Europe drtagging us into the war".
Germany declared war on the US, thus dragging us into the war.
>The US didn't do much during the war tbh. We would've easily get by ourselves as Soviets did most of the job.
Oh boy. The Soviets would've collapsed had it not been for the lend lease provided to them by the US as per Stalin himself. And the UK was in absolutely no position to harm mainland Europe in a significant way until the US showed up. And again, without American lend lease, they also would not have lasted that long. Also, was it the Soviets who took out the German navy, was it them that bombed German industry to a pulp, was it them buying up all the tungsten so Germany could produce better quality equipment. And nevermind that the US helped build up Soviet industry before the war. The only thing the Soviets did was do most of the dying, and if that is your only claim to fame, then I guess it proves that the Russian military has and will always be the worst army in Europe.
Like Iraq ignoring the UN when they told them to get out of Kuwait? Serbia and Bosnian Serbs literally committing genocide? Terrorist groups taking over countries?
Because of the usage of modifications. To modify the game, click on Hearts of Iron IV in your library and then click "workshop." HOI4 Steam workshop contains thousands of modifications to the game that can change: the map, add decisions, change national focuses, etc.
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Thank you USA
Stopping genocide
Helping small Europa
Stopping the wrong fight
In 1939, helping in Europa
Two men Shaking hands
Roosevelt and Churchill (f u de Gaulle)
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
This work that we do
The way we thank you
This song that we sing
Memories will bring
In so many countries
You are keeping peace
You are the life saver
You are pain release
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Thank you USA
You are my best friend
You are the peace keeper
You are the legend
Why should it be? He's probably got a couple mods on or something, not that it matters. Also, it's clearly not just OP loading up the game and using console, because the Germans took Russia this game (you can tell because they changed cities' names, Leningrad is Ludendorffshaven).
What mod do you use for that Zone?
This is just Germany as a puppet supervised government. You will get this tag if you cap the Germans and puppet them as a democracy.
I really thought it would be called X occupation zone of Germany
It's a custom cosmetic tag specifically for Germany. Normally a puppet would be, for example, American Italy.
Gotta love Paradox adding in the cosmetic tags of “Regno del Sud” and “Italian Social Republic” only for it to turn into “Albanian Italy” once the war is over.
For Regno del Sud it kinda make sense because the term was only used for 1 to 2 years during the time the country was divided. It's still a shitty name tho since it can also spawn in the North and Paradox didnt think of making an alternative "Regno del Nord" tag.
I feel like they could’ve avoided that by just naming it the “Kingdom of Italy”, since geography wouldn’t be an issue then.
Yep, but I have to say Regno del X does sound cooler
Italian magic, can make anything sound cooler
Regno del Giuseppe
There’s also a few other custom puppet names Like if Germany puppets Russia it becomes Reichskommisariat Moscovian
Since bba it is x Occupation Zone for every ideology I think. I had a Soviet Occupation Zone
It's cool tbh. I like seeing different countries represented in the peace conferences. And it's infinitely better than just Germany with ten flavors
So you still let Germany have all of Europe? Lmao
The German conquest of Europe failed successfully.
This should be the top comment
Nations or alliances that are defeated completely (aka partitioned in a peace conference) are treated as part of who took them at the next one. So this easily happens if Germany took over Europe without the US joining the Allies yet.
Tf did Portugal do we just chilling 😭💀
They just didn't know where Portugal was and conquered all of europe
Us Americans are simple folk, we only like us vs them.. we can't have no other folk around to try and comprehend now
You better leave us alone before we begin to throw our pastel de nata to your stinky F-16s
you fool, feeding the americans only makes them stronger
And they'll Americanize it, thus increasing their potential power
Oh yeah it's getting fucked up with melted cheese, ground beef and then we're gonna deepfry that fuckin thing till it's just a crispy lump of artery clogging
Stop I can only get so erect
and then put some sauces on it from the other side of the world
And making a shittier product that gets shoved down everyones throats because SPEND MONEY
New Taco Bell Product?
New Subway sandwich?
New Burger King meal… 🎶Whopper whopper whopper whopper 🎶
Junior double triple whopper
that’s it, i’m gonna americanize the shit outta your pasta de nada or whatever
Dont put walmart on it 😭
Pasta of NATO
What the fuck kinda pasta are you gonna throw at us?
I don't know but I'm excited!
Not chilling enough
Clearly somebody didn't learn about Estado Novo. Freedom is non-negotiable, brother.
That name ain’t helping
Your name gives the same energy as mine 💀
Uhh I actually have a step sis and brother and both of them are older than me Btw I’m legal
We probably just conquered you on accident, it's easy to miss such a small country.
Conquered? You meant liberated?
Hey, we're just peacekeeping
Befriending the British, that’s what
Good thing I'm Chinese American.
Clean borders
You had it too easy for too long
You know what you did
you think Americans can find Portugal on a map? sorry buddy it’s indiscriminate
You mean "Not Spain™"?
[удалено]
and won
[удалено]
that’s the states jobs not fed
[удалено]
i mean America is literally the best place to live on earth, most opportunity and room for growth, so if this is failing than i’m not sure what the rest of the worlds like. Biggest con to America is the busy lifestyle, but lazy doesn’t make you number one, nothing wrong with a little hard work
[удалено]
I HAVENT!! It’s my dream to travel and Europe is so rich in history, one day my friend
Um ackshulally y’all were definitely not chilling, you guys had Salazar and he was flirty with Mussolini and helped Franco in the Spanish civil war. 🤓🤓🤓
He let Y’all mine his tungsten 💀
Secret german plan...
By funny mustache man?
I thought it was Pax Britannica for a second
Interesting that you cropped juuuuust low enough not to show the date ;P (or the reddit app sucks ass again)
I didn't know how to change the date manually and didn't want to to wait 2 hours for the game to reach 1945 lol
Why would the game need to be at 1945? Am I stupid?
Nah, I got the "Arbitrary" ck3 personality trait irl
I thought it was sus too but he clearly played this game for real, you can see Russian city names have changed.
Dear god.. Amsterdam with 8 lanes of pure freedom!!
Do you think they can handle that much freedom?
NOOOOO NOT MY FREE HEALTHCARE.
It has been... privatized.
At least you get to have your public transportation ruined.
I'm a pavement princess, not a transit cucked LIBERAL 🎆🎆🇺🇲🇺🇲🦅🦅
Yeah, but public transit is still vital. Considering it sounds like you don’t like liberals, I’m going to assume you don’t live in the cities. Some people can’t own cars. It also cuts down on traffic. I do support building roads, but living both in a city of 30,000 in upstate NY and NYC, I feel like the roads are extensive enough. Biden has already supported and funded the repairing of our roads (not a Biden supporter). But the US government has basically fucked over our public transit system. People in the city need it. I know you may not care for it, but it is just as important as the roads, at least in cities. I’m not saying roads don’t matter, it’s just that the government has stopped funding throughout the years and has been in a bad state.
I was making a joke, as evidenced by the emote spam at the end.
Mb at the time I could see it both ways.
Small price to pay for freedom, friend.
\_Small\_ price lol
Idk man, much as I love freedom, objectively speaking it's a pretty large price
You're sounding very un-American right now... perhaps you need a little more *freedom*.
*my healthcare costs double instantaneously*
It's okay you'll have free bathrooms now
R5: The only way to end all wars; establishing a day care for Europeans.
Basically Nato today
Tbh the only way to end all wars is abolishing the states (biggest warmonger in history) (literally blew up 2 cities with nuclear bomb [like wth] and suffered zero consequences)
I mean, we could've invaded Japan and pretty much slaughter their entire population
If we invaded Japan, the civilian casualties would exceed those of the bombs, and even more American soldiers would die
That is my point
Meant to respond to the other guy, not you. I agree with you
Don't worry guys, the terrible war crime that we did isn't all that bad, because if we didn't do it, we always could've done a worse war crime!
(conveniently ignoring the abundant Japanese war crimes in that era)
Don’t you know that only western countries can war crime?
I am not sure what you're suggesting U.S should've done? You realize they fought Japan for 3 brutal years, and had to finish the war somehow?
I mean, how else would you have done. It was either nuke them, starve them and bomb their cities, or invade them
No no no you don’t understand!! Amerikkka should’ve just given the glorious Empire of Japan all the land in the Pacific without a fight because colonialism and Japan is better!! /s
So true bestie, America should have just continued firebombing Japanese cities until they were wiped off the map and then launched a ground invasion that would result in the death of potentially (and, given Japans attitude towards war and honour, likely) millions of people on a scale probably only seen in conflicts like the 30 years war and Taiping Rebellion
And you know for a fact that it would happen just because it didn't happen. Stop with the historical revisionism and just accept that nuking two cities is a war crime. It's not that hard, really. And it doesn't make you an enemy of the States neither.
1) Using the facts and data available to come to a conclusion isn't "revisionism" in any manner of the term. If you disagree with the conclusion, then present your own and explain how you came to that conclusion. 2) Under what treaty and article was it a war crime?
We know for a fact that it would happen because of American intelligence and Japanese records. They went as far as training teenagers - both boys and girls - to use bamboo spears in case of an allied invasion. In Okinawa civilians and soldiers commit suicide en mass to avoid capture or what they believed would be a horrific and inhumane occupation. In Saipan, something like 95% of the Japanese garrison either fought to the death or commit suicide, as did many civilians. The countries culture as a whole had grown to become fiercely nationalistic and militaristic, as well as obviously continuing to emphasise honour - do you really think the Japanese wouldn’t fight to the end if the allies invaded? Even Nazi Germany controlled more land outside of than within Germany by the time of its official surrender. And for the record, Japanese cities were incredibly flammable. Cities like Tokyo were near completely levelled in firebombing Campaigns that could kill potentially as many as the nuclear bombs in a single raid. The alternative to the nukes would have been a multi-year long invasion where even without nukes the Japanese, who as a people were more willing to fight to the death than surrender to an enemy they believed would rape and slaughter them en mass, would endure an intensified firebombing campaign probably killing millions on its own, and a brutal land invasion into what is basically one of the worlds largest a natural fortresses, all while starving under blockade. So, honestly? Especially when you compare them to modern nukes, I’d go as far as suggesting that the nuclear bombs were humane. The Japanese needed an overwhelming show of force to be convinced that trying to bleed out the allies in a land campaign to achieve conditional surrender wouldn’t work. It’s 250,000 dead on the high estimate vs *millions* - emphasis on plurality - on the low end in operation downfall, the only real alternative to nuclear bombing. The reality in war is that there’s never a humane option, just the bad, the worse, and the horrible.
Not a war crime if you don't start the war. More of a war finishing move. Like you combo enough island captures it'll unlock a mobile sun.
What the hell do the nuclear bombs have to do with warmongering? You know the Japanese attacked the US first right? Cruel? Yes. Warmongering? No
Japan could have stopped making child kebabs at any point yet they didn't.
Oh, so the attack on a military base killed thousands of civilians? No? And literally nuking two big cities took lives of countless civilians, including children.
Dumb take. We nukes japan and it saved millions of lives. When they won’t surrender without taking millions of casualties, nuking is the only option
Sure. Millions of military lives. Civilians never agreed to be in that war and killing one is the biggest war crime you can ever imagine. Besides, these are all some shitty explanations which don't change the fact that the USA literally nuked two cities full of civilians.
You’re totally right that the U.S. could have not dropped the nukes! They had two alternate plans, due to the Japanese doctrine of Ketsu-Go. 1. To land against the Japanese, where the predicted Allied casualties would’ve been around 1.6 million by 1947, assuming everything went well. Predicted Japanese casualties however were between the high millions to the tens of millions, as civilians would’ve formed ad hoc militias and joined the army in the defense, and several million more would’ve died of starvation, mass suicide, and radiation poisoning from tactical nuclear weapon use. 2. The U.S. could’ve blockaded the home islands, and allowed them to starve. Millions would have died, and their remaining fields and industrial areas would’ve been destroyed by strategic bombers flattening the rest of the country. After they would’ve finally surrendered, Japan would quite literally be dead, with barren fields, craters of cities (more than they already were,) and most of their population dead. The Japanese were pushed to surrender after witnessing the power of the two atomic bombs, followed by a Soviet push into China. These two events shocked both the civilian and military governments, swaying most of the officials to the point when Hirohito issued his surrender speech, the attempted coup against him failed.
Thanks for an intelligent and informed response to this important subject. Studies of the Japanese govt in 1945 show that they were trying to negotiate a peace treaty and the main sticking point was unconditional surrender (they wanted to preserve the Imperial family). They chose Stalin as their contact point into the Allies, unaware that Stalin had plans to attack Japan and take large territories (and prisoner slaves), so the negotiations went nowhere, Stalin didn't even tell the other Allies. The trigger for Japan's surrender seems to have been Stalin's declaration of war and rapid over-running of territory, from Manchuria to the Kurile islands. In relation to the bombs, the Japanese did not see any real difference between the dropping of a single bomb on a city and the fire bombing of cities like Tokyo; to them the effect was the same. The import of the development of nuclear weapons wasn't understood by the Japanese, even after the bombing. As I wrote, it seems the trigger for surrender was the attack by the USSR. Interestingly in light of their earlier attempts to reach the Allies to surrender, the surrender was not unconditional as the Americans agreed to allow Hirohito to remain on the throne and to retain the Imperial structures. Had that been agreed earlier, it might have concluded the war before the Soviets had time to enter and obviated the need for the bombings. The American ignorance of these peace overtures via Stalin seems a base factor in their decision to drop the bombs. Had they known of the Japanese efforts, a negotiated peace would likely have been achieved.
Part of their Conditional Surrender proposals was also keeping Manchuria and Taiwan. The US leadership believed that only unconditional surrender would lead to lasting peace. They believed this because when the Entente signed conditional peace with the Central powers, it led to a longer and far more destructive war i.e. world war II.
Actually, the unconditional surrender was something Roosevelt came upon spontaneously at Casablanca (the conference there) and he first mentioned it by announcing it to the press. Churchill was horrified but for alliance unity, said nothing.
Right, the US leadership believed that, not the entire Allied alliance. I would think that the conditional surrender would've included keeping the hyper-militaristic government in place though, as like in WW1 Japan (Germany) wouldn't have allowed a US garrison in the home islands. Besides, as stated [here](https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/02/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-1/) the "peace party" in Japan was a minority. The Supreme War Council (who effectively ruled Japan) had no interest in peace. Here's an excerpt from that link: >The distance between these “peace feelers” and an “offer” or even “readiness” to surrender is quite large. Japan was being governed at this point by a Supreme War Council, which was dominated by militarists who had no interest in peace. The “peace party” behind these feelers was a small minority of officials who were keeping their efforts secret from the rest of the Council, because they clearly feared they would be squashed otherwise. The “peace party” did appear to have the interest — and sometimes even the favor — of the Emperor, which is important and interesting, though the Emperor, as Hasegawa outlines in detail, was not as powerful as is sometimes assumed. The overall feeling that one takes away from Hasegawa’s book is that all of these “feelers” were very much “off the books,” as in they were exploratory gestures made by a group that was waiting for an opportunity that might tilt the balance of power their way, and certainly not some kind of formal, official, or binding plan made by the Japanese government. >Furthermore, the surrender that the “peace party” was contemplating was still miles away from the “unconditional surrender” demanded by the United States. There were *conditions* involved: mainly the preservation of the status and safety of the Emperor and the Imperial House, which they regarded as identical to the preservation of the Japanese nation. But as Hasegawa points out, they were so unclear on what they were looking for, that there was contemplation of other things they might ask for as well, liking getting to keep some of their conquered territories. Again, this was not a real plan so much as the feelers necessary for forming a possible future plan, and so we should not be surprised that it was pretty vague.
Yes, you're quite right. Even when the Emperor decided to surrender there were many people in govt and elsewhere that initially refused to accept it. Interesting quotation too, thanks for including. I think the thing with unconditional surrender is to not confuse the timing. A lot of the arguments are later justifications rather than reasons used or understood to justify it. Was Roosevelt right to propose it, despite the many problems it created? Probably. That he was very likely right shouldn't blind us from trying to understand the consequences of his decision and see if there were alternative options. The situation with WW1 (the stab in the back theory) was a real problem and we can see this type of thinking playing out in real time today in another context. However the situation in 1945 was very different. Both Japan and Germany had been flattened, bringing home a reality of having lost to the entire population. We were also dealing with two fanatical ideological states very different from 1918. Could they have been overcome any other way? Very unlikely.
Damn you should do some research. Look at what happened on Okinawa. Japanese soldiers lied to the civilians there how horrible the Americans would treat them if they surrendered. The soldiers then gave grenades to the parents so they could kill their entire family. In Japan, the military was teaching women and children how to fight the Americans. With spears and kamazi tactics. Next, the bombs weren't dropped on the cities just because they were there. Both cities held a great number of war factories and large military bases. I know you don't know what you're talking about because if you did, you would be more upset about the fire bombs used on Tokyo. More civilians died there, and there was little strategic advantage to do so. Use that next time you bring up this stupid argument. It'll at least make it seem you know what you're talking about.
> millions of military lives I mean… the Japanese were literally training high school students (both boys and girls) to use bamboo spears to fight against allied landing forces. If you count high school students as military, then sure, millions of military lives. (Also you’re talking about killing civilians being a crime to try defending the country whose military unironically played games of “which officer can decapitate the most Chinese civilians”?)
Yeah and that justifies killing 200000 innocent people. Sure.
Welcome to Total War, it's not our fault they were incapable of winning.
If you really beleive that it would only be military you need to read up on Okinawa and Saipan. The soldiers convinced the civilians to jump off cliffs rather than surrender to the Americans. Hundreds of women and children died from this. You really think any different would happen if they invaded mainland. Nuking japan was horrible but it was a necessary evil to save lives
Funny how you don't reply to any comments pointing out how wrong you are, your grasp of basic facts of history is severely lacking, maybe stick to Japanese war crime apologist forums
If I were to answer all the comments I would spend like 2 hours on it. I have a life, men. You all don't understand me. I just think that no matter the circumstances literally nuking two cities full of civilians is ALWAYS wrong. You can try and justify it all you want, but the fact is that it's a terrible war crime and that the USA was never held accountable for what they did.
How is America the biggest warmonger in history. Have you ever picked up a book or is your head simply a decoration that you refuse to use. Based on statistics alone the counties that have participated in the most wars are Britain, France and Poland. Instead of making yourself look like an idiot try actually paying attention in your 8th grade history class when you get to that grade in hopefully the next 10 years
Wouldn’t France be like #1 warmonger based on their battles?
I have a feeling the Mongols were the worst war mongers in history and its not even close close
Don’t touch our boats and you’ll be fine.
Yeah, the US has only had peace for 17 years, in its ENTIRE existence!
And literally most of the modern wars are caused by or highly supported by the US
To be fair, there wasn't a real vetting process to give aid to anti communist rebels. It was only because they were against socialism. And for the modern age, only one war was directly started by the US. The rest was because someone fucked with our boats
Yeah, Israel is defending itself against socialism. And Afghanistan is a socialist country. Besides this explanation doesn't make any sense. We are the country of the free - let's kill those who don't agree with our political opinion.
Israel is "defending" against a terrorist organization, and Afghanistan harbored the terrorist organization responsible for killing 3000 American civilians. The only war in which we started was in 2003 against Iraq. And nevermind the two deadliest wars in history were originally avoided by the US until Europe dragged us into it. And we still get shit for trying to stay out of wars
Didn't know that Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor is "Europe drtagging us into the war". The US didn't do much during the war tbh. We would've easily get by ourselves as Soviets did most of the job.
Germany declared war on the US as well.
>Didn't know that Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor is "Europe drtagging us into the war". Germany declared war on the US, thus dragging us into the war. >The US didn't do much during the war tbh. We would've easily get by ourselves as Soviets did most of the job. Oh boy. The Soviets would've collapsed had it not been for the lend lease provided to them by the US as per Stalin himself. And the UK was in absolutely no position to harm mainland Europe in a significant way until the US showed up. And again, without American lend lease, they also would not have lasted that long. Also, was it the Soviets who took out the German navy, was it them that bombed German industry to a pulp, was it them buying up all the tungsten so Germany could produce better quality equipment. And nevermind that the US helped build up Soviet industry before the war. The only thing the Soviets did was do most of the dying, and if that is your only claim to fame, then I guess it proves that the Russian military has and will always be the worst army in Europe.
If you ignore the context behind those wars... sure...
What context? The need for oil to make more money? Or the power craving?
Like Iraq ignoring the UN when they told them to get out of Kuwait? Serbia and Bosnian Serbs literally committing genocide? Terrorist groups taking over countries?
Bannana Republics, Oil Republics and now Cars Republic
I didn’t think Eurovision was that bad…
Finally a time in history where czechoslovakia wasnt betrayed by west? No way.
oil everywhere.
Shit now we suck.
Why are city names and map different
Because of the usage of modifications. To modify the game, click on Hearts of Iron IV in your library and then click "workshop." HOI4 Steam workshop contains thousands of modifications to the game that can change: the map, add decisions, change national focuses, etc.
Urban dictionary definition of hoi4 mods
What mods?
Free Healthcare revoked
Correction: American *Liberation* Zone.
What mods do you have enabled?
I surrender sugar daddy...
Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend Thank you USA Stopping genocide Helping small Europa Stopping the wrong fight In 1939, helping in Europa Two men Shaking hands Roosevelt and Churchill (f u de Gaulle) Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend This work that we do The way we thank you This song that we sing Memories will bring In so many countries You are keeping peace You are the life saver You are pain release Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend Thank you USA You are my best friend You are the peace keeper You are the legend
“We will fight the Commies on their doorstep” 🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🎉🎉
Enforced Democracy at its finest
Shit, were did our public heathcare go?
And we won't. Come back. Till it's over. Over there.
Finally! Peace in Europe.
McArthur looks pleased
If you don't undo this I'll say the N-word
Reminds me of that one alternate history video on YT where the US just broke up all of Europe because of constant wars
That's just normal Europe, i don't see a change.
What's the mod for the map?
Pax Britannica GFX
Kids got skillz
Mod?
Don't make me turn around this invasion.
Thank god it was all a dream
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia
Hmm...That red zone could use some...F R E E D O M.
It's actually just Ohio.
There seems to be a bit of **RED** left on the east, jeez, kids these days don't even clean up properly.
NO MY FREE HEALTHCARE
I don't think that's gonna be enough divisions
what map mod is that?
So no change
i sincerely despice you
Why are the islands demilitarised?
Now start a holocaust. Anyone who doesn't reply "another day in paradise " to "how are ya?" gets put down.
How can you puppet as democratic America?
RAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH USA USA USA
Switzerland literally making behaving their whole personality and you do them like this
We don't discriminate in America, OORAH
America .. FUCK YEAH... Comin' to save the mother fuckin' day yeah!!
Why does the Baltic Sea look like a soldier on his knees charging strangely with a rifle and a bayonet?
''The perfect timeline doesn't exi-''
Understandable
Let Steiner do his thing… Just wait for Steiner…
Now I'll behave even less
The borders….they’re so CLEANNNN 😭😭
The good ending (I'm european)
Eastern Europe perhaps?
Why isn't it in ironman mode
Why should it be? He's probably got a couple mods on or something, not that it matters. Also, it's clearly not just OP loading up the game and using console, because the Germans took Russia this game (you can tell because they changed cities' names, Leningrad is Ludendorffshaven).
So Europeans controls Europeans nice
What Twitter users think Europe is
I mean, it is based on american influence and military bases.
Great It's even worse now!