OPPENHEIMER: Japan's Real Reason For Surrender (The Series)

OPPENHEIMER: Japan's Real Reason For Surrender

The vast majority of the people still think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which instantly killed 110,000 people , caused Japan to surrender. Even most of the Japanese have been convinced to believe this erroneous belief.

The bombing of Hiroshima was on August 6th, 1945. That city is 500 miles from Tokyo. The bombing of Nagasaki took place on three days later on August 9th. That city is 750 miles from Tokyo. Japan announced its surrender on August 15th, 1945. There is no way Japan would have known about the extent of those bomb blasts in that short a period of time with the technology they had in the Forties.

There was something else that was happening at the time Japan surrendered. The Western Press conceals this but eventually it will be exposed. The Soviet Union invaded Manchukuo (Japanese-held Manchuria) against Japan's most powerful elite military units. On August 20th 1945, Japan surrendered its most powerful military (over 600,000 crack military soldiers) to the Soviet Union after losing 84,000 of its soldiers to death.

It is obvious by August 15th, The Japanese knew it was losing badly to the Soviet Blitzkrieg. The Japanese were hoping for a negotiated peace with the Allies (mainly USA) as they wanted the Soviet Union as a mediator. When that USSR declared war on Japan, the Japanese knew they would have to surrender as they were on the verge of losing all its territory in China(Manchuria) and the northern part of the Korean peninsula.

The Japanese obviously opted to surrender to the USA in 1945 than the USSR as the Japanese knew the USA would be much more magnanimous and financially generous to the conquered Japanese than the Soviets. As Japan is starting to re-arm itself, they too will eventually dispel the myth as to why it surrendered 78 years ago.

The USA obviously wanted those atomic bomb blasts to facilitate Japan's surrender to the USA. The USA must have known it would take a month's time before Japan could survey the damage inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the instant loss of lives were enormous, the US bomb raids of Tokyo caused just as many immediate loss of lives. The USA authorities must have been highly surprised that Japan surrendered just six days after the Nagasaki bombing.

OPPENHEIMER: Japan's Real Reason For Surrender- Part Two

All should go to my profile and read the post as to the real reason Japan surrendered in World War Two. After one does that, then all should read the following.

The Soviets planned on invading Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's four main islands, on August 24th,1945, and occupying the northern half of that island. They cancelled this invasion two days prior, which happened to be one week after Japan surrendered to the USA. The Soviet Red Army successfully conquered the southern half of Sakhalin Island (located between Hokkaido and the USSR) probably before the Japanese surrender. The Soviets then captured the Kuril Islands (again located between Hokkaido and the USSR) starting on August 23rd, 1945, eight days after the Japanese surrender.

Military historian Richard B. Frank believes that despite serious Soviet deficiencies in shipping capacity and air cover, the Soviets could have succeeded in invading and conquering Japan because Japanese defenses were concentrated in the south to face the Americans, rather than the north to face the Soviets. Emperor Hirohito and his supreme war chief H. Tojo knew, after the Japanese were being routed in Manchukoa (Japan's term for China' Manchuria) and the Korean Peninsula, that the Soviet Red Army was indeed capable of conquering Japan. That in all likelihood precipitated them to unconditionally surrender to the Americans whom they thought would be much more benevolent than the "hordes from Russia".

Because the people in the West believed in certain myths, it fomented unwarranted militarism on their nations' behalf. The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations (Eastern Europe) probably would have splintered much sooner than it did and would also be much more freer than it is now if the Western powers did not press the Soviet Union militarily. Flawed democratic models relies on the brainwashing of the masses before sociopathic, dysfunctional, and highly aggressive actions by its governance can take place.

OPPENHEIMER: Japan's Real Reason For Surrender- Part Three

The Soviet Union lost a minimum of one-seventh of its population to death in World War Two. That is 14% of its entire population who were killed from 1941-1945. At least a quarter of its male population died during this period. This does not include the staggering number of his people who were either wounded, disease-ridden, homeless, and impoverished. Nearly every family throughout the Soviet Union, including its dictator Joseph Stalin, had a family member who was killed by this titanic war.

After it was all said and done, it is needless to state that the absolute last thing Stalin had on his mind was liberal democracy. While there were elections in the USSR, they were all held at the local and provincial (state) levels. It is a fact that life in that nation became more austere, more regimented, and repressive as Stalin had a new enemy in his sights, the US led-Collective West. While Stalin was accused of paranoia in the 1920s, his utmost fears he had back then were realized in the 1940s with the barbaric invasion of Nazi Germany.

Stalin must had known, as anyone in the Soviet government would had known, that the atomic bombs that the USA had dropped did not compel Japan to unconditionally surrender to the USA. Basic logic would only substantiate that. The atomic bombs were dropped on August 6th, 1945 and August 9th,1945. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 9th,1945 and invaded Manchuria (known as Manchuoka back then). When Japan surrendered on August 15th, 1945, the vast majority of Manchuria had already been captured by Soviet forces. A week later, the entire Japanese military (Kwantung Army) surrendered in Manchuria to the Soviet Red Army.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in southern Japan. Hiroshima was a good 500 miles south of Tokyo. Nagasaki was 750 miles south of Tokyo. Obviously with 1945 technology, there was no way the Japanese head elites of state and government would had known the true nature of those atomic bomb blasts until a month later. Stalin must had known the preceding. He must had realized that because these two bomb blasts had absolutely no military or political value, there was a more sinister reason why the USA dropped these bombs.

There was no military value in these bombings because no military facility was targeted and Stalin in all likelihood knew this. There was no political value otherwise the US military would have dropped those atom bombs far closer to Japan's capital Tokyo and Stalin probably suspected this as well. Stalin must have realized that Harry Truman, POTUS, did not order these bombings to take place relatively close to Tokyo because that would have much more likely caused the Japanese heads of state and government (Emperor Hirohito and PM/President Hideki Tojo) to surrender to the Soviet Union and not to the USA.

If the rulers of Japan felt and understood the impact of those atomic bombs immediately, there is a very strong chance they would have surrendered to the enemy who was not on the verge of committing a nuclear holocaust against the people of Japan. Stalin must had deduced that Japan would probably not want to surrender to an enemy who had the intent of committing such a nuclear genocide as they have to ultimately answer to the Japanese people.

Due to the fact Stalin probably believed that the USA was willing to use "nukes" on such as casual basis as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings had no military and political impact, he must have naturally concluded the USA could easily do the same to the USSR on such an aggressive basis. The USA obviously demonstrated they had a low threshold of using such WMDs against one Eastern nation. Stalin must had felt that the USA would do the same against them as well. That is one reason why such harshness was employed in the USSR after World War Two.

Stalin was bracing for a nuclear attack to be launched by the USA. Moreover since Stalin was aware that the USA bombed two southern Japanese cities on such a casual basis, he must had known the US-led Collective West would use the nuclear threat to totally undermine the sovereignty of the USSR. He probably realized they would either try wrest control of the satellite nations of the USSR or would try to even balkanize the USSR itself. Finally he thought the Western Powers would try to overthrow the Communist governments in the USSR and/or satellite nations so that the West could garner control of these communist nations' resources. OPPENHEIMER: Japan's Real Reason For Surrender- Part Four

It is not a paranoid conspiracy theory in explaining why Russia (government and people) are so wary of the intentions of Western Powers. In a post I made a week ago, it explained why Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union dictator) was legitimately worried about the safety of Russia and its government after World War Two. Its titanic war with Germany killed one-seventh of its entire population.

The aftermath left the USSR at the mercy of Western Powers because of its nuclear capabilities and its willingness to use it. Stalin knew that atomic weapons used against Japan had no military or political value for the West. He knew if the USA was willing to use such weaponry on such a casual basis against Japan, the USA-led Western Powers would do the same against the USSR.

Most Westerners do not realize that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was founded by many escaped Nazis and former members of the Wehrmacht (German Army). So obviously the USSR and then Russia will perceive NATO as a neo-Nazi entity and as a practitioner of Nazi ideology. It will not be just the government who holds such viewpoints but mainly it will be people themselves who will have such perceptions. Even after the USSR had undergone the De-Stalinization process for nearly a decade, so many Soviet Union citizens kept portraits, vestiges, and the memory of the Soviet Union strongman ruler.

Read this article and discover why the Soviet Union faced a greater existential threat than the threat they had just experienced in the "Great Patriotic War". Only when the Soviet Union detonated the atomic bomb in 1949 did this threat dissipate. However even well after Stalin's death the nuclear threat against the USSR was revived.

In 1960 the US’ nuclear war plans were formalized in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). This would pre-emptively use 3500 atomic warheads to attack USSR’s nuclear forces, military targets, cities, as well as against China and Eastern Europe. This plan would have killed 285-425 million people if implemented. The "satellite nations" in the Soviet orbit would have been totally annihilated. Even after the SIP was modified and restricted, its use would have killed millions of peaceful civilians.

All must read this article as it confirms the contents of this post and my previous post on this topic.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Seven (Session One-Session Six)

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Seven (Session One)

Government Modes Of Participation In Different Branches And At Different Levels By The Same Individual(s)

direct democratic mode- There is no ban or waiting periods for people, who are already participants in one branch of government at one level, from participating in a different capacity in the same or in another branch government at either the same or different level.

In other words, a local participant of government can be allowed to participate in a different capacity in either the same or in another branch of government at either the state or at the federal level without any restrictions. Moreover a state participant of government can be allowed to participate in a different capacity in either the same or in another branch of government at either the local or at the federal level without any restrictions. Lastly a federal participant of government can be allowed to participate in a different capacity in either the same or in another branch of government at either the local or at the state level without any restrictions.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Seven (Session Two)

Government Modes Of Participation In Different Branches And At Different Levels By The Same Individual(s)

Imperial Democratic mode- There is a total ban for people, who are already participants in one branch of government at one level of government, from participating in a different capacity in the same or in another branch of government at the same or at a different level of government.

In other words, a local participant of government cannot be allowed to participate in a different capacity in the same branch or in another branch of government at the state level or at the federal level. In addition, a state participant of government cannot be allowed to participate in a different capacity in the same branch or in another branch of government at the local level or at the federal level. Finally a federal participant of government cannot be allowed to participate in the same branch or in another branch of government at the local or state level.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Seven (Session Three)

Government Modes Of Participation In Different Branches And At Different Levels By The Same Individual(s)

The direct democratic mode in this specific political issue may appear to be appealing because its total lack of restrictions allows the citizenry (directly or indirectly) to choose whomever they want for a certain capacity.

The Imperial Democratic mode in this specific political issue may appear to be appealing because its total restrictions disallows anyone serving in any capacity in any branch of government other than the capacity he/she is serving. This compels the citizenry to choose only people who have only vied for that specific capacity to serve in that specific capacity.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Seven (Session Four)

Government Modes Of Participation In Different Branches And At Different Levels By The Same Individual(s)

The direct democratic mode in this specific political issue, while appealing to the electorate as they are not restricted in their direct and indirect choosing of people serving in any government branch capacity, would violate the principles of Checks and Balances and Separation Of Powers. This would erode the foundations of the Representative Republic by converting that into a direct democracy, thus allowing tyranny to prevail.

The Imperial Democratic mode in this specific political issue is appealing to the electorate as no individual would be allowed to serve more than one capacity in all government branches. However this ban would cause lack of quality and lack of continuity in governance. Just as importantly, both public and private power brokers as well as private fiefdoms would keep the politicians at bay. Politicians would answer more to them and less to the electorate and to the electorate's representative officials. This would erode the foundations of the Representative Republic by converting that into an Imperial Democracy, thus allowing tyranny to prevail.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Seven (Session Five)

Government Modes Of Participation In Different Branches And At Different Levels By The Same Individual(s)

direct democratic mode, due to lack of any type of restrictions or ban, would promote conflicts of interests as government branch officials would possess too much authority. Imperial Democratic mode, due to total restriction and total ban on allowing a government branch official from serving in another capacity in any government branch, would promote conflicts of interests as fiefdoms outside these officials' government branch office would possess too much authority.

Basically stated, direct democratic mode in pertinence to this issue allows each and every government branch official to have too much power while Imperial Democratic Mode in pertinence to this issue allows others to possess too much authority as they would heavily influence each and every government branch official.

The only mode that would be viable, functional, and proper is the Representarian Democratic Mode. The next post will outline it.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Seven (Session Six)

Government Modes Of Participation In Different Branches And At Different Levels By The Same Individual(s)

Representative Democratic Mode- This mode has proper restrictions and bans of individual(s) serving in more than one capacity in government branch(s). It keeps conflicts of interests to a minimum and at the same time ensures quality and continuity in office of all officeholders.

A participant in any capacity in the judicial branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of four years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any other capacity in the judicial branch or in any capacity in another branch of government at any level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the executive branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of four years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any capacity in the judicial branch of government at any level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the executive branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of four years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any other capacity in the executive branch of government at the same level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the executive branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of three years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any other capacity in the executive branch of government at a different level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the executive branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of four years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any capacity in the legislative branch of government at the same level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the executive branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of three years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any capacity in the legislative branch of government at a different level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the legislative branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of four years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any capacity in the judicial branch of government at any level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the legislative branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of four years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any capacity in the executive branch of government at a same level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the legislative branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of three years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any capacity in the executive branch of government at a different level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the legislative branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of four years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any other capacity in the legislative branch of government at a same level (local or state or federal).

A participant in any capacity in the legislative branch of government at any level (local or state or federal) has to wait a minimum of three years after his/her departure from that capacity before he/she is allowed to participate in any other capacity in the legislative branch of government at a different level (local or state or federal).

It must be noted that bans do not apply to designated heir apparent of an government branch official. Bans do not apply to people who serve in a different capacity but who have either the same or different function of the government official that the heir apparent replaces as an Acting role. Examples of this would be vice-governors, assistant prosecutors, or deputy sheriffs. These people would have to step in if they are needed to act in a certain capacity.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session One-Seven)

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session One)

Current law states that if the Vice-President Of The United States (VPOTUS) is no longer able to serve for the remainder of the regular term, the replacement (Acting VPOTUS) should be chosen by the President Of The United States. This law needs to be changed as it makes the office of POTUS too Imperial Democratic. This will breed tyranny due to a conflict of interest and also due to overlapping of responsibilities as the POTUS has both authority in the executive and legislative branches of federal government. The Acting VPOTUS is the Acting President Of The U.S. Senate.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session Two)

As current law allows the President of the United States (POTUS) to choose the Acting Vice-President of the United States if the present Vice-President Of The United States (VPOTUS) is unable to serve. As cited previously the current law regarding this choosing is Imperial Democratic and it needs to be changed.

Considering the VPOTUS is the President of the United States Senate, allowing the U.S. Senate to choose the Acting VPOTUS would also be Imperial Democratic. The members of this federal legislative body would obviously be involved in a conflict of interest if they chose the officeholder who would preside over them. Only an officeholder independent of their choosing should do the presiding over their legislative body.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session Three)

If the current VPOTUS is unable to serve, neither the POTUS nor the members of the U.S. Senate should choose the replacement (Acting VPOTUS) because that would be Imperial Democratic as too much power would be centralized on the Presidency and in the U.S. Senate. Since the U.S. Senate should be barred from choosing the Acting VP, obviously no U.S. Senate officer and/or member should be chosen for this role for the same reason.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session Four)

If the current VPOTUS is unable to serve, neither the electors, the state legislatures, nor the individual members of the U.S. House of Representatives via majority should choose the replacement (Acting VPOTUS) because that would be direct democratic. Insufficient power would be allocated to the federal government as a result of the foregoing because this dilutes authority. It is highly imperative that the Acting Vice-President be accountable to a particular federal legislative body.

Since the majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives on an individual basis should be barred from choosing the Acting VP, obviously no U.S. House of Representative officer nor any of its members should be chosen for this role for the same reason. It would be too direct democratic. Too much dilution of power means lack of concentration of power in federal government. This would result if the Acting VP was not chosen by a federal political body.

The next post will cite the entity which should choose the Acting VP and how they should make this choosing.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session Five)

If the current VPOTUS is unable to finish his/her term, the Representative Democratic process must be used in choosing the replacement (Acting VPOTUS). If the Imperial Democratic or direct democratic process is used, this will breed tyranny. The only way to "bottle up" tyranny is to employ the Representative Democratic means in choosing the Acting VPOTUS.

The members of the House of Representatives must choose the Acting VPOTUS but not individually. They must do so collectively on a state by state basis with a state being assigned one electoral vote. The majority of these federal legislative lower house members per state, either in an outright manner or through Ranked Choice voting, makes that state's choice for Acting VPOTUS.

The candidate for Acting VPOTUS who obtains the majority of these electoral votes becomes the Acting Vice-President for the remainder of the Vice-Presidential term. If no candidate receives that mandate, then the following measure outlined in the next post has to be applied.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session Six)

If a candidate for Acting Vice-President Of The United States cannot be chosen by the majority of members in the United States House of Representatives voting on a state by state basis, then the Speaker Of The House Of Representatives (SOTH) must serve as Acting VPOTUS.

The United States Senate must decide individually by its highest number of votes who the Acting Speaker Of The House Of Representatives (SOTH) will be for the remainder of the SOTH's term.

Commentary On Elections-Part Seventy-Six (Session Seven)

If the current VPOTUS is unable to serve in office, whatever the reason may be, an Interim VPOTUS must serve until an Acting VPOTUS is chosen. The Interim VPOTUS should be the leading officer in the U.S. Senate who has the most authority in having the U.S. Senate carry out its functions and perform its duties.

If the Speaker Of The House of Representatives (SOTH) has to become the Acting VPOTUS, the leading officer in the U.S. House Of Representatives who has the most authority in having the U.S. House Of Representatives carry out its functions and perform its duties becomes the Interim SOTH. The Interim SOTH serves until the Acting SOTH is chosen by the members of the U.S. Senate on a plurality basis.