Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-One The Filling Of Vacancies For Federal Appellate Court Judges: The Filling Of Vacancies For Federal Appellate Court Judges:

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices

PartThirty-One The Filling Of Vacancies For Federal Appellate Court Judges:

If a Federal Appellate Court Judge cannot complete that term for any reason (removal, retirement, resignation, or death), then the Federal House Speaker should appoint a Substitute Federal Appellate Court Judge to serve till the end of the next legislative session. If the term of the vacated judge expires by the time the next legislative session ends, the VPOTUS should nominate and the U.S. House Of Representatives should confirm another individual to serve as Federal Appellate Court Judge.

If the term of the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge has not expired by the end of the next legislative session, the VPOTUS should unilaterally select the Acting Federal Appellate Court Judge who will serve till the end of that term. The Substitute Federal Appellate Court Judge is ineligible to serve as Acting Federal Appellate Court Judge.

He/she should be subject to nomination by the VPOTUS and then by confirmation by the U.S. House Of Representatives if he/she desires to remain on that bench upon completion of the term the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge was scheduled to serve. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge becomes the U.S. Appellate Court Judge for the entire next new term.

The President or the federal legislatures should not get involved in the selection of an Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge. It would demonstrate direct democratic mode as involvement by too many government bodies means too much political interference.

The choosing of any acting officeholder has to be more non-political than the choosing of an officeholder. An U.S. Appellate Court Judge, before serving the first term, should have to be both nominated and confirmed. However an individual initially serving as Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge only needs to be selected by the VPOTUS to serve the remaining term of the vacated judge.

The Substitute Federal Appellate Court Judge is barred from serving as both Acting and as Actual Federal Appellate Court Judge. Otherwise the lack of this ban would precipitate Democratic Imperialism due to the fact centralization of power would result. An individual serving in multiple roles is considered Imperial Democratic Mode.

Allowing the Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge to serve longer than the remaining term of the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge without nomination and confirmation is also demonstrating Imperial Democratic Mode.

Cliff Notes Version: The Federal House Speaker chooses the substitute for the federal appellate court judge to serve till the end of the next legislative session. After that, if the term of the vacated Federal Appellate Court Judge has not expired, the Vice-President finds another individual to act as federal appellate court judge till the end of that term.

Only the VPOTUS should select the Acting U.S. Appellate Court Judge. The Acting Federal Appellate Court Judge can become the Federal Appellate Court Judge once he/she completes the vacated U.S. Appellate Court Judge's term and is both nominated by the VPOTUS and then confirmed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The choosing of any acting officeholder has to be more non-political than the choosing of an officeholder. Involvement from too many government bodies means direct democratic mode. This means too much political interference. However, insufficient involvement by government bodies breeds Imperial Democratic Mode.

Judges That Are To Be Nominated By Either The Governor Or The Vice-Governor

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-Five (Session Five)-

The Governor (state head executive) should nominate state trial court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate court that adjudicates civil cases of equity. The Vice-Governor (vice state head executive) should nominate appellate court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate court that adjudicates criminal cases of law.

However the Governor should be provided selection filters by the State Senate before he/she nominates the state trial court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate court that adjudicates civil cases of equity. The Vice-Governor should be provided selection filters by the State House of Delegates/Assemblymen before he/she nominates the state appellate court judges as well as the chief justice of the state appellate case that adjudicates criminal cases of law.

For the sake of separation of powers. The Chief Justice has too much power as he/she not only manages the court, he/she also gets to vote. A justice should do one or the other. No public officeholder should do both.

What is destroying America is dual role participation of government. Moreover due to the fact that the head executive (state or federal) should nominate both the trial court judges and the chief justice of one appellate court, he/she should not be allowed to nominate both the appellate court judges and the chief justice of the other appellate court.

Bizarre Story Of An Austrian- By Harsha Sankar

Written is a bizarre story of an Austrian. His father's birth name was Shicklgruber. His mother was a housekeeper. After quitting secondary studies, he was rejected by Vienna School of the Arts twice and blamed the Jewish administration. For next five years he slept on street corners and in shelters. He then left for Munich. For over a year he had an outdoor mural doing water coloring, paintings,and sculptures. .

He joined the Bavarian Infantry Unit as the Great War broke out. Despite  huge demand for NCO's in the Kaiser's Army, he was only promoted to lance corporal. He blamed his Jewish superior. Participating in many battles, he was badly wounded twice and was thus awarded the Iron Cross. 

After the European Dynasties ended, the Man of Destiny would begin. Newly appointed as spy, he infiltrated political meetings. He learned about Eastern traditions. He quit eating meat, believing killing of animals was wrong. He would incorporate the Hindu word "Aryan" and Hindu symbol, the Swastika. 

Discharged from the military, the 30 year old was a "stray dog looking for a new master". He joined the German Worker's Party (DAP). Asked to give a brief talk, he soon became its spokesman. A year after that, he became its head executive. The party was renamed National Socialist DAP. Detractors called it "Nazi". 

 

Many Germans blamed Jewish international financial capitalists and Communist Jews for their plight. He and his party voiced their concerns. Two years later his party tried to overthrow the Bavarian state government from a pub. During his prison time,the maid's son wrote a book which became, next to The Holy Bible, the world's best-seller. It warned all humanity.

After seven years of endless campaigning, his party had yet to make mainstream impact. During the Depression, they made great strides, becoming the biggest party in Germany. The violent vagabond from Vienna stood election and lost significantly twice against Hindenberg, a junker of Prussian honor. However the aging President named this recent recipient of German citizenship as Chancellor, the No.2 man in that nation's government.

 

The art school reject quietly exterminated democracy and human rights. After Hindenburg died, the man of peasant stock expedited tyranny. The beer joint rebel consolidated his office with that of President. The non-German would be retitled "The Leader" throughout the Fatherland. 

   

     In 1913, he left Austria a tramp. Quarter century later, he came back a ruler, annexing that nation into the Third Reich. A few years later, once deemed not fit to lead privates in his last military stint, the high school dropout would now command a highly mechanized eight million man military. The former homeless man had nearly an entire continent, the northern part of another, and one-fifth (400 million) of world's population under his rule.

 

The once fringe politician and street corner orator had the whole world gasping for breath. 30 months later, the miracles ran out. The Supreme Warlord only had a bunker to rule. More than anyone else, this lover of animals was responsible for a war that killed 60 million people. The WWI war hero's cowardly suicide took place on a paganistic satanic holiday

Reviled as the darkest figure in human history, the name of this genocidal psychopath was Adolph Hitler.

Harsha Sankar

908 Valley Ridge Road

Covington,Virginia 24426

The Renaming Of India To Bharat: Causes And Effects

There has been debate in the nation of India that its name should be changed to Bharat. It appears that India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has addressed this to the parliament of that nation.

Naturally may believe that this name change is a racist measure that favors Hindu Nationalism. But does it really? The following that is cited must be taken into consideration.

"The term "Hindu" traces back to Old Persian which derived these names from the Sanskrit name Sindhu (सिन्धु), referring to the river Indus. The Greek cognates of the same terms are "Indus" (for the river) and "India" (for the land of the river)"- Wikipedia.

This Wikipedia reference clearly indicates that India and Hindu have the same root morphology. Therefore India is more associated with Hindu than Bharat is. This reference also cites that Hindu is derived from Sindh and Indus. Two of the first Indian civilizations, Harappa and Mahenjo Daro, were in that region. Because Sindh and the Indus River are now in Independent Pakistan and not Independent India, this name change to Bharat seems to be viable and more appropriate.

The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata. —Vishnu Purana (2. 3. 1) (Ancient Hindu scripture)

The preceding phrase, while stipulated in Ancient Hindu Scripture, has nothing to do with the descendants' religion. Hinduism itself is not a religion. It is a heritage of a people from the country of Bharatam. The Old Testament of The Holy Bible can also be described as a heritage with all its folklore and parables. Both Christianity and Islams are both faith-based, however, and are considered religions due to its core principles and edicts.

In lieu of the foregoing, Bharat refers to a specific geographical land mass from the Indian Ocean in the south to the snowy mountains in the Himalayas and even in those bordering the Afghanistan regions. That describes the Indian sub-continent today.

In the last decades of the 18th century, the British started to refer to that sub-continent as India as the British East India Company had extensive land holdings in South Asia, including the Indus Valley. The name stuck. The name India furthermore received more permanence when that sub-continent became an official colony of the British Empire in 1857. That colony was called British India. While Sindh, the Indus Valley, and the Indus River were part of British India and also previously of the British East Indian Company, they have never been part of Independent India. Hence one reason why today's India would want to be renamed.

So as India is now rapidly trying to remove the colonialist yoke of the British Empire from its nation, would it not be appropriate to rename itself as Bharat? After all, nearly all non-Hindus (one-fifth of India's population) in that nation are viewed as descendants of Bharata and thus hail from Bharatam. The religion/faith, or lack thereof, of any of its people is not a factor. Due to the fact that the name Bharat is far more an irreligious name than India, perhaps this name change is in order.

Representative Republic Ideals-Secondary Features (The United States Senate"s Approval Of Treaties With Foreign Entities)

All prospective legislation for domestic purposes has to originate in the lower house (House Of Representatives). All prospective legislation that deal with all foreign matters, including ratification of treaties, should be approved by the upper house (The U.S. Senate) with a simple majority. Presently a 2/3rds majority vote by the U.S. Senate for treaties with foreign entities is required as cited in the U.S. Constitution. This requirement of voting percentage must change.

The reason for this needed change is simple. The federal government became the sovereign government authority in the aftermath of the American Civil War. This change was designed to make the federal government much more effective and act with much more unison in implementing both foreign and even domestic policy. Therefore ratification of any treaties with foreign entities should only require approval by a simple majority of the U.S. Senate, provided quorum limits are met.

Population-Based Democracy Vs. Area-Based Democracy-(Part Sixteen)

Population-Based Democracy Vs. Area-Based Democracy-(Part Sixteen)

Members of the United States House Of Representatives should be elected by the electoral vote process.

Members of a state delegates/assemblypersons in every state should be elected by the electoral vote process.

Members of the United States Senate for each state should be chosen by the legislatures in each state.

Members of the state senate in each state should be chosen by the legislatures in every locality.

The reason for this is simple. The people who are supposed to be generally sovereign have their electorate choose (elect) members of both the state and federal lower legislative houses. They do this via electoral voting and not by direct voting.

However in the choosing (selection) of members of both the state and federal upper legislative houses, the local and state legislatures should make this choosing (selection) of these state and federal upper legislative houses respectively.

The reason for this difference is the state and federal upper legislative houses should not be extensions of the state and federal lower legislative houses respectively. In order to protect the sovereignty of the People, its electorate must not be given the unbridled authority and responsibility to make the choosing of lawmakers in both houses at both levels. That is too direct democratic and that panders to the "Winds Of Populism".

The core tenant of the protection of People's sovereignty is the protection of rights of the individual(s) except when public safety is at stake and when basic general welfare needs have to be maintained. That is why the choosing of state and federal upper house legislative members must be different than how state and federal lower house legislative are chosen.

It must be noted that in a Representative Democratic Republic mode, sovereign entities do not always do the choosing of public office holders. As a matter of fact, head executives of local governments are chosen by officeholders of subordinate and inferior authority. Federal and state senators must also be chosen by officeholders who have subordinate and inferior authority.

The only difference, in this choosing of local head executives and state and federal upper legislative house members by those of subordinate/inferior authority, is that local legislatures choose its own head executives while state and federal senators are chosen by legislators at a different level.

"Top Two" Primaries- Government Modes

 "Top Two" Primaries- Government Modes

"Top Two" Primaries is a primary which decides the top two candidates who only will be allowed to stand in the general election later in that year.

Imperial Democratic Mode- This mode will use this activity as it will give impetus to the most powerful political party in that specific constituency. This type pf primary could restrict a smaller major political party or a minor party from fielding candidates in the general election. This would also prevent Independents who are not the Top Two candidates from contesting the general elections.

By restricting competition for the general election, this runoff between these two candidates definitely has to be categorized as Imperial Democratic Mode. This mode could have two Republicans running against each other or it could have two Democrats running against each other in the general election. As cited previously, this mode could and would benefit the strongest political party in that constituency.

direct democratic mode- This mode would never use this activity. direct democratic mode allows as many as possible candidates to contest the general election. This mode would actually call for an election system that is converse to the "Top Two Primary".

This mode would mandate that every political party be represented by more than just one eligible political office candidate in the general election. If a political party(s) would be unable to be represented by two or more eligible candidates for a political office in a general election, that political party(s) would be banned from fielding any candidate for that office in a general election.

The preceding implemented measure would certainly limit the stranglehold the political party(s) has over the body politic.

Representative Democratic mode- This mode could use this activity. Representative Democratic mode would allow candidates to freely contest the general election without undermining the political party process. This mode would have an election system that is different to both the "Top Two Primary" system and to the direct democratic system. This mode would have the following.

This mode would allow but not mandate that every political party be represented by more than just one eligible political office candidate in the general election. A political party could still be permitted to field just eligible candidates for a political office. Representative Democratic Mode would all the political party to decide this issue on its own.

The preceding implemented measure would certainly limit the stranglehold a political party would have over the body politic but it would not neuter the effectiveness of the political party process. This mode would not allow the political party(s) to dominate the elections by having exclusive domain over the selections of eligible candidates for political office(s) in a general election. However it would recognize the justifiable importance that political party(s) should have in Representative Democratic governance. Therefore this mode would not mandate but would only permit that political party(s) can have more than that just one representative in the general election if it so chooses.

Representative Democratic mode could allow "Top Two Primary" if it was allowed by a state's constitution or by a locality's by-laws which are approved by the majority of members in both legislative houses, pro quorum limits being met. However anyone can still contend for office in the general election. Only the two candidates who receive the highest and second highest number of votes in the "Top Two Primary" will have their names on the general election ballot. The other candidates who wish to compete in the general election will have to be a write-in candidate.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Three & Part Four)

 Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Three)

It is not just NATO nations who want Ukraine to fight to its last man as NATO is using Ukraine as its Private Military Contractor. While only 2% of the elected officials in Kyiv Parliament belong to Far Right parties, a significant minority if not the majority of Ukrainians in Western and even Northern Ukraine harbor strong anti-Russian sentiments. So many Ukrainians would "cut their own throat" than meekly surrender to the Russians.

They have utmost contempt for the "Bolshevik hordes" from the East. The Azov Battalion (militia), the Armed Forces Of Ukraine, the Ukraine's secret police (SBU), and its regular police force in those regions in Ukraine strongly reflect this.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Four)

As Ukraine continues to protract this "war" with Russia, it will do so at its own peril. Ukraine has at least 300,000 soldiers who will never be able to contribute to the war effort again. That is well over 40% of its total military. More importantly the majority of their highly competent professional soldiers have been totally depleted. This means even if NATO continues to send to Ukraine much more sophisticated military equipment, Ukraine will not have the sufficient staff to operate all of this.

Russia has nearly 200,000 soldiers who will never be able to fight for it again. However their military is stronger than it has ever been in terms of equipment (quantity and quality) and in terms of troop numbers. In the last two years, Russia has only spent 30% of its government budget on defense while Ukraine's gross national product is far less than one half of what it was prior to the Russian invasion. As Ukraine will sooner or later collapse at the pace of fighting, Russia will change its objectives for the third time to achieve the following.

1. De-militarization of all of Ukraine and not just de-militarization of Ukraine of its NATO military presence.

2. De-nazification of all of Ukraine and not just de-nazification of the Donbas.

3. Takeover of most of the Kharkiv Oblast (state) to "liberate" the ethnic Russians as they did claim to have done in the Donbas. Many ethnic Russians in the Kharkiv Oblast, according to Russia, have complained about discrimination meted out to them by the Ukrainian government.

4. Extending the land bridge through the Mykolaiv Oblast to the Odesa Oblast. This would landlock Ukraine as it would totally cut of its access to the Black Sea.

5. The foregoing will cause Russia to state its new objective: the removal of the current Western Powers-controlled Kyiv regime.

Ukraine will collapse by next year if they continue to fight Russia in the attempts of taking over the territory that Russia annexed at its territory 1.5 years ago. When it does, Russia may have to go into the interior of Ukraine to stave off collapse of the Ukrainian people. Poland and Romanian may have to do the same in Western Ukraine. Once everything is stabilised in Ukraine, no one should be surprised if Poland and Romania also slice off chunks of Ukrainian territory for themselves.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part One and Part Two)

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part One)

In early April 2022, six weeks after the Russian intervention, the heads of both Russia and Ukraine had a chance to reach permanent peace without Russia acquiring one extra inch of Ukrainian territory.

All Russia asked of Ukraine were these five conditions.

1. Ukraine must get rid of any and all foreign military presence on its soil. 2. Ukraine must never join NATO and must always be neutral. 3. Ukraine must recognize the independence sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) at least on a de facto basis. This means Ukraine would renounce all attempts to re-acquire the LPR and DPR as its sole purpose by military means. 4. Ukraine must recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation on a de jure basis. Since the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine has not recognized Crimea as part of Russian territory even on a de facto basis. 5. Ukraine must protect the rights of Ukrainian citizens in Donbas who are of Russian ethnicity. Ukraine must allow these citizens to be taught in the language of their choice and they must also allow them to attend religious institutions of their choice. In other words, Russia wanted Ukraine to enforce most of the basic tenants of the Minsk 2 Accords.

United Kingdom's Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Ukrainian President V. Zelensky to not accept this peace deal with Russia. If Ukraine was truly a sovereign and independent nation, Zelensky would not have been influenced by Johnson and the UK. Since the U.K. actively collaborates with the USA Deep State, it certainly would appear that the USA also pressured Zelensky to not accept this totally reasonable peace deal with Russia. This conflict could, would, and should have ended in early April 2022.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Two)

Russian President V.Putin stated in the Tucker Carlson interview on February 8th of this year that Russia would settle for a permanent ceasefire with Ukraine if Ukraine did the following.

1. Ukraine must recognize the de facto status of the Russian Federation takeover of most of the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions as they have already given such recognition to the Russian takeover of Crimea, which took place ten years ago.

2. Ukraine must change its recognition status of Crimea as part of the Russian from de facto to de jure.

3. Ukraine cannot just freeze the conflict with Russia as Russia demands a peace treaty.

4. Ukraine must incorporate in its constitution that it cannot have a foreign military presence on its "soil". Russia insists that the Ukraine military be indigenously operated.

The following demands that V. Putin laid out are totally reasonable. These demands do not call for any type of "de-nazification" of the Ukrainian government. In addition these demands do not prohibit Ukraine from importing military weapons nor do they restrict Ukraine's military in any manner. Furthermore these demands do not at all ban Ukraine from joining the European Union if Ukraine chooses to do so. Finally Russia is not prohibiting any Western nation from giving Ukraine war guarantees if Russia were to invade in the future.

Yet Ukraine has declined this offer that Russia has been offering for over a year and a half. Russia has held back and has only fought defensively since "liberating" those territories in the summer of 2022. Russia chose to act with restraint because the Russian government have fraternal sentiments in their view of the Ukrainian people. Quite a few members of the Russian government have labeled this war as a civil war and not a war between disparate nations. Putin has often expressed his solidarity with the Ukrainian people as he has said that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people just living in two nations.

Because Ukraine has rejected this offer as it is presumed that the Collective West will not allow Ukraine to accept, Russia may have no alternative but to do the following. That following will be detailed in the next post. Since Ukraine due to the insistence of NATO nations demands that Russia abandon all territory it took from Ukraine (including Crimes), Russia will have no choice but to pursue the objectives outlined in the next post.

They have utmost contempt for the "Bolshevik hordes" from the East. The Azov Battalion (militia), the Armed Forces Of Ukraine, the Ukraine's secret police (SBU), and its regular police force in those regions in Ukraine strongly reflect this.They have utmost contempt for the "Bolshevik hordes" from the East. The Azov Battalion (militia), the Armed Forces Of Ukraine, the Ukraine's secret police (SBU), and its regular police force in those regions in Ukraine strongly reflect this.All reactions:

All reactions

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.