[ExI] riots again
painlord2k at libero.it
Mon Oct 1 21:22:44 UTC 2012
Il 01/10/2012 22:08, Charlie Stross ha scritto:
> Au contraire: the Soviets had *already* entered the war against
> Japan, and smashed the Japanese army in Manchuria. The campaign
> started on August 1st. The A-bombs simply gave the Japanese govt. a
> convenient excuse to surrender to the USA rather than to Stalin.
They surrendered to the Allies. All of them.
Surely being occupied by the US and not from the Commies was a plus.
South Vietnameses call Soviets "Americans without $" ( and at the time $
were gold backed).
> (Why is the Korean DMZ where it is? Answer: because that's where the
> Soviet T-36's ran out of gasoline ...)
The Soviet Army stopped (be left without fuel) well before the Yalun
River. The Soviet were smart in parachuting a few units in North Korea,
but they were not able to reach them before the US troops landed in Inchon.
Soviet attacked midnight 9 August 1945, Japan surrendered 15 August,
they signed the end of WW2 on 2 September 1045 and the US forces landed
in Korea the 8 September 1945.
It would be to be see what would happen if Japan didn't surrender. Do
the Soviets had enough stuff to keep up the war?
If I was the US and other Westerns, I would "reduce" the military aid to
the Soviet to nothing after the V.E. day.
But, anyway, the mid-term effect to be occupied by Soviets would be much
worse than the mid-term effects of a couple of A-bombs, not counting the
near and long term effects.
More information about the extropy-chat