RugbyRebels

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/why ... n-war.html

Worth reading

It's was a nasty war and neither side gave a toss about civilian casualties. The American use of air power was unrestrained, lately due to the closeness of the result thanks to Chinese intervention. And it could have been much worse if MacArthur had his way.

However, 70 years later and a population that is fully indoctrinated to hate the South and the Americans whilst they live in squalor and their leaders lord it up. What percentage of the population has been killed by the actions of the NK government?

The fact that he Chinese have just allowed sanctions against this odious regime speaks volumes

Kim is feeling bullish, probably because the North Korean economy is the strongest it's been in decades, although it has come at some cost. There is an increasingly thriving economy, although not to the level of the 70s and early 80s, where they more or less had parity with South Korea.

That said, they're also losing friends fast, and their relationship with China is strained, to say the least and has been for a few years now.

And let's not pretend like the North Koreans are some sort of innocent victims in everything, all angelic and virtuous and shit. Go tell that to the parents of Megumi Yokota.

Sandydragon wrote:It's was a nasty war and neither side gave a toss about civilian casualties. The American use of air power was unrestrained, lately due to the closeness of the result thanks to Chinese intervention. And it could have been much worse if MacArthur had his way.

However, 70 years later and a population that is fully indoctrinated to hate the South and the Americans whilst they live in squalor and their leaders lord it up. What percentage of the population has been killed by the actions of the NK government?

The fact that he Chinese have just allowed sanctions against this odious regime speaks volumes

Propaganda works best when it is based on fact. And boy did the Americans give them plenty of facts to work with to instil the hate and fear. Also, these crazy dictatorships don't spring out of nowhere, their raison d'etre demands extreme circumstances to survive.

You can blame the US for plenty, but let's not pretend that the situation today is all down to the actions of the US over 60 years ago. Vietnam can also claim to have been the target of US carpet bombing, yet today it's moving forward and isn't an international pariah.

NK has been a kind of autocratic monarchy since the end of WWII. It's own crazy policies have turned the country into the current mess it is in. Plenty of countries claim to fear the US, very few are a fecked up as NK.

Sandydragon wrote:You can blame the US for plenty, but let's not pretend that the situation today is all down to the actions of the US over 60 years ago. Vietnam can also claim to have been the target of US carpet bombing, yet today it's moving forward and isn't an international pariah.

NK has been a kind of autocratic monarchy since the end of WWII. It's own crazy policies have turned the country into the current mess it is in. Plenty of countries claim to fear the US, very few are a fecked up as NK.

I'm not blaming the entire situation on the US. I'm just saying that their actions tend to play into the regime's hands in a way. If the world opened up to North Korea, I think change would come quicker.

Also what about the US abrogation of the armistice in 1958? When they unilaterally decided to place nukes in South Korea? Is it any wonder that the North is hell bent on having nukes?

US removing family members of their soldiers who are in SK.

Another reason is the fact the US and its South Korean colony regularly practise military maneuvers along the North Korea border in deliberate provocation. So the North Koreans test a missile or two just to remind them they can defend themselves if necessary, which provides Washington with the pretext it desires to talk about disarmament - like North Korea is the one we should be worried about Of course, the last notable leader to disband his nuclear weapons program was Gaddafi. Let that sink in.

rowan wrote:Another reason is the fact the US and its South Korean colony regularly practise military maneuvers along the North Korea border in deliberate provocation. So the North Koreans test a missile or two just to remind them they can defend themselves if necessary, which provides Washington with the pretext it desires to talk about disarmament - like North Korea is the one we should be worried about Of course, the last notable leader to disband his nuclear weapons program was Gaddafi. Let that sink in.

Surely you mean Iran.

rowan wrote:Another reason is the fact the US and its South Korean colony regularly practise military maneuvers along the North Korea border in deliberate provocation. So the North Koreans test a missile or two just to remind them they can defend themselves if necessary ...

This is the sort of naive rubbish that I would expect to read from a 2nd year costume design student.

Since when does conducting conventional military manoeuvres in your own land-space or that of a close ally constitute deliberate provocation on a scale similar to firing an inter-continental missile over international waters and a neutral third party (Japan)? And why is an intercontinental nuclear capability needed to remind anyone of North Korea's capacity to 'defend' themselves against conventional land forces, particularly when the overwhelming strength of its own land forces (The 4th largest in the world) is so regularly and publicly flaunted?

Is it too difficult for you to recognise or for once to acknowledge that every once in a while the US might legitimately station its armed forces in a country, at the legitimate request of its legitimately and democratically elected government for the purposes of defending that country against the historically proven aggression of a neighbouring dictatorship? North Korea is developing a nuclear arsenal not to defend itself (Because short of a capability sufficient to provide assured destruction, nuclear weapons have no defensive capability), but with the intent of levering the US out of the way so that it can deploy its overwhelming conventional capability against its southern neighbour.

I know men who fought in Korea at the behest of the UN in response to a Chinese-inspired (And ultimately aided) North Korean invasion of the South. Their experience suggests that should things once again resort to war, China won't sit long on the fence. Tip the Chinese army of 2.2 million into the pot and I would suggest that there is ample justification for the US backing of the South. Bring China's nuclear arsenal into the equation and then make your case for the Kims' pursuit of a weaponised nuclear capability while the feudal population of their country starves.

Zhivago wrote:If the world opened up to North Korea, I think change would come quicker.

That is 1930s thinking and even if the appetite for Appeasement were there, it does not work with the deranged. Now if North Korea were to open up to the world we might see change.

That's an imperialist mindset. The majority of South Koreans want reunification with the North, and the majority of North Koreans want reunification with the south. The only ones in favor of military drills right on the North Korea border are the Americans. South Korea has no say in the matter. & there is no difference at all to that and the North Koreans test firing their hardware. America has test-fired plenty in the Pacific and destroyed a number of islands and the lives of their inhabitants. This is a Might makes right, White makes right philosophy. & it was America which flattened everything in sight during the Korean war, reducing the population of the North by a third (2 out of 6 million at the time).

The easiest thing for me to retort would be to argue that yours is a pointless and naive mindset that ignores every reality of the present and of history, but I'll try to be a little more conciliatory and constructive.

I would say that no one knows what the majority of North Koreans want because no one in power in North Korea has ever deemed it necessary or prudent to ask and no one outside North Korea has ever had access to the majority of North Koreans. I might hazard a guess that if asked, the majority of North Korean people would prefer anything other than to be ruled by a dynasty that has bought its own domestic security and dubious international repute on the back of their hardship, enforced ignorance and starvation. I would also say that the majority of informed opinion 'wants' reunification, since this is unarguably the most secure solution for the people of Korea and the region - but not at any cost. Reunification under any form of despotic dictatorship such as that which has prevailed in the North since its establishment or at the cost of detente with such a polity would not make Korea, the region or the world more secure, quite the opposite in fact.

War is a miserably destructive business, Rowan, and total war almost invariably turns out to be far more expensive in lives and lost treasure than its outcome justifies. I would caution against pontificating about something of which we have no experience; the Korean War and its effects were not of our time and we have no right to stand in judgement on those who fought it. All I would say is that the war was fought against the backdrop of a communist invasion of the South, inspired and later supported by China. The forces who opposed this coalition were UN-sanctioned and found themselves caught up in a conflict of such savagery that it rivaled the worst of the Second World War. Blaming the US armed forces for all of the deaths in North Korea is, in my opinion, the same as blaming Germany for all of the deaths in Stalin's Soviet Union.

There are some serious flaws in your logic there. Wars are not necessarily meant to be apocalyptic and genocidal, as was America's wholesale destruction of North Korea, flattening every single building in the nation and wiping out a third of its population - 2 million. That was as unnecessary as dropping atomic bombs on Japan and fire-bombing Dresden even as the terms of surrender were being negotiated. So of course we should judge these things. It is absolutely vital to judge these things. Anything less is simply denial, which is precisely the reason history continues to repeat itself again and again. Indeed, we can see America doing the same to Iraq, Libya and Syria in our own time. Should we simply sweep imperialism, WWII and the Holocaust under the carpet as well?

Regarding the origins of the Korea War, at the conclusion of WWII the UN declared the Republic of Korea (ie South Korea) the capital of the peninsula - a decision as outrageous as its Partition Plan for Palestine, and equally as destructive in its consequences. North Korea was not even invited to the discussions, and the resolution was a violation of the UN's own charter. The subsequent protests resulted in massacres of North Koreans by the South Korean armed forces, while American officials stood by and the UN Commission failed to investigate. The war had effectively already begun long before the first tanks rolled across the 38th parallel.

Meanwhile, the Chinese conducted a poll not so long ago which showed overwhelming support among North Koreans for reunification. South Korean polls have also shown a majority in favor of the concept, though younger participants expressed reservations about the type of government; that's all. Informal negotiations actually begun in the 1970s when Nixon visited China, and were formalized some years ago. The major obstacle is US foreign policy. & if people are starving in North Korea that probably has a lot to do with the US-led sanctions imposed upon them. In fact, sanctions are only designed to create so much hardship that the people will eventually rise up against their masters - but in this regard they have never been effective.

rowan wrote:Wars are not necessarily meant to be apocalyptic and genocidal, as was America's wholesale destruction of North Korea, flattening every single building in the nation and wiping out a third of its population - 2 million. That was as unnecessary as dropping atomic bombs on Japan and fire-bombing Dresden even as the terms of surrender were being negotiated. So of course we should judge these things. It is absolutely vital to judge these things. Anything less is simply denial, which is precisely the reason history continues to repeat itself again and again. Indeed, we can see America doing the same to Iraq, Libya and Syria in our own time. Should we simply sweep imperialism, WWII and the Holocaust under the carpet as well?

As I have said, above, blaming the US for all of the North Korean deaths in the Korean War is simply unjustified and suggesting that the Americans waged a 'genocidal' war is not only inaccurate but a base calumny. Your subsequent 'judging' of the atomic bombing of Japan and the fire bombing of Dresden is, I am afraid, a luxury afforded by revisionism and hind-sight that was not extended to those who had to make the strategic and operational decisions in 1945. I do not defend them, but I do defend them against the judgement of people who were not there and have based their judgement on a revisionist view of history.

rowan wrote: Regarding the origins of the Korea War, at the conclusion of WWII the UN declared the Republic of Korea (ie South Korea) the capital of the peninsula - a decision as outrageous as its Partition Plan for Palestine, and equally as destructive in its consequences. North Korea was not even invited to the discussions, and the resolution was a violation of the UN's own charter. The subsequent protests resulted in massacres of North Koreans by the South Korean armed forces, while American officials stood by and the UN Commission failed to investigate. The war had effectively already begun long before the first tanks rolled across the 38th parallel.

You can dress the North's invasion in whatever clothes of innocence you chose, but the bottom line is that whatever wrongs that may have been perpetrated on the people of the North by the people of the South were returned at least in equal measure. This was a war of unfathomable savagery from the very start - so don't lay the blame at the US or the UN's door-mat.

rowan wrote: Meanwhile, the Chinese conducted a poll not so long ago which showed overwhelming support among North Koreans for reunification. South Korean polls have also shown a majority in favor of the concept, though younger participants expressed reservations about the type of government; that's all.

So say the Chinese, and its not like they would have any reason to misrepresent the view of the North Korean people, is it. I still argue that even the Chinese would have no real measure of the views of the majority of the North Korean people and even if they did how valid is the view of a people who have been held in enforced isolation by a regime that has shut them off from the rest of the world.

'Reservations'? What on earth do you mean by 'thats all?' Are you suggesting that a a majority of young South Koreans would accept unification even if it came at the cost of replacing their current government with that of the Kims? Wise up, my friend.

rowan wrote:Informal negotiations actually begun in the 1970s when Nixon visited China, and were formalized some years ago. The major obstacle is US foreign policy. & if people are starving in North Korea that probably has a lot to do with the US-led sanctions imposed upon them. In fact, sanctions are only designed to create so much hardship that the people will eventually rise up against their masters - but in this regard they have never been effective.

If people are starving? Do you suggest that they are not? People are starving and it has little if anything to do with US sanctions, which may have an effect in the cities but are unlikely to impact of the vast majority of those living what amounts to an 18th Century feudal life. That having been said, I am no great supporter of sanctions, which tend to be a blunt instrument. But what is the alternative, short of military action, when a disruptive regime refuses to accept international condemnation.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

rowan wrote: Meanwhile, the Chinese conducted a poll not so long ago which showed overwhelming support among North Koreans for reunification. South Korean polls have also shown a majority in favor of the concept, though younger participants expressed reservations about the type of government; that's all.

So say the Chinese, and its not like they would have any reason to misrepresent the view of the North Korean people, is it. I still argue that even the Chinese would have no real measure of the views of the majority of the North Korean people and even if they did how valid is the view of a people who have been held in enforced isolation by a regime that has shut them off from the rest of the world.

'Reservations'? What on earth do you mean by 'thats all?' Are you suggesting that a a majority of young South Koreans would accept unification even if it came at the cost of replacing their current government with that of the Kims? Wise up, my friend.

I believe that this is what he is referring to.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fef ... 97430.html

But now we have some new information, thanks to a poll of 100 North Koreans in China conducted last year by researchers from Chosun Ilbo and the Center for Cultural Unification Studies. These North Koreans are not defectors. They are spending some time in China working or visiting relatives, and they plan to return to their country.

This group of North Koreas is, of course, an unusual cohort. They have had an opportunity to travel outside their country. They’ve presumably had contact with foreigners and foreign ideas. They don’t represent North Korean public opinion as a whole. However, the group is roughly divided between men and half women and is diverse in their age and place of residence in North Korea. Only two of the 100 had college degrees, so they do not represent the North Korean elite.

Like South Koreans, the North Koreans showed a lot of interest in reunification: 95 of them said that it was necessary, largely for economic reasons. An overwhelming number believed that they would personally benefit from reunification.

When asked about how they think reunification will take place, only eight of the 100 held to their government’s position that North Korea would control the process. Only seven thought that it would take place when the North Korean regime collapses. On the other hand, 22 respondents expected that South Korea would absorb North Korea. And the vast majority expected that reunification would take place “through negotiations between the two Koreas on equal footings after reforms and an opening-up of the North.”

When asked about the system that a reunified Korea should adopt, the answers were even more startling. Only 14 opted for North Korean socialism, and 26 chose a compromise between the two systems. On the other hand, 34 respondents preferred the South Korean system and 24 others didn’t care which system the unified country adopts.

Make of that what you will.

Not the same one. Also . . .

The Moon-Putin Plan: One Possible Path To Peace

One could be forgiven for not having heard of it since it disrupts the standard “North-Korea-Problem” narrative, but there is a realistic solution to the crisis that liberal and progressive appeasers are keeping silent about. This is the Moon-Putin Plan unveiled in September in Vladivostok. President Moon outlined it as nine “bridges” of cooperation linking South Korea to Russia via North Korea—“gas, railroads, ports, electricity, a northern sea route, shipbuilding, jobs, agriculture, and fisheries.” Siberian oil and gas pipelines would be extended to Korea, both North and South, as well as to Japan. Both Koreas would be linked up with the vast rail networks of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, including high-speed rail, and the Eurasian Economic Union, which includes the Trans-Siberian Railway. In the words of Gavan McCormack, “North Korea would accept the security guarantee of the five (Japan included), refrain from any further nuclear or missile testing, shelve (‘freeze’) its existing programs and gain its longed for ‘normalization’ in the form of incorporation in regional groupings, the lifting of sanctions and normalized relations with its neighbour states, without surrender.” This Moon-Putin Plan has the potential to satisfy all the states involved, possibly even the US. One would think, “Done deal. Problem solved.” Yet mainstream journalists in Japan and English-speaking countries have largely ignored it, and even very few non-mainstream journalists have covered it.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08 ... utin-plan/

North Korea calls for 'REUNIFICATION' with South Korea - 'SMASH all challenges'

tps://www.express.co.uk/news/world/909566/nor ... un-usa-war

And I'm not surprised you would try and defend their 'integrity'. Stick to your tits and arse pictures; At least you know a shapely arse.

rowan wrote:Not the same one. Also . . .

The Moon-Putin Plan: One Possible Path To Peace

One could be forgiven for not having heard of it since it disrupts the standard “North-Korea-Problem” narrative, but there is a realistic solution to the crisis that liberal and progressive appeasers are keeping silent about. This is the Moon-Putin Plan unveiled in September in Vladivostok. President Moon outlined it as nine “bridges” of cooperation linking South Korea to Russia via North Korea—“gas, railroads, ports, electricity, a northern sea route, shipbuilding, jobs, agriculture, and fisheries.” Siberian oil and gas pipelines would be extended to Korea, both North and South, as well as to Japan. Both Koreas would be linked up with the vast rail networks of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, including high-speed rail, and the Eurasian Economic Union, which includes the Trans-Siberian Railway. In the words of Gavan McCormack, “North Korea would accept the security guarantee of the five (Japan included), refrain from any further nuclear or missile testing, shelve (‘freeze’) its existing programs and gain its longed for ‘normalization’ in the form of incorporation in regional groupings, the lifting of sanctions and normalized relations with its neighbour states, without surrender.” This Moon-Putin Plan has the potential to satisfy all the states involved, possibly even the US. One would think, “Done deal. Problem solved.” Yet mainstream journalists in Japan and English-speaking countries have largely ignored it, and even very few non-mainstream journalists have covered it.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/08 ... utin-plan/

North Korea calls for 'REUNIFICATION' with South Korea - 'SMASH all challenges'

tps://www.express.co.uk/news/world/909566/nor ... un-usa-war

They should go careful with that. Look what happened the last time a neighbour of Russia gave up it's nuclear weapons and had it's security guaranteed by treaty.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

rowan wrote:Wars are not necessarily meant to be apocalyptic and genocidal, as was America's wholesale destruction of North Korea, flattening every single building in the nation and wiping out a third of its population - 2 million. That was as unnecessary as dropping atomic bombs on Japan and fire-bombing Dresden even as the terms of surrender were being negotiated. So of course we should judge these things. It is absolutely vital to judge these things. Anything less is simply denial, which is precisely the reason history continues to repeat itself again and again. Indeed, we can see America doing the same to Iraq, Libya and Syria in our own time. Should we simply sweep imperialism, WWII and the Holocaust under the carpet as well?

As I have said, above, blaming the US for all of the North Korean deaths in the Korean War is simply unjustified and suggesting that the Americans waged a 'genocidal' war is not only inaccurate but a base calumny. Your subsequent 'judging' of the atomic bombing of Japan and the fire bombing of Dresden is, I am afraid, a luxury afforded by revisionism and hind-sight that was not extended to those who had to make the strategic and operational decisions in 1945. I do not defend them, but I do defend them against the judgement of people who were not there and have based their judgement on a revisionist view of history.

rowan wrote: Regarding the origins of the Korea War, at the conclusion of WWII the UN declared the Republic of Korea (ie South Korea) the capital of the peninsula - a decision as outrageous as its Partition Plan for Palestine, and equally as destructive in its consequences. North Korea was not even invited to the discussions, and the resolution was a violation of the UN's own charter. The subsequent protests resulted in massacres of North Koreans by the South Korean armed forces, while American officials stood by and the UN Commission failed to investigate. The war had effectively already begun long before the first tanks rolled across the 38th parallel.

You can dress the North's invasion in whatever clothes of innocence you chose, but the bottom line is that whatever wrongs that may have been perpetrated on the people of the North by the people of the South were returned at least in equal measure. This was a war of unfathomable savagery from the very start - so don't lay the blame at the US or the UN's door-mat.

rowan wrote: Meanwhile, the Chinese conducted a poll not so long ago which showed overwhelming support among North Koreans for reunification. South Korean polls have also shown a majority in favor of the concept, though younger participants expressed reservations about the type of government; that's all.

So say the Chinese, and its not like they would have any reason to misrepresent the view of the North Korean people, is it. I still argue that even the Chinese would have no real measure of the views of the majority of the North Korean people and even if they did how valid is the view of a people who have been held in enforced isolation by a regime that has shut them off from the rest of the world.

'Reservations'? What on earth do you mean by 'thats all?' Are you suggesting that a a majority of young South Koreans would accept unification even if it came at the cost of replacing their current government with that of the Kims? Wise up, my friend.

rowan wrote:Informal negotiations actually begun in the 1970s when Nixon visited China, and were formalized some years ago. The major obstacle is US foreign policy. & if people are starving in North Korea that probably has a lot to do with the US-led sanctions imposed upon them. In fact, sanctions are only designed to create so much hardship that the people will eventually rise up against their masters - but in this regard they have never been effective.

If people are starving? Do you suggest that they are not? People are starving and it has little if anything to do with US sanctions, which may have an effect in the cities but are unlikely to impact of the vast majority of those living what amounts to an 18th Century feudal life. That having been said, I am no great supporter of sanctions, which tend to be a blunt instrument. But what is the alternative, short of military action, when a disruptive regime refuses to accept international condemnation.

The US dropped the nukes for two key reasons other than the obvious military advantage to doing so:
a) They could test out this game-changing weapon for real
b) They wanted to hasten the defeat of the Japanese so as to prevent The Soviets from occupying Japan.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:And I'm not surprised you would try and defend their 'integrity'. Stick to your tits and arse pictures; At least you know a shapely arse.

Feigning indignation over a picture of a teacher who chose to wear a ridiculously tight dress while presenting the school awards is a poor attempt on your part to smokescreen the immorality of your imperialist mindset. How do I know? From the 'Doping' thread - this is not the first time I've seen you making comments along these lines.

Fair point. He doesn't look entirely thrilled at the prospect of another winter's evening as a slave to Ms Bryzgalova's predatory sexual appetites.

I have to say that is not the look of a man who has just been told to lift her dirty knickers from the bathroom floor!





The US dropped the nukes for two key reasons other than the obvious military advantage to doing so:
a) They could test out this game-changing weapon for real
b) They wanted to hasten the defeat of the Japanese so as to prevent The Soviets from occupying Japan.

Indeed. Moscow had actually contacted Washington with a view to making a land invasion of Japan. The Japanese were already negotiating their surrender but were stuck on one point - they wanted to retain their emperor. The US subsequently bombed two entire cities to rubble (they'd already done it to Tokyo and numerous other cities during the war itself). & guess what - Japan kept their emperor anyway !!

The right wing loud boors on here all have one thing in common. Their ignorance of history.

Ignorance of history is it? This is the historical timeline.

26 July 1945 - Truman issues the Potsdam Declaration warning Japan of complete destruction unless she surrenders unconditionally.
29 July - Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration
5 Aug - Orders issued for the bombing of Hiroshima
6 Aug - Hiroshima bombed
7 Aug - Orders issued for the bombing of Nagasaki
8 Aug - Togo meets Hirohito and recommends acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, approach is made to the Soviet ambassador to sound them out as intermediary, but he informs Japan that Soviet Union will declare war the next day
9 Aug - Soviet Union declares war and invades Manchuria. Nagasaki bombed
10 Aug - Japanese cabinet remains divided on whether to accept Potsdam. Hirohito intercedes. Japanese send message to Allies via Domei news agency and Truman orders a halt to further atomic bombing until further notice.
11 Aug - Japanese offer to surrender as long as they can keep the Emperor is rejected and rejection is communicated.
12 Aug - Hirohito determines to accept unconditional surrender terms.
14 Aug - Small core of Japanese military attempt coup. Japanese cabinet agree to unconditional surrender
15 Aug - Hirohito announces the surrender.

The Americans dropped both atomic bombs with the intent of hastening the defeat of Japan in order that fewer Americans would be killed. Both bombs were dropped before any formal Japanese approach was made to the Americans. As soon as the formal approach had been made, Truman ordered that atomic bombings should be suspended. There was still a hard kernel of military authority determined to fight on even as late as the day before the surrender.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria in order that they could grab as much territory as possible before the Japanese surrender, which I think is a very different picture than those painted by Rowan and Zivago.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Ignorance of history is it? This is the historical timeline.

26 July 1945 - Truman issues the Potsdam Declaration warning Japan of complete destruction unless she surrenders unconditionally.
29 July - Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration
5 Aug - Orders issued for the bombing of Hiroshima
6 Aug - Hiroshima bombed
7 Aug - Orders issued for the bombing of Nagasaki
8 Aug - Togo meets Hirohito and recommends acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, approach is made to the Soviet ambassador to sound them out as intermediary, but he informs Japan that Soviet Union will declare war the next day
9 Aug - Soviet Union declares war and invades Manchuria. Nagasaki bombed
10 Aug - Japanese cabinet remains divided on whether to accept Potsdam. Hirohito intercedes. Japanese send message to Allies via Domei news agency and Truman orders a halt to further atomic bombing until further notice.
11 Aug - Japanese offer to surrender as long as they can keep the Emperor is rejected and rejection is communicated.
12 Aug - Hirohito determines to accept unconditional surrender terms.
14 Aug - Small core of Japanese military attempt coup. Japanese cabinet agree to unconditional surrender
15 Aug - Hirohito announces the surrender.

The Americans dropped both atomic bombs with the intent of hastening the defeat of Japan in order that fewer Americans would be killed. Both bombs were dropped before any formal Japanese approach was made to the Americans. Once the formal approach had been made, Truman ordered that atomic bombings should be suspended. There was still a hard kernel of military authority determined to fight on even as late as the day before the surrender.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria in order that they could grab as much territory as possible before the Japanese surrender, which is not very subtly different from the run of events you suggest.

Don’t go confusing these two fucking clowns with actual facts you imperialist pig.