RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe

RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room

Message

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 6:29:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Mike, didn't France stand up as well? Sure, she got knocked out pretty fast, but she and England both declared war when Germany invaded Poland, right? (Pacific is my expertise, not Europe) You are correct..., both France and England went to war over the German invasion of Poland (which the Nazi-Soviet Pact made possible). But when France fell, England stood as the ONLY nation at war with Hitler for almost a full year (until the Nazis attacked the Soviets).

ChezDaJez -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 6:32:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy Well, I have said this all along. Nice to finally see a representative from a US university drawing the same conclusions as i said for 2 years ago on this very forums. The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda. Soviet Union Defeated the German's, the Land Leace did indeed help them (despite that research done in the 2000's scale down its effect a bit) and the Soviets entry into the Pacific scared the **** out of the Japs. The Soviets got their nation terrorized, but comed out of it as a unified and strong nation with greater industrial potential then ever before, its political strength in 1946+ can't Evan be compared to its pre war political influence. I'd have to disagree with this statement, as the Soviet Union was one of the "Allies". And without the parcipatation of the Western Allies, a Soviet victory over Germany was far from assured. The most correct way of stating it would be to say that the Soviet Union was the major factor in defeating Germany. Of course, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was also a major cause of the War in Europe..., and only England dared to stand up to Hitler alone. There's enough "credit" to go around. I agree with you. Mike. The Soviet Union did inlfict more casualties on the European Axis than did the Anglos during the war but without the Anglos tying down large formations of German troops in the west, the Soviet Union might well have been overrun before they could move their industry east of the Urals. Plus, massive amounts of Lend Lease equipment from the US helped stabilize their desparate shortage of weapons, aircraft and trucks the Soviets experienced after the initial onslaughts. Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 6:37:02 AM)
quote: Not sure I agree with the other assorted conclusions though. The implication of an atomic bomb being equal to fire bombing is ludicrous, not matter what the "profs" say. They overlook a critical fact: fire bombing requires the accurate and coordinated delivery of tens of thousands of pieces of ordnance, an atomic bomb requires a single delivery system. Then and now, this one fact is the fundamental difference and is what creates all the concern. Probably didn't appear that ludicrous from the Japanese viewpoint. The logistics of the delivery of 1 bomb or thousands probably didn't concern them much. They couldn't stop delivery either way. Chez

elxaime -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 8:54:16 AM)
I think Hasegawa's thesis is most relevant to how the historiography of WW2 was harnessed to serve the political needs of the Cold War. The idea of a Japanese surrender primarily motivated by US military might in the form of the atomic bomb was useful post-war: - the US and its allies were engaged in a world wide struggle for influence with the Soviet Union and its allies; we did not want to give Stalin and his murderous system any more than the most grudging credit for the defeat of either Nazi Germany and/or Japan - Hence, the story in most US public school textbooks focused almost exclusively on Midway, D-Day and the dropping of the atomic bomb as key events in WW2; this wasn't just the usual national pride - textbooks had only passing mention of the Eastern Front and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was treated as an afterthought since the war had already been won by US might - Japan went along with the US version to appease their new US conquerors and also to save face; it was easier to accept surrender was due to an elemental force of nature (the bomb) as opposed to a military collapse at the hands of the Allies and Soviets; the Germans evolved a similar fantasy to explain the end of WW1, namely that it was a political collapse at home as opposed to the very real disintegration of German military resistance under the hammer blows of the Foch offensives. No military likes to admit it was defeated by conventional force of arms and the Japanese military apologists are no different - for their part, the Soviets also massaged history to their own end; talk to any Russian today who grew up under the Soviet school system and they will tell you how they learned that Allied aid to the Soviet Union during WW2 was negligible and the Red Army saved the world almost single-handed - furthermore, the Atom Bomb uber alles version helped fuel public support for the linchpin of post-war US nuclear deterrence strategy and fueled the Cold War military buildup based almost exclusively on this theory; certainly atomic bombs are destructive on a scale never before imagined, but it helped immensely to secure public support for their building if we could make a clean example of how they had ended Japanese resistance; the role of the Soviet invasion muddied things up uncomfortably and was better banished Often times it takes many decades before historians can parse out what really happened. And sometimes we will never truly know. But this tale of the end of WW2 doesn't just speak to those events, but also to the way historiography adapts to pressing political needs, in this instance the Cold War. It is a sobering thought, since interpretation of such events still drives national policy. In some cases, the current theories, military and political, are based on mistaken premises of what actually happened in the past. Other areas where I suspect there will be revision some day is the theory that British and French Governments prior to Churchill and De Gaulle were all feckless appeasers and that Roosevelt gave up the whole show at Yalta. In the former case, too little weight is given to the horrendous toll of WW1 on both societies and also the fact that, when it came to it, both governments did indeed declare war on Nazi Germany (while the US stayed neutral). In the latter case, Roosevelt was dealing with the realities of a massive Soviet military presence and a US public with no stomach for another new war (Patton notwithstanding).

LoBaron -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 12:44:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda. Damn, and all those years I thought the P51 won the war. This is so confusing... [X(]

oldman45 -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 2:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda. Damn, and all those years I thought the P51 won the war. This is so confusing... [X(] It was not the P51, it was the M1 rifle and the R2800 engine [;)] oh and spam [:'(]

JohnDillworth -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 2:39:02 PM)
History is written by the victors. In the pacific, that was the United States. Perhaps it is correct, perhaps not, but that is the way it will be remembered. Sometimes enough rigorous intellectual re-examination of the facts will change the way history is understood (Shattered Sword anyone?)by the well informed (that might be us), but most people will recall the popular memory.

JWE -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 6:23:44 PM)
Time for this thread to be locked. And time for that tank army fellow to have his login permanently removed.

ilovestrategy -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 7:27:25 PM)
All I saw was another "US bad, Japanese noble victims" post. Hell, my wife's 30 year old niece thinks we were evil for dropping the bomb and we should have talked to the Nips. And yes, I said Nips. The Japanese Military were a cruel, sadistic, and vicious people that were just as cruel to their own people as well as their prisoners. Okinawa was a sign that they were prepared to fight on. The bomb was a shock value that saved a ton of lives on both sides. The Soviets did not win WW2 single handed like that dude says. I bet you dollars to donuts Stalin would have never declared war if we werent at Japans doorstep with the largest fleet the world had ever seen. They were nothing but Johnny Come Latelys to the Pacific Theater. Sorry for misspellings, I'm on my phone.

Pascal_slith -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 7:59:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ryvan People in the area of the actual attacks may have been aware. I'm in a hotel right now and I'm not sure which book I pulled it from, but I remember reading that the emperor's radio broadcast was the first time that most civilians had heard that there was anything different about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. I believe it was also the first time the Japanese had actually heard the voice of the Emperor.

dr.hal -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 8:59:15 PM)
I doubt we will ever be able to settle the question as to what "ended" WWII to everyone's satisfaction. However I would like to point out that there are two things that came from the use of the atomic devices at the end of the war. One is the fact that the use was able to create a mindset of "fear" about the weapons in all societies, including the Soviets. This is important, as I know the angst that the development of "usable" nukes caused, DESPITE that fear. First came the suitcase bomb or tactical nuke and the appeal that it had to some battle field scenarios, and then the whole debate over the "neutron bomb" and its usability. Both were VERY scary developments. The scare is a direct reflection of the two uses of "the bomb" in our collective history. So the non-use of atomic weapons is due in large part to their use in the war, whether or not that use ended the war. And this first point leads into the second, the entrance we made into the "Nuclear Age". We entered that "age" on the cheap! This may sound horribly callous, and I apologize in advance, but we dropped VERY small devices by today's standards on the Japanese. Yes this use killed 10s of thousands, possible 100s of thousands in the long run, BUT this death was done by very small yield weapons which today would be considered a "tactical" size weapon. If they had not been used and say we delayed their initial use until the Korean War for example, then the use of the weapons just 6 years later for "the first time" would have been SO much more destructive...but even worse if we delayed until we had the "city buster" bombs of 60 MEGAtons (unlike the 10-12 KILOton devices used on Japan) we might have "entered" the nuclear age (if using the weapon is the entry point) at a point where the very planet itself would be put at risk. So, despite it being terrible to say, we "entered" the nuclear age at the earliest possible moment in the historical timeline, which may have saved MANY lives in the long run. Again, let me preface this whole argument by saying I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do mean to present some logic to a very illogical concept, the use of nuclear weapons....

Pascal_slith -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 10:44:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy All I saw was another "US bad, Japanese noble victims" post. Hell, my wife's 30 year old niece thinks we were evil for dropping the bomb and we should have talked to the Nips. And yes, I said Nips. The Japanese Military were a cruel, sadistic, and vicious people that were just as cruel to their own people as well as their prisoners. Okinawa was a sign that they were prepared to fight on. The bomb was a shock value that saved a ton of lives on both sides. The Soviets did not win WW2 single handed like that dude says. I bet you dollars to donuts Stalin would have never declared war if we werent at Japans doorstep with the largest fleet the world had ever seen. They were nothing but Johnny Come Latelys to the Pacific Theater. Sorry for misspellings, I'm on my phone. Here's the timeline: August 6: atomic bombing of Hiroshima August 8: USSR declares war on Japan August 9: atomic bombing of Nagasaki; USSR starts offensive into Manchuria August 10: Hirohito informs Imperial Council he will accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (unconditional surrender) August 13-14: 1600 US bombers bomb Tokyo August 15: Hirohito does his radio broadcast Here's an easy question: does anyone think the Japanese did not know the Soviets were preparing for their offensive on August 9th well in advance (before the Hiroshima bombing)? Kind of evident right across the border in Siberia...especially as Germany had surrendered back in May. On the other hand, they had no idea of atomic bombs. Forget the explanation about the Soviet invasion pushing the Japanese to surrender. The encircling of Japan by the US and Britain, the cutting off of the country by US subs from major resources, the atomic bombs, the other major bombings and the prospect that the Japanese extremists would push the country to national Hara-Kiri was what pushed them to surrender. The Soviets in this case were incidental.

House Stark -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 10:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal I doubt we will ever be able to settle the question as to what "ended" WWII to everyone's satisfaction. However I would like to point out that there are two things that came from the use of the atomic devices at the end of the war. One is the fact that the use was able to create a mindset of "fear" about the weapons in all societies, including the Soviets. This is important, as I know the angst that the development of "usable" nukes caused, DESPITE that fear. First came the suitcase bomb or tactical nuke and the appeal that it had to some battle field scenarios, and then the whole debate over the "neutron bomb" and its usability. Both were VERY scary developments. The scare is a direct reflection of the two uses of "the bomb" in our collective history. So the non-use of atomic weapons is due in large part to their use in the war, whether or not that use ended the war. And this first point leads into the second, the entrance we made into the "Nuclear Age". We entered that "age" on the cheap! This may sound horribly callous, and I apologize in advance, but we dropped VERY small devices by today's standards on the Japanese. Yes this use killed 10s of thousands, possible 100s of thousands in the long run, BUT this death was done by very small yield weapons which today would be considered a "tactical" size weapon. If they had not been used and say we delayed their initial use until the Korean War for example, then the use of the weapons just 6 years later for "the first time" would have been SO much more destructive...but even worse if we delayed until we had the "city buster" bombs of 60 MEGAtons (unlike the 10-12 KILOton devices used on Japan) we might have "entered" the nuclear age (if using the weapon is the entry point) at a point where the very planet itself would be put at risk. So, despite it being terrible to say, we "entered" the nuclear age at the earliest possible moment in the historical timeline, which may have saved MANY lives in the long run. Again, let me preface this whole argument by saying I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do mean to present some logic to a very illogical concept, the use of nuclear weapons.... I agree completely with this. Whether or not the bombs were indeed necessary to win the war, their use definitely had its long term benefits. Better 2 bombs in 1945 than 100s due to a Cold War going nuclear and people finding out only then just how nasty nuclear weapons really were.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 10:55:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pascal Here's an easy question: does anyone think the Japanese did not know the Soviets were preparing for their offensive on August 9th well in advance (before the Hiroshima bombing)? Kind of evident right across the border in Siberia...especially as Germany had surrendered back in May. Actually it was a body blow to the militarists in control, as in their unending "grasping at straws" for a way out they had "feelers" out to the Soviets in hopes they would "broker" some sort of conditional surrender... What the bomb and the Soviet declaration of war did do was give the Emperor the backbone to stand up and say "Enough!" to these scoundrels. And even then they actually tried to stage a coup against the very Emperor they were supposedly ready to die in the service of.

Pascal_slith -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 11:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pascal Here's an easy question: does anyone think the Japanese did not know the Soviets were preparing for their offensive on August 9th well in advance (before the Hiroshima bombing)? Kind of evident right across the border in Siberia...especially as Germany had surrendered back in May. Actually it was a body blow to the militarists in control, as in their unending "grasping at straws" for a way out they had "feelers" out to the Soviets in hopes they would "broker" some sort of conditional surrender... What the bomb and the Soviet declaration of war did do was give the Emperor the backbone to stand up and say "Enough!" to these scoundrels. And even then they actually tried to stage a coup against the very Emperor they were supposedly ready to die in the service of. Doesn't counter the case that they knew already that the Soviets were preparing an offensive. Being surprised when you're "grasping at straws" is kind of a weak argument for the Soviet invasion being the "straw that tips the wagon"... Even though the Western Allies encouraged the Soviets to declare war on Japan, we also were not about to let them invade the Japanese Home Islands (with what ships, by the way?). The threat to Japan was from the US and Britain, not the Soviets. Most of the Japanese Army was still in China at the time and cut off from Japan.

ilovestrategy -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 11:12:08 PM)
It was a different time back then too.

Klahn -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/7/2011 11:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Pascal Here's an easy question: does anyone think the Japanese did not know the Soviets were preparing for their offensive on August 9th well in advance (before the Hiroshima bombing)? Kind of evident right across the border in Siberia...especially as Germany had surrendered back in May. Actually it was a body blow to the militarists in control, as in their unending "grasping at straws" for a way out they had "feelers" out to the Soviets in hopes they would "broker" some sort of conditional surrender... What the bomb and the Soviet declaration of war did do was give the Emperor the backbone to stand up and say "Enough!" to these scoundrels. And even then they actually tried to stage a coup against the very Emperor they were supposedly ready to die in the service of. This. The Japanese were completely shocked by the Soviet invasion. Their last hope for peace was to convince the Soviets it was in their best interests to force the Americans into a peace. They were prepared to make massive territorial concessions to the Soviets in mainland Asia and figured that this would cause the Soviets to force the Americans to the table. You have listed that the Soviets declared war on August 8th and invaded on the 9th. This makes it sound as if the Japanese had been warned a day in advance. The Soviets declared war at 11pm August 8th Transbaikal time and invaded at 1 minute past midnight on August 9th. The Japanese had exactly 61 minutes of warning. The Kwantung Army was in the middle of a total strategic redeployment when the Soviets hit it. This would most certainly not be the case if the Japanese were expecting an invasion at any time. Japanese intelligence didn't believe the Soviets would have sufficient force to launch an attack until the end of August at the very earliest.

Alfred -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 3:45:55 AM)
The Japanese military was totally shocked at the rapid collapse of the Kwantung Army. They were not expecting that outcome. Really the entire Soviet Far East operation is probably the best planned and executed campaign of the entire 1939-45 war period. Alfred

vettim89 -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 4:46:01 AM)
Evaluating the various factions' mindsets at the end of the war is a complex undertaking. The impact of the USSR declaring war was probably felt more deeply in the IJA high command. The Sovs had long been the Army's biggest concern and perhaps the prospect of having to fight them as well as the US/GB/AUS/NZ forces was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. That said, my readings suggest that the A-bombs had a profound effect on Hirohito. So it might best be said that it was the combined effects of both events that led to the surrender. One has to wonder how things would have played out without the bombs. The Sovs were about to enter the war regardless. They were not about to pass up the oppportunity to put a significant part of NE Asia under its sphere of influence. Olympic was set to start in November. Japan was already starving. What would the effects of another three months of naval blockade plus aerial bombardment have been? It is possible there would not have been any Japanese cities to bomb by that point. How far would the Sovs have gotten in three months? All conjecture. This is just my opinion: the bombs saved innumerable lives. Even if they were not the prime factor for the surrender; they were a factor. By using them, at least hundreds of thousands of lives were saved and possibly millions considering how an invasion of the HI may have played out in the end

ilovestrategy -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 6:04:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda. I just got home so I could not answer this earlier. Once in a while someone like you comes along and acts like they are the only ones here that knows what is going on and everyone else has a grade school education. If there is one thing I've learned in the 6 years I've been here is that the forumites here have a very vast and detailed knowledge of the PTO. A little weird at times but very educated in the Pacific Theater. [:D]

Klahn -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 7:24:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 Evaluating the various factions' mindsets at the end of the war is a complex undertaking. The impact of the USSR declaring war was probably felt more deeply in the IJA high command. The Sovs had long been the Army's biggest concern and perhaps the prospect of having to fight them as well as the US/GB/AUS/NZ forces was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. That said, my readings suggest that the A-bombs had a profound effect on Hirohito. So it might best be said that it was the combined effects of both events that led to the surrender. One has to wonder how things would have played out without the bombs. The Sovs were about to enter the war regardless. They were not about to pass up the oppportunity to put a significant part of NE Asia under its sphere of influence. Olympic was set to start in November. Japan was already starving. What would the effects of another three months of naval blockade plus aerial bombardment have been? It is possible there would not have been any Japanese cities to bomb by that point. How far would the Sovs have gotten in three months? All conjecture. This is just my opinion: the bombs saved innumerable lives. Even if they were not the prime factor for the surrender; they were a factor. By using them, at least hundreds of thousands of lives were saved and possibly millions considering how an invasion of the HI may have played out in the end I wouldn't ever argue against the decision to use the bombs. Even if I now say that they didn't turn out to be necessary, I'm in possession of facts that Truman simply didn't have. With the situation that was laid out before him, I think he made the correct choice. How far would the Soviets have gotten in three months? Pretty damn far. They were in North Korea within a few days. But I think we read too much into Stalin's intentions. Japan had already offered to give him for free anything he could gain by force. I honestly believe that what drove Stalin to invade was simply complete hatred for the Axis and all of her friends. This was the note that Commissar Molotoff gave to Ambassador Sato: -- “After the defeat and capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, Japan became the only great power that still stood for the continuation of the war. “The demand of the three powers, the United States, Great Britain and China, on July 26 for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was rejected by Japan, and thus the proposal of the Japanese Government to the Soviet Union on mediation in the war in the Far East loses all basis. “Taking into consideration the refusal of Japan to capitulate, the Allies submitted to the Soviet Government a proposal to join the war against Japanese aggression and thus shorten the duration of the war, reduce the number of victims and facilitate the speedy restoration of universal peace. “Loyal to its Allied duty, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposals of the Allies and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26. “The Soviet Government considers that this policy is the only means able to bring peace nearer, free the people from further sacrifice and suffering and give the Japanese people the possibility of avoiding the dangers and destruction suffered by Germany after her refusal to capitulate unconditionally. “In view of the above, the Soviet Government declares that from tomorrow, that is from Aug. 9, the Soviet Government will consider itself to be at war with Japan.” -- And here was what Emperor Hirohito told his most trusted advisor, Koichi Kido, when he heard the news: "The Soviet Union declared war against us, and entered into a state of war as of today. Because of this it is necessary to study and decide on the termination of the war." He said this before the meeting with his military staff, and before the second atomic bomb had been dropped.

LoBaron -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 7:57:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ryvan quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 Evaluating the various factions' mindsets at the end of the war is a complex undertaking. The impact of the USSR declaring war was probably felt more deeply in the IJA high command. The Sovs had long been the Army's biggest concern and perhaps the prospect of having to fight them as well as the US/GB/AUS/NZ forces was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. That said, my readings suggest that the A-bombs had a profound effect on Hirohito. So it might best be said that it was the combined effects of both events that led to the surrender. One has to wonder how things would have played out without the bombs. The Sovs were about to enter the war regardless. They were not about to pass up the oppportunity to put a significant part of NE Asia under its sphere of influence. Olympic was set to start in November. Japan was already starving. What would the effects of another three months of naval blockade plus aerial bombardment have been? It is possible there would not have been any Japanese cities to bomb by that point. How far would the Sovs have gotten in three months? All conjecture. This is just my opinion: the bombs saved innumerable lives. Even if they were not the prime factor for the surrender; they were a factor. By using them, at least hundreds of thousands of lives were saved and possibly millions considering how an invasion of the HI may have played out in the end I wouldn't ever argue against the decision to use the bombs. Even if I now say that they didn't turn out to be necessary, I'm in possession of facts that Truman simply didn't have. With the situation that was laid out before him, I think he made the correct choice. How far would the Soviets have gotten in three months? Pretty damn far. They were in North Korea within a few days. But I think we read too much into Stalin's intentions. Japan had already offered to give him for free anything he could gain by force. I honestly believe that what drove Stalin to invade was simply complete hatred for the Axis and all of her friends. This was the note that Commissar Molotoff gave to Ambassador Sato: -- “After the defeat and capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, Japan became the only great power that still stood for the continuation of the war. “The demand of the three powers, the United States, Great Britain and China, on July 26 for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was rejected by Japan, and thus the proposal of the Japanese Government to the Soviet Union on mediation in the war in the Far East loses all basis. “Taking into consideration the refusal of Japan to capitulate, the Allies submitted to the Soviet Government a proposal to join the war against Japanese aggression and thus shorten the duration of the war, reduce the number of victims and facilitate the speedy restoration of universal peace. “Loyal to its Allied duty, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposals of the Allies and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26. “The Soviet Government considers that this policy is the only means able to bring peace nearer, free the people from further sacrifice and suffering and give the Japanese people the possibility of avoiding the dangers and destruction suffered by Germany after her refusal to capitulate unconditionally. “In view of the above, the Soviet Government declares that from tomorrow, that is from Aug. 9, the Soviet Government will consider itself to be at war with Japan.” -- And here was what Emperor Hirohito told his most trusted advisor, Koichi Kido, when he heard the news: "The Soviet Union declared war against us, and entered into a state of war as of today. Because of this it is necessary to study and decide on the termination of the war." He said this before the meeting with his military staff, and before the second atomic bomb had been dropped. The use of the atomic bomb and the SU attack on the Kwantung Army were only the final strikes against an already beaten empire. It does not make sense to argue which of those actions "won the war", the answer will always be "none of them" or "both of them", depending on the interpretation of "win". My personal opinion is "none of them", the war was won on so many different levels, that to pick out the last single events and make them stand above other deciding factors is purely academical, and - with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight - wrong. The reasoning of the Japanese high command, which specific event should cause them to sue for peace, is equally irrelevant as the day Adolf Hitler finally admitted defeat and chose to commit suicide. Both decisions were made far too late from an objective point of view taking the global situation into account. A final opinion on the atomic bomb: guys I don´t understand the discussion here as well. We are talking about the final hours of six years of the cruellest war in human history. From a todays point of view it may be an atrocity, seen from the perspective of a world where close to every human being already lost a friend or family member to an event of war, it was just another couple of deaths.

5thGuardsTankArmy -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 10:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy Well, I have said this all along. Nice to finally see a representative from a US university drawing the same conclusions as i said for 2 years ago on this very forums. The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda. Soviet Union Defeated the German's, the Land Leace did indeed help them (despite that research done in the 2000's scale down its effect a bit) and the Soviets entry into the Pacific scared the **** out of the Japs. The Soviets got their nation terrorized, but comed out of it as a unified and strong nation with greater industrial potential then ever before, its political strength in 1946+ can't Evan be compared to its pre war political influence. I'd have to disagree with this statement, as the Soviet Union was one of the "Allies". And without the parcipatation of the Western Allies, a Soviet victory over Germany was far from assured. The most correct way of stating it would be to say that the Soviet Union was the major factor in defeating Germany. Of course, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was also a major cause of the War in Europe..., and only England dared to stand up to Hitler alone. There's enough "credit" to go around. I agree with you. Mike. The Soviet Union did inlfict more casualties on the European Axis than did the Anglos during the war but without the Anglos tying down large formations of German troops in the west, the Soviet Union might well have been overrun before they could move their industry east of the Urals. Plus, massive amounts of Lend Lease equipment from the US helped stabilize their desparate shortage of weapons, aircraft and trucks the Soviets experienced after the initial onslaughts. Chez With all do and deapest respect sir, but you are ignorant. If you make a objective analesys of the situation, please refrain from your own patriotic values and all that subjective factors - look only at the objective evidence. If you do you will find that the force ration of german troops on the Estern front vs German troops "defending" agianst the west in 1942-1944 is absurdelly different, and you will very fast see that the troops used to garrison Europe is of no relevance what so ever compared to the forces Germany has in the Soviet Union. The strength of Soviet after ww2 vs before WW2 - alone makes them the absolute winner.

Terminus -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 10:36:44 AM)
Oh Goody, there he is again. Mr. Troll...[8\|]

Kapitanma -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 10:56:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy Well, I have said this all along. Nice to finally see a representative from a US university drawing the same conclusions as i said for 2 years ago on this very forums. The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda. Soviet Union Defeated the German's, the Land Leace did indeed help them (despite that research done in the 2000's scale down its effect a bit) and the Soviets entry into the Pacific scared the **** out of the Japs. The Soviets got their nation terrorized, but comed out of it as a unified and strong nation with greater industrial potential then ever before, its political strength in 1946+ can't Evan be compared to its pre war political influence. I'd have to disagree with this statement, as the Soviet Union was one of the "Allies". And without the parcipatation of the Western Allies, a Soviet victory over Germany was far from assured. The most correct way of stating it would be to say that the Soviet Union was the major factor in defeating Germany. Of course, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was also a major cause of the War in Europe..., and only England dared to stand up to Hitler alone. There's enough "credit" to go around. I agree with you. Mike. The Soviet Union did inlfict more casualties on the European Axis than did the Anglos during the war but without the Anglos tying down large formations of German troops in the west, the Soviet Union might well have been overrun before they could move their industry east of the Urals. Plus, massive amounts of Lend Lease equipment from the US helped stabilize their desparate shortage of weapons, aircraft and trucks the Soviets experienced after the initial onslaughts. Chez With all do and deapest respect sir, but you are ignorant. If you make a objective analesys of the situation, please refrain from your own patriotic values and all that subjective factors - look only at the objective evidence. If you do you will find that the force ration of german troops on the Estern front vs German troops "defending" agianst the west in 1942-1944 is absurdelly different, and you will very fast see that the troops used to garrison Europe is of no relevance what so ever compared to the forces Germany has in the Soviet Union. The strength of Soviet after ww2 vs before WW2 - alone makes them the absolute winner. This man is truly a primitive troll.

Terminus -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 11:37:48 AM)
Wonder which persona "Japan" will be adopting this time? If it's the Stalin Cheerleader, you better stretch first; those high kicks can be murder on the thigh muscles...

Terminus -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 11:38:12 AM)
And stop quoting him. It just gives him masturbation material.

Graymane -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 12:56:50 PM)
I'm not sure why some seem to think complex events automatically have simple causes. We aren't going to find some magic bullet for why WWII ended. It ended for a variety of reasons just like it started for a variety of reasons.

jwilkerson -> RE: Interesting Aricle In todays Boston Globe (8/8/2011 1:53:32 PM)
Clearly across the political line ... locked ...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875