Slitherine

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)

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy
The Soviet Union won WW2,  not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda.

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...

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.

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

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.

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

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....

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.

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.

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 5thGuardsTankArmy

Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda.

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

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

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.

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

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.