The Pacific War

[Toad]

Why am I not surprised to see that Blur dropped out of this thread?  


Raub... I salute your knees!    (But you know what I meant.)

[blur]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
Why am I not surprised to see that Blur dropped out of this thread?    

Toad our original debate centered around a statement you made about how this country is the world's policeman. I differed. I then proceeded to offer a detailed argument on how I thought this statement was incorrect.

I've been waiting for your countering arguments on how policing the world IS our primary concern.

Instead I keep getting more questions.

Please sir, either keep to the topic or let it go.

[Toad]

Blur,

You never define the argument. You make generalized statements and then back away if asked to clarify.

Pretty tough to have any sort of debate if that's the scenario.

Yes, I believe we have acted as the "world's policeman". It's a role I don't feel we should be playing. I've said as much several times.

So, if as you said, you've "been waiting for your countering arguments on how policing the world IS our primary concern." you will wait forever.

I don't think that is a proper role for the US and I NEVER have. The world is all grown up now; they should be able to police themselves. It's not now and never was a job for US combat forces. Time to bring our troops home. My opinon on that hasn't changed in the last 20 years.

You tell me that I'm arrogant.   You tell me we're not "that altruistic." You say that we are wherever we are because of either political or economic US self-interest, not because we are the world's "humanitarian" policeman.

You contend that "human rights was NOT the primary concern.", therefore implying that the ONLY proper time for the US to intervene is in a clear case of a human rights violation (Is that what a world policeman does? Just covers the human rights beat? No other duties?).

I asked you early on in this thread if you support bringing all US troops home NOW, like I do. You never answered.

It would seem that if all you see are narrow economic or political interests, then you WOULD support bringing the troops home.

However, your position remains unclear. So, do you want to take a stand and debate or just slam US policy all the time?
 

[blur]

 

Originally posted by Toad:

<snip>
I asked you early on in this thread if you support bringing all US troops home NOW, like I do. You never answered.
<snip>

If we were to bring all our troops home right now our economy would collapse. That's not saying we shouldn't work towards this goal however.

Our economy is dependent upon insuring that developing countries don't become developed. With four percent of the world's population we consume nearly a third of its resources. We follow an economic model similar to "colonial mercantilism". This means that third world countries serve as our "countryside" for raw materials. We then process the material and sell it back to the developing country as a finished product. Trading rules set up by organizations like the WTO insure an imbalance in price between finished product and raw material. Also banking institutions like the IMF and World Bank insure that these countries are and will remain heavily indebted.

If the developing country tries to break free from these restrictions the IMF/World Bank will withdraw their money and support from its current leadership thereby draining their political power. If these measures prove ineffective then covert means are used. Let's say a Gandhi or Thomas Jefferson rises from the ranks and attempts to democratize their country, the CIA will begin a process of destabilization, which may consist of assassinations and/or smear campaigns. Dictatorships are the approved government type in third world countries.

If all these measures fail to keep the rogue country in line then the military is brought in as a final resort.
 
This is just a rough sketch but as you can see the issue of the US maintaining a foreign military presence goes very deep.

[devildawg]

Blur you forgot to mention that along with the CIA they would also send black helicopters, and implant the citizens with microchips to pick up soundwaves from space.

------------------
Retreat hell!! We're just attacking in another direction!
Proofread if ya want, it's your dime.

[This message has been edited by devildawg (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Toad]

Originally posted by blur:
If we were to bring all our troops home right now our economy would collapse. That's not saying we shouldn't work towards this goal however.

I disagree. Bringing them home would reactivate military bases here and the billions that pour into other countries' economies as a result of US spending on bases and the troops themselves spending in the local US economies would benefit our National economy.

"Trading rules set up by organizations like the WTO insure an imbalance in price between finished product and raw material."

No, it's not WTO rules. It's a simple fact that finished goods are worth more than raw materials. Come on; this is simply a ridiculous statement.

"Also banking institutions like the IMF and World Bank insure that these countries are and will remain heavily indebted."

How? By loaning them money at subsidized rates? Because that's what the IMF does. Not to mention forgiving loans outright, like the US just did. Once again, this is just a red herring.

The reason these countries are deeply in debt and will remain so is because they are trying to make the leap from a 3rd world poor agricultural type economy to a 1st world economy in a short period of time.

It can't happen unless the developed nation's simply give them huge amounts of money, technology and labor. Unfortunately no 1st world nation is anywhere near that altrusistic. Further, all the 1st world nations combined cannot raise the standard of living in the 3rd world nations that fast.

It takes a lot of time to develop; you can speed it up by spending huge amounts of money, but only to a degree. There's no magic wand and that's the reason these countries are in debt. Like a teenager, they want it all and they want it right now. While I sympathise, I realize it won't happen.

"Let's say a Gandhi or Thomas Jefferson rises from the ranks and attempts to democratize their country, the CIA will begin a process of destabilization, which may consist of assassinations and/or smear campaigns. If all these measures fail to keep the rogue country in line then the military is brought in as a final resort."

Got any examples of this process that actually happened in the last 20 years?
 
"This is just a rough sketch but as you can see the issue of the US maintaining a foreign military presence goes very deep."

I find your scenario far-fetched at best. In any event then, you support bringing the troops home. Good.

Now, as to the "World's Policeman" you never did say whether or not you felt we should be involved in the former Yugoslavian region. You talk of attempts to control pipelines and such but you never mentioned whether you felt there were legitimate human rights issues the US should have taken action against.

I'll tell you know, I clearly see human rights issues there but still DO NOT support US intervention. Simply because we did our share for the last 55 years and now it's someone elses turn. How's that for arrogant?   (Image removed from quote.)

Further, what's your position on this:

"You contend that "human rights was NOT the primary concern.", therefore implying that the ONLY proper time for the US to intervene is in a clear case of a human rights violation (Is that what a world policeman does? Just covers the human rights beat? No other duties?)."?

You're great at carping about US policy. What do think it SHOULD be? When do we intervene in another state's affairs, if ever?

What's your position?

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Boroda]

Toad, you have a very strane view on Soviet participation in Far East. Manchurian operation was one of the greatest efforts of the WWII. Probably the best prepared and planned operation of well equiped and experienced troops with superior and successful strategic and operational command, including ground, naval and air coordination. (hehe I sound like a "Red Star" front page   )

USSR followed it's obligations to the other allies, stated in Yalta and Potsdam.

Jedi... Here we go again... Well, I think you understand what I mean...



------------------
With respect,
    Pavel Pavlov,
    Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

[Toad]

Boroda,

I haven't done any reading or research into the Manchurian operation's history. It might be fun to discuss it in another thread.

Overall, however, are you seriously going to propose that Russia's weeklong participation in the war against Japan had any other cause/effect besides acquiring territory for the Soviet Union?

[Boroda]

Toad, I do not remember all the details, but AFAIK there was no territory gained for the USSR, except for Southern Sakhalin and Kurily Islands. And old bases in Lyaodun noodlesula - Port Arthur and Dalniy, that were rented for 99 years and lost in 1905. Later this bases, together with one base in Finland (Porkkala?) were returned by Khruschev, so the only foreign naval base in Far East was Kamrang.

And the participation wasn't just a "week long". AFAIR the hostilites stopped in early September. The Victory over Japan is celebrated on September, 3rd here, the day when capitulation was signed on board of the "Missouri" in Tokyo bay.

I'll try to translate articles about Manchurian operation and other Soviet engagements in Far East. Just need to get to my Father to get the sources.

[Toad]

 http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1945.htm

6 August,
The world's first atomic bomb (Uranium), Little Boy, is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, from the Enola Gay, a B-29 bomber piloted by Colonel Tibbets of the 509th Composite Group, the first military unit in the history to drop a nuclear bomb in combat.

8 August,
Japan tries to persuade the Soviets to mediate surrender negotiations. Molotov cancel's the meeting, then The Soviet Union declares war on Japan. Soviet forces invade Manchuria and North-Korea. (Nice touch here.   )

9 August,
Leaflet dropping, and warnings to Japan by Radio Saipan. The world's second (and last) atomic bomb (Plutonium), Fat Man, is dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, from a B-29 piloted by Major Charles W. Sweeney.

10 August,
Soviet force invade Korea and Sakhalin Island.

14 August,
Emperor Hirohito announces the Japan defeat to his people.Japan accepts an unconditional surrender.

19 August,
Japanese surrender delegations arrives at General MacArthur's Philippine headquarters to receive instructions.

23 August,
U.S. President Harry S. Truman halts all Lend-Lease shipments.


30 August,
General MacArthur sets-up his headquarters in Yokohama, Japan.

2 September,
Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu signs the instrument of surrender aboard the battleship U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, Japan.
End of World War II.

Eventually, as a result of the August 8 declaration of war, the USSR occupied Manchuria, Korea, the Kuriles, and Sakhalin.

Doesn't seem like there was much point in hostilities after 14 August when the Emperor unconditionally surrendered. In any event it was ALL OVER by Sept. 2.

[Boroda]

Well, I am at my Father's house now  

Here are some fragments from "Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945, an Encyclopedia" (Moscow, 1985, 830 pages).

Manchuran Operation, the strategic operation of the Soviet Army and the troops of Mongolian People's Republic on August 9th - September 2nd, against Japanese Kwantun (sp?) army. It's main forces: 1st, 3rd and 17th fronts, 4th army, in total: 31 inf. div-s, 11 inf. and 2 tank brigades, suiciders brigade, 2nd and 5th Aerial armies, Sungarian river fleet. Other troops under the Kwantun Army command: Manchou-Go (2 inf. and 2 cav. div-s, 12 inf. brig-s, 4 cav. reg-s), Inner Mongolian (4 inf. div-s) and Suyuanian army group (5 cav. div-s, and 2 cav. brig-s). In total - more then 1 million soldiers, 6260 cannons and mortars, 1155 tanks, 1900 planes, 25 ships. At the borders of the USSR and Mongolia they had 17 fortified regions.

/*sounds impressive?*/

During May-July, 1945, Soviet command moved some of the troops that were availible now in the West to the Far East (more then 400000 soldiers, 7137 cannons and mortars, 2119 tanks, etc). Together with the troops already deployed at the Far East they formed 3 Fronts: Zabaykal'skiy (marshall Malinovskiy), 1st Far-Eastern (marshal Meretskov), and 2nd Far Eastern (army general Purkayev) - in total 131 divisions and 117 brigades, more then 1.5 million soldiers, more then 27000 cannons and mortars, more then 700 Guards jet mortars, 5250 tanks and self-propelled cannons, more then 3700 planes. Pacific Fleet forces involved into operation were: 165000 sailors, 417 ships (2 cruisers, 1 leader, 12 destroyers, 78 submarines, 1382 planes, 2550 cannons and mortars), admiral Yumashev. Amur river fleet forces: 12500 sailors, 126 ships, 68 planes, 199 cannons and mortars, counter-admiral Antonov. Plus border-guards from Khabarovskiy, Primorskiy and Zabaykal'skiy military districts.

Soviet Commander in chief - marshall Vasilevskiy, Mongolian Commanderr in chief - marshall Choibalsan. VVS and Navy command coordinated by Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov and Aviation Supreme Marshall Novikov.

The main idea of the Soviet Command was to strike two main hits from Mongolia and Primorye (Soviet Far East), and a few additional hits, converging in the middle of Manchuria, surrounding of the Kwantun army and liberating Shenyan, Chanchun, Kharbin and Girin. The front line was 2700km wide (active part), and the operational depth was 200-800km, on a very difficult terrain, including desert/steppe, mountain, swamp/forrest and taiga landscapes. Icluded (see also) Khingan-Mukden, Kharbin-Girin and Sungarian operations.

/*i want to sleep too much, maybe i'll translate these articles later. Anyway - compare all this scaled warfare to the "allied" operations in the Pacific!*/

/*Ok, finaly too tired, and the only channel on TV now is the bloody MTV playing Eminem :-E

I'll finish this article tomorrow night, ok? My Father is ill, and I'll have to be here tomorrow. I think that it should be better to move this discussion (i mean USSR at the Pacific) to another thread or to Milhistory forum. Thanks. */



------------------
With respect,
    Pavel Pavlov,
    Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

[-lynx-]

Toad

You are manipulating facts and drawing ambiguos conclusions from them.

In truth, you shoud be questioning the 6th August, not the 8th. Soviet involvement in Pacific war was discussed and agreed with timelines etc in Yalta, back in 1943 (I think) that's why the troops and stuff were shipped thousands of miles to the far East to enable (I quote) "8 August, ... then The Soviet Union declares war on Japan. Soviet forces invade Manchuria and North-Korea. (Nice touch here.  ).

I'm sure hundreds of thousands of troops going 6,000 miles East after their war was over instead of going home appreciate you "humour".

Pacific war was the US vs Japan war with other Allies helping out. Only a fool would question that. On top of everything, US navy was involved in fighting with Japaneese well before 7th December 1941. They were prohibited from talking about this and neither wounded nor dead received proper recognition until the war was officially declared after Pearl Harbour.

 

Sorry. I guess like Deja Vu I've been subjected to a bit too much humor like that. I apologise for being exposed to more of that style of humor than I can tolerate.

Join the club pal - every ignorant John, Dick and Harry from Texas and other places   has been going on and on about Russians doing something not to his liking. Most of the stuff is complete BS and is being repeated over and over... I think you can understand that it all is getting rather tiring after awhile. You're talking about thousands of American lives lost - Russia lost 20 million in that war. Surely they deserve some respect? After all, we did fight on the same side...



[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Toad]

Lynx,

I'm quite aware of Yalta and the deals that were made there. Not one of the Allies'...all the Allies...finer moments IMO. It was there the framework for the ensuing Cold War was built under the guiding hands of Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill.
 
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_23.htm

"At the end of June, the Japanese finally approached the Soviet Government directly through Ambassador Sato in Moscow, asking that it mediate with the Allies to bring the Far Eastern war to an end. In a series of messages between Tokyo and Moscow, which the Americans intercepted and decoded, the Japanese Foreign Office outlined the position of the government and instructed Ambassador Sato to make arrangements for a special envoy from the Emperor who would be empowered to make terms for Soviet mediation. Unconditional surrender, he was told, was completely unacceptable, and time was of the essence. But the Russians, on one pretext and another, delayed their answer until mid-July when Stalin and Molotov left for Potsdam. Thus, the Japanese Government had by then accepted defeat and was seeking desperately for a way out; but it was not willing even at this late date to surrender unconditionally, and would accept no terms that did not include the preservation of the imperial system....

The receipt of the Potsdam Declaration in Japan led to frantic meetings to decide what should be done. It was finally decided not to reject the note but to await the results of the Soviet overture. At this point, the military insisted that the government make some statement to the people, and on 28 July Premier Suzuki declared to the press that Japan would ignore the declaration, a statement that was interpreted by the Allies as a rejection....

On 7 August, Ambassador Sato in Moscow received word at last that Molotov would see him the next afternoon. At the appointed hour he arrived at the Kremlin, full of hope that he would receive a favorable reply to the Japanese proposal for Soviet mediation with the Allies to end the war. Instead he was handed the Soviet declaration of war, effective on 9 August....

Meanwhile, President Truman had authorized the use of the second bomb-the last then available. The objective was Kokura, the date 9 August. But the plane carrying the bomb failed to make its run over the primary target and hit the secondary target, Nagasaki, instead. The next day Japan sued for peace."

What did the Soviet invasion of Manchuria contribute towards making the Japanese surrender?

WW2 was over August 14; all over but the signing of the papers. The Emperor surrendered unconditionally. Military ops after that date were just an even greater waste of lives.

Manchuria? The war was OVER. A waste of lives on all sides, despite all the planning, preparation and troop movements that went into it.


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-29-2001).]

[-lynx-]

Toad - I never said that the whole thing was necessary. I only objected to rather (IMHO) disrespectful comment you had made about Soviet involvement in the Far East.

You made it look like Soviet army decided to just grab some territory "cuz the Japaneese were surrendering anyway". I merely pointed out that the whole thing was pre-arranged, undertaken with full knowledge of the US and other Allies, took months of planning and preparation and went ahead 2 days after the A-bomb was dropped because it was planned to go on that day.

Soviet High Command weren't to know of the A-bomb imminent use. Nor (I'm sure you will agree) anyone could have possible foreseen or expected the actual damage inflicted with the use of just one bomb. The plans were drawn, troops in place and, when ordered, 3 Soviet fronts made their move on the Far East.

Before the actual account of the A-bombing was reviewed in detail I suspect that the whole thing might have been simply dismissed as propaganda.

Stretching your logic really far one could argue that Allies did the same earlier - in Normandy. By June 1944 Soviet army was moving so fast towards Berlin that in no reasonable mind there was a doubt that the war was lost for Germany. The agony would have been prolonged and many more thousands would have died without Normandy landings. But the Allied victory was assured at that point nevertheless. But Roosevelt/Churchill preferred not to see T34s on Normandy beaches... See what I mean?



[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 01-29-2001).]

[Toad]

Lynx,

The indisputable fact remains that the Russian invasion of Manchuria had little effect on the defeat of the Japanese. They sued for peace on 10 August, 4 days after Hiroshima, 2 days after after Soviet invasion began and 1 day after Nagasaki.

The Emperor unconditionally surrendered on the 14th.

The Russian effort to join the war against Japan, move and mobilize troops in the Far East, plan and execute an assault...however admirable...is not even being discussed.

The original point was that this Russian invasion had little, if anything, to do with the Japanese surrendering. It didn't.

Your Normandy analogy doesn't wash, IMHO. In the Japanese instance, Russia had never declared war on Japan. In fact, they had an self-renewing non-agression pact between them.
 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/s1.htm

Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact April 13, 1941

"The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years."

Slightly different situation with the Allies against Germany, wouldn't you say?

Relieve the Germans of the constant necessity of defending against all but the Soviet Union and I believe things may have been significantly different.

I see your comparison essentially as having the Western Allies observing a non-agression pact until such a time as Soviet Forces were entering Berlin and then landing at Normandy. Until then, the Germans would be free to focus solely on fighting the Soviets.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-29-2001).]