Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on January 16, 2001, 01:11:00 PM
-
Spatula: "I allready answered that. I just hate it when some people think that the americans were the only and unstopable mega-force in WW2. Kiwis, Aussies, and brits had been fighting the japanese in the pacific well before the americans showed up. The americans did very little until their own naval base was attacked."
Spatula, you are just plain wrong about this. Sorry, no other way to put it.
http://www.worldwar-2.net/asia.htm (http://www.worldwar-2.net/asia.htm)
"7th December 1941 : At 6:15 Honolulu time, the first wave of Japanese aircraft take of from their carriers which are located about 200 miles north of Hawaii. At 7:50, 43 fighters, 51 dive-bombers, 70 torpedo-bombers and 50 ordinary bombers arrive over Hawaii...Surprise was complete and within a few minutes 5 battleships and 2 light cruisers had been sunk and a large number of aircraft (180) destroyed on the ground...The Americans lost 2,729 killed and 1,178 wounded, while the Japanese losses amounted to just 29 aircraft (59 airmen) and five mini-submarines. The Japanese also attacked Malaya, Shanghai, Manila, Thailand, Hong Kong and Singapore. Japanese declare war on UK and US.
8th December 1941 : Japanese land in Thailand, North East Malaya. Guam, Midway Wake and the Philippines are bombed. Offensive against Hong Kong begins. Thailand surrenders. The United States and Great Britain declare war on Japan.
10th December 1941 : British retreat in Malaya after the loss of Kota Bahru airfield. Prince of Wales and Repulse are sunk by Japanese aircraft off Malayan coast.
11th December 1941 : US Marine gunners and airmen repulse first Japanese landing attempt at Wake.
15th December 1941 : British retreat in Malaya and Burma’s southern most tip. Artillery battle rages at Hong Kong.
19th December 1941 : Japanese land in Hong Kong. British evacuate Penang
22nd December 1941 : Japanese launch the main invasion of Philippines in the Lingayen Gulf.
23rd December 1941 : Japanese occupy Wake Island.
25th December 1941 : Hong Kong surrenders after a 7 day siege, with heavy Canadian casualties being reported.
3rd January 1942: Churchill and Roosevelt announce the unified ABDA (American, British, Dutch and Australian) Command in the SouthWest Pacific, under Wavell.
7th January 1942: British forces continue their retreat in central Malaya.
16th January 1942: The Japanese invade Burma from Thailand. Heavy US losses on the Bataan Peninsula as the Japanese advance.
21st January 1942: First Japanese bombing of New Guinea.
23rd January 1942: Japanese troops land at Balikpapan in Borneo and occupy Rabaul on New Britain Island. Australia appeals to UK and US for immediate reinforcements.
24th January 1942: US destroyers torpedo three Japanese transports off Balikpapan. This is the first US surface action since 1898 but the Japanese landings continue undisrupted.
25th January 1942: Australia mobilises fully.
7th February 1942: Lt. General Percival, the commander at Singapore, says city will be held to the last man.
8th February 1942: Japanese land on Singapore Island.
15th February 1942: Singapore surrenders through shortage of water, food, petrol and ammunition. Japanese capture 80,000 British troops and 9,000 are killed.
17th February 1942: Japanese invade Bali, despite allied naval interception and bomb Darwin on Northern Australia.
27th February 1942: The Battle of the Java Sea begins and continues for three days, during which the Allies lose five cruisers and six destroyers. the Japanese lose just 4 transports.
6th March 1942: Japanese occupy Batavia in Java and cut all roads north of Rangoon, trapping the British at Pegu.
8th March 1942: Large-scale Japanese landings in New Guinea. Rangoon falls but the British forces escape to the north.
14th March 1942: US troops arrive in Australia in force.
9th April 1942: US-Filipino forces surrender on Bataan Peninsula in the Philippines. This is the largest capitulation in US History. Japanese aircraft sink the British carrier Hermes, the destroyer Vampire and three other warships in Indian Ocean.
18th April 1942: Colonel Doolittle leads 16 US Army B25 bombers from the carrier Hornet in first air raid on Tokyo and Japan.
4th May 1942: US carrier force engages part of Japanese invasion fleet in Battle of Coral Sea, the first naval battle fought entirely with aircraft.
6th May 1942: Corregidor surrenders after five months resistance, with 15,000 prisoners taken by 1,000 Japanese.
27th May 1942: Japanese Combined Fleet sets sail to capture Midway Island.
4th June 1942: US fleet engages Japanese in the decisive Battle of Midway. After three days the Japanese retreat with heavy losses.
19th July 1942: Japanese invasion fleet leaves Rabaul for Buna, New Guinea.
21st July 1942: Japanese land at Buna.
7th August 1942: US land on Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands.
8th August 1942: Japanese naval counter-attack beaten off in Solomon Islands. US Marines take Henderson Airfield.
9th August 1942: Battle of Savo Island begins as 7 Japanese cruisers and a destroyer approach undetected west of Savo Island, Solomon Islands and sinks the U.S. heavy cruisers, Quincey, Vincennes and Astoria and the Australian cruiser Canberra. They also damage 1 cruiser and 2 destroyers. The allied ships depart and the Guadalcanal area is in the control of the Japanese forces.
19th August 1942: Japanese send 4 transport ships with an close escort of a cruiser and 4 destroyers to strengthen their land forces on Guadalcanal, Solomon Is. Movement is covered by 3 carriers, 2 battleships, 5 cruisers and 17 destroyers.
20th August 1942: 31 U.S. aircraft touchdown on the newly completed Henderson Field airstrip on Guadalcanal to help the Marines fighting over the control of the island.
22nd August 1942: First wave of Japanese reinforcements wiped out by US forces on Guadalcanal.
24th August 1942: Battle joined in the Eastern Solomons with the Japanese trying to land reinforcements on Guadalcanal. US forces beat off the Japanese Combined Fleet sinking the carrier Ryujo, but suffering damage to the carrier Enterprise.
25th August 1942: Battle of Eastern Solomon's continues with a Japanese destroyer being sunk off Santa Isabel. According to some sources Japanese succeed in landing troops on Guadalcanal in the night from destroyers. Nauru, Gilbert Is. and Goodenough, off the SE coast of New Guinea are occupied by Japanese. Battle of Milne Bay, Papua, begins. Japanese Special Naval Landing Force of 1,200 men come ashore.
26th August 1942: Two thousand Japanese land at Milne Bay, South East of Port Moresby and advance up Kokoda Trail.
29th August 1942: Japanese warships begin to evacuate Milne Bay.
31st August 1942: 1,200 Japanese reinforcements landed on Guadalcanal by ‘Tokyo Express’.
6th September 1942: Australians force total Japanese evacuation of Milne Bay, with just 1,000 troops surviving to be evacuated.
7th September 1942: US Marines launch a surprise raid on the Japanese base at Talou, Guadalcanal.
8th September 1942: Japanese advance from Kokoda to Owen Stanley Ridge in an overland drive for Port Moresby, New Guinea.
11th September 1942: Japanese drive halted by Australians at loribaiwa, just 32 miles from Port Moresby.
21st September 1942: British forces begin their first land counter-offensive against the Japanese in Arakan, Western Burma.
8th October 1942: Strong Japanese rearguard action against the Australians at Templeton Crossing on the Kokoda Trail in New Guinea.
11th October 1942: The US Navy surprises a Japanese naval squadron in the night 'Battle of Cape Esperance', off Savo Island in the Solomons. The Japanese lose one cruiser and a destroyer, while the US Navy loses just a single destroyer.
15th October 1942: 4,500 Japanese troops land as reinforcement for Guadalcanal as battle continues.
16th October 1942: The Japanese are forced back by Australians at Templeton Crossing, New Guinea. The shelling of Henderson Airfield continues.
24th October 1942: The land battle begins in earnest around Henderson Field, with the elite Japanese 2nd Division being wiped out.
26th October 1942: Battle of Santa Cruz, with US forces attacking the large Japanese supporting fleet near Guadalcanal and shooting down 100 aircraft, damaging two carriers, a battleship and three cruisers.
29th October 1942: The Japanese forced to retreat in Solomons. The US retains control of all their positions on Guadalcanal. An Australians force completes the evacuation of the Templeton Crossing positions in New Guinea.
2nd November 1942: The Australians recapture Kokoda in New Guinea.
13th November 1942: First sea battle off Guadalcanal in the Pacific begins in confusion.
15th November 1942: Another night action off Guadalcanal costs the US Navy three destroyers for Japanese battleship Kirishma.
16th November 1942: US and Australian forces join up for the assault on the last Japanese stronghold in Northern Papua, the Buna-Gona bridgehead.
1st December 1942: The Australians take Gona in New Guinea.
7th December 1942: US make a beachhead South of Buna, cutting off Japanese forces there.
9th December 1942: Fresh US troops relieve the besieged 1st Marine Division on Guadalcanal.
10th December 1942: The Allies control the whole of the Gona area in New Guinea.
13th December 1942: The Japanese make successful new landings North of Buna.
17th December 1942: The Final US-Australian assault on Buna begins."
So, CLEARLY "Kiwis, Aussies, and brits had been fighting the japanese in the pacific well before the americans showed up." is an incorrect statement.
The Commonwealth did not declare war on Japan until Dec 8, the same day the US did. Both Commonwealth forces and US forces were engaged from that point forward. The Commonwealth initially in Maylay and Hong Kong, the US at Wake Island.
On 23 January 1942 Australia appeals to UK and US for immediate reinforcements and by 14 March 1942 US troops arrive in Australia in force. I find this a pretty impressive response for a country that was totally unprepared for WW2.
As the Timeline shows, all Allied forces basically were reeling back from the Japanese onslaught. The first minor victory was 24 January 1942 when US destroyers torpedo three Japanese transports off Balikpapan. Australia didn't even mobilize fully until the next day.
A real turning point came on 4 May 1942, when US carrier forces engaged part of Japanese invasion fleet in Battle of Coral Sea.
On the face of it, the Battle of the Coral Sea appeared to be a victory for the Japanese. The Imperial Navy had sunk one American fleet carrier and damaged another, sunk an oiler and a destroyer, while losing only Shoho and a large number of planes, and suffering severe damage to Shokaku and enough damage to Zuikaku to keep both out of the war for several months. It was a tactical victory for the Imperial forces.
However, the battle was a strategic victory for the Americans. The Coral Sea meant the end of Japanese expansion southward. They would never again threaten Australia and New Zealand.
The significance of the Battle of the Coral Sea was that the Americans had foiled the occupation of Port Moresby and the knockout of Australian air power. These were necessary before carrier strikes by the Japanese against Australia.
The first real setback for the Japanese was 4 June 1942 when the US Navy engaged and defeated the Japanese in the decisive Battle of Midway.
Then, on 7 August 1942, the US landed Marines on Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. This was the true beginning of the drive in the Pacific that pushed the Japanese back to their home islands.
A month later, the Australians hit Milne Bay in New Guinea, putting Commonwealth troops on the offensive. The Owen Stanley campaign followed.
From there on, the tide was turning; offense took the place of defense. Like it or not, the offensive in the Pacific from New Guinea and the Solomons on to the home islands of Japan was conducted primarily by US Forces.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
Toad all of that happened after our naval base was attacked. I'm defiantly proud of what the US did in WWII over all. Hell my Great Uncle was at Peal Harbor. I hate to say this but the US was so blind and pacifistic before the war we put Hitler on the cover of Time magazine. Peal Harbor happened because we had our blinders on (and please I don't want to here all the stuff about Roosevelt knowing about the Japanese. I'm talking about the country at large.) The Japanese said after the war that one of the reason they didn't take us seriously is that we were so pacifistic.
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
Japanese carrier strikes against Australia? A few dozen itsy-bitsy light dive and torpedo bombers from carriers?
Germany failed to subdue Britain with land-based Ju87 and medium Ju88 bombers.
Then allies failed to subdue Germany with THOUSANDS of heavy bombers a day (LW run out of pilots before it run out of planes).
Upon capturing Port Moresby Japanese may have based their relatively few available Betty bombers on the islands and tried to bomb Australia and supply them with bombs/fuel/parts over thousand miles of the ocean but carrier strikes? Nah...
miko
-
As for the rest of it...
"The americans helped in the pacific and the *allies* won.
I guess that's one view of it.
"And what does "just the like the rest of them" comment mean? who else are you insulting? everyone who is not american?"
That would be the "rest" of those that find it so easy to insult and continually take cheap shots at American society (which admittedly has its faults) while ignoring what we have done to make the world a better place. Those who negatively generalize about us and are offended if their society is the subject of negative generalization in turn.
It's easy to point out the flaws and mistakes of the "Pax Americana" that has existed since 1945. There were wars and bloodshed and things that certainly could have been done better. But there is absolutely no comparison with the disasters of the previous 40 years of (non)Pax Europa.
" 'find it so easy to scorn us now.' I wasnt scorning anyone - it was humour (not even by my pen)"
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
"My bias? Maybe so, i get the feeling your are too."
Yes, I have a bias. I'm biased towards the fact that US troops belong within US boundaries. Further I have a biased belief that the hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars we have recently spent and continue to spend to "police the world" would be put to far better use if spent on our aged population, public health care and improved educational opportunities for our youth.
I do, however, appreciate those who continually "bash" the US; they are going to make it easier to get US troops home where they belong and our spending priorities in order.
"Please enlighten me as to what the punchbowl is.
"place for folks like him", there you go again with your 'us and them' attitude again."
The "Punchbowl" is actually the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. The cemetery is located in Punchbowl Crater, an extinct volcano known as Puowaina, Hawaiian for "Hill of Sacrifice", thus the nickname "Punchbowl".
More than 38,000 are buried in this memorial park, including victims of World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, including over 13,000 killed-in-action during World War II, as well as 600 more from Korea and Vietnam.
There's also the Manila American Cemetery. It contains the largest number of graves of our military Dead of World War II, a total of 17,206, most of whom gave their lives in the operations in New Guinea and the Philippines.
Aw, heck...here's a brief overview of how we "americans helped in the pacific and the *allies* won"
Now these are just the USN and USMC numbers, mind you. They were the primary forces in the drive to the Japanese home islands. Most of the remains have been returned to US soil but small cemeteries did exist and probably still do on most of the islands involved. We'd have to add the Army and AAF numbers to this but this post is already too long.
KILLED IN ACTION
Battle of Coral Sea
Navy 537
Marine 19
Battle of Midway
Navy 301
Marine 39
Guadalcanal, Tulagi landings
Navy 1176
Marine 988
Battle of Savo Island
Navy 936
Marine 33
Battle of Eastern Solomons
Navy 85
Marine 0
Battle of Cape Esperance
Navy 168
Marine 0
Battle of Santa Cruz Islands
Navy 242
Marine 12
Battle of Guadalcanal
Navy 971 Marine 10
Battle of Tassafaronga
Navy 389
Marine 0
Capture of remaining Solomons
Navy 1246
Marine 781
Battle of Tarawa
Navy 724 Marine 950
Battle of Cape Gloucester
Navy 145 Marine 325
Invasion of Marshall Islands
Navy 187 Marine 401
Invasion of Marianas
Navy 513
Marine 3995
Invasion of Palau Islands
Navy 185
Marine 1171
Landings on Biak New Guinea
Navy 164 Marine 0
Return to the Philippines
Navy 4026
Marine 132
Battle of Iwo Jima
Navy 934
Marine 4907
Bombardments of Formosa French Indochina
Navy 269
Marine 3
Bombing and landing on Okinawa
Navy 3809 Marine 2897
Bombardment of Kyushu Island and Japan
Navy 963
Marine 61
Aleutian or Alaskan area, unspecified
Navy 177 Marine 2
Pacific or Asiatic area, unspecified
Navy 4462 Marine 20
Yeah, I guess we "helped" a tiny bit.
There's also this page which primarily covers our European military cemeteries, although they are not germand to this "Pacific" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) discussion:
http://www.abmc.gov/abmc2.htm (http://www.abmc.gov/abmc2.htm)
It's the home of the American Battle Monuments Commission.
The Commission administers, operates, and maintains twenty-four permanent American burial grounds on foreign soil. Presently there are 124,913 U.S. War Dead interred at these cemeteries, 30,921 of World War I, 93,242 of World War II.
"Im not really a bigot, just a stubornly argumentative"
I can relate to that. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
<snip>
Yes, I have a bias. I'm biased towards the fact that US troops belong within US boundaries. Further I have a biased belief that the hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars we have recently spent and continue to spend to "police the world" would be put to far better use if spent on our aged population, public health care and improved educational opportunities for our youth.
I do, however, appreciate those who continually "bash" the US; they are going to make it easier to get US troops home where they belong and our spending priorities in order.
<snip>
LOL, I hear this arrogant comment all the time.
Our troops aren't overseas to "police the world", believe me we're not that altruistic.
Our troops are overseas to:
PROTECT OUR INTERESTS.
-
Miko,
I believe the general assumption is that the Japanese meant to subdue Australia by invasion. Nothing and no one had stopped them in their territorial conquest. They went where they wanted to go.
The knockout of Australian airpower would have allowed the carrier strikes and naval assault that would precede invasion.
Aussie airpower at the time was not in any way comparable to what Britain sent against the Germans in the opening days of WW2. At the start of World War II, the RAAF consisted of about 3000 personnel and 300 aircraft. On 28th August 1939, three days before Germany invaded Poland, the RAAF possessed 82 Ansons, 54 Demons, 7 Wirraways and 21 Seagulls, together with 82 training aircraft.
The RAAF in the two years before Pearl Harbor sent thousands of young men to fight against the Axis powers in Europe, either in Australian squadrons or with the RAF.
Following Pearl Harbor the RAAF's attention shifted to the war in the Southwest Pacific since, at least during the first half of 1942, Japanese invasion of Australia seemed probable. The Australian mainland was bombed more than 60 times by Japanese aircraft.
-
Well, Blur, then I'm sure you'll join me in the campaign to get all our troops back here.
Thanks for your support! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by blur:
LOL, I hear this arrogant comment all the time.
Our troops aren't overseas to "police the world", believe me we're not that altruistic.
Our troops are overseas to:
PROTECT OUR INTERESTS.
First of all, I am assuming from this and your previous ignorant posts that you have never served your country.
Secondly, what exactly are our "Interests"™ in the Balkans? The last thing I remember the US getting from that area was the Yugo.It's satisfying to know that everytime I deploy to some toejamhole I continue to protect your right to post drivel on this board.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
I apologise for being exposed to more of that style of humor than I can tolerate.
Well put!
AKDejaVu
-
Now now kiddies, lets not forgot about the Soviet Union.
-
Nath, you are absolutely right. How could anyone forget the Soviet Union's contribution to the war in the Pacific?
On August 6 a B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, destroying about three fifths of the city.
Purely by coincidence, on August 8 the Soviet Union declared war and attacked the Japanese in Manchuria.
On August 9 a more powerful atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, leaving it in ruins.
The Japanese accepted Allied surrender terms on August 15.
So for about a week.........
-
Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
First of all, I am assuming from this and your previous ignorant posts that you have never served your country.
Secondly, what exactly are our "Interests"™ in the Balkans? The last thing I remember the US getting from that area was the Yugo.It's satisfying to know that everytime I deploy to some toejamhole I continue to protect your right to post drivel on this board.
Okay wise guy. Apparently time in service is necessary to post a valid viewpoint?
I served four years in the USAF: 2 1/2 at R.A.F. Lakenheath UK and 1 1/2 at Griffis AFB NY.
I learned one important thing from serving in the military; that I had no rights at all. I was a pawn, a machine to be moved about at the whim of politicians and generals. I was less than human.
Hey sometimes the truth hurts.
I have a suggestion for you, how about debating the issues instead of going for a cheap personal attack. You got the balls for it?
-
Issues? I'm still waiting to hear what exactly our "Interests" ™ are in the Balkans? You were less than human in the military? Sounds like you have some personal issues you need to get over. Those issues aside, it's in really poor taste to demean the efforts of our troops abroad. 99.9% of them don't want to be there, by they do their job.
As soon as you can detail some of our "Interests" ™ in the Balkans, I might accept your little hypothesis.
Regarding any personal attacks, I draw most of my dislike for your comments from this post:
This is nothing but a scam perpetrated by the pilots family (with some inside help no doubt) to dip their grasping little fingers into the public welfare trough.
p.s. I should amend the comment in my first post to read: "I'm assuming you have never served with pride in the Armed Forces."
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
Originally posted by blur:
I have a suggestion for you, how about debating the issues instead of going for a cheap personal attack. You got the balls for it?
Blur,
Just where did your post about the Desert Storm MIA's family fit in? I felt it was pretty cheap myself.
Mav
-
"I was a pawn, a machine to be moved about at the whim of politicians and generals. I was less than human."
So, with respect to the first sentence, how else would you have it? How else could it be?
Did you have an understanding of how the military works?
You joined the military (or were you a draftee that went against your will?) and expected the politicians and generals to follow your desires?
Surely you didn't expect the military to poll its troops before taking action?
As to the second sentence, forgive me but that sounds like a personal problem. I never found the military a dehumanizing force. In fact, I felt it enriched my humanity.
I'll sum up my feelings about my experience with a bit of MacArthur's farewell speech given at West Point:
"Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.
Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.
The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.
But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the Nation's defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid.
They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for actions, not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never to take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength."
-
The significance of the Battle of the Coral Sea was that the Americans had foiled the occupation of Port Moresby and the knockout of Australian air power. These were necessary before carrier strikes by the Japanese against Australia.
Actually, the significance of the Battle of the Coral Sea was that both the Shokaku and Zuikaku were not available for the assault on Midway scheduled for only a month hence.
Had the IJN had six fleet carriers available, the 3 US Carriers may well have been detected prior to launching their devastating attack on the morning of 4th June. Had the US Navy lost those 3 carriers, Midway would undoubtedly have fallen.
P.S. IIRC only the Shokaku was damaged in the fighting. The Zuikaku had lost most of her air wing in the engagement, and required a lengthy period in which to train new carrier air crews.
------------------
=357th Pony Express=
Aces High Training Corps
-
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g10000/g17026t.jpg)
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm)
Yes, both important aspects. The Navy sees it both ways as well.
At the time of Coral Sea, the job was to stop the present threat.
"The Coral Sea action resulted from a Japanese amphibious operation intended to capture Port Moresby, located on New Guinea's southeastern coast. A Japanese air base there would threaten northeastern Australia and support plans for further expansion into the South Pacific, possibly helping to drive Australia out of the war and certainly enhancing the strategic defenses of Japan's newly-enlarged oceanic empire."
The "success" of the Coral Sea action had a major bearing on the victory at Midway, but the upcoming Midway operation was not the reason the Coral Sea action was fought.
"Preliminary operations on 3-6 May and two days of active carrier combat on 7-8 May cost the United States one aircraft carrier, a destroyer and one of its very valuable fleet oilers, plus damage to the second carrier. However, the Japanese were forced to cancel their Port Moresby seaborne invasion. In the fighting, they lost a light carrier, a destroyer and some smaller ships. Shokaku received serious bomb damage and Zuikaku's air group was badly depleted. Most importantly, those two carriers were eliminated from the upcoming Midway operation, contributing by their absence to that terrible Japanese defeat."
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-17-2001).]
-
Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
Issues? I'm still waiting to hear what exactly our "Interests" ™ are in the Balkans?
<snip>
As soon as you can detail some of our "Interests" ™ in the Balkans, I might accept your little hypothesis.
<snip>
U.S. foreign policy exhibits "selective amnesia" when it comes to humanitarian issues. The basic question is; why is the U.S. making an issue about human rights violations occurring in Yugoslavia? Aren't there many other regions around the globe where atrocities are committed? How about Algeria, Chechnya, Rwanda, Israel, Turkey, India, and Spain? I can come up with more if you like.
A closer look reveals that the above mentioned regions are either allies or are economically insignificant.
Aha, politics and economics!
Let's view the Kosovo War from this perspective. Isn't this region one of the last non-NATO strongholds leftover after the cold war?
An economic benefit is that the U.S. can control eventual Caspian oil pipeline routes between the Black Sea and the Adriatic and by opening up this region we gain access to new markets, especially in regards to the exploitation of minerals and other natural resources. Also the military/industrial complex wins because more arms sales are required.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO was left without a sparring partner. Any institution fearing dissolution will attempt to create an enemy. In this case Kosovo is the solution to NATO's problem. Or we could further factor this down to "NATO is the problem".
So did NATO intervene as a police force for humanitarian reasons? I hardly think so. That's just a cover up for the U.S strategy of furthering our economic interests.
Any countering arguments are welcome.
-
Or, maybe we just didn't want to have to fight a war to retake parts of Italy, Albania, and the various other countries surrounding Bosnia/Yugoslavia 5 years from now.
Face it, had Milosevic been "successful" in his campaign dating back to the mid-90s, that part of Europe would be even more screwed-up and dangerous than it is now, and several of our NATO allies would be DIRECTLY threatened. At which point we'd have to fight an opponent strengthened by success, with "buffer countries" between us and his own territory, and strongly allied with Russia.
So, while it's true that we generally only intervene where we have a reasonable capability to operate AND "national interest" at stake, it's also true that our national interest does often coincide with "humanitarian" considerations and "doing the right thing."
Kinda funny tho, when we DO intervene, and put some kind of a stop (or at least a slow down) to the wholesale slaughter someplace, everyone screams "hypocrite!" and no one even comments on all those OTHER countries who just sat back and watched for YEARS, and who didn't lift a finger to help, but who are perfectly willing to let the US clean up their messes for them.
Maybe Toad is right. Maybe we should just "stay home" from now on. Let a few other countries figure out just how much "blood and treasure" it takes to protect their way of life and keep them "secure."
-
Well, we're way off the Pacific War thread here, but who cares? I don't think Spat is going to address that vast amount of fighting the Commonwealth did against the Japanese PRIOR to Pearl Harbor. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Originally posted by blur:
An economic benefit is that the U.S. can control eventual Caspian oil pipeline routes between the Black Sea and the Adriatic and by opening up this region we gain access to new markets, especially in regards to the exploitation of minerals and other natural resources. Also the military/industrial complex wins because more arms sales are required.
So did NATO intervene as a police force for humanitarian reasons? I hardly think so. That's just a cover up for the U.S strategy of furthering our economic interests.
So, when you boil down your post in response to Raub's actual question, you are saying that the only reason US troops are in the former Yugoslavian region is to control future oil pipeline routes and to help American business interests exploit mineral deposits and other natural resources?
I just want to be sure I understand your position before we start debating a few facts.
Also, just curious. Were you and enlistee or a draftee?
-
Blur,
here's wishing you good luck in this thread, I sense a fair degree of dissention.
That being said, I can't say that "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" stirs me to any great measure, either. While conservative in nature, its American liberal thinkers like Utah Philips that impress me most.
Watching this one with interest,
Jay.
-
Originally posted by blur:
U.S. foreign policy exhibits "selective amnesia" when it comes to humanitarian issues. The basic question is; why is the U.S. making an issue about human rights violations occurring in Yugoslavia? Aren't there many other regions around the globe where atrocities are committed? How about Algeria, Chechnya, Rwanda, Israel, Turkey, India, and Spain?
A closer look reveals that the above mentioned regions are either allies or are economically insignificant.
An economic benefit is that the U.S. can control eventual Caspian oil pipeline routes between the Black Sea and the Adriatic and by opening up this region we gain access to new markets, especially in regards to the exploitation of minerals and other natural resources. Also the military/industrial complex wins because more arms sales are required.
So did NATO intervene as a police force for humanitarian reasons? I hardly think so. That's just a cover up for the U.S strategy of furthering our economic interests.
Any countering arguments are welcome.
Ok, let me respond by paragraphs. You mention Rwanda in the first paragraph. Evidentally you don't remember the vast amounts of food, and the water purification teams we sent there a few years ago. Talk about selective amnesia. Let me guess, Rwanda has a huge petroleum reserve? Chechnya? Surely you are joking, right? How prudent would it be for us to send troops to a former(?) Russian province.
As far as oil pipelines, etc. The US already has numerous oil companies in Baku, and other areas of Azerbijan(sp). That area is quickly becoming an American boom town. What the Balkans have to do with that is beyond me. We might be able to corner the market on used Yugo parts.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-17-2001).]
-
Raub you're prooving your own point...
The US "policing" action on the balcan came YEARS after the war started there... and guess why ? because the US Interest(tm) was so low .. why do you think The gulf war was fought so quickly after the occupation in comparison..
now tell me why most other countries think that the US is "policeing" only when there's their Intterest(tm) involved ?
Phillip "Duckwing6" Artweger
Oh yea and i don't blame the US .. the UNO is to blame for beeing the slowest burocratic organization ever created by man.
[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 01-18-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
Raub you're prooving your own point...
The US "policing" action on the balcan came YEARS after the war started there... and guess why ? because the US Interest(tm) was so low .. why do you think The gulf war was fought so quickly after the occupation in comparison..
now tell me why most other countries think that the US is "policeing" only when there's their Intterest(tm) involved ?
Phillip "Duckwing6" Artweger
Oh yea and i don't blame the US .. the UNO is to blame for beeing the slowest burocratic organization ever created by man.
[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 01-18-2001).]
Hitler was in the Balkans for the same reason we are there. He was headed for Baka when he stuffed his head up his butt and got distracted by his desire to show the Russians that it was futile to resist. And what was he after in N. Africa sand? Grab your National Geographic World Atlas and look real close at all those places and you will see the common thread.
-
So,when you boil down your post in response to Raub's actual question, you are saying that the only reason US troops are in the former Yugoslavian region is to control future oil pipeline routes and to help American business interests exploit mineral deposits and other natural resources?
No, I'm not saying that economics was the only concern. I think it's more of a complex mix of political and economic considerations that sparked our intervention in this region. I should have changed that sentence from "economic interests" to "interests". My contention is that "human rights" was NOT the primary concern.
On further investigation it seem that U.S. policy in this area of the world is one of facilitating the breakup of the former Soviet Bloc countries into small regions. It's much easier for a super power to control small bickering countries than it is to control a larger unified power bloc. Divide and conquer.
Also, just curious. Were you and enlistee or a draftee?
Actually a gang of thugs kidnapped me one night. After they shaved my head I thought they were going to make me into a Hare Krishna but I ended up at Lackland AFB instead.
Seriously, I enlisted of my own volition. I think I know where you are going with this. If I was drafted I could rant and rave about my experience with righteous indignation. I can't. But I could plead ignorance, which is the standard defense of every teenager.
In any case I ended up at Lackland in 100 degree heat marching around with a person called a TI; ranting and raving incoherently, his face stuck nose deep in my left ear we circled around like some bizarre Siamese twin. Occasionally he would mention something about doing a "dick dance" on my head. I assumed at the time that this was just his attempt at being friendly. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
After that I rose through the standard Air Force enlisted ranks of Rainbow, Ping, Jeep and Maggot. Finally being released after four years for good behavior. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
The Balkans ... check out history ... The only times these peoples "ever" have been on the same page is when they had a common enemy to fight, the Mongols, the Greeks, the Romans, the Turks, the British, the former Soviet Union, snicker NAT giggle O (U.S.A. for those of you unfamiliar with modern times (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
I firmly believe that the Balkan peoples think human rights only start to count when there is only one person left standing waving his personal flag and proclaiming that they have won!! That is just my opinion ... I could be wrong ... actually kinda hope I am, but 3000 years seem to suggest I am closer to right than wrong, sigh.
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
-
Duckwing, the Gulf War was fought so quickly because that was a case of a blatant invasion of a soverign nation by another. The Balkans are a little different. The lines are blurred. Those people have been fighting amongst themselves for thousands of years, and our intervention for a few years isn't going to fix that.
Blur, if our interests in the Balkans aren't economic, what are they? Could we possibly have been concerned that genocide was occuring? And what of Rwanda? Or East Timor?
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=view_photo&ID_Community=Raubspics&ID_Topic=2&ID_Message=30)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-18-2001).]
-
The US "policing" action on the balcan came YEARS after the war started there... and guess why ? because the US Interest(tm) was so low .. why do you think The gulf war was fought so quickly after the occupation in comparison..
Not a fair comparison Duckwing. Sovereign nation invasion crap asside... Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was not impacting the US economy.. it was impacting WORLD economy. I seriously doubt Kosovo holds anywhere near that kind of potential.
I do tend to think that Mr Bill hit it the nail on the head.
AKDejaVu
-
Blur,
Do you support or not support US troops in the Balkans? I'm asking if you find sufficient legitimate economic or "national interest" reasons to be there. If not, do you find sufficient legitimate humanitarian reasons to be there? Or do you think the reasons we're there are all wrong? Your posts seem to cover both sides of the issue. Where do you stand?
With respect to serving in the armed forces, there's a reason people say they "serve" in the armed forces but "work" for the government or a big company.
When I signed in to my duty squadron, my DO told me "Son, you'll get out of the military what you put into it." He was right.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
When I signed in to my duty squadron, my DO told me "Son, you'll get out of the military what you put into it." He was right.
That's not true Toad, I put 2 good knees into the military, and I got 2 bad knees out of it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=view_photo&ID_Community=Raubspics&ID_Topic=2&ID_Message=30)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-21-2001).]
-
Why am I not surprised to see that Blur dropped out of this thread? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Raub... I salute your knees! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (But you know what I meant.)
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Why am I not surprised to see that Blur dropped out of this thread? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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?
-
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.
-
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).]
-
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? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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).]
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1945.htm (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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
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.
-
Well, I am at my Father's house now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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).]
-
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 (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).]
-
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).]
-
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 (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).]
-
Toad, USSR was the last and possibly the only country that Japan could use as an arbitrator (is it a right word?) for peace talks with "allies". Molotov's talk to Sato and a declaration of war (BTW there is still no peace between Russia and Japan (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) ) was probably the last drop that forced Emperor to capitulate. I don't remember the exact dates, but the capitulation was sent to the US government by civil radio, and was NOT declared to the people of Japan at the same time.
As for territory claims - Soviet troops stoped EXACTLY at the demarcation lines drawn in Yalta and Potsdam. Do you remember where the whole "38th parallel" crap started?
As the book that I quoted above says - Japanese started to surrender on Aug. 19th, but hostilities went on to the beginning of September. Certainly, "allies" didn't notice that: IJN was unable to keep on fighting at that time, and air raids to Japan stopped, so they had NOONE to fight with.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html#2 (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html#2)
(2) OFFER OF SURRENDER FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
(Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 320, Aug. 12, 1945)
August 10, 1945
Sir; I have the honor to inform you that the Japanese Minister in Switzerland, upon instructions received from his Government, has requested the Swiss Political Department to advise the Government of the United States of America of the following:
"In obedience to the gracious command of His Majesty the Emperor who, ever anxious to enhance the cause of world peace, desires earnestly to bring about a speedy termination of hostilities with a view to saving mankind from the calamities to be imposed upon them by further continuation of the war, the Japanese Government several weeks ago asked the Soviet Government, with which neutral relations then prevailed, to render good offices in restoring peace vis a vis the enemy powers. Unfortunately, these efforts in the interest of peace having failed, the Japanese Government in conformity with the august wish of His Majesty to restore the general peace and desiring to put an end to the untold sufferings entailed by war as quickly as possible, have decided upon the following.
"The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.
"The Japanese Government sincerely hope that this understanding is warranted and desire keenly that an explicit indication to that effect will be speedily forthcoming."
In transmitting the above message the Japanese Minister added that his Government begs the Government of the United States to forward its answer through the intermediary of Switzerland. Similar requests are being transmitted to the Governments of Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics through the intermediary of Sweden, as well as to the Government of China through the intermediary of Switzerland. The Chinese Minister at Berne has already been informed of the foregoing through the channel of the Swiss Political Department.
Please be assured that I am at your disposal at any time to accept for and forward to my Government the reply of Government of the United States.
Accept (etc.)
Grassli,
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html)
[3] In its declaration of war against Japan, effective as of Aug. 9 1945,
the Soviet Government retroactively joined in the declaration of July 26,
1945, issued at Potsdam, Germany, defining terms of surrender for Japan.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_23.htm (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_23.htm)
"In September 1944 the Swedish Minister in Tokyo had been approached unofficially, presumably in the name of Prince Konoye, to sound out the Allies on terms of peace. This overture came to nought, as did another the following March. But the Swedish Minister did learn that those who advocated peace in Japan regarded the Allied demand for unconditional surrender as their greatest obstacle."
They tried with the Swedes. They tried with the Russians. They eventually worked through the Swiss.
It was essentially over on August 10; they sued for peace. The unconditional surrender was August 14. The signing of documents was September 2.
That's it.