Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on July 03, 2007, 03:20:33 PM
-
I found this artical very enlightening as it inolves debate among Japanese politicians regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski. It involves the resignation of a Japanese government official who gave a speech where he said the bombings saved Japan, many Japanese are very upset at this reasoning.
I happen to agree with the guy......but what does it change? Nothing. Just an opinion.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003772678_webjapan03.html
Good reading.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
but what does it change? Nothing. Just an opinion.[url]
true,
it change nothing.
-
If the Japanese people hear the truth, if they hear something other than the BS that they have been fed by their government, if they hear this from a Japanese government official, I think it shows a big change. If the Japanese public could develop 10% of the understanding and ownership of their history as the Germans do it would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps this is a step towards that.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
If the Japanese people hear the truth, if they hear something other than the BS that they have been fed by their government, if they hear this from a Japanese government official, I think it shows a big change. If the Japanese public could develop 10% of the understanding and ownership of their history as the Germans do it would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps this is a step towards that.
I hope you're not serious... Germany has pretty much taken the 4 year old girl's route to understanding the history. They put their fingers in their ears and started screaming,"NANANANANANANANANANANANANANAN ANANA."
My only criticism of Japan is that they got burned for the first time, and are now so entirely fearful of getting burned again that they refuse to risk anything. Because of the nuclear bombs going off, they are near extremist in their anti-violence attitude.
-
hmmmmmmmmmm
So, when Abe's minister stole 5 million yen from the taxpayer, he publically protected him.
When his Minister of Health claimed that women are just baby machines, he protected him.
When the Defence Minister says a left wing comment, he gets berated by Abe and forced to resign. They are slowly weeding out the non-right wingers to make the "beautiful Japan" party.
It's just a rumor, but it has been said that the Yakuza who assasinated the Nagasaki mayor, who was a left winger and publically criticized Abe's rewriting of history, was linked to Abe.
Whether true or not, I can see that it doesn't pay to go against Abe's warped view of history.
-
Germany has pretty much taken the 4 year old girl's route to understanding the history.They put their fingers in their ears and started screaming,"NANANANANANANANANANANANANANAN ANANA."
You mean when they built a huge holocaust memorial right next to the Reichstag? I see where you are coming from.
(http://www.tekla-szymanski.com/graphics/mahnmal6.gif)
-
Here I hear in the news that poor bastard said that burning 250000 innocent people also "prevented USSR from capturing Northern Japan". And it's being said after Emperor mentioned a defeat of Kwantun Army by Soviet forces as the main reason to surrender...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Because of the nuclear bombs going off, they are near extremist in their anti-violence attitude.
Imagine that.
A country that has actually learned the lessons of war.
Would be a near calamity if all nations and peoples started thinking that way wouldnt it?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Here I hear in the news that poor bastard said that burning 250000 innocent people also "prevented USSR from capturing Northern Japan". And it's being said after Emperor mentioned a defeat of Kwantun Army by Soviet forces as the main reason to surrender...
So why is it they didnt surrender to the soviets instead of the US?
I know they surrendered to the US cause my father in law was there at the event and witnessed it with his own eyes.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
So why is it they didnt surrender to the soviets instead of the US?
I know they surrendered to the US cause my father in law was there at the event and witnessed it with his own eyes.
He was probably partially blind not to see Soviet representatives on board of Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Japanese continental army was defeated by USSR in 2 weeks, [sarcasm] while you guys spent three years crawling upon some useless god-forgotten islands. [/sarcasm] Try to find Hirohito's adress to the nation that was played on the radio on Aug 15th 1945.
JFYI: Germans surrendered to Allied forces on May 9th, and Keitel was really surprised to see French officers there, saying "What the hell are THEY doing here?!" According to your logics - Germans surrendered to USSR, not to the Allies.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Imagine that.
A country that has actually learned the lessons of war.
Would be a near calamity if all nations and peoples started thinking that way wouldnt it?
The lesson was against extremism, not war. Japan would be a real powerhouse if only they grew some testicles again.
You mean when they built a huge holocaust memorial right next to the Reichstag? I see where you are coming from.
If you ever talk to the people, you would see the downright fear of anything patriotic or even the mere thought of nationalism. Everyone is so afraid of being called a Nazis, that they have banned free speech, and won't even discuss what would happen or take pride in themselves.
-
I don't believe the atomic bombs are all that significant in the Japanese perspective. I think their war was lost before the US dropped them. As perhaps the Defense Minister felt, the bombs may have given the Japanese an easy out from self-destruction. I think the Japanese people just moved on knowing it was not their divine destiny to rule the world and are now quite content to enjoy their niche in it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't believe the atomic bombs are all that significant in the Japanese perspective. I think their war was lost before the US dropped them. As perhaps the Defense Minister felt, the bombs may have given the Japanese an easy out from self-destruction. I think the Japanese people just moved on knowing it was not their divine destiny to rule the world and are now quite content to enjoy their niche in it.
The bombs were the ONLY reason why Japan lost. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of Japanese culture at that time.
If they had never dropped the bombs, Japan would have been completely destroyed down to the last little kid holding a pointy stick in defense.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't believe the atomic bombs are all that significant in the Japanese perspective. I think their war was lost before the US dropped them. As perhaps the Defense Minister felt, the bombs may have given the Japanese an easy out from self-destruction. I think the Japanese people just moved on knowing it was not their divine destiny to rule the world and are now quite content to enjoy their niche in it.
Well, if Jesus will come right down to you and tell you to do or not do something?
Emperor is a God.
His decision was vital.
For Japanese "elite" the bell rang when in Winter 1945 USSR refused to prolong the Neutrality Pact and then Soviet Foreign Affairs Ministry refused to pass Japanese peace offers to the US. And then exactly 3 months after Victory in Europe USSR smashed Japanese continental (Kwantun) army with full strength of veteran troops who marched all the way from Volga to Vienna.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The bombs were the ONLY reason why Japan lost. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of Japanese culture at that time.
If they had never dropped the bombs, Japan would have been completely destroyed down to the last little kid holding a pointy stick in defense.
Read Hirohito's adress and then please make conclusions. Bombs were scary but not vital. It's obvious that Bombs were dropped to scare Stalin and keep him from wiping Western "allies" off the European continent in 1945 in a matter of weeks.
/*hehe hehe i love provocations*/
-
I'm sure you know Boroda that the US asked/insisted that upon their surrender the Japanese people no longer view their emperor as God. Just a reflection, not an argument.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
down to the last little kid holding a pointy stick in defense.
You mean - in Southern islands, in US occupation zone? Not in Hokkaido that was supposed to be occupied by the USSR. Russians usually don't genocide their enemies like you guys eliminated Indians. That's why we suffer sometimes, but it's more fun to live in a truly multi-cultural country with autonomies for Muslims, Jews and Buddhists.
It's very funny to hear that burning Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved Hokkaido from Soviet occupation and that's why it was justified. Absolutely insane.
Where are our Japanese comrades? We are reasoning here while we have to listen to them first...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm sure you know Boroda that the US asked/insisted that upon their surrender the Japanese people no longer view their emperor as God. Just a reflection, not an argument.
You speak about time AFTER capitulation. An adress on Aug 15th was played on the radio from a record because they couldn't hear Emperor's voice.
I want to find this http://imdb.com/title/tt0439817/ movie somewhere, but you know, public prefers "die hard 4" or "jaws 19" :( so i can't find a modern Russian film in Russia :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You speak about time AFTER capitulation. An adress on Aug 15th was played on the radio from a record because they couldn't hear Emperor's voice.
I want to find this http://imdb.com/title/tt0439817/ movie somewhere, but you know, public prefers "die hard 4" or "jaws 19" :( so i can't find a modern Russian film in Russia :(
I'm old and getting older. I work with and around younger people now. I find it amusing how little they know of the details of the past as no doubt did my elders about me.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You mean - in Southern islands, in US occupation zone? Not in Hokkaido that was supposed to be occupied by the USSR. Russians usually don't genocide their enemies like you guys eliminated Indians. That's why we suffer sometimes, but it's more fun to live in a truly multi-cultural country with autonomies for Muslims, Jews and Buddhists.
It's very funny to hear that burning Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved Hokkaido from Soviet occupation and that's why it was justified. Absolutely insane.
Where are our Japanese comrades? We are reasoning here while we have to listen to them first...
You're not getting it. Japan would only capitulate defeat when the last japanese person died.
That is why the bombs were dropped.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You're not getting it. Japan would only capitulate defeat when the last japanese person died.
That is why the bombs were dropped.
Well, Japan proclaimed this anyhow to preserve their perspective/illusion of honor. The reality proved they were willing to survive if we gave them no prospect of winning that was clear to all.
-
No, it was because of great Soviet Red Army, Comrade! Not even puny capitalist atomics scare glorious Red Army!
sigh
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm old and getting older. I work with and around younger people now. I find it amusing how little they know of the details of the past as no doubt did my elders about me.
I am "only" 34, and I agree with every word you wrote.
People born here in USSR after 1980 Olympics are mental aliens. I am much more tolerant to elder people because my Father was born in 1926, he learned to read under kerosene lamp and now we communicate via ICQ...
-
Originally posted by Engine
No, it was because of great Soviet Red Army, Comrade! Not even puny capitalist atomics scare glorious Red Army!
sigh
According to American attack plans from the 50s - Soviet Army could capture all continental Europe, Middle East and Mediterranian coast regardless to American nuclear weapons. Plans included burning Soviet population centers killing at least 10 million people in a first week. Soviet goals could be reached in no more then six months since hostilities began.
Think about it. Plain artillery and bayonets, no nukes.
I am happy it never happened.
As for Japan - again, Hirohito mentioned Soviet "interference" in Manchuria as a main reason for surrender, not the Bomb.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
According to American attack plans from the 50s - Soviet Army could capture all continental Europe, Middle East and Mediterranian coast regardless to American nuclear weapons. Plans included burning Soviet population centers killing at least 10 million people in a first week. Soviet goals could be reached in no more then six months since hostilities began.
Think about it. Plain artillery and bayonets, no nukes.
I am happy it never happened.
As for Japan - again, Hirohito mentioned Soviet "interference" in Manchuria as a main reason for surrender, not the Bomb.
They didn't count on the WOLVERINES!!!!!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, Japan proclaimed this anyhow to preserve their perspective/illusion of honor. The reality proved they were willing to survive if we gave them no prospect of winning that was clear to all.
German leadership also proclaimed similar things. But you can's stop seasons from changing.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
He was probably partially blind not to see Soviet representatives on board of Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Japanese continental army was defeated by USSR in 2 weeks, [sarcasm] while you guys spent three years crawling upon some useless god-forgotten islands. [/sarcasm] Try to find Hirohito's adress to the nation that was played on the radio on Aug 15th 1945.
JFYI: Germans surrendered to Allied forces on May 9th, and Keitel was really surprised to see French officers there, saying "What the hell are THEY doing here?!" According to your logics - Germans surrendered to USSR, not to the Allies.
I'm not sure what your sarcasm is supposed to denote, but if you're
claiming the USSR beat the Japanese you're smoking the good stuff.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
He was probably partially blind not to see Soviet representatives on board of Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Japanese continental army was defeated by USSR in 2 weeks, [sarcasm] while you guys spent three years crawling upon some useless god-forgotten islands. [/sarcasm] Try to find Hirohito's adress to the nation that was played on the radio on Aug 15th 1945.
JFYI: Germans surrendered to Allied forces on May 9th, and Keitel was really surprised to see French officers there, saying "What the hell are THEY doing here?!" According to your logics - Germans surrendered to USSR, not to the Allies.
Bah. Token commies
:D
-
And then exactly 3 months after Victory in Europe USSR smashed Japanese continental (Kwantun) army with full strength of veteran troops who marched all the way from Volga to Vienna.
What was the Japanese Army doing in Vienna? Vienna is in Europe the last time I checked. ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Read Hirohito's adress and then please make conclusions. Bombs were scary but not vital. It's obvious that Bombs were dropped to scare Stalin and keep him from wiping Western "allies" off the European continent in 1945 in a matter of weeks.
the russians were too drunk to invade anything.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Victory in Europe USSR smashed Japanese continental (Kwantun) army with full strength of veteran troops who marched all the way from Volga to Vienna.
I remember reading about that.
:huh
-
Actually Boroda, the Emperor never mentions the Soviets as a reason for Japan's surrender.
If we have someone who can read Japanese, they can verify the translation from this page at Wikipedia. Copies of the speech are shown there in the original Japanese text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyokuon-h%C5%8Ds%C5%8D
An English translation of the Emperor's surrender speech that was broadcast over radio to Japan.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Imperial_Rescript_on_Surrender
TO MY GOOD AND LOYAL SUBJECTS:
After deeply pondering the general trends of the world and the current conditions of our Empire, I intend to effect a conclusion to the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.
My subjects, I have ordered the Imperial Government to inform the four Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our Empire is willing to accept the provisions of their Joint Declaration.
The striving for peace and well-being of our imperial subjects, and the sharing of common happiness and prosperity amongst tens of thousands of nations is the duty left by our Imperial Ancestors, and I am the one who has not forgotten about this duty.
The Empire declared war against the United States and Great Britain for the desire to preserve, by ourselves, the Empire's existence in East Asia and for the region's stability. As to the infringement of other nation's sovereignty and invasion of other territorial entities, those were not my original intent.
By now, the fighting has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the gallantry of our naval and land military forces, the diligence and assiduity of hundreds of civil service officers, and the public devotion and service of one hundred million of our people, the situation in the war has not turned for the better, and the general trends of the world are not advantageous to us either.
In addition, the enemy has recently used a most cruel explosive. The frequent killing of innocents and the effect of destitution it entails are incalculable. Should we continue fighting in the war, it would cause not only the complete Annihilation of our nation, but also the destruction of the human civilization. With this in mind, how should I save billions of our subjects and their posterity, and atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why I ordered the Imperial Government to accept the Joint Declaration.
I, from the start, have worked with our various Allied nations towards the liberation of East Asia, and I cannot refrain from expressing my deepest sense of regret to our Allies. The thought of our Imperial subjects dying in the battlefields, sacrificing themselves in the line of duty, and those who died in vain and their relatives, pains my heart and body to the point of fragmentation.
As for the bearing of the wounds of war, the tragedies of war, and the welfare of the those who lost their families and careers, it is the objects of our profound solicitude. From today hereafter, the Empire will endure excruciating hardships. I am keenly aware of the feelings of my subjects, but in accordance to the dictates of fate, I am willing to endure the unendurable, tolerate the intolerable, for peace to last thousands of generations.
Having always protected the Imperial State in general, I rely on the loyal subject's integrity and sincerity, and I shall always be with you subjects.
If we become stimulated by sensations, and begin to engender needless complications, engage in fraternal contention and strike or create confusion, we will become astray and lose the confidence of the world. We must rally the nation, and continue from generation to generation to entrench the imperishability of this sacred state.
Aware of the heavy responsibility and the long road ahead, we must focus completely on the future's construction, follow strictly the ways of our noble morals with determination and resolution. We swear to foster and spread the glory and essence of our Imperial State, so we will not fall behind the evolution of the world. It is my hope that my subjects will understand my intentions.
-
It's no wonder the Red Army rolled over the Japanese Army in Manchuria. The Soviets held nearly a 3-1 advantage in men, nearly 5 - 1 in armored vehicles (3700 T-34s alone vs mostly light tanks and armored cars), better than 3 - 1 in artillery pieces, and a 2.5 - 1 advantage in aircraft. 80 Soviet divisions against 25 Japanese and 8 Chinese divisions. Additionally many of the Japanese units were understrength, poorly trained , poorly equipped and had many raw recruits.
If the Red Army hadn't rolled over the Japanese in Manchuria.......well, something would have been terribly wrong. ;)
Basically the Red Army beat up a Japanese Army that wasn't equipped or trained to fight the kind of maneuver warfare that the Red Army learned fighting the Germans.
One more thing. The majority of the best Japanese units had been transferred out of Manchuria during the 3 previous years of the war to fight the Americans in the island hopping campaign and were mostly destroyed in that fighting.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Japanese continental army was defeated by USSR in 2 weeks, [sarcasm]while you guys spent three years crawling upon some useless god-forgotten islands. [/sarcasm] Try to find Hirohito's adress to the nation that was played on the radio on Aug 15th 1945.
JFYI: Germans surrendered to Allied forces on May 9th, and Keitel was really surprised to see French officers there, saying "What the hell are THEY doing here?!" According to your logics - Germans surrendered to USSR, not to the Allies.
I'm really biting my tongue on this one. My grandfather fought on Guam, Okinawa and Occupation of China. I don't find it funny, nor would anyone else. You must really be a mental case, I'm convinced of it.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Read Hirohito's adress and then please make conclusions. Bombs were scary but not vital. It's obvious that Bombs were dropped to scare Stalin and keep him from wiping Western "allies" off the European continent in 1945 in a matter of weeks.
/*hehe hehe i love provocations*/
Just out of curiousity, if the Russians were so tough, why did Stalin
spend almost 2 years crying for a second front from the West? I'd also
be fascinated to learn how much Soviet equipment was sent to the west
to help them defeat the Nazis.
Just off the cuff, I'd say you do a great imitation of a hot air balloon
there Comrade.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I'm really biting my tongue on this one. My grandfather fought on Guam, Okinawa and Occupation of China. I don't find it funny, nor would anyone else. You must really be a mental case, I'm convinced of it.
Disregard him. He represents the worst of his culture and indoctrination when he crawls into the bottle like that. It's as bad as the most blatant skin head nazi wannabe could be. :rolleyes:
I do not cast aspersions on the soviet troops who fought and died resisting the nazis's. They did a heck of a job and paid a price for it that in many ways exceeds what the rest of the allies did. The fact that their own leadership put them in the position to lose all those casualties, civilian and military does not diminish the sacrifice. It just reflects on the leadership they suffered under and the results afterwards.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
...and then Soviet Foreign Affairs Ministry refused to pass Japanese peace offers to the US.
Truman knew of the Japanese emperor suing for peace through the USSR. Stalin and Truman talked about it on July 18th, the same day Truman told Churchill about the successful test of the the atomic bomb. He told Stalin about it the next day, but Stalin failed to grasp the importance of it.
The emperor may not have mentioned it, but Truman said he expected Japan to give up when the USSR entered the war.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
true,
it change nothing.
Are you german as your profile suggests?
Just be glad your homeland lost before the bomb was ready. Rather than try to pick fault in the actions of countries in a war that lead to the situation of the use of an atomic weapon, thanks to the actions of your own nation.
:aok
-
Borado if you have this passionate vendetta against anything other than RED,RED,RED why bother using this bulletin board?
It gets me in hysterics how you can admire a man who on many levels was as barbarous as the Nazi's, yes your 'idol' Josef Stalin.
And........ saying that Stalin could wipe the Allies out of Europe in weeks is well,
Utter under-educated, propagandiristic(
The second the soviets would have attacked, The U.S. and britain would simply use Atomic weaponry technologies (which you lacked) to toattaly obliterate anything you treasured.
Good Day.
Hul367th.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Read Hirohito's adress and then please make conclusions. Bombs were scary but not vital. It's obvious that Bombs were dropped to scare Stalin and keep him from wiping Western "allies" off the European continent in 1945 in a matter of weeks.
/*hehe hehe i love provocations*/
LOL I read this as a quote in a response as I must have missed this particular post and had to got back to it.
First I was gonna say you gotta be borderline alcohol poisoning drunk.
but now I see your only provoking :aok
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I do not cast aspersions on the soviet troops who fought and died resisting the nazis's. They did a heck of a job and paid a price for it that in many ways exceeds what the rest of the allies did. The fact that their own leadership put them in the position to lose all those casualties, civilian and military does not diminish the sacrifice. It just reflects on the leadership they suffered under and the results afterwards.
I'll drink to that
No question the Valor of russian troops.
But then they were properly motivated too.
Face possible death going forward. Or certain death going backwards
-
Originally posted by Laurie
It gets me in hysterics how you can admire a man who on many levels was as barbarous as the Nazi's, yes your 'idol' Josef Stalin.
And........ saying that Stalin could wipe the Allies out of Europe in weeks is well,
Utter under-educated, propagandiristic(
The second the soviets would have attacked, The U.S. and britain would simply use Atomic weaponry technologies (which you lacked) to toattaly obliterate anything you treasured.
Good Day.
Hul367th.
Remember the war with Germany ended before the testing of the Bomb.
But even without that it would not have been so easy to "wipe the allies out of Europe in a matter of weeks"
We didnt suffer from the same problems Germany did.
Besides material shortages we werent suffering from we had one main thing going for us the Germans didnt.
Our Commanders werent nearly as hamstrung as the german commanders were by Hitler.
Has it not been for Hitler The allies in the east or west would have found it much more difficult to defeat Germany if the german commanders were granted the same kind of latitude the Allied commanders it he west had
In many ways.on both the easterna and wester fronts
Hitler.
Was the allies best ally
-
Origanally posted by DREDIOCK
Remember the war with Germany ended before the testing of the Bomb.
But even without that it would not have been so easy to "wipe the allies out of Europe in a matter of weeks"
We didnt suffer from the same problems Germany did.
Besides material shortages we werent suffering from we had one main thing going for us the Germans didnt.
Our Commanders werent nearly as hamstrung as the german commanders were by Hitler.
Has it not been for Hitler The allies in the east or west would have found it much more difficult to defeat Germany if the german commanders were granted the same kind of latitude the Allied commanders it he west had
In many ways.on both the easterna and wester fronts
Hitler.
Was the allies best ally
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have probably said, that it was the fact that neither the natural resource base that we used, nor our Industry, could easily be hampered by enemy action.
When the Germans' were having to construct aircraft in sub-assemblies, and assemble them in abandoned salt mines because of allied bombing, We were finishing up production of P-38's outside on nice days in Burbank.
We didn't have to constantly find people to work in our war industries, because half a shift at the factory was killed in the previous' nights' firestorm.
And, here's one for Boroda: Yes, the Soviet conventional army was mighty; But, in the end, it was also what caused them to admit capitulation in the Cold War. It was too expensive to maintain, even for a totalitarian police state. Eventually, something had to give. And it did. The former USSR was damn near reduced to Third-world status. Many argue that it was, with all the ethnic strife that resulted, for a while it was like Africa-North.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I'll drink to that
No question the Valor of russian troops.
But then they were properly motivated too.
Face possible death going forward. Or certain death going backwards
Especially when the pansies in the Soviet Army, stood at the Gates of many Polish cities while the Germans slaughtered more Poles.
Piss on em, they were a circumstance of flawed Ideology. They didn't do anything against Japan. NOTHING. Hell, even in 1905 the Russian "Navy" was pwned by the Japanese. The Soviets could never "seal the deal" against the Japanese.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
Are you german as your profile suggests?
Just be glad your homeland lost before the bomb was ready. Rather than try to pick fault in the actions of countries in a war that lead to the situation of the use of an atomic weapon, thanks to the actions of your own nation.
:aok
The today actions of your country will be judged in 70 years from people
with a complete different perpective as today. And this People will have the
right to judge it no matter what country they are from.
Everything else would lead you know where -> VERBOTEN! State
but nice try to throw the Nazi card at me.
Can we go back to the Topic?
-
If we had not bombed Japan into submission, we would have had to invade.
Millions would have died, including armed forces, police, and civilians.
There would have been virtually no Japanese men left alive at the end other than a few POW's. They had plans to fight to the last man.
The toll on civilians would have been much much worse than it was. We would have virtually depopulated the country before they gave up. And frankly I doubt that they'd of quit fighting until we showed their emperor being killed, etc.
While it was horrific, and I hope it will never happen again. It was the best thing that could have happened.
What we could have done was depopulate the country, made slaves out of those who did survive. Taken Japan for a US territory, and kept them under our thumb for as long as we felt was necessary. After all, isn't that pretty much what they did to China the whole time they were in control there?
As it was we bombed them into submission, then turned right around and helped them rebuild their country and economy.
Much better end result than any other scenario that could possibly have worked.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
The today actions of your country will be judged in 70 years from people
with a complete different perpective as today. And this People will have the
right to judge it no matter what country they are from.
Everything else would lead you know where -> VERBOTEN! State
but nice try to throw the Nazi card at me.
Can we go back to the Topic?
A spade's a spade
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I'm really biting my tongue on this one. My grandfather fought on Guam, Okinawa and Occupation of China. I don't find it funny, nor would anyone else. You must really be a mental case, I'm convinced of it.
If you think I seriously meant that in my post - then I really feel offended.
You keep surprising me. Two different cultures, and you still have to understand how different we are. I try, but I usually fail, so what can I expect from people who will find http://www.wowrussia.com a true revelation and source of new information about my country?... Like your compatriots writing in another thread: "27 millions out of 150 lost in a war? How do i know when i was born 30 years after the Victory?!"... Sad.
-
We're missing some very importaint chunks of history to this puzzle.
The United States had a plan in place to invade the Japanese mainland to bring about an end to the war. Best estimates placed the carnage on both sides in the millions...so Truman had one heck of a dilema. Use the two (almost three) nuclear bombs the US had developed and hope that in and of itself would force a surrender, or carry out the invasion plans with horriffic losses hundreds of times worse than the death toll of the atom bombs.
His decision saved lives on both sides.
Roosevelt and Churchill knew well before the Tehran Conference that Stalin had no intention of returning lands that the Soviet Army had overrun back to their original governments, and Truman was briefed on that subject on Roosevelt's death. Truman knew if the Soviets continued their push onto Japanese soil, that soil might never get returned.
The Russians attacked the Finn's after saying the Russians were fired upon by Finnish artillery. The Finns deny such provication, and have proven in later decades that the Russian targets were clearly out of the range of their gun enplacements on the Finnish-Russo Frontier.
In the Winter War with the Finns, the Soviet solders (poorly trained in those days and not ready for a war on skis) got their prettythanges handed to them. The entire Finnish excursion by Stalin turned out to be a major embarrasment.
After Stalingrad, Stalin had learned his lesson. Beat the Germans by sheer numbers and attrition. Sure, Hitler was a MORON for not pulling the 6th Army back from Stalingrad before winter set in, but that's what meglomania will do to a person.
The Soviet Union pressed the Germans back by sheer numbers. They out-produced Germany in tanks, rockets, mines, armor, and solders. Greater military production + greater numbers = WINS (back then).
The Soviet fighting solder in 1944 and 1945 was a FAR MORE well trained and well equipped soldier than those who fell at the dawn of Operation Barbarossa. Prior to the Battle of Moscow, rows upon rows of Soviet soldiers went into battle with linked arms....singing...as German machine guns mowed them down. So much for small unit & platoon tactics.
Ya gotta remember folks...our Russian friends are quoting history from what THEY learned from books written by Soviet historians.
We are quoting historical facts from books and information from our side.
There is a great chasm between the two.
There will come a day in Russia, I believe, where they can enjoy the freedom we do, and along with that comes the learning of the truth of their own past (as we have learned some of the ugly parts of ours).
I got a kick out of the "US Genocide" comment that the United States exterminated America's Native Indian population. As part Cherokee, I understand that there was a period of time that native peoples believed that the European influx into America spelled the end a way of life as they knew it. Some tribes accepted their fate and were marched off to Oklahoma, and others (Sioux, Apache, etc) decided to not go away without a fight.
If you believe that all native peoples were "exterminated" in American genocide, please feel free to come to the US, rent an RV, and drive to the Dakotas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Arizona, California, Washington, Michigan, and Minnesota.
I LOVE being an amateur radio operator. I have been talking with Russian hams for a quarter of a century, and they are no different than we are.
It was great to go to Washington DC about 8 years ago to show my kids the sights. Standing in a very long line to see the Declaration of Independance...I happened to notice that about 40 people in front of us were on a package tour....waiting all that time in line...just to see it...they were all from..........Russia.
Things change on this planet...just sometimes not fast enough.
68ROX
-
Originally posted by Laurie
A spade's a spade
Jeesh!
Laurie, have you ever BEEN to Germany?
Go sometime.
EDUCATE yourself.
(Especially before posting)
68ROX
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If you think I seriously meant that in my post - then I really feel offended.
You keep surprising me. Two different cultures, and you still have to understand how different we are. I try, but I usually fail, so what can I expect from people who will find http://www.wowrussia.com a true revelation and source of new information about my country?... Like your compatriots writing in another thread: "27 millions out of 150 lost in a war? How do i know when i was born 30 years after the Victory?!"... Sad.
I fail to find sarcasm out of your post. He came ashore on Guam straight out of boot camp. He then watched his buddy die in front of him, but his 5'6" frame carried him ashore. He turned down a Purple Heart afterwards. He was only one of million who watched the LVT ramp go down, not knowing if the enemy bullet was gonna hit him.
Again, claiming "crawling upon some useless god forsaken islands", in any language is horsechit. I'm sorry I struck a nerve, but you know what, I don't care. You'll claim to be right and spew enough drivel to try and whitewash the whole thing.
Cultures, scmultures Boroda, the bottom line is that you never should have typed that crap in the first place. I'd enjoy to take a trip to Russia and spend a week there, but if the inhabitants are carbon copies of you, no thank you.
The only thing that makes a Human Being on this Earth different, is how to overcome the language barrier. Anything else is an excuse.
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
Jeesh!
Laurie, have you ever BEEN to Germany?
Go sometime.
EDUCATE yourself.
(Especially before posting)
68ROX
I have been to Germany.
But I'm sorry to say there are still people in that country, many in fact who persecuted the Jews, waged war with the allies, or sat and watch it happen, all three are as bad as each other.
I have to say i find it hilarious that this guy has given himself such self-righteousness to start picking fault in countries that were striving to survive under his forefathers actions.
He is trying mock our past and our forefathers actions, maybe he should look back on his own before he decides that we were so terrible. Or is it because he's German he gets some special treatment and bypass to this process?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I fail to find sarcasm out of your post. He came ashore on Guam straight out of boot camp. He then watched his buddy die in front of him, but his 5'6" frame carried him ashore. He turned down a Purple Heart afterwards. He was only one of million who watched the LVT ramp go down, not knowing if the enemy bullet was gonna hit him.
Again, claiming "crawling upon some useless god forsaken islands", in any language is horsechit. I'm sorry I struck a nerve, but you know what, I don't care. You'll claim to be right and spew enough drivel to try and whitewash the whole thing.
Cultures, scmultures Boroda, the bottom line is that you never should have typed that crap in the first place. I'd enjoy to take a trip to Russia and spend a week there, but if the inhabitants are carbon copies of you, no thank you.
The only thing that makes a Human Being on this Earth different, is how to overcome the language barrier. Anything else is an excuse.
This is one of the few times i agree with one of your posts :)
-
Masherbrum, you go nuts when I post a provocative sentence, especially marking it so noone (I hoped) will take it seriously.
OTOH you afford posts that I consider (i still try to be polite) inappropriate.
My Father is a Veteran too, he spent several months at Northern Fleet ships in 1944 - as a practice, he was a Navy cadet. As most of the Russians I have several family members who were killed in a War, survived nazi concentration camps, and simply fought for four years.
Saying that Manchurian Operation didn't help defeating Japanese Empire is silly. Kwantun Army was 1.5 million men, much more then all Japanese forces US met in the Pacific combined.
Now, look: "Allies" promised to open a Second Front in Europe in 1942, and they "delayed" it for 2 years. They interfered only when everything was decided, to get their piece of pie. USSR promised to start hostilities against Japan in 3 months since Victory in Europe, and it kept it's promise. Two Fronts, Pacific Fleet and Amur task force had more power then all the "allied" forces in the Pacific.
You speak about Russo-Japanese War. Tsushima was the greatest defeat of a Russian Navy, but Russia was fighting alone against Japan that was backed up by UK and US, Russian Empire sent it's Baltic Fleet across half of the globe, and fought against the most advanced and experienced navy. Russia was "projecting power" across half the planet, and it was in 1904. Japanese were lucky, and this luck failed in 1941.
Sorry have to go now, will continue from home.
-
Saying that Manchurian Operation didn't help defeating Japanese Empire is silly. Kwantun Army was 1.5 million men, much more then all Japanese forces US met in the Pacific combined.
Not quite the fight you seem to think it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm
Soviet Forces.
The forces totaled at least eighty divisions with 1.5 million men, over five thousand tanks (including 3,700 T-34s), over 28,000 artillery pieces and 4,300 aircraft (including 3,700 first line combat aircraft). Approximately one-third of its strength was in combat support and services. Its naval forces contained 12 major surface combatants, 78 submarines, numerous amphibious craft, and the Amur river flotilla, consisting of gunboats and numerous small craft. It incorporated all the experience in maneuver warfare that the Soviets had acquired fighting the Germans.
Japanese Forces.
Each Area Army (the equivalent of a Western "army") had headquarters units and units attached directly to the Area Army, in addition to the field armies (the equivalent of a Western corps). In addition to the Japanese there was the forty thousand strong Manchukuo Defense Force, composed of eight under-strength, poorly-equipped, poorly-trained Chinese divisions. Korea, which would have been the next target for the Far Eastern Command, was garrisoned by the Seventeenth Area Army.
Also....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Army
After the outbreak of the Pacific War, many troops from the Kwantung Army were transferred from Manchuria to the Pacific islands. At the time of Operation August Storm, when the Soviet Red Army invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria in August 1945, the Army's strength was nearly 600,000. The Army by that time was comprised of one armored division, 25 infantry divisions, six independent brigades, and up to 25 security battalions. However, much of its heavy weapons and ammunition reserves and best personnel had been transferred to the Pacific, which left the Kwantung Army as a counterinsurgency and border security force. To cope with the Soviet invasion, the Army planned to form a defense line near Hsinking, which had become the capital of Manchukuo, but Emperor Hirohito ordered them to surrender before the main engagement took place. At this point, historians relate, little remained of the once-proud Kwantung Army. Its remnants either lay dead on the battlefield or were on their way to Soviet Prisoner-of-war camps. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese prisoners of war were forced to work in Soviet labor camps in Siberia, Russian Far East and Mongolia. They were not freed until the 1950s and many of them were forced to stay in Siberia. A notable mutiny of the Manchukuo Defence Force also occurred at this time.
Now, look: "Allies" promised to open a Second Front in Europe in 1942, and they "delayed" it for 2 years. They interfered only when everything was decided, to get their piece of pie.
For starters.....the Western Allies didn't keep land we drove the German army from. It was given back to those it belonged to.
Is Italy not part of Europe? Italy was invaded in 1943. That tied down resources that could have been used against the Soviet Army.
You seem to be implying that the Western Allies didn't do their part. What about the bombing campaign over Germany? How many more tanks, airplanes, artillery pieces etc etc do you think the Soviet army would have had to face if there had been no bombing campaign?
-
Originally posted by Laurie
He is trying mock our past and our forefathers actions, maybe he should look back on his own before he decides that we were so terrible. Or is it because he's German he gets some special treatment and bypass to this process?
Looks like someone can't handle criticism...
...as a (present) german, its not allowed for me to judge other countrys past no matter how horrible?
where in this thread did i say something nice about what the Nazis did ?
whats your problem exsactly?
because i'm german?
btw. i live all my live in germany, but my roots are from croatia,
does this change anything now in your view ?
it should not! just accept it, it will not change the past into a better light.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Now, look: "Allies" promised to open a Second Front in Europe in 1942, and they "delayed" it for 2 years. They interfered only when everything was decided, to get their piece of pie.
November 8, 1942, "Operation Torch", Allies invade North Africa and pincer Axis forces from Egypt and Lybia on the East, and Tunisia from the West. Torch was the largest amphibious invasion in military history up to that time. (My great-uncle was with Patton's Corp).
July 9th, 1943, "Operation Husky", Allies invade Sicily, bringing the promised "Second European Front", which could not be accomplished with Axis troops running around North Africa.
All the while US and British bomber formations flying missions (USAAF duing the day, RAF at night) bombing tank and airplane factories as well as other strategic targets... and by JANUARY of 1943....hitting Berlin, bringing the war to Hitler's own back yard.
At the same time, US forces "Island Hopped" from the doorstep of Australia to the southern tip of the Japanese Home Islands.
I don't know where you got your history books from Boroda, but if it were me, I'd take them back to the store and get a refund for my hard earned rubles.
<>
68ROX
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Saying that Manchurian Operation didn't help defeating Japanese Empire is silly. Kwantun Army was 1.5 million men, much more then all Japanese forces US met in the Pacific combined.
It was an army in name only.
"At the time of Operation August Storm, when the Soviet Red Army invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria in August 1945, the Army's strength was nearly 600,000. The Army by that time was comprised of one armored division, 25 infantry divisions, six independent brigades, and up to 25 security battalions. However, much of its heavy weapons and ammunition reserves and best personnel had been transferred to the Pacific, which left the Kwantung Army as a counterinsurgency and border security force."
As Oleg Maddox, from Moscow, Russia, says, throw your books away.
A link you should read, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You speak about Russo-Japanese War. Tsushima was the greatest defeat of a Russian Navy, but Russia was fighting alone against Japan that was backed up by UK and US, Russian Empire sent it's Baltic Fleet across half of the globe, and fought against the most advanced and experienced navy. Russia was "projecting power" across half the planet, and it was in 1904. Japanese were lucky, and this luck failed in 1941.
You should really do some research befor you make such statements.
Revistan was built in the US of A. :eek:
Tsarivitch was built in France. :eek:
The Borodino class was based on the Tsarivitch.
Osliabia was French built. :eek:
Many of the Russian ships were modelled after British warships such as the Peresviet class inspired by the HMS Centurion.
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
November 8, 1942, "Operation Torch", Allies invade North Africa and pincer Axis forces from Egypt and Lybia on the East, and Tunisia from the West. Torch was the largest amphibious invasion in military history up to that time. (My great-uncle was with Patton's Corp).
July 9th, 1943, "Operation Husky", Allies invade Sicily, bringing the promised "Second European Front", which could not be accomplished with Axis troops running around North Africa.
All the while US and British bomber formations flying missions (USAAF duing the day, RAF at night) bombing tank and airplane factories as well as other strategic targets... and by JANUARY of 1943....hitting Berlin, bringing the war to Hitler's own back yard.
At the same time, US forces "Island Hopped" from the doorstep of Australia to the southern tip of the Japanese Home Islands.
I don't know where you got your history books from Boroda, but if it were me, I'd take them back to the store and get a refund for my hard earned rubles.
<>
68ROX
Do not forget about the Murmansk Run. A ship operation to take crucial supplies directly to russia. Had the Murmansk Run collapsed, so would have the Soviet Union.
My grandfather was a captain of a ship in that.
-
I have been to Germany.
When and where? It seems you must have spent your time with neo-Nazis. Given we know that you are still at school, I'm interested in how you have gained this insight.
From my trips to Germany, I found the people friendly and helpful on the whole. Berlin was fantastic. The Germans I have met through work are like any other people - some even have a sense of humour.
But I'm sorry to say there are still people in that country, many in fact who persecuted the Jews, waged war with the allies, or sat and watch it happen, all three are as bad as each other
You are making yourself look stupid. The war started nearly 70 years ago. That generation is all but gone, and to claim that there are 'many who persecuted the jews' even alive is loony toons talk. They probably account for less than 1% of the current German population.
He is trying mock our past and our forefathers actions, maybe he should look back on his own before he decides that we were so terrible. Or is it because he's German he gets some special treatment and bypass to this process?
People who actuallly fought in that war have learnt to let it go - I would contend that a schoolboy born at least 45 years after its end is on shaky ground when it comes to assuming a mantle of righteous indignation. Ghosth has done nothing wrong - its testament to the sacrifices that our forefathers made that he can speak his mind and that Germany is free. You are missing the point about WW2 if you cannot see that.
BTW, your views in this thread and the one you started seem to have rather strong parallels with BNP ideology. Obsession with 'Ze Germans' is so very 1970s.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Not quite the fight you seem to think it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm
"August Storm"!?
Next please.
Slogans like "Decisive Failure" or "Wineglass Storm" are a modern American invention.
In this case I'd better trust Soviet sources then wikipedian hallucinations.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
In this case I'd better trust Soviet sources then wikipedian hallucinations.
Who's hallucinations? :rofl
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
November 8, 1942, "Operation Torch", Allies invade North Africa and pincer Axis forces from Egypt and Lybia on the East, and Tunisia from the West. Torch was the largest amphibious invasion in military history up to that time. (My great-uncle was with Patton's Corp).
July 9th, 1943, "Operation Husky", Allies invade Sicily, bringing the promised "Second European Front", which could not be accomplished with Axis troops running around North Africa.
All the while US and British bomber formations flying missions (USAAF duing the day, RAF at night) bombing tank and airplane factories as well as other strategic targets... and by JANUARY of 1943....hitting Berlin, bringing the war to Hitler's own back yard.
At the same time, US forces "Island Hopped" from the doorstep of Australia to the southern tip of the Japanese Home Islands.
Compare it to numbers of the forces involved at the Eastern Front.
BTW, Soviet Air Force bombed Berlin for the first time in Summer 1941.
Originally posted by 68ROX
I don't know where you got your history books from Boroda, but if it were me, I'd take them back to the store and get a refund for my hard earned rubles.
<>
68ROX
Typical delusions of the so-called "free world". We had all kinds of historical books in USSR, including Western authors translated and printed in huge numbers here since 1950s. I have read more translated Western book then written by Soviet authors.
How many Soviet history book did You read? Your "freedom of speech" means that you have only one approved point of view.
Calling Husky as a "promised Second Front in Europe" is a brave attempt to save the face. Using approximately 1% of the troops involved in the Eastern Front :D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Who's hallucinations? :rofl
Didn't you know that Wikipedia is written by Wikipederatsts? :p
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You should really do some research befor you make such statements.
Revistan was built in the US of A. :eek:
Tsarivitch was built in France. :eek:
The Borodino class was based on the Tsarivitch.
Osliabia was French built. :eek:
Many of the Russian ships were modelled after British warships such as the Peresviet class inspired by the HMS Centurion.
My hat off, for the first time I meet a foreigner who can discuss Russo-Japanese war.
My friend, I have a bookshelf full of books on that tragic war, including British and even Polish authors.
Retvisan and Tsesarevich were in the First Pacific Task Force based at Port Artur, so they didn't take part in Tsushima battle. Tsesarevich was Witgeft's flagship in a Battle of Yellow Sea, when one lucky shot made Russian order collapse, and Retvizan (repaired after Jan 27th torpedo hit) went into suicide attack to save it.
Borodino class were indeed based on Tsesarevich idea, but they were all designed and built completely by shipyards in SPb. Later Andrey Pervozvanniy became probably the most advanced pre-dreadnaught battleship, also based on Borodino design. AFAIK putting 6" cannons (on Tsesarevich and Borodino) and then 8" (on Andrey Pervozvanniy) in turrets was a Russian idea implemented by French.
Oslyabya was originally designed and built in SPb, should I look for a shipyard name? It was a questionable design, light armor and huge autonomy - more like a raider, so it was sunk in the first minutes of Tsushima battle.
OTOH all Japanese battleships were built in the UK, heavy armored cruisers - in Italy and UK, and so on. Russia at that time was absolutely unable to compete with industrial powers like UK, Germany or France.
It may be really nice if we'll start another thread discussing Russo-Japanese war, I'll appreciate any opinions and share my information.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Calling Husky as a "promised Second Front in Europe" is a brave attempt to save the face. Using approximately 1% of the troops involved in the Eastern Front :D
If the commies had got off their butts and attacked Japan, there would have been more troops for a western second front offensive. :D
Also remember the west was not as dumb as the commies. They attacked where the least amount of casualties would occure.
-
You missed the point Borada. Without the west the, Russians would have had nothing.
Russia at that time was absolutely unable to compete with industrial powers like UK, Germany or France.
Yes still in the Dark Ages.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
If the commies had got off their butts and attacked Japan, there would have been more troops for a western second front offensive. :D
Also remember the west was not as dumb as the commies. They attacked where the least amount of casualties would occure.
Let me count to 10...
mmm.
Now. Did we have a choice in June 1941?
Sometimes you guys speak such beautiful refined nonsense that it can be easily used in propaganda purposes by our left/conservative media.
-
Dunno. Seems to me you invade a continent when you have the men and resources in place to conduct a successful invasion and not just send men out to be slaughtered
Not based on the whines and whims of the head of state from a different country.
42 would have been unrealistic. As while on paper the Americans had an army it was largely just that a paper army with many of its forces untrained and unequipped.
Im currently reading a Book on D-Day in the soldeirs own words.
I'll have to go back t near the beginning but there are several mentioning of how when alot of these men joined up after Pearl Harbor. Alot of these units were using sticks as guns or WWI issue guns for training
In once instance its mentioned there was 1 machine gun. For his entire company!
This was in 1942
It takes time to train soldiers in sufficient numbers to conduct an invasion the size that would be needed to be successful
And it take alot of material on hand to readily equip and keep these forces supplied
There is an old military saying that goes
"Amatures think strategy. Professionals think logistics"
Militarily speaking Stalin was an amature.
But before becomming a professional butcher of human beings
I hear he was a hell of a clerk and propoganda newspaper editor though
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Compare it to numbers of the forces involved at the Eastern Front..
THAT is YOUR well thought out, tort? See below.
Originally posted by Boroda
BTW, Soviet Air Force bombed Berlin for the first time in Summer 1941.
An amazing feat, considering the war with the USSR didn't begin until June 22 of that year...with the Luftwaffe destroying over 90% of then operational aircraft in the first few days of the offensive. With total air superiority on the front by the Luftwaffe, you are saying that SOVIET BOMBERS (at distance far exceeding a Tupelov's range) bombed Berlin?
PLEASE send us some of the weed you are smoking dude.
Originally posted by Boroda
How many Soviet history book did You read? Your "freedom of speech" means that you have only one approved point of view..
.........enough to know someone who is brain-washed when I see one.
I have read historic records on the subject from authors from the USSR, USA, UK, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Japan, Italy, and Romania.
Soviet books were exchanged with an amateur radio friend in Minsk.
I recommend another author you might enjoy....Alexander Solzinytzen, you probably havent heard of him though.
Originally posted by Boroda
Calling Husky as a "promised Second Front in Europe" is a brave attempt to save the face. Using approximately 1% of the troops involved in the Eastern Front :D
At this point I have no CLUE where you are getting your facts.
Numbers? Numbers?
What are numbers when by his own admission, General Georgi Zhukov admitted that he forced infantry to go in advance of armored units to clear the way of mines...so by sacrificeing his own men to death, he was able to spare more tanks.
Eisenhower nearly threw up when Zhukov told him that.
If you wish to continue on this "The Soviet Union Saved The World" singlehandedly soap-box, knock youself out...just understand the rest of the planet sees your posts and is having a real.....:rofl
Good luck with that...
68ROX
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You missed the point Borada. Without the west the, Russians would have had nothing.
Yes still in the Dark Ages.
Without Russians so-called "free world" now had to speak German, I mean - those who were left.
It takes me more and more effort to stay calm listening to your bigotry. What's next?
-
Tell me Borada what the west was doing from Sept 1939 til June 1941.
Now what was Stalin doing? Oh yes, he was in bed making lovey dovey with Adolf.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Without Russians so-called "free world" now had to speak German, I mean - those who were left.
It takes me more and more effort to stay calm listening to your bigotry. What's next?
Was talking about the war of 1905.
What does your brainwashing tell you about the Allied air offensive against Germany? Lucky for the commies that there was, for the commies would not have got as far as they did.
-
Yes 68ROX, they did. Bit of a botch job though.
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
THAT is YOUR well thought out, tort? See below.
I't's kinda hard to argue with mmm let's call it "dramatically misinformed" people, but I'll try.
Originally posted by 68ROX
An amazing feat, considering the war with the USSR didn't begin until June 22 of that year...with the Luftwaffe destroying over 90% of then operational aircraft in the first few days of the offensive. With total air superiority on the front by the Luftwaffe, you are saying that SOVIET BOMBERS (at distance far exceeding a Tupelov's range) bombed Berlin?
PLEASE send us some of the weed you are smoking dude.
First Soviet bomb strike on Berlin: Aug 7th-8th 1941, 1st MTAP KBF, commander - col. Preobrazhenskiy, from Kogul airfield at Saaremaa (Esel) island.
Originally posted by 68ROX
.........enough to know someone who is brain-washed when I see one.
I have read historic records on the subject from authors from the USSR, USA, UK, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Japan, Italy, and Romania.
Soviet books were exchanged with an amateur radio friend in Minsk.
You exchanged books on the short-wave? Can you even read Cyrillic letters, dude? Don't make me laugh. Name one book here please.
As I said: Western books were translated and printed here since 1950s.
Originally posted by 68ROX
I recommend another author you might enjoy....Alexander Solzinytzen, you probably havent heard of him though.
He's spelled "Solzhenitsyn" or Ńîëćĺíčöčí in Cyrillic. I read a lot by that author. He already admitted that "Archipelago" was mostly a figment of his imagination, especially when it comes to numbers.
You guys still live in some cold-war reservation, don't you?...
Originally posted by 68ROX
At this point I have no CLUE where you are getting your facts.
Numbers? Numbers?
Husky: 3 divisions (I may be wrong, don't want to look for Omar Bradley's "Soldier's Diary" on my bookshelves, I hope you know who that guy was) compared to 300+ divisions deployed by USSR.
Originally posted by 68ROX
What are numbers when by his own admission, General Georgi Zhukov admitted that he forced infantry to go in advance of armored units to clear the way of mines...so by sacrificeing his own men to death, he was able to spare more tanks.
Eisenhower nearly threw up when Zhukov told him that.
Again the money for the fish :D You repeat the same old cold-war bull****. Zhukov explained that removing mine-fields could lead to bigger losses and losing tactical advantage. And in fact it was infantry attacking over anti-tank mines. I hope you know that anti-tank mines can't be detonated by load less then 3-5 tons.
Conclusion: opponent badly misinformed, ignorant and repeating silly cold-war propaganda fairy-tales. Further conversation considered useless unless he names at least some books he read from Soviet side, ISBNs will be enough.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Was talking about the war of 1905.
1904 war.
Russia at that time was far behind the West, but we still own 1/7th of the world's land, we survived 2 total wars and are still doing pretty well.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What does your brainwashing tell you about the Allied air offensive against Germany? Lucky for the commies that there was, for the commies would not have got as far as they did.
Allied air offensive against Germany didn't make any significant influence on German industrial production. Many Western sources admit it, you should simply look at German military industry statistics, it should be easy to find on the Net. The game wasn't worth the candles. What I really love is that in 1945 "allies" targeted cities that were supposed to be in Soviet occupation zone, like Dresden. So it goes (if you understand what i mean).
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Husky: 3 divisions (I may be wrong, don't want to look for Omar Bradley's "Soldier's Diary" on my bookshelves, I hope you know who that guy was) compared to 300+ divisions deployed by USSR.
Are you ever wrong!
Allied 15th Army Group
Under the command of General Sir Harold Alexander.
U.S. 7th Army
Commanded by Lieutenant General George Smith Patton.
* 1st Ranger Battalion
* 3d Ranger Battalion
* 4th Ranger Battalion
* 70th Tank Battalion
* 753rd Tank Battalion
* 39th Engineer Regiment
* 540th Engineer Shore Regiment
* 5th Armored Artillery Group
o 58th Armored Field Artillery Battalion
o 62nd Armored Field Artillery Battalion
o 65th Armored Field Artillery Battalion
* 17th Artillery Regiment
* 36th Artillery Regiment
* 77th Artillery Regiment
* 178th Artillery Regiment
* Free French 4th Morrocan Tabor
U.S. II Corps
Commanded by Lieutenant General Omar Nelson Bradley.
* U.S. 1st Infantry Division
Initially commanded by Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen. He was succeeded by Major General Clarence R. Huebner on August 7.
o 16th Infantry Regiment
o 18th Infantry Regiment
o 26th Infantry Regiment
o 5th Field Artillery Battalion
o 7th Field Artillery Battalion
o 32d Field Artillery Battalion
o 33d Field Artillery Battalion
o 1st Engineer Combat Battalion
o 1st Reconnaissance Troop
* U.S. 9th Infantry Division
Commanded by Major General Manton Sprague Eddy.
o 39th Infantry Regiment
o 47th Infantry Regiment
o 60th Infantry Regiment
o 26th Field Artillery Battalion
o 34th Field Artillery Battalion
o 60th Field Artillery Battalion
o 84th Field Artillery Battalion
o 15th Engineer Combat Battalion
o 42nd Anti-Aircraft Battalion
o 9th Reconnaissance Troop
* U.S. 45th Infantry Division
Commanded by Major General Troy Houston Middleton.
o 157th Infantry Regiment
o 179th Infantry Regiment
o 180th Infantry Regiment
o 158th Field Artillery Battalion
o 160th Field Artillery Battalion
o 171st Field Artillery Battalion
o 189th Field Artillery Battalion
o 120th Engineer Combat Battalion
o 45th Reconnaissance Troop
U.S. Provisional Corps
Commanded by Major General Geoffrey Keyes.
* U.S. 2d Armored Division
Commanded by Major-General Hugh J. Gaffey. The Divisional formations were placed under the Combat Commands as needed.
o Combat Command A
o Combat Command B
o 41st Armored Infantry Regiment
o 66th Armored Regiment
o 67th Armored Regiment
o 14th Armored Field Artillery Battalion
o 78th Armored Field Artillery Battalion
o 92d Armored Field Artillery Battalion
o 17th Armored Engineer Battalion
o 82d Armored Reconnaissance Battalion
* U.S. 3d Infantry Division
Commanded by Major-General Lucian King Truscott, Jr.
o 7th Infantry Regiment
o 15th Infantry Regiment
o 30th Infantry Regiment
o 9th Field Artillery Battalion
o 10th Field Artillery Battalion
o 39th Field Artillery Battalion
o 41st Field Artillery Battalion
o 10th Engineer Combat Battalion
* U.S. 82nd Airborne Division
Commanded by Major-General Matthew Bunker Ridgway. The 509th Parachute Battalion was held in reserve and never saw action.
o 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment
o 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment
o 325th Glider Infantry Regiment
o 376th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion
o 456th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion
o 319th Glider Field Artillery Battalion
o 320th Glider Field Artillery Battalion
o 307th Airborne Engineer Battalion
o 80th Airborne Anti-Aircraft Battalion
-
British 8th Army
Under the command of General Bernard Law Montgomery. The British 46th Infantry Division formed a floating reserve, but did not participate in the Sicily campaign.
Army Troops
* British Number 2 Special Air Service Paratroop Battalion
* British Number 3 Commando Battalion
* British Number 40 Royal Marine Commando Battalion
* British Number 41 Royal Marine Commando Battalion
* 3 companies 2nd/7th Battalion, The Middlesex Regiment (Duke of Cambridge's Own)
* 2nd/4th Battalion, The Hampshire Regiment
* 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
* 2nd Battalion, The Highland Light Infantry
* 1st Battalion, The Welch Regiment
* 7th Battalion, Royal Marines
British XIII Corps
Commanded by Lieutenant-General Miles Dempsey.
* 105th Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery
* 6th Army Group Royal Artillery
o 24th Armored Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 98th Armored Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 111th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 66th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 75th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 80th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery
* British 5th Infantry Division
Commanded by Major-General Horatio Pettus Mackintosh Berney-Ficklin (later replaced by Gerard Bucknall).
o 13th Infantry Brigade
o 15th Infantry Brigade
o 17th Infantry Brigade
o 91st Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 92nd Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 156th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 52nd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 18th Light Antiaircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 7th Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment
* British 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division
Commanded by Major-General Sidney Kirkman.
o 69th Infantry Brigade
o 151st Infantry Brigade
o 168th Infantry Brigade
o 74th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 90th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 124th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 102nd (Northumberland Hussars) Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 25th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 2nd Battalion The Cheshire Regiment (MG)
* British 78th Infantry Division
Commanded by Major-General Vyvyan Evelegh.
o 11th Infantry Brigade
o 36th Infantry Brigade
o 38th Infantry Brigade
o 17th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 132nd Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 138th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 64th Anti-Tank Regiment, 142nd Field Regiment, RA
o 49th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 1st Battalion, Kensington Regiment (Princess Louise's)
* British 1st Airborne Division
Commanded by Major-General George F. Hopkinson. Did not participate as a division.
o British 1st Airlanding Brigade
o British 1st Parachute Brigade
o 1st Airlanding Light Regiment, Royal Artillery
* British 4th Armoured Brigade
o 3rd County of London Yeomanry (The Sharpshooters)
o 44th Royal Tank Regiment
o A Squadron, 1st (Royal) Dragoons
British XXX Corps
Commanded by Lieutenant-General Sir Oliver Leese.
* 73rd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery
* 5th Army Group Royal Artillery
o 57th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 58th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 78th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 7th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 64th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 70th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 11th (Honourable Artillery Company) Royal Horse Artillery
o 142nd Armoured Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
* 1st Canadian Infantry Division
Commanded by Major-General Guy Granville Simonds.
o 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade
+ The Royal Canadian Regiment
+ Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment
+ 48th Highlanders of Canada
o 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade
+ Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
+ Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
+ Loyal Edmonton Regiment
o 3rd Canadian Infantry Brigade
+ Royal 22e Régiment
+ Carleton and York Regiment
+ West Nova Scotia Regiment
o 1st Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
o 2nd Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery
o 3rd Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery
o 1st Battalion, The Saskatoon Light Infantry (Machine Gun)
o 1st Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery
o 2nd Light Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery
o 4th Reconnaissance Regiment (4th Princess Louise Dragoon Guards)
* 1st Canadian Army Tank Brigade
o 11th Armoured Regiment (The Ontario Regiment)
o 12th Armoured Regiment (The Three Rivers Regiment)
o 14th Armoured Regiment (The Calgary Regiment)
* British 51st (Highland) Infantry Division
Commanded by Major-General Douglas Wimberley.
o 152nd Infantry Brigade
o 153rd Infantry Brigade
o 154th Infantry Brigade
o 126th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 127th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 128th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 61st Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 40th Light Antiaircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery
o 1st/7th Battalion, The Middlesex Regiment (Duke of Cambridge's Own)
* British 23rd Armoured Brigade
Components attached to other units. Never fought as a Brigade in Sicily
o 50th Royal Tank Regiment
o (Part) 46th Royal Tank Regiment
* British 231st Infantry Brigade
o 2nd Battalion, The Devonshire Regiment
o 1st Battalion, The Dorset Regiment
o 1st Battalion, The Hampshire Regiment
o 165th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
-
It is more than just German production Boroda. It is also the million+ that were involved in defense and repair of the Reich. That includes fighter units that could have been used on the EF. I believe it was Speer who said the Allied air offensive cost Germany 30% of its production.
-
If you'll list platoons instead of batallions - your list will be even longer.
BTW, since when Sicily is "continental Europe"?
Sooo funny and predictable you are :) very touching :)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
It is more than just German production Boroda. It is also the million+ that were involved in defense and repair of the Reich. That includes fighter units that could have been used on the EF. I believe it was Speer who said the Allied air offensive cost Germany 30% of its production.
Then how it comes that they increased industrial production until Red Army came?...
Thank you for spelling my callsign correctly. I have always said that almost everyone can learn, remember Pavlov's dogs?
-
I don't know the names of any of Pavlov's dogs or I would use one of them.:rofl
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
I don't know the names of any of Pavlov's dogs or I would use one of them.:rofl
You can see some names here in this thread and you use one already ;) Just look at my signature to understand :D
-
It is easy to have big numbers since a commie battalion was half the size of an Allied battalion.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
It is easy to have big numbers since a commie battalion was half the size of an Allied battalion.
And a commie soldier was half the size of an "allied" warrior? :D
Allied batalion = 600-800 men? I didn't know that. I remember such difference in numbers during the Crimean (Eastern) war of 1852-55, when British division was as small as a Russian regiment. And German tank batallion in WWII was as big as a Soviet tank brigade.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
This is one of the few times i agree with one of your posts :)
<> Laurie
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Originally posted by Elfie
Not quite the fight you seem to think it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm
"August Storm"!?
Next please.
Slogans like "Decisive Failure" or "Wineglass Storm" are a modern American invention.
In this case I'd better trust Soviet sources then wikipedian hallucinations.
I used Wikipedia because it was convenient. Milo posted another source that backs up the Wiki source. Generally speaking, you can find sources that back up Wikipedia especially in regards to WWII history.
If you don't like Wikipedia as a source, then find one you do like and post it. :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I used Wikipedia because it was convenient. Milo posted another source that backs up the Wiki source. Generally speaking, you can find sources that back up Wikipedia especially in regards to WWII history.
If you don't like Wikipedia as a source, then find one you do like and post it. :)
I think wikipedia is a good a source as any most of the time as long as you aren't trusting your life or money to it. It isn't very hard to find cooberating evidence if needed.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think wikipedia is a good a source as any most of the time as long as you aren't trusting your life or money to it. It isn't very hard to find cooberating evidence if needed.
That could be said about many sources. ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I used Wikipedia because it was convenient. Milo posted another source that backs up the Wiki source. Generally speaking, you can find sources that back up Wikipedia especially in regards to WWII history.
If you don't like Wikipedia as a source, then find one you do like and post it. :)
Once I posted my own translation of an article about Manchurian Operation from "Great Patriotic War, the Dictionary", published in 1985, here on this board. This source is much more reliable then some moron's post in a "free" wikipedia. I noticed "some" bias (you see i still try to be polite) in historical articles there, and Soviet point of view usually gets edited off even when you add it as an alternative.
Someone posted an article about Second Pacific Task Force commander, calling him Zinoviy Rozhdestvenskiy...! Next step will be Vladimir Ilyich Lennon.
Soviet sources estimate Kwantun Army as at least 1.3 million people. Compare it to 30-50 thousand involved in "Husky" in 1943. (sorry again - tomorrow i'll probably look for Bradley's book to say exact numbers).
-
Where's Hari Seldon when you need him? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Where's Hari Seldon when you need him? ;)
Yes, psychohistory is a good word here :D
-
This source is much more reliable then some moron's post in a "free" wikipedia.
If someone posts incorrect information in Wikipedia the next person to come along can correct it.
I saw some where that the Kwangtung army numbered about 1.5 million men before the Pacific war started. After that, the Kwangtung army was slowly robbed of men and material to fight the Pacific war.
-
A source that is subject to debate would seem to me more credible and/or reliable than one not. I guess all accounts of history are subject to debate. The Internet just makes things happen faster.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If someone posts incorrect information in Wikipedia the next person to come along can correct it.
Yess, correcting any point of view that contradicts with current Party Line in the West. That's so true! We need to make a Wiki-Squad just to add Soviet POV as alternative material there.
Originally posted by Elfie
I saw some where that the Kwangtung army numbered about 1.5 million men before the Pacific war started. After that, the Kwangtung army was slowly robbed of men and material to fight the Pacific war.
IIRC Soviet sources say 1.3 million for Aug 1945, after 1.6 million in 1940, but I may be wrong. "One and a half million Kwantun army" is one of the things i remember from "Unknown War" TV series. There was a full episode (21st out of 22 IIRC) about Manchurian operation.
Another interesting thing: in September 1945 Japanese govt asked Soviet side to keep Japanese POWs as long as they can, because there were no food and resources on the Islands for them... Funny, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Yess, correcting any point of view that contradicts with current Party Line in the West. That's so true! We need to make a Wiki-Squad just to add Soviet POV as alternative material there.
Umm
One minor detail.
There is no more Soviet point of view :)
Sheesh. Sometimes your as bad as some southerners that are still fighting the Civil war.
Your side lost. There is no more Confederacy, and there is no more Soviet Union.
Get over it and move on LOL
-
Another interesting thing: in September 1945 Japanese govt asked Soviet side to keep Japanese POWs as long as they can, because there were no food and resources on the Islands for them... Funny, isn't it?
I don't believe that for a second. No, blatant lies like that are far from funny.
The USSR kept PoW's from both Germany and Japan after the cessation of hostilities...which is WRONG. I don't know about the Japanese prisoners, but I suspect they didn't fare any better than the German prisoners, thousands of whom died in captivity.
You can't or won't provide any source(s) to back up any of your rediculous claims. Yet you attack the sources provided by others as rediculous and fraudulent.
My country and yours have done things that are wrong. When I find out about things my country has done, unlike you, I can see that it was wrong. You just keep spouting the Communist Party line like some broken record.
I'm done talking to you, seriously.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Another interesting thing: in September 1945 Japanese govt asked Soviet side to keep Japanese POWs as long as they can, because there were no food and resources on the Islands for them... Funny, isn't it?
Where's the mass grave?
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
Originally posted by Boroda
BTW, Soviet Air Force bombed Berlin for the first time in Summer 1941.
An amazing feat, considering the war with the USSR didn't begin until June 22 of that year...with the Luftwaffe destroying over 90% of then operational aircraft in the first few days of the offensive. With total air superiority on the front by the Luftwaffe, you are saying that SOVIET BOMBERS (at distance far exceeding a Tupelov's range) bombed Berlin?
Indeed Soviet bombers were bombing Berlin, Königsberg and other German targets during summer/autumm 1941. They used DB-3s, Yer-2s, Pe-8 and IL-4s. Information about those raids can be found easily with google search.
And somehow, seems that Berlin was not out of reach of their bombers range :)
Oh, and Soviet Air Force had many more planes than just the Tupolev factory's planes.
-
Boroda, had a Russian friend stop by last night. Before we went out, I had her read some of your posts. She started to chuckle and by the time she had finished I had to hold her in the chair to stop her from falling off it. The tears of laughter could have floated a battleship (not a Russian one though).
She went on to say that there are still some around that still believe all the brainwashing propaganda.
-
In reading this I'm yet to see Boroda counter one of Milo's points.
Boroda I'm behind you bro.
Don't listen to the brainwashed dweebs on this board because not a single one of them have a grip on history or have the extensive library or access to information you have.
Beacuse of you, Boroda, Russia will continue to be the pilliar of freedom, trade, and military power that they have been throughout the ages.
Keep on rocking in the free world!
-
Concho, you're evil. You know that don't you.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Concho, you're evil. You know that don't you.
aye, :D
-
While some of Boroda's poking was tongue in cheek, it's interesting to see many of the myths and legends found in his books are countered by myths and legends in others' books.
Myths and legends. No nation is going to publish history books for the young that say their lineage is full of cowardly, dumb, wrong-headed moves. Every nation is full of goodness and morality - and doing their good deeds with God on their side.
History books are great for propping up things and collective egos. Reading the unvarnished words of the people who made history is more informative, though.
There is an old Stalin quote about the war that says Britain provided the time, America provided the money and Russia provided the blood. Boroda, politicians or history books aside, 80 Soviet soldiers died for every American soldier in the fight against Germany. That fact should not go unsaid or unnoticed. Only on the eastern front did Einsatzgruppen forces follow combat troops to kill civilians.
The ground war didn't go well for the Allies until 1943. In every fight where German and Allied forces were closely matched, Germany prevailed. The US waited years to amass an overpowering force after the hard lessons of those early fights. The Soviets didn't have the same luxuries of time and geography. They were being slaughtered in a brutal frontal attack.
That may explain why a Russian may bristle when reading others write that "they" won the war in Europe.
-
But Rolex, This thread wasn't about the war in Europe. It was about the U.S. ending it by using Atomic weapons on Japan. Boroda started this whole thing by implying that the USSR did the Grunt work of beating the Japanese in the Pacific, which NO history book refutes as being the work of the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India, and actually China (They were, by and large, the forefront of the battle on the asian landmass.) Adding to that, insulting the contribution made by the elders and ancestors' of many of the posters' in here, (including myself- My late uncle Garland was in Carlson's Raiders, seeing action on Guadalcanal and the Solomons), By saying the Island hopping war was insignificant, netted him the treatment he deserved.
I never jumped in when Boroda started spewing all of that drivel because after his first two posts, I suspected a troll or a hijack of the thread. Oppurtunistic land grabbing, in the same ilk as Poland, Hungary, East Germany, etc. at the end of the Second world war, doesn't give him proper claim to say that was the action that single-handedly defeated the Japanese.
(P.S... To any of the poster's whose nation made a contribution to the winning of the pacific war, and that I didn't name, I'm deeply sorry. I was pretty mad and typing fast. :furious )
-
Only on the eastern front did Einsatzgruppen forces follow combat troops to kill civilians.
It happened in Poland as well.
-
Did you think he was being serious? I didn't. I thought he was making a joke about the Pacific War.
The myths and legends stuff applies to that topic also... ;)
Does anyone see any myths in any of the posts so far about Japan? Or, is everything posted based on facts?
-
He pursued it awfully far, for a mere joke. And joking in that context, isn't funny.
-
Did you think he was being serious? I didn't. I thought he was making a joke about the Pacific War.
I am convinced he actually believes what he writes here.
It is just as insulting for him to say the USSR did the grunt work in beating Japan as it would be for me to say the USA did the grunt work in beating Germany. I don't think anyone here is saying the USA or any of the other Western Allies did the grunt work in beating Germany.
-
His [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags and "I love provocations" didn't register with you?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
His [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags and "I love provocations" didn't register with you?
That was one post in this thread. That post I realized he was joking. That post is the exception rather than the rule.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Did you think he was being serious? I didn't. I thought he was making a joke about the Pacific War.
Sorry, I cannot "joke about War". Pissing on Veterans is something I don't do and I never even served. He's delusional.
-
what difference does it make who won the war. the important thing to remember is that so many people of many different nations fought and sometimes died to stop the axis nations. whinig about who won or not is belittling the fact that both russian and allied soldiers died, and it needs to be rembered that no death on either side is more or less important than death on anyother.
-
what difference does it make who won the war. the important thing to remember is that so many people of many different nations fought and sometimes died to stop the axis nations. whinig about who won or not is belittling the fact that both russian and allied soldiers died, and it needs to be rembered that no death on either side is more or less important than death on anyother.
Where there is some truth in that statement, You also have to remember that right after WWII, our ally quickly turned into our enemy. It was a close run thing, containing the USSR after the end of the war; They got quite a few countries as it were.
When someone get's up and state's something so out of line with what happened, as Boroda did, It's best to remind them of what did go down, that it does not cheapen the sacrifices of the Military forces and people of the Allied powers, that did in fact destroy Japan in a very hard-fought campaign, from 1941 (Or '37, if you consider the time the Chinese had been fighting) till' the Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Plain and simply, the War against Japan WAS NOT won by any part of the Red Army, Navy, or Air Force. It was not IL-2's that bottomed the core of the IJN fleet at Midway. It was not a Guards' tank division that stormed ashore at Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Tarawa, Bouganville, Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa. Commisars' did not wave tank riders forward in Burma, or Malaya, or over the Owen Stanley mountains in New Guinea. The Western Allies, with their ANZAC, Indian, and other Commonwealth forces, and with the Chinese Nationalists' fighting the Japanese on their own soil, Spilt that blood, and in my mind, alone claim the Thanks, and gratitude, that VJ day brought.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
If the commies had got off their butts and attacked Japan, there would have been more troops for a western second front offensive. :D
Also remember the west was not as dumb as the commies. They attacked where the least amount of casualties would occure.
If they had attacked Japan, then they would'nt have had those Siberian
troops to encircle von Paulus at Stalingrad at the end of 1942. Japan was
still trying to recover from the beating at Midway, so they sure weren't
gonna start anything. Especially after the lesson they got from Zhukov
in the 30s.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
It happened in Poland as well.
Poland is in east too.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Where there is some truth in that statement, You also have to remember that right after WWII, our ally quickly turned into our enemy. It was a close run thing, containing the USSR after the end of the war; They got quite a few countries as it were.
Well, Cold War and becoming "enemies" was a decision of the "blue" side. Elections in West Germany and South Korea were the final decision that started "cold war", followed by Berlin crisis that also was Western fault.
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
When someone get's up and state's something so out of line with what happened, as Boroda did, It's best to remind them of what did go down, that it does not cheapen the sacrifices of the Military forces and people of the Allied powers, that did in fact destroy Japan in a very hard-fought campaign, from 1941 (Or '37, if you consider the time the Chinese had been fighting) till' the Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Soviet volunteers fought in China too, looks like you never see any Soviet actions on your side. Lake Hasan and Khalkhin Gol in 1938 and 38 also are forgotten... The scale of the Khalkhin-Gol conflict can be compared to Western activities in the Pacific in 41-45.
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Plain and simply, the War against Japan WAS NOT won by any part of the Red Army, Navy, or Air Force. It was not IL-2's that bottomed the core of the IJN fleet at Midway. It was not a Guards' tank division that stormed ashore at Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Tarawa, Bouganville, Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa. Commisars' did not wave tank riders forward in Burma, or Malaya, or over the Owen Stanley mountains in New Guinea. The Western Allies, with their ANZAC, Indian, and other Commonwealth forces, and with the Chinese Nationalists' fighting the Japanese on their own soil, Spilt that blood, and in my mind, alone claim the Thanks, and gratitude, that VJ day brought.
I have to disagree. Look, I don't try to deny Western efforts in the Pacific, but the Soviet attack in 1945 did play an important role in VJ. After continental army was defeated - it could be quite easy to starve Japan, so nuclear bombings were, well, unnessessary. Please notice that I don't share Irwing's point of view on bombings of Dresden, I think it was a legitimate target, as well as Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Do you seriously think that USSR had to send it's soldiers to die for foreign interests in Asia? We got our spine almost broken in Europe, another war was too much for the country that lost every sixth person (and Belorussia lost as much as every third).
-
Originally posted by straffo
Poland is in east too.
When folks talk about the Eastern Front in WWII, they generally mean the fighting between Soviet and German forces.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
When folks talk about the Eastern Front in WWII, they generally mean the fighting between Soviet and German forces.
Polish troops were fighting shoulder to shoulder with Red Army. Wojsko Polsko lost about 80000 men in Berlin operation... Another fact that you guys usually forget.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I have to disagree. Look, I don't try to deny Western efforts in the Pacific, but the Soviet attack in 1945 did play an important role in VJ. After continental army was defeated - it could be quite easy to starve Japan, so nuclear bombings were, well, unnessessary. Please notice that I don't share Irwing's point of view on bombings of Dresden, I think it was a legitimate target, as well as Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Do you seriously think that USSR had to send it's soldiers to die for foreign interests in Asia? We got our spine almost broken in Europe, another war was too much for the country that lost every sixth person (and Belorussia lost as much as every third).
Your first paragraph indidcates you contributed. The second rescinds that fact. Which is it?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Your first paragraph indidcates you contributed. The second rescinds that fact. Which is it?
I meant that we couldn't afford a war on two fronts. Strategic maneuvering was a little bit difficult over one railway line 9000+km long. Quarter the Globe. In 1904 the Trans-Siberian railway was not complete, and it doomed Russian Manchurian army. Anyway Russian Empire built up a half-million group of troops by early 1905. USSR was interested in keeping peace on it's Eastern borders.
BTW did you ever think what could happen if Red Army started a counter-offensive at Moscow one day earlier? Hint: Soviet offensive began on Dec 6th 1941...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
so nuclear bombings were, well, unnessessary.
Estimates of Casualties Hiroshima Nagasaki
Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
Total Casualties 135,000 64,000
as opposed to the predicted 500,000 U.S. casualties of a land invasion.
I know it may sound cruel to just put human life in numbers and as a disposable sum, but this was war and if you look the estimated casualties of the bomb is around 200,000. Where as those of a land born invasion were that of 500,000 U.S. casualties let alone the amount of japanese ones.
So after seeing these numbers and figures borado, do you really still stick to your statement?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I meant that we couldn't afford a war on two fronts. Strategic maneuvering was a little bit difficult over one railway line 9000+km long. Quarter the Globe.
Gee Boroda, the western Allies fought on several fronts (CBI, SEP, Pac, ETO, MTO).
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I meant that we couldn't afford a war on two fronts. Strategic maneuvering was a little bit difficult over one railway line 9000+km long. Quarter the Globe. In 1904 the Trans-Siberian railway was not complete, and it doomed Russian Manchurian army. Anyway Russian Empire built up a half-million group of troops by early 1905. USSR was interested in keeping peace on it's Eastern borders.
BTW did you ever think what could happen if Red Army started a counter-offensive at Moscow one day earlier? Hint: Soviet offensive began on Dec 6th 1941...
I see, so the USSR did nada in the PTO. Thanks for the clarification. The US managed just fine with a "multi-front" effort.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I see, so the USSR did nada in the PTO. Thanks for the clarification. The US managed just fine with a "multi-front" effort.
"No-front" effort. You guys didn't have your country invaded. JFYI: Russia got invaded about every 50 years in the last 500 years.
Nuclear bombing was indeed unnessessary, I have to repeat: Japan could be starved to death after continental army was crushed and allied navy sieged the Home Islands. No use comparing 500000 casualities 90% of whom were supposed to be Soviet soldiers.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Nuclear bombing was indeed unnessessary, I have to repeat: Japan could be starved to death after continental army was crushed and allied navy sieged the Home Islands.
Well said, Komrade Boroda!
It is FAR more humaine to isolate a population and starve them to death (i.e. Leningrad) than to actually fight them directly...THAT way, you get all of those additional indiscriminant civilian casualties over a FAR more reaching area than a couple of A-Bombs could do. Well done!
But you are also assuming that the allied navy would actually step in and bother to actually DO anything, after all, why not just stand idly by and let the USSR do it FOR them?
GREAT post anyway, Komrade Boroda!
Long Live the ideals of Komrade Lenin!
Long Live the USSR!
(Theme To The Internationale in background)
68ROX
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"No-front" effort. You guys didn't have your country invaded. JFYI: Russia got invaded about every 50 years in the last 500 years.
Nuclear bombing was indeed unnessessary, I have to repeat: Japan could be starved to death after continental army was crushed and allied navy sieged the Home Islands. No use comparing 500000 casualities 90% of whom were supposed to be Soviet soldiers.
Russia has always been "about killing" Boroda. History cannot cover up the numbers as you are trying.
You really think 90% of the casualties would have been "Russian". :rofl :rofl
I'm through with this. Later.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
Estimates of Casualties Hiroshima Nagasaki
Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
Total Casualties 135,000 64,000
as opposed to the predicted 500,000 U.S. casualties of a land invasion.
I know it may sound cruel to just put human life in numbers and as a disposable sum, but this was war and if you look the estimated casualties of the bomb is around 200,000. Where as those of a land born invasion were that of 500,000 U.S. casualties let alone the amount of japanese ones.
So after seeing these numbers and figures borado, do you really still stick to your statement?
seeing it with todays eyes, where an army (especialy the US) try to protect the civilian casualties (colateral damage)
at all cost,
i do see Boroda have a point.
Soldiers are there to fight but not kill civillians.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"No-front" effort. You guys didn't have your country invaded. JFYI: Russia got invaded about every 50 years in the last 500 years."
Wow......
You'd think somebody there would LEARN something from that by now, now HUH? Wouldn't ya think? After 500 YEARS?
Do Russians have Rednecks too?
Borodo.....HERE'S YOUR SIGN.
BTW: Do you ACTUALLY PLAY AH, or is it just your free online "The USSR WON WWII Single-Handedly SOAPBOX?
68ROX
-
Didn't the US get invaded by the Japs too?
-
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
Didn't the US get invaded by the Japs too?
Shhh, "a covert operation led by Mr. Black, crossed the Pacific and stole a Zeke from the Production Line." The Aleutians Campaign was merely a "smokescreen". :noid
-
Nuclear bombing was indeed unnessessary, I have to repeat: Japan could be starved to death after continental army was crushed and allied navy sieged the Home Islands. No use comparing 500000 casualities 90% of whom were supposed to be Soviet soldiers.
The Japanese Navy had already been beaten. What little Navy was left would not have stopped a naval blockade of the home islands. Defeating the Kwangtung Army wasn't necessary for a naval blockade to happen. How would the Kwangtung Army have stopped an Allied naval blockade?
IF the Allies had opted for a naval blockade the Japanese would have just kept growing their crops. Starve them out? Very unlikely.
The Japanese needed raw materials shipped in for their industrial complex to build war materials because Japan has virtually no raw materials of her own.
You are grasping at straws now.
*edit* AFAIK the USSR wasn't figured into the estimated casualty figures for an invasion of the home islands so your *90% of whom were supposed to be Soviet soldiers* is pure bunk.
-
"Japanese continental army was defeated by USSR in 2 weeks, [sarcasm] while you guys spent three years crawling upon some useless god-forgotten islands. [/sarcasm] Try to find Hirohito's adress to the nation that was played on the radio on Aug 15th 1945."
Geezus H Christ, you never learn do you?
Ya, the Japanese were defeated by the Soviets in the last 2 weeks of the war, righto...
I guess their air force and navy being destroyed prior to that, and having their cities and industries bombed to craters, and the entire island in the grips of a USN Submarine blockade was just a feint huh?
Go drink some more, "Soviet Boy".
:lol
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"No-front" effort. You guys didn't have your country invaded. JFYI: Russia got invaded about every 50 years in the last 500 years.
2007-500 = 1507
check for existence of Russia failed :p
-
So what kind of amphibious capability did the Soviets have? Crossing some river is not the same as crossing the open sea.
-
The Soviets would definately done fine at places like IWO and Okinawa where the slack Americans were driven into the sea.:p
-
Seriously, - this debate has taken place (basically) many times before with Boroda in the lead.
My eye on it is that the Soviets would have lost to the Axis if not having at least one of the western Allies in the pool. Maybe they would have lived to 1942 or 1943, but IMHO not any longer.
Biggest factor of a chain reaction is probably the British decision NOT to accept Hitler's appeal to reason in 1940.
Had they done so, well here is a possible speculation with the UK at peace with Hitler...
1 Germany now has their full strengthvs the USSR
2 Germany has trade with the USA
3 Japan has possible trade with the UK's colonies (nullifying the embargo effect from the USA, thereby eliminating the "need" of war with the USA)
4 With Germany invading the USSR, Japan becomes part of it with its full strength
5 USSR has a 2-front war
6 Axis has no war in N-Africa
7 The black Sea is open to Axis Naval power, including Japanese!
8 Axis has no attrition on the home front
9 Axis has full airpower
Would be interesting to have a scenario on this one....
-
The Bomb was a prime example of 'Fear Works' .. damn right it scared Stalin, heck it scared the U.S. too.
It worked.
I've done 'wargame' re-enactments of Eastern Front ..
It's kinda fun to do some 'what if' stuff.
What if Hitler had not gone into Africa, and used Rommel's forces along with Barbarossa ..and instead of instigating tactics of surround and destroy, ..just driven to Moscow and hung Stalin on a pole?
Hitler could have.
Russia had very little to stop him.
Hitler made so many mistakes on so many levels, ..and I for one am glad he did.
He could have had 4 *thousand* ME-109's around Paris and the 8th AF would have ceased to exist trying to get past it .. and if Galland had his way .. -shudder.-
-GE (just sayin tm Pasha)
-
Hitler made so many mistakes on so many levels, ..and I for one am glad he did.
Beating Germany would have been much more difficult if Hitler had just let his Generals make the descions.
and if Galland had his way ..
Explain please.
-
The other what-if is if Hitler had never turned on the USSR, after Poland.
It might have been bad news for the Finns, immediately. I could'nt venture a guess as to what the situation in the UK would have been, either.
-
Hitler lost. What if's, etc. Only thing yer doing is taking the heat off of the most needing it, Boroda.
-
USSR was on the planning board of Hitler very early.
A part of "peace" with Britain was intended to be "world stability", i.e. Hitler actually said the the UK as a naval and colonial power could "serve well" to keep the world more stable.
In 1940, his trade with the USA was open,but the RN was in the way. He considered the war won, and was focusing on the next one. But the Brits showed him the long finger while his 109's flew on Russian gas.....
-
Boroda banned or just gone numb?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda banned or just gone numb?
Well he doesn't have Persona Non Grata below his avatard so it must be the second one. ;)
-
He's probably drinking to fortify his position again. Vintage stolichnaya research no doubt into the "real" way WW2 was fought.
-
You shouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs because you could have starved them to death?
Starving an entire country to avoid using nuclear weapons would have killed more people in a cruel way. Period. That INCLUDES radiation victims.
-
Originally posted by Curval
"You shouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs because you could have starved them to death?"
Starving an entire country to avoid using nuclear weapons would have killed more people in a cruel way. Period. That INCLUDES radiation victims.
When have we seen that the commies care about human life?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda banned or just gone numb?
Just reading this reasonings, having fun.
BTW I suddenly discovered that bottled Lipton tea costs more then beer. Isn't it tragic: you can't save money by staying sober!
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
When have we seen that the commies care about human life?
When have we seen that "civilized" countries care about human lives?
Maybe it's time to rotate the chessboard and discuss Second Chechen War?
-
I refuse to pay retail for ice tea. I just brew my own and refrigerate it. Add sweetner and lemon to taste.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
When have we seen that "civilized" countries care about human lives?
Maybe it's time to rotate the chessboard and discuss Second Chechen War?
Around 60 million + and counting from 1917-1989.
-
Boroda, chill it a little and ponder on my what-if's. I will enjoy discussing them with you, and on a relatively (:D) civil level too.
Drink cheap beer while at it.
Sadly, in my place, tea is very much cheaper.
Cheers
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
seeing it with todays eyes, where an army (especialy the US) try to protect the civilian casualties (colateral damage)
at all cost,
i do see Boroda have a point.
Soldiers are there to fight but not kill civillians.
a lot of the Allied soldiers were civilians.
And are you trying to tell me that even one of those brutal Japanese bastards or 'innocent civilians' as you niavely see them would let any allied foot touch Japanese soil without a scrap?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hitler lost. What if's, etc. Only thing yer doing is taking the heat off of the most needing it, Boroda.
Lol masherbum once again I'm agreeing with your posts more and more, hell must be freezing over,
-
Originally posted by Laurie
Lol masherbum once again I'm agreeing with your posts more and more, hell must be freezing over,
Nah, I believe yer starting to see we aren't so different and bleed the same. :p
-
Originally posted by Laurie
a lot of the Allied soldiers were civilians.
And are you trying to tell me that even one of those brutal Japanese bastards or 'innocent civilians' as you niavely see them would let any allied foot touch Japanese soil without a scrap?
a lot of?
A soldier is a soldier, what are you trying to tell me, soldiers are
civillians?
So only brutal Japanese bastards died in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
sorry, but all i see are just civillians died that days.
If this Tactic would be still used today, imagine how the world would
look like. Why sacrifice 3000+ soldiers in Iraq when you can destroy
a whole city (or two) in minutes there.
But I doubt you know what it means today, or in 10 years or in 20...
-
Originally posted by Laurie
And are you trying to tell me that even one of those brutal Japanese bastards or 'innocent civilians' as you niavely [sic] see them would let any allied foot touch Japanese soil without a scrap?
No more or less than those brutal American or British bastards would let any Japanese foot touch American or British soil without a scrap.
I know this will be beyond your ability to grasp, but soldiers fight for their country. They don't have any choice, on either side. History books proclaim that their own engage is a "heroic" struggle and the enemy in a "fanatical" struggle. Soldiers who resist to the death are given medals, the enemy who does is "fanatical."
Speaking of naive. This is myth #1 and it goes like this: Japan would fight to the death of every man woman and child. The proof that it is a myth is that they didn't. What nation has ever done that?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
No more or less than those brutal American or British bastards would let any Japanese foot touch American or British soil without a scrap.
I know this will be beyond your ability to grasp, but soldiers fight for their country. They don't have any choice, on either side. History books proclaim that their own engage is a "heroic" struggle and the enemy in a "fanatical" struggle. Soldiers who resist to the death are given medals, the enemy who does is "fanatical."
Speaking of naive. This is myth #1 and it goes like this: Japan would fight to the death of every man woman and child. The proof that it is a myth is that they didn't. What nation has ever done that?
Closest nation to do it? I'd have to go with Armenia.
I don't recall the American's, British, or German's performing vivisections Rolex.
-
Origanally posted by Gh0stFT
a lot of?
A soldier is a soldier, what are you trying to tell me, soldiers are
civillians?
So only brutal Japanese bastards died in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
sorry, but all i see are just civillians died that days.
If this Tactic would be still used today, imagine how the world would
look like. Why sacrifice 3000+ soldiers in Iraq when you can destroy
a whole city (or two) in minutes there.
But I doubt you know what it means today, or in 10 years or in 20...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the other Pacific Islands that Japan occupied during WWII, Iwo Jima and Okinawa are considered Japanese soil. The fight for Iwo was by the military's of both sides; But the fight for Okinawa was the first time that American soldiers had had to contend with Japanese Civilians. Many of whom threw themselves and their children over cliffs on the edge of the island. Many of whom charged the Marines with homemade spears.
This is why the casualty estimates for Operations Olympic and Coronet (the projected invasion of Japan) were in the 1 million+ range. It was understood that Japan would be severly depopulated, if such an assault were to occur. With the manpower losses that we had already suffered during the first stages of the war, There was talk in both the White house and congress, of lowering the age of enlistment and the draft to 16.
At that point, the A-bombs must have looked like a pretty good solution.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Origanally posted by Gh0stFT
This is why the casualty estimates for Operations Olympic and Coronet (the projected invasion of Japan) were in the 1 million+ range.
Myth #2. :)
You forgot to add the words "a few," or "some," or "reached as high as."
Projections and conjecture that usually had a range of numbers, depending on the methodology. Most estimates were substantially less. Obviously, the "million+" numbers weren't used or people would had to have been casualties twice, since the total force was less than such a casualty estimate. Either way, it didn't happen because of Myth #1 - see above. The casualty "estimates" did grow after the war to quell the domestic debate over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Truman ordered the use of the atomic bomb stopped after getting the detailed reports of Hiroshima just after the Nagasaki strike. He had his own "crazies" in the government he was trying to calm down. He had senators demanding no surrender be accepted and every atomic bomb coming off the assembly line be used to kill every Japanese man, woman and child in an American version of a "final solution." He had General LeMay already advocating and planning for the next 50 atomic weapons off the assembly line to be stockpiled and dropped on 50 Soviet cities in a simultaneous sneak attack as a "final solution" to the Soviet problem. Perhaps LeMay wanted to break his own record of "...killing the most people in the least time in the history of mankind."
The reason the Japanese Defense Minister resigned (the original topic...) was because the use of WMD on civilians is not considered an option in Japan today, and it is not considered something that was "inevitable" at the time.
The Japanese Emperor sued for peace in July, but it was rejected because Stalin wanted to enter the war in August. Truman ordered the first atomic bomb not be dropped before August 3rd, the date he and Stalin agreed on, but Stalin missed the date.
The terms of the surrender offered in July were the exact terms of the surrender that were accepted a month later. That is the reasoning for the Japanese view that it was not "inevitable."
Do I disagree with Truman's decision? I can understand his mindset. I don't believe the decision was simple. I think the Soviet Union played a hand in it, his history as a tough taskmaster on using the resources spent on the war had a hand in it and his advisors, both civilian and military, had a hand in it.
Truman said the Japanese were being "pigheaded" in their earlier surrender language. They said "we give," but he wanted them to say "uncle." I suppose he was pigheaded, too, but had the good sense to just ignore it and say that they said "uncle" in August.
You could say that Hitler took the easy way out, but the emperor didn't. He could have not made any announcement and done himself in deep in a bunker. Instead, with every reason to believe he would be killed, took control from the politicians and military to try to save the lives of Japanese, as Truman did for Americans.
I don't recall the American's, British, or German's performing vivisections Rolex.
A terrible thing. I think the perpetrators should have been brought to trial after the war and made to pay for their crimes.
I don't envy you having to support them being protected, instead of hung. Morally wrong for them to do, morally right to protect and pay them. Will that be your position?
-
May I point out the fact that after Hiroshima the Japanese military council decided (vote) NOT to surrender.
Pigheaded, yes. And to look into the manslaughter on IWO and Okinawa brings you to what estimate of casualties on the home island of Japan?
-
What Rolex said.Spot on.:aok
-
Looking more through American eyes, and adding it all up, I really understand the Nuking.
Firstly, although terrible, - they ended the war.
Secondly, - there were so many horrible things happening, equally big on the casualty scale, - here and there.
The firebombing on Tokyo for instance brought more casualties than Nagasaki.
Okinawa too.
Little Iwo meant 22.000 Japanese dead, as well as some 7000 from the USMC.
Now more to the other side....as in "no peace for the wicked"
Chinese dead in WW2 are rated at something like 15.000.000.
It's an old figure, but normally where the Japs went about there were a lot of civilian casualties.
Nanking, - does that ring a bell?
Then to the Philippines. Guess what, in the fall of Manilla to US troops in 1945, you also have more casualties than in Nagasaki. 100.000 Phillippeenos locked in the city centre and butchered by Japanese soldiers.
So, Trumans mindset was perhaps a simple offered option. Spot on...
-
More to get into the American mindset....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_War_Atrocities
-
Projections and conjecture that usually had a range of numbers, depending on the methodology. Most estimates were substantially less. Obviously, the "million+" numbers weren't used or people would had to have been casualties twice, since the total force was less than such a casualty estimate.
I didn't know the population of Japan was less than a million people?
The 'million' was total casualties , Allied and Japanese, soldier and civilian, afaik.
-
Hi, MiloMorai. I think you'll be surprised to learn that people here think that was the US projected casualties. That is my point about myths.
I understand the American mindset very well, Angus. Probably more than you. :) How much do you know about the Japanese mindset?
My position is that there are many myths propagated by people who only know the version they read in high school history texts. The version that Japan woke up one day and decided to attack Pearl Harbor, then massacred a billion people in a quest to dominate the world. Allied troops treated all prisoners humanely and the Japanese people would have fought to the death of every man, woman and child with spears because they are a Godless, fierce race who don't value their lives like us. Then American troops gave away chocolates and chewing gum to Japanese children after the war.
The equivalent Japanese version is that a small group of peaceful fishermen were suddenly attacked while near Hawaii, and the heathen Americans proceeded, without provocation, to murder millions of innocent Japanese peace keepers and friendly policemen stationed at island resorts, then later, for no apparent reason, dropped atomic bombs killing a billion Japanese who were were drinking tea one morning.
Somewhere in the middle is the truth. To find it, you have to take both sides, just like preparing for a negotiation. If you're interested in comparing propaganda and myths, I'm not the guy for you. If you're interested in discussing something dispassionately to find something closer to the truth, I'd be willing to do that.
Some of you seem to think I am defending the Japanese view of the war. That is not the case. I am presenting the views they had, or have, not defending them. Many seem to have forgotten that the war is over. It was over 2 generations ago, but you act like you're still fighting it.
If you want to debate something, fine. You take the Japanese side and post, in your own words, the events that led to war. I'll take the Allied side. I've tried this before, but no one was willing to do it. I'm sure you'll disappoint me again. ;) If you're not willing to do that, then you aren't looking for a discussion, you're just pounding out the same old myths without any intellectual curiosity.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Closest nation to do it? I'd have to go with Armenia.
Armenians were simply genocided in 1915, they had no option other then fight all be all killed by Osmans. Just like Russians in 1941.
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I don't recall the American's, British, or German's performing vivisections Rolex.
Did you see that nazi documentary with a man still walking with all his skin taken off by German "doctors"?...
Try to find a copy of "Ordinary fascism". http://imdb.com/title/tt0059529/
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Around 60 million + and counting from 1917-1989.
"A last move is always made with a chessboard", eh?
Over 100 millions victims of "democratisation" and "civilisation" in XX century only. Not counting funny things of the past like Opuim wars, genocide in India and Africa, slavery, etc. Now another million already killed in peace-keeping liberation since 2003 and the number still grows.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, chill it a little and ponder on my what-if's. I will enjoy discussing them with you, and on a relatively (:D) civil level too.
OK, let's go.
USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance. Most of the material "aid" (paid in gold) came after it wasn't that necessary, after industry was relocated and started production. Japanese attack in Far East could probably lead to a defeat of USSR in a matter of months. Peace with UK and Royal Navy joining nazi efforts could also turn the scales...
My "what if" is Japan planning Pearl-Harbor attack one week later, Japanese leadership looking at Soviet counter-offensive near Moscow that started on Dec 6th and canceling Nagumo's task-force attack. They planned Pearl-Harbor only because they thought USSR was already defeated and they can easily take Far East with Kwantun Army. I see Japanese switching Northwards, in this case USSR could have a really hard time...
Originally posted by Angus
Drink cheap beer while at it.
Sadly, in my place, tea is very much cheaper.
Sorry I am on tea now. Drinking that artificial Lipton crap because it's the only liquid other then local Caucasian mineral water that I can withstand.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
No more or less than those brutal American or British bastards would let any Japanese foot touch American or British soil without a scrap.
I know this will be beyond your ability to grasp, but soldiers fight for their country. They don't have any choice, on either side. History books proclaim that their own engage is a "heroic" struggle and the enemy in a "fanatical" struggle. Soldiers who resist to the death are given medals, the enemy who does is "fanatical."
Speaking of naive. This is myth #1 and it goes like this: Japan would fight to the death of every man woman and child. The proof that it is a myth is that they didn't. What nation has ever done that?
Yes i accept this but, British and American women and children would not fight like those of japan.
The Japanese way of life was far different to that of the 'western world'. They were prepared to extinct themselves trying to defend their island to level the no other nation, not even nazi germany would follow.
And as for the barbarity of the japs, Did you ever see the U.S. or british using POW's as bayonet practice targets?
Have you not seen the pictures of how POW's were held and treated by the Japanese?(http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Japanese_Kamikaze/images/POW-BEHEADING.jpg)
The Japanese way of bayonet practice;
(http://www.chinasageconsultants.com/assets/images/Hist_Nanking_Bayonet.jpg)
The British way;
(http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/images/Pa52-75.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
History books proclaim that their own engage is a "heroic" struggle and the enemy in a "fanatical" struggle. Soldiers who resist to the death are given medals, the enemy who does is "fanatical."
So by your Doctrine;
You would contest as historic book that claimed "Hitler to be fanatical And that the allies fought on to achieve a heroic victory"
You would call that incorrect or biased would you?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
a lot of?
A soldier is a soldier, what are you trying to tell me, soldiers are
civillians?
So only brutal Japanese bastards died in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
sorry, but all i see are just civillians died that days.
If this Tactic would be still used today, imagine how the world would
look like. Why sacrifice 3000+ soldiers in Iraq when you can destroy
a whole city (or two) in minutes there.
But I doubt you know what it means today, or in 10 years or in 20...
Saying that a soldier is a soldier is just dumb bellybutton bluntness on your part. Being a soldier is a form of occupation like anyitng else, you are not born a soldier, we do not live in sparta boy'o.
You think that the millions of men Who served in the British and American Armed forces in the years 1939-1945 just sprung up under a toadstool in an enchanted forest or came down from cloud-nine? No they spanned from a small proportion of professional soldiers to refuse collectors, lawyers, farmers, secondary school boys. Are you trying to tell me that these men were not scared and had some sort of terminator approach to the war?
You seem to forget the Japanese started this war with a sly attack, and yet you feel compelled to contest the methods of their defeat, these were evil people, just as evil as the Nazi's and the Italians, and any other Nazi sympathiser, they all deserved the most painful death of all. whether it be a small piece of metal to the head, an explosion from a grenade, shrapnel to the chest, or incenerated/burnt alive by the A-bomb. I think it's a shame Hitler didn't get to see what should have been inflicted on him aswell.
If the germans had taken the same approach as japan, and there was less of a need to get to berlin, i'm sure they would have bean dealth the same hand as that of Hiroshima and nagasaki.
And You are also a screw loose if you think Iraq is a viable comparison to the desparate needs of WW2.
Iraq is not a war but more of peace keeping operation, why would the be a need to use an atomic weapon, the citizens of iraq who actually wanted to get rid of saddam i might add, pose a microscopic threat compared to that of the entire population of the japanese empire, all with the intent to Defend Japan or die trying.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
OK, let's go.
USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance. Most of the material "aid" (paid in gold) came after it wasn't that necessary, after industry was relocated and started production.
Not true for a May 1945 end of the war.
True but knowing what was coming allowed the Soviets to redirect resources to what was urgently required.
For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built.
US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.
-
Short one here Boroda:
"USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance"
My go on this is that without the Brits on "your" side in 1941 as well as 1940, the Germans alone would have bent the USSR. They came fairly close anyway.
In a continuing war with the Brits and USA as neutral to the Nazis USSR would have been bent, even without the Japanese.
USSR vs. total Axis from 1940 onwards = roast and toast.
-
Laurie,
reading what you post here, all i can say is, still nothing changed.
Looks like you are into pictures, why dont post some Hiroshima
before & afterwards pics, i'm sure people would be interested to see it.
With all the knowledge we have today, pointing to other Nations
and even talk today about others should suffer the same fate as Hiroshima its beyound me.
I'm sure you will allways find an exuse, no matter what war or weapon used.
btw. can i use your words :"Iraq is not a war but more of peace keeping operation" as a new sig ? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
Short one here Boroda:
"USSR was definitely able to defeat nazis withot Western assistance"
My go on this is that without the Brits on "your" side in 1941 as well as 1940, the Germans alone would have bent the USSR. They came fairly close anyway.
In a continuing war with the Brits and USA as neutral to the Nazis USSR would have been bent, even without the Japanese.
Brits didn't distract any significant forces in 1941-42. Even fearfull Rommel's Afrika Corps could simply disappear in the Eastern Front, two-three divisions more didn't make it any worse.
They came close to taking Moscow, but so what? Napoleon did it in 1812, Poles did it in 1611, did it help them? With industry rebuilding at Urals it was only a matter of time to kick them out. Yes, there could me much-much more blood, but not total extinction as in case they win.
Originally posted by Angus
USSR vs. total Axis from 1940 onwards = roast and toast.
Barbarossa was planned in late-1940. Japanese were watching at least until Dec 1941, if they refused from attacking the US they needed several months to build up forces against USSR. IMHO in case they attack - about 20% probability of surviving and returning to pre-war borders, but it may be too optimistic.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Brits didn't distract any significant forces in 1941-42.
At least they were fighting on the correct side in Sept 1939...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Brits didn't distract any significant forces in 1941-42. Even fearfull Rommel's Afrika Corps could simply disappear in the Eastern Front, two-three divisions more didn't make it any worse.
They came close to taking Moscow, but so what? Napoleon did it in 1812, Poles did it in 1611, did it help them? With industry rebuilding at Urals it was only a matter of time to kick them out. Yes, there could me much-much more blood, but not total extinction as in case they win.
Barbarossa was planned in late-1940. Japanese were watching at least until Dec 1941, if they refused from attacking the US they needed several months to build up forces against USSR. IMHO in case they attack - about 20% probability of surviving and returning to pre-war borders, but it may be too optimistic.
Hehe, rubbish.
With the Brits out of the game from the summer of 1940, what can Axis add to operation Barbarossa, - even WITHOUT the japanese, - which however and unavoidably, but not unwillingly, would be drawn in...:
1: Axis naval power into the Black Sea. No British Plug in the way.
That means also that Germany as well as Italy would have had their battlewagons free to go as well as not resting on the bottom of the sea.
The biggest factor might however have been a sea-link for supplies and troops to make a proper front from the black sea. USSR had no naval power to counter this.
2: Roughly twice the airpower. (Bear in mind that the Axis lost more aircraft to the Western powers in some 4 months of 1940 than to the USSR in the entire year of 1944.) Please say that double a Luftwaffe would have meant nothing...
3: Much much more troops, since there would be no need to keep a strong line towards the British. You are not just adding the Africa corps, - you are adding everything lost until Barbarossa. There would have been no Greek campaign, no Crete, no sentry from down in Norway to the Mediterranian.
In short, very much more of troops, backup and transport.
4: Much more economical backup, since there would be no more RN to stand in the way to deal with i.e. the USA. Bear in mind that the lend-lease pact between the USA and UK only passed by a margin (and without FDR it might not have passed), and at the same time Germany had open business with the USA, - just no transport. So, - USSR might also have faced materials from uncle Sam.
I think, Boroda, that you have your eyes and nose too much on just the land war in the USSR. As big as it was indeed, the USSR came close to buckling, and not only once. Moscow was close, Stalingrad was close, and even Kursk could have meant a turnaround.
Anyway, I stick to my opinion, that if the British had made peace with the Axis in 1940, the Axis would have had USSR for breakfast.
Prost.
-
No single major allied country (UK, USSR, US) fighting alone could have defeated germany in ww2. Not saying Germany would have won outright in every scenario, but they couldn't loose.
The UK was too weak to break the Germans and only saved from invasion by the channel, US was too far away and unprepared till 1943, USSR barely survived 1941 against a very distracted and delayed Germany thanks to the efforts of the UK stretching the war from Norway, the west European Coast, to Greece, North Africa and the whole Atlantic. The fact that the LW used more Bf109s in the attack on France in 1940 than it did in the 1941 Barbarossa invasion is telling enough.
Still for Boroda's sake - I just gotta say Father Stalin saved us all!!! :aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
At least they were fighting on the correct side in Sept 1939...
Amen
-
Originally posted by Laurie
Yes i accept this but, British and American women and children would not fight like those of japan.
The Japanese way of life was far different to that of the 'western world'. They were prepared to extinct themselves trying to defend their island to level the no other nation, not even nazi germany would follow.
And as for the barbarity of the japs, Did you ever see the U.S. or british using POW's as bayonet practice targets?
Have you not seen the pictures of how POW's were held and treated by the Japanese?(http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Japanese_Kamikaze/images/POW-BEHEADING.jpg)
The Japanese way of bayonet practice;
(http://www.chinasageconsultants.com/assets/images/Hist_Nanking_Bayonet.jpg)
The British way;
(http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/images/Pa52-75.jpg)
Those pics still make me sick. The Rape of Nanking says all need to "on the subject of Japanese Myths during WWII".
-
Grunherz:
"No single major allied country (UK, USSR, US) fighting alone could have defeated germany in ww2. Not saying Germany would have won outright in every scenario, but they couldn't loose.
The UK was too weak to break the Germans and only saved from invasion by the channel, US was too far away and unprepared till 1943, USSR barely survived 1941 against a very distracted and delayed Germany thanks to the efforts of the UK stretching the war from Norway, the west European Coast, to Greece, North Africa and the whole Atlantic. The fact that the LW used more Bf109s in the attack on France in 1940 than it did in the 1941 Barbarossa invasion is telling enough."
Yes, yes, yes and yes!!!
In 1940 Hitler said "The war is won". But it wasn't...quite. But had the Brits taken the peace with him, it would bloody well have been...
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
btw. can i use your words :"Iraq is not a war but more of peace keeping operation" as a new sig ? :rofl
Go ahead, what i have said is the truth when you put into the context of WW2 and use of atomic weapons like i did.
On the contrary though, I think it would be much more fitting to copy holden mcgroin's post with borados quote and then holden's reply.
-
You mean the one about the righ side?
Wasn't it Churchill who poked Stalin (when he was complaining that the British were not keeping enough German divisions busy) by the fact that during the battle of France and the Battle of Britain, the German warmachine ran on Russian fuel?
Anyway, this:
"They came close to taking Moscow, but so what? Napoleon did it in 1812, Poles did it in 1611, did it help them? With industry rebuilding at Urals it was only a matter of time to kick them out. Yes, there could me much-much more blood, but not total extinction as in case they win."
So what? A little matter of time?
The Germans almost got the grip. It only took them a few months.
The "kick-out" took a COMBINED allied effort of several years. But of course you choose to belive that it was an all USSR effort.....well anyway, still more than 3 years and with many a hard hill....
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Those pics still make me sick. The Rape of Nanking says all need to "on the subject of Japanese Myths during WWII".
Hence why i'm pro- A bomb on Japan.
-
Well, while the the firebombing on Tokyo was perhaps even more terrible than the Nuke on Nagasaki, - After Nagasagi it was over and done in a flash.
Yet, there is one more what if.
What if the Japanese had been given time (and suggestions) to explore Hiroshima, - say just another week.... would Nagasaki have been necessary.
It's on the shady area, and as well, the USA would have been loosing people while waiting.
Some little weight on the scale was perhaps the sinking of the ship that brought the A-Bomb to the site....happening on the return route, it was a horrible event, and maybe the drop to fill the meter.....
-
The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.
The Japanese didn't have to strike at Pearl Harbor to begin with. But they did, and paid for it. Tough s**t.
-
Aye.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.
It was actually discussed to show the "flash" to the Japanese, however voted down.
Just like the Japs voted not to surrender after Hiroshima...
All sucks
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a low-populated, or even unpopulated area as a demonstration of their new power. It would have been merciful of them. However I can understand why they didn't.
And they Japanese Could have attacked a small abandoned American fishing dock.
-
The Japanese Emperor sued for peace in July, but it was rejected because Stalin wanted to enter the war in August. Truman ordered the first atomic bomb not be dropped before August 3rd, the date he and Stalin agreed on, but Stalin missed the date.
The terms of the surrender offered in July were the exact terms of the surrender that were accepted a month later. That is the reasoning for the Japanese view that it was not "inevitable."
I would like to see a source on that. Where a formal offer was made by someone with the actual authority to make such an offer.
From this (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=75114&referrerid=5405 )extremely long thread we both participated in:
Hirohito shattered precedent at a meeting of the Supreme War Council June 22, openly stating his criticism of the military: "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers. We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will now strive to study the ways and means to conclude the war. In so doing, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."
Anami and his faction managed to sidestep the Emperor's rebuke. All concerned -- including the Emperor -- hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an intermediary and help end the war on a more acceptable basis than unconditional surrender.
And
The Potsdam Proclamation, issued July 26 by the heads of government of the US, UK, and China, warned of "utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" unless Japan surrendered unconditionally. "We shall brook no delay," it said. The same day, the cruiser Indianapolis delivered the U-235 core of the "Little Boy" bomb to Tinian.
On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki declared the Potsdam Proclamation a "thing of no great value" and said "We will simply mokusatsu it." Literally, mokusatsu means "kill with silence." Suzuki said later the meaning he intended was "no comment." The Allies took the statement as rejection of the Potsdam Proclamation.
And in this one, even after the first bombing and the Russian declaration of war there was no consensus on the final surrender terms…
The Japanese Supreme War Council assembled on August 9 at 11 a.m. at the very moment when the bomb was being dropped on Nagasaki. Unaware of this disaster, the Japanese leaders continued to argue their conflicting points of view. Umezu asserted that the Japanese troops had not yet been defeated, and that the word "capitulation" could not be found in the country's military dictionary.113 The Soviet declaration of war was a greater stunning blow than the disaster reported from Hiroshima. The Council was evenly divided on the question of the terms of surrender. Members were not discussing whether to surrender but whether to insist on one or four conditions. Suzuki, Togo, and Yonai were for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, provided the imperial institution or kokutai was retained. Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda insisted on three additional conditions: voluntary withdrawal of Japanese forces overseas under their own commanders; no Allied occupation of Japan; and those responsible for the war to be tried by the Japanese themselves. Togo argued that the four conditions would not be acceptable to the Allied Powers. In the midst of this deadlock, one of the prime minister's aides burst into the room to announce the bombing of Nagasaki. An "impassioned" discussion followed and then the War Council adjourned, still split three against three. The 16 members of the Cabinet met in the afternoon. Again there was no consensus. Nine voted for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration with a proviso regarding kokutai, four wanted the three additional conditions to be fulfilled, and three were undecided.114
Perhaps if Hirohito had been a bit more forceful a bit earlier with the militarists, but that wasn’t his style. Then there was the surrender itself, from the horses mouth…
But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone-- the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state and the devoted service of our 100 million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.
And my conclusion from that post:
I personally don't think the bomb ended the war per se. But I don't think its use was unjustified either. It was a weapon developed to perform a conventional aspect of war far more efficiently and it worked as planned. I think it did push up the surrender date by months and pushed the Emperor to make a forceful stand. I also think that the aternative pressures would have been mass starvation or invasion, neither of which would be morally superior (and in the case of invasion, criminal from a presidential leadership standpoint even if it was "just" 31,000 US lives or even 3,100 lives). I don't see a clear will to surrender until after the bombs, though the Russian developments were equally stunning with sevear neagives of their own.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Japanese didn't have to strike at Pearl Harbor to begin with. But they did, and paid for it. Tough s**t.
Exactly, i despair that people feel the need to heckle the methods used to teach these crackpots a lesson and defend a horde of barbaric and spiteful people.
-
Good post, Charon!
It could also be concluded, though, that Truman had the Soviets in mind when it was decided to drop the A-bomb. Ending the war before a Soviet expansion throughout southern asia would definetely have been a factor.
As to causing the end of the war...Hirohito knew that the news from the front wasn't good. Almost all of Japan's pre and early war possesions had been lost, They had lost their supplies of natural resources to fuel their war machine, and the military they did have left had been decimated. Plus, from other sources that I've read in the past, He was starting to have loyalty problems in his own gov't. All of these things combined, are probably what finally made him surrender.
-
Hi Charon,
Re: "I would like to see a source on that. Where a formal offer was made by someone with the actual authority to make such an offer."
A telegram to Stalin from the emperor. Truman's diary for July 18th.
-
And he was agreeing to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration? My understanding is that the only significant departure from Potsdam in the final terms was the Emperor clause. It has also been apparent from what I have read that while a lot of people were musing about peace at the time and doing little else to make it happen. Asking the Soviets to help negotiate with Americans on terms less than unconditional surrender, for example.
Here is the quote I find from that communications:
"With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms."
As much as I dislike Wikpidia as a specific source, this listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan does give a fairly good presentation as to what I've come across -- in a nutshell, Japanese intellectuals wishing for peace, militarists wishing for favorable peace to "fight to the last man" and holding the power, and the Emperor lacking the will to step up in a forceful manner until the very end.
Charon
-
Was sent before Potsdam, so couldn't be the exact same language. Stimson and MacArthur's diaries say it was the same terms as final accepted surrender (the emperor clause thing).
I don't think our opinions are that different. I probably put more weight on the aspect of showing Stalin that America held the cards since Truman was under great pressure from many to do that. I also think Truman was a decent man living in an indecent era.
That's evident in his letter to Senator Russell on August 9th in reply to his call for accepting no surrender, but rather the nuclear genocide of all Japanese.
-----------------
For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the "pigheadedness" of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into war the Japanese will very shortly fold up.
My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I have a humane feeling for the women and children of Japan.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
-
I don't think our opinions are that different. I probably put more weight on the aspect of showing Stalin that America held the cards since Truman was under great pressure from many to do that. I also think Truman was a decent man living in an indecent era.
Fair enough. I certainly don't discount that aspect played a role in the decision process.
Charon
-
This:
"For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the "pigheadedness" of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into war the Japanese will very shortly fold up.
My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I have a humane feeling for the women and children of Japan.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman"
Sort of sums it up.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, rubbish.
Then why bother asking me?
I am telling you about one thing, and you make conclusions about another. If Grandma had balls...
But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo (without adventures like artillery bombardment of Romanian ports in 1941).
I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive".
What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR). Look at the Moscow negotiations in Aug 1939. True intentions of the "allies" were absolutely clear after Munich and rape of Czechoslovakia...
-
This dude is SO brainwashed it's funny!
68ROX
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Then why bother asking me?
I am telling you about one thing, and you make conclusions about another. If Grandma had balls...
But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo (without adventures like artillery bombardment of Romanian ports in 1941).
I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive".
What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR). Look at the Moscow negotiations in Aug 1939. True intentions of the "allies" were absolutely clear after Munich and rape of Czechoslovakia...
Two quick things:
Red Navy in the Black Sea or Med = no match vs Krigsmarine & Italian Navy.
Not even against only one of them.
Second: Whatever you say about "Allied" stance in the early war, the British had their stance while the USSR was feeding and lubing up the Nazi war machine.
Enjoy this sunday. Beautiful weather here in the north.
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
This dude is SO brainwashed it's funny!
68ROX
point#1 I programmed a translator of borado into English, quite simple, everything= RED RED RED RED RED RED
point#2 i know squat about HTML Javascript, w/e its called
-
Boroda:
"I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive"."
Now get this:
Material trade between the USA and Germany after the start of WW2 untill Pearl Harbour was technically possible AFAIK. However practically impossible, since the Royal Navy blocked transport. Not the Red Navy, the RN actually spells out as the Royal Navy.
In the meantime, the RN had to fight zeh Germanz. And the Germans were trading with the USSR. The Germans and the USSR split up Poland between them and went on the business line while their plots went on.
So, for some time the Nazi empire only had one real enemy, and that was one fronted with a cigar-smoking person.
Ergo, - not much trade with USA due to transport problems, - but a lot of trade with USSR (and Hitler chuckled I am sure).
On we go, - speculations go on, as well as some educational parts, - after all, I belive I had a part in telling you about the Molotov-Ribbentropf pact etc....
"But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo "
Of course USSR dominated anything IN the Black sea, but who held the plug? Yes, the Turks and the British. The British went far to keep a peace with the Turks, and the Germans were at the same time probably trying to get them to side on the Axis, - Turks kept on as neutral. So wonder and ponder if they would and could have stopped both the Kriegsmarine and the Italian Navy from entering the Black sea. With British as neutral, the Turks have a choice between USSR and anybody else put together.
As for proper air support, - again, with the British neutral, operation Barbarossa would have been somewhat earlier, and with some 2 or 3 times the Axis air-power. No German losses since 1940, full paratroop army (no Crete), and full Italian airforce strength, - which BTW was quite some in 1941.
Ergo: USSR Black sea ...boats... used for German target practise a-la Battlewagon. USSR ports and strongholds bombarded by Axis fleets, USSR ports submitted and docked, Axis naval artillery ranging 30 Km inland, Axis Paras grabbing important sites, all from the Black sea, at the same time as you have an opening on the western front and possibly in the far east as well. A situation like if the western Allied had invaded Normandy in 1941 with their force of 1944.
Would have been Zhukov's nightmare. Hitler's dream.
But there was zeh catch. Ein British plug.....
-
Originally posted by Boroda
People born here in USSR after 1980 Olympics are mental aliens.
I was at the 1980 Olympics ( I live an hour N. of Lake Placid). It was great to see U.S. college kids beat the the Central Red Army team.:D
-
They had to beat those nasty Finns the next day to take the gold though.:)
-
Originally posted by dynamt
They had to beat those nasty Finns the next day to take the gold though.:)
Yes, but beating the Finnish team just didn't compare at all to beating the Soviets. I'm not saying the Finns weren't good, they were very good. There was just something about being those commies that felt really really good. :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Then why bother asking me?
I am telling you about one thing, and you make conclusions about another. If Grandma had balls...
But the idea of Italian navy in the Black Sea is interesting. Next assumption will be Turkey involved. Red Navy blocking Black Sea straits, mine-field warfare a-la Baltic Sea 1914-1917, etc. Without Italian navy - USSR was superior to any other fleet in the Black Sea, with proper command and air support it could keep the status quo (without adventures like artillery bombardment of Romanian ports in 1941).
I also like you admitting US trade with Germany that was way more important then USSR trading raw ores that couldn't be processed by Soviet industry for machinery and military hardware including heavy cruiser. Significant share of German military industry was owned by US companies, and was in fact protected from "aerial offensive".
What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR). Look at the Moscow negotiations in Aug 1939. True intentions of the "allies" were absolutely clear after Munich and rape of Czechoslovakia...
The Japanese whooped your arses in 1905, and you state the opposite for the Italians.
As for this load of BS. "What you guys usually fail to understand is that Stalin simply didn't want to get involved into a big European war when "allies" openly stated that they will not take any actions against Hitler in the first several months after attack on Poland (that was in fact a hostile state to the USSR)."
Stalin got involved when the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" was signed.
This is what Communism breeds, hatred.
-
Woops, - now this is going to get Skuzzified.
I was actually rather enjoying the idea of a Black sea setup. And reading up too.
Would be a cool AH scenario if there was more from the early war planeset.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Woops, - now this is going to get Skuzzified.
I was actually rather enjoying the idea of a Black sea setup. And reading up too.
Would be a cool AH scenario if there was more from the early war planeset.
I had thought about it, but chose to allow other's to "speak to deaf ears".
-
Well, sometimes it's better to give a spanking lesson all the way, than fire one volley and it's over :D