Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[Horza]

The debate in historical circles over the role of the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry is not as cut and dried as proponents of either as a sole cause make out. Both seem to have played important roles in convincing the key Japanese decision makers to abandon efforts to get a better deal by holding out, but even then they weren't the only factors in that decision. Hirohito and some in the civilian leadership seem to have also been quite concerned about civil disorder and unrest, a live issue in a blockaded nation with millions on the brink of starvation. The atomic bombs helped undermine the military case for the effective defence of the Home Islands, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria appears to have assisted in getting Japan's overseas commanders to accept the surrender decision.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Khaleesi you have not an idea of the Balkan front. Nazi friendly Balkan partisans proves it :). And of course roughly 2 million Yugoslav deads (plus many Italians, Hungarians, Germans, Albanians). Not counting the hubdreds of thousands of Greek, Romanians, Bulgarians. The Balkan front was secondary but Finland was tertiary.

And stop putting me in some rightwing shit. Facts are facts. 90% of German war casualties happened in the East.

 

Chetniks don't real? Ok.

 

The vast majority of those deaths were not soldiers killed in combat, but civilians that were either massacred by Axis troops, or starved to death because the Axis war effort needed all their food. That's a rather strange number to use in deciding how important a front was. In comparison almost all casualties on the Finnish front were military, on both sides. 

 

I am not putting you in rightwing shit, and it has nothing to do with how many % of German casualties that were suffered in the east vs the west. 

[maarsen]

I am not ignoring this.
Fortunately WW2 is becoming more of an historical event with each passing year which means better/more objective historical analysis.

In times of cold war there was not a lot of objective history in terms of WW2. This changes.

I mean it speaks for itself that almost no one in the West knows about the Manchurian Offensive of August 1945 and what effect it had on the Japanese military (the same American history completely exaggerates the Western Front 1944/45 while British historians KNOW EXACTLY where the war was won/lost).

I give it 10 years and it will become mainstream knowledge that the military necessity of the atom bombs was secondary and that after the horrendous defeat in Manchuria the Japanese military would have surrendered WITHOUT dropping the bombs.

People should stop read Cold War era history books and embrace the new. but still too much ignorance in this thread. We even saw idiotic dumbass statements, quoting Patton. Halleluja.

Better historical analysis with each passing year? People still can't agree on the facts of the Civil War, or even what to call it 150 years after it ended, As long as there are people alive who played a part in the events, prejudice, misrepresentation and old fashioned lying will prevail. If Truman was kept in the dark about the bomb, as Vice President, I doubt that more than a absolutely minimal number of the American military command, let alone the  Soviets, British, and  Japanese had any idea of the absolute raw power of an atomic blast. At the end, they all come across as little boys saying 'I could've taken him if I wanted to.' 

[Arakan]

The debate in historical circles over the role of the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry is not as cut and dried as proponents of either as a sole cause make out. Both seem to have played important roles in convincing the key Japanese decision makers to abandon efforts to get a better deal by holding out, but even then they weren't the only factors in that decision. Hirohito and some in the civilian leadership seem to have also been quite concerned about civil disorder and unrest, a live issue in a blockaded nation with millions on the brink of starvation. The atomic bombs helped undermine the military case for the effective defence of the Home Islands, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria appears to have assisted in getting Japan's overseas commanders to accept the surrender decision.

That is a good, objective summary even though I do not agree with evth.

I acknowledge that there are different schools of thought on the matter. One of them is the one I found most plausible (and which to this date is the most common in Japan itself, whatever that maybe worth).

But surely to be named delusional is not ok, esp not from someone who has to mention his history degree. A historian should be reflective, sceptic and open-minded.

Anyway, here are 5 min. An American historian speaking and being open for arguments. This is how historians should behave, not using words like delusional.

http://youtu.be/CSSexxwDzgs

[Arakan]

 
Chetniks don't real? Ok.
 
The vast majority of those deaths were not soldiers killed in combat, but civilians that were either massacred by Axis troops, or starved to death because the Axis war effort needed all their food. That's a rather strange number to use in deciding how important a front was. In comparison almost all casualties on the Finnish front were military, on both sides. 
 
I am not putting you in rightwing shit, and it has nothing to do with how many % of German casualties that were suffered in the east vs the west. 

The Chetniks predominantly fought against the axis. In fact they were the first Résistance in the former YU. To call them Nazi-friendly when until 1944 they fought against the Germans, Ustasa, Italians etc shows that you have no idea.

Yes, most casualties were civilian. But military casualties (incl guerilla troops) still dwarf Finnish military losses.

Please read your history.

And yes maybe I am biased but I admire the Yugoslav (Serb) courage to say FUCK YOU to Hitler in April 1941, at a time when all of Europe east of the Soviet Union was basically German dominated. After Poland, after France, after Norway. Surrendered by enemies and still not capitulating to Hitler. Knowing that you fight a war you cannot ein. Knowing what Hitler will do. That is sth to be proud of.

[Arakan]

Better historical analysis with each passing year? People still can't agree on the facts of the Civil War, or even what to call it 150 years after it ended, As long as there are people alive who played a part in the events, prejudice, misrepresentation and old fashioned lying will prevail. If Truman was kept in the dark about the bomb, as Vice President, I doubt that more than a absolutely minimal number of the American military command, let alone the  Soviets, British, and  Japanese had any idea of the absolute raw power of an atomic blast. At the end, they all come across as little boys saying 'I could've taken him if I wanted to.' 

Again, I was referring to cold war bias in histography post 1945. this has changed in many cases. And one of the pioneers have been British historians.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

The Chetniks predominantly fought against the axis. In fact they were the first Résistance in the former YU. To call them Nazi-friendly when until 1944 they fought against the Germans, Ustasa, Italians etc shows that you have no idea.

Yes, most casualties were civilian. But military casualties (incl guerilla troops) still dwarf Finnish military losses.

Please read your history.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies until 1941. Guess it is wrong to call them enemies during WW2 then, according to your logic? Good on you for mentioning the Ustasa though, another faction of Nazi friendly Balkan partisans that according to you didn't exist. 

 

They dwarf Finnish military losses, but not Soviet losses. They lost at least 1,2 million men during the Continuation and Winter War, and that's according to estimates based on Soviet records (which, during the Stalin era, are notorious for being very unreliable when it comes to people "disappearing"). Nikita Khruschev wrote in his memoirs that they lost a million men in the Winter War alone, for example. Either way this is off topic. 

[DanteGabriel]

Spare me your condescending tone.
 

 

 

 

I will say only so much: it's a myth to make oneself feel better that it was the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which forced Japan to surrender.

 

 

Please...

 

 

Are you American?

 

 

The ignorance is hurting. Hurting so much.

Anyway, this thread and some expressed opinions here like the above unfortunately is very common in American military history books and the reason why they are shit. Mostly.
 

 

 

Maybe you are biased  :).
 

 

 

People should stop read Cold War era history books and embrace the new. but still too much ignorance in this thread. We even saw idiotic dumbass statements, quoting Patton. Halleluja.

 

 

Oh, condescension.

[Horza]

If Truman was kept in the dark about the bomb, as Vice President, I doubt that more than a absolutely minimal number of the American military command, let alone the  Soviets, British, and  Japanese had any idea of the absolute raw power of an atomic blast. At the end, they all come across as little boys saying 'I could've taken him if I wanted to.' 

 

Stalin actually knew about the bomb well before Truman, thanks to Soviet infiltration of the Manhattan project.

In general, military and civilian decision makers of the period, on all sides thought of the new weapon in fairly simple, quantitative terms as a special bomb that did the work of thousands of bombs. Our attitude, after the accounts of bomb survivors, after thermonuclear devices, MAD and the Cuban Missile Crisis is a much more existential and morally charged one that at the time was only just taking root among some of the Manhattan project alumni.

[Swordfish]

 

Stalin actually knew about the bomb well before Truman, thanks to Soviet infiltration of the Manhattan project.

In general, military and civilian decision makers of the period, on all sides thought of the new weapon in fairly simple, quantitative terms as a special bomb that did the work of thousands of bombs. Our attitude, after the accounts of bomb survivors, after thermonuclear devices, MAD and the Cuban Missile Crisis is a much more existential and morally charged one that at the time was only just taking root among some of the Manhattan project alumni.

 

 

Yeah.  I think this is a really important point that is often overlooked.

[JoeyBanana]

Welcome to the industrial revolution; they got rather good at making bombs and bullets faster than they were using them, indeed for most military equipment it was skilled operators they were short of, not the actual equipment.

 

You are relating my post to WWII only when i was talking about war in general. Unless you want to tell me there will never be any shortages of bombs or bullets in any future hypothetical war, my point still stands. Although of course other resources (like fuel) and manpower devoted to retaliations will hurt your capability elsewhere more significantly.

[Arakan]

 Good on you for mentioning the Ustasa though, another faction of Nazi friendly Balkan partisans that according to you didn't exist. 

 

The Ustasa were not Balkan partisans. They were allies of Hitler, same as the Finns :).

[Arakan]

Oh, condescension.

 

I got called delusional for questioning the military necessity of the atom bomb droppings, from a "historian" no less.

I presented important perspectives.

Why dont you actually discuss the topic? Was the dropping of the atom bombs a military necessity?

 

With the exception of Horza and Ser Scot I feel a lot anger in this thread.

 

This is an international forum, different viewpoints come together, formed by different histographies.

It is a matter of fact that in mainstream US histography, when it comes to the bombings, the impact and importance of the Manchurian Offensive got either ignored or downplayed.

I asked you a question earlier btw: do you deny that?

 

here a 5 min video which is a good example of US mainstream histography (and in line with positions articulated here by quite a lot of users with American background I suppose)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM

 

It's not bad content per se, mind you, and the atom bomb droppings are surely not glorified but presented as the lesser of two evils. So fair play. But what is telling is the complete ignorance of the Soviet impact (Manchuria).

An analysis without considering this is basically confirmation bias.

[Nihlus]

And stop putting me in some rightwing shit. Facts are facts. 90% of German war casualties happened in the East.

This is crap. 75% (not 90%) of German war deaths (well, KIA and "missing") happened in the east. Yet, by the end of the war, the Americans and co held 7.4 million German prisoners, as opposed to the 3 million the Soviets held. Pretty important, when the greatest victories of the war on all fronts were result of expertly outmaneuvering the enemy and forcing them into surrender. The Germans also lost 3/4 of their air force and roughly all of their navy to the western allies, as well a disproportionately large amount of industrial capacity, tanks, and other materiel.

 

Of course, one should keep in mind that a million German prisoners had died in captivity with the Soviets by that point, and the vast majority of prisoners that both sides held at the end of the war were basically militias... but the point still stands, that you're drastically exaggerating here. This reminds me of how German commanders would give their units really good kill to death ratios, by only counting unrecoverable casualties. So if that tank was broken down and effectively unusable because no one was around to repair it, or if those ten men were disabled by frostbite, they'd still be classified as fully effective assets. 

 

 

Stalin actually knew about the bomb well before Truman, thanks to Soviet infiltration of the Manhattan project.

In general, military and civilian decision makers of the period, on all sides thought of the new weapon in fairly simple, quantitative terms as a special bomb that did the work of thousands of bombs. Our attitude, after the accounts of bomb survivors, after thermonuclear devices, MAD and the Cuban Missile Crisis is a much more existential and morally charged one that at the time was only just taking root among some of the Manhattan project alumni.

One should also keep in mind that no one knew about the effects of radioactive fallout back then. The Downfall invasion plan called for landing troops on beaches that had just recently been nuked.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Never thought I'd say this after the Greece threads, but I agree completely with Arakan. The Soviets won World War II, and everything else was just a side-show.

 

Finland for their part managed to hold off the Red Army entirely throughout the war, even though they sent dozens of divisions to invade them (this also with a population of only 3 million). 

 

Seeing as Finland's involvement was actually three different conflicts (the Winter War, the Continuation War, and the Lapland War), and considering that the first was fought by the incompetent Red Army of 1939-1940, the second was Finland taking part in Operation Barbarossa (not a Russian invasion), and that the third saw Finland and the Soviets team up against the Germans, you are grossly oversimplifying. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies until 1941. 

 

A Non-Aggression Pact is not an alliance.

 

They dwarf Finnish military losses, but not Soviet losses. They lost at least 1,2 million men during the Continuation and Winter War, and that's according to estimates based on Soviet records (which, during the Stalin era, are notorious for being very unreliable when it comes to people "disappearing"). Nikita Khruschev wrote in his memoirs that they lost a million men in the Winter War alone, for example. Either way this is off topic. 

 

1939-1940 ain't 1945. The Winter War disaster lead to a significant Soviet improvement.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

Seeing as Finland's involvement was actually three different conflicts (the Winter War, the Continuation War, and the Lapland War), and considering that the first was fought by the incompetent Red Army of 1939-1940, the second was Finland taking part in Operation Barbarossa (not a Russian invasion), and that the third saw Finland and the Soviets team up against the Germans, you are grossly oversimplifying. 

The second conflict you are talking about was an attempted reconquest of the parts of Finland that the Soviet Union had occupied the previous year*, and it culminated with the Soviets invading Finland again, stalling, and (Stalin being really tired of that front by now) offering a peace treaty where they would let Finland survive in exchange for them pulling out of the war , paying some tribute, and getting the German troops still in Finland out of the country. This went smoothly at first, with the Finns and Germans only fighting on paper whereas in reality the Germans were calmly retreating while just being shadowed by some Finnish units. The Soviets did eventually find out about this though and forced Finland to actually engage them in combat, at which point the Germans got angry and thus destroyed some buildings and infrastructure (not harming any civilians in the process) in retaliation before they finally managed to withdraw out of the country. Finland absolutely never "teamed up" with the Soviets. If I was simplifying then you are spreading real disinformation. 

 

 

*And still are occupied today by Russia. 

 

 

A Non-Aggression Pact is not an alliance.

 

 

 

1939-1940 ain't 1945. The Winter War disaster lead to a significant Soviet improvement.

And a Non-Agression Pact is all that it was, officially.

 

Of course, as everyone living after 1939 should know, it also included certain secret agreements like invading and splitting up Poland and much of the entire Eastern Europe between them. Little details like that, that make it more than just a Non-Agression Pact. 

 

It did lead to significant improvements, yes. The Red Army still had many flaws and shortcomings by the end of the war, and reading some accounts of veterans who have fought against the Russians in Ukraine today it really seems like some of these still haven't been fixed. Namely their tendency of carelessly attacking and suffering unnecessary large casualties. 

[ElizabethB.]

A Non-Aggression Pact is not an alliance.
 

 
1939-1940 ain't 1945. The Winter War disaster lead to a significant Soviet improvement.

The Winter War "disaster"???!!!!!!!

[maarsen]

 

A Non-Aggression Pact is not an alliance.

 

 

 

1939-1940 ain't 1945. The Winter War disaster lead to a significant Soviet improvement.

I bet Poland was surprised to hear that.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The second conflict you are talking about was an attempted reconquest of the parts of Finland that the Soviet Union had occupied the previous year*, and it culminated with the Soviets invading Finland again, stalling, and (Stalin being really tired of that front by now) offering a peace treaty where they would let Finland survive in exchange for them pulling out of the war , paying some tribute, and getting the German troops still in Finland out of the country.

 

"Invading Finland" in this context means launching air-raids on Helsinki in February 1944, and a land attack on Karelia in June 1944 - in response to Finland joining the German invasion of Russia (the Winter War may have been morally clear-cut; the Continuation War was a good deal less so).

 

"Stalled" means "Finland gets plenty of German help in terms of both food and military assistance, and President Ryti promises the Germans that Finland won't leave the war while he's President, except that he promptly resigns and allows Mannerheim to negotiate peace." Finland got out while the going was good, knowing full well what would have happened if they didn't (and even then, the war reparations were considerable). 

 

 

 This went smoothly at first, with the Finns and Germans only fighting on paper whereas in reality the Germans were calmly retreating while just being shadowed by some Finnish units. The Soviets did eventually find out about this though and forced Finland to actually engage them in combat, at which point the Germans got angry and thus destroyed some buildings and infrastructure (not harming any civilians in the process) in retaliation before they finally managed to withdraw out of the country. Finland absolutely never "teamed up" with the Soviets. If I was simplifying then you are spreading real disinformation. 

 

The Lapland War resulted in the death of a thousand Germans, and some 774 Finns. But that is beside the point - at this point, Finland was fighting the Germans, not the Russians (who were also fighting the Germans, hence the phrase team up). Again, this isn't "holding off the Red Army for the entire war" - this is getting out of a losing war, then fighting the Red Army's major enemy.  

 

 

Of course, as everyone living after 1939 should know, it also included certain secret agreements like invading and splitting up Poland and much of the entire Eastern Europe between them. Little details like that, that make it more than just a Non-Agression Pact. 

 

Not an alliance. The Pact was only ever to buy time and buffer zone.