Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[DanteGabriel]

 

 Floaty T-34's! They totally had those in the works. Temporary technical problem.

 

Stupid American. Your propaganda has deceived you again. T-34s were already capable of floating by late 1944. It is only your sad Western education and the desperate insecurity of your leaders that has allowed you to so far ignore the crushing superiority of Soviet military!

[Larry of the Lawn]

The corollary to 'don't start a land war in Asia' is 'don't invade an island nation willing to fight to the last civilian without a massive navy'.

[Swordfish]

 

 Floaty T-34's! They totally had those in the works. Temporary technical problem.

 

 

Space age floaty materials!

[Arakan]

The Red army both during WW2 and the Cold War relied on numerical superiority. Hence even during their greatest successes like for example the Operation Bagration you mentioned they still lost twice as many men as the enemy. 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). 
 
Massive amounts of lend lease, plus allied warfare in the west tying up significant German forces (especially from the air force and navy) made it so that the pendulum eventually swung to the Soviets and they were able to win, though with absolutely staggering losses. But If WW2 had been a conflict between just Germany and the Soviet Union then Germany would have won. 
 
The Soviets certainly played the single largest part in defeating Nazi Germany, that is of no question, but they wouldn't have done it alone. 

No one said they world have done it alone. Your first sentence is wrong when we speak about 1945. not only was the Red Army huge but extremely battle-hardened, with a top first line fighting force, and well trained in tactical as well as strategical operations. Unfortunately poltical interference (Stalin) made the 1945 operations in Eastern Europe more bloody than necessary.

And that you use the Red Army of 1939/40 as "proof" for your "argument" when we speak of 1945 is just laughable. It is so laughable that I will not further comment on it. Please go read some good British or German historians or even better first hand accounts of Wehrmacht officers. They should know best what they faced in 1944/45 :).

Unfortunately Hollywood is too strong in many people's mind...

And last but not least, better we don't start speaking of the KIA ratio Western Allies vs German troops (before Battle of the Bulge mostly 2nd/3rd rate quality) on the Western Front 1944-45...and better we don't start speaking about the fanatic effort the Russians faced and which the Western Allies faced. And when it was comparable to a slight extent (beginning of BoB or Hürttgen Wald as examples) we saw what happened.

The Americans can be glad that in most combat operations they never had to face the ferocity which the Russians had to face.

Breslau, Budapest, Berlin, Königsberg. Nothing in the Western Theatre comes even close to that. Nothing. People must get perspective. D-Day in bloodshed was a normal combat operation in the Eastern front 1944/45.

[Swordfish]

No one said they world have done it alone. Your first sentence is wrong when we speak about 1945. not only was the Red Army huge but extremely battle-hardened, with a top first line fighting force, and well trained in tactical as well as strategical operations. Unfortunately poltical interference (Stalin) made the 1945 operations in Eastern Europe more bloody than necessary.

And that you use the Red Army of 1939/40 as "proof" for your "argument" when we speak of 1945 is LAUGHABLE. Just laughable. It is so laughable that I will not further comment on it. Please go read some good British or German historians or even better first hand accounts of Wehrmacht officers. They should know best what they faced in 1944/45 :).

Unfortunately Hollywood is too strong in many people's mind...

And last but not least, better we don't start speaking of the KIA ratio Western Allies vs German troops (before Battle of the Bulge mostly 2nd/3rd rate quality) on the Western Front 1944-45...and better we don't start speaking about the fanatic effort the Russians faced and which the Western Allies faced. And when it was comparable to a slight extent (beginning of BoB or Hürttgen Wald as examples) we saw what happened.

The Americans can be glad that in most combat operations they never had to face the ferocity which the Russians had to face.

Breslau, Budapest, Berlin, Königsberg. Nothing in the Western Theatre comes even close to that. Nothing. People must get perspective. D-Day in bloodshed was a normal combat operation in the Eastern front 1944/45.

 

 

I think this is what is known as claiming victory in an argument no one is having.

[DanteGabriel]

 

 

I think this is what is known as claiming victory in an argument no one is having.

 

While refusing to respond to a simple question about Soviet capability to launch a maritime invasion.

 

Seriously Arakan, what the suffering fuck is the relevance of the European land war here? Other than a lame opening for you to berate Americans for the jingoistic argument that, again, no one has made?

[Arakan]

 
Maybe, instead of pre-emptively bashing an irrelevant argument about Overlord and the Western theater that no one has made (extra bonus points because you get to roll your eyes at Stupid Ignorant Jingoistic Americans again!), you could actually come up with something to substantiate the idea that the Soviets could have mounted a credible amphibious landing and invasion of Japan?

I got carried away.
Ideally the US Navy would have supported those landing operations. And why not? It were the Americans who pushed Stalin to engage the Japanese ffs! In 1945!

The idea that the US military command would sabotage a strategic operation against a common enemy is surreal given the circumstances! And anyway the Japanese perspective is essential here! Please tell me why should they have thought that the Americans would sabotage a Soviet Invasion?

The experience of the utter annihilation of the Kwantung Army and the fear of a Soviet Invasion (on American ships ideally) and the expected outcome (Eastern Germany) was what pushed the Japanese military command to surrender. The atom bombs played a part as well.

That was what I originally said in the very beginning. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes I got carried away.

[Arakan]

 
While refusing to respond to a simple question about Soviet capability to launch a maritime invasion.
 
Other than a lame opening for you to berate Americans for the jingoistic argument that, again, no one has made?

Please read what Khaleesi wrote.

[Arakan]

I admit: the one sentence Texas Ranger highlighted was wrong formulated.

[Arakan]

Seriously Arakan, what the suffering fuck is the relevance of the European land war here?

It was relevant because the user I responded to brought up the old "Red Army = mass no class" line which I simply refuted. Because in 1945 it was not true.

Dante, it was a response.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

No one said they world have done it alone. Your first sentence is wrong when we speak about 1945. not only was the Red Army huge but extremely battle-hardened, with a top first line fighting force, and well trained in tactical as well as strategical operations. Unfortunately poltical interference (Stalin) made the 1945 operations in Eastern Europe more bloody than necessary.

And that you use the Red Army of 1939/40 as "proof" for your "argument" when we speak of 1945 is LAUGHABLE. Just laughable. It is so laughable that I will not further comment on it. Please go read some good British or German historians or even better first hand accounts of Wehrmacht officers. They should know best what they faced in 1944/45 :).

Unfortunately Hollywood is too strong in many people's mind...

And last but not least, better we don't start speaking of the KIA ratio Western Allies vs German troops (before Battle of the Bulge mostly 2nd/3rd rate quality) on the Western Front 1944-45...and better we don't start speaking about the fanatic effort the Russians faced and which the Western Allies faced. And when it was comparable to a slight extent (beginning of BoB or Hürttgen Wald as examples) we saw what happened.

The Americans can be glad that in most combat operations they never had to face the ferocity which the Russians had to face.

Breslau, Budapest, Berlin, Königsberg. Nothing in the Western Theatre comes even close to that. Nothing. People must get perspective. D-Day in bloodshed was a normal combat operation in the Eastern front 1944/45.

Stalin would have made anything regarding Japan more bloody than necessary as well. And while the Red Army had certainly grown to be more competent towards the end than it was at the start of war (at least in regards to strategy and tactics), it was hardly the star you make it out to be either. I was not talking about 1939-1940 when mentioning Finland either, I was talking about the Continuation War. Even during the very last stages of WW2 Finland still managed to hold off a Russian advance that was likely aimed at taking Helsinki, numbering 26 divisions, culminating in the battle of Tali-Ihantala. After this Stalin got tired of trying to occupy Finland and accepted a negotiated peace instead. Here are some Finnish soldiers standing next to on of your extremely competent Soviet tanks and crew in 1944 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Tali-Ihantala.jpg

 

As for the rest of your post I'm not an American and I have never said anything about how they compared to the German military in WW2. 

 

But TL:DR a Soviet landing of one division in Japan would have done nothing at all. 

[Arakan]

But TL:DR a Soviet landing of one division in Japan would have done nothing at all.

We agree.

The rest: we don't agree. The Red Army in 1945 was a war machine without comparison. I already recommended some historians. And quite frankly who cares what happened on a tertiary front?

With your logic I could say that the Yugoslav partisans and Tito where the most impressive soldiers of WW2. But the Balkans while scores more bloody than your Finnland example were also just a secondary front.

Anyway I stop the OT know.

I made my point.
The annihilation of the Kwantung Army (and Japanes fear of a potential Invasion of the RA, with US ships :P ) in combination with the atom bombs pushed Japan to surrender.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

We agree.

The rest: we don't agree. The Red Army in 1945 was a war machine without comparison. I already recommended some historians. And quite frankly who cares what happened on a tertiary front?

With your logic I could say that the Yugoslav partisans and Tito where the most impressive soldiers of WW2. But the Balkans while scores more bloody than your Finnland example were also just a secondary front.

Anyway I stop the OT know.

I made my point.
The annihilation of the Kwantung Army (and Japanes fear of a potential Invasion of the RA, with US ships :P ) in combination with the atom bombs pushed Japan to surrender.

No you wouldn't. Tito and his Partisans never achieved anything comparable, especially considering the opposition they were up against (mostly other partisans that had sided with the nazis). The "tertiary front" in Finland you are talking about had 49 divisions arranged against it at the start of the Continuation War. To compare with this the Operation Barbarossa, the largest invasion in world history, was made up of around 100 divisions. 

 

I doubt those historians would agree that the Red Army was a "war machine without comparison". Though speaking about authority figures, this is what George Patton, one of the most skilled generals of WW2, said regarding the Red Army in 1945 

We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I've seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old hoses or oxen. I'll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them... Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives. 

 

Really sounds like a super powered elite force, doesn't it? Sauron himself was probably leading it. Japan would have stood no chance. 

 

You still haven't motivated why USA would ever have helped USSR invade Japan by shipping over a million troops either. America wasn't run by complete idiots, nor did they like Communism any more than they do now.  No, it is far more likely that the Japanese surrendered out of fear for the new wonder-weapons that could annihilate entire cities in the blink of an eye IMO. 

[DanteGabriel]

Ideally the US Navy would have supported those landing operations. And why not? It were the Americans who pushed Stalin to engage the Japanese ffs! In 1945!

 

 

By "supported" -- do you mean the US would have loaned the Soviets enough landing craft and troop transports to do the thing too?

I can think of a big why not. With the war more or less won, you're suggesting that the US, having just raced the Soviets into Berlin to stake a claim, with the realization that the US and USSR were going to be the next two poles of power in the postwar world, was going to help the Soviets occupy Japan? Yes, they asked the Soviets to get involved -- in the Asian land war. No US Navy support needed.

 

I think your assumption that the US would have loaned their Navy to the Soviets to invade Japan is naive. Do you have any actual historical sources to suggest that such a thing was even vaguely considered?

 

The idea that the US military command would sabotage a strategic operation against a common enemy is surreal given the circumstances! And anyway the Japanese perspective is essential here! Please tell me why should they have thought that the Americans would sabotage a Soviet Invasion?
 

 

It's not sabotage if you just neglect to loan them a navy to invade Japan with. This is the second time you've characterized it as "sabotage" -- which is loaded and inaccurate. No, I'm sure the US would not have blockaded the Soviets from invading Japan (with what fleet, again?) but that's a far cry from leaving them stranded on Sakhalin Island. "Sorry, Josef, we need all our ships for our own invasion. You're free to launch an invasion, though, with whatever you can cobble together."

 

 

The experience of the utter annihilation of the Kwantung Army and the fear of a Soviet Invasion (on American ships ideally) and the expected outcome (Eastern Germany) was what pushed the Japanese military command to surrender. The atom bombs played a part as well.
 

 

The annihilation of the Kwantung Army... that had already been gutted as most resources had been withdrawn to the home islands to prepare for a final defense?

 

 

Yes I got carried away.

 

 

You sure did get carried away. For all that you like to sneer at Americans for their bias, you have a pretty strong bias yourself.

[TheKitttenGuard]

On mobile, no multi-quote.

DG,
There was no race to Berlin between U.S and the Soviets. The Soviets were allowed to take the city. Some sources I read said that Supreme Command did not want to use the lives and resources needed on what would of been mainly symbolic. Their was divisons and sectoring of Berlin but those were based on agreements and not due to those area being occupied by Western forces. Look at maps of divided Germany and Berlin is well in East Germany.

As with overall U.S and Soviet cooperation on Japan I agree with not seeing a massive loaning of the transports needed for the Soviets to cross. The cooperation was heavily based on defeating the Nazis. Japan was just not view the same existentially to Russia and the West as Germany was.

With the use of the Atomic bombs. It probably more lives but it is a mighty thin edge than others want to give. The possibility of continuing A bomb use would of been a monstrous act. The idea of A bombs being used as prep work for an invasion would of resulted in a medical legacy that would still be haunting the U.S.

On the Patton quote:
Patton is fun to read and what a great movie that was made of him, George C Scott was just incredible. I am very glad that not many listen to him and it is very disturbing how much an aching for war with Russia. His quote of absolute hubris and as in depth he was of Alexander the Great and other great commander, his statement is one of not paying attention to what happen between Germany and Russia over the last 4 years.

[DanteGabriel]

DG,
There was no race to Berlin between U.S and the Soviets. The Soviets were allowed to take the city. Some sources I read said that Supreme Command did not want to use the lives and resources needed on what would of been mainly symbolic. Their was divisons and sectoring of Berlin but those were based on agreements and not due to those area being occupied by Western forces. Look at maps of divided Germany and Berlin is well in East Germany.
 

 

Fair enough. I just wanted to illustrate that there were plenty of political and military reasons why the US would not have supported a Soviet invasion of the Japanese home islands.

[DireWolfSpirit]

My question is, with what was known to Truman at the time, ignoring right vs wrong, would y'all have dropped the bombs?

Of course not. As one poster noted , Eisenhower and some others didn't think it was necessarry at the time. So i think some of those people like Ike would have been in a good position to make that judgement. Certainly better than the vast majority of 70 yrs on Monday morning QB's or armchair Generals.

A few posters mentioned bias and I think it's a fair point. As an American, i will reexamine my opposition to tne atomic bombings when I see a citizen of Japan come forward with an opinion about how the bombings were a good and humane thing that saved lives. I've heard that explanation my whole life from countless Americans,
I'm skeptical. Are there any Japanese that believe the A-bombs were a saving grace? And why exactly would someone like Eisenhower think the A-bomb attacks weren't necessarry?

[Arakan]

George Patton?? Really?
Yeah Khaleesi, it's ok.

[Arakan]

On the Patton quote:
Patton is fun to read and what a great movie that was made of him, George C Scott was just incredible. I am very glad that not many listen to him and it is very disturbing how much an aching for war with Russia. His quote of absolute hubris and as in depth he was of Alexander the Great and other great commander, his statement is one of not paying attention to what happen between Germany and Russia over the last 4 years.

Exactly.

[Arakan]

Coming back to the supposed military necessity of the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Some quotes (from the linked Wikipedia article)

 

Eisenhower

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives

 

Fleet Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

 

 

Fleet Admital Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

 

 

Major General Curtis LeMay

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

 

 

Fleet Admiral Halsey

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment… It was a mistake to ever drop it… [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…

 

 

 

Frankly, more is not the say...

Ah...maybe Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (teaches at the university of California) has some additonal insight

On the basis of available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs… alone were not decisive in inducing Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was. Without the Soviet entry in the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardments, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so