Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Er , i was just asking . You guys can continue to discuss if you want ( i'll just not read it anymore )

Jeb , your knowledge seems updated with these historic stuff, would you mind if i ask you some questions in PM?

Well written JEB.
*stroke chin*
...Agreed. Personally, I find any situation where civillians are killed to be just plain disgusting. (BTW, picking up a gun and joining the resistance kinds of defeat the whole idea of 'civilian' (unless it's self defense)) It's a frustrating situation, no mistake, but would it have been possible for us to just ignore that angry little island? (impossible to answer)

*hold out hand*
Friends?

LunaHound wrote:Would you guys mind if i ask mod to close this thread?
( it really is off topic compared to what i was asking , not that i mind it been OT ) I just dont want to see people arguing over this matter when that wasnt the purpose or intention of this thread. Maybe make a new thread?

Please don't close this thread. This is stimulating conversation, and I fear that if we try and start a new thread the interest will just die out. If you really want to then go ahead, but I would really like it if it were left open!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well written JEB.
*stroke chin*
...Agreed. Personally, I find any situation where civillians are killed to be just plain disgusting. (BTW, picking up a gun and joining the resistance kinds of defeat the whole idea of 'civilian' (unless it's self defense)) It's a frustrating situation, no mistake, but would it have been possible for us to just ignore that angry little island? (impossible to answer)

*hold out hand*
Friends?

Yay!...ahem *manly voice* Of course, this was all just civil discourse, yes? *Accepts handshake*
I can only imagine what Sebster and Dogma are gonna do when they read this...

...Oh FETH!
FETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETHFETH!!!!!!

What have we DONE?!?!??!?!

LunaHound wrote:Er , i was just asking . You guys can continue to discuss if you want ( i'll just not read it anymore )

Jeb , your knowledge seems updated with these historic stuff, would you mind if i ask you some questions in PM?

Sure go ahead, I loves the history!

Hey! So do I!
*whinge like an ignored child..which basically..I kind of am at this moment*

K since this is my thread ( im guessing i can go off topic alittle bit , for sake of not opening a whole new thread >.> )
Would you allow this to be fielded as Dreadnought?

Lol, that right arm DOES look a lot like a twin linked melta gun...

I've read some amazingly historically accurate stuff in this thread, and some amazingly INaccurate stuff. But since the threads been going 4 or 5 pages now, it would be pointless to start pulling stuff up from page 2.

On the nuclear bombing of Japan, it was unnecessary. Approximately half of Japans infrastructure was leveled in the Great Firembombing. Whilst the Japanese succeeded in keeping casualities to a minimum, napalm, and magnesium thermite bombs are nasty stuff.

Japan had nothing going for it in terms of supplies. When their navy set off for it's last engagement with the American fleet at Okinawa (although at this stage, all they actually had left was the battleship Yamato, the light cruiser Yahagi, and eight destroyers), it actually only had enough fuel for a one way journey.

Japan is worse off than the UK in terms of natural resources, they really do have nothing there. There are no raw minerals, metals, oil, or coal. Most of the country is rocky mountainous terrain, unsuitable for farming, and what flat space there is is heavily populated.

A blockade at that stage would have been just as effective as the nukes. The Japanese have always possessed this image of 'never surrender!', and it's true, they would fight longer, and more tenaciously then their western counterparts, even going as far as suicide at times. But that's more down to cultural difference.
You can quote about the 'way of samurai', and the like, but most of that is urban myths and propaganda. Most of the samurai families were overthrown with the installation the Meiji government much earlier. The propaganda of the Japanese government to their own people was the main reason they kept on fighting when all seemed lost, because they genuinely believed that their government had everything under control, and that they were winning. After all, who wuld surrender when they believed reinforcements and supplies were a few days away?

A blockade would have stripped away the Japanese governments ability to continue lying to their own people. When there's no food to eat, no means to continue making war, and enemy aircraft dominate the skies, it's obvious you've lost.

The main thing that kept the Japanese balking at surrender was the idea of 'unconditional surrender'. Had the Americans been content with slightly less (say a treaty with something along the lines of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles-and yes I know Versailles was an unconditional surrender, I'm just referring to the articles in it), I believe the Japanese would have been more likely to capitulate. The cultural difference meant that for the Japanese, a completely unconditional surrender was unthinkable. They'd rather commit seppuku first.

A blockade combined with a slightly less harsh treaty would have seen the war end without the nukes I believe.

Plus, we British like our blockades.

Ketara, thank you for bringing this thread back to live.
I mean it , i was getting abit angry with some of other's inaacurate info but didnt want to be involved :x

Propaganda really lasts a long time doesnt it :x

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I remember that one Japanese soldier on the island somewhere who carried on fighting and shooting at people for many years after the war and eventually only stood down on the orders of his commanding officer, who they had to fly over there. The Japanese people hailed him as a true folkhero. If the nation of Japan had not been nuked, the culture of Japan at that time, that extolled glorious death over defeat, would have fought to the last, it would have been a foot-slogging atrocity of an occupation. Instead, the nukes utterly shocked the Japanese into surrender and left the world forever changed.

His name was Lt. Onoda Hiro. He surrendered on 10 March 1974 only after his wartime commanding officer was brought to the Philippines and ordered him to surrender to his face. Earlier attempts to get him to give himself up by having his family members visit the island and coax him out of the jungle were seen by him as an American Trick. Originally, he was sent to the island as a special ops guy to blow up some docks and other installations that the Americans would be able to use in their invasion of the capital, Manilla. Everything went pear shaped for him and he with about 10 other guys hit the jungle. Slowly the numbers of his hold out unit dropped. For the longest time there were only 3 of them. The "weakest" of the group surrendered in 60s to Filipino Marines and his last compatriot was shot through the lung near a stream on their little island. Despite all the attempts to get him out of the jungle, it was a Japanese college dropout/adventurer who lured him out and set in motion with the help of the Japanese Embassy in Manila getting Lt.Onoda's CO to come over and getting him to give up. During his time in the jungle, Onoda believed that all the newspapers and magazines that were left for him with notes to give himself up were elaborate tricks. In his mindset, he believed that if Japan had lost the war, it could no longer exist as everyone would've fought to the death...which is kind of ironic seeing as about half of his guys had no problems giving up.

When he got back to Japan, his medical/psyche evaluation showed that he was healthier than the average Japanese his age. When he got off the plane in Tokyo to fanfare, he waved a 10,000 yen note showing Japan's economic ascendancy (while everyone is arguing over "Who won the war?" Maybe they should take the time to argue "Who won the peace?") Eventually, he became disgusted with the way that Japanese society had changed, and after spending some time in his home in Wakayama Prefecture, he picked up stakes and moved to Brazil to raise cattle with his brother. Japan's greatest, and arguably, only war hero from the Pacific War turned his back on Japan after 30 years in the jungle because he no longer saw Japan as "Japan".

Even in the aftermath of the A-bombs, the government wished to fight on. Most Japanese cities had already been firebombed into oblivion, especially in the Kanto/Kansai regions that the loss of 80,000 souls wasn't such an immense shock. The means of the destruction were the shock. The accepted historical "fact" around these parts is that the Showa Tenno, Emperor Hirohito, himself decided to throw in the towel and ordered the military to surrender. When he got on the radio to address the populace, or what was left of it, no one knew his voice as he had never spoken to the masses before. The writing was on the wall. The US had taken Okinawa and the Soviets steamrollered into Manchuko shattering any kind of defense the Japanese could muster there.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the query of the OP in regards to intolerance (Racial, Gender, Country etc), but I thought I'd jump in an elaborate on one point of minutiae as the thread goes careening off the rails.

JEB_Stuart wrote:This isn't just to you Dogma but to all those who claim that the US wasn't necessary for an allied victory. The US was essential to any hope of Allied victory. It had been "officially neutral" since the start, but lets be honest, between the lend lease program, shipping supplies to the British Empire and USSR, volunteers fighting in Asia and Europe, etc., the US was involved from the get go. No respectable historian would even think to claim that an Allied victory was possible without the US. Britain and the USSR may have been able to beat Germany and Italy, highly unlikely though considering that their limited success and stalling of Nazi forces was heavily supplemented by supplies from the US, but they would not have beaten Japan. Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had. An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

You can be shocked all you want, but you just have to look at the production figures for the Soviet Union and compare them to the Germans. Then you have to consider how far the Germans had to advance to take out Russian manufacturing. The German invasion was an extremely unlikely prospect by itself.

You could make the argument that is was more likely that the Germans would have beaten the USSR without US aid. You could make the claim that the Germans might have stalled the Russians somewhere in Eastern Europe without the US in Western Europe. But the claim that the US was essential to the war effort just doesn't stack with the material produced in Russia, nor with the scale of occupation the Nazis would have needed to pacify Russia.

Ketara wrote:I

On the nuclear bombing of Japan, it was unnecessary. Approximately half of Japans infrastructure was leveled in the Great Firembombing. Whilst the Japanese succeeded in keeping casualities to a minimum, napalm, and magnesium thermite bombs are nasty stuff.

Japan had nothing going for it in terms of supplies. When their navy set off for it's last engagement with the American fleet at Okinawa (although at this stage, all they actually had left was the battleship Yamato, the light cruiser Yahagi, and eight destroyers), it actually only had enough fuel for a one way journey.

Japan is worse off than the UK in terms of natural resources, they really do have nothing there. There are no raw minerals, metals, oil, or coal. Most of the country is rocky mountainous terrain, unsuitable for farming, and what flat space there is is heavily populated.

A blockade at that stage would have been just as effective as the nukes. The Japanese have always possessed this image of 'never surrender!', and it's true, they would fight longer, and more tenaciously then their western counterparts, even going as far as suicide at times. But that's more down to cultural difference.
You can quote about the 'way of samurai', and the like, but most of that is urban myths and propaganda. Most of the samurai families were overthrown with the installation the Meiji government much earlier. The propaganda of the Japanese government to their own people was the main reason they kept on fighting when all seemed lost, because they genuinely believed that their government had everything under control, and that they were winning. After all, who wuld surrender when they believed reinforcements and supplies were a few days away?

A blockade would have stripped away the Japanese governments ability to continue lying to their own people. When there's no food to eat, no means to continue making war, and enemy aircraft dominate the skies, it's obvious you've lost.

The main thing that kept the Japanese balking at surrender was the idea of 'unconditional surrender'. Had the Americans been content with slightly less (say a treaty with something along the lines of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles-and yes I know Versailles was an unconditional surrender, I'm just referring to the articles in it), I believe the Japanese would have been more likely to capitulate. The cultural difference meant that for the Japanese, a completely unconditional surrender was unthinkable. They'd rather commit seppuku first.

A blockade combined with a slightly less harsh treaty would have seen the war end without the nukes I believe.

Plus, we British like our blockades.

Nuking Japan was definitely necessary when you consider the projected amount of casualties the Japanese were to inflict on Allied invaders. This is a nation that took not one but TWO nuclear strikes in order for them to finally surrender to the victor's terms; and this is a time when such bombs were in the realms of science fiction than reality. That in itself should be enough to showcase the kind of mentality the Japanese had and looking at battles like Iwo Jima - they were probably the most determined and zealous group of warriors in the war. Fighting them on their own turf would've been even worse.

Anyone remember the story of that WW2 Japanese soldier found isolated on an island years back? He was still itching to fight; the Japanese empire were kings of propaganda and population mind control.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Generalgrog: Calm down, mate, only a bit of harmless trolling. But answer this, why is the war that most americans were killed in the American Civil War? It just doesn't seem they go hell bent on a war, joining it half-heartedly.

Funnily enough, D-Day (which was not just a US action) was not necessary at all. It was merely pressure from the allies to get to Berlin before the Soviets. Germany was already defeated. Italy was turning against it, Northern Africa was lost, but worst of all, the Eastern Front was shattered and Mother Russia was rolling up the jerries back yard. The reason for D-Day and subsequent reconquering of western europe? Mostly political.

Well, it hastened the end of the war and that saved a lot of people's lives. It meant that the Soviets didn't just keep rolling all the way to Paris. While it wasn't the decisive moment of WWII that you'll often see in US made war movies, I'd hesitate to call it 'political' either.

Actually, WWII was one of the moments where Stalin and the people were closest. Remember, Hitlers plans for Russia were little better than the other minorites, he also viewed these people as sub-human. The communist regime was much harsher pre and post war than it was during. Do you really think that Russia could have won without such losses? (BTW , Germany and Russia lost roughly the same amount of men, but the russians could replace them more easily.)

Ever heard the stories about the peasants celebrating the arrival of the Nazis, as they were now free of Stalin, then a few years later celebrating the arrival of the Red Army, as they were now free of the Nazis?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I find it SO funny that America takes credit for winning both World Wars while actually doing feth all compared to the other countries.

American history books say we saved the day, British history books probably put the UK front and center, and the Australian books probably say they had the Pacific under control. It's just the way "history" gets polluted by nationalism. Meanwhile (as others have stated), the Soviets did the most to win the war but still get little credit in the above countries. That's because textbooks written in NATO and allied nations in the decades during the Cold War sure as heck weren't going to out of their way to praise the Soviets and their accomplishments. And that's how history gets polluted by politics.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
This isn't just to you Dogma but to all those who claim that the US wasn't necessary for an allied victory. The US was essential to any hope of Allied victory. It had been "officially neutral" since the start, but lets be honest, between the lend lease program, shipping supplies to the British Empire and USSR, volunteers fighting in Asia and Europe, etc., the US was involved from the get go. No respectable historian would even think to claim that an Allied victory was possible without the US.

There's a distinction between US aid, and direct US involvement. The scenario I'm considering is one where Roosevelt was unable to bring the country to war. Basically a 'Pearl Harbor never happened' kind of alternate history. I should have been more specific.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Britain and the USSR may have been able to beat Germany and Italy, highly unlikely though considering that their limited success and stalling of Nazi forces was heavily supplemented by supplies from the US, but they would not have beaten Japan.

They didn't need to. Without US involvement Japan is essentially taken out of the equation. Eventually they would have come for the USSR, but they had to deal with China before that ever happened. Not to mention fight through Manchuria, which was far more difficult terrain than the sort which overcame the Panzer divisions.

Just for the record, in much of the world there is a distinction between WWII, and the Pacific War, largely due to the above reason.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had.

The USSR would never have fought a naval battle against the Japanese, because they didn't need to do so. You could argue that the British would want their colonies back, but they could have just as easily abdicated them.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

The supplies delivered to the Soviets via lend-lease had very little significance to the Siege of Leningrad, most of them being destroyed by the Luftwaffe en route. They were significant to the overall war effort on the Eastern Front, though not until the later stages when logistical operations became extended. The matter was quite different with respect to England, but that's a different part of this conversation.

How many Japanese carriers did the Soviets and British sink again? The Soviets could take Manchuria but couldn't stop the island empire of Japan. If the US were NOT in the picture the Soviets would have had to keep substantial forces in Siberia. This would have further imperiled them if there were no countervailing allied forces to pin down Germans.

Germany was an allied effort with the bulk of the dying on the Russian shoulders. That would be expected as the Germans never made it into London or Virginia.

Could the Russians have beaten the Germans without the US and Britain-good chance with all things being equal. I'd argue the logistical support and conflicts in Africa and then Europe were sufficient to draw off resources. We have to remember at Kursk, Hitler started pulling corps out of the battle when the allies invaded Italy. But had conditions remained the same I think so.

But it would have been substantially harder for the Russians. More importantly, without other threats the entire Wehrmacht would have been in Eastern Europe, delaying the Russians for a year or more. What happens then? If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that. What they did in reality was already literally superhuman (and yes it was 25MM casualties on the Soviet side: civilian and military-look it up).

Boy, do I have my work cut out for me today! I am definitely earning my historian pay this month!

Ketara wrote:
On the nuclear bombing of Japan, it was unnecessary. Approximately half of Japans infrastructure was leveled in the Great Firembombing. Whilst the Japanese succeeded in keeping casualities to a minimum, napalm, and magnesium thermite bombs are nasty stuff.
A blockade at that stage would have been just as effective as the nukes. The Japanese have always possessed this image of 'never surrender!', and it's true, they would fight longer, and more tenaciously then their western counterparts, even going as far as suicide at times. But that's more down to cultural difference.
You can quote about the 'way of samurai', and the like, but most of that is urban myths and propaganda. Most of the samurai families were overthrown with the installation the Meiji government much earlier. The propaganda of the Japanese government to their own people was the main reason they kept on fighting when all seemed lost, because they genuinely believed that their government had everything under control, and that they were winning. After all, who wuld surrender when they believed reinforcements and supplies were a few days away?
The cultural difference meant that for the Japanese, a completely unconditional surrender was unthinkable. They'd rather commit seppuku first.

A blockade combined with a slightly less harsh treaty would have seen the war end without the nukes I believe.

The nukes weren't about eliminating Japanese infrastructure. They were an ugly, but necessary alternative, in order to prevent a massive loss of life that was unnecessary. Many military leaders openly admitted that the atom bombs were psychological weapons as much as they were military. A blockade would NOT have shocked the Japanese into surrender, I really think you are underestimating their resolve here.
The talk of Bushido is not really as much propaganda and myth as you claim. Sure the Samurai had been overthrown earlier in the Meiji era, but that did not change the fact that the population was indoctrinated with those same ideas. Look at the Emperor for example, it practically took Gen. MacArthur with a pistol in his hand to have the Emperor admit to his people that he wasn't actually a god, and that was just to let them know. Traditionalists in Japan still consider the Emperor to be divine! The Japanese were utterly committed to their Emperor's cause, there is no way to deny that, and it took the horrifying shock of the atom bombs to convince them that surrender was a viable option. On this issue of surrender: Unconditional surrender was not the problem, it was the reality of surrender that was. It is hard for us in the West to believe that such advanced people would have that attitude willingly, but its true. I have found many historical revisionists trying to claim that the Japanese were not as radical as we used to believe, and this would justify the no nuke theory, but in light of historical fact, this argument does not add up.

sebster wrote:
You can be shocked all you want, but you just have to look at the production figures for the Soviet Union and compare them to the Germans. Then you have to consider how far the Germans had to advance to take out Russian manufacturing. The German invasion was an extremely unlikely prospect by itself.

You could make the argument that is was more likely that the Germans would have beaten the USSR without US aid. You could make the claim that the Germans might have stalled the Russians somewhere in Eastern Europe without the US in Western Europe. But the claim that the US was essential to the war effort just doesn't stack with the material produced in Russia, nor with the scale of occupation the Nazis would have needed to pacify Russia.

If you are looking at end of the war figures for production, then yes you would be right. But that isn't the case when it comes to production throughout. The American supplies, and British convoys, were essential to the Soviet effort. How do you think they kept their ill supplied troops supplied at all during those first few critical years? Your argument is illogical, considering the Russians could not even equip all of their troops with basic rifles, let alone field a fully equipped and well supplied army. And the Germans weren't concerned with pacifying Russia, they were more concerned about offing the population for Hitler's Lebensraum. The USSR did not start having truly massive production numbers till war's end, and that was only able to happen because of American supplies.

gorgon wrote:
American history books say we saved the day, British history books probably put the UK front and center, and the Australian books probably say they had the Pacific under control. It's just the way "history" gets polluted by nationalism. Meanwhile (as others have stated), the Soviets did the most to win the war but still get little credit in the above countries. That's because textbooks written in NATO and allied nations in the decades during the Cold War sure as heck weren't going to out of their way to praise the Soviets and their accomplishments. And that's how history gets polluted by politics.

In my experience, my colleagues are all very willing and proactive in acknowledging the accomplishments of the Soviets, and British...but not the French. The Soviets may have lost the most human life, but that was because of poor tactics and poor equipment. There is a reason the US was called the Arsenal of Democracy. That is because it was our industry that quite literally drove the war effort. When looking at the combination of everything the US really did do the most for the war effort.

dogma wrote:
There's a distinction between US aid, and direct US involvement. The scenario I'm considering is one where Roosevelt was unable to bring the country to war. Basically a 'Pearl Harbor never happened' kind of alternate history. I should have been more specific.

Ah, that makes it more clear. Thank you!

dogma wrote:
They didn't need to. Without US involvement Japan is essentially taken out of the equation. Eventually they would have come for the USSR, but they had to deal with China before that ever happened. Not to mention fight through Manchuria, which was far more difficult terrain than the sort which overcame the Panzer divisions.
Just for the record, in much of the world there is a distinction between WWII, and the Pacific War, largely due to the above reason.

Actually Japan had already conquered much of China, and had total control of Manchuria, ie Manchuko. And no, Japan's involvement was not reliant on the US, they had been at war with the British Empire for some time. Britain would not sit idly by and let Japan take its crown jewel, India, or Australia, New Zealand, etc. This distinction that you are making between WWII and the Pacific War is...well, to be frank non-existent. I don't know of any historian, both in my personal experience, or in my professional experience, who has even entertained this idea. It is true that it is separate from the European theater, but to consider them two different wars is really ridiculous and mind boggling. I really don't know how you justify considering them two separate wars...

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had.

The USSR would never have fought a naval battle against the Japanese, because they didn't need to do so. You could argue that the British would want their colonies back, but they could have just as easily abdicated them.

I disagree. The USSR would have had to eventually fight the Japanese navy, and the British, as aforementioned, would not have so easily given up their colonies, especially India and Australia, which were both essential for their natural resources that helped to drive the war effort.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:
An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

The supplies delivered to the Soviets via lend-lease had very little significance to the Siege of Leningrad, most of them being destroyed by the Luftwaffe en route. They were significant to the overall war effort on the Eastern Front, though not until the later stages when logistical operations became extended. The matter was quite different with respect to England, but that's a different part of this conversation.

Again, I have to cry foul. Any realistic look at the influence American supplies had on the Eastern front points to them being essential to at least stalling the German war effort. These supplies helped to keep the Wermacht tied down, and prevented them from advancing. They were especially essential to the Siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad. Also see my above post to Sebster, as it covers alot of the same stuff.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How many Japanese carriers did the Soviets and British sink again? The Soviets could take Manchuria but couldn't stop the island empire of Japan. If the US were NOT in the picture the Soviets would have had to keep substantial forces in Siberia. This would have further imperiled them if there were no countervailing allied forces to pin down Germans.

Germany was an allied effort with the bulk of the dying on the Russian shoulders. That would be expected as the Germans never made it into London or Virginia.

Could the Russians have beaten the Germans without the US and Britain-good chance with all things being equal. I'd argue the logistical support and conflicts in Africa and then Europe were sufficient to draw off resources. We have to remember at Kursk, Hitler started pulling corps out of the battle when the allies invaded Italy. But had conditions remained the same I think so.

But it would have been substantially harder for the Russians. More importantly, without other threats the entire Wehrmacht would have been in Eastern Europe, delaying the Russians for a year or more. What happens then? If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that. What they did in reality was already literally superhuman (and yes it was 25MM casualties on the Soviet side: civilian and military-look it up).

Thank you fraz, the voice of reason comes roaring in to clear out the dissidents! Also, I already posted on your figures of 25 million, since they are in fact a reality.

gorgon wrote:American history books say we saved the day, British history books probably put the UK front and center, and the Australian books probably say they had the Pacific under control. It's just the way "history" gets polluted by nationalism. Meanwhile (as others have stated), the Soviets did the most to win the war but still get little credit in the above countries. That's because textbooks written in NATO and allied nations in the decades during the Cold War sure as heck weren't going to out of their way to praise the Soviets and their accomplishments. And that's how history gets polluted by politics.

I wouldn't say that at all Gorgan, tbh most WW2 books I've read and the brief time inschool we covered on WW2 have been pretty good on the whole who did what part. Okay Soviet Union aside which did get a mention, but not as much as it probably deserves, usually at that point the book stresses more on Hitlers error of attacking Russia full stop, more than the heroic fight and vengeful charge the Russians led against the eastern front.
But aye, I wouldn't say any book I have read has felt as if it was suggesting we where more awesome than our allies. It's given credit where credits due, the civilian populations response to the Blitz, the Battle of Britain etc, but I remember reading good things about Patton and various other US actions, especially in the Pacific, where as folks have already noted the US pretty much ran the show.


However I do think alot of anger over here comes from the changes often intoduced by Hollywood oddly, things like the film about the capturing of the Enigma machine was viewed very poorly here, and even though I like the film, some folks didn't like the inclusion of Steve McQueens character in the Great Escape. I tend to see much more moaning about the US regarding WW2 when movies show up that distort or change facts to add a US character etc.

No argument there....

On-topic:
@Luna-

Everyone is intolerant about something at some point. People aren't willing to admit such because they don't like to find fault within themselves.

The act of removing such intolerance would in and of itself create the most intolerant and ineffective of societies.

The reason I say this is that there are some things that should not be tolerated but what these things are evolves and changes according to the needs of society at that particular point in their developement.

The best you can hope for is to be tolerant and to hope your example influences the people you meet in a positive manner.


Off-topic:

Emperors faithfull-The soviets would not have won the war if not for the American supply-line. Russia was under industrialized and was unable to effectively stop the Nazi advance until the supply ships and american aircraft started to arrive.

Your analysis and others here ignores that a wars are won through resources.
So what if america didn't lose as many lives. That is just plain smart. We substitute raw resources for manpower and follow Gen. Pattons axiom, "You don't win wars by dying for your country, you win wars by making some other por SOB die for his country."

To state that US intervetion was unnecessary for winning the war is to ignore the US industrial resources that were used in order for Britain and the USSR just to survive.

Frazzled wrote:If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that.

Excellent point Frazz. If we were on topic I would say that you win the thread, however I think I can say that you win the whole "Soviets would have beaten the Nazis without Uncle Sam", nonsense.

Jets and nukes vs Moscow and Stalingrad..... Hitler wins.

GG

You're right, we're blindingly off topic at this point. I imagine we should start a Nazis vs. Commies Deathmatch 1946 so we could go off topic and begin discussing intolerance...

Vulkan77 wrote:... Stalin purged all the best officers in the mid 1930's and replaced them with his own sycophants he killed about 37,000 men many of then the best Generals and leaders he had. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler he just did it in a different way, instead of gassing and murdering all the people who disagreed he used them a s cannon fodder which contributed to the massive loss of life on the Russian side which was around 28,000,000 people.

Yeah, but they were his own people. As Eddie Izzard has pointed out, we're generally ok with people killing their own people, it's when they start to look next door that we get involved.


More on-topic;

New acceptable intolerances: fatties and smokers. People cannot help the race or gender they're born with. They can put down the twinkie and stop smoking though.

What if the fatty has bad knees and can barely walk? Are they a "fatty" then?

Frazzled wrote:How many Japanese carriers did the Soviets and British sink again? The Soviets could take Manchuria but couldn't stop the island empire of Japan.

Why would the Soviets even care about Japanese holding in the Pacific outside of general balance considerations? You're acting as if there was some grand, unified Allied political apparatus that had the same uniform set of goals. A notion which is utter nonsense considering the in-war political maneuvering between both the US and Great Britain, and the fact that the Soviets didn't declare war on Japan until two months before the Pacific War was over.

The British had an interest in maintaining colonial authority, but those territories which were threatened during the was quickly became the subject of the anti-colonization debate. So its exceedingly difficult to see how their maintenance would be necessary in a more tenuous military situation.

Frazzled wrote:
If the US were NOT in the picture the Soviets would have had to keep substantial forces in Siberia.

Why? Given the difficulty in pacifying China, the poor quality of the Japanese army, and the presence of a neutrality agreement which both sides held to even before America became an issue its really difficult to see why Stalin would have kept his force levels any higher than they were.

Frazzled wrote:
This would have further imperiled them if there were no countervailing allied forces to pin down Germans.

There weren't any, at least in mainland Europe, for the vast majority of the war.

Frazzled wrote:
Could the Russians have beaten the Germans without the US and Britain-good chance with all things being equal. I'd argue the logistical support and conflicts in Africa and then Europe were sufficient to draw off resources. We have to remember at Kursk, Hitler started pulling corps out of the battle when the allies invaded Italy. But had conditions remained the same I think so.

I'd agree.

Frazzled wrote:
But it would have been substantially harder for the Russians. More importantly, without other threats the entire Wehrmacht would have been in Eastern Europe, delaying the Russians for a year or more. What happens then? If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that.

So long as the British remained unconquered the threat on the Western Front (combined with Hitler's determination) would have ensured that few soldiers would have been shifted to the East. And a jet powered Luftwaffe? The Luftwaffe was jet powered even with American aid. It wasn't the lack of aircraft that prevented their service, but the lack of fuel. It should also be remembered that the Soviets independently produced a jet fighter in 1946 (the SU-9).

And nukes? No way. Nothing the Germans undertook during the war matched the scale of the Manhattan Project.

Frazzled wrote:
What they did in reality was already literally superhuman (and yes it was 25MM casualties on the Soviet side: civilian and military-look it up).

Or inhuman; depending on how you read Stalin's control over the state. The little monster (Hitler) got eaten by the bigger, smarter monster (Stalin).

Didn't Mao end up with more murders on his hands than Stalin?

Did the inability to put down the deep fried snickers and creme brulee contribute to the bad knees?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Actually Japan had already conquered much of China, and had total control of Manchuria, ie Manchuko. And no, Japan's involvement was not reliant on the US, they had been at war with the British Empire for some time. Britain would not sit idly by and let Japan take its crown jewel, India, or Australia, New Zealand, etc.

If the alternative was the surrender of the British Isles, then yes they would have. Regardless, the Japanese never made it to India because they never fully took control of China. Australia was already quasi-independent, and became closer to the United States following the war as a direct result of the British willingness to abandon their colonial holdings in the face of German/Japanese aggression.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
This distinction that you are making between WWII and the Pacific War is...well, to be frank non-existent. I don't know of any historian, both in my personal experience, or in my professional experience, who has even entertained this idea. It is true that it is separate from the European theater, but to consider them two different wars is really ridiculous and mind boggling. I really don't know how you justify considering them two separate wars...

Three elements here:
1) The lack of a Soviet presence in the Pacific conflict (not including covert aid to China).
2) The willingness of the British to abandon their colonies.
3) The historical legacy of the dispute in East Asia. Unlike WWI there was no intermission.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I disagree. The USSR would have had to eventually fight the Japanese navy,

Why? What incentive would they have had to do so?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
and the British, as aforementioned, would not have so easily given up their colonies, especially India and Australia, which were both essential for their natural resources that helped to drive the war effort.

India itself was nearly self-sufficient, it didn't need protection. There's a reason the Japanese never attempted a landing.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Again, I have to cry foul. Any realistic look at the influence American supplies had on the Eastern front points to them being essential to at least stalling the German war effort. These supplies helped to keep the Wermacht tied down, and prevented them from advancing. They were especially essential to the Siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad. Also see my above post to Sebster, as it covers alot of the same stuff.

They were essential to the war effort, but not to Leningrad. You're reading general rejection into my comment. Over the course of the war America was primarily involved in providing logistical equipment to the Soviet Union in order to permit a focus on the production of military materiel. The program was very different for the British, however.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Didn't Mao end up with more murders on his hands than Stalin?

Yeah. He also had more people to choose from.

The only reason that USA doesn't want to admit the Mother Russia had the war in the bag is probably becuase of the ensuing Cold War. (My personal guess is that's why your history books are written tht way)

Stalin and Russia could have beaten Germany without aid. It would have been a long and tragic war, but they would most likely have won in the end. (Remember, this was not the sam backward russia of 1914, Russia had become much more industrialised.) The aid and convoys were nice, but not as crucial to the overall outcome as you might think. Having multiple fronts merely sealed the coffin for Hitler. He had sent his best and brightest soldiers. (Was it the 5th Army? Can't remember)

And I must say again, losses in the major battles were roughly even, but Russia could replace their losses more easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@generalgrog: BTW, Nukes and Jets? Please, that tech only came into play near the end of the war, and the germans were more into V2 missiles than nukes.