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.

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

By multiples

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.

I never tried to claim the nukes were to force a collapse of infrastructure. I think it's pretty historically established that Japan was already on it's last legs economically, as they produce very little in terms of raw materials (food, metals, oil) inside Japan itself. I would agree over a Blockade not 'shocking' the Japanese into surrender. Shocking implies a sudden out of character response to one unexpected event. A blockade is a protracted, and lengthy strategy. The idea that nukes were necessary in order to prevent loss of life only works if you accept the fact that a physical invasion of the Japanese home isles was the only other options. A blockade combined with more regular bombing would have been sufficent.

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!

Which is of course that much more illogical than most of the American soldiers belief in a big bearded man in the sky. Most countries are like that. A good example would be Churchills famous speech about fighting them in the streets, beaches and so on. Shinto wasn't the prevalent religion that you seem to be assuming it to be, buddhism and to a certain extent, taoism were well established by this date. As a ken-jutsu student myself, I'm more than familiar with the mindset of the 'samurai', and a large chunk of what is considered to be fact is no more than balderdash. Just because the Japanese were dedicated to their form of government, and believed the propaganda the afore emntioned government put out does not make them unreasonable, and mean they'll fight to the bitter end. As I already pointed out, the British in WW2 are a good analogy, as they too were bombarded with a tremendous amount of propaganda against the nazi's.

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.

The reality of surrender itself is hard for any advanced nation to contemplate. Bar the quick capitulations of the French and the Italians in WW2, I can't think of a country ever surrendering before the government itself was shattered. The Germans were in no rush to surrender, even when it was obvious the war was lost, yet do we consider them to be maniacal and completely closed to any kind of negotiation? Much of what is taken as established fact with regards to japanese society during WW2 is taken from biased and inaccurate sources immediately following the war. The historical revisionists to which you refer have newly established facts, and a different perspective to view it from, even if they can be just as inaccurate as the other historians at times.

To conclude, I refute your claim that an atomic strike was the only thing capable of making the Japanese surrender barring a physical invasion. A blockade with more conventional methods was an entirely viable method of warfare, the American generals simply wished to conclude the war quickly, and test out their big shiny new weapon.

As a War Studies student myself I'm afraid I'm just as bad as you when it comes to debating a topic such as this JEB.

Ketara wrote: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.

Yes blockades worked so well at getting islands to surrender in the past didn't they.

I'm not sure how "starve hundreds of thousands to death with blockades" is better than "kill hundreds of thousands with nukes".

Ketara wrote:
To conclude, I refute your claim that an atomic strike was the only thing capable of making the Japanese surrender barring a physical invasion. A blockade with more conventional methods was an entirely viable method of warfare, the American generals simply wished to conclude the war quickly, and test out their big shiny new weapon.

The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.

With the collapse and surrender of Nazi Germany; America and its allies undoubtedly wanted to end the war full-stop. Its easy enough with our hindsight and sitting in the status quo to tell the allied nations to prolong an already prolonged war effort but quite simply the leaders and citizens of this era was long tired of sacrificing their sons overseas. Not to mention Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese were stubborn and their leadership out of the realm of reality ala Kim Jung Il, not to mention they were incredibly proud. Sure these are qualities that can be found in allied nations but not to the extent of Japan's infamous living god - it took TWO nuclear strikes to render their surrender.

Blockade or not, mainland Japan would have had to be invaded eventually and such casualty numbers would rank in the millions and its length in years. Its people was more than ready to die of starvation, generally speaking of course.

I'm not sure how "starve hundreds of thousands to death with blockades" is better than "kill hundreds of thousands with nukes".

It isn't. It's just as humane. I'm just disagreeing with the view that nukes were the only way.

The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.

Churchills idea of farmwives attacking nazis with frying pans springs to mind. As does the last stand of the SS soliders in Berlin. As does the Chinese guerillas. Modern Warfare is rife with such examples. Plus, Kamikaze is overexaggerated, as is the circumstances in which it took place. An account by a survivor springs to mind. He was a university student, and by no means an extremist, he just viewed it as doing what had to be done.

With the collapse and surrender of Nazi Germany; America and its allies undoubtedly wanted to end the war full-stop. Its easy enough with our hindsight and sitting in the status quo to tell the allied nations to prolong an already prolonged war effort but quite simply the leaders and citizens of this era was long tired of sacrificing their sons overseas. Not to mention Pearl Harbor.

Certainly, as I said, the use of the nuke was down to two factors, wanting to end the war quickly, and wanting to test their new superweapon.

Blockade or not, mainland Japan would have had to be invaded eventually and such casualty numbers would rank in the millions and its length in years. Its people was more than ready to die of starvation, generally speaking of course.

I disagree. To put it bluntly, Japan cannot produce war material. They had spent about 90% of what they had remaining. Once a blockade was in place, they could keep sending up fighter planes. That is, until they ran out of fuel and the materials to construct such planes with. As my example with the Yamato above has already proven, they had little petroleum reserves remaining in any case. Starvation would have become rife in Japan, as they are completely incapable of feeding their population.

I'm not debating ethics here, and whether it would have been better than nukes, but eventually Japan WOULD have been forced to the negotiation table without a single allied soldier setting foot on Hokkaido. If they did not, they would have all died of starvation eventually. It may have taken another year of waiting, but once the Japanese were contained and isolated on the home isles, they would have no way to fight back. They would have lacked the material necessary. That is a fact.

The only point of debate here is whether the blockade would have forced them to surrender. I believe it would have. You don't. You'd have to quote some damn good sources to get me to change my mind on this, as I know as a fact that a lot of what is taken for granted about Japan, shinto, and bushido is nothing more than urban myth, tales retold, and incredibly biased and shortsighted historians neglecting certain sources in order to support other more exaggerated claims.

Ketara wrote:I disagree. To put it bluntly, Japan cannot produce war material. They had spent about 90% of what they had remaining. Once a blockade was in place, they could keep sending up fighter planes. That is, until they ran out of fuel and the materials to construct such planes with. As my example with the Yamato above has already proven, they had little petroleum reserves remaining in any case. Starvation would have become rife in Japan, as they are completely incapable of feeding their population.

QFT , the Kamikaze didnt happen because they are crazy fanatics . They know their fuels are only enough for them to reach there ,
drop w/e bombs they have , do w/e damage they can before the fuel run out , and do the most they can by crashing the plane into something.

@others , too lazy to quote 2 pages
Its not that Japanese military are stubborn , or they are fanatics that dont fear death.
They just value loyalty + doing their duties the best they can .
*Also , comparing starvation to nukes , have you even seeing the after effects of a atom bomb?

Have you ever seen a child starve to death while his parents watch, unable to help him?

What kind of a pointless question is that?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Have you ever seen a child starve to death while his parents watch, unable to help him? what kind of a pointless question is that?

Then read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions

I fail to see how it's worse than starving to death.

Maybe it's worse to die of poisoning over a period of several months than starvation and disease over a period of several months (or maybe not), but half the people were killed in the initial blast anyways.

the Kamikaze didnt happen because they are crazy fanatics .

In no way do i defend this luna, but try to take a look from a different point of view here.
To you its a crazy fanatic, to them its simply a way to express how patriotic they are.

As for the main topic here, i dont have any hates when it comes to a set group (ill stick with this terminology) allthough i may get annoyed by one at any time due to things being said or done, i simply leave it, pointless getting into an argument that would ruin my job, or cause an akward situation (i have enough of those at work)

Ketara wrote:

I'm not sure how "starve hundreds of thousands to death with blockades" is better than "kill hundreds of thousands with nukes".

It isn't. It's just as humane. I'm just disagreeing with the view that nukes were the only way.

The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.

Churchills idea of farmwives attacking nazis with frying pans springs to mind. As does the last stand of the SS soliders in Berlin. As does the Chinese guerillas. Modern Warfare is rife with such examples. Plus, Kamikaze is overexaggerated, as is the circumstances in which it took place. An account by a survivor springs to mind. He was a university student, and by no means an extremist, he just viewed it as doing what had to be done.

However such extreme behavior was especially (and in the case of kamikaze and bayonet charges, exclusively?) evident and really practiced only by the Japanese though so the rest is conjecture. You are correct in that citizens and underground guerillas would use less than worthy tactics but the fact of the matter is no other side has demonstrated the will to sacrifice themselves as the Japanese did in WW2.

In the right kind of circumstance, anyone can be led to believe in what they're doing is "right" or "justified". 9/11 for a more recent example; doesn't mean that their attitudes hold any real weight beyond face value though and more of a byproduct of social conditions. Lets not forget that Japanese used a ton of chemical weapons against China and pretty much raped and pillaged their neighbors until they poked at the wrong country.

Certainly, as I said, the use of the nuke was down to two factors, wanting to end the war quickly, and wanting to test their new superweapon.

The weapon was already tested so I don't really buy into that reason; it was moreso about ending the war and not prolonging the war effort which includes having to maintain a costly blockade which undoubtedly would've met much resistance.

I disagree. To put it bluntly, Japan cannot produce war material. They had spent about 90% of what they had remaining. Once a blockade was in place, they could keep sending up fighter planes. That is, until they ran out of fuel and the materials to construct such planes with. As my example with the Yamato above has already proven, they had little petroleum reserves remaining in any case. Starvation would have become rife in Japan, as they are completely incapable of feeding their population.

True they were down but they would never have considered themselves out. Look at North Korea and Cuba as examples of how resilient nations and their leaders can be or at the WW2 Japanese survivors found on remote islands. The Japanese still had a substantial amount of military infrastructure and their pride was nearly invincible; they would've kept fighting the enemy especially if he was just floating next door.

I'm not debating ethics here, and whether it would have been better than nukes, but eventually Japan WOULD have been forced to the negotiation table without a single allied soldier setting foot on Hokkaido. If they did not, they would have all died of starvation eventually. It may have taken another year of waiting, but once the Japanese were contained and isolated on the home isles, they would have no way to fight back. They would have lacked the material necessary. That is a fact.

I think you seriously underestimate the Japanese leadership and their people's mentality; these guys make Kim Jung Il look like Luke Skywalker than Darth Vader (hyperbole). It took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender. TWO. Thats just bonkers.

The only point of debate here is whether the blockade would have forced them to surrender. I believe it would have. You don't. You'd have to quote some damn good sources to get me to change my mind on this, as I know as a fact that a lot of what is taken for granted about Japan, shinto, and bushido is nothing more than urban myth, tales retold, and incredibly biased and shortsighted historians neglecting certain sources in order to support other more exaggerated claims.

Right, there's going to be bias everywhere and concepts like bushido was bastardized by the Japanese government and people themselves in order to be used as a way to control people and fight mindlessly and selflessly. However considering that you have a Japanese anime name, avatar, and signature --- its safe to say you're pretty biased in this topic as well, or at least can be perceived as such since it seems you underestimate the mentality the Japanese had.

EDITED IN: Speaking as someone who was born and lived in South Korea; Japanese relations with other Asian nations have always been rocky. They routinely deny and edit their textbooks in a fashion not too far from Iranian leaders' denial of the holocaust - this is one of many reasons why Japan/China/SK/etc can't seem to get along.

Two nukes, accepted use of desperate suicide attacks, surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese soldier's incredible resilience and courage (Iwo Jima anyone?), the fact that North Korea is still around, and the findings of Japanese WW2 survivors still ready to fight long after the conflict was over; these all point towards a blockade being just about useless in stopping the proud and armed Japanese from trying to rise up again and killing off gaijin. American top brass and leadership realized what kind of opponent they were dealing with and the last thing they wanted to do was prolong any kind of war effort especially since the Nazi's surrendered and Japan was on the other side of the world which presents a logistical nightmare.

A-bombing Japan was the lesser of the evils involved and just for the sake of mentioning it, American firebombing did more total damage than the two nuclear strikes. The Japanese were simply too tough and proud to end it by blockading and the manpower and infrastructure required for it was something that allied leaders of the time would readily drop in order for a quicker and less deadly end.

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

Yup.


My co-workers and I have come up with a new diet. Being engineers, we're fairly straightforward. It doesn't have any trick, like eat as much yogurt as you want or anything like that. It's actually pretty simple - we call it the F.L.O.T. diet, and it will work for anyone, even those with bad knees.

F.L.O.T. = First Law of Thermodynamics, which basically states that energy is conserved, and therefore, if you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight. I'm sure eating less is a novel concept, but really, anyone can do it, even people with bad knees.

Eat as much yogurt as you want?

That's a great idea!

I also believe a blockade of Imperial Japan would've done sweet FA. Distribution of food might have been a problem, but starvation, I'm not fully on board with that. I can tell you that in my own experience plants grow in Japan with absolutely no human help at all. Throw some orange seeds out the window and you'll have a tree popping up in no time. Also, the Japanese weren't beyond cannibalization. Late Edo/early restoration, when there was scarcity of food, it was time to eat Grampa. The term Mizunomi hyakusho - Water drinking peasant - is still used to this day to describe someone who can't afford food and only drinks water during the day because they're so poor.

The Japanese people are a team from cradle to grave. They do everything together. Everyone depends on one another for their survival. In my time here, I've met a lot of old timers who told me stories of the B-17s hammering their hometowns and then picking up the body parts. Or Bayonet/Tank charging practice in Grade 8 gym class. They were in it for the long haul. As long as the leadership towed the line, the populace would've as well. It still happens today. Ask a Japanese person about the whole loyalty to and beyond the grave and they'll tell you that you don't understand because you're not Japanese.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
@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.

EF you missed the point I think. You yourself admit that without Uncle Sam the Great Patriotic war would have gone on longer. Soooo that means by 1946 1947 Germany is rolling out the Jets to take out those Russian tanks. Dogma may be correct on the nuke angle, but I'm not so sure that by 1947/48 Germany couldn't have had a nuke by then.

Look... I mean this is all hindsight stuff right?

GG

I do also wonder if there wasn't the additional angle of the US showing the USSR that it was nuclear capable when it bombed Japan, it's highly cynical of me but I do wonder if there wasn't a posturing going on there as the two newly emerging superpowers started to give each other dirty looks.

Khornholio wrote:I also believe a blockade of Imperial Japan would've done sweet FA. Distribution of food might have been a problem, but starvation, I'm not fully on board with that. I can tell you that in my own experience plants grow in Japan with absolutely no human help at all. Throw some orange seeds out the window and you'll have a tree popping up in no time. Also, the Japanese weren't beyond cannibalization. Late Edo/early restoration, when there was scarcity of food, it was time to eat Grampa. The term Mizunomi hyakusho - Water drinking peasant - is still used to this day to describe someone who can't afford food and only drinks water during the day because they're so poor.

The Japanese people are a team from cradle to grave. They do everything together. Everyone depends on one another for their survival. In my time here, I've met a lot of old timers who told me stories of the B-17s hammering their hometowns and then picking up the body parts. Or Bayonet/Tank charging practice in Grade 8 gym class. They were in it for the long haul. As long as the leadership towed the line, the populace would've as well. It still happens today. Ask a Japanese person about the whole loyalty to and beyond the grave and they'll tell you that you don't understand because you're not Japanese.

Wouldn't mass cannibalization be indicitive of starvation?

(Also, I do recall some POWs being eaten by the Japanese. Starvation and disease killed somewhere around 2/3 of the Japanese army.)

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I do also wonder if there wasn't the additional angle of the US showing the USSR that it was nuclear capable when it bombed Japan, it's highly cynical of me but I do wonder if there wasn't a posturing going on there as the two newly emerging superpowers started to give each other dirty looks.

I think that was definately part of it, especially the 2nd one.

GG

I think it was a definite possibility as well. There was a lot of tension between the two over Europe.

JD21290 wrote:

the Kamikaze didnt happen because they are crazy fanatics .

In no way do i defend this luna, but try to take a look from a different point of view here.
To you its a crazy fanatic, to them its simply a way to express how patriotic they are.

No JD, read the whole paragraph especially the one that follows.
the "crazy fanatics" part was quoting what someone said earlier .

Thus why the paragraph follows to why i dont think they are fanatics.

I guess i should have written the sentence like:

" the kamikaze didnt happen because they are "crazy fanatics" " ( er does that make more sense i dunno... )

It's dang easy to sit in a chair saying we should or shouldn't have done something concerning one of the most Hellish periods in this planet's history.
I hope we don't have to see our theories on how to act in a similar situation put to the test in a repeat of that time, but if we did, I have the feeling that a lot of them would be proven way mistaken.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
(Also, I do recall some POWs being eaten by the Japanese army. Starvation and disease killed somewhere around 2/3 of the Japanese army.)

2/3 of the army or 2/3 of their casualties? Maybe in China and in other occupied areas, but if Japan were to have become an island fortress the military would have rationed the fighting men over everyone else. The elderly, although respected and revered, would more than likely have offered themselves to be eaten as they did in the late shogunate in the Tohoku region when typhoons came early and wiped out the crops. They eat bamboo, and it grows everywhere. Eating the weak would've been the last resort.

Nathan Explosion: Whoa. Eating the weak. Great song title.

However, industrially they would've been hooped as they don't have significant natural resources (metal, oil) to sustain their war machine. That was the whole point of invading South East Asia: the Oil in Brunei, the rubber in Indonesia, etc. They went south for resources.

On the point of the 2 Atomic bombs needed to wipe them out ( somewhere miles ago in the thread), I believe that is just playing up to their wartime mystique. After the first Atomic bomb, the Japanese government, at the bequest of the Emprah himself, did communicate their desire to surrender - albeit in flowery language that they were accustomed to using diplomatically that was muddled in translation. I believe it was a case of the certain Kanjis which have similar sounds being translated incorrectly at some point. There are many homonyms in Japanese which would certainly through any non-native Japanese speaker for a loop especially translating from a mores code . Of course, it something of moot point as the US was demanding unconditional surrender and the only answer they were looking for is "We surrender."

In essence, the Imperial Japanese downfall was underestimating the US's industrial power/resolve and not consolidating their attack on Hawaii. Their fate was pretty much sealed on 8 December 1941. Postwar Japanese were pretty surprised and the benevolence of the American occupying forces as they were expecting the US military to behave as they had in China. The Korean War was a blessing for the Japanese as it forced the US to rebuild Japan's infrastructure rapidly as a munitions factory for what they saw as a protracted war against Chinese Communism. When the peace treaty between the US and Japan was signed in 1952, they had become best buds. To my knowledge Russia and Japan have never signed a peace treaty in regards to WWII. The Japanese still contest the occupation/annexation of two islands off the north coast of Hokkaido. Nowadays, most of the Japanese renounce war altogether, but when the North Korean bogeyman makes its appearance on TV, a lot of them are ready to drop the gloves. But that's what the US is for.

2/3 of the dead. 2/3 of the army would have been really bad.

And I'm pretty sure there was a peace treaty between Japan and the USSR at some point. Japanese horses were eating Russian grass or something, and there was a scuffle that Japan lost and had them both ready to call a truce (the Red Army was a serious threat to to Manchuria, but Russia was far too concerned with Hitler to worry about that).

Emperors Faithful wrote: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)

Nah. There are probably two reasons the Soviet role is commonly minimized (in current textbooks, anyway).
1) In the US the larger war is considered equally split between Europe and the Pacific.
2) A failing Germany inevitably links the invasion of Europe to political maneuvering, and Americans tend to believe that politics have no place in war (they're wrong, of course).

JEB_Stuart wrote: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.

Uhh, the thing about more men than rifles was a WWI thing. You haven't been getting your facts from Enemy at the Gates, have you?

Meanwhile, supplies given under lend lease to the Soviets have been greatly exagerated in this thread. You're aware that three times the amount was given to the Brits as to the Soviets.

Then consider that the Russians received few guns or tanks, mostly receiving trucks and locomotives. These were very valuable and helped the Russians, but it's another thing entirely to say the Soviets would have lost if they didn't have US trucks.

And when I talked about pacify, I was talking about bringing the Russian war machine to an end. Capturing Moscow wouldn't simply end the war, Moscow just wasn't important like Paris was to France (ask Napoleon about that one). Russian military industry had largely relocated further east, or been newly built there. When the German logistics were such a mess in just reaching Moscow, how can you expect them to continue on well into Siberia?

focusedfire wrote: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.

Your analysis relies on a stereotype of the Soviet war machine that isn't true. When looking at total war you look at raw numbers, how many tanks, planes and field guns did each side produce. The USSR outproduced the Germans by themselves. Then you look at the end game for each nation, and there was no sensible way for the German military, built as it was, to continue east of Moscow, which they would have to manage to defeat the Russians.

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

No, not more murders. He got more killed through bad policies that starved people to death, but that isn't really the same thing. If it were, the British would take a high rank for their policies leading to famine in India, that killed tens of millions too. Ultimately bad policy, even policy as dumb as the Great Leap Forward, isn't the same thing as directly executing people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:And I'm pretty sure there was a peace treaty between Japan and the USSR at some point. Japanese horses were eating Russian grass or something, and there was a scuffle that Japan lost and had them both ready to call a truce (the Red Army was a serious threat to to Manchuria, but Russia was far too concerned with Hitler to worry about that).

There was peace, based largely on the fact that neither had much to gain from attacking the other. The Japanese were fully committed to China and hardly wanted to stretch their lines of supply further by engaging the Russians. The Russians had a bigger issue with that whole Germany thing.

When the Germans were defeated and the Russians turned their attention to land grabbing, they attacked the Japanese in Manchuria. The ending result, between a modern war economy that had developed a brutally efficient war machine, and what was basically an island nation with colonial ambitions, was one of the great stompings of the war.

Even in 1941 or 1942, in the wake of the early successes of Barabarossa, if the Japanese had completely changed their strategic aims* and shifted to attack the Soviets they wouldn't have gotten very far.

*And we are, of course, ignoring the cultural and political elements of Japan's Manifest Destiny. They saw themselves as rules of the Asian people, why they'd suddenly ignore that to attack Russia I do not know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Nah. There are probably two reasons the Soviet role is commonly minimized (in current textbooks, anyway).
1) In the US the larger war is considered equally split between Europe and the Pacific.
2) A failing Germany inevitably links the invasion of Europe to political maneuvering, and Americans tend to believe that politics have no place in war (they're wrong, of course).

It also took a long time for historians to get their heads around the scale of the Eastern front. Understandably, you had to treat anything coming out of Russia with a grain of salt, so Russian stories about the scale of tank battles on the Eastern front were treated with scepticism.

sebster wrote:No, not more murders. He got more killed through bad policies that starved people to death, but that isn't really the same thing. If it were, the British would take a high rank for their policies leading to famine in India, that killed tens of millions too. Ultimately bad policy, even policy as dumb as the Great Leap Forward, isn't the same thing as directly executing people.

Ah, on further research it was mostly famines. It looks like a little less than Hitler with the purges, but dear god the famines that guy caused. And they still exported grain during them, to save face.

I mean, I get what you're saying about the difference between ordering executions and bad policy, but still... there's a point where it's not a matter of just messing up any more.

sebster wrote: if the Japanese had completely changed their strategic aims* and shifted to attack the Soviets they wouldn't have gotten very far.

*And we are, of course, ignoring the cultural and political elements of Japan's Manifest Destiny. They saw themselves as rules of the Asian people, why they'd suddenly ignore that to attack Russia I do not know.

I wonder if the Japanese could have been bouyed up by thier success in their earlier war, where against everyone's expectations except their own, they literaly kicked the crap out of Russia. I leave that open to the table and someone with a better knowledge of history than me..

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ah, on further research it was mostly famines. It looks like a little less than Hitler with the purges, but dear god the famines that guy caused. And they still exported grain during them, to save face.

I mean, I get what you're saying about the difference between ordering executions and bad policy, but still... there's a point where it's not a matter of just messing up any more.

Yeah, that's true. It's why bodycount maths only get you so far. You either include all deaths, at which point your greatest monsters are going to be people with bad agricultural policy, or you don't include them at all, at which point you're ignoring the dead if they were killed through good intentions. Either way it's kind of ridiculous.

Meanwhile there's an in-built bias to people with bigger populations to kill off. I'd say Pol Pot is worse than any of them, but he doesn't make the list because he was working with a smaller group of victims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I wonder if the Japanese could have been bouyed up by thier success in the Sino-Soviet war, where against everyone's expectations except their own, they literaly kicked the crap out of Russia. I leave that open to the table and someone with a better knowledge of history than me..

Not sure. It's worth remembering that in addition to the stomping suffered by the Russian navy, there was a protacted land engagement. The forces of the Tsar were quite disfunctional and were beaten handily by the Japanese, but they soon reached a point where further advance was impossible, they didn't have the logistics to supply deeper and deeper assaults. Capabilities improved significantly by WWII, but not by enough to expand far into Siberia.

Culture was also a big problem, it's the same Japanese that suffered ludicrous casualties at the hands of US submarines as the Japanese just didn't understand attritional war, focussing their military on delivering decisive strikes. Looking at the extremes to which supply trains would be stretched over the Russian frontier, I could see mobile guerilla units having a grand old time with a Japanese invasion.

I crapped the bed in using the term Sino Soviet war. Actually it was the Russian - Japanese war.