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.

You must remember that the Tsarist forces were VASTLY different from the communist forces years later. The tsarist forces were a good 30-40 years behind every other country, Commies were far more advanced.

generalgrog wrote:
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

Jets are a non-issue no matter the theoretical timetable. Roughly 1400 ME-262s were built during the course of the war, but fewer than 200 were deployed due to various shortages (primarily fuel, but also pilots, and suitable runways). Its also worth remembering that the 262 made its first flight in 1941, so it wasn't as those it was some major end-game development.

Things were no so simple as some might wish at the end of WWII.

Let´s say that mainland Japan could be blockaded successfully in summer 45 as some posters say.
What do you propose to do with the IJA still in China or most southeast Asia? Leave them in place pillaging the countryside and turning into bandits and robbers as discipline disappeared or sacrifice thousands of troops to root them out at a time when already Australia was complaining about wasted lives in a war already won?

Japan Front in summer 45

Unfortunately the nuclear bomb was the less evil option in a very cruel war.
Also the IJA folded in front of the Soviets because a million war forged veterans were transfered from Europe to the Manchurian frontier. Prior to Victory Europe the forces holding the frontier were as starved and equipment lacking as their Japanese enemies.

M.

sebster wrote:
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.

The discrepancy between the Japanese army and, well, every single other army involved in WWII (except the Italians) is one of the things that many people fail to appreciate when considering them a significant threat to the Soviets. The most obvious comparative line can be drawn between the the Soviet T-34 and the Japanese Type 4 Chi-To. The Type 4 only began production in 1945, and was far inferior to anything being produced by the other forces involved (except, possibly, the Sherman). Had the Japanese invaded in, say, 1942, they would have used tanks like the Type 97 which was armed with a gun that couldn't penetrate the armor of a Sherman, let alone a T-34.

The Japanese were a formidable naval power, which also possessed a good deal of staying power in island defense where entrenchment could effectively counter the Allied technological advantage. However, on land they were nearly useless.

So many (too many) are posting on and on about how dropping the atom bomb on a city or two was the 'lesser evil' but here are two questions for you.

1) Why was there no warning or demonstration?

2) Would YOU do it?

Faced with an incredible number of casualities among my forces and unknown number of civilians killed among the enemy and a prolongation of the war with unexpected results? Yup, I would do it.
M.

*puke*
Would you yourself order the cold-blooded killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents? Push the button yourself? BTW, you have not answered the first question.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So many (too many) are posting on and on about how dropping the atom bomb on a city or two was the 'lesser evil' but here are two questions for you.

1) Why was there no warning or demonstration?

2) Would YOU do it?

1) What warning did you want? They only had two bombs. Use one as a warning, drop the other one and then what? You're back to having to invade, the worst of both worlds.

2) Don't know. I'm glad to never be in a situation, and it's a big reason I'm not running for US President. To turn it around, would you order troops to invade, leading to unknown casualties when you had a weapon available that could end the war?


The thing is, they were working with limited knowledge of the situation. They certainly believed casualties would be horrendous (I've been told by a pretty reliable fellow that the purple hearts manufactured in anticipation of the invasion were only finally used up in the first gulf war), and every day the war drags on countless more wil die in China. Why aren't you as outraged about Dresden? At least there was real, meaningful good to come out of the a-bombs, what good came out of Dresden? What about the switch to strategic bombing of Berlin? Or Stalin stopping at the gates of Warsaw, happy for the Nazis to slaughter the resistance (knowing that the people who took up arms against the Nazis would be the same ones to take up arms against the Communists)?

1) They had two bombs so they dropped BOTH?!?

BTW, there are STILL reserves of those purple hearts.

Emperors Faithful wrote:*puke*
Would you yourself order the cold-blooded killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents? Push the button yourself? BTW, you have not answered the first question.

This is too easy, I already knew you were going to answer that. You are taking my decision in a vacuum. I stated:

Faced with an incredible number of casualities among my forces and unknown number of civilians killed among the enemy and a prolongation of the war with unexpected results?

I fail to see how this is cold-blooded killing. If we are discussing WWII not an alternative scenario my forces are already killing thousands of innocents each day, my military commanders gave me this new super weapon that will end the war at the cost of two cities, now is my job to decided which option is the less evil... there is no contest I´ll happily order the killing of 250.000 civilians in exchange for at the very least that number of my troops and incidentally the whole population of the areas they´ll be invading in a few weeks if I don´t order this super weapon use.
As for your first question, I don´t have an answer, perhaps I´ll search it later.

M.

...happily?

BTW, so that we don't continue to choke up this post, how bout you move over to the WWII thread I just started?

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) They had two bombs so they dropped BOTH?!?

Yeah, they didn't surrender after the first one so they dropped another.

And you didn't answer my question. Why the fixation on dropping the bomb, and not Dresden or the firebombing of Tokyo? They killed as many civilians without having the clear outcomes.

No they didn't! That is a profound lie! They were dropped seqeuntially. It wasn't toast-Hiroshima-give-'em-a-chance-to-surrender-then-toast-Nagasaki, it was one after the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and in answer to your question (didn't know it was a question) I focus on The atomic bombs becuase pretty much everyone knows about those and they were more 'sudden' than dresden or tokyo. (While ALL were targeted for sheer-scale destruction instead of purely military)

Redbeard wrote:

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.

Tell me that when you're seventy and live in their shoes. Until then STFU.

Frazzled wrote:
Tell me that when you're seventy and live in their shoes. Until then STFU.

Maybe if they weren't carrying so much weight, their knees wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be able to move a bit better. You seem a bit touchy on this one...

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Tell me that when you're seventy and live in their shoes. Until then STFU.

Maybe if they weren't carrying so much weight, their knees wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be able to move a bit better. You seem a bit touchy on this one...

1. yep, I'm touchy on this one.
2. Bad knees can result from a whole lot of things. Indeed, being an athlete in your younger days can turn you into a defacto hobbler at 40.
3. Its not an excuse but a reality of living. Getting older impacts your stamina levels and all those aches and pains start slowing you up.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Bad knees can result from a whole lot of things. Indeed, being an athlete in your younger days can turn you into a defacto hobbler at 40.

I understand that. I've got hip problems and I'm 36. But, I've lost 30 pounds so far this year, and along with those extra pounds I've also reduced the number of days when I feel hip pain.

This wasn't a huge lifestyle change either. We bought a kitchen scale - so we know how much we're eating now. Proper serving sizes will do wonders for you. And, cutting out on excess snacks. That's about all I changed. I have dessert every night - but one scoop of ice cream instead of two. I still drink proper (non-lite) beer, put bacon on just about anything I can, and I don't have any forbidden food.

3. Its not an excuse but a reality of living. Getting older impacts your stamina levels and all those aches and pains start slowing you up.

Hence the concept of eating less than you use. No one is doubting that you slow as you age. But are you reducing your diet to compensate for the lowered activity level? When I was still growing and active, I'd eat a box of cookies at a time and show nothing for it. Seconds with dinner every night, you know the story. But there comes a point where that just doesn't work anymore - you have no where else to grow but out. I'm not Michael Phelps, burning 5000 calories per workout - so I don't need to eat like him.

Whatever man, it's America, you're free to eat your way to being a lardass, and you're free to defend your right to do so. But, this is the thread on intolerance, and I'm free to judge you on those choices too.

You guys are getting off topic. This is the WW2 thread.

No this is the intolerance thread. The WWII is thataway.

As you noted, you're 36. You literally don't know what you're talking about when it comes to older people. I'm not meaning that as an attack, but as a statement of truth.

Frazzled wrote:
As you noted, you're 36. You literally don't know what you're talking about when it comes to older people. I'm not meaning that as an attack, but as a statement of truth.

A statement of "truth" with no research behind it and no evidence to support your assertion. I probably know more about the nutritional needs of the geriatric than you do, as my wife reads out-loud as she studies to be a dietitian, including the classes on senior health and nutritional needs.

Are you suggesting that older people need to eat more calories than they burn in order to... do what exactly? Because the only claim I've made is that you can lose weight by burning more calories than you eat.

Orkeosaurus wrote:You guys are getting off topic. This is the WW2 thread.

Ha Ha

GG

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
As you noted, you're 36. You literally don't know what you're talking about when it comes to older people. I'm not meaning that as an attack, but as a statement of truth.

A statement of "truth" with no research behind it and no evidence to support your assertion. I probably know more about the nutritional needs of the geriatric than you do, as my wife reads out-loud as she studies to be a dietitian, including the classes on senior health and nutritional needs.

Are you suggesting that older people need to eat more calories than they burn in order to... do what exactly? Because the only claim I've made is that you can lose weight by burning more calories than you eat.

Not diet. Actually living-you know exercise. EDITED FOR BEING OVERLY HARSH.

I'll just restate myself here. Unless you actually know people of this age or are of this age, then your informaiton base is theoretical at best, and does not take into account a plethora of real world factors.

This thread is so far off topic it's folded space.

Frazzled wrote:
I'll just restate myself here. Unless you actually know people of this age or are of this age, then your informaiton base is theoretical at best, and does not take into account a plethora of real world factors.

Well, I'm not an orphan, so I do actually know people of this age. I actually know people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and, until recently, 90s.

It seems to me that you're making excuses for why people should be overweight. I've heard them all - you don't have a nutritionist in your house without hearing the stories. The only two options when it comes to this situation are eating less, or putting on blinders. (Exercising more is not a solution, oddly enough. Recent studies have shown that exercise, even lots of exercise, without dietary changes won't lose you weight, and may lead to weight gain as you eat more to compensate).

Anyone can change their diet. The old, the young, the infirm. Saying that I don't know the person in question doesn't change that fact. It may not be easy. There might be cultural issues involved. There may be financial issues involved. But anyone can do it if they want to. It's that part that's the real issue - unless a person wants to effect change, they're not going to.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No they didn't! That is a profound lie! They were dropped seqeuntially. It wasn't toast-Hiroshima-give-'em-a-chance-to-surrender-then-toast-Nagasaki, it was one after the other.

Nah, the first bomb was dropped August 6, the second bomb August 9.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and in answer to your question (didn't know it was a question) I focus on The atomic bombs becuase pretty much everyone knows about those and they were more 'sudden' than dresden or tokyo. (While ALL were targeted for sheer-scale destruction instead of purely military)

Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.

sebster wrote:
Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.

So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )

Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'll just restate myself here. Unless you actually know people of this age or are of this age, then your informaiton base is theoretical at best, and does not take into account a plethora of real world factors.

Well, I'm not an orphan, so I do actually know people of this age. I actually know people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and, until recently, 90s.

90s, pah, those are just kids.

It seems to me that you're making excuses for why people should be overweight. I've heard them all - you don't have a nutritionist in your house without hearing the stories.

No I just realize the real world gets in the way a lot more than people realize. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The only two options when it comes to this situation are eating less, or putting on blinders. (Exercising more is not a solution, oddly enough. Recent studies have shown that exercise, even lots of exercise, without dietary changes won't lose you weight, and may lead to weight gain as you eat more to compensate).

Agreed, often the case.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

sebster wrote:
Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.

So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )

Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.

Yea Luna, thats standard policy.
US policy was Massive Retaliation until Russia had enough nuckes to fight back. Its still Massive Retaliation (capitalized as its a defined term) for everyone else, including the Chinese. MANY were surprised that Afghanistan was not hit with at least tacticals over Al Qaeda locations.

LunaHound wrote:

sebster wrote:
Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.

So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )

Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.

Its worthy to note that even after the official surrender, several Japanese military units continued to fight long after.

If China and the USA went to war it'd be a conflict of apocalyptic proportions and that example is pretty bad in the context of the discussion since no one other than the USA had such weapons in WW2. Nuking Japan, remember it took two nukes and the Soviet invasion for them to officially surrender, was the less deadly and evil option than mounting a mainland invasion. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight and were prepared to fight to the last man; it took weapons out of the pages of science fiction to bring them into reality. In fact several higher level positions in their leadership were still itching to fight and die after the bombings and news of the Soviet invasion.

On another tangent; speaking as a South Korean its pretty revolting how the Japanese have treated this time in history since they routinely deny and edit their textbooks to paint their heinous warcrimes in a more suitable light. Rape of Nanking is a particularly heated example; "comfort women" my ass - more like rape victims that were tortured and killed (and those are just the lucky ones...being a POW under the Empire of Japan you'd be subject to despicable accounts of 'medical research' where people were injected with things like the Bubonic Plague just to see how humans tick). As a people the Japanese were some of the most proud and patriotic of any other group - these guys were the top dogs in the Pacific and had an impeccable war record...being beaten is just something their mentality handled by fighting to the death rather than facing reality.

The Japanese were ruthless, these are the guys who launched a surprise attack in the month of X-mas, unleashed chemical and biological weapons, raped and pillaged, fought to the last man, Kamikaze'd, bayonet charged, etc --- any other action other than nuking them would've inflicted more deaths and hardships than nukes and wouldn't have brought them to surrender. And like 'Graves of the Fireflies' showed; conventional bombings like allied firebombing over the wooden houses of Japan did more damage than their WMD counterparts.

And on the subject of the hypothetical, I'd rather the USA be the only country to launch nukes in aggression than not. Nuking Japan showed the world the power and destruction of such weapons and in the status quo we have missiles that make the 'fat man' look thin and those two bombings have helped keep the world in check from MAD. Its a gakky deal no matter how you slice it but I can't really think of a better context to showcase such weaponry since it undoubtedly would've been used eventually if it wasn't used against Japan.

Frazzled wrote:MANY were surprised that Afghanistan was not hit with at least tacticals over Al Qaeda locations.

Um, who were these many? Because that's literally the worst idea I've ever heard. And at least tactical weapons? What, did someone want the military to use a MIRV?

Strategic level nukes.