• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

As a non-American: How do you view the outcome of WW2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Kyuju incident was a handful of junior officers lead by a 22 yr old major. It was doomed to fail and being after the bombs completely irrelevant to the discussion. The miltary especially the "Big Six", government nor Emperor didn't support not surrending. I say they wanted that before the bombs.
Also if I remember correctly Japan had zero or next to no navy..Therefore no abilities to project their power beyond their island especially during an sustained Allied bombing campaign...Therefore...Soon to be completely raised to the ground. They would have surrendered without invasion or the bombs.

American Japanese propaganda was racist to say the least. They didn't lock up German or Italian citizens taking their property as they did to those of Japanese descent.

And a very large number of the casualties from the bombs weren't killed instantly. They melted horribly, the skin sliding off their bodies. If they were lucky their deaths were from cancer or radiation poisoning down the road. Its nice to think an atomic bomb is a quick painless death...It really isnt for most.

My point is if you look at just a few of the historical events I mentioned, things are much less black and white than you painted them in your first post.

There was a very real violate split on the subject of surrender, you saying you believe the Emperor felt a certain way completely disregards the back and forth and in-fighting that actually took place. The Kyūjō incident is only one example of that extreme back and forth. If you can't see why a coup d'état happening AFTER the bombs were dropped might be important, that's on you mate.

The atomic bombs were conceived for use against "white" Nazi Germany for the most part. They were not built out of a secret racist agenda specifically targeting the Japanese. There was absolutely xenophobia and xenophobic propaganda, but all sides were guilty of it. As horrible (and racist) as the internment camps were, you trying to tie them to the atomic bombs is you jumping to conclusions you can't back up.

Japan didn't need a functioning Navy to be a horrific threat, all the entrenched island battles the US fought proved that again and again. The Japanese leadership knew that and absolutely planned on using their people as fodder.

It's weird how you seem morally ok with starving millions of people, and that's not a war crime to you, but vaporizing people AND cancer combined is tipping point for a real war crime.

Hint: Starving millions of innocent people AND using the atomic bombs are both war crimes.

You've effectively conceded it might have still taken a war crime and potentially millions of starvation related deaths to make Japan surrender, you just disagree on the specific war crime they used, which is a pointless splitting of hairs.
 
Like what?


The german offensive slowed in winter 41 and the germans weren't able to take moscow. The soviets started a winter offensive in 41 and pushed back the wehrmacht especially in the middle part of the front.

The german offensive practically stood still in early 42 and they were loosing on all fronts by the end of 42. Lend Lease didn't arrive in large enough numbers to help the soviets until late 42/early 43 at wich point the front was already pushed back to ukraine

The Germans could've taken Moscow but Hitler made a terrible strategic call by diverting a large component of his forces south to the Ukraine. How things may be different if that hadn't happened...
 

diehard

Fleer
Like what?


The german offensive slowed in winter 41 and the germans weren't able to take moscow. The soviets started a winter offensive in 41 and pushed back the wehrmacht especially in the middle part of the front.

The german offensive practically stood still in early 42 and they were loosing on all fronts by the end of 42. Lend Lease didn't arrive in large enough numbers to help the soviets until late 42/early 43 at wich point the front was already pushed back to ukraine

No. Their offensive slowed in August '42 and reached its pinnacle in November '42. This was all at Stalingrad. They didn't start losing ground until August '43 because (surprise!) it was too much to fight on two fronts.

"On 8 November, substantial units from Luftflotte 4 were withdrawn to combat the Allied landings in North Africa. The German air arm found itself spread thinly across Europe, struggling to maintain its strength in the other southern sectors of the Soviet-German front.[Note 5] The Soviets began receiving material assistance from the American government under the Lend-Lease program. During the last quarter of 1942, the U.S. sent the Soviet Union 45,000 t (50,000 short tons) of explosives and 230,000 t (250,000 short tons) of aviation fuel."

Lend-Lease didn't help? Let's see what Russians said
"I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were ”discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. "

Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war

On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition.
 

android

Theoretical Magician
My point is if you look at just a few of the historical events I mentioned, things are much less black and white than you painted them in your first post.

There was a very real violate split on the subject of surrender, you saying you believe the Emperor felt a certain way completely disregards the back and forth and in-fighting that actually took place. The Kyūjō incident is only one example of that extreme back and forth. If you can't see why a coup d'état happening AFTER the bombs were dropped might be important, that's on you mate.

The atomic bombs were conceived for use against "white" Nazi Germany for the most part. They were not built out of a secret racist agenda specifically targeting the Japanese. There was absolutely xenophobia and xenophobic propaganda, but all sides were guilty of it. As horrible (and racist) as the internment camps were, you trying to tie them to the atomic bombs is you jumping to conclusions you can't back up.

Japan didn't need a functioning Navy to be a horrific threat, all the entrenched island battles the US fought proved that again and again. The Japanese leadership knew that and absolutely planned on using their people as fodder.

It's weird how you seem morally ok with starving millions of people, and that's not a war crime to you, but vaporizing people AND cancer combined is tipping point for a real war crime.

Hint: Starving millions of innocent people AND using the atomic bombs are both war crimes.

You've effectively conceded it might have still taken a war crime and potentially millions of starvation related deaths to make Japan surrender, you just disagree on the specific war crime they used, which is a pointless splitting of hairs.
No a blockade nor bombing would not have been a war crime if Japan wasn't surrending. It was war. Also I never said to bomb innocents civilians...Miltary targets.. you know.. not cities like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This was a country on its knees..No navy, American bombers flew basically unchallenged. No oil production. A blockade was all that was needed.

Truman dropped the bomb for two reasons. One to scare the Russians and two to see what it would do...It was a fucking experiment. They dropped the 2nd one to solely see if plutonium would work too.. he had a new toy and wanted to use it and that's disgusting. Why didn't they hit military targets...They wanted to see if their city killer worked.
 

Keasar

Member
Swedish. My country didn't do much active action during the war, we kept ourselves on the sidelines and came out alright for it without the major infrastructure damage which in turn helped us speedbuild a industry in a post-war continent.

Plus it left us with major guilt and regret over the years for not actually officially helping (even though we did a lot under the table to undermine the Germans).

As for Americas actions, glad they joined, albeit a bit late and required another kick to the hornets nest just like in WW1 (the sinking of the Lusitania followed later by the re-deployment of the German uboat armada) and while it tipped the scales heavily on the western front in Europe, I think it didn't change much of the outcome of the war considering the wave of Russians just pouring in from the East. The nuclear bomb will still be a very debated issue, there isn't much that can be done as this point but to speculate. Japan could have gone all out to the last man making a final war of the Japanese main land very costly for both countries. There is also the chance that the economic strain of war would have made Japan buckle as well, they did however hold quite a bit of the pacific ocean so resources could have been aplenty to extract for them to prolong the war. It's hard to tell at this point.
 
No a blockade nor bombing would not have been a war crime if Japan wasn't surrending. It was war. Also I never said to bomb innocents civilians...Miltary targets.. you know.. not cities like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This was a country on its knees..No navy, American bombers flew basically unchallenged. No oil production. A blockade was all that was needed.

Well about that...

After the fall of Okinawa, the command of the Second General Army was relocated to Hiroshima. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, most of the military units, logistical arms, and command staff of the Second General Army were killed. Together with the Fifth Division, Fifty-Ninth Army, and other combat divisions in the city who were also hit, an estimated 20,000 Japanese combatants were killed.
 

Xando

Member
No. Their offensive slowed in August '42 and reached its pinnacle in November '42. This was all at Stalingrad. They didn't start losing ground until August '43 because (surprise!) it was too much to fight on two fronts.

That's not true. Germans already lost ground in early 42.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Soviet_counter-offensive:_Winter_1941

782px-Eastern_Front_1941-12_to_1942-05.png


Now the germans took back some land in the south (up to stalingrad) but they never made up the losses in the middle front districts.
 

EVOL 100%

Member
It was a fucked up situation which was inevitably going to end in an ugly way - I can see why the Americans used the nukes.
 

diehard

Fleer
That's not true. Germans already lost ground in early 42.
That happens in war, the front can change. It doesn't change the fact that at their pinnacle, they pushed into Stalingrad and reached the Volga river in August of '42. Not to mention none of it really matters as i have provided quotes and evidence that both Lend-Lease and the Western front effected the Eastern front.
 

Wvrs

Member
British here. WW2 is fascinating as a non-American because it started as a war between the last of the old empires (ourselves included) and finished with them ruined forever to the benefit of America and Russia.

A necessary turning point in world history. With respect to the bomb, Japan was already getting annihilated by fire bombing anyway. I'm not sure if Nagasaki was necessary after Hiroshima, but the most difficult thing about studying history is getting clear of hindsight and getting into the heads of men who lived in totally different, relatively horrific times.
 
No a blockade nor bombing would not have been a war crime if Japan wasn't surrending. It was war. Truman dropped the bomb for two reasons. One to scare the Russians and two to see what it would do...It was a fucking experiment. They dropped the 2nd one to solely see if plutonium would work too.. he had a new toy and wanted to use it and that's disgusting

How is killing higher numbers of innocent civilians via starvation a better solution (or totally not a war crime) than killing lower numbers of innocent civilians via atomic fire and cancer?

And all the various sides measured the results of new weapons on enemy soldiers and/or civilian populations, it was a common practice, especially with bombings. How does that part of it prove conclusively that was one of the "only two reasons"(your words) it was done?

To me, it seems like you're taking a hyper-complex historical event and stripping of it context you don't like.
 
No a blockade nor bombing would not have been a war crime if Japan wasn't surrending. It was war. Also I never said to bomb innocents civilians...Miltary targets.. you know.. not cities like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This was a country on its knees..No navy, American bombers flew basically unchallenged. No oil production. A blockade was all that was needed.

Truman dropped the bomb for two reasons. One to scare the Russians and two to see what it would do...It was a fucking experiment. They dropped the 2nd one to solely see if plutonium would work too.. he had a new toy and wanted to use it and that's disgusting. Why didn't they hit military targets...They wanted to see if their city killer worked.
If you don't want your civilians bombed, don't put your military targets between them.

And starving a nation to death is just as horrible. Or regular bombing. Or fire bombing. The nukes were used and there were very valid reasons for it at that time. Let's hope it's the last time also.

That's not true. Germans already lost ground in early 42.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Soviet_counter-offensive:_Winter_1941

Now the germans took back some land in the south (up to stalingrad) but they never made up the losses in the middle front districts.
Germany had to remove troops from the Eastern Front when the Allies landed in Italy. At that moment the Germans stopped the battle for Kursk and went full defensive.

The Soviets probably would have won anyway, but it made it easier and did have an effect.
 

Xando

Member
That happens in war, the front can change. It doesn't change the fact that at their pinnacle, they pushed into Stalingrad and reached the Volga river in August of '42. Not to mention none of it really matters as i have provided quotes and evidence that both Lend-Lease and the Western front effected the Eastern front.

Nice shitfting goal posts.

I said the war was already lost when germans didn't blitzkrieg russia. Even if they had taken stalingrad they would have lost because the northern and central part of the front were failing.

Even if you look at lend lease the british lend lease in late 41 was much more vital than american lend lease coming in mid/late 42 because it came in at time where the war wasn't decided:

In June 1941, within weeks of the German invasion of the USSR, the first British aid convoy set off along the dangerous Arctic sea routes to Murmansk, arriving in September. It was carrying 40 Hawker Hurricanes along with 550 mechanics and pilots of No. 151 Wing to provide immediate air defence of the port and train Soviet pilots. After escorting Soviet bombers and scoring 14 kills for one loss, and completing the training of pilots and mechanics, No 151 Wing left in November, their mission complete.[46] The convoy was the first of many convoys to Murmansk and Archangelsk in what became known as the Arctic convoys, the returning ships carried the gold that the USSR was using to pay the US.

By the end of 1941, early shipments of Matilda, Valentine, and Tetrarch tanks represented only 6.5% of total Soviet tank strength, but over 25% of medium and heavy tanks in service with the Red Army.[47][48] First seeing action with the 138 Independent Tank Battalion in the Volga Reservoir on 20 November 1941,[49] Lend-Lease tanks constituted between 30 and 40% of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941.[50][51]


Did american lend lease help? Sure. Helped defeating the germans faster. Did it decide the war? no.
It simply came in too late to be war deciding.


Germany had to remove troops from the Eastern Front when the Allies landed in Italy. At that moment the Germans stopped the battle for Kursk and went full defensive.

The Soviets probably would have won anyway, but it made it easier and did have an effect.

That was in 43. The war was long lost for germany at that point
 
The Germans could've taken Moscow but Hitler made a terrible strategic call by diverting a large component of his forces south to the Ukraine. How things may be different if that hadn't happened...

The diversion south resulted in the removal of 500-600,000 soviet troops from the successful operation. It also forced a Soviet Army Group near Moscow to desperately attack in an effort to relieve forces surrounding Kiev, taking heavy casualties in the process.

If Germany attacks Moscow, hundreds of thousands of soldiers from Ukraine escape, and the Germans push into the fresh defenders near Moscow instead of worn down defenders. If they succeed in reaching the city, they get to have the joy of experiencing a 12 month early version of Stalingrad with brutal street fighting and the units prepared for the Soviet winter counter attack attempting to cut off the Germans in the city, then getting reinforced by the forces that didn't get eliminated from the southern diversion.

It wasn't a terrible strategic call. The destruction of Soviet armies was always a far more important goal than taking any specific cities.
 
As a Brit the outcome of WWII was about as good as we could get.

The British had one of the most advances and mechanised armies in the world at the start of the war and we got beaten. After Dunkirk it would have taken a lot to try and take back Europe by ourselves.

In my opinion the two most important events for the war in Europe were the Battle for Britain and the Battle of Kursk. The RAF were stretched to the breaking point and if they had failed, there is a good chance SeaLion would have happened. Whether it would be a success is debatable.

Kursk could have reversed the Eastern Fronts fortunes.

The US arrival into Europe allowed us to liberate Western Europe and stop Stalin from taking all of Europe. There is no doubt in my mind that it was always Stalin's intention to either conquer or install communist governments throughout Europe.

In the ideal world the Allies would have kicked Stalin out too, but that was asking for a war that I don't think the Allies could have won.
 

diehard

Fleer
Nice shitfting goal posts.

I said the war was already lost when germans didn't blitzkrieg russia. Even if they had taken stalingrad they would have lost because the northern and central part of the front were failing.

The War wasn't over when America entered it. Anyone who says it is simply does not know what they are talking about. Your opinion (thats what it is) that it was somehow over because Russia was fighting back from losing 100,000 square miles of country is fucking asinine.

I literally provided quotes that Lend-lease saved Russia from being defeated from actual Soviets. Again, your opinion on what it provided and when it was means dick.

Literally ouchere saying the war was over while Germany was still taking more ground on what Stalin considered to be the most important city to hold sans Moscow.
 

Xando

Member
The War wasn't over when America entered it. Anyone who says it is simply does not know what they are talking about. Your opinion (thats what it is) that it was somehow over because Russia was fighting back from losing 100,000 square miles of country is fucking asinine.

I literally provided quotes that Lend-lease saved Russia from being defeated from actual Soviets. Again, your opinion on what it provided and when it was means dick.

Literally ouchere saying the war was over while Germany was still taking more ground on what Stalin considered to be the most important city to hold.

Once again you put words in my mouth i never said.
I never said the war was over in 41. I said it was decided when germans didn't blitzkrieg russia.

Germans would have never won a war with the soviet union if it took longer than 6 months simply because the sheer manpower, resources and mobilisation the soviets are capable of amassing.


Your whole argument basically boils down to soviets would have lost the war without american lend lease. I provided you actual data that this isn't true and now you start with some kind of passive aggressive attitude.
 

Firemind

Member
Once again you put words in my mouth i never said.
I never said the war was over in 41. I said it was decided when germans didn't blitzkrieg russia.
What does this even mean? Russia isn't Poland. One does not simply blitzkrieg Russia.
 

Xando

Member
What does this even mean? Russia isn't Poland. One does not simply blitzkrieg Russia.

That's why barbarossa was so stupid. Germans would have had to crush the red army within a year or they would always lose.

Hitlers first plan thought they could beat the russians within 4 to 6 weeks because they only had 50 to 75 "good divisions".
 

diehard

Fleer
Once again you put words in my mouth i never said.
I never said the war was over in 41. I said it was decided when germans didn't blitzkrieg russia.

Germans would have never won a war with the soviet union if it took longer than 6 months simply because the sheer manpower, resources and mobilisation the soviets are capable of amassing.


Your whole argument basically boils down to soviets would have lost the war without american lend lease. I provided you actual data that this isn't true and now you start with some kind of passive aggressive attitude.

What exactly was decided in '41? That Germany wasn't going to completely defeat Russia? What about .. all of Europe? Germany's slowing advances in the East somehow means that suddenly they collapse and relinquish all that had gained on the Western front? That's also completely ignoring the diverted resources from the Eastern front by the Nazi's to North Africa.

Nowhere in the data you provided was there any good information about the efficacy of Lend-Lease. How the number of tanks provided somehow counteract the quotes about the importance (mainly food like SPAM) provided to the Soviets i have no idea.
 

Nere

Member
The diversion south resulted in the removal of 500-600,000 soviet troops from the successful operation. It also forced a Soviet Army Group near Moscow to desperately attack in an effort to relieve forces surrounding Kiev, taking heavy casualties in the process.

If Germany attacks Moscow, hundreds of thousands of soldiers from Ukraine escape, and the Germans push into the fresh defenders near Moscow instead of worn down defenders. If they succeed in reaching the city, they get to have the joy of experiencing a 12 month early version of Stalingrad with brutal street fighting and the units prepared for the Soviet winter counter attack attempting to cut off the Germans in the city, then getting reinforced by the forces that didn't get eliminated from the southern diversion.

It wasn't a terrible strategic call. The destruction of Soviet armies was always a far more important goal than taking any specific cities.

Yes but instead of Moscow, Hitler wanted to capture St. Petersburg which at that time was named Leningrad and thought that capturing the city with the name of the founder of Russian communism would have a great effect on their morale. Same reason why he attacked Stalingrad later on just because of the name. So in essence he still wanted to capture a specific city just a different one. Also remember that the Soviet High Command had warned Stalin for the danger of capture of Moscow and he still refused to move the headquarters, so if Moscow was captured along with Stalin and the Soviet High Command the war on the eastern front might had taken a very different turn. So it really wasn't just a city but something higher.
 

Ushay

Member
I think the USSR did a lot of the lifting (they also took magnitudes more casualties), but the propaganda/media machine spun things the other way around.

USA entered the conflict very late imo, they should have intervened earlier. They did well to stop Russia from encroaching further into mainland Europe (as Brit I am grateful).

Dropping the atomic bomb was reckless and unnecessary, the aftermath (to this day) speaks volumes in that regard. It was an unanswered war crime no matter how you dissect the circumstances. The Germans answered for theirs, why didn't the Americans?

There are so many forgotten pains from that era, and looking at the world today you can see how much 'justice' there really is in the world.
 
They came in late and helped a bunch in Europe once the real offensive began. Toppling Hitler wasn't down to 1 country but a effect of everyone from all sides breaking the Reich. America played a big part propping up western Europe forces while Russia pushed in from the east. It would have been nice if they helped sooner but whatever.

Japan and the nukes is muddier. Personally not as familiar we the Pacific front. I kind of think someone would use the bomb eventually as a show of force. It not then, then another war / conflict. In the end it prevented a messy pro longed conflict with Japan and scared most powers to avoid using nukes in warfare so i guess in the end it was probably justified but that doesn't mean i have to like it.
 
I think the USSR did a lot of the lifting (they also took magnitudes more casualties), but the propaganda/media machine spun things the other way around.

The casualties the Soviet Union took as not an indication of how much they were against Hitler until he turned on them. Nazi Germany were in fact their most important ally.

USA entered the conflict very late imo, they should have intervened earlier. They did well to stop Russia from encroaching further into mainland Europe (as Brit I am grateful).

There were only 6 months between the Soviet and American entries into WW2. Why are the Soviets immune from criticism in this regard ? If you want to have a late declaration of war there is the Soviet war against Japan. At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviets would declare war on Japan 3 months after the defeat of Nazi Germany.

The Germans surrendered on May 8th. The Soviets declared war on Japan on August 9th.

edit: Technically the Soviets were already in WW2 as they had invaded Poland to help Hitler in 1939 but that does not count I guess.

Dropping the atomic bomb was reckless and unnecessary, the aftermath (to this day) speaks volumes in that regard. It was an unanswered war crime no matter how you dissect the circumstances. The Germans answered for theirs, why didn't the Americans?

Because it was not a war crime.
 
A few people mentioning the atomic bomb so...

...As Brit, I always found the use of an atomic bomb morally reprehensible and it just doesn't sit right with me because if it were to happen to us, and generations of families were left devastated, I would feel the exact same. I think people would feel the same so I don't agree with the double standard. Not justified imo, and I feel people have been always told 'there was no other way' that they think it was the only alternative so that they're convinced.
 
I see the bombs as a scumbag move that fucked up countless lives for generations.

Not a big fan of America in general. Their military actions since then are almost always some disgraceful shit.

Sooner someone else becomes the superpower the better imo.
 
No a blockade nor bombing would not have been a war crime if Japan wasn't surrending. It was war. Also I never said to bomb innocents civilians...Miltary targets.. you know.. not cities like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This was a country on its knees..No navy, American bombers flew basically unchallenged. No oil production. A blockade was all that was needed.

Truman dropped the bomb for two reasons. One to scare the Russians and two to see what it would do...It was a fucking experiment. They dropped the 2nd one to solely see if plutonium would work too.. he had a new toy and wanted to use it and that's disgusting. Why didn't they hit military targets...They wanted to see if their city killer worked.

Korean here. My understanding was always that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases and production centers. Japanese mixed up military operations and civilian centers in thinking that Americans wouldn't napalm innocent civilians as much.

The bomb was dropped to keep Russians off of Japan. Leaving them in Korea. Glad US joined eventually to liberate us from Japan - they were horrible to us, raping girls, taking treasures, banning our language. Ironically, I do sometimes think that if the bomb wasn't dropped, North Korea wouldn't exist and the peninsula would be unified (although probably like Vietnam and not as prosperous as current day South Korea)

P.S. somehow in an effed up way - using the 1940's version of the atom bomb has prevented us from using the 21st century version and that's a good thing
 

sandy1297

Member
US bombed Japan on 6&9 Aug, Japan surrender on 15th of Aug, we declared our independence on the 17th of Aug. So ... thanks USA

And thanks Japan for chasing the Dutch away 3 years prior, though that were the worst 3 years in the country history but forgive and forget eh
 
Yes but instead of Moscow, Hitler wanted to capture St. Petersburg which at that time was named Leningrad and thought that capturing the city with the name of the founder of Russian communism would have a great effect on their morale. Same reason why he attacked Stalingrad later on just because of the name. So in essence he still wanted to capture a specific city just a different one. Also remember that the Soviet High Command had warned Stalin for the danger of capture of Moscow and he still refused to move the headquarters, so if Moscow was captured along with Stalin and the Soviet High Command the war on the eastern front might had taken a very different turn. So it really wasn't just a city but something higher.

Operation Barbarossa called for the capture of both Moscow and Leningrad before Winter set in, however realities on the ground complicated this. I merely say that Hitler made the correct strategic decision in 1941 regarding the choice to divert to destroy a large part of the army instead of just attacking the city head on. He would not have been able to capture Moscow, but even if he had captured part of it, the forces in Moscow would have been in major danger of counterattack.

In 1942, Stalingrad was not just a city, not just a major industrial centre, it was also a foothold on the west side of a major river. If Stalingrad was not secured prior to capturing Baku and the Caucuses, the Soviets would have a major base of operations in an ideal position to cut off all forces that head south towards Baku. It's strategically located on the Volga river.
 

Timbuktu

Member
A big outcome that often gets ignored IMO was how much the war strengthened the Communists in China and weakened KMT. I understand that KMT still had support and some strength in the civil war after WWII, but in my head the world could be very different if China didn't become Communist, no famine and no Cultural Revolution.
 
I think the USSR did a lot of the lifting (they also took magnitudes more casualties), but the propaganda/media machine spun things the other way around.

USA entered the conflict very late imo, they should have intervened earlier. They did well to stop Russia from encroaching further into mainland Europe (as Brit I am grateful).

Dropping the atomic bomb was reckless and unnecessary, the aftermath (to this day) speaks volumes in that regard. It was an unanswered war crime no matter how you dissect the circumstances. The Germans answered for theirs, why didn't the Americans?

There are so many forgotten pains from that era, and looking at the world today you can see how much 'justice' there really is in the world.

The Soviets took so many casualties because Stalin was psychotic bastard with zero regard for life and happily threw millions of men into the meat grinder. The Eastern Front was a battle between two genocidal loons in a ideological pissing match for Europe.


As for the atomic bomb, at the time the bomb had become a viable option and the decision to use it was being made, The Americans were still busy finishing up the invasion of Okinawa which the Japanese fought to the death and taking the island was a long, bloody and arduous task with insane amounts of casualties on both sides. If the Americans had been forced to invade, we are talking likely millions upon millions of casualties to pacify the island. Therefore it was decided that the bombs could be utilized to shock the Japanese government into a quick capitulation.


It worked.
 
No. Their offensive slowed in August '42 and reached its pinnacle in November '42. This was all at Stalingrad. They didn't start losing ground until August '43 because (surprise!) it was too much to fight on two fronts.



Lend-Lease didn't help? Let's see what Russians said
Strategically, attacking the Soviet Union then and not before made sense, after all what Nazi Germany wanted economically was a large integrated market akin to that of the US. (For economies of scale) It's no wonder they first did their counter-clockwise sweep of continental Europe and then tried to take the UK, and only after they were established in terms of militay infrastructure they attempted to capture the industrial core of the Soviet Union. Had they succeeded in caputuring their coal and steel and weapons industries and resources (And they were close) we would all be speaking German now.
 
I mean we lost the war (Finland) but we managed to keep our independence and half of Europe was liberated from Nazi rule so overall I would say European theater ended better than expected. Of course technically if Nazis had won the war we would have been able to claim huge areas from Soviet Union but when you consider the huge amount of dark stuff Europe would had suffered in that scenario I am pretty glad it ended like it ended even if that meant we lost some land to Soviets. Still think that when Soviet Union collapsed we should had reclaimed our other ''arm'' and get access to Barents Sea again. With global warming going foward it would help trade decent amount in future (quicker access to Asia).
 
British

IMO, the war was mostly won by Russia. But the UK wouldn't have survived without the USA. The USSR would've swallowed up Europe without US help before and after the war.
The US were late for the war in Europe, and probably only attacked Germany first (instead of directly responding to Pearl Harbour) because they were scared of the USSR taking over everything and becoming the dominant superpower.
The Japanese theatre would've been completely different without the USA but I don't have a clue about what would've actually happened.

The nuclear bombs were probably the right thing to do. Japan would've lost a conventional war, but the US was already firebombing Japanese cities and causing far higher civillian casualty rates than Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
Ending the war quickly and with an unconditional surrender was probably worth the cost.
 

Apathy

Member
That's because people like to praise the good guys. Hard to praise russians when they were just as bad as nazis and started the war allied with germany.

They were never allied with Germany, they just had made deals to not get in their way to be left alone and not be targeted by Germany.

Also back to this bleck and white view that Americans have in good in the war. You know, most people would say a good guy would have interment campus for their own citizens they accused of being treasonous without evidence.
 

emag

Member
The US involvement in the Pacific theater was vital to the defeat of the Japanese and the end of their atrocities in Asia.

That said, Truman clearly was out of the loop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- his writings from the time indicate that the military leadership, not the President, was calling the shots, and that Truman himself was informed that civilian casualties would be minimal. Accordingly, after the war, Truman pushed for civilian control of the US nuclear arsenal, removing authority from the military.
 

Eila

Member
I think the atomic bombings were war crimes. They left those cities intact to view the full destruction caused by the bomb, and to find out just what radiation would cause on the survivors.
Also, they choose to not pick Kyoto because one of the generals had their honeymoon there. Like, ok? The Americans cleraly didn't view the Japanese as humans.
 

The Pope

Member
The USSR did most of the soldiering. The USSR probably would have been defeated if it weren't for US Aid in 41-43.Battle of Moscow was the turning point. The Nazi's and Japanese were far greater evils then the USA and Britain but comparable to the USSR despite Britains treatment of natives in its colonies.Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.
 

The Pope

Member
I think the atomic bombings were war crimes. They left those cities intact to view the full destruction caused by the bomb, and to find out just what radiation would cause on the survivors.
Also, they choose to not pick Kyoto because one of the generals had their honeymoon there. Like, ok? The Americans cleraly didn't view the Japanese as humans.
Japanese Empire is responsible for the deaths of up to 25 million Chinese. They were fing worse than the Nazi's. Also would you rather kill 200 000 dropping bombs or 5 million if a land invasion was necessary? If you enemy initiates a war by attacking sleeping marines without a declaration of war than why should you risk more soldiers lives invading Japan when you could bring about the end of the war quicker by using nuclear bombs?
 

Markoman

Member
I think with all the knowledge we have gathered today, it is safe to say that Germany lost the war right from the start. Quickly expanding into continenatal Europe without reign at sea and the urge to get access to ressources in the East...pretty tough.
On the other hand I don't see an alternative scenario after WWI without Germany being involved in another big conflict. Hitler was basically just faster than Stalin.
The US winning the race for the Atom-bomb is maybe the biggest factor in the end.
 

4Tran

Member
Operation Barbarossa called for the capture of both Moscow and Leningrad before Winter set in, however realities on the ground complicated this. I merely say that Hitler made the correct strategic decision in 1941 regarding the choice to divert to destroy a large part of the army instead of just attacking the city head on. He would not have been able to capture Moscow, but even if he had captured part of it, the forces in Moscow would have been in major danger of counterattack.
The biggest problem with Barbarossa was that the German logisticians had already figured that it couldn't be pulled off, and that the Army could advance to Smolensk and stall out due to a lack of supplies. The only way that the plan could go ahead was to ignore the logisticians, and the German High Command did just that. It just turned out that the logisticians knew their business and the Wehrmacht suffered greatly for ignoring them.

A big outcome that often gets ignored IMO was how much the war strengthened the Communists in China and weakened KMT. I understand that KMT still had support and some strength in the civil war after WWII, but in my head the world could be very different if China didn't become Communist, no famine and no Cultural Revolution.
The problem with the KMT is that it was a lot more fractured than is popularly believed. Chiang Kai-shek was the preeminent leader, but he was the leader of effectively independent warlords who controlled much of China. As leader though, he managed to build up the most modern and capable portion of the KMT forces. These were German-trained and equipped divisions (that even wore German uniforms!) and they were the only units that could give the Japanese a decent fight.

Unfortunately for the KMT, these divisions were committed very early in the war, at Shanghai in 1937, and they were all destroyed. After that, Chiang Kai-shek had to increasingly rely on the regional warlords and lost a lot of ground to Mao's Communists.

The USSR did most of the soldiering. The USSR probably would have been defeated if it weren't for US Aid in 41-43.Battle of Moscow was the turning point. The Nazi's and Japanese were far greater evils then the USA and Britain but comparable to the USSR despite Britains treatment of natives in its colonies.Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.
American aid didn't materially affect the Soviet Union until 1943. In 1942, most of the aid came from Britain, and the quantities of materiel were still pretty low. Lend-Lease did go a long way towards supplying the Red Army in the latter half of the war though.

The USA saved Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Stalin would have taken it all. That would have been terrible.
Nah, Stalin was pretty happy with what he got at Potsdam. He was a firm believer in spheres of influence and buffer zones and he got what he wanted already. Heck, he was even happy to let Finland stay independent as long as he kept the gains from the Winter War.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom