Support NeoGAF

[TheFuzz]

Catching up on some documentaries and I wanted to poll non-US GAF, how does the rest of the world view World War 2 and each countries' actions?

Specifically, I'm curious how the rest of the world views the American actions (especially the bomb.

Please feel free to discuss the other countries as well.

 

[etern1ty]

Vital ally, one of the big three (Soviet Union, Britain, USA)

Did not "win" WW2 like most Americans think, the Soviet Union did if anybody.

Vital in supplying munitions and supplies to Allied forces to keep on fighting the Nazis, came in later in the war and helped turn the tide which eventually ended the war.

Nuclear bombs were unnecessary, Japan were near defeat.

 

[Acorn]

British - think the bomb was the only way Japan would surrender without hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives being lost. Hell the surrender was almost taken apart by dissenters with two A bombs.

Ofcourse it is morally questionable but that's War.

I think more generally the American army was needed to defeat Nazism as a political and military force, but I also feel Americans over egg the "lulz we saved you Britain". Hitler took landing off the agenda thanks to the RAF not America and the Russian Front would ultimately be their focus without America.

Also agree with the above post regarding Soviets, whom are always overlooked despite higher casualties and demonstrating a great deal of resistance all by themselves.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Am American. The soviets are a huge fucking reason why nazi Germany fell. The breadth and scale of the eastern front are almost unfathomable. We barely did shit in Europe comparatively.

The pacific is another story.

 

[Ihyll]

Vital ally, one of the big three (Soviet Union, Britain, USA)

Did not "win" WW2 like most Americans think, the Soviet Union did if anybody.

Vital in supplying munitions and supplies to Allied forces to keep on fighting the Nazis, came in later in the war and helped turn the tide which eventually ended the war.

Nuclear bombs were unnecessary, Japan were near defeat.

While I don't agree with the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, the word surrender doesn't exist in the Japanese language

Operation downfall would have taken more lives on both sides

 

[TheFuzz]

Thanks guys! If you wouldn't mind (and future posters), tell me where you're from (nothing specific, just useful info when looking at the viewpoints).

 

[gutter_trash]

IMO, Japan was already on their way to surrender but not to the US but to Joseph Stalin.

The US did not want Joe to take the credit for having Japan surrender so Harry dropped the bombs to show of force to Joe who has the bigger stick.

 

[Acorn]

IMO, Japan was already on their way to surrender but not to the US but to Joseph Stalin.

The US did not want Joe to take the credit for having Japan surrender so Harry dropped the bombs to show of force to Joe who has the bigger stick.

Is there anything that suggests this? I know America did not want soviet area of influence to reach the Pacific but haven't heard of any Japanese sources suggesting surrender to anyone was on the cards without huge ground invasion and ultimately forced regime change.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

American here.
I think the Soviet Union did a lot of the heavy lifting in the European Theater. But, the United States and other allied forces were the major factors in the Pacific Theather before the Atomic bombs were dropped.

 

[JordanN]

Thread title is confusing. How do we view the outcome when we already knew who won and lost?

As a Canadian, it was allies vs axis. Nazism needed to be destroyed, Japan's empire also needed to be dismantled.

 

[android]

Canadian. US helped in the end but sat on their asses for far too long as the world suffered, a second time, with the "not our problem" excuse. Germany was defeated by its own hubris, insanity, possible drug addiction and in large part the Russians. Japan would have surrendered and was making efforts to on many fronts from the Russians, the Vatican I believe and even Allan Dulles. The atomic bombs were a war crime and were completely unnecessary.

 

[Linkark07]

The outcome? Sadly, Japan didn't want to surrender so the US had to find a way for force the Japanese Government to give up.

Panama played an important role in WW2 for the Allied Forces. Thanks to the Panama Canal, the Allies managed to transport ships between the two oceans. I know that the Axis wanted to destroy it, so the US had to keep tight defences around here.

 

[diehard]

Is there anything that suggests this? I know America did not want soviet area of influence to reach the Pacific but haven't heard of any Japanese sources suggesting surrender to anyone was on the cards without huge ground invasion and ultimately forced regime change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Soviet_intentions

Also interesting

"A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan"

 

[MC Safety]

The simple fact is the United States not only saved the world from Nazism, it also kept most of Europe from out of Soviet hands.

As for the bomb, dropping it was necessary to ensure an unconditional surrender. This surrender paved the way for a lasting peace and the rebuilding of Japan.

Without the bomb, The United States might still be occupying a semi-pacified Japan. Or else there might be multiple occupation zones held by Russia, China, and the United States.

 

[DeanBDean]

American, but answering anyway.

It's complicated. American arms manufacturing cements the United States as the super power until Russia developed the bomb. Stalin sacrificed many lives in the name of the Great Patriotic War, but did so with American trucks, fuel and arms.

Stalin played the allies, especially Churchill and Roosevelt, both of whom thought they were playing Stalin. In the name of realpolitik, the allies sacrificed democracy and freedom in places like Poland and Lithuania, despite the fact that the Polish Underground's gift of a German Enigma machine led to a significant advantage to the allies in the European theatre.

Was the bomb necessary against Japan? Who the hell knows. It's a damn shame it came down to it though, as atomic and then nuclear weapons are truly horrifying.

Not enough was done to stop the Holocaust. There was plenty of evidence that something horrifying was going on, but I think the Allies didn't want to believe the scale of what was being reported.

Not enough was done to stop the atrocities the Japanese would commit on the Chinese. Even Mao didn't lift much of a finger to help, so that he would be in better position after the war. To this day the West doesn't focus as much on these atrocities, which is a shame. Unfortunately I don't think anyone has learned the importance of stopping such genocidal tragedies. We still sit on our hands in the name of real politick when the major powers are in better shape than ever to punish evil regimes who would systemically murder.

Long term? Bizarrely, Japan and the US now enjoy a good relationship. As does Germany with most of it's WW2 time enemies. Unlike WWI, where an indecisive war of attrition led to "stabbed in the back" myths, none of the losers of WWII could spin a story of anything but utter defeat. The Marshall Plan and other rebuilding efforts in the destroyed countries of World War II seems to have been a stroke of genius.

Long term part 2? I'm stealing this from a video I watched on World War II, but no one has been willing to pull the trigger on a major war since WWII. There's been smaller conflicts and gnashing of teeth among the big powers, but no one wants another World War II. Hopefully that sentiment lasts.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

The simple fact is the United States not only saved the world from Nazism, it also kept most of Europe from out of Soviet hands.

As for the bomb, dropping it was necessary to ensure an unconditional surrender. This surrender paved the way for a lasting peace and the rebuilding of Japan.

Without the bomb, The United States might still be occupying a semi-pacified Japan. Or else there might be multiple occupation zones held by Russia, China, and the United States.

I think this is an interesting thing to think about.

 

[Syder]

The outcome was the best outcome. Too many lives had already been lost and Japan wouldn't surrender.

 

[BeforeU]

As much as I hate Stalin, without Soviet Union the war would never have won.

Canadian. US helped in the end but sat on their asses for far too long as the world suffered, a second time, with the "not our problem" excuse. Germany was defeated by its own hubris, insanity, possible drug addiction and in large part the Russians. Japan would have surrendered and was making efforts to on many fronts from the Russians, the Vatican I believe and even Allan Dulles. The atomic bombs were a war crime and were completely unnecessary.

And this

 

[WillyFive]

Thread title is confusing. How do we view the outcome when we already knew who won and lost?

As a Canadian, it was allies vs axis. Nazism needed to be destroyed, Japan's empire also needed to be dismantled.

The Americas were an ocean away from the war on both ends; so countries there left the war with all the economic prosperity of participating in a war without the huge damage and destruction within its borders that come from one.

As opposed to Europe, where the war actually took place.

 

[eerik9000]

50 years of foreign occupation.

 

[Betty]

America did the right thing getting involved, though I wish they'd done so sooner.

Strangely their aversion to getting involved in another European war made sense with the information at the time and the fact WW1 wasn't a fun time for anyone.

Had they known about the horrors in the camps I'm sure they'd have been more willing to get involved sooner.

It's a shame it took Peal Harbour for that to happen though.

Dropping the bomb was a regrettable but sadly sensible tactic.

Had Japan developed the bomb first would they have hesitated to use it? Of course not.

If America hadn't dropped the bomb would the ensuing war left countless more dead on both sides? Absolutely.

Wish it didn't have to happen but it was an option that ultimately worked.

 

[DeanBDean]

As much as I hate Stalin, without Soviet Union the war would never have won.

I think this is somewhat debatable. Germany was in no position to match the war output of the United States and Britain come 1943. Hitler knew this in 1937 when he attempted to annex Czechoslovakia just so that he could start a war and then end it before the other powers could ramp up their war production.

Certainly Hitler's decision to draw the Soviets into the war shortened it, but it probably could have been won without them. Just at far greater cost in lives to the Western allies.

 

[JordanN]

The simple fact is the United States not only saved the world from Nazism, it also kept most of Europe from out of Soviet hands.

Numbers wise, I would say not even close.

The Soviet Union tanked a lot of casualties when Hitler had already been trying to break into Africa and invade the rest of Europe.

Also, why is the U.S so focused on the Nazis? I would rather credit the USA for fighting Japan at sea.

Britain was already pre-occupied with Germany in Europe and Africa, that I can't see them engadging Japan in aircraft carrier battles like Midway or Coral Sea without taking Germany down first.

 

[diehard]

Numbers wise, I would say not even close.

Now go by numbers in terms of dollars spent.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Wondering what would have happened if the US had gone to war with USSR like some of the generals wanted. Question is if the US would be able to take them on. How was the US going to get into the heart of Russia? They'd die in the cold like the germans.


Is it possible that you'd have saved more lives, than who would die later under Stalin + all the millions who died in the crossfire of the cold war destabilization between communism vs democracies?

 

[DeanBDean]

Numbers wise, I would say not even close.

The Soviet Union tanked a lot of casualties when Hitler had already been trying to break into Africa and invade the rest of Europe.

Also, why is the U.S so focused on the Nazis? I would rather credit the USA for fighting Japan at sea.

Britain was already pre-occupied with Germany in Europe and Africa, that I can't see them engadging Japan in aircraft carrier battles like Midway or Coral Sea without taking Germany down first.

1946+ borders includes Polish military figures with the Soviet ones. This is amazingly unfair, as when Germany invaded Poland, so did the USSR. They then split the country together.

Also, Soviet losses were so high because Stalin had no regard for the life of his people. Early in the war, his no surrender policy led to hundreds of thousands more casualties than necessary. Late in the war, his mad rush to beat the Americans to Berlin (despite Eisenhower deliberately allow the Soviets to get there first) also led to far more casualties than necessary.

Not saying the Soviets didn't make tremendous sacrifices. They absolutely did, and they faced the brunt of the Wehrmacht at its height, unlike the other Allies after Normandy. But casualties only tell part of the story.

Wondering what would have happened if the US had gone to war with USSR like some of the generals wanted. Question is if the US would be able to take them on. How was the US going to get into the heart of Russia? They'd die in the cold like the germans.


Is it possible that you'd have saved more lives, than who would die later under Stalin + all the millions who died in the crossfire of the cold war destabilization between communism vs democracies?

As shameful as giving Poland to the Soviets was, it's not realistic to believe in a scenario where the US turns on the Soviets after the fall of Germany.

A) The Pacific Theatre was still ongoing, and the Soviets had land very close to that theatre, unlike the US and Britain.

B) All propaganda painted the Soviets as our allies. Getting public opinion on board with a 180, hey let's keep fighting after 5 years of total war, wasn't going to happen

 

[JordanN]

Now go by numbers in terms of dollars spent.

What does that have to do with saving?

Hitler had a lot of his military concentrated at the Soviets doorsteps. As in, actual soldiers and tanks who would massacre anyone in their path. The U.S never had to deal with such a direct threat during WW2 other than Pearl Harbor.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I think this is an interesting thing to think about.

It kind of could have gone either way. If US wasn't in theater Hitler may have actually been able to beat the soviets into submission. Either way US was a big part of why all of Europe not taken over by either Russians or Germans.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

What does that have to do with saving?

Hitler had a lot of his military concentrated at the Soviets doorsteps. As in, actual soldiers and tanks who would massacre anyone in their path. The U.S never had to deal with such a direct threat during WW2 other than Pearl Harbor.

There is this too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

 

[diehard]

What does that have to do with saving?

Why does lives lost mean something but money spent doesnt?

 

[Parch]

Canadian. US helped in the end but sat on their asses for far too long as the world suffered, a second time, with the "not our problem" excuse.

Yup. Then patting themselves on the back for "saving" Europe. It was also very economically beneficial for the US to let Europe burn before doing anything about it.

 

[DeanBDean]

What does that have to do with saving?

Hitler had a lot of his military concentrated at the Soviets doorsteps. As in, actual soldiers and tanks who would massacre anyone in their path. The U.S never had to deal with such a direct threat during WW2 other than Pearl Harbor.

His argument comes down to the fact that the Soviet Union was only in a position to defeat the Germans due to American aid. This muddles the already rather silly question of which ally was "more important" in the war effort, the US or the USSR. I think some of this comes as a backlash from the "typical" narrative of America riding in and saving the day that some people espouse. In order to shoot down that silliness, some people swing too far in the other direction.

 

[diehard]

Yup. Then patting themselves on the back for "saving" Europe. It was also very economically beneficial for the US to let Europe burn before doing anything about it.

Boy i'm sure glad the US got all that money back from Lend-Lease.

 

[Sakura]

As a Canadian, I think the US should've been there day 1, and I also consider the atomic bombs to be a war crime.

 

[Acorn]

Wondering what would have happened if the US had gone to war with USSR like some of the generals wanted. Question is if the US would be able to take them on. How was the US going to get into the heart of Russia? They'd die in the cold like the germans.


Is it possible that you'd have saved more lives, than who would die later under Stalin + all the millions who died in the crossfire of the cold war destabilization between communism vs democracies?

War weariness would prevail imo. Let us not forget America was a reluctant entrant to the war by the public who pre pearl harbour were dealing with a large amount of 'fuck foreign wars'.

Also the allies including America had included soviets in their propoganda as 'good guys' too. But hey lets fuck em and try and take on a now fully functioning war machine with large production capacity nearby compared to America's mostly offshore aside from the few non rubble areas in Europe. This even makes the huge assumption France just finally freed wanted to help and get involved, we in Britain want to further sink ourselves into debt and increasing irrelevance at the big boys table, Italy who have got rid of Mussolini would be happy to take part. Etc etc

The soviets are continually underestimated.

 

[Acorn]

Boy i'm sure glad the US got all that money back from Lend-Lease.

Britain paid back debts incurred during the war finally in last 5-10 years. Regardless the war paid off for America's economy more than anyone's, Marshall plan created a viable market essentially too.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

War weariness would prevail imo. Let us not forget America was a reluctant entrant to the war by the public who pre pearl harbour were dealing with a large amount of 'fuck foreign wars'.

Also the allies including America had included soviets in their propoganda as 'good guys' too. But hey lets fuck em and try and take on a now fully functioning war machine with large production capacity nearby compared to America's mostly offshore aside from the few non rubble areas in Europe. This even makes the huge assumption France just finally freed wanted to help and get involved, we in Britain want to further sink ourselves into debt and increasing irrelevance at the big boys table, Italy who have got rid of Mussolini would be happy to take part. Etc etc

The soviets are continually underestimated.

I want to say that Roosevelt was one of the few people in the government that wanted to help the Allies, but yeah, Americans overall didn't want to be involved in another European War.

 

[Acorn]

I want to say that Roosevelt was one of the few people in the government that wanted to help the Allies, but yeah, Americans overall didn't want to be involved in another European War.

Oh FDR very much wanted to be involved, it's noted historical fact. He did the most he could to help in pre Pearl Harbour's political environment.

 

[kyser73]

A medium-term success in realpolitik for the US which enabled it to assume the role of global hegemon from the British & French (cemented by Suez in the case of the British), a huge strategic advantage it managed to piss up the wall fighting an unnecessary war in Vietnam and by sponsoring many coups that replaced democratically elected governments with despots which is one of the reasons both Iran and Afghanistan are absolute clusterfucks today.

 

[Farks!]

That the USSR did most of the heavy lifting and then decades of cultural propaganda made everyone think the US was the one hero.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Oh FDR very much wanted to be involved, it's noted historical fact. He did the most he could to help in pre Pearl Harbour's political environment.

It's surprising to see what he could do in a man in his position pre-Pearl Harbor.

 

[diehard]

Britain paid back debts incurred during the war finally in last 5-10 years. Regardless the war paid off for America's economy more than anyone's, Marshall plan created a viable market essentially too.

No, they didn't. They paid back the Anglo-American loan made in 1946 prior to the Marshall plan. Lend-Lease was written off as a war expense.

 

[Acorn]

No, they didn't. They paid back the Anglo-American loan made in 1946 prior to the Marshall plan. Lend-Lease was written off as a war expense.

Oh well. Write it off vs the war making you the ultimate superpower.

 

[TaterTots]

As an American I was always taught the war could be won without us being involved, but we jumped in to put it over the top. If I'm wrong, someone educate me lol.

 

[reckless]

That the USSR did most of the heavy lifting and then decades of cultural propaganda made everyone think the US was the one hero.

Well it would be hard to do the heavy lifting if the soviet union didn't get trains, trucks, planes, food, fuel, etc.. from us.

Also everyone just seems to ignore the Pacific for some reason.

 

[JordanN]

That the USSR did most of the heavy lifting and then decades of cultural propaganda made everyone think the US was the one hero.

It's really annoying when America's importance is used to downplay everyone else, as it manages to seep into pop culture and thus the public eye.

Like how we just had a WW1 game where France wasn't even a playable nation (only to return as fucking DLC), but the U.S which only played a role in the war for 1 year was made front and center.

 

[legend166]

I mean, sure the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting in Europe, but then again they also helped start the war in the first place with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and engaged in significant trade with Germany which gave them vital materials they needed to conquer Europe.

While it's not entirely correct to say the US/British saved Western Europe from Nazism, they certainly saved it from Stalinism and in the end that was probably just as important. Of course Eastern Europe got screwed as seems to be the norm in history.

I'm Australian by the way.

 

[MsKrisp]

The American people didn't want to go to war. It took Pearl Harbor to push us there. Why do people think our government should've just jumped in when it was hugely unpopular to get involved in the "war over there"?

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Japan would have surrendered and was making efforts to on many fronts from the Russians, the Vatican I believe and even Allan Dulles. The atomic bombs were a war crime and were completely unnecessary.

While it is true "peace feelers" were put out at multiple points, there was a vicious split between those who wanted peace and the hardcore hawks until literally the very end.

To discount that part of it, does a major disservice to the argument.

 

[Acorn]

As an American I was always taught the war could be won without us being involved, but we jumped in to put it over the top. If I'm wrong, someone educate me lol.

The western front as we know it wouldn't exist in any comparable way without the US Army and production capacity.

So no.