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.
I see the bombs as a scumbag move that fucked up countless lives for generations.
Whoops. I remembered incorrectly. It should have been Yalta that most of the territorial outcomes.We're talking about the Allies meeting in Berlin, not about the Potsdam Accord.
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'm not Russian myself, and I have no particular affection for the state, ideology or agenda the current regime wants to push internationally but I do want to say that I think the sacrifice of the Russian people in WWII was absolutely immense and deserves a hell of a lot more recognition in the west.
They lost between 26 and 27 million people, including civilians during the conflict. That's heartbreaking.
I don't think it's so much that the people and soldiers weren't respected, it's more to do with Stalin and the atrocities he was known for that doesn't sit well with most. No doubt the country was a huge reason the Allies 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.
This post pretty much nails it.
This post pretty much nails it.
The picture is very misleading because the Japanese military strength had been largely broken everywhere outside of the Home Islands and China. The IJN didn't exist any more and Japan didn't have many modern planes or high quality pilots any more. There were a few island garrisons that were still strong, but they'd been cut off and could not contribute in any way against the Allies.It's been pointed out before that Japan was "weak/on the verge of surrender" but that's not true. Even in 1945, Japan was still pretty damn huge.
Yeah, they got beaten out of the Philippines and were slowly being driven back, but they still held onto large chunks of China, Korea and Vietnam.
And if we learned our lesson with Nazi Germany, you also have to take into account that Japan was also committing crimes against humanity during this time. With their forced sex slavery and unit 731 experiments. These things would still go on if the allies had to invade the mainland and there was still a refusal to surrender.
The atomic bombs were terrible but if you look at this map, it didn't just save a country. It saved an entire continent from being annihilated.
There were alternatives to the nuclear bombs. These are as follows:Ok then, what was the alternative way? People have already taken pains to point (in the post above mine) that a blockade would not have worked?
So what was the solution?
Whoops. I remembered incorrectly. It should have been Yalta that most of the territorial outcomes.
I can see why the Soviet Union might want all of Germany, but why would they go any farther? There's nothing in Stalin's history to indicate that he's interested in things like that. Look at Manchuria and North Korea - he could have swallowed both of those up had he really wanted to, but he was ever a pragmatist who didn't want to overreach.Great, but the issue was the Russians could have easily absorbed all of Germany and proceeded onward. It was the presence of the armies of the United States of America that prevented further aggression.
In fact, if the Allies hadn't slowed down, Germany might not have been fractured as it was.
I can see why the Soviet Union might want all of Germany, but why would they go any farther? There's nothing in Stalin's history to indicate that he's interested in things like that. Look at Manchuria and North Korea - he could have swallowed both of those up had he really wanted to, but he was ever a pragmatist who didn't want to overreach.
I feel americans and rest of allies betrayed my country (Poland) and gave us as a free gift to Russia, starting almost half century of tyranny here. Still better than alternative, I guess,.
This post pretty much nails it.
This post pretty much nails it.
Why make that assumption? The door was open in other places and Stalin didn't take advantage there, so why would he want overreach all the beyond Germany?I don't presume to know the mind of Stalin. But by war's end, he was increasingly paranoid and may not have trusted the Soviet Union to be treated fairly in the peace process. Had the door been open, he may have seized Europe and bartered back scraps.
I like how the U.S is somehow the only one blamed with the whole not my problem.
Germany - obvious reasons of letting Hitler come to power
Britain/France - Let Czechoslovakia and Austria get annexed.. Waited way to long to mobilize and let Poland get taken over.
USSR - Helped Germany take over Poland and was content to wait until they were attacked. (And traded with Nazis vital resources up until they were attacked)
But somehow only the U.S gets blamed for wanting to sit out.
Nope. By then, most of the Soviet forces had been withdrawn from Europe and many of them were in the Far East in position to invade Manchuria.At the point in the war that the bombs were dropped, to me it it makes more sense that US military leaders would be more worried about the threat of the massive Soviet army that had just helped crush Germany.
The Soviets were very much considered allies throughout the war. Both sides didn't tell each other everything about their operations, but they did coordinate to a degree. For example, Operation Bagration was a massive Soviet offensive that was supposed to occur shortly after Operation Overlord, and Stalin promised to attack Japan within three months of ending the war in Europe.It's weird to think that it was very necessary to have the help of such a huge force during WW2 but I don't remember the Soviets ever being referred to as part of the Allies. I think using the atomic bomb against the Japanese was more about sending a message to Russia to not try anything after the war since it was already apparent that with or without an invasion, Japan couldn't possibly hold out for very long after the fall of Germany and Italy.
President Truman wrote a note on the back of this photograph "In which I tell Stalin we expect to drop the most powerful explosive ever made on the Japanese. He smiled and said he appreciated my telling him - but he did not know what I'm talking about - the Atomic Bomb!
I like how the U.S is somehow the only one blamed with the whole not my problem.
But somehow only the U.S gets blamed for wanting to sit out.
To be fair, Roosevelt wanted to be in the war in 1940, but the isolationists in the US made full entry untenable. His destroyers for bases trade in 1940 blatantly favored Britain, and Lend-Lease in 1941 was enough to provoke German submarines into attacking American warships.Because they sat it out while war broke out on 3 continents. The Brits and French could and should have done more in the 30s, but it was still neighbouring skirmishes at that time. Who could predict where things would turn? But sitting back at watching the world chew itself up? No excuses.
It's easy to say that the bombs killed a lot of people and were wrong, but it's a lot more work into reading the historical details and looking at what the alternatives entailed.Really surprised people would prefer a guarantee of millions of deaths from Operation Downfall versus the bomb.
No excuses.
Because they sat it out while war broke out on 3 continents. The Brits and French could and should have done more in the 30s, but it was still neighbouring skirmishes at that time. Who could predict where things would turn? But sitting back at watching the world chew itself up? No excuses.
US - I find the use of the bombs justified, even though I don't believe the absurd casualty estimates of 1 million. (Funny guy that Macarthur). It still saved US and (especially) Japanese from hefty butcher bill, brought the war to an end quickly and limited USSR gains. But as for the whole war, I find their contribution somewhat overrated even when viewed only through the lens of Japanese, Italian and NW - Europe efforts, where British and Chinese were doing a lot of the unsung lifting and in the latter two cases,where I find American generalship to be straight incompetent most of the time and as such making their contribution be less than it can numerically seem.
It's easy to say that the bombs killed a lot of people and were wrong, but it's a lot more work into reading the historical details and looking at what the alternatives entailed.
Comparing the USA to Switzerland LOLShould we shit all over Switzerland too? America was a nation that had done its best to stay out of wars for a few decades at that point. People wanted to be peaceful.
World War 2 messed us up. It gave rise to America's military-industrial complex and the Cold War. The cost of America entering the war was ridiculously high. It's completely rational that they wanted to stay out of it.
We were shipping tons of military supplies, but the overall consensus was that we didn't want to get involved.
That the USSR did most of the heavy lifting and then decades of cultural propaganda made everyone think the US was the one hero.
The reasons for the start of the war is different from when the war was going on. This is why Canada's view differs from the US. When Britain asked for troops, Canada was there. Canadians signed up from across the country and we provided troops and resources as best we could. We were using fishing boats and everything that floated to start the supply lines and send people.I like how the U.S is somehow the only one blamed with the whole not my problem.
Naw. The Soviets won the pivotal Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk before the Allies landed in Sicily. You could make the argument that the Allied invasion of Sicily won the Soviets the Battle of Kursk by having Hitler prevent Manstein from continuing his offensive, but most scholars agree that Manstein vastly underestimated the Soviet reserves (which were in reserve for a later counteroffensive) and would have lost the war of attrition had he continued.
Would the Soviets have been able to make it to Berlin? I think so, but it's debatable. But after that point it was pretty clear that the Germans were fighting to survive, not conquer.
You don't rape an entire city and get to be the "hero"
Nor the Eastern front. The Soviet defense in the face of Germany's invading forces were kept alive on the backs of American war materiel.The western front as we know it wouldn't exist in any comparable way without the US Army and production capacity.
So no.
Because they sat it out while war broke out on 3 continents. The Brits and French could and should have done more in the 30s, but it was still neighbouring skirmishes at that time. Who could predict where things would turn? But sitting back at watching the world chew itself up? No excuses.
Well considering what Germans did to soviets (tried to wipe them out of existence) it's no wonder that Soviets had pretty huge ''revenge'' mindset when the war turned in their favor. Not that it made it in any way acceptable but considering human mind I think it was pretty understandable why it happened.
The atomic bomb is a real grey area.
Personally I think you have to tread carefully making bold statements or condemnation of events from what in many ways was an impossible period of our history. It's very easy to sit here 70 years later, in our time of relative peace and safety, and say what should and shouldn't happen in a time of such ghastly and extensive war.
What I would say is, even for those who think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a reprehensible show of avoidable excessive force, how do we know for certain what the world would look like had they not been dropped? I wonder how many times over the last 70 years nuclear weapons might have been used had we not got the horrors of the end of the war to look back on.
The reasons for the start of the war is different from when the war was going on. This is why Canada's view differs from the US. When Britain asked for troops, Canada was there. Canadians signed up from across the country and we provided troops and resources as best we could. We were using fishing boats and everything that floated to start the supply lines and send people.
While Canada got fully involved, Americans did nothing. When the call for help came, one showed up, the other didn't.