No problem, it's true man.Thank you Acorn
No problem, it's true man.Thank you Acorn
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.
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
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
"On 8 November, substantial units from Luftflotte 4 were withdrawn to combat the Allied landings in North Africa.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."
"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.
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.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.
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.
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.
WW1 isn't that we'll known?Thats an FPS game about a war that isn't that well known, of course they would try appealing to the biggest common market.
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.That's not true. Germans already lost ground in early 42.
Well about that...
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
If you don't want your civilians bombed, don't put your military targets between them.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.
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.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.
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.
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]
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.
I'm far from the only person bud. Watch the video I posted.The guy is pretty dead set on believing what he wants, no point in discussing it further with him imo.
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...
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.
What does this even mean? Russia isn't Poland. One does not simply blitzkrieg Russia.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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
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.
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?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.
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 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.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 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.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.
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 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.
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.The USA saved Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Stalin would have taken it all. That would have been terrible.
Consolidated the shitty middle east situation
so bad outcome