A question to TW and all warmongers alike

[shulgi]

Erm, what about, I dunno, the millions of deaths by building up infrastructure in the USSR, or THE FREAKING HOLOCAUST!? Really, antiamerican propaganda is bad enough even when it's not about devaluing the American participation in the defeat of fascism.

Says the guy with the U mad bro Stalin avatar..?

I don't see anything inaccurate in what shakabrade said and even your post seems to agree with him. Is vocalizing this what you are calling propaganda? Few would say that the US didn't have a large role in the war and he didn't say this - actually he sounds glad the US didn't steamroll more than it did.

On the other hand, America did win WW2 since it's industry, economy, and influence were in far better shape than the European powers which then also "lost" their colonies.

I guess Americans are more aware now of this dominance than previously and some are therefore more sensitive to any criticism that this nation isn't holier than thou.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

Let's go back to the original topic.

I'm kind of the opposite: I always try and horde as much science and culture as I can in my cities, and I only garrison my cities with a few units. Needless to say, this never ends well.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

Lol. America didn't win the war. It was on the winning side.

I think it's fairly obvious that Apricottage wasn't suggesting that American won WWII all by ourselves. Assuming that he(she?) is even American- yes, my countrymen are, overall, pathetically unaware of history, but those of us that are aware of WWII beyond Saving Private Ryan are aware that the Soviets played a huge part in defeating the Germans.

Russians did the most of the dirty job.

...against the Germans. And only the Germans. Stalin saw no advantage whatsoever in fighting the Japanese Empire- until Hiroshima made it obvious that the war was coming to a close, and if he wanted to expand his sphere of influence in the Far East, he better hurry up. It wasn't a coincidence that the Manchurian offensive happened two days after Hiroshima.

Even Japan capitulated not when A-bombs made greatest crime against humanity (nuclear weapons are frowned upon even on the forums here), but when Russia turned their attention to their eastern neighbour.

I have to assume that you got that from the woefully inaccurate Cracked article from three days ago, since I'd never heard that insane theory until I read it there. Not knocking Cracked, mind you- I've learned many interesting, out-of-the-way things reading Cracked. But every once in a while they're hilariously wrong.

The Imperial leaders were, I'm sure, irritated and annoyed that someone was attacking their puppet colony. But they had had dozens of their conquests liberated in the preceding three years and their resolve had strengthened every time. They were preparing for an American invasion of the home islands- not a Soviet force (with no means to cross the water) moving into a puppet state they had occupied fifteen years before.

As far as the "greatest crime against humanity"- yes, Little Boy and Fat Man killed a quarter of a million Japanese citizens. But it allowed the Japanese leadership to surrender with a modicum of honor (perceived honor at least, which was good enough at the time), which would never have happened otherwise, invasion or not. Those two bombs saved millions of Japanese lives in that the ridiculously tenacious defense put up by the Japanese army on Iwo and Okinawa would have paled next to the defense of Honshu. The Imperial leaders had every intention of putting a rifle in the hands of every able-bodied citizen and ordering a fight to the death. (And MacArthur and the Marines would've obliged, regardless of cost to Japanese noncombatants.) Hitler tried something similar, but despite a generation of indoctrination, the Germans just weren't willing to make that sacrifice. The Japanese had it ingrained in their culture; they would've done it. The casualties from the A-bombs, while horrific, spared countless Japanese lives- possibly even avoiding what could've been the extinction of the Japanese race.

However, that article did get one thing right- there was a chance that at least a quarter of Japan could've ended up under Soviet control. The post-war arrangement for Japan was esentially the same as Germany- the conquering nations would divide up the country, as well as the city of Tokyo. The USSR had to get in on the action against Japan so they could say "sorry we're late to the party, Hitler kept us busy, but hey, we're here." And yes, the Soviet-controlled sector would've been a hellhole, a la East Germany. Cracked got that part right. It was the bombs that prevented that from happening, not some afterthought of a Manchurian invasion.

Less Hollywood, Call of Duty, MoH and more actual history.

Submitted without further comment.

What America did do is reducing Russian influence. Russians wouldn't stop millions of their troops in Berlin but would probably devour Germany and Central and Southeast Europe. With Americans around, that wasn't diplomatically correct.

Stalin could not have cared less about what was "diplomatically correct". The one and only thing that prevented him from rolling on to the Pyrenees was the temporary American monopoly on nuclear weapons. Diplomacy had nothing to do with it.

 

[shulgi]

There are two nice articles on Japan's surrender that might be worth looking at. Wikipedia has one "Surrender of Japan" and Boston Globe has a nice one - "Why did Japan Surrender" that really tells how this different interpretation evolved.

 

[GKey]

Been American of Russian origin it really hurts to hear from my American coworkers that WWII was won by America without noting that most of the job indeed had been done by Soviet Union at the horrific price of about 30 000 000 citizen. Even John Green in his excellent Crash History course seem to diminish the roll of USSR in that war.

After capturing Berlin continuing steamrolling farther west would mean war against USA and UK. I don't believe Stalin was ready for such a thing. So Hiroshima was completely unnecessary in this regard. I don't think it was needed for hurrying Japan capitulation either. Japan was already not in winning position and sure could not stand a chance against combined force of USA and USSR.
Stalin started his invasion just 2 days after Nuclear bombardment not because he was afraid he will be late. Soviets were honoring Yalta agreements and turned to the east as soon as they could. Even today transportation of millions of soldiers with all vehicles and stuff will take months. On the contrary: the bombardment of Hiroshima took place just before soviet invasion to show Stalin who got the power. I agree, that if America did not demonstrate their nuclear might, we would have soviet puppet in far east a la East Germany.

Anyway, economical role of USA in Soviet success against Germany though have to be noted. Due to Lend-Lease Act USA supplied Stalin with material help that was absolutely essential for the victory. Hard to make speculations right now if USSR could pull it out against Wehrmacht without that supply.

 

[Apricottage]

Lol. America didn't win the war. It was on the winning side.
Russians did the most of the dirty job. Even Japan capitulated not when A-bombs made greatest crime against humanity (nuclear weapons are frowned upon even on the forums here), but when Russia turned their attention to their eastern neighbour.

Less Hollywood, Call of Duty, MoH and more actual history.

What America did do is reducing Russian influence. Russians wouldn't stop millions of their troops in Berlin but would probably devour Germany and Central and Southeast Europe. With Americans around, that wasn't diplomatically correct.

@OP



I never warred for any other reason but wealth of my people of Wadiya.

A few things:

1. Russia was not involved in the recapture of France. That was primarily funded by the Americans (because the French didn't have a country and the British were bombed to hell).
2. Russia was not involved in the defeat of Italy. That was a joint effort between Montgomery's logistics and Patton's technical prowess, with of course some more American funding.
3. Russia was not involved in the defeat of the Japanese naval forces and the severing of their access of oil. That was entirely the United States.

What Russia DID do was defeat a very large portion of the German army at great cost to its own troops and garner a reputation for absolutely brutal treatment of their defeated enemies. If you're referring to the Japanese capitulation, that was not just because they were afraid of the Russians defeating them. In regards to the Russians, they were mostly afraid that the USSR would execute the royal family, which would be true defeat from their standpoint. They had resisted capitulation up to that point in hopes that the Americans would essentially chicken out and agree to conditional surrender rather than risk suffering huge losses. When the atomic bomb proved that Americans had another path to victory and the Russians threatened to invade, there was nothing to be gained by stalling for time any longer. Implying that the Americans had no effect on the war is as ignorant as implying that the Russians had no effect on it.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

Soviets were honoring Yalta agreements and turned to the east as soon as they could.

...You just used "Soviets" and "honoring" in the same sentence. Stalin had just made a bunch of promises at Potsdam that he had no intention of keeping; why would he care about anything that was said at Yalta?

 

[vranasm]

Lol. America didn't win the war. It was on the winning side.
Russians did the most of the dirty job. Even Japan capitulated not when A-bombs made greatest crime against humanity (nuclear weapons are frowned upon even on the forums here), but when Russia turned their attention to their eastern neighbour.

Less Hollywood, Call of Duty, MoH and more actual history.

What America did do is reducing Russian influence. Russians wouldn't stop millions of their troops in Berlin but would probably devour Germany and Central and Southeast Europe. With Americans around, that wasn't diplomatically correct.

While technically right on first point. Russians wouldn't survive 1941 without steady stream of food and some industry nonsense from US whole winter and years to come. Stalin valued the food the most. There was some tanks/airships sent too, but that was very minor point for him. It was mostly about food, boots and other things for living.

I don't agree with your evaluation of why Japan capitulated. The A-bombs were the case imo. I borderline agree with you about the usage of A-bombs that it was crime against humanity and if the US wasn't the winners the people that ordered the usage against civillian would for sure stand before Norimberk judges.

the reason why Russians didn't fulfilled their plans on standing on west coast of Spain in 1955 wasn't diplomatic issues with America, but the simple fact of USA having A-bombs as demonstrated in Japan and their total lack of having defensive measures against it.
there was no conventional force in western Europe that would stop Stalin's war machine and he knew it. He didn't wanted to get nuclear winter in Russia. So he kinda in the end was human being.

So as you can see the case of A-bombs is very double-edged sword.

 

[GKey]

...You just used "Soviets" and "honoring" in the same sentence. Stalin had just made a bunch of promises at Potsdam that he had no intention of keeping; why would he care about anything that was said at Yalta?

Transportation of Soviet forces from Europe to far east started months before Hiroshima.

EDIT: I also want to note that war between USSR and USA was not possible for Russians due to luck of naval force anyway. There was some fleet, but nothing that could be compared to that of USA and UK.

 

[calibur]

Implying that American armed forces had no effect on the war is as ignorant as implying that the Russians had no effect on it.

fixed, to counter the supplying Russia defense.

 

[vranasm]

Transportation of Soviet forces from Europe to far east started months before Hiroshima.

EDIT: I also want to note that war between USSR and USA was not possible for Russians due to luck of naval force anyway. There was some fleet, but nothing that could be compared to that of USA and UK.

there would not be any need for USSR to land in USA to get hand on whole western Europe imo.

Everything is hypothetical obviously, but I think if they just took France, Spain, Italy and said to UK/USA "what about some peace?" the chances are the USA would say yes and think themself "screw them".

they did this to us on couple of occassions anyway (us czech republic) so don't see why it should be any different with France/Spain.
It's quite ironic considering that Czech republic or Czechoslovakia was always the strongest partner for USA in Middle/Eastern Europe how quickly they threw us to the Russian Bear every time they came with "knock knock we want them"...

 

[shulgi]

the reason why Russians didn't fulfilled their plans on standing on west coast of Spain in 1955 wasn't diplomatic issues with America, but the simple fact of USA having A-bombs as demonstrated in Japan and their total lack of having defensive measures against it.
there was no conventional force in western Europe that would stop Stalin's war machine and he knew it. He didn't wanted to get nuclear winter in Russia. So he kinda in the end was human being.

Those are the sort of claims by Stalin that are pure propaganda and, even so, were directed at fascists. To suggest that he'd launch another war immediately after having had Western Russia destroyed, 25 million killed and 6 years of the most costly war in history doesn't make any sense.

When I said the US won WWII in my previous comment, I thought I was clear in saying that the US won the war by being in the strongest position by far in the following decades.

As for Japan's capitulation I am currently convinced that Japan was essentially defeated by early-mid 1945, the a-bombs were only an incremental increase in damage and life loss from the fire bombing, and the Soviet invasion cut off any hope of supplying the army and navy with oil, munitions and supplies. Without either US or USSR action, the war would have continued quite a while longer. Japan's leaders seemed plenty willing to sacrifice the civilian population throughout firebombing campaign, I'm not sure they wouldn't have put up with more nukes. Apparently Tokyo was bomb #3.

I'm not sure that Japan's surrender terms pre-a-bomb were so insufficient as to justify nukes but I'll think through it while I sleep/tomorrow.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

Well, yes, Japan was certainly fighting an unwinnable war by mid-1945, if not two years earlier. What is key is that they would not admit defeat. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually the #2 and #3 deadliest bombings Japan endured- a thousand-bomber incendiary raid on Tokyo months before killed over a hundred thousand people. And LeMay was by no means finished in August- his response to the A-bomb was "hey, that thing's great, now excuse me while I keep burning down all their cities."

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were in part a bluff. They were the only two we had, and we knew it would be quite some time before we could produce another. Little Boy was actually a different type of device than the Alamagordo bomb or Fat Man- when they dropped it no one was sure if it would even detonate. But after Nagasaki, the U.S. called Japan's bluff, basically saying "how many more of these do you think your people will deal with, we can do this all day." It gave the Japanese leaders a way out of complete destruction without having to deal with the whole nasty "invasion" thing.

I'm not sure what the third target would've been. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked out of a list of four or five cities because they hadn't suffered much damage yet. The bomb was designed to be dropped on Berlin (if necessary) but dropping one on Tokyo probably would've been a waste by mid-1945.

Might be getting a little redundant here, sorry. I need sleep too...

 

[vranasm]

Those are the sort of claims by Stalin that are pure propaganda and, even so, were directed at fascists. To suggest that he'd launch another war immediately after having had Western Russia destroyed, 25 million killed and 6 years of the most costly war in history doesn't make any sense.

well there is ongoing rumor for such plans done by russian generals. Did try some googleresearch and kinda failed to find any worthwhile proofs.

I found some alternate plans for warfare around let's say 1970+, but I guess at that point the western armies had some counterplans.
they were kinda very interesting since one of the main tank fronts should have been stream of tanks through alps Austria/Swiss to attack France in the south east (that catched me by surprise considering that it is very small passway easy to gank with air superiority)...

Obviously Mecklenburg forest was 1st front with main tank front, with Poland serving as main way for tanks from USSR (it's almost whole grassland so easy to travel). Czech Republic served as supply point due to hilly environment.

 

[shakabrade]

@TheMulattoMaker

Sorry, but perception of the war is much better when it is fought on your ground, or at least a continent. For you it is pretty black and white. American hypocrisy is built into your history books, bla bla. Not your fault. I really didn't go for a debate. We know tanks win the battles and control the territory so ask yourself how many tanks did America manage to transport in WW2, if any. Soviets had hunderds of thousands if we include older designs as well. It is even fair to say Hitler defeated himself once he assumed full control of the German troops, for which he was incompetent. That, with stupid decisions like, ''Lets attack and defeat Russia in month or two just before autumn rains!'', was devastating. Hitler misclicked a lot.

I don't want to say Americans didn't have their part in WW2 in Europe, but I just want to reduce their role to one of the important members of the Alliance in which Russia had major part.

Regarding Soviet Union and Japan, CCCP had great deal of their troops deployed near Vladivostok when Germans attacked. Fortunately, Soviet spy network in Japan revealed Japan had no intention of attacking yet, and that made it possible to move their troops to the west via Transibirsk railway and push the Germans back. The rest is beating the dead horse and liberating France and Italy and some small countries and nothing else.

No, I don't follow Cracked, but only had 8 years of history through my education despite being an engineer since that is how education here works. Nowadays, I only watch History Channel, sometimes.

@Apricottage

A few things:

1. Russia was not involved in the recapture of France. That was primarily funded by the Americans (because the French didn't have a country and the British were bombed to hell).
2. Russia was not involved in the defeat of Italy. That was a joint effort between Montgomery's logistics and Patton's technical prowess, with of course some more American funding.
3. Russia was not involved in the defeat of the Japanese naval forces and the severing of their access of oil. That was entirely the United States.

1. Recapture after Germans were decimated in CCCP. Funds don't mean much in war. You need, food, men and guns. Americans could provide limited amount of everything, and least of all, men (most important).
2. Russia couldn't have had defeated Italy? The most side switching army ever? Americans rushed to Italy not to leave anything to Russians.
3. True, but when Russia declared, Japan capitulated. Over one month after show-off bombs were dropped. Besides, Japan started invading like crazy once America froze Japanese finances. They couldn't buy oil and ores anymore and were forced to go even more militaristic (Japan is extremely resource poor).

My point is that, while other countries were losing people, and were forced to defend, America played a game of civilization to profile themselves as the world superpower. In the most critical part of the war, they still weren't there to help but were observing and now are glorified for that. Also, who helped Hitler come to power and had superlative newspaper headlines about that man in 1930s?

GG, America. It is good to be isolated in AW game.

Just to be clear, I am not fond of Stalin. Actually, he is the sole figure making dream of conquering Europe possible. If he didn't cripple his country by eliminating all the competent Soviet people, CCCP would've been much more advanced and powerful, equalizing the power distribution in the world. And he is much greater monster than Hitler. Still, must give credits to ones who earned them.

@GKey

You said it all in least number of words.

 

[Apricottage]

I'm sorry, but this is just absurd. You say that funds don't mean much, but ignore that funds are what BUY food, men, and guns (incidentally, guess which country had an abundance of all three?). You say that Russia could have conquered all of Europe when it only barely managed to hang on in the absolute most optimal conditions for them (Russian winter, Germans incredibly undersupplied) WITH American aid. Your final point doesn't even make sense, because it ignores the entirety of the Pacific theater except for what Japan did AFTER its military had been obliterated by the Americans. Your entire argument seems to be based off of a moral criticism of America's actions rather than the fact that after America entered the war, the Axis was almost immediately repelled on all fronts and that prior to that point the Allies had been only barely defending at every turn. Tell me, do you know why America took so long to enter the war? Hint: it was related to the first World War.

I don't deny that the other powers were highly important in this war, but it's absolutely ridiculous to take this position of yours. American aid in finances, supplies, and direct involvement are what allowed the Allies to hold on, and then push back and achieve victory.

 

[GKey]

... You say that Russia could have conquered all of Europe when it only barely managed to hang on in the absolute most optimal conditions for them (Russian winter, Germans incredibly undersupplied) WITH American aid.

No need to compare dramatic situation in December 1941 when Wehrmacht was under Moscow and that in May 1945, I am quite sure after defeating major German forces under Berlin, Soviets could easily steamroll all over western Europe within months.
In June 1944 (when allies started invasion in Normand) Soviets were not barely hanging, but cleaned their territory of the Nazis and started pushing towards Berlin.

the fact that after America entered the war, the Axis was almost immediately repelled on all fronts and that prior to that point the Allies had been only barely defending at every turn. Tell me, do you know why America took so long to enter the war? Hint: it was related to the first World War.

AFAIK Most historians agree that most important break point in WWII was Stalingrad, that happened year before American involvement.

I don't deny that the other powers were highly important in this war, but it's absolutely ridiculous to take this position of yours. American aid in finances, supplies, and direct involvement are what allowed the Allies to hold on, and then push back and achieve victory.

I agree that material help from Lend-Lease act played essential role in fight of German vs USSR. Just on a side note: that was not financial aid - all supplies were paid by USSR with gold. In fact, the pay for its help during war gave huge push to American industry leading to USA become a world superpower. Also agree that USA and UK took care of entire naval aspect during war.

But again, biggest part was done by USSR at huge price of ravaged land, destroyed cities and countless casualties. Even though if you ask today "who won WWII?" the answer most probably would be "USA!"

 

[fed1943]

Well, I wasn't there, but, due my age and father's position, I spoke with several people who was.

I spoke with several Japanese, both pro and against surrender, and the key words were: if you die fighting, you not defeated; but the destruction (already suffered and
to come) and lack of tools to defend, made the weak looking option "let us survive to win tomorrow by non-military ways and always leaded by the Emperor" to prevail.

If I wanted to say "the Americans won the war" then I would think American farmers and industrials. Their products were on all theaters of operations and all allies said it was a condition to...

Of course American military, both ground and navy, played a top role; so CCCP; so UK
and Commonwealth. It can't be denied.

And, as History and If just don't fit, it's impossible to say what was decisive or not.

 

[damerell]

AFAIK Most historians agree that most important break point in WWII was Stalingrad, that happened year before American involvement.

Stalingrad: 23 August 1942 to 2 February 1943.
Pearl Harbour: 7 December 1941.
US oil embargo against Japan: July 1941.
Lend-Lease enacted: March 1941 (with deliveries to USSR beginning June 1941).

I can only assume these historians are a little confused.

 

[shulgi]

^ I think "turning point" is the word GKey meant.

It is also conceivable that the US could have stayed out of WW2. Unlikely perhaps, but Hitler really didn't want to fight England or the US and the US didn't need to fight Germany. Even for those of us who say that the Soviets broke the back of the German military are going to agree that the war could have had a drastically different outcome without US participation.