75 years ago today...

[Michael Emrys]

23 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Without Mad Addy's "ideals" that force would never have existed.

Not entirely true. In secret violation of Versailles, the German army was rebuilding and modernizing before Hitler became Chancellor. Without Hitler, Germany might have had a much more affordable defense establishment.

24 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

And which worthy tasks did you have in mind? Driving Musso out of Ethiopia in the service of the League of Nations? Defending China from Japanese invasion? Being offered to the Republic of Spain in it's hour of need? 

I didn't really have anything specific in mind, but now that you mention it, giving aid to China was already in progress and wasn't curtailed until Japan joined the Axis and demanded it.

The German army would not necessarily have to do much actual fighting to be an important factor in European politics. As a force in being, it could lend weight to Germany's hand in diplomatic deal making, including easing some of the more onerous restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, such as reparations.

But to be fair, even lacking the Nazis, German domestic politics were still in turmoil. It is very hard to predict anything like sane policies prevailing.

Michael

[Sublime]

On 6/28/2016 at 5:05 PM, Bulletpoint said:

They didn't really need nuclear weapons though, conventional explosives and firebombs were levelling German cities on a horrible scale..

But they did need nukes. Point blank. Firebombing Germany to ash did nothing as it did nothing to Japan. However 2 nukes DID force an Japanese  coup attempt and then surrender. I contend that since 99 percent of this thread is conjecture, and the facts we do have are - 1.fire bombing obliterated cities and in Tokyo killed more than any one nuke in a single night

2. This didnt break either Germany or Japan.

3. We.ll never know with Germany but considering Japans resistance was definitely equal to in my opinion anything on the East Front as far as fighting to the death, and 2 nukes forced a surrender when NOTHING ELSE DID =

Nukes were necessary.

Christs sake man they were in such a state ( Japan ) they were making kamikaze units. This only occurred in Germany once ( Sonderkommando Elbe ) and they only flew one mission and were disbanded.

 

And yes Hitler never visited bombed cities. Well guess what neither did the Japanese emperor. He was SO isolated he spoke a dialect of Japanese the average Japanese person couldnt even understand! Thats pretty extreme isolation and even he saw the writing on the wall. Ironically for all the whining in revisionist history about US nuke use the most oft overlooked fact is nevermind the tens or hundreds of thousands of US Brit Russian Chinese French Australian New Zealanders etc that those bombs saved from death in invading Japan it saved MILLIONS of Japanese from death as well.

 

And Japan got off incredibly easy post war. A 3 mnth difference was all we needed to see Uncle Joe was more akin to that creepy child molester uncle type vs the friendly slips you money at holidays uncle. We need a strong base in the Pacific close to Russia, amongst other things.

Using the analogy of your dog $hitting on your carpet we rubbed Germanys nose in it while we simply chided Japan about the smell and forgot all about it. The evidence is in their history books which drone on and on about nukes  but pretty much gloss over the 30s and 40s otherwise especially as far as what the Japanese military was doing.

 

Edited July 3, 2016 by Sublime

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Brother Ed let me borrow a book called Hell to Pay, by Giangreco. It's an exhaustive analysis of the plans for the invasion of Japan. Not pretty. For starters, the Japanese had one million more men on one of the home islands than US intelligence knew about. They accurately deduced both planned landing locations and were ready to go. There were massive hidden stockpiles of fuel, ammunition, kamikaze aircraft and crews specially trained in night attack with stealth (wood) aircraft. Initial attacks vs US destroyers using these radar invisible planes were, I believe, 3 for 3. Japan had rapidly gotten better at defending (ER improved in invasion after invasion, and Okinawa and Iwo Jima nearly unhinged the US populace because of the terrible losses incurred) and had splendid terrain in the Kanto in which there were only a few routes across a sea of otherwise impassable rice paddies, routes exactly like the one XX Corps had to run on the way to Arnhem. Horribly exposed, elevated and vulnerable from all sorts of weapons. Casualties would've been astronomic.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Based on my reading of Richard B. Frank's Downfall leads me to agree with you. If the invasion of the home islands had gone ahead, the resulting bloodbath might well have been hideous even for WW II. The alternative would have been to sit back and let Japan starve itself into extinction, which might not have taken all that long. They were already on the brink of starvation, at least as far as the civilian population was concerned. Japan depended on massive imports of rice and other foodstuffs, and the islands were under very effective siege conditions. Not only had most of their ocean going merchant marine been sunk, but in the last months of the war a highly effective campaign of mine laying meant that coastal traffic by smaller ships was now largely curtailed so that even those areas capable or producing food had much greater difficulties in getting it to population centers of the cities. Even without an invasion, millions more Japanese would have died. War is ugly and total war is totally ugly.

Michael

[hattori]

It seems to me a very western idea to think Japan surrendered purely because of the nuclear bombs considering the fire bombing did considerably more damage (although it certainly contributed).  I would say Russia's entry into that war and quickly overrunning Manchuria did much more to break the Japanese will to fight -- after that they were truly out of most resources to keep fighting, and would not be able to hold out nearly as long.

I also think the biggest mistake Hitler made in the war was to see Ukrainians as people that needed to be wiped out and starved to death.  When Germany first invaded, they were seen as liberators in Ukraine.  The first order of business on capturing Kiev should have been to run up the Ukrainian flag.  Had Hitler promoted Ukrainian independence instead, and gotten that population behind him like the Estonians or Latvians, I think he stood a much better chance at knocking out Russia.

[Michael Emrys]

14 hours ago, hattori said:

It seems to me a very western idea to think Japan surrendered purely because of the nuclear bombs considering the fire bombing did considerably more damage (although it certainly contributed).  I would say Russia's entry into that war and quickly overrunning Manchuria did much more to break the Japanese will to fight -- after that they were truly out of most resources to keep fighting, and would not be able to hold out nearly as long.

I don't think that loss of Manchurian resources had that much to do with it as shipments from Manchuria were already being severely curtailed by the Allied blockade of the Home Islands. But what did deliver a shock to the Japanese was the speed with which the Soviets were able to overrun the country. The Japanese had simply not been exposed to that level of mechanized warfare and they assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the Americans would be even better at it.

14 hours ago, hattori said:

I also think the biggest mistake Hitler made in the war was to see Ukrainians as people that needed to be wiped out and starved to death.  When Germany first invaded, they were seen as liberators in Ukraine.  The first order of business on capturing Kiev should have been to run up the Ukrainian flag.  Had Hitler promoted Ukrainian independence instead, and gotten that population behind him like the Estonians or Latvians, I think he stood a much better chance at knocking out Russia.

The problem with that idea is—as it often is—that it ignores logistic realities. Germany was already having grave difficulties supplying its own armies in the East. A large part of their ability to do that involved the starvation of the conquered peoples. Pacifying the Ukrainians would have involved giving that up and then finding additional supplies for a notional Ukrainian army. The numbers just won't work.

Michael

[Sublime]

hattori I completely disagree.

I noted days ago in this thread firebombing didnt do anything. The first Tokyo raid killed more than any one nuke.

It was however the impact of ONE nuke and ONE plane doing what previoisly took hundreds or thousands that made the nukes impact decisive. Along with not knowing how many the US had and exactly what the effects of the nukes were. IIRC correctly cabinent meetings that ended with deciding to surrender happened before the Soviet invasion. The attempted military coup.

Perhaps Im wrong about the datws vis a vis the meetings and coup and Soviet attack but I think that the frequent sight of US planes bombing and attacking Japan, frequent naval activity of the sacred home islands etc had way more effect than anything in Manchuria or Sakhalin. Traditionally the Japanese have tended to look down their nose at people from their extreme northern islands anyways.

Remember when Doolittle bombed Tokyo in 42 there was Japanese outrage that an American plane could possibly have committed the grave sin of flying over their living god the Emperor. I imagine hundreds of B29s would produce way more screeching and fear.

 

Emrys yes the Japanese were very close to starvation.  Ive also heard that argument used before against the use of nukes. However I have zero doubts starvation or not the Japanese govt would have fought on for a long while before giving in, and plus had the ability to force the already brainwashed and fanatical civilian populace to keep calm and carry on. ( look at Leningrad and that was just a city.. )

 

The fact is everyone except of course the people killed in the atomic blasts were better off because of them. Japanese society after eventual US victory would cease to exist. There was much more US hatred of the Japanese than the Germans and history proved that any force that wasnt met with a quick surrender didnt have much sympathy for ideas such as collateral damage.

The other fact is the Germans have continually apologidd recognized and endlessly been villified ( rightly so ) for what they did. And the Japanese havent and their school texts books show an absolutely deliberate decision to whitewash their history so it basically reads like "The peaceful Japanese were playing baseball and suddeny America nuked us. Twice. Oh and Russians moved into the Kuriles for no reason also and they should give it back."

 

The rabid US haters because of US use of nukes are naive. If the US hadnt developed and used them it would have been Russia or another large power. Several countries had Manhattan projects of their own going. And I hate to throw this in too, but all but the most unrealistic fool would be upset the US got nukes first and or basically have dominated the field since along with Russia. The US has done terrible things, no nation has blood free hands, but the US definitely ( and especially in the 1940s ) is the most rational and benevolent nation to have the worlds most destructive weapon in their arsenal and their arsenal alone. Proofs in the pudding. Nazi or Japanese nukes first? World held hostage. Russian monopoly on nukes under Stalin? Another awful idea to contemplate. Mao? You.re kiddin right? And it goes on.

 

 

RE Ww2 Ukraine

Dont forget Nazis or no a lot of Ukrainian partisans hated the Russians too. Look up how General Vatutin died.

Regardless of INITIAL Latvian and Estonian support by 1942 the Nazis were hated there generally as well. They may have higher proportions of Waffen SS recruits but thats about it.

Regardless the Ukraine thing is a pipe dream. It just would never have happened with Hitler and Barbarossa etc wouldnt have happened without Hitler. The Ukrainians were sub humans to the Nazi powers that be and nothing would change that.  Anything else is fantasy and monday morning quarterbacking of a game none of us were physically even at.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Sublime

[hattori]

Great points.

I will say that while I know Japanese shipping elsewhere in the Pacific was severed by the allies, I don't believe they were able to shut down shipments through the Sea of Japan, especially between the Busan in Korea and Japan -- I believe the convoys could make the trip at night relatively safely.  If someone has proof to contradict this, I would greatly appreciate it.  

I'm not trying to say the atomic weapons had no impact, but I know Japan was desperate for some type of peace with the Russians -- they felt they could hold out against the Americans, but not against both.  They were really trying to negotiate something all through '45 with Stalin.  I just don't want to dismiss the Russian contribution, as late as it was coming, for the Japanese collapse.  It's like saying the Americans had little impact on the outcome of World War 1 because they only showed up at the end.

I actually think an independent Ukraine could have solved some of the logistical problems for Germany.  Removing the majority of partisan activity would go a long way towards that.  An active willing Ukrainian population that would actually help with the dirty work of road construction, snow removal, bridge repairs, redoing rail guages, etc, I believe would have also really helped with logistical problems.  You're also depriving the Russians of a large source of manpower, and freeing up German soldiers from guarding and anti-partisan activities.  I don't think I would suggest to the Germans to arm, train, and form a Ukrainian army.  You are right, feeding the population would have been an issue -- but again, with a willing population uniting behind a common traditional hated enemy -- Russia -- you can probably get a lot more out of farming (and you'd also be doing away with the terrible Russian collective farm idea, and that the Russians used to take most of the grain out of Ukraine anyways)

Sublime, you do make me laugh sometimes -- Ukraine is a pipe dream?  The entire line of thinking of what the Germans should have done differently is a pipe dream lol. Not go to war is really the best answer.  Perhaps you should also research the 29th SS division, or the Eastern-Waffen SS if you feel the Germans would never take Russian soldiers - never say never.  

 

[Sublime]

I know quite well the Germans would take Russian sodiers. Vlasovs army is the ultimate example. That however was much later in the war and wayyyy too late for any real reconciliation with the population. And of course yes destroying the partisan movement would have gone a long way towards popular support. Then again the German version of COIN spawned such nice groups of guys such as the Dirlewanger Brigade ( look em up )and regardless of massive scale military ops the partisan movement grew as time passed.

I dont think the Russian involvement should be discounted but it gets way more credit. And no I believe you.re entirely wrong the Japanese felt they could take the US but not US and USSR. Its well known they knew the war was lost as early as 1943 hence the strategic switch in defense from things like last ditch banzai charges to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat to bitter killed.to the last man combat designed to maximize enemy casualties before ineviteable failure. The aim no longer was victory, it was making enemy TOTAL victory illusory due to enormous casualties.

The analogy to the US in WW1 is terrible. The US troops were in combat on a very large scale over six months and the flood of supplies and men had been coming for over a year by 11/18. With Russia you have a couple weeks and the POTENTIAL at much much more. A more likely analogy would have been US joining WW1 in October 1918.

I also homestly think that Stalin would have been happy to turn China and all of the Asian mainland he could communist by force and would have avoided any major invasion of Japan and let the West bleed for it.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Sublime

[Sublime]

P.s. Hattori - of course any alternate line of history is fantasy. However theres plausible what ifs and then theres Nazi nuclear VBIEDS at Kursk..

Edited July 8, 2016 by Sublime

[Warts 'n' all]

On 7/8/2016 at 1:53 AM, Sublime said:

I also homestly think that Stalin would have been happy to turn China and all of the Asian mainland he could communist by force and would have avoided any major invasion of Japan and let the West bleed for it.

I beg to differ. I've always felt that his ambitions in the east were no different to those of the late 19th/early 20th century Tsars i.e. to push back Japan to it's home territory.

[Sublime]

So how would that differ at all from letting the West invade the home islands whilst focussing on turning mainland Asia red again?

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I beg to differ. I've always felt that his ambitions in the east were no different to those of the late 19th/early 20th century Tsars i.e. to push back Japan to it's home territory.

Seems to me that Stalin's ambition was to reclaim any lands that had ever been part of czarist Russia. I wonder if Putin has his eyes on the same goal.

Michael

[Warts 'n' all]

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Seems to me that Stalin's ambition was to reclaim any lands that had ever been part of czarist Russia. I wonder if Putin has his eyes on the same goal.

Michael

We are straying somewhat from the OP but, I think you're spot on. If I gave my honest opinion of the pair of them Steve would quite rightly ban me to protect younger readers.

[Sublime]

Id be interested to hear it if even in pm your msgs are always worth the time