russian victory parade 2014

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Don't get me wrong here. I was just thinking about the recalls of a Bf-109 pilot flying in the december 1941 Moscow battle. He recalled the Dec 7 Pearl Harbour, and US getting into war with Germany, but he was too busy flying to think about it. About 2 weeks later during a slow time in the fighting over the Moscow area (too cold?) he sat in his tent one night, and realized, with Dec 7 1941, the war was already lost, done, over.

[von Baur 54]

Japan's hoping for Soviet mediation is a valid point. However, after Nagasaki their capitulation was in the bag. The US had made our demands clear and it was obvious we weren't budging (which we did regarding not forcing the Emporer to abdicate, but that was at Mac's behest and a shrewd tactical/political move) because Japan didn't realize we'd dropped the last nuke that was ready to go. Stalin, OTOH, knew through his spies and made his move to grab as much territory as he could.

 

No Korean War? No Kim Il-Sung? No Kim Jong-Il? No Kim Jong-Un? Would there be any dissenting votes on that outside China and North Korea? And I've got a feeling that even China's looking at the latest "Glorious Leader" of the North Korean people and saying, "Dude. Take a Valium, OK?"

 

I don't care what Stalin said. Or Kruschev. Or Brezhnev. Or any of them. I care a little about what Putin says and does because my son is in the Army and he could have to deploy there if it comes to that. Otherwise, Mad Vlad (although, if he continues to expand Russia into formerly forced Soviet satellite states I may start calling him "Vlad, the Inhaler") can talk all he wants, too. What really bugs me is the way western historians go along with this poppycock. The farther WWII fades, the more likely these lies will come to be viewed as the truth. Years from now children may think that Anzio was where the generals went for their Spring Break. And that the Afrika Korps was a forerunner to the Peace Corps (they did a lot of work in Africa), so why were we fighting them?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Right, Ukraine and Putin.

 

---

 

Anyways, I'm learning new things, like the original plan was to have the Soviets share occupation of Japan. ughhhhh. Perhaps fortunately, Truman made the calls here.

 

Now, this *is* interesting, and I did not know about it until now...

 

 

Occupation of Japan::

 

 

During the war, the Allied Powers had planned to divide Japan amongst themselves for the purposes of occupation, as was done for the occupation of Germany.

:

:

~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan

 

But this was changed to...

 

:

Soviet Union: North Korea (not a full occupation), Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands

:

:

:

It is unclear why the occupation plan was changed. Common theories include the increased power of the United States following development of the atomic bomb, Truman's greater distrust of the Soviet Union when compared with Roosevelt, and an increased desire to contain Soviet expansion in the Far East after the Yalta Conference.

 

The Soviet Union had some intentions of occupying Hokkaidō.^[5] Had this occurred, there might have been the foundation of a communist "Democratic People's Republic of Japan" in the Soviet zone of occupation. However, unlike the Soviet occupations of East Germany and North Korea, these plans were frustrated by the opposition of U.S. President Harry S. Truman.

 

 

wow!!!!

[+Gepard 11,181]

You should not make the soviet part in war against Japan smaller than it was in reality. The short soviet campaign in Manchuria and down to the 38th parallel annihilated a japanese army with 1 million soldiers. Without soviet invasion, this troops would have sent to japanese motherland and an american invasion on Japan in 1946 would have cost a lot of victims on US side. The defeat of the Kwantung Army was not unimportant. It saved a lot of US Boys.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

As much as we Americans like to think we "won" WWII. The fact is the Soviet Union where the true victors. Our sacrifices where relatively minor in comparison to the millions of Soviet citizens that perished. To support Gepard's point, The 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria set the conditions for the victory by the Red Chinese and the establishment of Communist North Korea.  These events spawned two wars after WWII and totally changed the balance of power in East Asia. Besides, who took Berlin? The USA only took one Axis capital. Rome. On, ironically, 06JUN44. Only after the Fascist government capitulated and moved North. Believe it or not, the most important "Lend-Lease" item we provided to the Soviet Union was Spam. The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war and should be recognized in a non-political and objective manner.

Edited May 16, 2014 by CrazyhorseB34

[von Baur 54]

There's only one thing wrong with that arguement, Gepard...the Atomic bombs made an invasion of mainland Japan unnecessary. Another million, two million, or five million soldiers would have made no difference. Japan knew the US would continue dropping them until not a citizen survived or until we ran out (which we had, although they didn't know that), at which point we would make more. Stalin knew this as well, and knew that if he wanted to steal as much formerly Japanese-held territory as he could he had to act fast.

 

The truly interesting question in all of it, in my mind, is...if we had waited a week or two to drop the first bomb would Stalin have honored his three month timetable. I can argue that he wouldn't and anyone else can argue that he would. The only thing we can be sure of is that we'll never know for sure.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

A point could be made that the fire bombing of Tokyo,  killed more people than the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The big question is was the use of the atomic bomb really needed. Most Americans have been told that we would have suffered substantial casualties if they had not been used. The truth is that Japan was on the verge of capitulation because of the fire bombing campaign just at the time Little Boy was dropped. So we unleash the most horrific weapon in the history of mankind against civilian targets to save the lives of 500,000 of our soldiers, against an already defeated enemy. Thus giving the world the notion that atomic weapons are humane. That argument never washed with me. That started the "Cold War" more than any singular event in my opinion. As far as a Stalin Manchurian timetable is concerned, why was it not a good idea for the Soviets to invade Manchuria in 1945? We would not have done it. The Japanese Army had a huge amount of men and material in Manchuria and Korea in 1945. With those forces defeated soundly by the Soviets. Japan had no other choice but to surrender. So with that the Soviets really did win WWII...............

Edited May 16, 2014 by CrazyhorseB34

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

No contest, the Soviet Front was unquestionably the place where the fate of War in Europe was sealed. And so overwhelmingly that campaigns fought elsewhere may have appeared, in comparison, as relatively anecdotal. The proportions in German and Axis losses East are telling enough (over 80%, if including PoWs dead in captivity). From Moscow to Berlin, from Leningrad to Königsberg, from Sevastopol to Budapest, this front of gigantic dimensions in width and moving depth, saw hundreds (hundreds, too many of them to be remembered) battles the size of Kasserine or Anzio, and dozens of battles the size of Normandy or Ardennes. One of the reasons why the difficult battleground of Normandy did not get stuck in the quagmire it may have become, was that on the same month of June, the Soviets had launched Operation Bagration, one of the biggest offensives of the War gathering 2.5 millions soldiers, which could seize all of Bielorussia and Eastern Poland in one single impulse (alright, largely due to the large amounts of trucks provided by Lend-Lease).

 

The Soviets also had to face the additional forces of Finland, Hungary, Romania, some other puppets, and enough anti-Communist volunteers from all over Europe to build two dozens of legions or SS divisions - while the Allies before September 1943 only had to face unprepared Italy with very few additional German divisions, and some more significant German help in the air. On the other hand, true, the Soviets had no influence over strategic warfare during this War in Europe (the convoys war in Mediterranea and Atlantic, and the air front over Germany). But once again, this compared to an Eastern ground front that permanently engulfed over 200 Axis divisions, appears anew as anecdotal.

[von Baur 54]

There's no "point could be made" about it, Crazyhorse. The numbers are there. The firebombings absolutely killed more. But they did no more to demoralize the Japanese people in general or convince higher authorities to surrender than did the bombing of London. Especially an unconditional surrender. What they did was to show America's resolve to reduce Japan to ashes, if necessary, rather than accept anything less than surrender on our terms. That's why they were sending feelers out to the USSR to try to negotiate a cease-fire. And nobody ever said the use of any weapon is humane. But sometimes the use of a weapon is necessary. Don't forget, The US was the last to start using them in WWII. And if it hadn't been for the USSR's continuing to push even after Japan had agreed to surrender, we would have been the last to use them.

 

But those raids involved hundreds of bombers flying low...10,000 feet or less...within easy range of anti-aircraft guns and susceptible to whatever home-defense aircraft Japan may have had at that point. The Japanese military felt that they could weather that storm, and maybe they could have. When ONE B-29 flew over at 30,000 feet...untouchable by anything Japan had...and killed nearly half as many with one bomb as all the firebombing raids had done, well that was something else again. And then we dropped another on Nagasaki, showing that we also had the means to reduce Japan to ashes. Combined with the resolve the firebombings had shown, the Emporer himself broke with hundreds of years of tradition and cast his vote. He acted with honor, concerned more with the safety of his people than with his own fate (quite to the contrary of what Stalin did...but I'll get to that later).

 

It's possible that the Soviet invasion of occupied Manchuria was considered when that vote was cast. But I can't imagine that making much difference in either the outcome or the timing. And while I have no facts to cite, I would point to the timing of events as support for my position. It would have been months before any Soviet troops had set foot on Japanese soil. But it didn't take months. It took days.

 

 

I never said the US won WWII. I did say it took all the major Allied powers to defeat Germany and that if the Soviet Union had fallen Germany's defeat at least would have taken much, much longer and may not have occurred. Soviet sacrifices were as high as they were for two reasons: the Nazi's occupied their territory and therefore were able to initiate their extermination policies on the civilian population; and the primary Soviet military strategy was to throw more people at the enemy than the enemy could kill before being overwhelmed. A strategy which is only effective as long as you have huge numbers of people that you don't give a rat's fourth-point-of-contact it they're all killed to save your own fourth-point-of-contact (I told you I'd get back to this). And it doesn't matter whether it was the bullets, the bandages or the beans (ok, spam), if not for outside assistance the USSR likely would have ceased to exist by 1944. And I never disagreed that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria "set the stage" for the Korean War. I just asked if it would been a bad thing for the Korean War never to have happened. Personally, I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only good war is the one that doesn't have to be fought. The Soviets may have been the first "boots on the ground" in Berlin, but they weren't the first to fight the Germans there. By the time the first Soviet boots hit the suburbs it was already badly mauled by the British and US air raids that had been going on for years.

 

 

I will give you one thing, though. The Soviet Union did win WWII. If you use the 19th Century definition of winning a war: imposing your rule through force of arms upon a lot of people who formerly owed you no allegiance.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yough Horse, long article I found some months back about this, the first time I saw the idea.

 

~> The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Great job Lex that article supports about 80% of what I said. Wow college is an amazing thing. Glad I went.

 

Let me add that this is a stimulating conversation with really good points raised by all. Why I am here.

 

One key point we have left out. The USSR was on the other side till June 1941.

 

Also the strategic bombing of Berlin did very little damage in comparison to the ground fight...... Just sayin.

 

The strategic bombing of Berlin had little effect on the Soviet capture of the Seelowe Heights, the Oder crossing and the massive envelopment operation my old buddy Georgie executed in the fashion that only an old horse soldier could do.

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2014 by CrazyhorseB34

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yea, by the time the industrial bombing got really going, the German Army was already well on its way out of USSR.

 

That said, air defense of the Reich absorbed about half the 88mm flak guns and crews, about the most effective and most asked for (or feared) weapon in the ground war I think. And ammunition as well. That became a real problem as the munitions and chemical plants were destroyed and kept destroyed. Same kinda happened in WW1, the airships and then Gothas took away alot of Britt guns from the front.

 

Ever hear about this one...?

 

The Zeppelin in Combat: A History of the German Naval Airship Division

 

 

If not, get it. I had it years ago, gave it away. Very very detailed accounts, classical book with tons of photo in certain sections, and gigatons of fine print text.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Lexx_Luthor

[+Jug 99]

OK, I'm picky here........Lend Lease, not Lend Leace.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Jug::

 

OK, I'm picky here........Lend Lease, not Lend Leace.

 

The Spelling Mod.

 

On the ubi IL-2 forums, the Moscow Bureau poasted pre~releace screenshots of P-51 Bertha / Dora cockpit, and the canopy releace handle said...

CANOPY
RELEACE

The forum, perceiving a Russian provocation, erupted in pandemonium and panic, that only a flight sim forum can exhibit.  The Russians were forced to back down, and the Moscow Bureau releaced the P-51 cockpit with...

CANOPY
RELEASE

As Lend Leace was an IL-2 forum topic along with Berthas and Doras...

 

...the Spelling Mod was born, and forever releaced, or lend leaced, etc... etc..