Posted on 08/19/2011 2:21:26 PM PDT by mojito
What ended World War II?
For nearly seven decades, the American public has accepted one version of the events that led to Japan’s surrender. By the middle of 1945, the war in Europe was over, and it was clear that the Japanese could hold no reasonable hope of victory. After years of grueling battle, fighting island to island across the Pacific, Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed. The production of materiel was faltering, completely overmatched by American industry, and the Japanese people were starving. A full-scale invasion of Japan itself would mean hundreds of thousands of dead GIs, and, still, the Japanese leadership refused to surrender.
But in early August 66 years ago, America unveiled a terrifying new weapon, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a matter of days, the Japanese submitted, bringing the fighting, finally, to a close.
On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.
In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You are right. They wanted protection from China and the Soviet Union. Surrendering to us gave them that.
It's ironic that the myth of the great German war machine was built largely on not having to fight an enemy of equal footing up to the invasion of Russia. German forces clearly outnumbered their Polish, Norwegian, and British adversaries. If the Battle of France had gone according to the German's original plans, it would have been a repeat of WWI. As it was the Allies' best forces twiddled their thumbs while whole the German advance simply bypassed them and the Maginot Line.
I recall reading that the U.S.Army had completed their study of WWII armies and their effectiveness. This study began shortly after the war ended and must have been carried on for at least 20 years.
I recall being surprised by their conclusions. It was also the first time I remember reading the phrase “unit cohesion”.
Anyway the thing which caught my eye was they determined the German army was the best one of all.
And more gasoline. A lot more gasoline.
I think the German military has been vastly overrated. Horrible military intelligence, no strategic bombers, very little motorized artillery, and lost virtually every battle from 1940 onwards.
I have the official signal Corps history of my Father’s battalion. It was given to me by the son of another member of that unit. Pretty interesting how good their records were.
They clearly were performing at a very high level. Way above what I would have guessed.
Among all the battles and accomplishments, one little item caught my attention mainly because I thought it revealed stupidity on someone’s part.
Some bean counter told them they had to collect for meals they had supplied to Belgian civilians who were working with them, mainly cutting down trees for lumber. They paid the civilians but did not charge them for going through their mess line.
The Colonel in charge of the battalion simply noted they were unable to comply due to not having a paymaster. What I suspect really happened was the Col. thought to himself that there was no way they were going to go back and try to find those people who had worked with them and charge them for their meals.
At Yalta, Stalin promised FDR to enter the war against Japan within two to three months after the end of the war against Germany. His declaration of war against Japan took place exactly three months after the surrender of Germany.
Is it moral to kill a conscripted 18 year old guy because he's wearing a uniform, but murder to kill the politicians who gave him his orders? How about the people who accepted those politicians as their acknowledged leaders? How about the people who made the munitions that the 18 year old conscripts used?
One positive thing that cannot be denied: the devastation inflicted on Germany and Japan seems to have terminated their societies' interest in war.
You got something against art?
>What a coincidence that they decided Russia was a concern right after we obliterated two of their cities.<
BINGO. More revisionist crap. I knew the US should have dropped 2 more mushroom clouds on them.
Perfectly logical. The Soviets would have needed 3 months to move sufficient forces to Eastern Siberia for the invasion of Manchuria. The bulk of Japan’s ground forces were in China and Manchuria during WW2, not in the Pacific islands. I believe the Soviets used 1 million men for the invasion, not something that could be done overnight in reaction to the Atomic bombings. It must have been a massive logistical feat alone.
Japan is an island nation...
Unlike the US that built a massive Navy and long range bomber force for it war with Japan....
The Soviet had no real navy, no sea-lift for troops and supplies, no invasion fleet, and no long range air force
The Soviet had just a massive land army and armor force like the German did in 1940 and like the German found with Britain the sea is one dam big mote
The Soviet were in no postion to touch Japan proper because they had no way to cross the water in any force and support it
The fighting would have been in China, Manchuria I think.
At this point Japan did not have an air force or navy capable of defending the islands. Without an air force Japan could not project any power past their own beaches. The reason Germany could not invade Britain is that they failed to defeat the RAF in the Battle of Britain. One of the largest Soviet naval bases, Vladivostock, is right in the neighborhood, and had been untouched throughout the whole war.
An interesting sidelight. The road to Pearl Harbor started on the Soviet Manchurian border in 1939. The Japanese Army took such a drubbing from Marshall Zhukov that in inter service politics, the Japanese Navy received the upper hand to fight its war, not the army’s
An army in 1945 along the Bering Stait would have starved to death. There is no roads or any other transportation to keep an army supplied.
You must be kidding ...Japan was hammer the US Navy with kamikaze attack and had over 5000 kamikaze aircraft waiting for the US invasion fleet at the end of the war
But your point is moot as the Soviet had no invasion fleet to ever try to get across TOO Japan...how you going to get thoese taks across, by rowboat?
Your not being logical...
The US could of try just a massive land force in China to battle Japan ... that would be the same thing as the Soviet had and massive land force on the mainland...
the US built the Naval force it did for Japan for a reason...but by magic the Soviet Army was going to walk across the water
So on one hand you say the Red Army could not handle one over water crossing at the Bering Staits, an isolated area, to set up a army and supply beach head in N.America ..
But on other hand you say the Red Army could handle the many over water crossing to the many (well defended)islands of Japan and keep it army supplied?....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.