Iowa, Warspite, if you can work with the Imperial Japanese Navy, Kriegsmarine and the Regia Marina to fight the Abyssal, surely you can fight with the Soviet Navy who was actually your ally during World War 2
Iowa, Warspite, if you can work with the Imperial Japanese Navy, Kriegsmarine and the Regia Marina to fight the Abyssal, surely you can fight with the Soviet Navy who was actually your ally during World War 2
Grudgingly an ally. Churchill didn't trust Stalin at all, and Roosevelt didn't particularly either. The Soviets were useful as they kept the Germans occupied to the East while the Americans built up for the major Counter Invasion of D-Day. As well as the Torch landings and Africa and Italy campaigns. It was Europe first, Japan later.
But the Allies did not want to let the Soviets into Europe or Asia, as they figured (rightly as it turned out) that once there, it be almost impossible to get them (Communists) to leave. The Atomic Bombing of Japan was as much to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent more deaths (both American and Japanese) from the Invasion of Japan, as it was also to end the war quickly to prevent the Soviets from taking even more in Asia, as they rolled up the Japanese Army in Manchuria and were rolling into Korea before the surrender. No way the Americans would want the Soviets to also invade Japan. Image a North and South Japan, split like East and West Germany, with Tokyo split like Berlin, just surrounded by Allied occupied Japan, rather than Berlin's Soviet occupied territory.
The British and Americans could at least get along with the Germans and Italian, and the Japanese had had an understanding with the West before....the Russians....not so much. At least not after Communism took over. But even before, old Czarist Russian was sort of the outsider of Europe, even if Czar Nicholai II was related to Queen Victoria. The long standing tradition, prior to the unification of Germany, was that the balance of power on land was between France and Russia, with the English playing them off each other to maintain their domination through sea power, because the land powers were too busy to make a serious challenge to the Royal Navy, thus the eventual British Empire being the largest on the planet, with a fleet that could take on the next two largest naval powers at the same time....until they built HMS Dreadnaught.
Grudgingly an ally. Churchill didn't trust Stalin at all, and Roosevelt didn't particularly either. The Soviets were useful as they kept the Germans occupied to the East while the Americans built up for the major Counter Invasion of D-Day. As well as the Torch landings and Africa and Italy campaigns. It was Europe first, Japan later.
But the Allies did not want to let the Soviets into Europe or Asia, as they figured (rightly as it turned out) that once there, it be almost impossible to get them (Communists) to leave. The Atomic Bombing of Japan was as much to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent more deaths (both American and Japanese) from the Invasion of Japan, as it was also to end the war quickly to prevent the Soviets from taking even more in Asia, as they rolled up the Japanese Army in Manchuria and were rolling into Korea before the surrender. No way the Americans would want the Soviets to also invade Japan. Image a North and South Japan, split like East and West Germany, with Tokyo split like Berlin, just surrounded by Allied occupied Japan, rather than Berlin's Soviet occupied territory.
The British and Americans could at least get along with the Germans and Italian, and the Japanese had had an understanding with the West before....the Russians....not so much. At least not after Communism took over. But even before, old Czarist Russian was sort of the outsider of Europe, even if Czar Nicholai II was related to Queen Victoria. The long standing tradition, prior to the unification of Germany, was that the balance of power on land was between France and Russia, with the English playing them off each other to maintain their domination through sea power, because the land powers were too busy to make a serious challenge to the Royal Navy, thus the eventual British Empire being the largest on the planet, with a fleet that could take on the next two largest naval powers at the same time....until they built HMS Dreadnaught.
I read/heard somewhere(probably the WWII segment in the discovery/NatGeo channels) that Churchill also proposed a plan that after they defeat the nazis, UK and America would also attack the USSR since after the European theatre USSR forces are exhausted that they'll be an easy target to prevent communism but America kinda declined?
HMS Dreadnaught made all the previous types of battleships obsolete. Including all the British battleships they had built up to be equal to the next two largest naval power after them. With Dreadnaught, the British inadvertently equalized the naval arms race by making it possible for other naval power to catch up. While the British were able to maintain a numerical advantage until World War One, they could no longer maintain a fleet that was equal or greater than the next two largest powers, because Germany was able to built at least two dreadnaughts for every three the British made, and the American were trying to equal the Germans in numbers, meaning the British would have to equal the Americans and Germans to maintain their Victorian era superiority at sea...and they just couldn't do it. Dreadnaughts are too expensive as it, and trying to outpace two other large industrial nations, while maintaining your global empire turned out to be too much.
Following World War One, the British attempted to return to their old policy now that Germany was neutralized, but Japan was building like crazy, and the Americans and evened the numbers during the war at the expense of cruiser construction. The war has nearly broken the British economy and nearly gutted a generation of people. The Empire could not afford another Naval Arms race. So the Washington Treaty was the result. The British lost their superiority in exchange for maintaining their economy and empire. They still had the largest fleet, but only barely. They had equal numbers of capital ships with the American now by treaty. Americans who actual could out produce the British after the rapid industrialization from the Great War. The Japanese would take second place, even though they had attempted to produce a large number of capital ships (8-8 plan), they likely couldn't really afford it. Tactically, they were in the better position in the 1920 from the treaty due to the fact that they could hold their entire fleet in the Pacific, while the Americans and British couldn't due to multiple ocean commitments. But by the 1930s the Japanese militarist didn't like the treaty limits them to second best, enough though their position was superior as long as they didn't anger both British and Americans at the same time, as it was unusual for either to be able to deploy the majority of their forces against Japan under normal conditions. It was a theory after the Great War that the next major conflict would be between the Americans and British over economics and trade. The Washington Treaty also reducing that concerns as that would have been fueled partly by the expected naval arms race without said treaty.
I read/heard somewhere(probably the WWII segment in the discovery/NatGeo channels) that Churchill also proposed a plan that after they defeat the nazis, UK and America would also attack the USSR since after the European theatre USSR forces are exhausted that they'll be an easy target to prevent communism but America kinda declined?
Patton was down for that, but the Americans (civilians) were not up for an even more prolonged war. Anti-Communist sentiments were not fully in place until the 1950s after Korea followed by the threat of nuclear war stirring Americans to hate the Commies. Before that? There were American communists in the 1920s and 1930s. It didn't become a major issue until 1950 when they were "the enemy".
That and what was known about the Soviet military and history is...you don't get into a land war with Russia on Russian soil. The USSR might have seemed exhausted, but I am not inclined to think that the American and British troops would have been all that fresh, even if they used the troops that were going to invade Japan in 1946. The million man army as it were. Unless the American could manage to invade from the East though Serbia and China, the lines across Europe would be another killing zone like it had been since 1941...Ukraine would likely be entirely depopulated if the Russians had to evacuate it again ahead of the Allied tanks. Poland would be a wasteland.
Patton was down for that, but the Americans (civilians) were not up for an even more prolonged war. Anti-Communist sentiments were not fully in place until the 1950s after Korea followed by the threat of nuclear war stirring Americans to hate the Commies. Before that? There were American communists in the 1920s and 1930s. It didn't become a major issue until 1950 when they were "the enemy".
That and what was known about the Soviet military and history is...you don't get into a land war with Russia on Russian soil. The USSR might have seemed exhausted, but I am not inclined to think that the American and British troops would have been all that fresh, even if they used the troops that were going to invade Japan in 1946. The million man army as it were. Unless the American could manage to invade from the East though Siberia and China, the lines across Europe would be another killing zone like it had been since 1941...Ukraine would likely be entirely depopulated if the Russians had to evacuate it again ahead of the Allied tanks. Poland would be a wasteland.
The Atomic Bombing of Japan was as much to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent more deaths (both American and Japanese) from the Invasion of Japan
That sounds so nice if it were not for the fact we know America didn't care for the Japanese deaths and they just needed to justify the costs made on the bomb. They also needed a real target to test it on, avenge their fallen soldier deaths and kick an already fallen enemy. That's the kind of biased history American books have still today.
That sounds so nice if it were not for the fact we know America didn't care for the Japanese deaths and they just needed to justify the costs made on the bomb. They also needed a real target to test it on, avenge their fallen soldier deaths and kick an already fallen enemy. That's the kind of biased history American books have still today.
Would you rather have had all of Japan turned into hell on Earth in an invasion?
I read/heard somewhere(probably the WWII segment in the discovery/NatGeo channels) that Churchill also proposed a plan that after they defeat the nazis, UK and America would also attack the USSR since after the European theatre USSR forces are exhausted that they'll be an easy target to prevent communism but America kinda declined?
Operation Unthinkable is what you might be thinking off
Once the Abomb was a think and the lasting effects were not know alot of plans to stop well any there was to go nuclear on them after. Churchill wanted to invade Russia after but the plan was well unthinkable after all the allies were recovering and Russia was well not an easy target for conventional assault plus most of their army was still very much ready to move on the allies if need be.
Japan with their fleet crushed was in the process of giving up, the bombing was totally unnecessary.
Far from it man, Japan those days are so devoted to their emperor that they are planning to make civilians(Women and Children included) their soldiers to fend off US soldiers off the land and also have a plan to bring plague to US called Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night which is to be implemented at September 22, 1945 but they were A.bombed and surrender.
Also after the first A.bomb they were doubtful about the bomb so they needed a scout to report if it's really that powerful, heck their higher ups also almost rebel against the emperor because the emperor was going to surrender and their code wont allow surrender.
And i think till this day 'murrica is still paying reparations on those who are affected on those A.bombs(dunno bout this one tho).
And if you asked why they'll use their own civilians to fight is because i think i read somewhere that the mind set of them in that time was, "If we're gonna lose anyway, then make sure the opponent lose as much as possible" or something like that.
So being devoted to the emperor and the emperor giving up isn't a process of giving up? That would mean USA was in the plan of eradicating Japan as a whole but failed. But it doesn't matter. What I mean is no one believes the bombing was in good faith, that's American history BS. It was plain war, not good or bad sides.
So being devoted to the emperor and the emperor giving up isn't a process of giving up? That would mean USA was in the plan of eradicating Japan as a whole but failed. But it doesn't matter. What I mean is no one believes the bombing was in good faith, that's American history BS. It was plain war, not good or bad sides.
The Japanese were unwilling to surrender unless America met their demands. American was unwilling to meet those demands, so Japan didn't surrender.
So being devoted to the emperor and the emperor giving up isn't a process of giving up? That would mean USA was in the plan of eradicating Japan as a whole but failed. But it doesn't matter. What I mean is no one believes the bombing was in good faith, that's American history BS. It was plain war, not good or bad sides.
Dude, the emperor only gave up after the 2 A.bomb.....
And the 'bombing of good faith' thing.. No one is saying it is for good faith, it was to end the war as soon as possible and with the less bodies from both side as possible since it's ultimately the goal in every war.
And the 'that's American history BS' dude, this is what is thought throughout the whole world in history classes heck you can even search the internet/wikipedia if you want, and i am pretty sure America isn't the only one who record history.
Dude, the emperor only gave up after the 2 A.bomb.....
And the 'bombing of good faith' thing.. No one is saying it is for good faith, it was to end the war as soon as possible and with the less bodies from both side as possible since it's ultimately the goal in every war.
And the 'that's American history BS' dude, this is what is thought throughout the whole world in history classes heck you can even search the internet/wikipedia if you want, and i am pretty sure America isn't the only one who record history.
Just to add, there was another reason for the Japanese to surrender. the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. It may look insignificant at first glance but note that in late 1945, many of Japan's industries were moved to Manchuria so the Soviet Invasion, plus the nuclear bombings by the Americans prompted the Japanese to surrender.
There was also the fact that there were still attacks against the US that were underway that only stopped because of the surrender announcement - see the Operation that was the focus of Kancolle's last event, Operation Arashi, which was the attempted attack against the US Pacific Fleet by submarine-launched aircraft. The only reason it didn't proceed as planned was because the submarines received the surrender message while they were on their way to the targets.
It is also something of a fact that the Japanese decided to actually accept the Potsdam Declaration - which was made before the A-Bomb drops - and surrender *after* the bombs dropped, not before. And there's this particular line from the Imperial Army War Journal on their opinion as to how to proceed in the face of overwhelming enemy force:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight"
Cause and effect aside, it really doesn't paint a picture of the Japanese being "in the process of giving up" before the bombs fell, and in the fog of war, it's easy to get the impression from such actions that the Japanese would fight to the death even when it was clear they were losing.
And the 'that's American history BS' dude, this is what is thought throughout the whole world in history classes heck you can even search the internet/wikipedia if you want, and i am pretty sure America isn't the only one who record history.
Just to add, there was another reason for the Japanese to surrender. the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. It may look insignificant at first glance but note that in late 1945, many of Japan's industries were moved to Manchuria so the Soviet Invasion, plus the nuclear bombings by the Americans prompted the Japanese to surrender.
Good point. I have seen many history books and newspapers that mentioned that the Atomic bombs are the main (in some cases only) reason why Japan surrendered without any mention about the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria being a contributing factor. It irks me a lot because they are not telling the complete story about the reasons of the Japanese Surrender.
And the 'that's American history BS' dude, this is what is thought throughout the whole world in history classes heck you can even search the internet/wikipedia if you want, and i am pretty sure America isn't the only one who record history.
again?
And about George, what's his last name? i want to research him since it looks like Roy is more experienced in the debate than George..
Good point. I have seen many history books and newspapers that mentioned that the Atomic bombs are the main (in some cases only) reason why Japan surrendered without any mention about the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria being a contributing factor. It irks me a lot because they are not telling the complete story about the reasons of the Japanese Surrender.
Well it didn't help that the Cold War kicked off right after the Second World War and the Americans probably didn't want to acknowledge that the Soviets assisted in getting Japan to surrender.
And about George, what's his last name? i want to research him since it looks like Roy is more experienced in the debate than George..
That proves history isn't "thought throughout the whole world in history classes" as you think of. Independently of the person's view you want to discredit only because "you don't think like me so lalala I can't hear you", it shows a worlds view contemplated elsewhere apart from American history books.
That proves history isn't "thought throughout the whole world in history classes" as you think of. Independently of the person's view you want to discredit only because "you don't think like me so lalala I can't hear you", it shows a worlds view contemplated elsewhere apart from American history books.
What i mean about "this is what is thought throughout the whole world in history classes" is the thing you learn in your classes in Highschool.
And i don't want to discredit anyone here, that is why i want to ask you a more rich profile of George since looks like Roy has more experience in debating someone, I want to credit the debate by looking if both are in the same level of experience in debating.
The only thing i know about George was that he's a student in history whilst Roy is a 29 yrs. old mastered degree of it..
And i am sceptical because i have watched many debate like this where one side isn't as experience as the other side making him lose composure and ended up saying things he wasn't meant to say and forgetting things that could've ontherwise easily countered the arguement of the other side.
Added: And they did not talked about how the people of Japan turned in to a militant army that's ready to defend their land from a land invasion, and is this the whole debate? They seemed to only debate based on the casualties that happened and not mentioning the will of the people that time to defend till the bitter end.
Well it didn't help that the Cold War kicked off right after the Second World War and the Americans probably didn't want to acknowledge that the Soviets assisted in getting Japan to surrender.
Not like it ended with the cold war. Also not like it's restricted to Japan, more like the whole USSR involvement in WWII victory is still relentlessly downplayed, because communism is evil. Like the Normandy landings (160K troops) was somehow a decisive battle of the entire war, while Soviets, duking it out with 4 million (80% of total) German troops on the eastern front, were just a "useful deterrent", and not already pushing Nazis back for half-a-year by the time D-Day happened. I generally don't bother to participate in the arguments like that one, since, sadly, it's a battle for minds lost by Soviets decades ago, but today Victory Day is being celebrated and I'm more irked than usual at such things.
It sickens me the lengths Americans will go to to convince themselves their country not only did nothing wrong but did the right, even righteous, thing by using the most atrocious weapon known to man against the civilian population of a defeated country.
I was wondering about how the reaction of the French would be then I remembered about the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance act then the non aggression Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
Blindga said: Russia has a long-standing history of being a big scary nation that no one really wants to talk about, even though they generally aren't bad people.
I was always surprised by that actually. What exactly Russia did in its history so horrible that no one ever did. Waged wars and killed civilians? Threated someone? Come on, every civilized country did that at some point. Truly a mystery to me.
I was always surprised by that actually. What exactly Russia did in its history so horrible that no one ever did. Waged wars and killed civilians? Threated someone? Come on, every civilized country did that at some point. Truly a mystery to me.
Legacy of invasions from the East into Europe. The Huns, and Mongols. Combine this with the expansion of Rus to what was the old Russian Empire before the 20th century, and you have a scary large absolute monarchy with a huge number of people that can march to anywhere in Europe or Asia if you give them enough time. It basically crushed or broke the back of several large Empires that preceded it and thus gained some of its reputation over the centuries.
Why doesn't anyone mention the Russian involvements in the last days of the Pacific War? The Japanese became so terrified of the Soviets after their defeat in Khalkhin Gol, they went through all the steps to make sure the Soviets were preoccupied with the Nazis and wouldn't look their way. That all went to hell when Stalin finally decided to pull the plug on Japan. Had the invasion occurred just a week earlier, at least Nagasaki might never have happened. (Of course, then the butterfly effect kicks in with a completely communized Korea)
Why doesn't anyone mention the Russian involvements in the last days of the Pacific War? The Japanese became so terrified of the Soviets after their defeat in Khalkhin Gol, they went through all the steps to make sure the Soviets were preoccupied with the Nazis and wouldn't look their way. That all went to hell when Stalin finally decided to pull the plug on Japan. Had the invasion occurred just a week earlier, at least Nagasaki might never have happened. (Of course, then the butterfly effect kicks in with a completely communized Korea)
As Oberstleutnant mentioned in response to my comment:
Well it didn't help that the Cold War kicked off right after the Second World War and the Americans probably didn't want to acknowledge that the Soviets assisted in getting Japan to surrender.
Also (as least the way I see history), history is not exactly written by the winners. It is more of history written by the one who yields the greatest power (the US has the greatest power after the Second World War. It also explains why not many know about the Viet Cong, the Soviet and PRC involvement in the Vietnam War despite the US losing it. In addition, not many people know about the Mujahideen [more of knowing it as an evil but this is another story] despite the Soviets losing the Soviet–Afghan War).
ithekro said: the lines across Europe would be another killing zone like it had been since 1941
Maybe. Though on the other hand, I doubt local population would be interested in another massive partisan war, since US/UK most likely wouldn't want to exterminate most of people that live there. And, if they promised to give independence, they would have hundreds of thousands of volunteers.
And personally the Japan's surrender at the end of WW2 was a good thing as mainly Japanese had direct access with soviet intel when they deployed polish spies amongst the german high command (as the discussions pointed out Nazi Germany was fighting with Russia at this point), which would also probably would had been useful to America and UK if they wanted to know what else happens beyong Japan's door step in Manchuria sadly I think most of these intel are to this day still considered classified Of course real politiks in play Japan would supply Poland with Axis info for the price of getting Soviet info from Nazi Germany Of course who wouldnt be scared of Russia... Unless you are the exception to the rule *cue in Mongoltage*
Did we get her!?Red purge!!Mmgh.Good grief, that was quite a show.Gangut.Still, thanks for sav-Jesus!I was getting tired of waiting for you all.Wait, wait, wait!We got something, but...Continue the assault!!!A Soviet ship! Must be a hidden boss!We must stop her southern advance here at all costs!BoomI'm the first ship of the Gangut-class battleships,Ka-chink