Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[Camp]

We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.

The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.

Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.

A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock. Easy-peasy.

Really? LOL......please tell me more?

Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?

The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?

Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.

They had a lot of experience with airborne troops, more than the US. They were ahead of the US and Germany. Their large drops were considered failures or only partial success's as they experimented with how to use them, but their smaller drops were considered successful. They dropped 4,000 paratrooper/commando's in the war against Japan in August 1945.

globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-vdv-history.htm

 

[JoeB131]

That is not the history.

Thus far you have claimed Japan was beat, yet after Japan was beat The USSR declared war on Japan?

You claim that the USSR caused Japan to Surrender, yet after the USSR declared war on Japan, Japan did not Surrender.

Okay, until you learn logic and reason and start taking your meds, not talking to you.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it's just that she goes into so many weird tangents I don't bother to keep up with them anymore.

Dude...you are wrong, you realize it, and so does everyone else. Trying to distract with idiotic flaming and trolling will not work!

Guy, most historians are concluding that the atom bombings were wrong, and the USSR's entry into the war was what prompted Japan's surrender.

No- some historians conclude that.

Others don't.

The ones who know what they are talking about realize that the USSR getting into the Pacific War was a game changers.

Let's look at what it changed.

1) They took Manchuria in less than a week.
2) They brought in 1.6 million battle hardened Soviets into the War.
3) They made it impossible for the Japanese to continue to supply their armies in China overland.
4) They had secured the northern half of Korea.

So what did the Atomic Bombings do? They flattened two cities. And the japanese probably knew enough of the science to know we probably didn't have more than just the two we dropped.

 

[JoeB131]

Joey also ignores (basically: he covers his ears and hollers, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 3-year-old any time it is mentioned the fact that the Soviets would most likely have collapsed without it) the millions of tons of supplies that the Soviets got through Lend-Lease.

Then again...he simply isn't all that bright.

Yeah, guy, I ignore it because it's kind of stupid. Stalin's USSR was an industrial machine with unlimited resources. The produced over 100,000 Armored fighting vehicles and self-propelled guns during the war.

They also engaged most of the Nazi Armies in Europe...

 

[JoeB131]

Really? LOL......please tell me more?

Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?

The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?

Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.

Yes, we do. The Japanese surrendered because they figured they get better treatment from the Americans than the Russians.

By 1945, the USSR had 9 Airborne divisions. Compare that to the Japanese, who only had two divisions and two brigades deployed in Hokkaido.

 

[Unkotare]

"hundreds of thousands" were not killed by the bombs - in fact hundreds of thousands of lives were saved -.....

"Were not killed" and "lives saved" is mere speculation, and you (should) know it.

 

[regent]

ir

Really? LOL......please tell me more?

Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?

The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?

Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.

Yes, we do. The Japanese surrendered because they figured they get better treatment from the Americans than the Russians.

By 1945, the USSR had 9 Airborne divisions. Compare that to the Japanese, who only had two divisions and two brigades deployed in Hokkaido.

The Eleventh Airborne division was in the Pacific and made a couple of drops, one on Corregidor.

 

[Syriusly]

We never feared that the Soviets would get to Tokyo first.

The Soviets at best could do what they did- gobble up mainland Asian territories previously occupied by Japan- they had no way to invade Japan at all.

Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem at all for them.

A couple of airborne divisions in Hokkaido, take a major port, start offloading troops ships from Vladivostock. Easy-peasy.

Really? LOL......please tell me more?

Tell me of the vast experience the Soviets had with airborne operations during WW2?

The United States of course had two experienced divisions- the 101 and 82nd, and the British had 1 division I believe- which dropped at Normandy and at Market- but the Soviets?

Anyway believe what fantasies you will- we don't know how things might have turned out- we do know how they turned out.

They had a lot of experience with airborne troops, more than the US. They were ahead of the US and Germany. Their large drops were considered failures or only partial success's as they experimented with how to use them, but their smaller drops were considered successful. They dropped 4,000 paratrooper/commando's in the war against Japan in August 1945.

globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-vdv-history.htm

Correction- they had a lots of experience prior to the war- during World War 2, they had far less experience.

Most of the Soviet Airborne experience in WW2 were small scale operations

https://books.google.com/books?id=0erZZt-
EGDQC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=manchurian+soviet+airborne+japan&source=bl&ots=RZjU2s8i7W&sig=au9JfOE7SGD5BoSGQBTYdkM4bJc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zaHFVNXjLImqgwSf2IH4Dg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=manchurian%20soviet%20airborne%20japan&f=false

They had already decided that large scale operations were too costly(page 304) and couldn't be supported.

We are just having an academic discussion right now but the suggestion was the the Soviets would just drop 4 divisions of Airborne into Hokkaido- and I haven't seen anything that supports their ability or willingness to do so.

And to the question of Soviet military and industrial capability- the Soviets had the finest armored forces in the world in 1945, the finest artillery corp in the world, superb experienced infantry, competent air force and a mediocre navy.

But the only reason why they could even contemplate invading Japan is because the United States had provided the bulk of naval forces- and all the landing craft that they had.

 

[elektra]

That is not the history.

Thus far you have claimed Japan was beat, yet after Japan was beat The USSR declared war on Japan?

You claim that the USSR caused Japan to Surrender, yet after the USSR declared war on Japan, Japan did not Surrender.

Okay, until you learn logic and reason and start taking your meds, not talking to you.

Logic and Reason, Logic would mean that Joeb131 does not quote from links with gross errors.

Can't explain much, Joeb131 proves.

Flaming me while avoiding the facts I responded to your post with, that makes me feel good.

Further, I could car less what your response is, Joeb131, my post is for all those others to see, seems like views are much much more than responses in this thread, hence a lot of people see you, Joeb131 running from many of the false statements you post.

Thanks for the validation, your insults and taunts validate the facts I have posted.

 

[JoeB131]

Logic and Reason, Logic would mean that Joeb131 does not quote from links with gross errors.

Okay, because you got books. And they let you have them when you aren't takign your meds.

 

[elektra]

Logic and Reason, Logic would mean that Joeb131 does not quote from links with gross errors.

Okay, because you got books. And they let you have them when you aren't takign your meds.

your link provided false information, the author of the website in which joeb131 quoted, that author or website did not use the "book", which they quoted.

Sorry, but when you post false information through ignorance, and then attack the person who simply points it out, that makes you a liar.

How are you not a liar, joeb131, you have failed to explain one of the errors you posted.

It is not a matter that I own books and you do not, it is simple the fact that I care enough about what I post, to educate myself from multiple sources.

joeb131, I bet you have no idea who Howard Zinn is. You should, for the fools you link to, use Howard Zinn as a source, and the funny thing is Howard Zinn sourced nothing in his book.

joeb131, go buy Zinn's book, at least you will have gone to the source of the Revisionist "hate" the USA history.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, again, party ended here a long time ago, no one is interested.

Unsubscribe.

 

[elektra]

Okay, again, party ended here a long time ago, no one is interested.

Unsubscribe.

I do not post to educate you, I hardly see myself in a conversation or debate with joeb131, I was just here to post facts that revisionist ignore. Not for your benefit, I understand you have no desire to know history, your opinion is based in hate, nothing more. You are about the weakest in a long line of revisionist parrots, most who do not even have the smarts to know they are simply parrots. I post what I post, so that others can see how easy it is to show that Joeb131 and all the revisionist parrots can not defend their "ideas".

Is that your last flame and troll? You last insult? Pretty weak, just like your Opinion you have been ranting about.

 

[regent]

Okay, again, party ended here a long time ago, no one is interested.

Unsubscribe.

Then why are you here? This topic is a theme that either takes a break every so often or renews itself every so often, take your pick but it will be back. It is a look at another generation and one of the problems they faced and how they dealt with it. Some years from now a new generation will be asking why this generation allowed....