1945 - Germans fight side-by-side with Allies to stem Red Army

[Norman]

We know quite a bit about the Japanese decision making because the Japanese decision makers all said after the war that the Soviet invasion prompted them to surrender, not the bombings, the scale of which they were not aware of until later.

Besides, city flatened by atom bomb, city flattened by firebombing - the difference is? They had no ability to prevent either.

As I researched this on the web I saw that this sort of opinion is widely held, but also that the opinions tend to be formed years after the events.

I only have one problem with these opinions, Russia did not declare war on Japan until Aug 8, while the bomb was dropped on Aug 6. How could an event that hasn't occurred have more of an impact than on that did?

 

[Tielhard]

To answer your own question Norman you need the following information, most, if not all of which is all on the net.

1) When was the first atomic weapon discharged against Hiroshima?
2) When did the Soviets and Mongolians begin August Storm?
3) When was the second atomic weapon discharged against Nagasaki?
4) When did the Japanese Goverment become aware of the true situation in Manchuria?
5) When did the Japanse Government order the Army to stop fighting?
6) How much territory had they lost in Manchuria at this time?
7) When did the order get through to Japanese front line units in Manchuria?
8) When did the Japanese actually stop fighting in Manchhuria?
9) When did the Japanese Government get reliable reports of the extent of the destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
10) When was the Soviet leadership aware of the true extent of the destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

With this information in front of you it is possible to make reasoned judgements about why the Japanese acted in the way they did.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Western Allies, including their people know that Stalin is not to be trusted and has eyes to the West. Remember Stalin cooperated with Hitler in the partition of Poland.

The bit in bold is not true for either Britain, France, Norway, Italy, the United Provinces or Palestine. Look how many Communist MPs there were immediately after the war.

However, if someone tells me that public opinion in the USA was different to Europe and gives some reasonable arguments to support the view I will not disagree as I have no idea of the general political outlook of that country immediately post WW2. I will note however that there were large elements of the population that supported the Soviet Union including but not limited to; hispanics, working blacks, ex and current IWW, non-Guild Unions, a majority of the intelligensia &c..

Thanks to Abdul Hadi Pasha on the support regarding the Japanese surrender

The underlined bit is simply not true and not supported by the evidence.

The IWW was pretty much destroyed by the Feds and mob violence during WWI. The CIO union was pro-Wallace, so they might be inclined to be pro-USSR.

I don't know about the blacks--though they were oppressed, they were also as a group very religious ("black church Christianity" seems very fervent to me) and a state dedicated to the proposition that religion was invented by the Man to control the masses doesn't sound like something they'd like.

Paul Robeson was pro-Soviet b/c he was convinced there was no racism in the USSR. However, I think he'd fit more under "intelligentsia"--he seems more akin to the utopian intellectual caste than to the majority of his fellow blacks.

 

[Tielhard]

MerryPrankster,

FYI they did not really break the back of the IWW until 1919 and it was still a significant organisation well into the 20s. It still exists today, a pale ghost of its former self but not yet dead. The point I was making was that there were many millions of American working people who were supportive of the ideals of the IWW, that remembered the savagery, cynicism and illegality with which the Federal Government, Army, States, Police and Business destroyed it. They were still very supportive of the Soviet Union in 1945.

Paul Robeson was one of the greatest Americans of the 20th or any other century. Without Robeson there would have been no King, no Malcolm-X. In denying his blackness you cheapen his achivements.

 

[MerryPrankster]

MerryPrankster,

FYI they did not really break the back of the IWW until 1919 and it was still a significant organisation well into the 20s. It still exists today, a pale ghost of its former self but not yet dead. The point I was making was that there were many millions of American working people who were supportive of the ideals of the IWW, that remembered the savagery, cynicism and illegality with which the Federal Government, Army, States, Police and Business destroyed it. They were still very supportive of the Soviet Union in 1945.

Paul Robeson was one of the greatest Americans of the 20th or any other century. Without Robeson there would have been no King, no Malcolm-X. In denying his blackness you cheapen his achivements.

Denying his blackness? I never said he wasn't black--I said he might not be representative of most American blacks. Malcolm X probably wasn't representative of most American blacks either. MLK probably was, though.

Might I mention that Paul Robeson put out an album full of antiwar songs criticizing President Roosevelt, then when the USSR was attacked he immediately stopped selling the album and put lots of effort into retrieving the few copies that were already sold? What sort of achievement is that, being the shill for a monstrous regime?

 

[Tielhard]

It was not the Soviet Union that held black people in chains until 1865, it was the USA.

It was not the Soviet Union that did not end government slavery until 1948, it was the USA.

The USA today still does not protect many tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from slavery.

Which then is the monstrous regime?

 

[MerryPrankster]

It was not the Soviet Union that held black people in chains until 1865, it was the USA.

It was not the Soviet Union that did not end government slavery until 1948, it was the USA.

The USA today still does not protect many tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from slavery.

Which then is the monstrous regime?

You have conceded Stalin's horrors, which include slave-labor-building projects and the horrific treatment of various ethnic minorities, though you think they are justified.

Government slavery until 1948? What do you refer to?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

As a Rutgers alumni, I would never deny Paul Robeson's blackness, as kind as it would be. After all, he was a moral and intellectual disgrace, who perfectly personified the term 'house slave' as it pertained to his dog-like obedience to Stalin.

Someone he knew was being set up for a Stalin 'trial'?

Must have deserved it, ignored pleas to speak out.

Stalin wants him to sing for the Third Reich during the Molotov-Ribbentrop arrangement?

Why certainly, he would be glad to entertain prominent Nazis in their homeland.

Stalin says war with Hitler is bad?

Robeson opposes all resistance to Hitler.

Stalin gets exactly what he deserves on June 22, 1941?

Whoops, reversal of Robeson policy is immediate.

As for government slavery, that defines the life of the vast majority of people in the USSR from its foundation until its final collapse in 1989.

The loss of elements of one colony of questionable value and an army which had effectively been written off, much of which was native 'Manchuko' units of extremely dubious value, was not what ended the war.

What would have impressed Japan was that the USSR would not aid them in a negotiated settlement, and that by asking for such they had only encourage Stalin to grab what he could with maximum haste, knowing they would soon seek other venues to contact the US.

In WWII Europe, the USSR was the vital player, claiming upwards of 75% of all Axis forces. In WWII Pacific, the USSR's role was effectively irrelevant.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Paul Robeson as a house slave. That's hilarious.

 

[Raymann]

Just ingore Tielhard, he obviously has no concept of the role of government or indivisual rights.

I still think the key is seeing Russia as more of an enemy then Germany. Changing those views is mostly on Germany's part because the US was already firmly anti-communist. Allowing themselves to be beat just to avoid the communists is a powerful message that won't be easily ignored.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Just ingore Tielhard, he obviously has no concept of the role of government or indivisual rights.

I still think the key is seeing Russia as more of an enemy then Germany. Changing those views is mostly on Germany's part because the US was already firmly anti-communist. Allowing themselves to be beat just to avoid the communists is a powerful message that won't be easily ignored.

Yep.

However, remember that the US public was bombarded with enormous amounts of pro-Soviet material (think "The Boy from Stalingrad"). I think that there will be much more public opposition to the war, and convincing the American people to support it will be difficult. Leaving all of their Western conquests is a big step, but I think something more visceral is needed.

 

[MarkA]

Raymann, I'm sure your grandfather and some of his friends thought that about the Red Army but they were in a vanishingly small minority. No official history or reputable work about that era has ever claimed anything other than the western allied troops held the soldiers of the Red Army in the highest esteem and were in awe of their efforts against the German army. In other words, they were heros.

The impact of Soviet battle deaths was not large on the American mindset???? This is simply untrue. Newspaper and radio reports on the struggle on the eastern front were eagerly devoured by the American public as much as by the other allied populations. When newsreels were shown of victorious Red Army soldiers the theatre goers stood and cheered and often gave three cheers for Uncle Joe and the brave Russian troops! The American public were very aware of the sacrifices the soviet citizens had endured. They were greatly admired for it!

As for the leadership of the west being somehow mistrustful of the USSR because of the impact the Revolution had on Russian participation in WWI, there is simply no evidence for this at all. Churchill was a rabid anti-Bolshevik, an ex-minister in WWI and an ex-soldier in that conflict yet he was prepared to trust Stalin as an ally in the common cause. No allies ever trust each other completely as some relatively minor strains in the Anglo-American alliance showed.

You portray FDR as some sort of ineffectual leader who lets events overtake him and simply follows along after the likes of Patton and Churchill take the lead. Churchill would never have acted without the approval of FDR. As he said on several occassions while he disagreed with Roosevelt over lots of issues including strategic ones, he considered himself a loyal ally and a subordinate of the President. As for Patton, he was a front-line commander not in charge of the overall strategic issues. Without the Allied High Command approving his actions how is supposed to be able to get the supplies he needs to act unilaterly? Are you suggesting that a wide-spread conspiracy by the military against the civilian government would succeed?

Why should the allies 'rush on' and believe what the Germans have said is true? What competent allied commander would trust that the German 'retreat' was anything but a ruse designed to trap the allied armies? If the German armies in the west layed down their arms and surrended unconditionally to the western allies on the day after the coup, then maybe.

Why would the Soviets attack American troops in Warsaw or anywhere else? You assume that the aim of the USSR was to occupy as much of Eastern Europe as possible at any cost. They were able to occupy the territory they did because they were in pursuit of the Germans. Like the western allies they wanted governments in those areas they occupied to be sympathetic to their political system. Their purpose was not to conquer territory for its own sake. This is simply cold war propaganda served up as history.

Stalin was left out of the general settlement of western europe and so made life difficult for allied observers in Poland and other eastern areas. He did not threaten war or even a dissolution of the alliance. That was a western idea.

Every allied commander and political leader thought the Red Army was essential for the conquest of Japan. Don't use retrospective knowledge as representing contemporary thought. The Los Alomos scientists could not guarantee the A bomb would work or how effective it would be. To avoid massive casualites among the western allies the Red Army would have to assist in the defeat of Japan. That was what Yalta was all about.



you are looking a thim as some sort of

 

[Timmy811]

The Red Army were heros to the troops of the Western Allies.

I agree. This is the whole crux of my argument that FDR needs to be replaced with someone less pro Soviet. U.S. propaganda, under FDRs direction, created this image for the American public. A different president might well have pictured Stalin as simply a Russian version of Hitler.

I don't see why there is so much debate over how to get the US into the war, I don't care how pro-Soviet FDR is, if Stalin orders the Red Army to march to the Atlantic and let nothing get in the way, we're going to fight them whether FDR wanted to or not.

 

[Timmy811]

It was not the Soviet Union that held black people in chains until 1865, it was the USA.

It was not the Soviet Union that did not end government slavery until 1948, it was the USA.

The USA today still does not protect many tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from slavery.

Which then is the monstrous regime?

The Soviet Union didn't exist in the 1860's and the Russian empire emancipated it's serfs only a few years prior.

The Soviet Empire was brutal dictatorial regime that directly sanctioned the murder and starvation of tens of millions, the claim that somehow there is some sort of moral relativism between the US and USSR is ludicrous.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Soviet Union didn't exist in the 1860's and the Russian empire emancipated it's serfs only a few years prior.

The Soviet Empire was brutal dictatorial regime that directly sanctioned the murder and salvation of tens of millions, the claim that somehow there is some sort of moral relativism between the US and USSR is ludicrous.

I assume you mean "starvation."

 

[Timmy811]

I assume you mean "starvation."

Yes I did.

(you need a blush or embarrasment smilie.)

 

[JimmyJimJam]

1) The point is that replacing FDR with a different U.S. president makes a U.S. - Soviet war possible. With FDR as president a U.S. vs Soviet Union conflict is not going to happen.

So FDR would do what if the Soviets started shooting? Surrender? Sue for peace?

 

[Molobo]

Why would the Soviets attack American troops in Warsaw or anywhere else?

Soviets already executed Allied soldiers belonging to Polish government-not only in Katyn but also those fighting in Vilnius, Lvov and Warsaw Uprisings(often after they cooperated with Soviets forces)

You assume that the aim of the USSR was to occupy as much of Eastern Europe as possible at any cost. They were able to occupy the territory they did because they were in pursuit of the Germans. Like the western allies they wanted governments in those areas they occupied to be sympathetic to their political system. Their purpose was not to conquer territory for its own sake. This is simply cold war propaganda served up as history.

Nope this are facts. USSR wanted to regain territories belonging to former Tsar Empire since 1920s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-German_cooperation
On July 19, 1920, Kopp told the German Foreign Office that Russia wanted "a common frontier with Germany, south of Lithuania, approximately on a line with Bialystok". In other words, Poland was to disappear completely. These promptings were repeated over the years, with the Russians always anxious to stress that ideological differences between the two governments were of no account; all that mattered was that the two countries were pursuing the same foreign policy objectives.
On Thursday, April 15, 1920, Victor Kopp, Soviet Russia's special representative sent by Lenin to Berlin, asked at the German Foreign Office whether "there was any possibility of combining the German and the Red Army for a joint war on Poland".

Stalin was left out of the general settlement of western europe and so made life difficult for allied observers in Poland and other eastern areas

Stalin also executed hundreds of thousands of Poles, and ordered murder of Polish Home Army members, Soviet troops opened fire on Allied planes droping supplies to Warsaw during Warsaw Uprising.

Lets not forget also that SU was a vital ally of Germany since 1920 to 1941, rebuilded German army, provided it with training facilites and NKVD and Gestapo had a joint training center in Zakopane Poland to coordinate fighting Polish resistence movement in occupied territories.


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/sesupp1.htm
After the Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. have, by means of the treaty signed today, definitively settled the problems arising from the collapse of the Polish state and have thereby created a sure foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe, they mutually express their conviction that it would serve the true interest of all peoples to put an end to the state of war existing a present between Germany on the one side and England and France on the other. Both Governments will therefore direct their common efforts, jointly with other friendly powers if occasion arises, toward attaining this goal as soon as possible.

Should, however, the efforts of the two Governments remain fruitless, this would demonstrate the fact that England and France are responsible for the continuation of the war, whereupon, in case of the continuation of the war, the Governments of Germany and of the U.S.S.R. shall engage in mutual consultations with regard to necessary measures.

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Reich:
J. RIBBENTROP

By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.:
V. MOLOTOV

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/sesupp1.htm
The undersigned plenipotentiaries, on concluding the German Russian Boundary and Friendship Treaty, have declared their agreement upon the following:

Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Retch:

J. RIBBENTROP

By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.:

W. MOLOTOV

In 1939 Soviets and Nazis held joint victory parade after their invasion of Poland :
http://brama.bereza.by.ru/nomer21/defilade.jpg
http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/brestlitovsk1939.jpg
http://www.ska.pl/biorytm/tankista.jpg

The reasons for fighting Soviets were there, but sadly they were never pursued sentecing milions of people soviet enslavement and exploitation.

So FDR would do what if the Soviets started shooting? Surrender? Sue for peace?

At least two war plans were made by Allies of engaging Soviet regime.

http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm

The other was made early in the war and involved bombing Baku oilfields-during the time Soviets provided German war machine with crucial resources enabling them to wage war on western countries.

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com/html/OperationPike.shtml

 

[Tielhard]

Slipstream

I seem to have caught a bad case of anti-groupies for want of a better term, how strange? One feels duty bound to refute their posts even if it has got a tad boring.

MerryPrankster,

You have conceded Stalin's horrors, which include slave-labor-building projects and the horrific treatment of various ethnic minorities, though you think they are justified.

That depends on what you mean by ‘conceded’ and ‘horrors’. If you mean by this that I think the Soviets killed a large percentage of the Polish Officer Corps, then yes. If you mean labour camps, I know they existed, I do not think that they count as horrors in the same way that the final solution or chattel slavery in the USA are horrors. I certainly don’t think you can compare the Soviet treatment of the nationalities with the USA’s illegal, cynical and genocidal policies against the aboriginal inhabitants of North America.

Even if I were to uncritically ‘concede’ every single ‘horror’ of which you wish to accuse the Godless Soviet Union it would not mean that the horrors of which I accused the USA ceased to exist or were in some way less evil than they would otherwise have been.

Government slavery until 1948? What do you refer to? Pribirof.

GrimmReaper,

As for government slavery, that defines the life of the vast majority of people in the USSR from its foundation until its final collapse in 1989.

A) This is tosh. Please explain why the ‘vast majority’ of Soviet people were ‘government slaves’?
B) What is the difference between a Soviet prisoner in a labour camp and a member of a Tejas chain gang?

The rest of the post has already been substantially refuted before it was written.

Raymann,

Just ingore Tielhard, he obviously has no concept of the role of government or indivisual rights.

If I translate this into English it comes out something like "I don’t agree with that Tielhard and I don’t really know why as my political beliefs are just that; articles of faith without any real underpinnings in logic, philosophy or understanding. I know! I will suggest he does not really know what he is talking about, I don’t and I’m clever, so he can’t possibly understand it. Then I will tell everyone to ignore him, if they all co-operate then I won’t have to try to discuss ideas I do not understand!"

Timmy811,

The Soviet Union didn't exist in the 1860's and the Russian empire emancipated it's serfs only a few years prior.

The Soviet Empire was brutal dictatorial regime that directly sanctioned the murder and starvation of tens of millions, the claim that somehow there is some sort of moral relativism between the US and USSR is ludicrous.

Please accept a prize for totally missing the point. If an act is evil it is evil, it does not matter who did it. Slavery is evil, so is killing people in purges. The Soviet Union (not Empire) committed evil acts so too did the USA.

Putting oneself in Robeson’s shoes one has to conclude that the USA is a far more monstrous regime than the USSR. The American people and society thwarted his ambitions simply because of the colour of his skin, extra judicial hanging of blacks was still a (whitew) picnic event in the South during his life time. the USSR on the otherhand has always been supportive of him.

Smurfs come from Smurfland not Russia and you spelt smurf wrong.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I put "Pribirof" in Yahoo and only found a weather report.