Customer Discussions > History forum

Interesting what if. WWII, repercussions of a Soviet collapse during the war.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 535 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 8:25:40 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
patrick says:

[that Der Fuhrer was himself a poison gas victim in WW1, ergo that he personally deplored CW..its tenuous too, imo..]

Warfare as it was practiced during WW II was totally insane anyway.

There was these two groups of people out there trying to massacre each other but yet they had certain rules of engagement like I assume agreeing to not use chemical weapons.

Why have any rules ? The point is to kill people.

It sounds like some people in this discussion feel there were no formal rules about chemical weapons and they would have been used once there was no threat of a chemical retaliation.

I guess there were no rules about the atomic bomb since there never even was such a thing before that.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 8:43:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 24, 2012 8:44:19 AM PDT
Jeff,
If I have learned one thing in all my reading about history, it is that rules without consequences are never followed. The use of chemical weapons may have been against the rules, but look at contemporary photos of both military and civilians in Britian, they all carried gas masks. Hitler and the Japanese had violated so many treaties and conventions that no one with half a brain would have been suprised at their use of chemical weapons. After all, it was already known that the Japanese were using chemical weapons on Chinese civilians, and I believe that their usage of biological wepons on the same type of targets was known at the time as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 11:22:34 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Richard M. Smith says:

[After all, it was already known that the Japanese were using chemical weapons on Chinese civilians, and I believe that their usage of biological wepons on the same type of targets was known at the time as well.]

Yes I have heard about the grisly biological warfare experiments the Japanese performed on prisoners of war.

Here's a book about the Soviet Union's bio weapons program that really took off during the Cold War:

Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World--Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran It

The author of that book says Russia used biological agents against the Germans during WW II during one of those famous battles like the siege of Leningrad. The Soviets used biological weapons again during their war in Afghanistan.

Towards the end of the Cold War they had moved into the area of genetic engineering where they would take something like the plague and genetically modify it to create new organisms that the human body had never experienced. They created germs that would cause the human immune system to attack the body and kill a person. These new diseases left no trace in the body of the cause of death and would have been very difficult to defend against if they were ever let loose on the world.

I heard about that book and saw the author on TV around the time of the 9/11 and anthrax letter attacks. He defected to the U.S. The anthrax letter attacks is another interesting story and was the most expensive criminal investigation in history.

The following book, if you believe it, contains information provided by beings from another planet called Iarga which is 14 light years from Earth:

Ufo...Contact from Planet Iarga

They're the ones I was quoting from when I said it's amazing we can sleep at night with our nuclear arsenals.

But they said biological weapons are potentially much more dangerous than nuclear.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 11:22:48 AM PDT
Sure, I have little doubt that the A bombs hastened Japan's surrender. However, it's had to say anything about what was 'indicated' by the Japanese, prior to the A bombs being dropped. All indications were that the Japanese intended to continue fighting, even after the A bombs. It is only because the emperor, himself, commanded his generals to surrender, that they surrendered. Since Japan's surrender was basically the decision of one man, then who knows? He might have commanded a surrender, a week later, even without the bombs.

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 11:38:19 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
KNYN:'Since Japan's surrender was basically the decision of one man, then who knows? He might have commanded a surrender, a week later, even without the bombs.'

See, now this is flat out not true. One should at least read the article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan, and note that the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, which ran everything, until they finally had no choice but to ask the Emperor after the two A Bombings, for his *advice*, and even then, many of the Council didn't want to take it, and that there was even an attempt to revolt against the Emperor, to prevent his surrender speech from being played on the radio. The Japanese view of the Emperor was as a detached deity figure, and NOT one who had any real hands on control.

-According to General Sumihisa Ikeda and Admiral Zenshirō Hoshina, Privy Council President Kiichirō Hiranuma then turned to the emperor and asked him: "Your majesty, you also bear responsibility (sekinin) for this defeat. What apology are you going to make to the heroic spirits of the imperial founder of your house and your other imperial ancestors?"[91]-

That's pretty damn defiant to me. And, what was agreed to at that point: -Once the emperor had left, Suzuki pushed the cabinet to accept the emperor's will, which it did. Early that morning (August 10), the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, but would not accept any peace conditions that would "prejudice the prerogatives" of the emperor. That effectively meant no change in Japan's form of government[92]-that the Emperor of Japan would remain a position of real power.-

Two more days passed: -August 13-14

The Big Six and the cabinet spent August 13 debating their reply to the Allied response, but remained deadlocked. Meanwhile, the Allies grew doubtful, waiting for the Japanese to respond. The Japanese had been instructed that they could transmit an unqualified acceptance in the clear, but in fact they sent out coded messages on matters unrelated to the surrender parlay. The Allies took this coded response as non-acceptance of the terms.[99]-

This whole surrender was a far more complex thing, and the say so of the Emperor, alone, wasn't and didn't do it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 11:40:21 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
KNYN says:

[He might have commanded a surrender, a week later, even without the bombs.]

Yes there are many interesting possible scenarios about what may have happened if the atomic bomb wasn't invented at that strategic and fateful time in the world's history.

I guess another possibility might have been to just demonstrate it in some isolated place and let the Japanese emperor observe what his country was facing.

But everyone was fed up with the war.

Also there may have been concerns about how far along Japan was in creating their own atomic bomb. That's a favorite theme of fringe author Joseph Farrell. Farrell thinks the reason the allies bombed Dresden was the SS had a secret atomic bomb lab nearby.

That's another scenario. What if Germany had created an atomic bomb first ?

It was sort of fatalistic I guess. Japan sucker punched the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately however America had a little 'surprise' waiting for them.

"All's fair in love in war.". Isn't that an old saying ?

I guess some people view World War II as a time when the forces of evil and tyranny tried to conquer the entire world. This struggle played out in the lives of individuals.

I'm reading Homer's Iliad story now. The ancient Greeks saw the will of the gods played out in the lives of mortals. In the story Athena, Hera, Apollo, and the other gods and goddesses become directly involved in the war between the Greeks and Troy.

This was all because of the lovely Helen Of Troy. "The face that launched a thousand ships."

"Beauty, terrible beauty !"

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 11:47:33 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Andre Lieven says:

[The Japanese view of the Emperor was as a detached deity figure, and NOT one who had any real hands on control.]

This is another strange subject as far as societies that viewed their emperors, pharaohs, leaders, etc., as gods or goddesses.

Edgar Cayce stated that there was no political leader in his day in America (first half of the 1900s) that hadn't also been some sort of leader on Atlantis.

Let's hope our leaders today don't lead us to where Cayce says Atlantis is now.

Jeff Marzano

Atlantis

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 12:05:15 PM PDT
Thanks for affirming what I said, about the generals intending to continue to fight, even after the A bombs.

Please get your reading comprehension problems checked out.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 12:47:32 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
K:-Since Japan's surrender was basically the decision of one man, then who knows?-

YOU wrote that, and my citation showed that you were 100% WRONG. Deal with it, sparky.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 1:08:17 PM PDT
Please get your reading comprehension problems checked out. Try reading entire posts, instead of picking out single sentences, out of context, and arguing against things that were never said.

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 1:12:24 PM PDT
briefcandle says:
2 atomic bombs and the declaration of war from the other superpower, the soviet union. That declaration on it's own saw all of japan's plans to get a conditional surrender fall apart, and when it came to the 'voice of the crane' surrender on 15aug the soviets kept coming and the japanese kept resisting.

It always strikes me as a unique American vanity that japan's surrender couldn't possibly have anything to do with this.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 1:33:57 PM PDT
Briefcandle,
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria had nothing to do with Japan's surrender. The odds were already impossible, when you have a ton of weight on your chest another ton makes no difference at all. All that the Japanese cared about at that point was the sanctity of the home islands, they already knew the forces in China were lost. US naval supremacy made them irrelevant, they couldn't relocate to the home islands where they were badly needed. So effectively, as far as the Japanese High Command was concerned they didn't exist anymore. All attention was focused on the coming of Operations Olympic and Coronet.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 2:01:05 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
KNYN: <Massive Projection>

Physician, heal thyself. You were still 100% factually WRONG.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 2:14:35 PM PDT
Ah! Now I see the problem. You're some sort of crazy person.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 2:23:25 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
KNYN: <Massive Loony Projection>

You're still 100% wrong. Thanks for being so consistent.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 3:30:10 PM PDT
No, I wasn't wrong about anything. By the way, we all saw that History Channel documentary about the attempted rebellion against the emperor, because of his decision to surrender. Watching television doesn't make you the expert, that you might imagine that it does.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 4:15:08 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
K:'No, I wasn't wrong about anything.'

Ah, willful self blindness, how very demented. No, YOU claimed that 'one man' could make the surrender happen. You remain wrong about that.

And, I don't watch the History channel, I prefer actual books on the relevent topics. If your best sources are your idiot box, well, now it becomes clear why you are so badly wrong. Even the Wikipedia article that I cited, and that proved you wrong, is far better than TV.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 4:22:00 PM PDT
I don't have a television. But I've seen your profile page.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 4:26:43 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
K:'I don't have a television. But I've seen your profile page.'

Look, kiddies, I have a *stalker*. I don;t need to see yours, your willful ignorance is more than clear without it. Actual history books, such as Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, would help you correct your still wrong claim regarding who and how could make Japan surrender.

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 4:38:03 PM PDT
patrick says:
As horrible as the A bombs were, the firebombing of Japan, deliberately intitiated by Curtis LeMay, specifically because of it barbaric demoralizing power, was worse than the A bombs.]

Yes, heard this one b4 too, because the Tokyo fire-raid did cause more initial deaths than either A-bombing, which were of course at that time very low yield by nuclear standards, they wouldnt even qualify as strategic grade nuclear weapons in a modern arsenal.
Carpet bombings with incendaries had happened b4. Dresden, or Cologne or Hamburg did not bring about Germanys surrender, even as late in war as Dresden occured.
To those who say that if the fire-raids in Japan did not being about surrender, then neither could the single-blow atomic bombings, I'll pose this proposition.

The town city where you live is going to be attacked from the air..you must choose either a Dresden/Tokyo style attack, or a Hiroshima-style event.
Which do you choose?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 4:45:02 PM PDT
I haven't made a wrong claim. You've simply distorted what I said.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 4:46:17 PM PDT
patrick says:
Yes, of course the treaty turned heavily on the fact that here was a particularly pschologically -confronting war weapon, which of course also was potentially available to all industrialised combatants...

its significant that at least two WW1 European combatants used CW in colonial wars between WW1 and WW2...certainly Italy, and allegedly the UK in Mesopotamia against troublesome Arabs and those other regular victims of CW, the Kurds..

I sometimes think about a weapon like Napalm, Im not sure if its currently banned weapon, but one thing I noticed was that napalm was never used by both sides in any conflict that Ive ever heard of.
Oddly enough,as I recall, there was allegedly some insinuated threat to use it , of all things, made by Argentina in the Falklands War, or during the build-up to the main fighting in that war.

Posted on Jun 24, 2012 4:50:08 PM PDT
IGS says:
Whoah, dudes, mellow it. As far as I can tell Andre and K are cool enough. You guys got your wires crossed somewhere . Let this one go, I suspect someone said something that came out wrong but let it go. I enjoyed e-dialogue both of you ... there is a reason. As they say in the ring. Shake hands and head to the corners/

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 4:53:44 PM PDT
I don't think that is a fair question, Patrick. We have been indoctrinated to dread The Bomb. We know things about it, that they didn't know, then.

My biggest reason for not choosing The Bomb would be the fallout. By the way, while the 'yield' of the A Bombs was far lower than modern H bombs, the fallout was far filthier. Because of that, I would dread the A bomb just as much as a modern H bomb.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2012 4:58:41 PM PDT
I'm just sort of seeing how long Andre will keep up his nonsense. I'm pretty sure that his problem with me, doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. I know someone else that he has 'stalked', and that person has something very obviously in common with me. So I'm pretty certain that I know what Andre's deal is.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  535
Initial post:  May 31, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions