Did Britain enter World War 2 too soon?

[badgerx16]

Never heard that before , what source is that from?

 

There are several, though disputed, sources for this;

 

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html

 

http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2009/03/stalins-surprise-at-barbarossa-and.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

[Barry Sanchez]

Very very dubious at best but interesting all the same, Russia and Germany going to war was always going to happen and it was only a matter of time.

[badgerx16]

Very very dubious at best but interesting all the same, Russia and Germany going to war was always going to happen and it was only a matter of time.

 

Mein Kampf was published in 1924, and Hitler lays out his vision there, so it shouldn't have been a surprise.

[Whitey Grandad]

Do the Free French count ? Or the Poles and Czechs ? ( The latter were fighting before we started ).

 

Not really. The French as a nation had capitulated and I don't think the others were in it against Japan.

[Barry Sanchez]

Mein Kampf was published in 1924, and Hitler lays out his vision there, so it shouldn't have been a surprise.

 

Indeed, a clash of not only ideas, culture but also race.

[Whitey Grandad]

Depends on your perspective. I'm sure the Japanese would disagree - they entered Manchuria in 1931 and were at war for the next 14 years.

 

It wasn't a World War at that time. I suppose, basically, that the war didn't start until we joined in.

 

apart from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc

 

 

All part of the British 'dominion'. I once asked a Canadian about his country's sovereignty and he said that for the First World War Canada was automatically dragged in with Britain but for the second the decision had to be ratified by the Canadian government.

[badgerx16]

.....and I don't think the others were in it against Japan.

 

In that case, China, who were fighting the Nips long before we joined in.

[Barry Sanchez]

It wasn't a World War at that time. I suppose, basically, that the war didn't start until we joined in.

 

All part of the British 'dominion'. I once asked a Canadian about his country's sovereignty and he said that for the First World War Canada was automatically dragged in with Britain but for the second the decision had to be ratified by the Canadian government.

 

Canada joined us within hours didn't they? The most loyal of all. No ratificiation from the Federal Governement was needed, King simply could have said they were in and I believe he did to Churchill.

Edited 9 December, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[Whitey Grandad]

In that case, China, who were fighting the Nips long before we joined in.

 

Fair point. Some would consider that the war started when Japan invaded them.

 

Canada joined us within hours didn't they? The most loyal of all. No ratificiation from the Federal Governement was needed, King simply could have said they were in and I believe he did to Churchill.

 

Canada declared war 7 days after Britain. New Zealand was first to declare apparently, if you consider local time. Following our interesting discussions I found this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II

 

I also watched an interesting documentary on the National Geographic channel this week about human torpedoes and midget submarines. Apparently the Italians pioneered the use of 2-man torpedoes with some success against the British but after Italy left the Axis many of the Italian sailors then bravely co-operated with the British knowing that they would have been shout if captured. Much of their experience was used to develop our 'chariot' version of the torpedo.

[badgerx16]

Apparently the Italians pioneered the use of 2-man torpedoes with some success against the British ......

 

In their raid against Alexandria they sank the battleships Valiant and Queen Elizabeth. However, as the harbour is shallow, and they both settled upright, the RN painted new waterlines on them and carried on with dockside activities as if nothing had happened, thus fooling the follow up reconnaissance flights.

[Barry Sanchez]

Fair point. Some would consider that the war started when Japan invaded them.

 

 

 

Canada declared war 7 days after Britain. New Zealand was first to declare apparently, if you consider local time. Following our interesting discussions I found this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II

 

I also watched an interesting documentary on the National Geographic channel this week about human torpedoes and midget submarines. Apparently the Italians pioneered the use of 2-man torpedoes with some success against the British but after Italy left the Axis many of the Italian sailors then bravely co-operated with the British knowing that they would have been shout if captured. Much of their experience was used to develop our 'chariot' version of the torpedo.

 

I refer not to the official declaration, they went needlessly through thei federal Government, I mean Churchill would have spoken to King about his intentions and King on behalf of Canada would have assumed the intention to follow Britain into War straight away.

Brockington special assistant to King wrote

"King George VI of England did not ask us to declare war for him – we asked King George VI of Canada to declare war for us."

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

There is a point of view that the Germans' plan to launch Barbarossa in May was actually a pre-emptive strike against a planned Soviet invasion due to start in August 1941, and that the reason so much Russian military materiel was ensnared in the first few weeks of hostilities was due to it's having been positioned in preparation for such a move.

 

Yes, I too am aware of this extraordinary claim - I believe I first saw it some years ago when I picked up a book entitled 'Hitlers War: Germany's key strategic decisions 1940-45' by Heinz Magenheimer. A stimulating read I can recommend.

 

If that is correct - and I don't really know if it is or isn't - then you'd think more would have been made of it by now because that would be a significant historical development that casts a entirely new light on Operation Barbarossa. I must do some more digging.

[kipstryker]

Fascinating thread. Thanks to the op. Nice to see some reasoned discussion and debate without the normal recourse to personal insults or hijacking by the usual suspects.

[View From The Top]

Yes, I too am aware of this extraordinary claim - I believe I first saw it some years ago when I picked up a book entitled 'Hitlers War: Germany's key strategic decisions 1940-45' by Heinz Magenheimer. A stimulating read I can recommend.

 

If that is correct - and I don't really know if it is or isn't - then you'd think more would have been made of it by now because that would be a significant historical development that casts a entirely new light on Operation Barbarossa. I must do some more digging.

 

There is no evidence, at all, to support it. None. Nada. Zip.

 

WW2, especially in the East, was studied by myself as an under and post grad' under an excellent professor.

 

Considering a trip to Kursk and Stalingrad in summer 2015 if I can get away with it.

 

It's the bomber war, waged by the RAF as opposed to the USAAF, that intrigues me at the moment and Normandy between June - August 1944.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

There is no evidence, at all, to support it. None. Nada. Zip.

 

WW2, especially in the East, was studied by myself as an under and post grad' under an excellent professor.

 

Considering a trip to Kursk and Stalingrad in summer 2015 if I can get away with it.

 

It's the bomber war, waged by the RAF as opposed to the USAAF, that intrigues me at the moment and Normandy between June - August 1944.

 

Thanks for that - as intriguing a prospect as it undoutably is there was always a nagging doubt about this theory niggling away at the back of my mind. As you well know, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence afterall.

 

A trip to the battlefields of the old 'ostfront' would be a irresistible prospect for me too because so much more seems to remain of the war there than in the 'neat and tidy' west - by the way I haven't had the opportunity to go myself but I'm reliably informed that the Kubinka Tank Museum just outside Moscow is also well worth a visit.

 

And again the Strategic Bomber Offensive is another fascinating - and highly controversial - subject that has long interested me ... indeed once WWII gets 'under your skin' as it were there's very little of it that holds no interest is there?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

There is no evidence, at all, to support it. None. Nada. Zip.

 

WW2, especially in the East, was studied by myself as an under and post grad' under an excellent professor.

 

Considering a trip to Kursk and Stalingrad in summer 2015 if I can get away with it.

 

It's the bomber war, waged by the RAF as opposed to the USAAF, that intrigues me at the moment and Normandy between June - August 1944.

 

just from a logical view that makes sense. I'd imagine that the reason so much soviet military men and materials were ensnared by the quick Nazi advance was because the Soviet military was concentrated in the Polish territory they'd just annexed in addition to the westerly soviet states that in reality hadn't been subjugated for that long.

 

I've not studied the Eastern Front like you have but have read a few good books that others might find of interest:

 

Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer (German memoir)

A Writer at War: Vasily Grossman with the Red Army, 1941-1945 by Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova

Ivan's War: the Red Army at War 1939-1945 by Catherine Merridale

Stalingrad & Berlin by Anthony Beevor

Edited 9 December, 2013 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[View From The Top]

just from a logical view that makes sense. I'd imagine that the reason so much soviet military men and materials were ensnared by the quick Nazi advance was because the Soviet military was concentrated in the Polish territory they'd just annexed in addition to the westerly soviet states that in reality hadn't been subjugated for that long.

 

I've not studied the Eastern Front like you have but have read a few good books that others might find of interest:

 

Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer (German memoir)

A Writer at War: Vasily Grossman with the Red Army, 1941-1945 by Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova

Ivan's War: the Red Army at War 1939-1945 by Catherine Merridale

Stalingrad & Berlin by Anthony Beevor

 

I read Enemy At The Gates when I was 8 and I've been interested ever since.

[manji]

Maybe we re title this forum "The Southampton Military Debating Society" and get rid of all this football nonsense. Superb thread.

[lifeintheslowlane]

I read Enemy At The Gates when I was 8 and I've been interested ever since.

 

At that age I was on "Janet & John - Book 3"...but I was still playing on bombsites in Southampton. Sorry for the interruption...I'm enjoying the topic.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Yes, I too am aware of this extraordinary claim - I believe I first saw it some years ago when I picked up a book entitled 'Hitlers War: Germany's key strategic decisions 1940-45' by Heinz Magenheimer. A stimulating read I can recommend.

 

If that is correct - and I don't really know if it is or isn't - then you'd think more would have been made of it by now because that would be a significant historical development that casts a entirely new light on Operation Barbarossa. I must do some more digging.

 

As I understood it Stalin's spies even told him that there was going to be a German invasion but he refused to believe them - he was caught totally unaware. There is also no way that the Russian army had a hope of launching an offensive based on their performance against the Fins. The Russian army was devastated by Stalin's purges of the army and that's why Hitler was nearly able to 'kick the front door in and the whole house would fall in'.

[Toadhall Saint]

Thanks for that - as intriguing a prospect as it undoutably is there was always a nagging doubt about this theory niggling away at the back of my mind. As you well know, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence afterall.

 

A trip to the battlefields of the old 'ostfront' would be a irresistible prospect for me too because so much more seems to remain of the war there than in the 'neat and tidy' west - by the way I haven't had the opportunity to go myself but I'm reliably informed that the Kubinka Tank Museum just outside Moscow is also well worth a visit.

 

And again the Strategic Bomber Offensive is another fascinating - and highly controversial - subject that has long interested me ... indeed once WWII gets 'under your skin' as it were there's very little of it that holds no interest is there?

 

The pacific theatre of war doesn't really interest me - I've tried but it just doesn't do it for me although the Chindits are very interesting. I'm more of a fighting units esp the para's both british and german.

[View From The Top]

The pacific theatre of war doesn't really interest me - I've tried but it just doesn't do it for me although the Chindits are very interesting. I'm more of a fighting units esp the para's both british and german.

 

The Far East doesn't really interest me either despite having family who fought in Burma.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As I understood it Stalin's spies even told him that there was going to be a German invasion but he refused to believe them - he was caught totally unaware. There is also no way that the Russian army had a hope of launching an offensive based on their performance against the Fins. The Russian army was devastated by Stalin's purges of the army and that's why Hitler was nearly able to 'kick the front door in and the whole house would fall in'.

 

Indeed Sergei.

 

The bloody purge Stalin ordered the NKVD to conduct on the Red Army well nigh 'beheaded' it. No less than 3 out of 5 Marshals of the Soviet Union, 13 of 15 Army level commanders, 50 out of 57 Corps commanders, 154 out of 186 Divisional generals ... all off to the Gulag or a bullet in the head. Now I suspect many of these senior officers may well have been found wanting in wartime anyway, peacetime armies do tend to amass officers unfit to face the pressures of battle (leaders Montgomery memorably described as 'deadwood') but no organization could possibly survive a culling on such a scale without incurring a significant reduction in the quality of its leadership.

 

What is less well known is that the outbreak of war with Germany by no means actually stopped the purge on the Red Army, it may even have accelerated it. Any officer who dared to express criticism of the regime, any officer who ordered his troops to withdraw (even to save them from destruction), above all any officer who suffered defeat on the battlefield would find himself in extreme peril of a 'one way' ticket to the Lubyanka. The Commissar was always there watching your every move.

 

I've often thought that Stalin's approach to the coming Nazi invasion in 1941 is akin to him burying his head in the sand and hoping the problem would just go away. As you say he had plenty of warning from his own espionage network within the German High Command, and even Churchill warned him of what was about to happen employing intelligence gained from 'Ultra' decrypts at Bletchley Park. But even ignoring all that, you would think that it's bloody hard to completely hide a military build-up on the gigantic scale that Operation Barbarossa entailed without any reasonably efficient military intelligence organisation learning at least something of it wouldn't you?

 

But his principle reaction to all this seems to have been to dismiss what he was being told as a bunch of lies and merely order his forces to do absolutely nothing to antagonist the enemy. The Luftwaffe wants to fly reconnaissance flights over your frontier defences - that's okay just let them get on with it! It's almost as if he was hoping passivity alone would deter a man like Hitler.

 

I grew up in a era when Hitler and the Nazis were (understandably) considered to be the very epitome of Human evil, and although 'Uncle Joe' Stalin was accepted to have been a rather brutal leader, his regime was generally considered to have been a lesser (more benign almost) form of tyranny in comparison. Well, the more you learn of Stalin (and his henchmen like Lavrentiy Beria) then you sooner you come to realise that the Nazis had nothing they could teach Stalin's particular form of Communism when it comes to pluming the depths of wickedness, paranoia, and a utterly callous disregard for the value of Human life.

Edited 10 December, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The pacific theatre of war doesn't really interest me - I've tried but it just doesn't do it for me although the Chindits are very interesting. I'm more of a fighting units esp the para's both british and german.

 

I must admit the Pacific war is not perhaps my primary area of interest - it so far away afterall - but trust me there's enough to occupy any enquiring mind there too if you look.

 

America's 'day of infamy' at Pearl Harbour. The utter humiliation that Britain and her Empire suffered with the loss of Force Z and the fall of Singapore. The Battle of Midway where a huge Japanese Fleet was destined to met its 'Waterloo'. The long, bitter, and bloody battle for Guadalcanal ...

 

... plenty to chew on there methinks, and that's just the first year or so.

[Halo Stickman]

Indeed Sergei.

 

The bloody purge Stalin ordered the NKVD to conduct on the Red Army well nigh 'beheaded' it. No less than 3 out of 5 Marshals of the Soviet Union, 13 of 15 Army level commanders, 50 out of 57 Corps commanders, 154 out of 186 Divisional generals ... all off to the Gulag or a bullet in the head. Now I suspect many of these senior officers may well have been found wanting in wartime anyway, peacetime armies do tend to amass officers unfit to face the pressures of battle (leaders Montgomery memorably described as 'deadwood') but no organization could possibly survive a culling on such a scale without incurring a significant reduction in the quality of its leadership.

 

What is less well known is that the outbreak of war with Germany by no means actually stopped the purge on the Red Army, it may even have accelerated it. Any officer who dared to express criticism of the regime, any officer who ordered his troops to withdraw (even to save them from destruction), above all any officer who suffered defeat on the battlefield would find himself in extreme peril of a 'one way' ticket to the Lubyanka. The Commissar was always there watching your every move.

 

I've often thought that Stalin's approach to the coming Nazi invasion in 1941 is akin to him burying his head in the sand and hoping the problem would just go away. As you say he had plenty of warning from his own espionage network within the German High Command, and even Churchill warned him of what was about to happen employing intelligence gained from 'Ultra' decrypts at Bletchley Park. But even ignoring all that, you would think that it's bloody hard to completely hide a military build-up on the gigantic scale that Operation Barbarossa entailed without any reasonably efficient military intelligence organisation learning at least something of it wouldn't you?

 

But his principle reaction to all this seems to have been to dismiss what he was being told as a bunch of lies and merely order his forces to do absolutely nothing to antagonist the enemy. The Luftwaffe wants to fly reconnaissance flights over your frontier defences - that's okay just let them get on with it! It's almost as if he was hoping passivity alone would deter a man like Hitler.

 

I grew up in a era when Hitler and the Nazis were (understandably) considered to be the very epitome of Human evil, and although 'Uncle Joe' Stalin was accepted to have been a rather brutal leader, his regime was generally considered to have been a lesser (more benign almost) form of tyranny in comparison. Well, the more you learn of Stalin (and his henchmen like Lavrentiy Beria) then you sooner you come to realise that the Nazis had nothing they could teach Stalin's particular form of Communism when it comes to pluming the depths of wickedness, paranoia, and a utterly callous disregard for the value of Human life.

 

Very interesting post, Charlie. How much did the British know about Stalin and his methods at the commencement of Operation Barbarossa? Do we know if there were people at the British War Office as fearful of a swift and decisive Russian victory as they were of a German one?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

A chap up the road (sadly he died three years ago) was captured at Singapore. He went in with 3000 and came out with 300. When somebody stole some rice the Japanese had them standing out in the scorching sun until somebody owned up to stealing the food. Eventually somebody who had not taken the rice courageously admitted to the crime came forward. In front of everybody they chopped has hand off and nailed it to a tree as a warning to others. At the end of the war, when the Japs had fled they were told to stay in their huts while they parachuted supplies in. Sadly one desperate survivor could not wait and was hit by a crate and killed - life had become so cheap that they found this very amusing; that this bloke had survived the years of hell under the Japanese only to be killed by the Allies.

 

It cannot of affected him too much because he always drove a Subaru.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Very interesting post, Charlie. How much did the British know about Stalin and his methods at the commencement of Operation Barbarossa? Do we know if there were people at the British War Office as fearful of a swift and decisive Russian victory as they were of a German one?

 

Here are some thoughts of the Moscow Ambassador. Pretty difficult times.

 

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/we-all-feel-like-that-now-and-then.html

[View From The Top]

A chap up the road (sadly he died three years ago) was captured at Singapore. He went in with 3000 and came out with 300. When somebody stole some rice the Japanese had them standing out in the scorching sun until somebody owned up to stealing the food. Eventually somebody who had not taken the rice courageously admitted to the crime came forward. In front of everybody they chopped has hand off and nailed it to a tree as a warning to others. At the end of the war, when the Japs had fled they were told to stay in their huts while they parachuted supplies in. Sadly one desperate survivor could not wait and was hit by a crate and killed - life had become so cheap that they found this very amusing; that this bloke had survived the years of hell under the Japanese only to be killed by the Allies.

 

It cannot of affected him too much because he always drove a Subaru.

 

My uncle Bert, who was from Sholing but settled in North Baddesley, fought in Burma and until he died he would have nothing Japanese in his house and wouldn't even get in a taxi if it was Japanese.

 

I asked him once why so he told me of finding the decapitated bodies of friends who had also clearly been tortured. He also said that after that they never took a single Japanese prisoner, whether they were injured, dying or begging and that they also used "cold steel" to do it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Very interesting post, Charlie. How much did the British know about Stalin and his methods at the commencement of Operation Barbarossa? Do we know if there were people at the British War Office as fearful of a swift and decisive Russian victory as they were of a German one?

 

Well Halo, I may like to make out I'm some sort of historical expert but my knowledge is rather more superficial than I'd really like it to be ... oh for the many benefits of a university education!

 

I think it is safe to say however that Communism, and all that it stood for, was a anathema to a old Tory imperialist like Churchill. But Churchill, just like Hitler in a way, was a opportunist at heart and so utterly dedicated was he to winning the war he would allow no consideration to come before the cause of victory over Nazi Germany ... which is a long winded way of saying that war makes strange bedfellows and 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' if you know what I mean.

 

I don't see much evidence that the British establishment spent a lot of time during WWII worrying unduly about the prospect of a quick Soviet victory, indeed the outcome of the war in the east was very much a question left hanging in the balance until 1943 at the very earliest. To support that contention, the record does show that as late as 1945 (with the war almost won) both Britain and the USA were still supplying the Soviets with huge amounts of military equipment (via the Arctic convoys and the Persia railhead) and even actively encouraging Stalin to participate in the defeat of Japan for instance. If the west were really all that worried about the prospect Soviet expansionism at that time then surly we would/should have reduced, or halted entirely, that military support.

 

Churchill however was certainly much more deeply concerned about the postwar fate of Poland and Greece than our US allies were for instance, and much quicker too than the (rapidly ailing) Roosevelt to foresee the sinister implications of unbridled Soviet military power and the influence Stalin would wield over the lands occupied by the Red Army. But Yalta, Potsdam, and all that is another story.

 

Both before and during WWII the more idealistic elements of the British left viewed the Soviet Union as something akin to a model society, the future of mankind even. Those who took the trouble to take a peak behind the facade of the 'workers paradise' however and glimpse the true consequences of Stalin's rule may have seen the grim events such as the genocidal Ukraine famine of 1932/33 and adopted a rather less 'starry eyed' view of the Soviet Union and its formidable General Secretary. To be fair I suppose the endemic secrecy and state control of the media that prevailed in the Soviet Union at that time would have made finding out the truth a problematic business for those in the west to put it mildly.

 

Only time can reveal all.

Edited 10 December, 2013 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Halo Stickman]

I must admit the Pacific war is not perhaps my primary area of interest - it so far away afterall - but trust me there's enough to occupy any enquiring mind there too if you look.

 

America's 'day of infamy' at Pearl Harbour. The utter humiliation that Britain and her Empire suffered with the loss of Force Z and the fall of Singapore. The Battle of Midway where a huge Japanese Fleet was destined to met its 'Waterloo'. The long, bitter, and bloody battle for Guadalcanal ...

 

... plenty to chew on there methinks, and that's just the first year or so.

 

Years ago, I read William Manchester’s Goodbye Darkness, a brilliant first hand account of the fighting on the Pacific islands. His descriptions of Japanese soldiers fighting to the death in sake-fuelled banzai charges left a lasting impression on me. This and other books persuaded me that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan actually saved lives – in harsh net terms – insomuch as they prevented the bloodbath that would have ensued if the Americans had had to fight with land forces on the Japanese mainland.

 

However, a couple of years ago, I visited the Hiroshima museum, which, in my opinion, is a very objective and impartial museum, especially considering its location. My conviction that the atomic bombs had actually saved lives was no where near as strong by the end of my visit. The various exhibits on display went some way towards persuading me that, by summer 1945, Japan was totally depleted of resources, and its citizens had neither the will nor the means to continue the fight.

 

But perhaps the most chilling exhibit was a secret despatch from an American general imploring the US air force to ease up on the conventional fire bombing of one or two of the Japanese cities in order for the atomic bombers to have something left to destroy. They wanted, of course, to make an impression, not just on Japan, but on the rest of the world, especially the Russians gathering to the north of Japan.

[Halo Stickman]

Here are some thoughts of the Moscow Ambassador. Pretty difficult times.

 

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/we-all-feel-like-that-now-and-then.html

 

Yes, Sergei, nothing beats a bit of humour to brighten up dark days.

[Halo Stickman]

Hey Charlie, I bet you know a darn sight more than a lot of university students – if for no other reason than you’ve had a darn sight more years to read up on stuff

 

Seriously though, thanks for that comprehensive answer to my post – really interesting stuff, and much appreciated

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Years ago, I read William Manchester’s Goodbye Darkness, a brilliant first hand account of the fighting on the Pacific islands. His descriptions of Japanese soldiers fighting to the death in sake-fuelled banzai charges left a lasting impression on me. This and other books persuaded me that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan actually saved lives – in harsh net terms – insomuch as they prevented the bloodbath that would have ensued if the Americans had had to fight with land forces on the Japanese mainland.

 

However, a couple of years ago, I visited the Hiroshima museum, which, in my opinion, is a very objective and impartial museum, especially considering its location. My conviction that the atomic bombs had actually saved lives was no where near as strong by the end of my visit. The various exhibits on display went some way towards persuading me that, by summer 1945, Japan was totally depleted of resources, and its citizens had neither the will nor the means to continue the fight.

 

But perhaps the most chilling exhibit was a secret despatch from an American general imploring the US air force to ease up on the conventional fire bombing of one or two of the Japanese cities in order for the atomic bombers to have something left to destroy. They wanted, of course, to make an impression, not just on Japan, but on the rest of the world, especially the Russians gathering to the north of Japan.

 

That looks like a good read - I must seek it out.

 

There is no doubt that Imperial Japan was a beaten nation long before the triple blows of two atomic bombs and Russia declaring war tipper her over the edge into capitulation. I'm no so sure that without those blows she would have surrendered when she did however - the war might have gone on until 1946 and we should never underestimate the desire of the allied nations just to end the misery and loss as soon as possible - and who can blame them? But no easy answers here that for sure.

 

I will always remember the words Emperor Hirohito used on the radio to announce to his shocked people that Japan was about to surrender "the war has developed not necessarily to our advantage" he said ...

 

Aye.

[Halo Stickman]

My uncle Bert, who was from Sholing but settled in North Baddesley, fought in Burma and until he died he would have nothing Japanese in his house and wouldn't even get in a taxi if it was Japanese.

 

I asked him once why so he told me of finding the decapitated bodies of friends who had also clearly been tortured. He also said that after that they never took a single Japanese prisoner, whether they were injured, dying or begging and that they also used "cold steel" to do it.

 

One of the most harrowing testimonies I ever heard was that of an old soldier describing what happened when his mate was caught supplementing his starvation rations with a dead rat. The Japanese soldiers decided it was beneath their dignity to execute the poor chap themselves, so ordered a reluctant member of their catering staff to despatch him with a blunt chopping knife.

 

I shall never forget the old boy stuttering in a voice choking with emotion: “On the movies they show soldiers bravely facing their executioners; and it’s all over pretty quick, but let me tell you that wasn’t how it usually happened, we had to watch our mate crying and begging on his knees, pleading for his life. I counted every chop; I’d counted to fifty before he stopped screaming.”

 

Oh that it was just fanatical Japanese WWII soldiers that committed barbaric atrocities such as these. Unfortunately, people have been visiting similar obscenities on their fellow man since the beginning of recorded time, and still do in some parts of the world.

[Halo Stickman]

That looks like a good read - I must seek it out.

 

There is no doubt that Imperial Japan was a beaten nation long before the triple blows of two atomic bombs and Russia declaring war tipper her over the edge into capitulation. I'm no so sure that without those blows she would have surrendered when she did however - the war might have gone on until 1946 and we should never underestimate the desire of the allied nations just to end the misery and loss as soon as possible - and who can blame them? But no easy answers here that for sure.

 

I will always remember the words Emperor Hirohito used on the radio to announce to his shocked people that Japan was about to surrender "the war has developed not necessarily to our advantage" he said ...

Aye.

 

For most Japanese people that was the first time they had ever heard Hirohito speak.

 

But give the chap his due – he’d certainly mastered the art of the understatement.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Years ago, I read William Manchester’s Goodbye Darkness, a brilliant first hand account of the fighting on the Pacific islands. His descriptions of Japanese soldiers fighting to the death in sake-fuelled banzai charges left a lasting impression on me. This and other books persuaded me that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan actually saved lives – in harsh net terms – insomuch as they prevented the bloodbath that would have ensued if the Americans had had to fight with land forces on the Japanese mainland.

 

However, a couple of years ago, I visited the Hiroshima museum, which, in my opinion, is a very objective and impartial museum, especially considering its location. My conviction that the atomic bombs had actually saved lives was no where near as strong by the end of my visit. The various exhibits on display went some way towards persuading me that, by summer 1945, Japan was totally depleted of resources, and its citizens had neither the will nor the means to continue the fight.

 

But perhaps the most chilling exhibit was a secret despatch from an American general imploring the US air force to ease up on the conventional fire bombing of one or two of the Japanese cities in order for the atomic bombers to have something left to destroy. They wanted, of course, to make an impression, not just on Japan, but on the rest of the world, especially the Russians gathering to the north of Japan.

 

Don't forget that hen they heard about the plans to surrender some young Japanese officers tried to organise a coup.

[Halo Stickman]

Don't forget that hen they heard about the plans to surrender some young Japanese officers tried to organise a coup.

 

True, and there were also lots of fanatical Japanese soldiers that committed seppuku rather than surrender; but there were millions more that simply acquiesced with the surrender terms, and just got on with the task of rebuilding Japan – a task, I think most people would agree, they performed very successfully.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

That looks like a good read - I must seek it out.

There is no doubt that Imperial Japan was a beaten nation long before the triple blows of two atomic bombs and Russia declaring war tipper her over the edge into capitulation. I'm no so sure that without those blows she would have surrendered when she did however - the war might have gone on until 1946 and we should never underestimate the desire of the allied nations just to end the misery and loss as soon as possible - and who can blame them? But no easy answers here that for sure.

 

I will always remember the words Emperor Hirohito used on the radio to announce to his shocked people that Japan was about to surrender "the war has developed not necessarily to our advantage" he said ...

 

Aye.

 

Some good fiction books about the Far East theatre I've read are "The Thin Red Line" by James Jones; "The Naked and the Dead" by Norman Mailer and "King Rat" by James Clavell. Another great related read is "Empire of the Sun" by JG Ballard.

[pap]

I'm still intrigued by Soviet intentions toward Germany. I think it likely they were planning to strike against Germany in an offensive war, despite the disputed nature of the evidence to support it. Just from a logical point of view, it makes sense. Though Stalin was surprised at the initiation of Operation Barbarossa, almost to the point of disbelief, I don't think it was because he thought the Germans lacked capability or will. It just didn't fit with his preferred version of reality, one in which the Soviets had been re-arming for two years, had forces along its frontiers that would presumably, never be attacked by the Germans. A deadly case of tunnel vision.

 

The first link that badgerx16 posted was interesting, providing some support to the idea that the USSR was going to attack first. If Stalin knew that conflict with the Germans was inevitable, where's the preferred place to do the fighting? Your own soon-to-be-devastated country or someone elses? Hitler had several reasons for invading the USSR. His desire for German autarky meant that it was always a question of "when", not "if", but the timing of Barbarossa was largely determined by Stalin. It didn't happen in 1940 because of the non-aggression pact and might not have happened in 1941 without the Soviet build-up of forces on its frontiers. Hitler remembered the starvation blockade of 1914-1919 and was adamant it wouldn't happen again. Germany was reliant on the USSR not only for the security of its Eastern frontiers, but also for a lot of its supply chain. Any Soviet attack would end both; Hitler took the threat seriously.

[Barry Sanchez]

I'm still intrigued by Soviet intentions toward Germany. I think it likely they were planning to strike against Germany in an offensive war, despite the disputed nature of the evidence to support it. Just from a logical point of view, it makes sense. Though Stalin was surprised at the initiation of Operation Barbarossa, almost to the point of disbelief, I don't think it was because he thought the Germans lacked capability or will. It just didn't fit with his preferred version of reality, one in which the Soviets had been re-arming for two years, had forces along its frontiers that would presumably, never be attacked by the Germans. A deadly case of tunnel vision.

 

The first link that badgerx16 posted was interesting, providing some support to the idea that the USSR was going to attack first. If Stalin knew that conflict with the Germans was inevitable, where's the preferred place to do the fighting? Your own soon-to-be-devastated country or someone elses? Hitler had several reasons for invading the USSR. His desire for German autarky meant that it was always a question of "when", not "if", but the timing of Barbarossa was largely determined by Stalin. It didn't happen in 1940 because of the non-aggression pact and might not have happened in 1941 without the Soviet build-up of forces on its frontiers. Hitler remembered the starvation blockade of 1914-1919 and was adamant it wouldn't happen again. Germany was reliant on the USSR not only for the security of its Eastern frontiers, but also for a lot of its supply chain. Any Soviet attack would end both; Hitler took the threat seriously.

 

What weaponary were they building before the invasion and where ere they building it?

[pap]

What weaponary were they building before the invasion and where ere they building it?

 

This is well worth a look:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations

 

From 1939 to 1941, the Soviets relentlessly re-armed. They had four times the number of tanks than the Germans at the outset of Barbarossa, and tanks constituted the smallest area of military growth. Production was initially based in western parts of the Soviet Union, but was moved to the Urals after the Germans invaded.

[View From The Top]

I'm still intrigued by Soviet intentions toward Germany. I think it likely they were planning to strike against Germany in an offensive war, despite the disputed nature of the evidence to support it. Just from a logical point of view, it makes sense. Though Stalin was surprised at the initiation of Operation Barbarossa, almost to the point of disbelief, I don't think it was because he thought the Germans lacked capability or will. It just didn't fit with his preferred version of reality, one in which the Soviets had been re-arming for two years, had forces along its frontiers that would presumably, never be attacked by the Germans. A deadly case of tunnel vision.

 

The first link that badgerx16 posted was interesting, providing some support to the idea that the USSR was going to attack first. If Stalin knew that conflict with the Germans was inevitable, where's the preferred place to do the fighting? Your own soon-to-be-devastated country or someone elses? Hitler had several reasons for invading the USSR. His desire for German autarky meant that it was always a question of "when", not "if", but the timing of Barbarossa was largely determined by Stalin. It didn't happen in 1940 because of the non-aggression pact and might not have happened in 1941 without the Soviet build-up of forces on its frontiers. Hitler remembered the starvation blockade of 1914-1919 and was adamant it wouldn't happen again. Germany was reliant on the USSR not only for the security of its Eastern frontiers, but also for a lot of its supply chain. Any Soviet attack would end both; Hitler took the threat seriously.

 

There is no "disputed evidence" as there is no evidence at all.

 

I would imagine scholars like Hastings and Bevor might well have mentioned it if it existed, which it doesn't.

 

My native German history professor, you'd have thought, may of mentioned it in passing as I wrote my 10,000 word dissertation on WW2.

[Barry Sanchez]

This is well worth a look:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#Soviet_preparations

 

From 1939 to 1941, the Soviets relentlessly re-armed. They had four times the number of tanks than the Germans at the outset of Barbarossa, and tanks constituted the smallest area of military growth. Production was initially based in western parts of the Soviet Union, but was moved to the Urals after the Germans invaded.

 

Russian tanks at the start of the operation were no match for the Germans, only at the end Pap, there is no evidence so until I see any the Russians were simply unprepared.

[Halo Stickman]

That looks like a good read - I must seek it out.

 

There is no doubt that Imperial Japan was a beaten nation long before the triple blows of two atomic bombs and Russia declaring war tipper her over the edge into capitulation. I'm no so sure that without those blows she would have surrendered when she did however - the war might have gone on until 1946 and we should never underestimate the desire of the allied nations just to end the misery and loss as soon as possible - and who can blame them? But no easy answers here that for sure.

 

I will always remember the words Emperor Hirohito used on the radio to announce to his shocked people that Japan was about to surrender "the war has developed not necessarily to our advantage" he said ...

 

Aye.

 

Charlie, you are right about the triple blows – Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Russian invasion of Manchuria – combining to precipitate Japan’s capitulation, but my limited reading of the subject suggests to me that the greatest blow to the Japanese hierarchy at that time was the Russian invasion. The argument I’ve heard is that the atomic bombs, whilst, of course, being devastating both in terms of material and human destruction, were not in fact hugely more devastating than the destruction already being inflicted by conventional bombing. On top of this, the Japanese hierarchy was apparently prepared to accept heavy material and civilian loses much more readily than they were prepared to accept any invasion to either homeland Japan or ‘greater Japan’ (i.e. Manchuria etc)

 

My understanding of events – again, I stress it’s a limited understanding – is that at the Tehran Conference in Nov 1943, the British and Americans had pressed Stalin to help them with the Pacific campaign, but that Stalin was unwilling at that time to commit his forces to fighting on two fronts. Of course, it has to be remembered that not only were the Soviets not at war with Japan at that time, but also that Japan had started to sound out the Soviets with regard to the latter acting as go-betweens in potential peace talks between Japan and the allies.

 

Fast forward to the Yalta Conference in Mar 1945 when the Soviets finally promised to enter the Pacific war, but only at a date three months after the end of the war with Germany. The war with Germany ended on 8 May 1945, and, true to their promise, the Soviets invaded Manchuria exactly three months later on 8 Aug 1945. Again, up until this invasion, the Japanese were not at war with the Soviets; and, indeed, were still hopeful that they (Japan) could use them (the Soviets) as go-betweens in a peace deal. The Soviets declaration of war and subsequent invasion was obviously a crushing blow to the Japanese.

 

The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945, two days before the Soviets’ invasion; the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945.

 

Now, by the summer of 1945, all the major WWII participants knew they were playing the end game; they all had their long-term strategy focused on potential spheres of influence in the Far East in the years ahead. Metaphorically speaking, players needed to be in the right places, ready to go, when the slaughter music stopped. In some ways, all this jostling for position was reminiscent of the previous century’s scramble for, and subsequent carve-up, of Africa.

 

But, how much did the major players – the Soviets and Americans – know about the timing of each others’ moves? It seems that the Americans knew the timing of the Soviet invasion, but did the Soviets know the timing of the first American atomic bomb drop? Reflecting on the fact that the outcome of countless games – much more innocuous games – often depends on which player makes the first move, I find myself asking the following question:

 

Was the timing of the first American atomic drop in any way influenced by the timing of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria two days later; and, figuratively speaking, was the bomb aimed every bit as much at the Soviets as it was at the Japanese?

 

P.S. Sorry, Pap, for the part I’ve played in deflecting part of this discussion away from the Russian / Germany theatre of your original post – it wasn’t me that started this diversion, honest gov! Perhaps we need to create a separate thread?

[pap]

Russian tanks at the start of the operation were no match for the Germans, only at the end Pap, there is no evidence so until I see any the Russians were simply unprepared.

 

Disagree. The T-34 was in active, if not widespread service in 1941. Guderian and von Kleist both referred to it as "the deadliest tank in the world". It was so superior to the German's tank-killer, the Panzer III, that the Germans were forced to reverse the roles of their tanks. The Panzer IV was reassigned to take on the T-34's - the Panzer III shifted to infantry support, largely because the III didn't have a big enough gun to compete with them.

 

The only way in which you're correct is the number of T-34s available in 1941. The vast bulk of Soviet tanks were the older models you refer to, so on the ground, what you say has some merit. That said, Soviet tank tech was already beyond the German capability and it could be argued that Stalin's 1930s purge of the officer corp, complete inaction in the opening hours and location of forces were bigger factors for heavy Russian losses than technical obsolescence. Indeed, Hitler later said "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".

[Barry Sanchez]

Disagree. The T-34 was in active, if not widespread service in 1941. Guderian and von Kleist both referred to it as "the deadliest tank in the world". It was so superior to the German's tank-killer, the Panzer III, that the Germans were forced to reverse the roles of their tanks. The Panzer IV was reassigned to take on the T-34's - the Panzer III shifted to infantry support, largely because the III didn't have a big enough gun to compete with them.

 

The only way in which you're correct is the number of T-34s available in 1941. The vast bulk of Soviet tanks were the older models you refer to, so on the ground, what you say has some merit. That said, Soviet tank tech was already beyond the German capability and it could be argued that Stalin's 1930s purge of the officer corp, complete inaction in the opening hours and location of forces were bigger factors for heavy Russian losses than technical obsolescence. Indeed, Hitler later said "If I had known about the Russian tank's strength in 1941 I would not have attacked".

 

Pap the German military pushed them so far back they really could no go any further, where were the tanks produced? I ask again, this is key to your argument and stance, the T34 was made and used in the repulsion of German forces many miles to the East and there is a reason for that.

[pap]

Pap the German military pushed them so far back they really could no go any further, where were the tanks produced? I ask again, this is key to your argument and stance, the T34 was made and used in the repulsion of German forces many miles to the East and there is a reason for that.

 

There is no one place, Barry. Sub assemblies were created in Kharkiv (engines), Leningrad (guns), Moscow (electrical components). Actual tank assembly took place in Stalingrad.

 

So yep, T-34s built in the West prior to Barbarossa. Bad move. The Germans got to nearly all of those locations in short order.

[badgerx16]

Pap the German military pushed them so far back they really could no go any further, where were the tanks produced? I ask again, this is key to your argument and stance, the T34 was made and used in the repulsion of German forces many miles to the East and there is a reason for that.

 

From WIKIPEDIA, but seems accurate enough based on other things I've read over the years :

"

Subassemblies for the T-34 originated at several plants: Kharkiv Diesel Factory N.75 supplied the model V-2-34 engine, Leningrad Kirovsky Factory (formerly the Putilov works) made the original L-11 gun, and the Dinamo Factory in Moscow produced electrical components. Tanks were initially built at KhPZ N.183, in early 1941 at the Stalingrad Tractor Factory (STZ), and starting in July at Krasnoye Sormovo Factory N.112 in Gorky.^{[28][notes 1]}

After Germany's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 (Operation Barbarossa), the Wehrmacht's rapid advances forced the evacuation of Soviet tank factories to the Ural Mountains, an undertaking of immense scale and haste that presented enormous logistic difficulties and was extremely punishing to the workers involved. Alexander Morozov personally supervised the evacuation of all skilled engineers and laborers, machinery, and stock from KhPZ to re-establish the factory at the site of the Dzherzhinski Ural Railcar Factory in Nizhny Tagil, renamed Stalin Ural Tank Factory N.183.^[29] The Kirovsky Factory, evacuated just weeks before the Germans surrounded Leningrad, moved with the Kharkiv Diesel Factory to the Stalin Tractor Factory in Chelyabinsk, soon to be nicknamed Tankograd ("Tank City"). The workers and machinery from Leningrad's Voroshilov Tank Factory N.174 were incorporated into the Ural Factory and the new Omsk Factory N.174. The Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machine Tool Works (UZTM) in Sverdlovsk absorbed workers and machines from several small machine shops in the path of German forces.

While these factories were being rapidly relocated, the industrial complex surrounding the Dzherzhinski Tractor Factory in Stalingrad continued to work double shifts throughout the period of withdrawal (September 1941 to September 1942) to make up for production lost, and produced 40% of all T-34s during the period.^[30] As the factory became surrounded by heavy fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, the situation there grew desperate: manufacturing innovations were necessitated by material shortages, and stories persist of unpainted T-34 tanks driven out of the factory directly to the battlefields around it.^[31] Stalingrad kept up production until September 1942."

 

Plus this : http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_t-34_production.html

"

First Factory No.183 - Charkovskiy Traktornyj Zawod (ChTZ), Kharkov

Production of the T-34 began at Factory No.183 at Kharkov, where the tank had been designed. On 5 June 1940 the Central Committee passed a resolution ordering the Kharkov plant to produce 600 tanks in 1940, with another 100 to be produced at Stalingrad. In fact only 183 T-34s were completed during 1940, all of them at Factory No.183. Production stepped up in the first half of 1940, when 553 tanks were produced at Kharkov, and reached a peak in the second half of the year, when despite the rapid approach of the Germans another 939 T-34s were completed. A total of 1,675 T-34s were produced at Kharkov.

By September 1941 it was clear that there was a real danger that Kkarkov would fall to the Germans. On 13 September 1941 the factory was ordered to evacuate to Nizhniy Tagil, east of the Urals. The first of 43 trains left on 17 September, the last on 19 October. Although much of the factory equipment reached the new site, only 10% of the work force and 20% of the engineers followed the machinery.

Production Summary

T-34-76: 1,675"

Edited 11 December, 2013 by badgerx16

[Barry Sanchez]

There is no one place, Barry. Sub assemblies were created in Kharkiv (engines), Leningrad (guns), Moscow (electrical components). Actual tank assembly took place in Stalingrad.

 

So yep, T-34s built in the West prior to Barbarossa. Bad move. The Germans got to nearly all of those locations in short order.

 

You do know only approx 10% of T34's were bulit at the start? You also know due to the fast nature of the invasion Stalin pulled all the factories to the Urals? He built railways on an undertaking never before seen, this was not an advance it was a defensive retreat Pap, oh stop using wikipedia verbatim, it makes you seem as if you do not know the subject.

Edited 11 December, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[pap]

You do know only approx 10% of T34's were bulit at the start?

 

Yes, I acknowledged that in one of my posts. I appreciate that I'm backing some of my opinions up with evidence, which therefore makes them longer and harder to read, but it's all there.