Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Mightier military vis-a-vis the contemporary competition: Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany?

1…6791112…14

Comments

  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,676
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    YellowSnow said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    YellowSnow said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.

    Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.

    I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...

    Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
    The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

    Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.

    Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
    Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
    Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.


    Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.

    Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.

    The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR

    And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
    The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.
    I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.
    And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.

    I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.

    Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.

    Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
    Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck are you arguing? That an invasion would have been horrible? That's not up for debate. That is up for debate is how instrumental that atomic bombs were in getting the Japanese High Command to capitulate. We? like to think that it was because of the atomic bombs, because it validates the effort we? put into making them and it makes it all about us?, which is what Americans tend to like to do. But the minutes of the meeting that the Japanese Imperial War Council had one day after Nagasaki, and two days after Soviet troops poured over the Manchurian border, tell us that the Japanese were more concerned about fighting Soviet soldiers on land than they were about dealing with continued strategic bombing.

    We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.
    Werent they also in a bit of disbelief at the devastation the atom bomb could cause
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ThomasFremont
    ThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    YellowSnow said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    YellowSnow said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.

    Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.

    I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...

    Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
    The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

    Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.

    Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
    Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
    Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.


    Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.

    Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.

    The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR

    And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
    The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.
    I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.
    And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.

    I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.

    Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.

    Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
    Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck are you arguing? That an invasion would have been horrible? That's not up for debate. That is up for debate is how instrumental that atomic bombs were in getting the Japanese High Command to capitulate. We? like to think that it was because of the atomic bombs, because it validates the effort we? put into making them and it makes it all about us?, which is what Americans tend to like to do. But the minutes of the meeting that the Japanese Imperial War Council had one day after Nagasaki, and two days after Soviet troops poured over the Manchurian border, tell us that the Japanese were more concerned about fighting Soviet soldiers on land than they were about dealing with continued strategic bombing.

    We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.
    The Germans were more scared of the Soviets too. They knew the Red Army wasn’t the side you wanted to get captured by.

    That doesn’t invalidate the impact on the bomb hastening their surrender before more Allies died in an invasion.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,695 Founders Club
    WW1 Imperial Germany
    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    YellowSnow said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    YellowSnow said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.

    Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.

    I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...

    Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
    The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

    Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.

    Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
    Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
    Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.


    Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.

    Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.

    The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR

    And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
    The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.
    I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.
    And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.

    I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.

    Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.

    Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
    Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck are you arguing? That an invasion would have been horrible? That's not up for debate. That is up for debate is how instrumental that atomic bombs were in getting the Japanese High Command to capitulate. We? like to think that it was because of the atomic bombs, because it validates the effort we? put into making them and it makes it all about us?, which is what Americans tend to like to do. But the minutes of the meeting that the Japanese Imperial War Council had one day after Nagasaki, and two days after Soviet troops poured over the Manchurian border, tell us that the Japanese were more concerned about fighting Soviet soldiers on land than they were about dealing with continued strategic bombing.

    We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.
    Man, the Kwantung Army folded like a house of cards.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,676
    WW2 Nazi Germany
    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    YellowSnow said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    YellowSnow said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.

    Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.

    I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...

    Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
    The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

    Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.

    Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
    Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
    Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.


    Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.

    Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.

    The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR

    And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
    The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.
    I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.
    And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.

    I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.

    Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.

    Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
    Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck are you arguing? That an invasion would have been horrible? That's not up for debate. That is up for debate is how instrumental that atomic bombs were in getting the Japanese High Command to capitulate. We? like to think that it was because of the atomic bombs, because it validates the effort we? put into making them and it makes it all about us?, which is what Americans tend to like to do. But the minutes of the meeting that the Japanese Imperial War Council had one day after Nagasaki, and two days after Soviet troops poured over the Manchurian border, tell us that the Japanese were more concerned about fighting Soviet soldiers on land than they were about dealing with continued strategic bombing.

    We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.
    The Germans were more scared of the Soviets too. They knew the Red Army wasn’t the side you wanted to get captured by.

    That doesn’t invalidate the impact on the bomb hastening their surrender before more Allies died in an invasion.
    my dad talked about how those damn ruskies were a bunch of dirty peasants drinking out of the toilet and shit
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    All this Pacific War hawt talk has me jonesin for Carlin's next pod.

    2022 will be special.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,695 Founders Club
    WW1 Imperial Germany
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    All this Pacific War hawt talk has me jonesin for Carlin's next pod.

    2022 will be special.

    Jesus, have a little faith bruh. It will be here within a few months.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,695 Founders Club
    WW1 Imperial Germany
    WeakarmCobra said:

    bearswiin delivers in this thread.

    @BearsWiin may be a Central Valley hick, but he's a man of letters none the less.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    Doog_de_Jour said:

    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    BearsWiin said:

    YellowSnow said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    YellowSnow said:

    ThomasFremont said:

    I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.

    Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.

    I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...

    Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
    The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.

    Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.

    Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
    Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
    Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.


    Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.

    Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.

    The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR

    And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
    The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.
    I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.
    And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.

    I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.

    Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.

    Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
    Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck are you arguing? That an invasion would have been horrible? That's not up for debate. That is up for debate is how instrumental that atomic bombs were in getting the Japanese High Command to capitulate. We? like to think that it was because of the atomic bombs, because it validates the effort we? put into making them and it makes it all about us?, which is what Americans tend to like to do. But the minutes of the meeting that the Japanese Imperial War Council had one day after Nagasaki, and two days after Soviet troops poured over the Manchurian border, tell us that the Japanese were more concerned about fighting Soviet soldiers on land than they were about dealing with continued strategic bombing.

    We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.
    One interesting theory I’ve read is that some US officials purposely inflated the projected casualties of a Japanese mainland invasion because they wanted to pressure Truman into using the bomb as a pre-postwar power move against the Soviets. Stalin knew we had the bomb, but many were of the mind unless we actually *used* it he wouldn’t be intimidated by it - which was an edge many felt the US needed going into the peace negotiations.
    The casualtiy inflation makes sense. I hadn’t heard that the Soviets knew about the bomb before —-
    Shit nevermind. That was revealed at Malta, yes?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter