4 ms·

The Soviet invasion was not "opportunistic" at all, if you mean by that eating a meal someone else has prepared. The USSR had a far bigger role in defeating Naz

by dkural 10y ago

The Soviet invasion was not "opportunistic" at all, if you mean by that eating a meal someone else has prepared. The USSR had a far bigger role in defeating Nazism than the Allies sans Soviets.

gumby 10y ago
I think Spooky23 meant the entry of the Soviet Union into the pacific war on August 9 1945. Stalin had promised (At Potsdam or Tehran I don't remember) to enter the war but had hung back -- don't blame him; the war in Europe was massive enough, with the Soviets already doing the majority of the Allied fighting. Just as the western Allies figured why not let the Soviets take the hit, Stalin had nothing to lose by letting UK+ANZUS wear themselves out in the Pacific. But once it was clear how the wind was blowing, why not jump in?
- Noseshine 10y ago
  > But once it was clear how the wind was blowing, why not jump in? Or: Once the war in the West was over, which required all available Russian resources, Stalin immediately redeployed to the Far East. Within just a few weeks of ending the war in Europe Russians managed to go on the offensive in the East. That is an impressive feat, given the vast distances.
  - hga 10y ago
    Indeed an impressive feat, but in physical terms utterly irrelevant to actually ending the war, since their ability to more than morally effect the home islands of Japan was all but nil. The moral effect of running through the Imperial Japanese Army in Manchuria "like crap through a goose" might have been decisive in allowing the surrender to proceed, in suppressing the IJA leadership. Heck, their predictions about how they'd stop or even bleed us in Kyushuu, where they had a massive superiority in numbers and stopping was very much in the cards, looked very different in the light of the 2nd bombing, which showed the first wasn't a one off, and how they were being owned by the Red Army (not that that should have been a surprise after 1939).
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      > but in physical terms utterly irrelevant to actually ending the war This thread had a specific topic. That is what I replied to. There was the claim/suspicion the Russians waited until the victor was known, and I pointed out that there is a perfectly valid explanation without the cynicism. Not because the latter isn't too often appropriate when looking at international (or business, or human) affairs, but because sometimes the attempt to see history in a certain view goes a little too far. It was also mentioned, by the way, and now in response to what you said, that Russia acted according to agreements they had with the USA. So seeing some of the arguments here, no matter what they would have done, somebody would always paint their actions negatively. I'm only talking about this entry into the war in the Far East.
      - hga 10y ago
        To go further down the rabbit hole, there were only two ways the US would have lost the war against Imperial Japan, and the second was Soviet subversion after the war in Europe was finished and we were not only not needed by them, but actively unwanted as a fully mobilized Great Power. Then again, as I mentioned above, we were rapidly transferring divisions wholesale for redeployment in the Pacific for Operation Downfall. What I'd really like to know is when the Bring the Boys Back Home propaganda campaign began, before or after VJ Day; my Google Fu isn't good enough right now. The other way, of course, would be the Japanese scheme to make us tire of cost in blood, and their Air Force and Navy had a truly unpleasant surprise in store for the US Navy with vastly more kamikazes ready than we thought, which would have been much more effective than in Okinawa due to the vastly shorter distances and navigational skills required. That was, BTW, the bloodiest US Navy battle in history. So underestimated that half our carrier air assets were assigned to the north of the relevant area, and the planned CAPs were way to thin to have stopped all that many of them. Although we could have at least somewhat corrected those in a few days after the magnitude of the kamikaze threat materialized, but there's no guarantee of success on our part, and if the Japanese had managed, as they planned, to take out troop transports.... On the other hand, we were really angry by then, and fighting to win. Is there any indication that they thought the outcome in the Pacific was in doubt? (Serious question, I don't know.)

by dkural 10y ago

The Soviet invasion was not "opportunistic" at all, if you mean by that eating a meal someone else has prepared. The USSR had a far bigger role in defeating Nazism than the Allies sans Soviets.

gumby 10y ago

I think Spooky23 meant the entry of the Soviet Union into the pacific war on August 9 1945. Stalin had promised (At Potsdam or Tehran I don't remember) to enter the war but had hung back -- don't blame him; the war in Europe was massive enough, with the Soviets already doing the majority of the Allied fighting. Just as the western Allies figured why not let the Soviets take the hit, Stalin had nothing to lose by letting UK+ANZUS wear themselves out in the Pacific. But once it was clear how the wind was blowing, why not jump in?

Noseshine 10y ago
> But once it was clear how the wind was blowing, why not jump in? Or: Once the war in the West was over, which required all available Russian resources, Stalin immediately redeployed to the Far East. Within just a few weeks of ending the war in Europe Russians managed to go on the offensive in the East. That is an impressive feat, given the vast distances.
- hga 10y ago
  Indeed an impressive feat, but in physical terms utterly irrelevant to actually ending the war, since their ability to more than morally effect the home islands of Japan was all but nil. The moral effect of running through the Imperial Japanese Army in Manchuria "like crap through a goose" might have been decisive in allowing the surrender to proceed, in suppressing the IJA leadership. Heck, their predictions about how they'd stop or even bleed us in Kyushuu, where they had a massive superiority in numbers and stopping was very much in the cards, looked very different in the light of the 2nd bombing, which showed the first wasn't a one off, and how they were being owned by the Red Army (not that that should have been a surprise after 1939).
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    > but in physical terms utterly irrelevant to actually ending the war This thread had a specific topic. That is what I replied to. There was the claim/suspicion the Russians waited until the victor was known, and I pointed out that there is a perfectly valid explanation without the cynicism. Not because the latter isn't too often appropriate when looking at international (or business, or human) affairs, but because sometimes the attempt to see history in a certain view goes a little too far. It was also mentioned, by the way, and now in response to what you said, that Russia acted according to agreements they had with the USA. So seeing some of the arguments here, no matter what they would have done, somebody would always paint their actions negatively. I'm only talking about this entry into the war in the Far East.
    - hga 10y ago
      To go further down the rabbit hole, there were only two ways the US would have lost the war against Imperial Japan, and the second was Soviet subversion after the war in Europe was finished and we were not only not needed by them, but actively unwanted as a fully mobilized Great Power. Then again, as I mentioned above, we were rapidly transferring divisions wholesale for redeployment in the Pacific for Operation Downfall. What I'd really like to know is when the Bring the Boys Back Home propaganda campaign began, before or after VJ Day; my Google Fu isn't good enough right now. The other way, of course, would be the Japanese scheme to make us tire of cost in blood, and their Air Force and Navy had a truly unpleasant surprise in store for the US Navy with vastly more kamikazes ready than we thought, which would have been much more effective than in Okinawa due to the vastly shorter distances and navigational skills required. That was, BTW, the bloodiest US Navy battle in history. So underestimated that half our carrier air assets were assigned to the north of the relevant area, and the planned CAPs were way to thin to have stopped all that many of them. Although we could have at least somewhat corrected those in a few days after the magnitude of the kamikaze threat materialized, but there's no guarantee of success on our part, and if the Japanese had managed, as they planned, to take out troop transports.... On the other hand, we were really angry by then, and fighting to win. Is there any indication that they thought the outcome in the Pacific was in doubt? (Serious question, I don't know.)