3 ms·

> The war with Japan, to which the Soviet Union was committed by Treaty, and in which it played an immense role, continued until the end of August. Really? I

by JackFr 7y ago

> The war with Japan, to which the Soviet Union was committed by Treaty, and in which it played an immense role, continued until the end of August. Really? I think the Soviet campaign in the Far East began 3 months after VE day, after the US had dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan, and lasted less than 4 weeks. Its real strategic importance was that it forced the Japanese to realize the Soviet Union would not broker a negotiated peace with the other Allies. The Soviets had no beef with Japan, to them it was a land grab,

vegan_zaddy 7y ago
Check this out https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-jap...
cat199 7y ago
> The Soviets had no beef with Japan, to them it was a land grab, didn't this: a) radically shift power balance in the region b) revert losses from imperial war with japan in early 1900s
vkou 7y ago
The Soviet campaign in Manchuria started before the bombings. Japan's forces on the mainland were swept away by experienced, battle-tested, and overwhelmingly large armies redeployed from the Eastern front. Japan's plan for the defense of the home islands consisted of pulling everyone they could out of Manchuria, but relying on its resources and industry to support the war effort. This obviously required the Soviet Union to uphold it's end of their non-aggression pact. Which it didn't. With Manchuria under Soviet occupation, and the Japanese armies routed, this plan completely fell apart. The invasion convinced Japan that capitulation was the only solution more than the bombs did.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > The Soviet campaign in Manchuria started before the bombings. No. (And also no to JackFr.) The Soviet campaign in Manchuria started on August 8, after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki. The Japanese plan to use Manchuria for defense of the home islands would never have worked. The US could have put enough naval forces there to make transport of troops and material impossible.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > No. My mistake. I must have gotten confused because of its inter-bombing timing. The argument that it played a bigger role in their capitulation than the second bomb is still a reasonable one, though. > The US could have put enough naval forces there to make transport of troops and material impossible. Japanese war planning was quite optimistic. But once Manchuria fell, it was clear to everyone that there was no hope.

by JackFr 7y ago

vegan_zaddy 7y ago

Check this out https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-jap...

cat199 7y ago

> The Soviets had no beef with Japan, to them it was a land grab, didn't this: a) radically shift power balance in the region b) revert losses from imperial war with japan in early 1900s

vkou 7y ago

The Soviet campaign in Manchuria started before the bombings. Japan's forces on the mainland were swept away by experienced, battle-tested, and overwhelmingly large armies redeployed from the Eastern front. Japan's plan for the defense of the home islands consisted of pulling everyone they could out of Manchuria, but relying on its resources and industry to support the war effort. This obviously required the Soviet Union to uphold it's end of their non-aggression pact. Which it didn't. With Manchuria under Soviet occupation, and the Japanese armies routed, this plan completely fell apart. The invasion convinced Japan that capitulation was the only solution more than the bombs did.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> The Soviet campaign in Manchuria started before the bombings. No. (And also no to JackFr.) The Soviet campaign in Manchuria started on August 8, after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki. The Japanese plan to use Manchuria for defense of the home islands would never have worked. The US could have put enough naval forces there to make transport of troops and material impossible.
- vkou 7y ago
  > No. My mistake. I must have gotten confused because of its inter-bombing timing. The argument that it played a bigger role in their capitulation than the second bomb is still a reasonable one, though. > The US could have put enough naval forces there to make transport of troops and material impossible. Japanese war planning was quite optimistic. But once Manchuria fell, it was clear to everyone that there was no hope.