The Soviets Fought The Japanese Twice

[DengXiaoPing]

In 1939 it was a border war and the Soviets won it

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...rea2/drea2.asp

In 1945 the Soviets creamed 1.1 million men in 11 days and kicked the Japanese out of china and korea

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp

Any comments?

[plant-pilot]

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 02:57 PM) [post=40306]In 1939 it was a border war and the Soviets won it

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...rea2/drea2.asp

In 1945 the Soviets creamed 1.1 million men in 11 days and kicked the Japanese out of china and korea

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp

Any comments?
[/b]

I hardly think the term "creamed" is the right term to use in relation to the loss of 1.1 million human lives, no matter which side they were on. They were fighting for their country and as such should be given some respect.

[DengXiaoPing]

The Japanese raipd every girl from 5-every women of 50 during the "rape of naking"

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

The Japanese did horribale things to the Chinese

Eyewitness accounts from the period state that over the course of six weeks following the fall of Nanking, Japanese troops engaged in an orgy of rape, murder, theft, and arson. The most reliable accounts came from foreigners who opted to stay behind in order to protect Chinese civilians from certain harm, including the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin. Others include first-person testimonies of the Massacre survivors. Still more were gathered from eyewitnesses reports of journalists, both Western and Japanese, as well as the field diaries of certain military personnel. Photographs and filmed footage by John Magee gave further support.

Historians estimate that 20,000 (and sometimes up to 80,000) women from as young as seven to the elderly were raped. According to historians, rapes were often performed in public during the day, and often in front of spouses or family members. It is believed that rape was systematized in a process where soldiers would search door to door for young girls. It is said as well that many women were taken captive to be gang-raped, and some were kept to be raped again. It is believed that it was common for a woman to be killed immediately after being raped, usually by mutilation. According to testimony, some women were forced into military prostitution as comfort women. It is even believed that the Japanese troops often forced families to commit acts of incest: sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers were forced to rape daughters. Monks who had declared a life of celibacy were forced to rape women for the amusement of the Japanese. Instances of Chinese men forced to rape corpses were not uncommon during the occupation. While the rape peaked immediately following the fall of the city, it continued for the duration of the Japanese occupation.

According to historians, immediately following the fall of the city, Japanese troops searched for former soldiers. During their search, they captured thousands of young men, most of whom were civilians. Many were taken to the Yangtze River, where they were machine-gunned so their bodies would be carried down to Shanghai. Others were used for live bayonet practice. Decapitation was a popular method of killing for the Japanese troops. Reports of soldiers being exhausted from decapitating prisoners were common. According to other reports, some Chinese were burned, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets. Pregnant women were often the target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the belly.

It is said that as much as two thirds of the city was destroyed as a result of arson. According to reports, Japanese troops torched newly built government buildings as well as the homes of many civilians. There was considerable destruction to areas outside the city walls. Soldiers pillaged from not only the wealthy but the poor as well. Japanese soldiers were given a free hand immediately following the fall of the city. This resulted in the widespread looting and burglary. General Matsui Iwane was given an art collection worth $2,000,000 that was stolen from a Shanghai banker. To aid the Japanese war effort, soldiers collected every bit of metal including hinges on doors following the United States embargo on scrap metal.

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

Those same Japanese are the ones who got creamed
And also the leaders of those same Japanese massively underestimated the Soviet fighting capability
So in a sence they hade it comeing,you cant do such things and get away with it

Ofcurse the Soviets attacked for completly diffrent reasons they coundt care lessabout the chinese but that said it does not matter who punishes the wicked aslong as they get punished and doing such things on such a scale isnt very nice

[jimbotosome]

I don't think that was a record for killing. Does anyone know how long it took Stalin to kill 15 million of his own fellow countrymen? I fail to see any nobility in anything the USSR did. Had there have been nobility they would have joined the fray the three months of heavy fighting before the surrender like the other Allies, instead of waiting to the point of collapse where they were afraid there was some territory they wouldn't be able to get a foot into to enslave people. The Soviets only interest in WWII was not for the brotherhood of the Grand Alliance, but for survival. Can anyone name an unselfish act committed by the Soviets in WWII that didn’t reek of self-interest? They wouldn’t even let US bombers land in their bases near Berlin or let Doolittle raiders land in Russia! Some Alliance partners they were!

Is there anybody that was convinced that Stalin was better than Hitler? If you make the case that Stalin was better than Hitler, it has to be based on the fact that Stalin was on the winning side alone. To me the Soviets in WWII were simply a distraction to Hitler. That was the only redeeming quality of them being in the Alliance. In fact, didn’t Britain and France reject them as treaty partners before the war? I think Monty should have captured Berlin and let the Patton attack the oncoming Soviets. Think of how many German and Russian lives that would have saved, as well as much less stress there would have been to Europe in the decades to come. Berlin would have fallen to the British in two or three days, maybe less. The only problem would have been Patton and Monty fighting over who got to finish off the Russian Army. But with Churchill there, we most certainly would have arrived at an amicable compromise and ended up rearming the German’s and letting them do it as they wanted us to in the first place.

I think there has always been an unfortunate myth that Stalin was a miscreant to the Germans because of how they treated his people. This, I believe, is completely wrong. Stalin was instead, simply a miscreant, what had happened to his “people” had no affect on him at all.

Don't mean to sound bitter here, because I am not. I am simply stating the facts as I see them.

[DengXiaoPing]

It is highly unlikely that the Allies would have been able to capture Berlin at all or reach it before the Soviets

That is another Myth

And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight

But this is Japan forum

[jimbotosome]

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 10:40 AM) [post=40322]It is highly unlikely that the Allies would have been able to capture Berlin at all or reach it before the Soviets

That is another Myth

And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight

But this is Japan forum
[/b]

The British could have taken it in no more than three days. It would have taken this long because they would have not been able to process the mass surrenders in a single day, there were just too many. The Germans tried several times to surrender in whole to Brits and Americans to avoid being brutalized by the Soviets. This is why they fought virtually to the death to stop the Russians. The Russians were savages. The Allies forced many of the Germans to surrender to the Soviets. The US had to stop at the Elbe river to wait on the Russians and the British were in perfect position to take Berlin immediately but were restrained in a diplomatic gesture to allow Russia to "capture Berlin" because Stalin believed that when a capital is captured it symbolizes defeat.

The point here was two fold. If the Allies had punished Russia there would have been no second Russian “attack” (for lack of a better word) on the broken Japanese. The other point is that Russia did not fight the Japanese. They simply exploited a broken enemy who were without supplies and without any heavy weaponry. Here in the states we call that "shooting fish in a barrel". Had the Russians have had even a tiny amount of courage instead of complete greed, they would have joined all the other the Allies in declaring war on Japan in 1941. Cowardice and scum-bagging are NOT two forms of honor and for that reason the Soviets had none whatsoever. I read where a downed and injured American flyer in Germany was found by Russians, bleeding and needing help, the Russian soldiers simply robbed him of his watch and cigarettes and kept moving leaving him there to die. Fortunately a German citizen came to his rescue and despite the aid of his “allies” this flyer lived to describe his encounter with his “friends” from Russia. Some people say “leopards never change their spots”, but I say “once a scumbag, always a scumbag”. It is far more apropos when descibing the Soviets. I may have gone too easy on them. I believe they were actually worse than I have described here but I believe we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The soviet soldiers or officer s were not in the quality of the other armies in the Allies. They were simply cannon fodder meant to rush and overwhelm because most armies can't kill them fast enough stop their human wave attack.

The Soviets had a big army, not a good one. Don't confuse the two. Man for man they were the worst army of any combantant nation in WWII.

[plant-pilot]

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:40 PM) [post=40322]And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight
[/b]

You really have to make your mind up if you want to come on here and discuss aspects of the Second World War, or just stand there and tell people 'how it was' according to you. It gets very boring when you constantly tell everyone else that you are right without offering any real evidence. Or should I say 'lots of evidence', just none that actually substanciates what you believe to be the truth, which wouldn't be so bad except you insist on telling us what you believe to be the truth.

You seem to have a very subjective view that 'Russia = Good & everything else = Bad'.

For example, jimbotosome points out that even though you are correct in that the Japanese were brutal in their occupation of China, leader of the Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of 15 million of his own people. Your answer "And The Soviets werent ofcurse all that nice but this dosent mean they couldnt fight". Which is amazing.

Are you saying that it would be okay if the Japanese could fight? Which I think they proved beyond any doubt by conquering most of the far east in very little time, and then defending it with a tenacity that was quite frankly frightning. In which case, by your statement, the 'Rape of Nanking' was okay.

Or are you saying that if the Japanese had only killed their own people it would have been okay? After all, if that was the case they wouldn't have been able to kill anywhere as many as Stalin, so that's fine too.

Or are you saying that, and this is probably the most likely of the three, that any country you support can be as brutal, even to their own people, as they like and THAT is okay, as long as every other country is made out to be brutal for their crimes?

If that is the level of your logic, objectivity and acceptance of other views, then I for one am not interested in any more that you have to say.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Well to try and add some objectivity to this discussion, The Red Army sure wasnt nice and just ask anyone who lived in Poland or Prussia about that one. As to whether they couldnt fight or were the worst combatants well I dont know about that. In 1941 Russia became engaged in a fight for its very survival and initially its army fared very poorly indeed losing well over 2 million men to Death or capture. There seems to be a pervading myth that the Russians had no part in stopping the Germans at Moscow and that "General Winter" was the main reason coupled with the fact that the Germans were ill-prepared for it. The Russians launched vigorous counterattacks forcing the Germans back and remember up to this point NO-ONE had been able to do that to the German Army. Remember that the Wehrmacht were not the only Army fighting in wintry conditions. The Russian side of the line wasnt warm. The Russian army had to learn new Strategic and Tactical Doctrine whilst at the same time hold back the Germans long enough to put it into practice.

Stalingrad didnt happen by itself - nor was it solely down to German Ineptitude. Russia was already grasping the idea of attacks at a Strategic level and tried it out at Stalingrad, cutting off 6th Army and almost cutting off Army Group A in the Caucasus. That takes some nerve to try and carry out. The pinnacle of their excellence in the Strategic operational arena came in 1944 with the launch of Operation Bagration, wiping out Army Group Centre and cutting off Army Group North.

jimbo has asserted that Man for Man they were the worst army of any combatant Nation in World War 2. so who would you prefer to have defending your city: A Russian Guards Regiment or a Romanian Regiment? Or how about an Italian Bersaglieri Regiment? I know which one I'd pick.

The Russians cared little about life, neither did the Wehrmacht. The two armies who placed inidividual lives above all else were the US and the British and it showed.

By the way, this post is not a justification of Russian Morals and Ethics or indeed a praising of Joe Stalin. It is simply to state that this idea of a human wave that was like a mob does not stand up if you look at the campaigns in the East from 1943 onwards.

Incidentally to all those who think that the western Armies were far superior, apart from the Falaise pocket there is no recorded envelopments of German Forces by Western Armies like there was in the East. The Western Armies were obsessed with their flanks being exposed. The germans and Russians had no such qualms.

The soviet Union stands guilty of horrendous crimes against its own citizens and the citizens of all countries that it advanced through. As an example of this I present the story of the Bishop of Berlin writing to the vatican asking the Pope to announce that being a victim of rape was not a sin due to sex outside marriage as so many women were carrying this and commiting suicide because of it.
The Slaughter of the Polish Officer Corps was another unforgivable deed. Whatever about the Japanese at Nanking it doesnt take away from the fact that Russia committed terrible war crimes.

But to make the point that the Soviet Union had an inept army is a terribly misguided statement.


Maxpower/Dengxiaoping, You really need to tone down your posts. You can make a point without being personal or confrontational in any way. For example, I know that I would disagree with some things Jimbo has posted, but I respect his views and enjoy the debates I have engaged with him and hope to continue to do so!!! You can make a good contribution to this board but without insulting members.

[DengXiaoPing]

Jimbo why should the Soviet Unnion Declare war on Japan when it was fighting the Nazies Almost alone

It can also be argued that the West should have Fought the Germans on a mass scale like the Soviets did in 1941 1942 1943
Where were the Normandy landings during those years?
So areyou saying that Not only should the Soviets been fighting the Euro Axis almost alone they should also be fighting the Japanese
And where were The Allies when the Soviets were fighting the Japanese in 1939?


Planpilot you missunderstnad everything

First read my last post in the Down playing Russias role topic

Second
The Soviets did the most and at the same time they werent nice

You said
You seem to have a very subjective view that 'Russia = Good & everything else = Bad'.

To that i Say
The Soviet Unnion = Great Fighters and did the most of the work but werent very nice
You can be wicked and still kick butt

Yes Stalin killed that many during his rise of power until the war started aslo lots of turncoats were killed or sent to siberia

He did that because he needed to industrialize the country quick and by indirectlly killing so many he achived it
He didnt activelly go out of his way to kill them but he exported lots of grain at the cost of starvation.

Well if you look through the posts you say useing creamed is wrong i just justify useing the word

It is very simple Yes The Soviet Unnion wasent a nice place to live in during the 30-40s but they were the ones that stopped the nazies

And this is still a Japanese forum so talk Japan

[jimbotosome]

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]Jimbo why should the Soviet Unnion Declare war on Japan when it was fighting the Nazies Almost alone
[/b]

Why should the Brits have? Why should the Aussies have? Because unlike the Soviets they knew that this was a fight of good versus evil. To the Soviets it was not good versus evil, but east Europe versus West Europe, there was no good from their perspective at all, just evil against evil. The Allies on the other hand were brothers in arms. The Russians were allies only because of the diplomacy of the level-minded of the Allies themselves, not because the Soviets were against a ruthless dictator. In fact the Russians made a pact with Hitler so they could take a part of Poland. What a stab in the back of the French and British, not to mention Poland. Why should the US have included Russia in the lend-lease program? If it weren't for the relations between Britain and the US there would have been no lend-lease for Russia. Starving soldiers are not said to be good ones. The number one objective of the Lend Lease for Russia was keeping their soldiers alive in a God-forsaken country.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]It can also be argued that the West should have Fought the Germans on a mass scale like the Soviets did in 1941 1942 1943 [/b]

Yes, I believe the Russian Dessert Foxes (the Zukov division I believe right?) were what saved Britain and the US armies against Rommel's armies in North Africa and the Russian liberation of Sicily and drive through Italy kept the Mediterranean shipping open as well. The Allies were busy figuring how they could divide up the world up amongst themselves once the Russians finished defeating Germany single-handedly. The virtual reduction the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain by the Soviet Air Force really kept Germany busy to a point Britain didn't have to concern themselves with the war. Don't forget the day and night strategic bombing of France and Germany during 1942-1944 where the Russian B-17s and Halifax’es took out the war industry of the Germans so the Allies could waltz across the Channel unopposed. I don’t have Chairman Mao’s red book so you will have to fill me in on this history sometime, all I get is history from the free countries.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]Where were the Normandy landings during those years?
So areyou saying that Not only should the Soviets been fighting the Euro Axis almost alone they should also be fighting the Japanese
And where were The Allies when the Soviets were fighting the Japanese in 1939?
[/b]

No, I am saying the Soviets were losing badly to the Germans alone, not to the Axis powers. The attack in 1939 was not a war but a probe by an underdeveloped Japanese army out of their element to which they simply withdrew. There was no Russian fight with the Nazis at that time, Russia never fought against more than one Axis nation at a time. The war with Germany didn’t start until late spring 1941. Where were the Russians while the British fought in 1940 alone? I can tell you where. In a pact with Germany that’s where. Their slaughter of their half of the Poles was most impressive! It was about the only battle where the Soviets didn’t lose at least a million men right? One murderous dictator in bed with the other. Had the British have not held up the Germans in North Africa and the BoB, The Germans would have attacked Russia earlier to where “old man winter” was not there to keep the Russians from complete annihilation.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]The Soviet Unnion = Great Fighters and did the most of the work but werent very nice
You can be wicked and still kick butt [/b]

The Soviets were getting their butt kicked. They had a terrible army with no Generals since the Bolsheviks had them all killed out of paranoia. Their soldiers were so bad they had to threaten to shoot them to get them to attack the enemy. Escaping with your life because the enemy got a three month late start and a massive winter stopped your total annihilation is not what I would call “kicking butt”. Had the Germans have kept their supply lines open, the Allies would have occupied Germany and the Germans would have occupied Russia. The allies had to wait on the Soviets to get to Berlin. It took the Soviets over three months to go 36 miles. The Soviets lost more than 300,000 soldiers going that 36 miles, almost as much as they killed in Berlin if you include the civilians the Soviets killed as well. That’s not a good army, that’s a pitiful one. A strategy of running people at guns until the enemy runs out of bullets to kill anymore is good warfare?

Can you imagine how bored the Allies must have been waiting for the Russians to conquer a single city? They wanted to go home, what’s up with those sorry Russians? The biggest problem about taking Berlin would have been negotiating who got to take it first. If they had said “first one to take Berlin gets to keep it”, Patton or Monty or both would have taken it that day. Imagine if the Allies had not destroyed Berlin and Dresden. Maybe the Soviets would still be trying to get in.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]Yes Stalin killed that many during his rise of power until the war started aslo lots of turncoats were killed or sent to siberia [/b]

A turncoat was someone that didn’t agree with Stalin’s dictatorship. Hitler had a few of those himself.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]He did that because he needed to industrialize the country quick and by indirectlly killing so many he achived it
He didnt activelly go out of his way to kill them but he exported lots of grain at the cost of starvation. [/b]

So you are saying the more people you kill the better your industrialization? I never had that principle in economics, I guess my professors just overlooked it. I don’t know about this grain export business, but to starve your people so you can raise funds is not a noble conquest. I would hardly classify that as “not going out of your way” to kill your people. If you are going to kill your people to raise money, why sell them in a slave market? Not hard to see why the Germans saw the stopping of Russia from expanding throughout Europe as a noble deed enough to endure Hitler. I wonder if sapper and the boys that were over there, on this forum, ever felt like they were fighting the wrong enemy, or at least the less immoral one? Imagine how confusing the US soldiers standing on the bank of the Elbe river with the Germans to their west and the Russians coming from their east and being ordered by their officers to be careful not to hurt the “friendlies”. You can bet they had to call for clarification “Say again headquarters? I copied the last command but it made no sense”.

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]It is very simple Yes The Soviet Unnion wasent a nice place to live in during the 30-40s but they were the ones that stopped the nazies [/b]

Letting the Nazis run over top of you is not the best way to stop them. They were basically bailed out by the Allies. Russia had no intention of ever paying back on cent of the Lend-Lease. If it hadn’t have been for the fact that Russia was about to fall, all of it would have all gone to the free nations who helped keep Europe free after the war not threaten it with an “Iron Curtain”. By the way, you said the Soviet Union was not a nice place to live in 30-40s. Is this in contradistinction to something? Has the Soviet Union ever been a nice place to live (assuming you were not a dictator).

(DengXiaoPing @ Oct 20 2005, 04:24 PM) [post=40348]And this is still a Japanese forum so talk Japan
[/b]

The emperor of Japan was a super guy just like Stalin (using your measuring stick). How’s that?