Russia’s Victory Day

[spacearrow99]

Poland was vanquished in 3 weeks via Blitzkrieg. The world had never seen a rapid-deployment force strike with such force and speed before so one can hardly have expected France or, especially England, to have declared war, mobilized their forces, moved them into position on the Maginot Line and followed up with a successful invasion across the Siegfried Line into Germany in that short time frame. Hell, even Stalin was caught flat-footed by the German advance and wasn't able to join in to claim his share of the spoils until September 17 when the battle was all but over. Truth of the matter is, Stalin himself bears sole responsibility for what happened to Russia at the hands of the German military. Stalin was a depraved and soulless despot who killed on a scale Hitler never dreamed of.

Well, you read up on the subject?

The Siegfried Line had many weaknesses at the being of WWII. The French and British were better equipped than the Germans at the start of WWII. Most German Infantry, Artillery, and Logistical units for were not mechanized at the beginning of WWII. Those German forces used horses. The Allies could've easily defeated Germany before they got the bulk of their forces (horse drawn) back from Poland. Again Stalin had many warnings from his spies in the Third Reich. Stalin was the paranoid dictator, he used racism to meet his goals and etc., but he never wanted to exterminate a race of people.

 

[spacearrow99]

500,000 marched in Moscow

12,000,000 marched trough out Russia

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I've been dying to use this one for a while but haven't really found the appropriate thread. Still haven't but there it is.

I haven't got anything against Putin. He regularly shows President Stompy Foot up on the world stage.

 

[Jagger69]

Well, you read up on the subject?

The Siegfried Line had many weaknesses at the being of WWII. The French and British were better equipped than the Germans at the start of WWII. Most German Infantry, Artillery, and Logistical units for were not mechanized at the beginning of WWII. Those German forces used horses. The Allies could've easily defeated Germany before they got the bulk of their forces (horse drawn) back from Poland. Again Stalin had many warnings from his spies in the Third Reich. Stalin was the paranoid dictator, he used racism to meet his goals and etc., but he never wanted to exterminate a race of people.

Classy. I compliment you on your Victory Day and you respond my slinging a sarcastic insult at me? I majored in history in college and can recite most of this stuff by rote so keep your smartass comments to yourself, OK? If I didn't know what I was talking about I wouldn't make any pretenses that I did....not my style, bud.

I already stated the logistic impediments to an immediate invasion of Germany from the west. If you don't want to believe them, you defy the facts. The only nation that was remotely ready for war when it broke out was Germany. That fact was painfully obvious all throughout 1940 when the German military pretty much had its way wherever and whenever it wanted. You can blame the Allies for being caught in this predicament but it doesn't alter the facts. And Stalin never wanted to exterminate a race of people, huh? Well, you may be playing semantics here because surely someone as brilliant and well-informed as yourself has to be aware of the 7 million-plus Kulaks he starved to death in a forced famine in the early 30s....is that enough dead people to qualify as a mass killer for you? :dunno:

 

[D-rock]

I have a lot of sympathy for the Russians that died because of the Nazis during WWII. I'm sure a lot of them were good normal people. I'm sure a lot of normal people in Russia now are good people, even if too many of them are brainwashed by the Kremlin controlled media. I'm saddened that patriotic fervor has overtaken common sense and rational thinking and has lead to too many of them believing in fantasies instead of the truth and the reality of the history of their country. It's just too bad that this remembrance has become more a tool for political posturing by Russia's power structure and to show off it's military hardware to the rest of the world as some sort of pissing contest than it is to honor the memories of fallen soldiers during that time.

Those good people that died deserve better than that. The survivors also deserved better than to live under one of the worst evil tyrants in history in Stalin and all the totalitarian politicians that followed. The good people there deserve better than to live under Putin now. In that there is no way to divorce the remembrance of Russia's Victory Day with the corruption of their government and the people in charge of it I don't blame the West for boycotting it, especially considering the direction that country is going in now.

 

[spacearrow99]

Classy. I compliment you on your Victory Day and you respond my slinging a sarcastic insult at me? I majored in history in college and can recite most of this stuff by rote so keep your smartass comments to yourself, OK? If I didn't know what I was talking about I wouldn't make any pretenses that I did....not my style, bud.

I already stated the logistic impediments to an immediate invasion of Germany from the west. If you don't want to believe them, you defy the facts. The only nation that was remotely ready for war when it broke out was Germany. That fact was painfully obvious all throughout 1940 when the German military pretty much had its way wherever and whenever it wanted. You can blame the Allies for being caught in this predicament but it doesn't alter the facts. And Stalin never wanted to exterminate a race of people, huh? Well, you may be playing semantics here because surely someone as brilliant and well-informed as yourself has to be aware of the 7 million-plus Kulaks he starved to death in a forced famine in the early 30s....is that enough dead people to qualify as a mass killer for you? :dunno:

I apologize for my earlier comment.

The Allies knew the Germans were breaking the Treaty of Versailles during the 1930s. The Siegfried Line was very weak at the beginning of WWII. The French Army had much better tanks and more modern equipment than the German Army during the Invasion of France. The Allies used outdated stagnate strategies and tactics of WWI. The Germans used Blitzkrieg "combined arms" which combined armor, mechanized infantry, mobile artillery, and air power. The Germans massed their tanks in large numbers against un massed French tanks in much smaller numbers. Stalin had many warnings from spies about Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets massive loses of soldiers and civilians were due not building their defenses against invasion. The Red Army had T-34 tank which was easily the best tank in the world at that time. The Soviets could've produced T-34, around the clock before the German invasion of the USSR. Battle of Kursk is a perfect example of massive military formations, stopping the German Blitzkrieg with several months preparation. Nazi Germany much less powerful country then the Soviet Union. Operation Barbarossa shows us that leadership is just as important as equipment, strategy, and tactics in war. The Kulaks were class of people not a race of people.

 

[Jagger69]

I apologize for my earlier comment.

The Allies knew the Germans were breaking the Treaty of Versailles during the 1930s. The Siegfried Line was very weak at the beginning of WWII. The French Army had much better tanks and more modern equipment than the German Army during the Invasion of France. The Allies used outdated stagnate strategies and tactics of WWI. The Germans used Blitzkrieg "combined arms" which combined armor, mechanized infantry, mobile artillery, and air power. The Germans massed their tanks in large numbers against un massed French tanks in much smaller numbers. Stalin had many warnings from spies about Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets massive loses of soldiers and civilians were due not building their defenses against invasion. The Red Army had T-34 tank which was easily the best tank in the world at that time. The Soviets could've produced T-34, around the clock before the German invasion of the USSR. Battle of Kursk is a perfect example of massive military formations, stopping the German Blitzkrieg with several months preparation. Nazi Germany much less powerful country then the Soviet Union. Operation Barbarossa shows us that leadership is just as important as equipment, strategy, and tactics in war. The Kulaks were class of people not a race of people.

Apology accepted.

Having better equipment doesn't necessarily mean you can mount a successful invasion of another country. There are tremendous logistical obstacles to overcome to put an attacking army in position to assure its success. England didn't even have any military presence on the continent. Irrespective of any technology or equipment advantage, fact is that France was woefully unprepared for war as was evidenced by her fall in June of 1940....9 months after the war began. It's just not realistic to have expected an Allied invasion in September, 1939. If anything, the French could have stopped Hitler in his tracks just by making a show of force when he retook the Rhineland in 1936. They didn't and Hitler bluffed and bullshitted his way into backing both the Allies and the Soviets down. Stalin paved his own way into the war by negotiating the non-aggression treaty. If that had not have happened, no way does Germany dare to unilaterally attack Poland.

At Kursk, mechanized armored cavalry units were able to counter the blitzkrieg and its effect as illustrated by the massive loss of tanks on both sides. By then, it was becoming a war of attrition and the fact is the Soviets had more people, resources and allies (yes, Great Britain and the USA) to help them turn the tide.

I would make the contention that Hitler's gambit might actually have paid off had he not been forced to intercede in Mussolini's gaffe in Greece prior to the summer of 1941. Barbarossa was originally scheduled to begin on May 10, six full weeks before it actually did. Bailing out the Italians set the timetable back to June 22. As the invading Wehrmacht became mired and frozen in the mud and snow at the Tula salient as the brutal Russian winter descended in late 1941, I wonder how often those German commanders wished they would have had six more weeks of decent weather to continue their attack and I wonder what the outcome might have been. You could easily hear those big guns in Moscow.

Finally, your comeback about the Kulaks was proactively addressed by my mentioning semantics. Do the lives of those 7 million peasant farmers matter less than those who were killed at Treblinka and Auschwitz? I think not. Stalin was a brute and a murderer and certainly no better a man than Hitler was IMO.

 

[spacearrow99]

Apology accepted.

Having better equipment doesn't necessarily mean you can mount a successful invasion of another country. There are tremendous logistical obstacles to overcome to put an attacking army in position to assure its success. England didn't even have any military presence on the continent. Irrespective of any technology or equipment advantage, fact is that France was woefully unprepared for war as was evidenced by her fall in June of 1940....9 months after the war began. It's just not realistic to have expected an Allied invasion in September, 1939. If anything, the French could have stopped Hitler in his tracks just by making a show of force when he retook the Rhineland in 1936. They didn't and Hitler bluffed and bullshitted his way into backing both the Allies and the Soviets down. Stalin paved his own way into the war by negotiating the non-aggression treaty. If that had not have happened, no way does Germany dare to unilaterally attack Poland.

At Kursk, mechanized armored cavalry units were able to counter the blitzkrieg and its effect as illustrated by the massive loss of tanks on both sides. By then, it was becoming a war of attrition and the fact is the Soviets had more people, resources and allies (yes, Great Britain and the USA) to help them turn the tide.

I would make the contention that Hitler's gambit might actually have paid off had he not been forced to intercede in Mussolini's gaffe in Greece prior to the summer of 1941. Barbarossa was originally scheduled to begin on May 10, six full weeks before it actually did. Bailing out the Italians set the timetable back to June 22. As the invading Wehrmacht became mired and frozen in the mud and snow at the Tula salient as the brutal Russian winter descended in late 1941, I wonder how often those German commanders wished they would have had six more weeks of decent weather to continue their attack and I wonder what the outcome might have been. You could easily hear those big guns in Moscow.

Finally, your comeback about the Kulaks was proactively addressed by my mentioning semantics. Do the lives of those 7 million peasant farmers matter less than those who were killed at Treblinka and Auschwitz? I think not. Stalin was a brute and a murderer and certainly no better a man than Hitler was IMO.

The French Army had the most well equipped Army in the world at the beginning of WWII. The French Army was massive, could've invaded Germany without British help. The French used static WWI tactics. The French relied to heavily on the Maginot Line which was their downfall. The French leadership was very poor at the beginning of the war. The French had more modern equipped army which did rely so heavily on horses for logistics. The Northern German formation was totally stopped by the Kursk military fortifications. The Southern Germany Formation almost broke threw, but Soviet armor stopped them. But remember the Germans introduced their new tanks the tiger and panther in this battle. If Stalin had prepared for war the Soviets would've never lost. Soviet factories could've already been moved to the Urals, massive military fortifications be in place, and T-34 production could've going into overdrive.

 

[Jagger69]

The French Army had the most well equipped Army in the world at the beginning of WWII. The French Army was massive, could've invaded Germany without British help. The French used static WWI tactics. The French relied to heavily on the Maginot Line which was their downfall. The French leadership was very poor at the beginning of the war. The French had more modern equipped army which did rely so heavily on horses for logistics. The Northern German formation was totally stopped by the Kursk military fortifications. The Southern Germany Formation almost broke threw, but Soviet armor stopped them. But remember the Germans introduced their new tanks the tiger and panther in this battle. If Stalin had prepared for war the Soviets would've never lost. Soviet factories could've already been moved to the Urals, massive military fortifications be in place, and T-34 production could've going into overdrive.

You are correct....the French attitude was a WWI outlook that failed to sense the difference this time around. Truth is, the French army only had 20 divisions that were even classified as regular army when the war broke out. They had 60 irregular divisions who were not even mobilized. I don't care how well-equipped you are....if you aren't prepared to fight, it doesn't matter. Your contention that the Allies were in a position to invade Germany in September, 1939, is simply unrealistic. They should have been, in hindsight, but in truth, they weren't. If it makes you feel better to blame the Allies for the invasion of the Soviet Union, go for it. Doesn't make it real. Anyone who thinks that Stalin wasn't directly responsible is just kidding themselves.

I stand by my prior statement. Hitler's gambit to take out Soviet Russia in a quick, lightning campaign that could be completed before winter came was his only hope for success. He almost accomplished it in spite of his many blunders. Once the Soviets were able to stem the tide and gain key defeats at Stalingrad (again, winnable in theory but poorly executed and valiantly defended by the Russians to the point of fanatacism) and Kursk, which was the largest tank battle in history at the time, the German's fate was sealed. Continued lend-lease aid from Great Britain and America provided resources previously unavailable to Stalin. His brilliant field commanders (Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Konev, Malinovsky, Chuikov) and their refusal to fail (at the risk of execution by Stalin....talk about incentive!) proved critical as the events after German high-tide in 1942 began to unravel.

It was a dichotomy for Hitler since he needed the lebensraum and the accompanying resources that came with it as a means to fuel his army but in order to gain those assets, he had to conquer Russia. Catch-22. Logistically, he ran out of gas before he could exploit his gains and subsequently he quickly lost them as the Soviet Shock armies went from being on the defensive to the offensive. Shortly thereafter, in June, 1944, the second front was opened, Germany was pounded by non-stop aerial bombing by the Allies (NOT Russia) and the German war machine began to quickly break down.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks Russia defeated the Germans pretty much on their own is just plain wrong. Meaning no disrespect to the Russian war effort, surely that's not your contention, is it? :dunno:

Anyway, celebrate your well-earned victory. When VJ Day comes along (commemorating the defeat of Japan), do you have a similar celebration? I don't think so since Stalin didn't even declare war on Japan until 2 days after we had already dropped the bomb on Hiroshima....and then, only to solidify Russian claims in the far east in places like the island of Sakhalin. Thanks for the help! We couldn't have done it without you.

Once again, congratulations but please don't find fault with the Allies for the predicament that Russia found itself in during the war. There's plenty of other blame to go around, most of which lies right at the doorstep of the Kremlin.

 

[spacearrow99]

You are correct....the French attitude was a WWI outlook that failed to sense the difference this time around. Truth is, the French army only had 20 divisions that were even classified as regular army when the war broke out. They had 60 irregular divisions who were not even mobilized. I don't care how well-equipped you are....if you aren't prepared to fight, it doesn't matter. Your contention that the Allies were in a position to invade Germany in September, 1939, is simply unrealistic. They should have been, in hindsight, but in truth, they weren't. If it makes you feel better to blame the Allies for the invasion of the Soviet Union, go for it. Doesn't make it real. Anyone who thinks that Stalin wasn't directly responsible is just kidding themselves.

I stand by my prior statement. Hitler's gambit to take out Soviet Russia in a quick, lightning campaign that could be completed before winter came was his only hope for success. He almost accomplished it in spite of his many blunders. Once the Soviets were able to stem the tide and gain key defeats at Stalingrad (again, winnable in theory but poorly executed and valiantly defended by the Russians to the point of fanatacism) and Kursk, which was the largest tank battle in history at the time, the German's fate was sealed. Continued lend-lease aid from Great Britain and America provided resources previously unavailable to Stalin. His brilliant field commanders (Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Konev, Malinovsky, Chuikov) and their refusal to fail (at the risk of execution by Stalin....talk about incentive!) proved critical as the events after German high-tide in 1942 began to unravel.

It was a dichotomy for Hitler since he needed the lebensraum and the accompanying resources that came with it as a means to fuel his army but in order to gain those assets, he had to conquer Russia. Catch-22. Logistically, he ran out of gas before he could exploit his gains and subsequently he quickly lost them as the Soviet Shock armies went from being on the defensive to the offensive. Shortly thereafter, in June, 1944, the second front was opened, Germany was pounded by non-stop aerial bombing by the Allies (NOT Russia) and the German war machine began to quickly break down.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks Russia defeated the Germans pretty much on their own is just plain wrong. Meaning no disrespect to the Russian war effort, surely that's not your contention, is it? :dunno:

Anyway, celebrate your well-earned victory. When VJ Day comes along (commemorating the defeat of Japan), do you have a similar celebration? I don't think so since Stalin didn't even declare war on Japan until 2 days after we had already dropped the bomb on Hiroshima....and then, only to solidify Russian claims in the far east in places like the island of Sakhalin. Thanks for the help! We couldn't have done it without you.

Once again, congratulations but please don't find fault with the Allies for the predicament that Russia found itself in during the war. There's plenty of other blame to go around, most of which lies right at the doorstep of the Kremlin.

The Allies had very poor leadership at the beginning of the war. A poorly planned Allied invasion would gotten the job done. The vast majority of Hitler's divisions were sent to Poland along with almost of his airpower. Hitler left his least equipped divisions in Germany. We not talking about mounting a amphibious operation halfway around world from France. The Germany Army had major losses of equipment in the invasion of Poland. German military leadership wanted postpone their invasion of Western Europe by one year.

Stalin is to blame for Russia's losses in WWII. He did not listen to his spies impending warnings of a German invasion of the USSR. Stalin's blunders almost cost the Soviets the War. During late 1941 and following into early 1942, the British Lend Lease program greatly helped the Soviet Union. The Soviets were lacking production from destroyed and captured factories; they were struggling to replace captured and/or destroyed combat equipment. British combat equipment made for some o the losses. American lend lease trucks were at heart the Soviets logistical train. But the Soviets produced the vast majority of their equipment (expect for trucks) and supplies used during WWII. The Soviets had many great military commanders. Zhukov and Chuikov were mini Stalins and their subordinate commanders feared.

The Soviets did their part in the Pacific. The Japanese were not going to surrender after we dropped the bombs. The Kwantung Army was one of the most prestigious units and commands in the Japanese military. The Soviets defeat of the Japanese in Manchuria shocked the Japanese leadership. American casualties sustained in Operation Downfall alone would dwarf all American combined casualties sustained to that point in war.

 

[Jagger69]

^
I just disagree with your assessment of Allied capabilities in the fall of 1939. They simply were not prepared. Hitler bluffed them at Munich and left them flat-footed. For France, the lack of preparation led directly to it's swift conquest a few short months later.

I agree that Stalin is to blame for Russia's losses.

The Russians played a role in the Japanese surrender but Stalin would likely have never agreed to declare war if there wasn't something else in it for him. There was. Operation Downfall was a plan on paper only....I think Truman would have dropped bombs on Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe and every other city in Japan before we would have sacrificed so many in a seaborne invasion of Kyushu followed up with a similar landing on Honshu. It would have been an absolute bloodbath. Since we had this incredibly powerful new weapon, I'm sure it would have been used repeatedly until Japan either capitulated or their islands were reduced to smoldering cinders. Glad it didn't work out that way.

 

[spacearrow99]

^
I just disagree with your assessment of Allied capabilities in the fall of 1939. They simply were not prepared. Hitler bluffed them at Munich and left them flat-footed. For France, the lack of preparation led directly to it's swift conquest a few short months later.

I agree that Stalin is to blame for Russia's losses.

The Russians played a role in the Japanese surrender but Stalin would likely have never agreed to declare war if there wasn't something else in it for him. There was. Operation Downfall was a plan on paper only....I think Truman would have dropped bombs on Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe and every other city in Japan before we would have sacrificed so many in a seaborne invasion of Kyushu followed up with a similar landing on Honshu. It would have been an absolute bloodbath. Since we had this incredibly powerful new weapon, I'm sure it would have been used repeatedly until Japan either capitulated or their islands were reduced to smoldering cinders. Glad it didn't work out that way.

Alfred Jodl made similar statements about an Allied Invasion of Germany in 1939 at the Nuremberg Trials. The French were prepared for the Germans, but they used outdated tactics and strategy.


The Russians played a major role in the Japanese surrender. The Japanese feared that their country would be split in half like Germany. The two bombs dropped on Japan were prototypes. The Joint Chiefs and MacArthur would've talked Truman into invading Japan.

 

[Jagger69]

The Russians played a major role in the Japanese surrender. The Japanese feared that their country would be split in half like Germany. The two bombs dropped on Japan were prototypes. The Joint Chiefs and MacArthur would've talked Truman into invading Japan.

The Japanese knew that they had no chance to fight a 2-front war and, because they were hoping to use Russia as an intermediary in possible peace negotiations, once the USSR declared war, that option was off the table. "Major role"? From a strategic standpoint I would agree. From a realistic standpoint, the Russians didn't do a lot other than represent a serious threat that Japan couldn't afford to address. The USA was a major proponent of Soviet involvement to encourage surrender. It worked but to say that Russia was a major factor in the Pacific theater is an extreme overstatement. I don't recall any Russian troops being around at Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, etc. Not dissing you....just sayin'. To be fair, American troops didn't fight at Stalingrad either. Two different theaters of war.

Also, I don't know what inside information is available to you but to state unequivocally that the joint chiefs would have talked Truman into launching Downfall is a big stretch in my book. It's well known that the thought a seaborne invasion and the resulting American casualties that would presented a huge obstacle for him to to overcome. I don't see it happening. He was never a fan of Downfall from the start. Non-stop carpet bombing (which was already the norm) coupled with pinpoint nuclear strikes on key industrial and population centers sure would have been his preferred option as far as I am concerned. Again, he didn't have to make that choice since the Japanese surrendered on August 9 for a multitude of reasons and the war came to an end so we'll never really know what might have happened....thank God. Anyway, if you;re looking for me to give Russia credit for the defeat of Japan, it isn't going to happen. They were a factor in facilitating the surrender and nothing more. We would have taken them out with or without Russia's assistance. It's simply a matter of how much we were willing to sacrifice in an invasion and the truth is, we didn't want to do it if we didn't have to. In this case, the nuclear option was the better one and I give Truman a lot of credit for having the guts to do it. I wonder what Stalin would have done had the Soviets had the bomb instead of us. What do you think? :dunno:

 

[spacearrow99]

The Japanese knew that they had no chance to fight a 2-front war and, because they were hoping to use Russia as an intermediary in possible peace negotiations, once the USSR declared war, that option was off the table. "Major role"? From a strategic standpoint I would agree. From a realistic standpoint, the Russians didn't do a lot other than represent a serious threat that Japan couldn't afford to address. The USA was a major proponent of Soviet involvement to encourage surrender. It worked but to say that Russia was a major factor in the Pacific theater is an extreme overstatement. I don't recall any Russian troops being around at Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, etc. Not dissing you....just sayin'. To be fair, American troops didn't fight at Stalingrad either. Two different theaters of war.

Also, I don't know what inside information is available to you but to state unequivocally that the joint chiefs would have talked Truman into launching Downfall is a big stretch in my book. It's well known that the thought a seaborne invasion and the resulting American casualties that would presented a huge obstacle for him to to overcome. I don't see it happening. He was never a fan of Downfall from the start. Non-stop carpet bombing (which was already the norm) coupled with pinpoint nuclear strikes on key industrial and population centers sure would have been his preferred option as far as I am concerned. Again, he didn't have to make that choice since the Japanese surrendered on August 9 for a multitude of reasons and the war came to an end so we'll never really know what might have happened....thank God. Anyway, if you;re looking for me to give Russia credit for the defeat of Japan, it isn't going to happen. They were a factor in facilitating the surrender and nothing more. We would have taken them out with or without Russia's assistance. It's simply a matter of how much we were willing to sacrifice in an invasion and the truth is, we didn't want to do it if we didn't have to. In this case, the nuclear option was the better one and I give Truman a lot of credit for having the guts to do it. I wonder what Stalin would have done had the Soviets had the bomb instead of us. What do you think? :dunno:

The Soviet invasion in Manchuria played a major role in Japan's decision to surrender that's a fact.

The Japanese did not surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima, some of the Joint Chiefs doubted that destroying cities would make Japan surrender. The Joint Chiefs were going to use atomic bombs to soften up the invasion beaches. The Joint Chiefs would've told Truman that the atomic bombs would destroy most of Japanese defenders on the invasion beaches, and American casualties would greatly be reduced by using atomic weapons. Military planners did not understand the effects of radiation during that time.

 

[Jagger69]

You are dealing in total speculation. Ultimately, it wasn't the joint chiefs' decision. It was Truman's.

 

[spacearrow99]

You are dealing in total speculation. Ultimately, it wasn't the joint chiefs' decision. It was Truman's.

You're speculating more than myself. We were making preparations for an invasion that's a fact.

 

[Jagger69]

We were making preparations for an invasion that's a fact.

I'm not contending that we weren't. Of course we were. No one knew if the bombs would work since no one had ever used them before. Plans are contingencies to deal with future possibilities. In this case, we didn't need them.

If you want to get in the last word just to say you did, go for it. Otherwise, there's nothing further to discuss here from my vantage point.

 

[spacearrow99]

I'm not contending that we weren't. Of course we were. No one knew if the bombs would work since no one had ever used them before. Plans are contingencies to deal with future possibilities. In this case, we didn't need them.

If you want to get in the last word just to say you did, go for it. Otherwise, there's nothing further to discuss here from my vantage point.

The Manhattan Project scientists and engineers were confident that the atomic bombs would work. But we didn't know if the Japanese would surrender after the bombings. The Soviets invasion of Manchuria greatly changed the tone of Japan's leadership on surrendering to the Allies.