Better an idiot than a Nazi.

Damn skippy they would have. But by mid-1944, the Great Patriotic War was being fought in Poland and East Prussia, not at the gates of Moscow. And whilst the invasion of Manchuria was a masterful onslaught, it had much less to do with the outcome of the Asian War than the Mediterranean campaigns did the European War, what with it coming after Tokyo was more or less already a charred cinder and after Japan could no more ship fuel, reinforcements, or other supplies to Manchuria than they could Brazil. The Manchurian campaign was all about advancing world socialism after the war, not defeating the Axis during the war, much as Hiroshima and especially Nagasaki were more about the postwar division of power than actually ending Dai Nippon.

"Better an idiot than a Nazi."

I'd find it hard to believe that anyone who's posted here is a nazi.

lol

Too bad SSReichFuhrer isn't here...

"I'd find it hard to believe that anyone who's posted here is a nazi."

Says the guy who just wrote a post sniffing the throne of the Austrian butcher.

ha, abgemacht, I was thinking the same thing. :)

Wow, abgemacht, just imagine the word slashing that would insue....

"Had Japan decided to attack the USSR in 1941, the Axis would have won."
totally false. Japan was no more capable of fighting on two fronts than Russia. They couldn't even win one! Best they could've done: A few bombing raids as their country was invaded. Also, the western Allies did more than you seem to think. They forced a three-front war (Pacific, eastern, and western, maybe also African), won some of the decisive battles (Battle of Britain, Battle of the Bulge) and launched Operation Overlord, NOT the Russians. If the war was Japan and Germany v Russia, with no American, British, or French/FF help, Russia would be wiped off the map.

"Russia won the war in Asia"
wow.... thats like saying the late comer americans won the first World War. Pretty sure the nukes forced Japan into surrender more than Russia invading late.

The Russian invasion of Manchuria was the cherry on top that made a Japanese surrender definite.

Also, 5x for civilian deaths is pretty close. Actual stats: Soviets: 12,254,000
to 14,154,000 Germans: 900,000
to 3,170,000

Consider the manchurian attack this way: When playing a non-WTA game, and an opponent is going to hit 18 that turn, you stab an ally for an SC or two just for some points. Thats the manchuria campaign.

"Burgesliches Gesetzbuch was a children's book."
No one said that. However that existed for 53 years prior to Hitler's rise. The Constitution has existed for 223 years. That's over 4x the duration of existence. There were still Germans alive from before the Burgesliches were created. Ours is ingrained. THAT'S the argument

And your 'argument' assumes that the German constitutional tradition only began at the turn of the century, and that decades if not centuries of constitutionalism hadn't preceded the writing of the Gesetzbuch.
http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/German_Constitutions_and_Legal_Documents

Which document specifically?

Jeez you all argue like it's 1939. We really have come a long way! :)

Numberzero+1, even if the Manchurian campaign was an absolutely flawless example of how to thoroughly roger an immobile and undersupplied army upon which you have achieved near absolute tactical surprise.

According to, you know, actual Japanese people who study world war II, the invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin was more instrumental to compelling Japan to surrender than any atomic bombings or firebombings by the US. The Kwantung army offered fierce resistance, and was not a walkover as is portrayed in the western triumphalist history books. The Kwantung was in fact considered the strongest unit of the Japanese army. It wasn't a paltry force, having 1.2 million soldiers. The Japanese believed the Soviets did not have the capacity to attack prior to September 1945. Like the French vis-a-vis the German tank strike through the Ardennes, the Japanese did not think a massive attack would come from the Khingan Mountains. The Soviets attacked in the west and in areas where terrain was poor, while the Japanese concentrated their defense in Manchuria.

To deny credit to the brilliant planning and operational tactics of the invasion when all you hear about is the glorious "Battle of Britain", which was at best a draw, is yet more proof of anti-communist soaked World World II historical revisionism that has nothing to do with reality.

Furthermore, there was a reason why the Soviets had not done more earlier in the Pacific war, that reason was the Soviet victory at Khalkin Gol. Had the USSR not won decisively there, the movement to fuel the Japanese war economy through Siberia would have gained steam. Instead Japan opted to go for Southeast Asia, which meant no joint attack by the Germans and Japanese on Russia. So it was not inevitable that Japan would be too bogged down in Asia to fight the Russians.

Kantaro Suzuki, PM of Japan in 1945 - ""If we miss (the chance) today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012618558_forgottenbattle15.html?prmid=related_stories_section

"Also, 5x for civilian deaths is pretty close. Actual stats: Soviets: 12,254,000
to 14,154,000 Germans: 900,000
to 3,170,000"

You're evidently confused. Yes 5x more Soviet civilians were killed during WWII, but that reflects Hitlerite barbarity, since those millions were killed by the Nazis, not the Soviets.
People here are claiming the Soviets killed 5x more civilians. That's ridiculous.

"They forced a three-front war (Pacific, eastern, and western, maybe also African), won some of the decisive battles (Battle of Britain, Battle of the Bulge) and launched Operation Overlord, NOT the Russians. If the war was Japan and Germany v Russia, with no American, British, or French/FF help, Russia would be wiped off the map."

The Free French rofl. The Free French annoyed the hell out of the Allies more than anything else. The Allies did what they could actually to preserve Vichy control, since officially the Vichy government controlled the French colonies and was neutral. The Free French disrupted that when they took over those Canadian islands from Vichy rule. Roosevelt hated De Gaulle. The egomaniac, despite the pathetic 'resistance' of the FF, insisted they be first to enter Paris in '44.

As I already said, Battle of Britain was a draw and rather insignificant. Germany was never keen on invading Britain. Overlord only happened at Soviet insistence. In 1943 the Allies met in Moscow and Moscow finally persuaded the Allies to open up a second front in western Europe.

Who's denying any credit for brilliant planning, or operational, tactical, or strategic excellence of the Manchurian campaign. What I'm denying is its significance. The Kwantung army was stranded. Could they have massacred a shitload of Chinese people before they died of various vitamin deficiency diseases? Yes, yes they could have. Could they have gotten back to Japan to make Olympic and Coronet much bloodier than they would have been? No way on earth unless they miracled their way back to the home islands. By summer 1945, American air superiority over Japan was complete. American naval superiority over Japan was complete. The Imperial Japanese Navy had more or less ceased to exist, and Japan never had the fuel and transport capability to mass airlift a hundred thousand troops from the Kwantung Army back to the home islands, let alone the entire thing. By summer of 1945, Japan was reduced to transporting personnel by submarine because of American ownership of the skies, seas, and depths. Good on Zhukov for winning the Khalkin Gol battles, but they were a sideshow compared to Midway, the Solomons campaigns, the New Guinea campaigns, or Leyte Gulf.

Also, the only way the Sovs could possibly have gotten Hokkaido was with the invitation of the Americans, and for the exact same reason the Kwantung Army could not do a thing to defend the home islands: complete American air and sea dominance coupled with a total absence of the kind of transport capability to render such an idea feasible.

Putin33 +1

I also differ with the idea that it took until 1943 before Moscow persuaded the allies to open a second front in Europe. The Arcadia conference was held in December of 1941-January of 1942, and the Anglo-American strategy of Germany first came out of that conference. It would be kind of hard for the Anglo-American forces to go after Germany without opening a second front. The primary reason it took until 1944 to open up a real second front in Europe was the lack of amphibious invasion logistical support and expertise (although Hitler's blunder of pouring troops into North Africa after Torch and El Alamein certainly blunted the Nazi OrgChart at Kursk, and I'm sure Zhukov was always glad that Rommel was busily destroying British armor in North Africa as opposed to Soviet Armor in the Ukraine).

question: would you consider Stalin "correct" morally though putin. Or a good leader at that.

I don't know how a leader can be "correct" morally. Governing is never a morally pure business. That he achieved two monumental tasks - 1 - leading the Soviets in defeating fascism and 2 - industrializing the USSR in a short timespan, is undeniable. Certainly Russians today by and large have a positive view of him.

Now, the two principle crimes attributed to him - the famine and the purges, what of that? Is it clear cut? What were the conditions? What do the archives say? They certainly reject the kind of numbers game played by Robert Conquest and the like - 70 million or some nonsense. According to the archives some 680,000 or so people were executed during the purges. Is that bad? Certainly. Were all the people executed innocent of charges of espionage, sabotage, treason, and fascist infiltration? That's really difficult for anyone to say. Stalin himself even said that unjust purges were taking place in order to sow animosity toward the Soviet regime.

"(A)mong Communists there exist, still unrevealed and unmasked, certain careerist Communists who are striving to become prominent and to be promoted by recommending expulsions from the party, through the repression of party members, who are striving to insure themselves against possible charges of inadequate vigilance through the indiscriminate repression of party members"

Now, of course we might consider this quote to be self-serving. But the point is, the problems in the USSR were not as clear cut. Yet people treat the evidence as a slam dunk, because after all communism = self-evidently bad. So sloppy research is just fine.

I fail to see how the Yezhovshchina cannot be laid at Stalin's feet. How many of Lenin's politburo lasted until the Great Patriotic War again?

putin33 where are you getting your facts the only reason the russians had a chance is because their numbers where so huge and the landmass germany had to take was so huge that is how they slowed them down with numbers and large amount of land when it came down to real fighting their sent their soliders in without guns (genoicide i think yes) so them attacking Manchurian a week before the war ended was not really that hard.
The battle of britian was also not a draw it allowed the allies to gain air control and was the only place left in europe not under nazi control giving the allies hope