Operation Downfall: The Invasion that never happened.

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#21

Sure. Here’s a contemporary historian critically attacking blatant misquotes of a one of Truman’s diaries by revisionist Japanese nationalist seeking some sort of indictment against Truman:

bla-bla-bla

So in essence, Truman’s words have been selectively edited to show far more insidious intentions than actually existed. This is what happens when historians have political and nationalistic agendas.

What does this have to do with the Falins interview. As i said forget the emotions in the interview and look at the facts: Truman wanted to get out of Yalta agreements and ordered plan “Totality” to be developed while the war was still going on.

Forget about Falin. Do you know where it wuld be possible to find what was said on 23-apr-1945 in White House? Or is it still calssified?
And then we have “Totality”. Is it a fake? What can you find about it?

Well I agree with the first part of your statement. The problem here is that you are projecting far too much of the Cold War rivalry and dismissing vital military implications of a US invasion of Japan.

This is rediculous! Mate, do we really have to waste our time on finding quotes by british prime ministers and american presidents from before 1941 about the threat from the Communist Russia?

Love and peace as always!

#22

Nickedfresh:

I could not help my self …

The weapons were for deterrence. And lacking a large conventional army, what is the point of launching nuclear war? What is the objective, l or even the point?

The goal would be to do exactly the same as US did to Japan - forcing to submission by application of a super weapon. Just think of A-bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and replace Japan with USSR.

#23

Really? Then again, why was it not done? What stopped the US from launching attacks on the USSR?

And how was the US military supposed to “occupy” an ‘A-bombed-into-submission’ Soviet Union with only about 400,000-500,000 soldiers in its (all-volunteer) army.

I mean, could it be that the US feared an eventual Soviet thrust into Western Europe where Red Army conventional forces were vastly superior?

This was in fact all part if the US “Cold War” (pre-Korean War) strategy, to use US and NATO troops as a “trip-wire force,” then launch its nukes only after its forces were being overrun in Western Europe. Again, it was the Soviet Union that had the offensive strategy against Western Europe, though there were no plans to implement their warplan that I am aware of.

#24

I just used Google, and couldn’t find anything remotely scholarly. I do believe there were war plans to use the bomb, as of course such a horrible weapon would necessitate a strategy to use it. But there seems to be scant info on it other than speculative, peripheral mentions on peace group websites. Wiki only has one line of the subject with not citations.

But I’ll see if I can dig something up on a historical periodical…

This is rediculous! Mate, do we really have to waste our time on finding quotes by british prime ministers and american presidents from before 1941 about the threat from the Communist Russia?

Love and peace as always!

Of course they saw the Soviet Union as a potential threat. But there is a big difference between seeing a potential threat, and actually planning to wipe it out. The US also began trading with the USSR in the 1930s. And I have to remind you that the sheer size of the Bolshevik armed forces probably dwarfed the combined peace time armies of both Britain and the US, the latter only had a “constabulary army” of less than 200,000 soldiers until 1940…

Cheers

#25

Really? Then again, why was it not done? What stopped the US from launching attacks on the USSR?

There were, I guess, many reasons. One of the main one was that US/UK were not paranoic about the USSR destruction. Surprised? :wink: Yes, I do not clame that the US wanted to destroy USSR. Not the same way Hitler wanted. US is pragmatic, not paranoic.

And how was the US military supposed to “occupy” an ‘A-bombed-into-submission’ Soviet Union with only about 400,000-500,000 soldiers in its (all-volunteer) army.

Please see my aswer to the previous paragraph. But, if it went so far to the start of war, USA not necessary needed to occupy the whole country. Strategical points would be enough. But depending on the goal it might be unnecessary altogether. One may just bomb the his way through (like during the Battle of Britain or strategical bombing) untill the enemy does what ever you want them to do. Because nukes are so cheap, as you say and therefore tempting. :wink:

The same happened in 1807 during the second battle of Copenhagen (I currently live in this city) when British bombarded and burned the city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Copenhagen_(1807)). Do you know why they did it? Do you think that Denmark and UK were at war? Ha-ha-ha. Nope!

The Brits were afraid that Napoleon capture Denmark and get hold of the Danish fleet. So the Brits “suggested” that Danes should pass they ships to Britain. And when danes rejected they bombarded the city with the Congreve Rockets which caused fires. 2000 dead, 30% houses burned. The fleet was taken after Danes capitulated. They actually could not defend Copenhagen because the whole army was on the other side of the country defending against… french. And do not forget that the was also the first battle of Cepenhagen in 1801 with similar British role. Here you are, a nice little preventive war. :wink: But this is just history lesson… or wait… we are in a histocal forum! That is great! :slight_smile:

I mean, could it be that the US feared an eventual Soviet thrust into Western Europe where Red Army conventional forces were vastly superior?

Right. OF course there was fear in the west. Why? That is debatable. There is no straight black-white answer there, I think.
By the way, what period are you reffering to?
.

#26

Why don’t you just answer my main question you keep ignoring: if the US wanted top A-bomb the USSR and had an intricate warplan called “Totality” (which I suspect is a big revisionist mischaracterization, a complete decontextualizing the fundimental nature of the OPLAN for political purposes),

…why did they not “just do it?”

#27

Nickdfresh:

…why did they not “just do it?”

Do you work for Nike? Please leave “just do it” talk for school books and propaganda speeches.
Those who “just do it” are the most dangerous people.

So why? Why? Simply speaking, I do not know. I am just a little boy. -sight-

“I learn english from a book. I know noting.” [INDENT]Manuel from Fawlty Towers[/INDENT]

I guess USA did not destroy USSR for similar resons Hitler did not destroy British in Dunkirk.
Satisfied?

.

#28

Nope. I’m not a 9-year-old Indonesian girl working 72 hours a week…

Please leave “just do it” talk for school books and propaganda speeches.
Those who “just do it” are the most dangerous people.

I agree.

So why? Why? Simply speaking, I do not know. I am just a little boy. -sight-

I guess USA did not destroy USSR for similar resons Hitler did not destroy British in Dunkirk.
Satisfied?

.

I’ll tell you why…The US had no intention of using nuclear weapons on, or otherwise waging an offensive war against, the USSR. They wanted to drive their Chevys, listen to jazz and rock and roll, and buy stuff.

:)And actually, yes…

#29

Yeah because without it the war would have lasted longer. My opion.

#30

Only answered soviet offencive to West Europe and US troops bases. Till the apearence the a-bomb in USSR this wa a basic defence strategy of Red Army till the nuclear USSR/USA balance become.
Therefore the Red Army was not cut down in this period - Western Europe must be the HOSTAGE IF USA DID DECIDED the nuclear attack against USSR cities.

And how was the US military supposed to “occupy” an ‘A-bombed-into-submission’ Soviet Union with only about 400,000-500,000 soldiers in its (all-volunteer) army.

Mate are all right?
Who will occupy the radioactive-charged territory? Do you ever read the Dropshot plan?
The handrets of Nucler bomb must hited the Soviet cities , war bases and indastry objects to be THE USSR inpossible to continie the war and forced soviet gov to capitulate.
There were absoluty not needed the 400 000 soldiers - they need about 100 - 200 a-bombs ,2000-3000 strategic bombers and about 5 000 jet fighters. THAT"S ALL.
Nobody in US planned the occupy of USSR territory. Therefore US could CUT DOWN it usial troops right after WW2.

Cheers.

#31

Nickdfresh:

Just a friendly question about…

“Nope. I’m not a 9-year-old Indonesian girl working 72 hours a week…”

Do you think this is funny?

I’ll tell you why…The US had no intention of using nuclear weapons on, or otherwise waging an offensive war against, the USSR. They wanted to drive their Chevys, listen to jazz and rock and roll, and buy stuff.

Generally speaking I actually agree with you. I tell you even more. USSR had no intention of using weapons on, or otherwise waging an offensive war against, the USA.

As I say love, peace and a little bit of sex.

#32

Sure it’s very funny if you are … the racist.
I heared in US a some rich bas… get a great sexual pleasure with a little indonesian ( and not only indonesian) girls.
Just strange why you Nick recall about indonesian? :wink:

Generally speaking I actually agree with you. I tell you even more. USSR had no intention of using weapons on, or otherwise waging an offensive war against, the USA.
.

Yer we all have no intension to using wearpon … strange why we were ready to kill each other during the Kubin crisys in 1961?

Cheers.

#33

I don’t think an offensive into Western Europe would have been much use if Soviet cities were destroyed, do you?

Mate are all right?
Who will occupy the radioactive-charged territory? Do you ever read the Dropshot plan?
The handrets of Nucler bomb must hited the Soviet cities , war bases and indastry objects to be THE USSR inpossible to continie the war and forced soviet gov to capitulate.
There were absoluty not needed the 400 000 soldiers - they need about 100 - 200 a-bombs ,2000-3000 strategic bombers and about 5 000 jet fighters. THAT"S ALL.
Nobody in US planned the occupy of USSR territory. Therefore US could CUT DOWN it usial troops right after WW2.

Cheers.

Now you’re just reaching. So what the US is “guilty” of is warplanning with weapons they had in their possession, it didn’t mean that any offensive action was planned. And the one Soviet scientist and spies were desperately trying to get even before they knew the US had it. And you still can’t rationally explain why the ‘Evil US gov’t’ with its massive imperialistic warplans were going to nuke the USSR, but for some reason never did.

It’s either one way or the other. The US had three years of unchallenged A-bomb possession. But yet, none of them were used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And neither was the USSR blackmailed…

#34

No. Do you? I don’t buy Nike products anymore because of this shit…

Generally speaking I actually agree with you. I tell you even more. USSR had no intention of using weapons on, or otherwise waging an offensive war against, the USA.

As I say love, peace and a little bit of sex.

Then we are in general agreement, since I also do not think the USSR was going to send the Red Army into Western Europe anytime soon, as Russians had better things to do than to make war, like rebuilding.

Cheers.

#35

Oh, that’s just “rich” alright…

And I think you mean Thailand, and I’ve never been to either nation.

Yer we all have no intension to using wearpon … strange why we were ready to kill each other during the Kubin crisys in 1961?

Cheers.

But we didn’t, did we? Yes, there were warmongering psychopaths on both sides that contemplated using nuclear weapons as if they were just artillery or whatever. But the cooler heads of Kennedy and Khrustev prevailed.

But that is a different thread, as if this one isn’t off-topic enough.

#36

Nickdfresh, I am getting more and more respect for you! :wink: Really.

#37

Mate i always respect Nickdfresh. He is a good guy.
Even when he called me nazy,anty-semite , stupid idiot, bas… and drunk Russian…:smiley:
We need to respect eash other indeed becouse we had a constant discussion. We are not incidental opponents here.

Cheers.

#38

I like you guys also.

And you realize I was being tongue and cheek when I said most of that Chevan…

#39

Hi guys. Just a thought-has anyone considered a thread on Kruschev. What little I know of him is fascinating and I think he was very misunderstood historically speaking.

Regards Digger.:slight_smile:

#40

Oh stop it … you guys are going to make me cry. LOL :smiley: Rodney King’s dream has finally come true. We all get along.