More history (on meaning of Pearl Harbor) [OT]

Mon Sep 17 00:20:01 UTC 2001

At 03:09 AM 9/15/2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:

>If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn
>hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American
>involvement at all.  The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was
>Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all
>fronts.

Most Eastern Front action (although the 15th Air Force was helpful to the 
Russians with air support and Lend-Lease provided a great deal of Russian 
logistic vehicles), true.  However, the North African campaign (Operation 
Torch, et al) and the Italian campaigns were conducted primarily by 
Americans.  Of course, while the Normandy invasion and advance eastward 
were multi-national operations, the USA provided the vast majority of 
materiel, manpower, etc.

Stalingrad is widely regarded as the turning point for Germany's *Russian* 
campaign.

>US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from
>occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany.  It was
>already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin).

One wonders why Iosef Stalin was then so adamant that the other Allies MUST 
open a second front in France to sap German resources away from the Eastern 
Front?  I must point out, too, that GEN Patton was poised to take Berlin 
well before the Russians arrived - but the political decision was made to 
allow the Red Army to take the city.

> >From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant
>move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in.  By that
>time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied
>Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected
>by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely
>ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe
>came to be.

I might point out that the Americans (and allies) had been fighting Germans 
in North Africa and Italy for quite some time  - not "waiting to get in".

Furthermore, to say that Russia was not concerned with Japan is a gross 
mis-statement.  From 1938-1940 Russia and Japan fought a series of 
skirmishes and minor battles along the Mongolian border with Manchuria 
(then the Japanese province of Manchuko, captured from the Chinese).  The 
Japanese incursions into Russian territory were troubling enough to Iosef 
Stalin that he sent Zhukov (THE Zhukov) to stop them.  On Aug 20,1939 he 
did just that - wiping out the entire Japanese 23d Div of the Kwantung Army 
at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol in the world's first example of blitzkrieg 
(learned from the Germans who used it in Poland 33 days later).  After 
destroying the Japanese forces all the way to the interior Manchurian 
border, Zhokov then loaded his tanks onto trains for a quick trip 
east.  Waiting for Zhukov and his armor is why the Russians were two weeks 
behind the Germans in taking their chunk of Poland.
Several divisions of men were left on the Mongolian border to ensure the 
sanctity of the Non-Aggression Pact signed on 16 Sep 1939.

After the Japanese took Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, and 
wiped out the Russian Pacific Fleet, Russia *NEVER* took Japan lightly.  In 
fact, modern Red China exists because of heavy Russian support to the 
People's Army in their fight against the Japanese; support intended to keep 
the Japanese from being a major threat to Russia.  Russia didn't even 
declare war on the Japanese until 8 Aug 1945 - 2 days AFTER Hiroshima and 
the day before Nagasaki were A-bombed.

>Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make
>it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism.  It didn't.

My history books included all kinds of small details - like the 15th Air 
Force flying ground support missions from North Africa and Sicily to assist 
the Red Army.  Like Lend-Lease which provided Russia with most of it's 
logistic vehicles and a significant number of tanks - not to mention war 
materiel.

>To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see
>
>         http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm

??  This does nothing to support your contentions...

>And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to
>prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army.  After Germany
>capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were
>quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map,
>especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries).  The only way
>to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to
>force them to capitulate to Americans.

Again, note that Russia didn't declare war on Japan until 8 Aug 1945 - 6 
days before Japan surrendered.  Although Russia *DID* invade Manchuria 
after declaring war, the Japanese had already abandoned it.  Furthermore, 
the Russians had NO naval capacity and no landing craft - were they going 
to swim to Tokyo from Mongolia?  With the US on the Japanese doorstep?

>The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference
>from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth.  What US 
>involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis.

I think that the NDSP, Vichy French and Italian Fascisti would find fault 
with that statement.

>No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet
>Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler.

Stalin was always suspicious of the other allies.  The enemity of the 
US/USSR is a far larger issue than this.

>Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel
>they teach you as "history".  "Fascist powers were doomed" because of
>Pearl Harbor, sure.  Until you check the figures and actually think for a
>second or two.

Sorry, "fellow American" - your viewpoint of history shows a strong 
disregard for the facts and figures - as well as a lack of thought.

>PS      If you want to know how _that_ is related to Sep 11, you may be
>         interested to know that Chechens were collaborating with Nazi;
>         which prompted Stalin to retaliate after the war with mass
>         deportations.  They were allowed to return decade or so later,
>         having no love for Russians and the Allies in WWII.  That's how
>         their militant leaders became natural allies with Middle-Eastern
>         terrorists, including (surprise) bin Laden.

Somehow, the connection between Chechens not liking the US and the argument 
that the US was a minor player in WWII escapes me...

Further discourse can be off-list - but I could not let this public gross 
mis-representation of history stand.

Dean Robb
www.PC-Easy-va.com
On-site computer services
Member, ICANN At Large