Military Review

Unnecessary war?

116
Much has been written about the Soviet-Japanese war of the 1945 of the year, but only recently questions about its expediency have been heard. Proponents of the generally accepted version say that an invasion of Japan was necessary. Like, we got the Kuril Islands, South Sakhalin, and in the sphere of influence - China and North Korea, and also helped the allies, the Americans. However, upon closer examination, everything becomes not so clear, and tactical acquisitions turn into strategic miscalculations. After all, we judge by the results of a football match not by the way the first ten minutes were played, but by the final score on the scoreboard.

Of course, I.V. Stalin was counting on a sphere of influence in Asia, much larger than the one that the USSR should have received in Europe. However, there is reason to doubt the chosen strategy. If you look at the outcome of that short war impartially, it turns out that the Soviet soldiers fought for American and Chinese interests. So, it makes sense to sort through the points of each of the acquisitions.

The first. Helped the allies, the Americans. Even after the capture of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the American command was not enthusiastic about the continuation of the war. Ahead was the landing on the main Japanese islands (Operation Daunfol), to Korea and Manchuria. Only on the islands, the United States could lose millions of soldiers from 3 to 5, and in general the war could last up to 1947 and even to 1948, according to the estimates of the Americans themselves. The Japanese were ready to face off against the United States, but the invasion of the Soviet Union from the north made the resistance completely meaningless. In fact, the USSR granted the Americans an easy victory, depriving them of the joys of millions of losses and a long war. But it was possible to pull as much as the Western allies themselves were pulling with the opening of the Second Front.



The second. Received South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. During the seizure, thousands of Soviet soldiers were killed and the infrastructure was destroyed, although these territories could have been withdrawn by the USSR without fighting. In Japan, they considered the possibility of offering these islands to Moscow in exchange for mediation in concluding a peace treaty with the United States. If the Soviet Union had gone to that, it would have gotten exactly the same thing, but there would have been no dispute over the South Kuril Islands now, and many people would have remained alive. The value of South Sakhalin and the Kuriles in the eyes of the Japanese government was incomparably less than the value of Korea, which Tokyo hoped to preserve.

Third. Sphere of influence in Korea and China. For decades, the Soviet Union took over the stubborn North Korean regime. As for China, the situation is even more fun: the USSR actually had a hand in creating a united and strong enemy and competitor (for the sake of a naive dream of an obedient "younger brother"), who fully repaid it on Damanskiy and in Afghanistan. After all, there was no point in returning China to Manchukuo, which the USSR recognized as an independent state. There was no point in helping to join East Turkestan. The same Manchus very much asked not to give them to China. If Manchuria and East Turkestan would have maintained independence, then today's Russia would not have common borders with the Middle Kingdom at all.

The only Soviet acquisition in China — the Port Arthur base was returned to China in 1954. The Changchun section of the CER was transferred to China even earlier.

Total That war brought much more problems than good. With undoubted military success, we have a complete political and strategic miscalculation of the Soviet Union. In general, there is nothing surprising here, since the post-war foreign policy of Moscow as a whole can be called a failure in many areas, be it Europe, Turkey, Iran or the Far East - each deserves a separate fair analysis. The consequences of the short-sightedness of the “leader of nations”, who was trying to become the master of Asia, will have a very long effect. The idea that a strong China will never be pro-Soviet, and so came to the Kremlin.

In the current situation, the force rebuilding of borders in Asia is even more explosive than in Europe. Japan is seething with hatred and burning revanchism. China, oddly enough, too. In Beijing, they believe that in the post-war division of territories and spheres of influence it was greatly cheated, although it was a sin to the Chinese to just complain. So the new division of the world is not far off. And God forbid that he touched us.
Author:
116 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 10 November 2014 07: 42
    +14
    Japan did not enter the war with the USSR, but the union attacked Japan at one time, which offended the Japanese and ruined our diplomatic relations for decades to come, I personally always thought that we should be allowed to fight the USA and Japan as long as possible and act as suppliers ourselves weapons and materials for gold, and then mediate in the conclusion of peace between them, well, not for free, of course, but for the islands.
    1. smershxnumx
      smershxnumx 10 November 2014 08: 00
      +17
      Not everything is as simple as it seems. I think that this decision was still balanced and (at that time) necessary. Although now it can be challenged. IMHO.
      1. Canep
        Canep 10 November 2014 08: 57
        +55
        This article is like Rain's poll about the blockade.
        First, the story does not change.
        Secondly, the USSR had to fulfill allied commitments.
        If there were no second front, then there would be no war with Japan. But today the situation would be simply catastrophic since in China, a pro-American government would sit like what is now sitting in Taiwan. And in China there were as many US bases as there are now in Germany, if not more.
        1. Gluxar_
          Gluxar_ 10 November 2014 17: 52
          +11
          Quote: Canep
          This article is like Rain's poll about the blockade.
          First, the story does not change.
          Secondly, the USSR had to fulfill allied commitments.
          If there were no second front, then there would be no war with Japan. But today the situation would be simply catastrophic since in China, a pro-American government would sit like what is now sitting in Taiwan. And in China there were as many US bases as there are now in Germany, if not more.

          And the USSR would not have existed before the age of 53. And there would be no peace, there would be gentlemen and slaves ... The West can only feed its prosperity. All eras and centuries are witnesses to this.
          There would be no Brazil or free India ... There would not be China, there would be no South Africa ... there would be London-Washington and the planet of slaves ....
          Our grandfathers were smarter and did not allow Etum to happen, but they are trying to force us to condemn their actions? NO. It is necessary to minus such haircuts and cut them out of the body of our People, as foreign parasites.
          1. Talgat
            Talgat 11 November 2014 18: 05
            +1
            I completely agree that decisions weren’t made by fools then

            the author writes: "... The consequences of the short-sightedness of the" leader of the peoples "..."

            I am sure that there was an analysis of the situation, and at that moment it was a necessary decision, perhaps the IVS and the Politburo foresaw the upcoming confrontation with the "world government" and tried to increase our and cut their spheres of influence
            I think the war in Korea in 53 is a direct continuation of the same state.

            Now, of course, it is easy to judge without responsibility - and these people were responsible for the country and the future of the people
      2. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 10 November 2014 09: 21
        +6
        This was, if I’m not mistaken, the mandatory conditions on the part of the United States to open a second front. How true it is now can not be determined to do this, you need to be on the side of I.V. Stalin at that time.
        1. Sibiriya
          Sibiriya 10 November 2014 23: 09
          +1
          you are not mistaken)
          if not for the crushing defeat of the Japanese Kwantung Army by our army, the Americans would have long watered the islands with their blood
      3. Vladimir 686
        Vladimir 686 10 November 2014 16: 02
        +4
        everything was weighed, calculated. The spread of Soviet influence on the Asia-Pacific region. Quickly and forever. Everything was supposed to end in Tokyo in 3-4 months. The USSR wrested the entire region, propped up amers from Europe and the Pacific Ocean. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki act there was no tactical class in this action, the Japanese were losing outright both the USA and the USSR.
      4. Gluxar_
        Gluxar_ 10 November 2014 17: 49
        +4
        Quote: smerx24
        Not everything is as simple as it seems. I think that this decision was still balanced and (at that time) necessary. Although now it can be challenged. IMHO.

        What can be challenged? Victory of our grandfathers? It’s impossible for a normal Russian to dispute his victories ... only an occupation of such traitors and provocateurs in the ear.
    2. smershxnumx
      smershxnumx 10 November 2014 08: 00
      +4
      Not everything is as simple as it seems. I think that this decision was still balanced and (at that time) necessary. Although now it can be challenged. IMHO.
      1. the polar
        the polar 10 November 2014 08: 55
        -4
        The author of the article:
        Enough already picking in the ass with the crooked finger of "historical analyzes".
        let the author better study his family tree, with whom his great-grandmother was engaged in the Russian-Turkish war of the 18 century
        1. creak
          creak 10 November 2014 09: 59
          0
          Quote: Polar
          let the author better study his family tree


          And let the author name the nationality of his grandmother ... And indeed, if the finger were straight and not crooked ... The arguments are serious, you can’t say anything, there’s nothing to do here ... yes
    3. Fear
      Fear 10 November 2014 08: 01
      +13
      Well judged after decades ...
      1. jktu66
        jktu66 10 November 2014 16: 04
        +3
        Well judged after decades ...
        To analyze and draw conclusions so as not to step on the rake is always useful
    4. vjhbc
      vjhbc 10 November 2014 08: 23
      +3
      I agree it would be necessary to take time and possibly act as an intermediary, but China needed to be very fond of and to do everything so that there were a lot of Chinese from 3 to 5
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      Japan did not enter the war with the USSR, but the union attacked Japan at one time, which offended the Japanese and ruined our diplomatic relations for decades to come, I personally always thought that we should be allowed to fight the USA and Japan as long as possible and act as suppliers ourselves weapons and materials for gold, and then mediate in the conclusion of peace between them, well, not for free, of course, but for the islands.
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 11 November 2014 01: 46
        0
        Quote: vjhbc
        I agree it would be necessary to take time and possibly act as an intermediary

        Which intermediary? Interstate and radioactive desert? Or do you seriously think, like the foolish author of the article, that a country that at that time had a monopoly on nuclear weapons could not win the war? Yes, the Japanese would capitulate after a dozen Hiroshima. The whole world would understand who is the boss in the house. The story would be completely different. The Americans, who had a taste for nuclear bombing, might not have settled on Japan. So the article is stupid, the decision of the Soviet leadership was correct.
    5. GRAY
      GRAY 10 November 2014 08: 33
      +7
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      to act as suppliers of arms and materials for gold, and then act as an intermediary in the conclusion of peace between them, well, not for free, of course, but for the islands.

      For the islands ...
      These islands would now have American military bases.
    6. aleks_29296
      aleks_29296 10 November 2014 08: 40
      +10
      , personally, I always believed that we needed to let the USA and Japan fight as long as possible and act as suppliers of weapons and materials for gold, and then act as an intermediary in making peace between them, well, not for free, of course, but for the islands.

      Everyone imagines himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side. We can each express our attitude to those events, but then the government was not fools either.
    7. Penzuck
      Penzuck 10 November 2014 08: 51
      +13
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      Japan did not enter the war with the USSR

      Halkin Goal? Hassan? For your information, this is before the war with the Germans.
      If you had in mind the armistice agreement, then in the text there was a possibility of denunciation of this agreement unilaterally. Have you read?
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      greatly offended the Japanese and ruined our diplomatic relations for decades to come,

      Alas, the shame of the Russo-Japanese War 1905 is redeemed only with blood.
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      let the us and japan fight as long as possible and act as suppliers of arms and materials for gold

      Manchuria - industrial zone. resources. Leave it in the hands of Japan? At your side? Or wait for the US to take over China? Bourgeois China and no less bourgeois Korea?
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      Well, not for free, of course, but for the islands
      It is naive to believe that "islands" mean something. Apart from their strategic importance for our country, they are not interesting. Any alignment was against us. The Far East would be under constant threat. That is why the USSR supported Mao. Those. to have control over possible invasion transport routes. Plus nuclear weapons.
      1. GRAY
        GRAY 10 November 2014 09: 17
        +11
        Quote: Penzuck
        It is naive to believe that "islands" mean something.

        Well, they mean something. For example, around each island there is a two hundred mile economic zone.

        And besides, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk along the perimeter is protected from the penetration of foreign ships by numerous islands. The sea is the main deployment area of ​​strategic submarines of the Pacific Fleet, where they can carry out military service without fear of a sudden attack by the enemy in the event of a war.

        While Russia owns these islands, no foreign warship or submarine can enter the Sea of ​​Okhotsk unnoticed, since all this sea, with a few exceptions, is our inland waters. If at least one large island leaves Japan, then Russia will lose control of the straits and any warship will be able to get into the center of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk without Russian permission, for example, to track submarines.
        1. Penzuck
          Penzuck 10 November 2014 09: 40
          0
          Those. you want to say that the Japanese, recognizing the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as Russia, thereby recognized the Kuril Islands? Or did they have a cunning plan that helped the UN recognize the sea, and then grab the Kuril Islands for themselves and again file an application with the UN?
          Quote: GRAY
          And besides, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk along the perimeter is protected from the penetration of foreign ships by numerous islands. The sea is the main deployment area of ​​strategic submarines of the Pacific Fleet, where they can carry out military service without fear of a sudden attack by the enemy in the event of a war.

          While Russia owns these islands, no foreign warship or submarine can enter the Sea of ​​Okhotsk unnoticed, since all this sea, with a few exceptions, is our inland waters. If at least one large island leaves Japan, then Russia will lose control of the straits and any warship will be able to get into the center of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk without Russian permission, for example, to track submarines.

          Quote: GRAY
          In addition to strategic importance for our country, they are not interesting.
          Didn't I talk about this?
          1. GRAY
            GRAY 10 November 2014 10: 30
            0
            Quote: Penzuck
            Didn't I talk about this?

            There is still economic significance.
            Those. you want to say that the Japanese, recognizing the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as Russia, thereby recognized the Kuril Islands?

            No I do not want to. No matter what they did not recognize there, de facto this is our territory.
      2. Gomunkul
        Gomunkul 10 November 2014 14: 04
        +2
        Alas, the disgrace of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 is redeemed only with blood

        I fully support you, which is eloquently sung in the whole famous song. The text is below.

        ON THE JAPANES OF MANCHURIA

        Music by Ilya Shatrov
        Words of the Wanderer (Stepan Petrov)

        Quietly around, the hills are covered with mist.
        Here, because of the clouds flashed the moon,
        Graves keep peace.

        Crosses turn white - these are the heroes sleeping.
        The past shadows have been circling for a long time,
        They say about the victims of the fighting.

        Quiet around, the wind blew the fog.
        On the hills of Manchuria, warriors sleep
        And Russians don’t hear tears.

        A mother cries, a young wife cries,
        Everyone cries like one person
        Evil rock and fate swear! ..

        May the kaolin bring you dreams
        Sleep, heroes of the Russian land,
        Motherland native sons.

        Sleep, sons, you died for Russia, for your homeland,
        But believe, we will also avenge you
        And celebrate the bloody fever.

        1906

        hi
      3. The comment was deleted.
    8. Artem1967
      Artem1967 10 November 2014 09: 25
      +14
      At a conference in Yalta, the Soviet Union committed itself to the Allies to enter the war against Japan no later than three months after the end of the war in Europe. And honestly fulfilled it. It was necessary to fight for many reasons, but the Americans did not give us the fruits of victory, threatening to use atomic weapons against the USSR when trying to occupy Hokkaido.
      About the insults. The USA with two atomic bombs wiped out two Japanese cities without any military necessity just before the end of the war, but only demonstrating possession of formidable weapons. Where are the grievances of Yap on the United States? Are you really so naive when weaving mythical grievances into high politics? And the Japanese, if it were to their advantage, would attack the USSR in spite of all the treaties. Found the gentlemen.
    9. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 10 November 2014 11: 16
      +3
      But in the article there is some truth. In 1812, too, after all, Russian troops fell in Europe, driving the French right up to Paris, and what did they get in the end? not an inch of the new land, only revanchist France, which took revenge in the Crimean War, supporting the Anglo-Saxons, whom they themselves hated.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 10 November 2014 12: 14
        +1
        Quote: Max_Bauder

        Very weak analogy. In 1812 there really was no point in killing Napoleon. And Russia then received nothing. But in 1945 she got revenge for 1905 and returned her lands. The difference is very significant.
        1. Max_Bauder
          Max_Bauder 11 November 2014 09: 53
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          Very weak analogy. In 1812 there really was no point in killing Napoleon. And Russia then received nothing. But in 1945 she got revenge for 1905 and returned her lands. The difference is very significant.


          The article states:
          The second one. Received South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Thousands of Soviet troops were killed during the capture and infrastructure was destroyed, although the USSR could have withdrawn without fighting. Japan considered the possibility of offering Moscow these islands in exchange for mediation in concluding a peace treaty with the United States. If the Soviet Union did this, it would have received exactly the same thing, but there would have been no dispute over the South Kuril Islands now, and many people would have survived.

          PySy. But Port Arthur never became Russian back.
          1. Bakht
            Bakht 12 November 2014 01: 11
            +1
            Quote: Max_Bauder

            The article states:

            The article says nonsense. We open the documents of the Yalta Conference and read. Clearly said. If the USSR enters the war against Japan, then it receives Sakhalin, the adjacent islands and the Kuril Islands. And the port of Dairen for rent. If it does not enter, then it does not receive anything even after the surrender of Japan, all these territories are occupied by the Americans and the British. Churchill and Roosevelt specifically said who is at war then gingerbread. He who does not fight, receives nothing.

            No need to invent anything. Documents and transcripts of negotiations published long ago. The author is simply not up to date.
            1. Max_Bauder
              Max_Bauder 12 November 2014 15: 19
              0
              Quote: Bakht
              No need to invent anything. Documents and transcripts of negotiations published long ago. The author is simply not up to date.


              then no questions.
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 12 November 2014 15: 23
              0
              Quote: Bakht
              The author is simply not up to date.

              At best, what is hard to believe.
              hi
    10. Pervusha Isaev
      Pervusha Isaev 10 November 2014 12: 51
      +2
      yes, of course, Stalin was an idealist and believed in a world revolution (not like Trotsky) and in internationalism, so he rebuilt large Poland with disputed lands, I thought that Poland would be a reliable ally of the USSR, but the Poles, as they were cattle, remained the same Regarding Majuria, Stalin saw a great ally in Great China, but Nikita came with his "personality cult" and many allies of the USSR Yugoslavia, China, Romania, turned away from the USSR, as for Japan, Japan is our old ENEMY and it was not worth standing on ceremony with her, pin_dos They also did not stand on ceremony, they took and bombed with atomic bombs and Nitsche narrow-eyed right now the best friends of amers ...
      1. jktu66
        jktu66 10 November 2014 16: 12
        0
        Japan is our old ENEMY and there was no need to stand on ceremony, pin_dosas didn’t stand on ceremony and bombed with atomic bombs, and narrow-eyed right now are Amer’s best friends ...
        Every Japan will say that the Russians bombed, so they have been taught for many years
      2. Denis
        Denis 10 November 2014 16: 33
        +2
        Quote: Pervusha Isaev
        Yes, of course, Stalin was an idealist and believed in world revolution.

        Why are you doing it like that?
        Pragmatics are still more pragmatic to search and seek. One of the striking examples of this is the dispersal of the Comintern. Stalin wanted to trade with the West, buy equipment and technology, and these internationalist guys in the same countries were ready for various fights and attempts, only attempts, to arrange coups .
        Is Spain idealism too? Well, if only for the movie and Hemingway
        1. Pervusha Isaev
          Pervusha Isaev 10 November 2014 16: 49
          -4
          Quote: Denis
          That’s more pragmatic.


          if Stalin did not believe in the "friendship of peoples", he would simply annex the old lands of the Russian Empire and Poland and Manchuria, Finland, as well as the country of SOVIET BROTHERN REPUBLIC, but he believed in something that could not be in the "friendship of peoples" lost ...
          1. Denis
            Denis 10 November 2014 19: 02
            0
            Quote: Pervusha Isaev
            just would have joined the old lands of the Russian Empire and Poland and Manchuria, Finland

            Wasn’t that so?
            A liberation trip to Poland, the transfer of the border from St. Petersburg and the base on the Hanko Peninsula, Mongolia. So everything was a matter of time
            Quote: Pervusha Isaev
            as well as the country of the SOVIET BROTHER REPUBLIC

            This is about where to attach?
            1. Pervusha Isaev
              Pervusha Isaev 10 November 2014 20: 26
              -1
              Quote: Denis
              A liberation trip to Poland, the transfer of the border from St. Petersburg and


              what time are you talking about? on the topic so after the Second World War, and you seem to be confused with Tukhachevsky’s campaign in Poland 1920.

              Quote: Denis
              base on Hanko Peninsula, Mongolia. So everything was a matter of time

              and what is "hanko mongolia"? - you didn't dream about it? if KHANKO is a peninsula in Finland, and if KHANKA is a lake in the seaside, it's hard to understand you ...


              Quote: Denis
              This is about where to attach?

              I meant that it was the belief in Stalin's internationalism that became the basis for the creation of the USSR of the union of republics - the "brotherhood of peoples" - the idea of ​​a fix, which was one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but it was necessary to build a MONOLITHIC COUNTRY, is that clear?
              1. Denis
                Denis 10 November 2014 20: 54
                -2
                Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                what time are you talking about? on the topic so after the Second World War, and you seem to be confused with Tukhachevsky’s campaign in Poland 1920.
                2 on history, this is 1939 year
                2 in geography, base on the peninsula (this is an abbreviated peninsula) Hanko aka Gangut
                After the Soviet-Finnish war 1939-1940, Finland leased Hanko to the Soviet Union as a naval base.

                On 22 on June 1941, after the start of Operation Barbarossa, German air forces and naval forces attacked the base. After the start of the 25 on June 1941 of the year of the Soviet-Finnish war, Finnish troops joined the fighting against the base.
                The defense of Hanko went down in the history of Soviet naval art as an example of a heroic and skillful struggle in the skerry-island region.
                In October-December 1941, the defenders of the base were evacuated by sea to Leningrad and Kronstadt.
                At the end of World War II, instead of Hanko, the USSR was given the base at Porkkale, which existed before 1955.
                2 in Russian
                Hanko, Mongolia
                comma present
                In 1924, after the death of the religious leader and monarch Bogd Khan, with the support of the Soviet Union, the Mongolian People's Republic was proclaimed. Peljediin Genden, Anandin Amar and Horlogiin Choibalsan came to power
                There, not far to Manchuria
              2. Wheel
                Wheel 11 November 2014 01: 12
                -1
                Quote: Pervusha Isaev
                I meant that it was the belief in Stalin's internationalism that became the basis for the creation of the USSR of the union of republics - the "brotherhood of peoples" - the idea of ​​a fix, which was one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but it was necessary to build a MONOLITHIC COUNTRY, is that clear?

                Here you are somewhat wrong.
                The mines of internationalism were laid not by Stalin, but by Lenin.
                It was at the insistence of Lenin that the Union device of the USSR was adopted with the right to secede from the composition.
                Stalin, I dare to recall, it was he who headed the commission on the creation of a single state, proposed the inclusion of all other republics on the rights of autonomies into the RSFSR.
                As the saying goes, feel the difference.
          2. Wheel
            Wheel 11 November 2014 01: 06
            -1
            Quote: Pervusha Isaev
            if Stalin did not believe in the "friendship of peoples", he would simply annex the old lands of the Russian Empire and Poland and Manchuria, Finland, as well as the country of SOVIET BROTHERN REPUBLIC, but he believed in something that could not be in the "friendship of peoples" lost ...

            Ek brings you in ... sorry ...
            Read the materials of the meetings of the Big Three, feel what a fierce bargaining there was for the division of spheres of influence in the post-war world.
            Stalin did not believe in any "friendship of peoples". Purely controlled states, the sphere of strategic interests of the USSR.
            As the subsequent Soviet leaders disposed of this area, this is a completely different song.
            Take an example from China itself, what kind of economic policy the USSR pursued there under Stalin and what the Great Maize did.
            It was Khrushchev who slandered China and Albania; it was Khrushchev who gave economic control over Austria.
            Well, about the tagged and say nothing ...
            It was through Nikita’s fault that the Union did not sign a peace treaty with Japan, if Che. And in this treaty, the islands clearly belonged to the USSR.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 12 November 2014 15: 27
              0
              Quote: Wheel
              It was through Nikita’s fault that the Union did not sign a peace treaty with Japan, if Che. And in this treaty, the islands clearly belonged to the USSR.

              Yeah, then we still can’t disentangle the porridge that Khrushchev made.
              How many islands did he promise to Japan under that treaty? Remind me?
              Only Yapam, then it seemed a little!
              request
      3. wax
        wax 10 November 2014 21: 56
        +1
        In the geopolitical aspect, Stalin's only mistake was that he died early.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 12 November 2014 15: 29
          0
          Quote: Wax
          In the geopolitical aspect, Stalin's only mistake was that he died early.

          There, with the death of the leader, there is still no clarity.
          But this topic is completely different for another conversation.
          hi
    11. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 November 2014 12: 52
      +2
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      I personally always thought that we needed to let the USA and Japan fight as long as possible and act as suppliers of weapons and materials for gold, and then mediate in making peace between them, well, not for free, of course, but for the islands.

      The problem is that theoretically we could do this only when the situation on maintenance was approximately equal. That is, in 1942-1943. Tell you, what would we get in return for this? That's right - a minimum, the rejection of Lend-Lease. So - goodbye half aviation gasoline (including all high-octane), half copper (and this is the cartridge case), all tungsten (subcaliber), half aluminum, 20% of aircraft, 40% of gunpowder (and for some components, imports were up to 100%) all-wheel drive cars.

      Let me remind you - this is 42-43. The most stressful time. When, according to the results of each operation, the losses of the same vehicles in artillery amounted to 50%.

      And in 1945 it was already too late to do anything. Japan's fleet was multiplied by zero. The air forces of the army and navy are a handful of aces and a mass of cadets who can only fly behind the leader (by the way, there is practically no gas). Army - in the Metropolis there are only one and a half to two dozen divisions, equipped according to the state, and the rest - see Hattori (even rifles were missing). And most importantly - the transport network of Japan is killed, and until the divisions reach the landing site, they will be torn from the air. There is nothing to catch here - the United States will cope. Without us. And the Kuril Islands and a half of Sakhalin will be Japanese-American.
      1. Alex
        Alex 10 November 2014 15: 56
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And the Kuril Islands and a half of Sakhalin will be Japanese-American.

        In this situation, rather, - purely American. Even without a Japanese impurity.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 November 2014 18: 41
          +1
          Quote: Alex
          In this situation, rather, - purely American. Even without a Japanese impurity.

          Most likely, you are right - you would get Okinawa No. 2: territories under the control of the American administration.
          1. Alex
            Alex 10 November 2014 21: 56
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            would get Okinawa No. 2: territories under the administration of the American administration.

            That's what I thought about it in the first place: Americans would never give such a tidbit to the very side of the USSR. Somehow, even in theory, it’s creepy to think about.
    12. neri73-r
      neri73-r 10 November 2014 12: 58
      0
      Japan did not enter the war with the USSR, but the union attacked Japan at one time, which offended the Japanese and ruined our diplomatic relations for decades to come, I personally always thought that we should be allowed to fight the USA and Japan as long as possible and act as suppliers ourselves weapons and materials for gold, and then mediate in the conclusion of peace between them, well, not for free, of course, but for the islands.

      In any case, the war would have spilled as much time as it had lasted! The bomb was ready, and we would have stayed with a nose !!!
    13. Mahmut
      Mahmut 10 November 2014 13: 50
      +1
      Japan has always been a country hostile to Russia and the USSR. So they didn’t lose anything diplomatically, but they made them respect themselves after Tsushima. Second, what does it mean to wait with the opening of the second front. The country is mobilized, the economy is completely on a war footing, and the author suggests that she wait a few years. Even purely economically, the war had to be ended as quickly as possible, at any cost, and labor reserves had to be returned to the economy for its fastest recovery. With a weak economy, you can't get enough nuclear bombs. As for the Sakhalin economy, only a rapid offensive saved it from destruction. There is still a narrow-gauge railway built by Japanese slaves. And there is no alternative to it. And if not for greed, we could use airfields with an underground heating system. But they preferred to flood underground boiler houses. Some pipes were left sticking out in the taiga as a reminder of the occupation.
    14. Ustas
      Ustas 10 November 2014 13: 54
      +3
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      Japan did not enter the war with the USSR, but the union attacked Japan in due time, which offended the Japanese

      Article and not eaten eggs.
      And to make it clearer, study history together with geopolitics.
      You are trying to snatch episodes of history from the historical course of time.
      The entry of the USSR into the war with Japan was preceded by a series of events that had occurred earlier.
      Thousands of Soviet troops were killed during the capture and infrastructure was destroyed, although the USSR could have withdrawn without fighting.

      No one will voluntarily give up their territories. And given the fact that the Anglo-Saxons have always been, are and will be our opponents (land and sea), the Kuril Islands would hardly have become ours (although once they belonged to Russia), if we had not entered the war with Japan. And the United States naval bases would now be on these islands.
    15. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 10 November 2014 14: 21
      +1
      and Hiroshima with Nagasaki, a necessary war, or not? and ? historians ???
    16. Vladimir 686
      Vladimir 686 10 November 2014 16: 10
      +1
      Yes, we were not at war with the Japanese empire, you forget that the United States was, we simply had to declare war on the Japanese, as allies of the United States. The Russians always literally understand their obligations under military cooperation agreements, so it was in World War I and in World War II . Well, Russians are not used to twirling assholes under allied treaties, well, such a misfortune here, our conscience does not allow.
    17. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 10 November 2014 17: 47
      0
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      Japan did not enter the war with the USSR, but the union attacked Japan at one time, which offended the Japanese and ruined our diplomatic relations for decades to come, I personally always thought that we should be allowed to fight the USA and Japan as long as possible and act as suppliers ourselves weapons and materials for gold, and then mediate in the conclusion of peace between them, well, not for free, of course, but for the islands.

      The article of the next high and provocation.
      The United States has already won this war and was preparing their bombs. Then these bombs would fly to the USSR without delay. The USSR regained significant territories and prevented US dominance in this region. The very existence of communist China is due to the rapid victory of the USSR in Japan and the growing influence of the communist idea thanks to these victories.
      Today there is no single dictatorship of the Anglo-Saxons over the whole world, only thanks to the actions of the USSR in the eastern direction.

      So do not waste time on such cheap things and provocations ... supposedly the samurai wanted to give us their territories just like that ... it's not in the spirit of Japanese militarism.
      This vyser appeared on this site in response to a publication about improving life on Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands ... some of the traitors cannot sleep asleep seeing the successes of Russia in all directions, that’s how they cook up shit like this article.
    18. Bosk
      Bosk 10 November 2014 19: 25
      +2
      The Union signed the Neutrality Treaty with Japan in March-April 1941, the Union terminated this treaty if I am not mistaken in 1943 ... so nothing treacherous seems to be observed ... By the way, the return of southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands was one of the main conditions for the entry of the USSR into the war with Japan, which incidentally did not slightly surprise the Americans.
    19. The comment was deleted.
  2. Denis
    Denis 10 November 2014 07: 43
    +23
    infrastructure was destroyed
    Information from the shop from the entrance, on Sakhalin the railway built by the Japanese is still used.
    Didn’t you hear about the need to comply with the contract?
    And the rest is the same nonsense. The author writes in order to write
    1. invisibility
      invisibility 10 November 2014 08: 08
      +13
      Information from the shop from the entrance

      Absolutely!
      Especially touches, point of view
      although these territories could withdraw the USSR without fighting
      .
      But is the author sure that the Americans would have fought without our participation? And wouldn’t they make a deal with Japan? And then what?
      And most annoying is simply pulling out the facts ...
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 10 November 2014 13: 12
        +1
        Quote: invisible
        But is the author sure that the Americans would have fought without our participation? And wouldn’t they make a deal with Japan? And then what


        Your version of events, in my opinion, is most likely. And we would have neither the Kuril Islands, nor half of Sakhalin, but we would have a defeated but undefeated strong revenge-seeking Japan with its mainland in Manzhou-go.
        1. Alex
          Alex 10 November 2014 16: 05
          +2
          Quote: Aleksander
          but we would have a defeated but undefeated strong revenge-seeking Japan with its mainland in Manzhou-go.

          And absolutely no influence in China and Korea. But if it weren't for Mao Tse-Tung, China was hardly a country with such a foreign policy orientation. Had it not been for our technical and economic assistance at the time, China would hardly have demonstrated such rates of economic growth today, which plunges our sworn overseas "friends" into despondency.

          In politics, you never know how things will go further; there are too many factors that you simply won’t take into account. And some do not miscalculate at all. But one rule definitely works: what we have today is the result of what happened yesterday.

          And Japan has never been our friend. Which, however, is also a shame: under certain conditions, such an alliance would give a lot to us and them.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Zomanus
    Zomanus 10 November 2014 07: 47
    0
    Redistribution? Well, let them take a chance. It will not be too difficult to sink Yapov, throwing thermonuclear under the islands in the right place. With whales it will be more difficult, but also controversial. In general, you need to be able to make friends properly.
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 10 November 2014 07: 50
    +12
    That war brought far more problems than good.

    I do not agree with the author. First, Japan since the 20s was like a bone in the throat for the USSR (events near Lake Khasan, events at the Khalkin Gol, during the Second World War, huge aircraft had to be kept in the Far East and Transbaikalia, etc.).
    Secondly, Japan was a direct ally of Nazi Germany and defeating Germany could not leave Japan.

    But you could pull as much as the Western Allies themselves pulled with the opening of the Second Front.

    At that time, they adhered to the simple saying "He who did not have time, he was late."
  5. lwxx
    lwxx 10 November 2014 07: 54
    +1
    The article I would say is very controversial (so as not to offend the author). Regarding the treaty and the West: do not be like them, it’s about the second front, and getting preferences in Asia after the war is also in question. I don’t think that we I gave a lot. But I won’t repeat myself about the infrastructure, it still works in some places.
  6. Per se.
    Per se. 10 November 2014 07: 56
    +3
    The article makes you think, the material is presented briefly, without "water", but meaningful and well-reasoned, this, in my opinion, deserves a positive assessment. Although they say that history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, analyzing the past helps to understand the present and make less mistakes in the future. What the USSR should have done, being an ally of the United States and England, having already assumed obligations to them on Japan already at the talks in Yalta ... Probably, entering the war was correct, otherwise Japan would have surrendered anyway after Hiroshima and Nagasaki ( perhaps the Yankees would have dropped atomic bombs on the territory of Korea or China occupied by the Japanese army), and the USSR would have acquired American bases already on the Kuril Islands and in China, where the United States would have become victors, without us. Another question is whether it was necessary to make China a "friend", especially by helping in the creation of nuclear weapons? Here I agree with the author, we have spawned a monster on our borders, with which we are now forced to be friends, directly and indirectly strengthening it even more. This will really come back to haunt us, everything else in 1945, I think, was right.
    1. Wheel
      Wheel 11 November 2014 01: 35
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      (perhaps the Yankees would drop atomic bombs on the territory of Korea or China, occupied by the Japanese army

      As it turns out now, there was nothing more for users to throw as much as at least a couple more years after the first bombing ...
  7. Fox
    Fox 10 November 2014 07: 58
    +3
    according to the logic of aftara, it was necessary to give up as early as 1812 ... or even earlier, then there would have been ABSOLUTELY problems (for author).
  8. Mviktor
    Mviktor 10 November 2014 08: 11
    +4
    in this war they drove the Japanese out of foreign territories and from their borders, provided for decades a calm situation on the borders and received reparations in the form of islands for this. Why not organize provocations and threaten war for 5 years
  9. bmv04636
    bmv04636 10 November 2014 08: 23
    +4
    These "light elves" rushed to throw off two vigorous bombs, so that we would not completely take all of Japan under our control.
  10. Zuborez
    Zuborez 10 November 2014 08: 30
    +12
    How many "analytegs" got divorced. Our ancestors did everything wrong, and the author -> author -> the author is all such d, Artanyan. Earlier, even with paper and printing, such hackers had problems, but Tyrnet (tm) will endure everything. am
  11. Proud.
    Proud. 10 November 2014 08: 30
    +12
    Politics is practical, cynical and unprincipled. She (politics) does everything for the sake of pragmatic benefits, and obviously not for that-"... for the sake of a naive dream of an obedient" little brother "...".By the way. China turned into an enemy and a competitor after Khrushchev became the "helm and sails" of the USSR. Not the greatest genius from politics.With undoubted military success, we have a complete political and strategic miscalculation of the Soviet Union. In general, there is nothing surprising here, since the post-war foreign policy of Moscow as a whole can be called a failure in many areas, be it Europe, Turkey, Iran or the Far East - each deserves a separate impartial analysis. The consequences of the shortsightedness of the “leader of the peoples”, who tried to become the master of Asia, will have a very long effect.This is the conclusion! We fought well, and then, according to the logic of the article, they had to lock themselves within their borders. Do not climb anywhere. Be obedient. Accept the "Marshall plan" and say to the "allies": Come to our kingdom ... look, the conclusion in the article is that we are again to blame for everything. We had to sit on "the priest exactly." And Uncle Joe is the main villain. Just one should not forget that the USSR is Russia. In another political version. And Stalin -one of the best (if we discard the rubbish that is written about him) leaders of our country.
  12. Selevc
    Selevc 10 November 2014 08: 34
    +18
    The article is a complete dummy stuff !!! I will smash on points :
    1st Not so much the USSR bestowed victory on Amers as Hiroshima and Nagasaki !!! Before Hiroshima, Japan was actively preparing to meet the enemy landing forces on its islands - after Hiroshima - ground resistance lost all meaning and purpose ...
    2-e
    Thousands of Soviet troops were killed during the capture and infrastructure was destroyed, although the USSR could have withdrawn without fighting.
    And where are the guarantees that the United States, using nuclear weapons, would so simply give these territories to a non-combatant ally?
    There are no wars without victims in nature - and the USSR, by the way, once again showed its strength in the region - by conducting quick maneuverable land and sea operations !!! Many neighbors still remember - especially the Japs, I think they remembered well !!!
    3-e
    For decades, the Soviet Union took on the obstinate North Korean regime
    Incidentally, the DPRK was and is a kind of lightning rod for the region and a country covering the Russian Far East !!! If there were not so many events around Korea, they would inevitably have happened elsewhere - either between the USSR and China, or between the USSR and Japan ...
    As for China, he also takes away many eastern hawks - if you imagine China as weak and fragmented into several states, sooner or later they would fall under the USA and NATO and would be much more dependent on the USA than big China !!!

    Summary:
    That war brought far more problems than good.
    That war glorified the generation of our grandfathers !!! In less than a month, defeat the huge and strong Kwantung army and capture the whole of northeastern China, capture South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, land troops in the ports of Korea !!! Yes, this is perhaps the most brilliant military company of the USSR in the 20th century !!! And the author of the article is either a complete stupid person or a complete sales werewolf !!!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 97110
      97110 10 November 2014 14: 34
      +3
      Quote: Selevc
      1st Not so much the USSR bestowed victory on Amers as Hiroshima and Nagasaki !!!

      I agree with the comment on everything except the quote. I doubt very much that the Japanese command was so scared that 2 more cities were gone - for the beginning of August 1945 this is an ordinary event !. Staying (albeit 1,5 minutes) on the roof of block 3 taught me to read about skepticism about
      stone age with mutants and radioactive desert
      ... I will refer to someone else's wise idea that "at the beginning of the 20th century, anarchists were the headache of governments, now their role is successfully performed by the green."
      The question of the role of AB and the USSR in the victory over Japan in 1945 has already been dealt with in this year. And I did not see big objections to the decisive role of the USSR.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 10 November 2014 18: 21
        0
        Quote: 97110
        I agree with the comment on everything except the quote. I doubt very much that the Japanese command was so scared that 2 more cities were gone - for the beginning of August 1945 this is an ordinary event !.
        I think that nuclear weapons are not so much a threat to Japan as a whole threat to the ruling elite personally ... Before the invention of nuclear weapons at any aerial raids, the elite (presidents, prime ministers, general secretaries, Fuhrer, emperors) and their environment were always in guaranteed safety - after explosions that destroyed whole cities from now on nobody guaranteed them this security ... And they were well aware of this !!!
        It is likely that after Nagasaki, the next target would be the Imperial Palace in Kyoto !!! With the physical destruction of the core of power in Japan, there would be a paralysis of power and chaos in the country - which the Americans would naturally take advantage !!!
        And who in the 45th in Japan really knew how many nuclear charges there are in America 2? maybe 10? maybe 100?
        If, for example, America has 100 charges, then the main infrastructure of Japan is destroyed at once - ports, airfields, bridges, strategic plants ... And who will fight what and then? A crowd of samurai with sticks against tanks and machine gunners?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2014 18: 39
          +2
          Quote: Selevc
          Before the invention of nuclear weapons at any aerial raids, the elite (presidents, prime ministers, general secretaries, Fuhrer, emperors) and their environment were always in guaranteed safety

          You are ABSOLUTELY wrong. American bomber aircraft wiped out a city cleaner than an atomic bomb. In this regard, the use of edrenbaton did not surpass their conventional carpet bombing.
          1. Selevc
            Selevc 10 November 2014 18: 46
            0
            Of course, I erased it completely agree with you - the same bombardment of Dresden in terms of the number of victims and destruction is quite comparable with the use of nuclear weapons !!! But never a single bombardment destroyed the elite of the country - although attempts to reach Hitler himself were made more than once ...
            I think that in the case of Japan, the fear factor also worked out - mass raid is one thing - at least you can somehow fight this, train the civil defense population, strengthen air defense ... And another thing - one plane flew in broad daylight, one bomb fell - and the city is gone, along with thousands of citizens ... It's somehow wild, not by the rules or something, and probably it was hard to believe then ... And it is not clear how to deal with it?
            Vobschem America and so already almost won, and then there is such a big trump card in his hands !!!
            1. Cristall
              Cristall 10 November 2014 23: 39
              0
              Quote: Selevc
              And another thing - one plane flew in broad daylight, one bomb fell - and there was no city with thousands of citizens.

              here I will correct a little - the first time yes
              The second one was cloud cover (it saved the original target)
              Yes, and 10 meters all the same ... outside the air defense zone.
              Although I do not strongly believe that nuclear weapons demoralized the Japanese. Just carpet - slow methodical destruction - much more demoralizing.
              And the Japanese, like the Germans, are a very disciplined people. No panic. Emperor is everything. Life is nothing. Until the emperor said, Enough, there was no general panic.
              Yes, and many did not believe ... over on the islands, sometimes for so many years they fought without knowing the end of the war.
    3. Alex
      Alex 10 November 2014 17: 27
      +2
      Quote: Selevc
      Not so much the USSR bestowed victory on Amers as Hiroshima and Nagasaki

      Pretty strong. Now, after so many years of mutual nuclear blackmail (sorry, the "policy of nuclear deterrence"), nuclear weapons have become synonymous with the "fat polar fox" to the whole world. In 1945, even the Americans did not really understand what they had created. In any case, wherever I read it, the atomic filling was spoken of as "a new, incredibly powerful explosive." Accordingly, opponents perceived him the same way. After the bombing of Japanese cities by the Americans, it was problematic to even select slightly damaged targets for testing new weapons. So what if a couple of cities, in addition to a couple of hundred, were wiped off the face of the earth? Japan in general was preparing for a war of annihilation, both itself and the Americans. And about radioactive contamination, mutations, nuclear winter and in general only after these bombings it became known.
  13. wild
    wild 10 November 2014 08: 39
    +1
    What are the author for many years? You probably forgot Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States would simply bomb all of Japan into the Stone Age with mutants and a radioactive desert. Because they did everything right.
  14. Nagaibak
    Nagaibak 10 November 2014 08: 51
    +6
    The second one. Received South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Thousands of Soviet troops were killed during the capture and infrastructure was destroyed, although the USSR could have withdrawn without fighting. Japan considered the possibility of offering Moscow these islands in exchange for mediation in concluding a peace treaty with the United States. If the Soviet Union did this, it would have received exactly the same thing, but there would have been no dispute over the South Kuril Islands now, and many people would have survived.
    1. I did not want to comment on this nonsense. But even from the point of view of a simple layman, it is clear NOBODY GIVES ANYTHING FOR FREE.))) WHAT THE JAPANESE CONSIDERED THERE? Transfer of land?)))) Author! Get down to the ground immediately !!! If it were not for us there would have been 99,9 percent of the commercials.))) And their bases would have stood there. I read somewhere that before the war, our admirals complained to Stalin that the Kuril Islands controlled by the Japanese keep our Pacific Fleet in a mousetrap. Stalin answered them, "Wait ... you will have the Kuril Islands!" That is, the leadership of the USSR understood that the Kuril problem had to be solved. And it would be solved sooner or later.
    2. Regarding infrastructure.))) Well, okay, there is South Sakhalin.))) There was a good infrastructure. But where the author found a drop dead Japanese infrastructure in the Kuril Islands, one can only guess.)))
    "The value of South Sakhalin and the Kuriles in the eyes of the Japanese government was incomparably less than the value of Korea, which Tokyo still hoped to preserve."
    3. The value of these lands is such that the Japanese still bite their elbows, and whine to our type - at least return the southern Kuril Islands.)))
    1. avt
      avt 10 November 2014 09: 17
      +7
      Quote: Nagaibak
      1. I did not want to comment on this nonsense

      It’s quite a liberal nonsense, a kind of continuation - if it weren’t for Stalin, then under the Germans they would have long been drinking Bavarian beer with sausages.
      Quote: Nagaibak
      . But even from the point of view of a simple layman, it is understandable that NO ONE GIVES ANYTHING FOR FREE.))) WHAT THE JAPANESES HAVE CONSIDERED FOR YOU? Transfer of land?)))) Author! Get down to the ground immediately !!!

      The author is quite ripe for horse racing, but not even around the hippodrome, but only on the spot. Specifically on the Kiev Maidan. There, too, the hedgehog dib ... the clever guys are jumping with hope straight along Bender - ,, Be brave! Abroad will help us! "They will give everything straight, especially money and no return. laughing
      Quote: JIaIIoTb
      An article from the category: "It was necessary to capitulate to the fascists, they would have saved many lives."

      good Note - as soon as the liberal theory triumphs in the minds of people, blood immediately begins to flow and people die worse than under tyrants. Just some cannibals, packed in a nice little verbiage about "human rights", which did not prevent the same Gaidar from declaring that there are a lot of people for Russia, 89 million would be enough - Hitler is resting!
      Quote: pinecone
      Perhaps independent Manchuria could have been preserved by transforming it into a People’s Democratic Republic

      You will be very surprised - their first secretary of Manchuria asked to be included in the USSR as a union republic. And Stalin thought for a long time. It was not in vain that Mao came to Moscow and for a long time could not get in before clear eyes. laughing - sat in the waiting room. However, it did not grow together, as it did with Greater Azerbaijan, although in both cases everything was ready. What prevented ??? I don’t know, but apparently the risks were very high and not only because of the lack of nuclear weapons - the war did not pass in vain and he did not dive from the fire and dive into the fire.
      1. Cristall
        Cristall 10 November 2014 23: 41
        0
        Quote: avt
        The author is quite ripe for racing, but not even around the hippodrome, but only on the spot. Specifically on the Kiev Maidan. There, too, the hedgehog dib ... the clever guys are jumping with hope straight along Bender - ,, Be brave! Abroad will help us! "They will give everything straight, especially money and no return

        pliz well, at least in these topics do not drag Ukraine then ... a cry of the soul somehow ..
        Themes are rare, where you rest from her .. no, and here she is ..
  15. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 10 November 2014 08: 53
    +5
    An article from the category: "It was necessary to capitulate to the fascists, they would have saved many lives."
  16. pinecone
    pinecone 10 November 2014 08: 57
    +4
    Perhaps, independent Manchuria could have been preserved by transforming it into a people's democratic republic, and the young and complaisant "emperor" Pu Yi brought to the USSR, returned home and made him a nominal president for a while. Small, he was completely harmless, and everyone had to change his uniform for a jacket.
    wink
    1. Pelican
      Pelican 10 November 2014 20: 52
      0
      Thought about it too. Strategic mistake!
  17. Cristall
    Cristall 10 November 2014 09: 24
    +4
    I do not agree with the author.
    The USSR was bound by an agreement with the Allies. It was true that they fought together-and fulfill the obligations to the end Pull as allies with 2 front ?? I see no reason - and so they fought for 4 years. Based on that high moral and fighting spirit, our army defeated the Kwantung Army - would it make sense to wait until such training is forgotten?
    The author hints that China is allegedly not so happy - well, these are problems with China. They flirted with him, and the war with Japan has nothing to do with it.
    The Kwantung Army is Japan's last and largest reserve. As long as it existed, war made sense. After the defeat, there were no more reserves and there was no where to run. The USA from the sea, the USSR from land and islands - everything .. Japan in a trap.
  18. DesToeR
    DesToeR 10 November 2014 09: 55
    0
    So a new redivision of the world is just around the corner. And God forbid that he does not touch us.

    And how can you remake the world without Russia? What to share in this world without 1/6 of land and 70% of natural resources?
  19. Gardamir
    Gardamir 10 November 2014 09: 58
    0
    One more point is not given here, as the main one seems to me. The Soviet Union promised to support the Allies in exchange for opening a second front. The USSR fulfilled its promise. Well, as modern history has shown, the West never fulfills its promises.
  20. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 10 November 2014 10: 11
    +1
    In my opinion, the War was needed as a revenge for 1905. ...
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 10 November 2014 11: 57
      +2
      Robert Nevsky "In my opinion, the War was needed as a Revenge for 1905."
      Of course, the topic of revenge was present in the decision of the Soviet leadership.))) But the topic of security still prevailed.
      Here is what I.V. Stalin
      "True, Japanese attacks in the area of ​​Khasan and Khalkhin Gol were liquidated by Soviet troops, with great disgrace for the Japanese. The Japanese military intervention of 1918-22 was also successfully eliminated, and the Japanese invaders were thrown out of the regions of our Far East. But the defeat of the Russian troops in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese war, it left heavy memories in the minds of the people. It fell on our country as a black spot. Our people believed and waited that the day would come when Japan would be defeated and the spot would be eliminated. For forty years we, people of the old generation, of this day. And now, this day has come. Today, Japan has declared itself defeated and signed the act of unconditional surrender.
      This means that southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands will depart to the Soviet Union and from now on they will serve not as a means of tearing the Soviet Union from the ocean and the base of the Japanese attack on our Far East, but as a means of direct communication of the Soviet Union with the ocean and the base of our country's defense against Japanese aggression .
      Our Soviet people spared no effort and labor in the name of victory. We have gone through difficult years. But now each of us can say: we won. From now on, we can consider our homeland free from the threat of German invasion in the west and Japanese invasion in the east. Long-awaited peace has come for the peoples of the whole world. "
      I congratulate you, my dear compatriots and compatriots, with a great victory, with the successful end of the war, with the onset of world peace!
  21. 23424636
    23424636 10 November 2014 10: 20
    0
    Stalin owned the keys to the world order and did not give them to anyone, and this whole mess with the return of Port Arthur and other Chinese concessions is the lack of statehood in the minds of his receivers.
  22. kelevra
    kelevra 10 November 2014 10: 22
    0
    Since I myself study hard history, I can agree with a lot of the author! The fact that the Yankees helped their victims, to the point, did not need to help them, maybe now they would not teach history in their schools, where it says that World War II The Americans won. About the next section, the only true thing is that there are steps towards a peaceful settlement. Until then, and before any clashes, it may still take 100 years. I think that he is wrong about communism in Asia. We, roughly speaking, received almost the whole of Europe with social countries that were loyal to us, this part of the world was more important to us! But if that war was needed with Japan, who knows, then we did not live and we don’t really know the world situation and the real reasons, apparently in that the moment was impossible in a different way! Not everything that we see has goals that actions can be aimed at. An elementary example. Meeting of the presidents, they do not solve anything, they just sit in front of the cameras and smile, and for them, them representatives, attachés and ministers have already signed everything and agreed on everything! it’s politics, it’s all so established, so many aspects are not visible to us and not always clear to us!
    1. user
      user 10 November 2014 11: 58
      0
      But if that war was needed with Japan, who knows, then we did not live and do not really know the world situation and the real reasons, apparently at that moment it was impossible otherwise! Not everything that we see has those goals for which actions can be directed.


      It's like with the DPR and LPR, very little time will pass and a bunch of specialists will appear who will explain to us "stupid" that everything could have been done differently and better. Only this will be later and where are these specialists now a big question, this is how history is written, it is usually written by the last of the living participants (living witness) of events (lying on the couch is always more comfortable than at the Donetsk airport, they usually live longer) ...
  23. Georg Shep
    Georg Shep 10 November 2014 10: 29
    +1
    If the Japanese then seriously offered the USSR to return our original territories - the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin, then there would be no war with them. This is unambiguous. And so it was all about the case - they didn’t want for good, get for good.
  24. Ross
    Ross 10 November 2014 10: 37
    0
    Quote: smerx24
    Not everything is as simple as it seems. I think that this decision was still balanced and (at that time) necessary. Although now it can be challenged. IMHO.

    The author forgets that this issue was agreed and resolved between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at one of the international conferences long before entering the war (I don’t remember exactly in 1943 or a little later).
  25. Bakht
    Bakht 10 November 2014 10: 45
    +2
    Can the author show any document that the Japanese agreed to give something back? Where does this information come from? The entry of the USSR into the war against Japan was agreed in Yalta. And there was a strong bargain. In exchange for the entry of the war against Japan, the States did not rely much on the borders of Poland. Everything must be considered in totality. The main thing was not the question of Japan, but the question of Poland. The USSR promised to enter the war. And ... what a surprise .... Stalin clearly fulfilled his obligations. Is always. Such a strange character trait was with the dictator.

    As a result, the USSR received Sakhalin (no one was going to give it up for nothing), the Kuril Islands. By the way, the States then signed an agreement that ALL Kuril Islands belong to the USSR. But the States cannot be trusted, and after 5 years they announced that 4 islands were not being considered. But the Potsdam Agreements clearly say "the entire Kuril ridge goes to the USSR."

    Well, China. How can you forget about China. Without the USSR, now in the Far East would be not modern China, but the Kuomintang. And US military bases throughout the Far East. Is it necessary, modern Russia?

    Instead of conducting revisionist studies, I must say thanks to our grandfathers that now throughout the Far East there is economically strong China (which is not very pleasant, but tolerant), and not a hostile China. And to whom would the Russian Federation sell gas now?

    The article is a big and fat minus.
    1. Nikolav
      Nikolav 10 November 2014 11: 31
      +1
      My father-in-law would be upset if he found out that in vain he carried out Stalin's orders and liberated South Sakhalin, and then for many years restored its "destroyed" structure. In short, he lived his life in vain. Incorrect point of view.
  26. xtur
    xtur 10 November 2014 11: 02
    0
    The article raises rather interesting questions that should be answered. Indeed, at first glance, after entering the war with Japan, the USSR, by its own efforts, achieved what would be to get American troops in Japan, and this is no better than preserving the Japanese regime at that time

    That is, everything looks so that the Soviet Union in general, it would be more profitable to imitate a war with Japan and expect a full exhaustion of US forces in this war. Judging by Sudoplatov’s memoirs, the USSR knew exactly how many atomic bombs the United States could produce in one year, and how many there were after the bombing of Japan. That is, the USSR could quite calmly calculate the entire course of the war between Japan and the United States.

    In such circumstances, the geopolitical benefit of the Soviet Union from entering an active war with Japan and from the defeat of its Kwantung Army is not visible at all
  27. Evgen2x
    Evgen2x 10 November 2014 11: 30
    0
    Author!!! What did you want to say with this article? !!)) this is called a fart in a puddle! Leisurely fabrications, superficial reasoning, I don’t even want to argue and discuss!
  28. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 10 November 2014 11: 39
    +1
    I do not agree with the author. Japan was defeated correctly. On the issue of the post-war structure, one could have acted differently by creating several states. Manchuria, independent of China, East Turkestan, Mongolia, to increase due to Inner Mongolia. But today it is so seen, and then there was its own logic: the USSR supported the Chinese Communists. And everything was fine until Khrushchev ruined everything. He broke a lot of firewood.
  29. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 10 November 2014 11: 44
    +1
    History has no subjunctive mood ... what happened - what happened ...
    Although the author presented one of the interesting points of view. It would be so important now and the World is strong economically and politically conglomerate of states (about 5-6) in the place of modern China and Korea ... and who they would be oriented to ...
  30. Karabanov
    Karabanov 10 November 2014 11: 55
    0
    You have an interesting interpretation ... What are you going to rewrite the story? In this field, we were a little late ... Before you, and I think after, such a pseudo-historian stands a whole regiment ...
  31. Selevc
    Selevc 10 November 2014 12: 37
    +1
    However, upon closer examination, everything becomes not so clear, and tactical acquisitions turn into strategic miscalculations.
    The authors of such statues need to learn to set out a story in English-Saxon !!! The Anglo-Saxons have their own explicit r.p.o.s.e.r. give out as half-victories (examples: Attack of the light cavalry, Vietnam, Crete, Dunkirk) and their half-victories as the greatest victories !!! And as a result of the flows of such an advertising story, an image of invincible Anglo-Saxon power arises !!!
    But in the case of the Soviet past, this is not so - the Finnish War was a failure, and in the Second World War they buried the bodies of the Fritz, and when they got to the Soviet-Japanese War, everything turned out to be bad too - it was necessary not to fight at all !!!
    To say that it was an unnecessary war was like telling the Frenchman that Napoleon had won Austerlitz in vain, just like telling the Germans that Bismarck had unified Germany in vain ... For such speeches said in person in a decent country can be received in the face, only in Russia for some reason, such a fucking buzz is constantly on hearing !!!
  32. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 10 November 2014 12: 39
    0
    Even after the capture of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the American command was not enthusiastic about the continuation of the war. Ahead was a landing on the main Japanese islands (Operation Downfall), in Korea and Manchuria. Only on the islands of the United States could lose from 3 to 5 million soldiers, and in general the war could last until 1947 and even until 1948 - this is estimated by the Americans themselves.

    And here is one subtle point.
    The fact is that the figures of the estimated losses of the United States increased as the document with them went in the direction of Washington. For themselves, the army and the navy calculated 2 options (based on Iwo Jima and Okinawa):
    - 456 people total losses and 000 people. irrevocable - if the operation lasts 109 days;
    - 1 200 000 people. total losses and 267 people. irrevocable - if the battles last 000 days.

    And then political games went on - they began to share the budget. And the army and navy began to gradually inflate the losses in order to grab more funding for themselves and justify the need to continue their development and orders. As a result, absolutely fantastic numbers came to Washington.

    Moreover, such juggling with numbers was considered the norm: in 1942, at a meeting of the commission that was deciding on the financing of naval programs, the commander of the South Dakota aircraft announced that in a recent battle his aircraft shot down 26 enemy aircraft. To a colleague's question after the meeting "Well, you know that there were not so many Japanese"- he answered"I know, but here the question of the further construction of the LC was decided - I simply had no choice".
    1. Cristall
      Cristall 10 November 2014 23: 34
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      in a recent battle, his LC shot down 26 enemy aircraft

      stunned just - some sort of air defense battleship ..
      Although, if the LC would have beaten an aircraft carrier (which is unlikely), it could have attributed even more.
      But I understand his step. With that system, then prove something ..
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 November 2014 14: 29
        0
        Quote: Cristall
        stunned just - some sort of air defense battleship ..
        Although, if the LC would have beaten an aircraft carrier (which is unlikely), it could have attributed even more.
        But I understand his step. With that system, then prove something ..

        In fact, according to modern estimates, Sodak claims 7 or 8 shot down. Ammunition consumption: 890 - 127 mm, 4000 - 40 mm, 3000 - 28 mm and 52000 - 20 mm.

        And yes - this was the first battle of a classic "anti-aircraft battleship" (that is, a post-Washington man with a long-range reinforced MZA). With blackjack and ... that is, with a pair of 127/38 station wagons, American Bofors sockets, a few remaining Chicago pianos and rows of Erlikons.
  33. kig
    kig 10 November 2014 12: 47
    0
    It is all clear now (or we think that everything is clear), but what if the respected author was placed in 1945?
  34. sigdoc
    sigdoc 10 November 2014 13: 25
    0
    The article is complete nonsense!
    The USSR returned the Kuril Islands and with them an ice-free exit to the Pacific Ocean where the main trade routes pass
    The USSR returned the base on the Pacific Ocean Port Arthur,
    USSR returned Sakhalin with proven oil fields
    And do not forget the "Kantokuen", and the Kwantung army did not allow troops to be transferred from the Far East to the western front in the difficult period of 41-42
  35. Tektor
    Tektor 10 November 2014 13: 35
    0
    An article from the category: "Now, if only, if only mushrooms grew in your mouth." It is difficult to imagine what would have happened if history had taken a different path. The States wanted to declare war on us, and prepared several German divisions in Europe. They did not start - only because they needed the troops of the USSR in the war with the yapps.
  36. creep: b
    creep: b 10 November 2014 13: 39
    0
    If the USSR did not help end the war quickly, how many more nuclear bombs would fall on Japan?
    1. Wheel
      Wheel 11 November 2014 01: 56
      0
      Quote: creep out: b
      If the USSR did not help end the war quickly, how many more nuclear bombs would fall on Japan?

      None.
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 11 November 2014 18: 43
        0
        What is such a humanistic judgment based on?
        1. Alex
          Alex 11 November 2014 23: 32
          +1
          Quote: bot.su
          What is such a humanistic judgment based on?

          The complete absence of those in the arsenal of the US Army after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 12 November 2014 00: 54
            0
            If the USSR had not entered the war and the Americans and Japan had a fight dragging on, there would have been a different scenario for the use of nuclear weapons. It would be applied later, but more massively. And, most likely, more correct from a military point of view. Ports would be hit, the destruction of infrastructure with virtually no possibility of recovery - acquaintance with radioactive contamination would take place quickly - made the situation in Japan very sad.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 12 November 2014 15: 39
              0
              Quote: bot.su
              And, most likely, more correct from a military point of view.

              The Yusovtsy did not use nuclear weapons for military purposes; WHO was shown in the HOUSE OF HOUSES in the post-war world.
              Nobody doubted Japan’s defeat, including themselves.
              request
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 13 November 2014 00: 09
                0
                Quote: Cynic
                Yusovtsy used nuclear weapons not for military purposes; WHO was shown in the HOUSE OF HOUSES in the post-war world

                Well this is what it was. We then discuss an alternative reality in which the USSR did not enter the war.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 13 November 2014 08: 23
                  0
                  Quote: bot.su
                  We are discussing an alternative reality in which the USSR did not enter the war.

                  How to say, how to say.
                  In my opinion we are discussing virtual reality .
                  There were no alternatives to enter the war with Japan or not.
                  Is that familiar?

                  hi
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 12 November 2014 15: 36
        0
        Quote: Wheel
        None.

        Well, that was one, only that only the yapes drowned her.
        By the way, not a single Yusovsky ship carrier NW has lived for a long time.
        hi
  37. deman73
    deman73 10 November 2014 14: 27
    0
    everyone imagines themselves to be great strategists and visionaries after the battle of the bygone
  38. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 10 November 2014 15: 54
    0
    Rave. Without the Kuril Islands, and they could have gone to the Amers, we would have received another fleet, locked in the "Bizerte Puddle". The Kuril Islands were needed like bread, and they justified all the sacrifices.
  39. htlernjh
    htlernjh 10 November 2014 16: 31
    +1
    Many more forgot about the bacteriological weapons of the Japanese, which they prepared in their Manchu laboratories. By the way, the encephalitis tick is their invention, because it was not there until 1945. If we had given them time a year or three, it is not known how all this expectation ended ?? !! The enemy must not be given a break. It’s a pity that now we are cautious in Hohland. We had to take Kiev in March, expel Bandera and create conditions for the general Ukrainian elections, which the Russians would most likely win. We will still regret this caution.
  40. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2014 16: 40
    +1
    Moscow’s post-war foreign policy as a whole can be called a failure in many areas, be it Europe, Turkey, Iran or the Far East - each deserves a separate impartial analysis.

    Nuuu, if this is an impartial analysis, then I am Infanta Maria-Teresa.
    Firstly, in 1945 England and the USA were our allies, and it was the dialogue between the USSR and the USA that would define the post-war world. And to "throw" your ally and the superpower, with which later we did not make any sense to negotiate. Roosevelt in Yalta made big concessions to the USSR, and it was still unclear what the new President Truman was.
    Secondly, if the USSR had not entered the war, he would not have had any goodies like Sakhalin or the Kuril Islands. Well, why?
    Thirdly, the statement that the USSR supposedly had to become a mediator for the conclusion of peace between the Japanese and the USA could not be called an epic mega-killing reputation all over the world. Those. after the allies agreed to enter into negotiations with the fascist regimes, suddenly the USSR takes the side of Japan and begins to agree on its salvation with the United States ?! It's just some kind of fairy tale
    Fourth, to recall some kind of Manzhou after the US victory over Japan is generally ... A puppet state on Japanese bayonets and the USSR would protect its interests after the fall of Japan? This is not even fantasy
    1. xtur
      xtur 10 November 2014 17: 04
      0
      > Fourthly, remembering some kind of Manchukuo after the US victory over Japan is generally ... A puppet state on Japanese bayonets and the USSR would have defended its interests after the fall of Japan? It's not even fantasy

      it was enough to bring to the Japanese information that, after Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands and China, the USSR did not plan active military operations with Japan. And then, quite possibly, Japan would have fought with the United States longer. There is nothing wrong with pitting your enemies against each other - and from the point of view of the doctrine prevailing in the USSR, a socialist state could only temporarily be in alliance with a capitalist country. In this case, only during the war with Hitler
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2014 18: 09
        +1
        Quote: xtur
        it was enough to bring to the Japanese information that, after Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands and China, the USSR did not plan active military operations with Japan.

        And what would happen?
        In fact, Japan realized that it had lost long before the Soviet Union entered the war and frantically sought a mediating country to negotiate peace with the United States. But the United States demanded unconditional surrender and did not want to negotiate.
        Then Japan tried to turn to the USSR for mediation. Stalin, esesso, was not led and supported the United States.
        After the accession of the USSR to the war against Japan, the Japanese were no longer with whom to negotiate. There was a meager chance that if the Kwantung army stopped the troops of the USSR, then maybe it would be possible to hold a second round of negotiations ... Or maybe it wasn’t, now you can’t tell.
        In fact, the Japanese did not give in because they were afraid of the Russian invasion of Hokkaido and beyond, but because they had no chance to agree, except to accept the terms of the allies, after refusing to mediate the USSR
        and from the point of view of the doctrine prevailing in the USSR, a socialist state could only temporarily be in alliance with a capitalist country

        This is a false statement.
        1. xtur
          xtur 10 November 2014 18: 52
          0
          > In fact, Japan realized that it had lost long before the USSR entered the war and was frantically looking for an intermediary country to negotiate peace with the United States.

          This is the subject of discussion - whether there were real chances to play cards differently, with greater benefit for the country. It is clear that after the USSR entered the war with Japan and the defeat of the Kwantung Army, all the chances of Japan were reduced to the conditions of surrender. But could it have been organized otherwise?
        2. xtur
          xtur 11 November 2014 11: 22
          0
          > This is not true

          Let's try to approach from the other side.

          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трумэн,_Гарри


          "If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and thus let them kill as many as possible, although I do not want to see Hitler in winners. None of them think about keeping their promises. "
          ("New York Times", 24.06.1941)

          Since this expression of Truman was made in open sources, the chances that it was unknown to Stalin are strictly equal to zero. Actually, even the atomic bombing of Japan could be predicted by Stalin, given the nature of Truman known to him.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 November 2014 15: 09
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In fact, Japan realized that it had lost long before the Soviet Union entered the war and frantically sought a mediating country to negotiate peace with the United States. But the United States demanded unconditional surrender and did not want to negotiate.
          Then Japan tried to turn to the USSR for mediation. Stalin, esesso, was not led and supported the United States.

          The most interesting thing is that the Japanese Foreign Ministry seems to have lived in some kind of world throughout the war. Appeal for mediation to the USSR was just one of the links in this virtual policy. It all started with the fact that in 1943 the Japanese Foreign Ministry offered its mediation in the peace negotiations between the Reich and the USSR. The tricky Japanese plan was that if they mediate between us and the Germans, then the USSR will mediate between the Allies and Japan.
          Everything would be fine and noble ... but the USSR was not going to make peace with the Germans. Especially in 1943.
          But the Japanese were not embarrassed - and, having thrown out the first part of the plan, they immediately switched to the second - the one where the USSR was supposed to mediate between them and the Allies. But the USSR NKID only poorly understood - why did he need all this (after all, the first part of the plan fell through among the Japanese)? And the Japanese had another grandiose plans: in 1944, for example, they wanted to change one of their SRTs for 100 Pe-2 bombers. And they continued to bomb the USSR with requests for mediation.
          Oh yes, it is also worth mentioning that the policy of the Foreign Ministry, the policy of the central apparatus of the army and the policy of the "field commanders" were absolutely independent. And the requests of the Japanese Foreign Ministry for mediation came against the backdrop of incessant provocations on the border with Manchukuo.
          The most interesting thing is that the requests of the Japanese Foreign Ministry for mediation went to the last. They did not stop even when the army wasn’t even there, and the Foreign Ministry itself received information from diplomats about the concentration of forces of 3 fronts.
          It was foolish to hope that such a mass of people and technology had just accumulated at the border. But the Japanese stubbornly lived in captivity of their illusions. They tried for so long to fulfill their plan that they believed in its reality. And until the very day the USSR entered the war, they lived in this virtuality.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          After the accession of the USSR to the war against Japan, the Japanese were no longer with whom to negotiate. There was a meager chance that if the Kwantung army stopped the troops of the USSR, then maybe it would be possible to hold a second round of negotiations ... Or maybe it wasn’t, now you can’t tell.

          By the way, about the entry into the war of the USSR, it is very good to read Japanese memoirs. For the same Horikoshi it was a shock. Not just a shock, but the collapse of a picture of the world, a break in the template. For some reason, the Japanese hoped until the very last that the USSR would mediate - and the blow to the Kwantung army was crushed by them in a moral sense, in a desire to continue the war.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 November 2014 14: 39
        0
        Quote: xtur
        it was enough to bring to the Japanese information that, after Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands and China, the USSR did not plan active military operations with Japan. And then, quite possibly, Japan would have fought with the United States longer.

        It is unlikely. By June 1945, the Japanese metropolis was actually bombed to zero. The B-29 no longer had targets for massive raids.
        The coastal waters were teeming with mines that steamed army and sea flyers.
        The remnants of the Japanese fleet were sunk directly in the base - and not by strategists, but by the airborne control squadron of American air forces.
        Armada TF38 / 58 cruised along the coast of the Metropolis. Yes, the kamikazes were inconvenient, but by this time 80% of the American AB air groups were universal fighter-bombers. "Corsairs" and "Hellkets" with NAR and bombs with a frequent crest passed along the coastal zone, storming airfields and even hunting for trains - there were simply not enough targets.
        And in Japan, deprived of sea transport and normal inland transport, famine began, because the islands had long survived due to imports.
        1. xtur
          xtur 12 November 2014 13: 43
          0
          > This is unlikely. By June 1945, the Japanese metropolis was effectively bombed to zero. The B-29 had no targets left for massive raids.

          Americans estimated their losses on the capture of Japan at 500 - 000 people and at 1 year. For the USSR, it would only be beneficial to continue active US military operations. Sakhalin, and the USSR’s Kuril Islands itself, would be taken from the Japanese without asking permission from anyone.
    2. Cristall
      Cristall 10 November 2014 23: 44
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Roosevelt in Yalta made great concessions to the USSR, and what the new president Truman was like was still unclear.

      as for me, Roosevelt impresses me more than Truman.
      I'm only sure, then it was clear what he was. That "hawk" and with an atomic cobblestone and a delivery vehicle.
  41. EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 November 2014 16: 56
    +2
    I don’t even see the point of commenting on this nonsense except for one point, if the Japanese were so ready to give everything, then they would have run to Moscow in the 45, but in reality there were many who wanted to continue the war. Now having won the war and putting a flag on the territories, they are forced to listen to Japanese whining, and in those conditions we would not have been called to any kind of peace talks in the same way. And they would be right. The United States fought with Japan, which means the United States and agree, and the USSR, since he did nothing, in flight.

    Stalin in China is still respected, maybe even more than ours. And in general, why the hell should we take in our zone of influence the state with the largest population on Earth? It is better to build socialism in a single country with its meager resources and market capacity, and then we are surprised that we are merging.

    If it weren’t for the Khrushchev geek, now they would have had a powerful military-economic alliance from which China would not have thought to leave, and now does not dare to think about quarrels with the United States, because the loss of the market will throw it back to the 50s, millions of hungry peasants in rags.
  42. vvp2412
    vvp2412 10 November 2014 17: 16
    +1
    Another liberal nonsense. Like - was it worth it to defend Leningrad !?

    The USSR entered the war with Japan in the summer of 1945, when in fact everything was predetermined. And without the USSR, America would have crushed Japan. Even the use of nuclear bombs was no longer needed strategically. In tactical, yes - accelerated the change by several weeks.

    Bullshit, not an article!
  43. Demon
    Demon 10 November 2014 17: 18
    0
    Quote: smerx24
    Not everything is as simple as it seems. I think that this decision was still balanced and (at that time) necessary. Although now it can be challenged. IMHO.

    I completely agree. Now this war may and may look strange, but now it’s not 1943-1945. Stalin (as if his work was not regarded) was definitely not a fool.
  44. Cynic
    Cynic 10 November 2014 17: 19
    0
    Quote: Igor Kabardin
    That war brought far more problems than good. With undoubted military success, we have a complete political and strategic miscalculation of the Soviet Union.

    The true GAYEROPEETS wrote!
    The fifth column on the march!
    Soon, such instances of Homo at VO will raise the question of the feasibility of a war with the Third Reich! Like why they fought, what a sacrifice!
    Well, what can I say, just repeat GEYEVROPA!
    negative
  45. fvandaku
    fvandaku 10 November 2014 18: 22
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    This article is like Rain's poll about the blockade.
    First, the story does not change.
    Secondly, the USSR had to fulfill allied commitments.
    If there were no second front, then there would be no war with Japan. But today the situation would be simply catastrophic since in China, a pro-American government would sit like what is now sitting in Taiwan. And in China there were as many US bases as there are now in Germany, if not more.


    I completely agree, and yet all the conquests of Stalin were successfully flushed down by the Khrushchev.
  46. srha
    srha 10 November 2014 18: 23
    +1
    The article is provocative. And the call to drag out the world war for 3 years is insanity. To keep the army in a combat, but not operational state, for another three extra years, instead of restoring the national economy — this is how much suffering people would have increased! But in the 47th, the Soviet were able to cancel the cards.
  47. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 10 November 2014 20: 30
    0
    Again, an attempt to revise the results of the Second World War !? Stalin did everything right and acted decisively, without any "if-only", it was also necessary to act in Novorossiya at once.
  48. trenkkvaz
    trenkkvaz 10 November 2014 20: 35
    +2
    The author is looking very strong with a backward mind. :)
    And he talks about America of that time based on the attitude to it in our time.
    He suggests that the USSR stupidly throw its allies, who all the same helped us in the fight against Germany.
    So things are not done!
  49. GREAT RUSSIA
    GREAT RUSSIA 10 November 2014 21: 05
    0
    Interesting. However, why didn’t it write about what would happen if American troops would receive the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin, and it would be so if the USSR did not start a war with Japan. Then I think you and I would read articles about American missile defense systems under our nose. Here's how. I will not offend the author, all the same, he needs to be respected. He expressed his opinion.
  50. Cristall
    Cristall 10 November 2014 23: 50
    0
    history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood (Karamzin)
    But then the fashion is somehow .. alternative. Well, I can also dream up if it weren’t for the death of Makarov Kondratenko, the fatal shell of Vitgeft ... or a little luck with Mikasa ... And to say, the RIAV victory march is just some kind.
    But both the look and the subject matter are interesting.
    Moreover, few people know about the REV (more precisely, the REV). Her study is very short.