- Ok
- Okay… thouhg kinda overepresented
- No. The operation lasted like 2 weeks and the Soviets spend more time plundering and massacring Manchuria than fighting the Japs. Balance would be questionable too.
- Yes, but kinda hot topic in commie and island China.
The Soviets destroyed/captured ~650k Japanese, while the ‘Hollywood’ battles like Iwo Jima only cost Japan ~20k troops, Okinawa ~100k troops, etc.
Manchuria operation is massively underrepresented in media.
"The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not.
After Hiroshima, soldiers were still dug in in the beaches. They were still ready to fight. They wanted to fight. There was one fewer city behind them, but they had been losing cities all summer long, at the rate of one every other day, on average. Hiroshima was not a decisive military event. The Soviet entry into the war was."
20k died. Out of 650k? Wow. What a amount of massive and destructive battles.
The Japs got simply overrun. If the Japs actually fought, the campaign wouldnt have last like 11 days.
Nobody would could call a 11 day campaign between parties with hundrets of thousands of soldiers with low KIA losses massive.
After the declerarion of war of the USSR, soldiers were still dug in the beaches. They were still ready to fight. They wanted to fight
Lol
Except that directly after the bomb(s) fell, the Japanese goverment surrendered (strangely not after the Soviets joined Asia lol). That was the main point of the drops. If their goal was it to kill soldiers/ destroy the high command, why not dropping the nukes over Tokyo or any other major city?
The source states a meeting which was in JUNE 1945 (actually it didnt even state out the year lol), two months before the bombs. So the Japs forecasted the nukes before they were dropped?
And also. No fourth campaign with the Russians. We saw enough of the PPSh.
Why kill all 650k if they surrender? Fact is, 650k less active soldiers.
Iwo Jima had 20k Japanese in total.
Except not really. And it’s not even “Soviet propaganda” asking the questions:
It could not have been Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki occurred in the late morning of Aug. 9, after the Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender, and word of the bombing only reached Japan’s leaders in the early afternoon — after the meeting of the Supreme Council had been adjourned in deadlock and the full cabinet had been called to take up the discussion. Based on timing alone, Nagasaki can’t have been what motivated them.
Hiroshima isn’t a very good candidate either. It came 74 hours — more than three days — earlier. What kind of crisis takes three days to unfold? The hallmark of a crisis is a sense of impending disaster and the overwhelming desire to take action now. How could Japan’s leaders have felt that Hiroshima touched off a crisis and yet not meet to talk about the problem for three days?
I’m not claiming USSR was the sole factor for the Japanese surrender, but the US (and the bombs) wasn’t either (as they love to portray it).
No third campaign with the Americans. We saw enough of the Garand.
Only like I think 5% of those captured returned they did in the Russian POW camps
O, and “Jap’s” is a racial slur in the United States so it’s best to avoid using it
OK, I just cheeked something like 100,000 Japanese prisoners died in Russian POW camps, and Like the German prisoners many were kept until the 1950’s.
Fact is there were no(t many) battles so what should Df do? Invent them? At least Iwo Jima can be used in some kind of island battle campaign with different islands.
Also means that the other factors didnt (really) matter as well as Japan didnt surrender the first time. The source is keep circling around and they seem to prefer the explanation with Allied air raids.
Yeah. Two Garands vs. Four PPShs is the same (and Tunisia is more about the Britians).
Sry for that. Just kinda lazy to write Japanese.
USSR did the heavy lifting in WW2. Deal with it. There should honestly be 10 Eastern Front campaigns per each different one.
I literally speculated about a possible new campaign style with several sides, all of which could be cool and interesting to play with, not sure why you got your panties in a bunch.
Fact is without Allied supplies the incompetent Soviet command , the Soviets couldnt have done shit after 1942.
(Now something which is ACTUALLY related to the game)
NOBODY wanna play 10 campaigns with the same damn nation(s) except some Soviet mains and commie ants. Same goes playing the Germans for the fifth time to a point where only Stalingrad and Normandy have enough Germans while the Axis in Berlin, Africa and partly Moscow get sealclubbed.
Manchuria is both boring, unbalanced and after three “maps” we would get “fanatasy” maps where there were no fights at all.
Both the United Kingdom and the US were used like 1,5 times (UK guns and premium tanks but no free squad and a low amount of US squads and guns in Africa compared to the UK).
Also by looking at the frequent demands for Western Allied campaigns in Asia compared to the rather low amount amount of demands for the one or two Soviet operations in the Far East… the market wins I guess.
1 Like
Wow thank you for your expert analysis. I’m sure you have a PhD in Soviet command and decision making on each front. /s
You still need to attack, kill and die to get that 80% of total German losses.
Let me guess, you are looking at the English speaking ‘demands’?
Well let me surprise you, the non-English speaking playerbase couldn’t care less about Iwo Jimas and Burmas by the most part.
Great quote from another thread:
Personally I would take Kursk, Leningrad, Sevastopol, Karelia, Caucasus and Koenigsberg over anything like Pacific or France any day, be it campaigns, sub-campaigns or maps.
Boring? lol I would take just as well Manchuria because it’s underrepresented and appealing to me over any US/UK campaign. I am like level 7 on all factions of Normandy and Tunisia because I just don’t care - here’s a clear example for you.
But at the same time, once again, I’m speculating about a campaign with several factions involved - and once again idk why you got your panties in a bunch about that.
Don’t like the idea? Don’t endorse it.
I like it.
This is a GREAT IDEA.
This would also bring more players from U.S, Australia and Asian countries to servers, it would be easy to market and it would kind of “complete” the whole WWII section for a long time, by thus allowing the developers to expand/ deepen the already existing campaigns with new maps, details, more space in the maps, more units, paratroopers and so on.
However, before implementing Japan VS U.S/ Britain, I would really like to see additional maps on the Stalingrad, for example these four suggestions implemented:
- Crane Elevator.
- Tractor Factory.
- Underground Stalingrad - Meaning the vast water networks, cellars connected and so on where fighting was just… Out of this world brutal? This could also be the first/ only map where planes/ tanks would be more or less useless, a fun break away from that.
- Stalingrad Outskirts.
- Thank you.
I have to correct this, as this is misleading. There is no conclusive evidence that points to the atomic bombs or the Russian invasion caused the Japanese military and Emperor Hirohito to surrender, as the transcripts for those meetings are inconclusive at best. However, what we do know for sure is which one of those two convinced the Japanese public to stop, that being the atomic bomb. In Emperor Hirohito’s speech calling for the surrender of Japan in August 14th, 1945 (linked below), he goes out of his way to credit bring up the atomic bomb as the reason he ordered the military to stand down, but he only mentions the Soviets once, and that is when he lists off all the countries Japan is communicating with to coordinate the surrender. Not once does he mention the Russian invasion of Manchuria. Thus, while you can argue that the atomic bombs may not have convinced the Japanese military to surrender, you cannot argue that the atomic bombs did not convince Japan to surrender, as Hirohito’s speech was the thing that convinced the population to stand down, and when the population stood down, the country effectively stood down.
Soldiers without food, proper logisic (trucks, trains, railways blablabla), proper cloth, proper fuel etc. are useless. Thats(one of) the main reason why the Soviets failed the Winter War and got ass kicked by the Jerries in the first two years of Barbarossa. Similiar reason why the German warmachine collapsed in Russia and North Africa or why the Ital Itals lost basically all campaigns without the help of Germany.
Or like nowadays in Ukraine lol
Why should we give a crap about the Russians who are too stupid/ ignorant to learn/ write (in) English? I know its kinda hard for motherland Russia, but there are other nations apart from Russia and English is spoken by like how many people vs. how many people are speaking Russian or any similar language?
And of course the Russians don’t give a crap, but again sadly… most people outside of Russia don’t wanna play Russia for the 10th time (not only because someone has to play AGAINST Russia as well). Df can give the Russians what they want, but then everyone who is not brainwashed enough to be excited to play Russia for the 10th time is either going to leave the game or just sticking with the old campaigns while the ass-boring ehhh glorious and totally interesting and completely new Eastern Front campaigns are going to have entire bot-only teams on the German side liek Berlin . And the Russian players are not necessary known for buying stuff since iirc they favored this fremium crap over “buy it once and thats it”.
I dont know but that sounds boring. The same stuff, the same sides… you are either addicted to copium or just a commie ant/ tankie consoomer parody.
Well, commie. YOU started this and all that because I made a nasty comment about the Soviet plunder… ehhh glorious liberation of Manchuria, which forced you to come with the nukes of the Yankees for no reason, starting this redundant whataboutism to prove… idk that the plunder… eh glorious liberation of Manchuria was soo important blablabla
How dare I to insult glorious motherland Russia.?
Apparently the world is bigger and more diverse than motherland Russia and most people don’t wanna play lazy copy-paste campaign to a point where you could call this the definition of insanity. I don’t care what the Russians think, unless they are ready to write in English and leave their safe subforum safe spaces… or at least take woody into their gulags.
But well… such a low level of expectation for a new campaign…
Damn bro you ok? Try writing that about some people of color minority instead of the Russians and you’re cancelled in 3 2 1.
Or at least ask your wife’s boyfriend to help you calm down or something.
Do you even history? lol
The USSR got the territory it wanted, the reparations and a treaty where Finland accepts its aggression - that’s called winning the war.
Germany lost so much men and equipment during summer-fall of 1941, let alone was stopped and counterattacked in winter, that only a complete novice would call that “ass kicking for 2 years”.
Because there are more opinions and languages in the world than you are accustomed to seeing.
Educate yourself to respect the opinions of others.
No. I suggested an idea where everyone could play the allied faction they like without mentioning you. Yet you arived, the supreme judge of all ideas apparently, with your all-important “NO”.
Literally, stop being toxic educate yourself and at least take a look at English (!) wikipedia:
The Soviet entry into the war and the defeat of the Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese government’s decision to surrender unconditionally, as it became apparent that the Soviet Union had no intention of acting as a third party in negotiating an end to hostilities on conditional terms.
Go away now and learn manners.
How is this misleading though?
It was most likely the combination of all: American bombings throughout the summer of 1945, Soviet entry to the front with no further chance for Stalin to act as a mediator, swift loss of Manchuria, Sakhalin and Kuril islands and the Kwantung army, as well as the threat of simultaneous naval invasion from two sides by US and USSR, and then the nukes - this was all too much to handle for Japan now, probably.
And I think the Foreign Policy article makes good points that the narrative of the nuclear bombing being the sole decicive factor is at best not painting the bigger picture.
Its about your USSR-simping and well… if the Russians are not too ignorant to leave their safe-space and writing in English and share their opinion with us… they should just do it and proof me that I am wrong… but
“Winning”… also some sort of winning I guess where you lose 250k soldiers and 2k tanks in a war against a nation with like a 6-times smaller army and even less tanks.
And you think the Soviets would have been able to counteratack and feeding their people without Western aid?
Hey, you proposed that we should (mainly) focus on the Russians. The Non-Russian community is… let’s say kinda (a lot) bigger though and well… I don’t see that many people demanding Manchuria (in fact like two or three, let alone having another USSR vs. Germany campaign (or any other campaign with one of those nations)) compared to people who wanna have Pacific or Commonwealth campaigns. Market wins unless the Russian community is the vast majority of the Enlisted players, which I doubt.
So much for reading.
It’s just about the illogical whataboutism you started, which doesn’t make the campaign better or worse in terms of amount of battles, balance or… more interesting for anyone except USSR simps. Not about the idea of Manchuria itself.
And that is important for the balance, the low interest outside the Russian community or the amount of battle maps again, because?
Go away and learn the basic rules of the market… and play any other existing campaign which isnt about the glorious motherland.
2 Likes
Repeat after me: " ̶I̶ ̶a̶m̶ ̶r̶a̶c̶i̶s̶t̶ " I mean “English speaking platforms don’t represent the entire playerbase, be it Russian, Chinese, Indian or Latino”
They did defeat Finland. Another PhD of yours, cool story bro. reee win don’t count if not annex all country
What is wrong with yall Finlandboos thinking a side needs to lose less men in order to win the war…
It was a shitty victory but it was a victory, no one in their right mind doubts that.
That’s how wars are won.
And got their asses kicked again then and again gave land and paid reparations. 2/2.
That’s what they did lmao, first significant western aid didn’t arrive until after the battle for Moscow.
Wrong. I proposed that the potential Pacific campaign have Japan fight US, UK and USSR.
Go away now and read the Moscow Peace Treaty (1940), the Paris Peace Treaty (1947) and learn how to not be racist.