It must be that The Munich Treaty never happened in this universe.

And making discipline of your army stronger didn't save lives of your people? Only then you are truly a saviour, when you're spilling others' blood, riiiight.

I never made mention if this was wrong or right. I only was saying that the troops were fighting for Stalin - his wishes that they would die one way or another. I think Stalin should have done things much differently. After all, he was responsible for the death of many of his troops much like Hitler was responsible for very stupid mistakes during the war. Had Stalin not of purged the army of leaders and 25,000 NCO's, Barbarossa would have went much different.

You are right, the Soviets always won through overwhelming force and numbers but it was in 1943 and after that they become a much better fighting force. They had better guns, more tanks and better tactics and such.

My friend please stop it, i know you are way smarter than this.  You're telling me if Stalin did allow the soldiers to decide wether to fight or not, they would choose not to fight?  its crazy. most of the red army soldiers knew that it was necessary to defeat the nazis because otherwise they would be enslaved.  Stalin knew that Nazis had to be defeated at any cost so he made those harsh laws where every young men have to fight the nazis. there is a saying "It takes a stalin to defeat a hitler"

Thing is, Stalin nearly lost to Hitler. If Hitler was intelligent, and had taken the advice of his leadership, Stalin would have lost during Barbarossa, as Hitler would have made it to the A-A line. Hitler sent a million troops into a tactically unsound city (Stalingrad). Likewise, Stalingrad became a meat grinder which helped turn the tide not due to Stalin's brilliance, but Soviet deserters looking to survive. Hitler made blunder after blunder that no other military leader would have allowed. The only advantage Stalin had was that he began to differ to his generals once he understood that his military strategies were piss-poor.

Additionally, there is a difference between offering them death upon retreat, and proper military police. Or do you not know that? Its not like every other army in WW2 had similar problems. The difference was that instead of shooting them, they were jailed. That would have likely been as effective without being as egregious.

Again, reality is that almost any Russian leader could have defeated Hitler more easily if they didn't take on the stupid decisions Stalin did. Germany faced an atrocious, unprepared, poorly-armed army. There is a reason the Soviets lost 7 million troops in the war, while every other Western army fared far better - because Stalin and his preparedness was nothing short of inept. Go read up, and I mean really read up on Barbarossa. There is a reason that the Axis powers defeated the Soviets 10:1 in that phase of the war: because Stalin was absolutely stupid. Compare those figures when Gregory Zhukov was given the theater and the ratio plummets to 2:1 or 1:1 even, as during the Battle of Berlin, because Stalin gave power to his generals (quite possibly the only positive thing Stalin did in the war).

General Zhukov should be credited with the Soviet successes rather than Stalin

No they don't.  Most hisotrians argue that a blockaide would of killed WAY more people forcing Japan into mass starvation and killing millions who were only saved from starvation by the US rapidly putting together a systematic food distribution system in Japan.

Unless you mean to the buildings.   There would of been less damage to the buildings.

They generally believe this, because... well right after the surrender the US rapidly put into place a MASSIVE food distribution system that saved millions of lives.

That and because Japan only surrendered AFTER the second bomb and after a tortured american pilot lied and told them the US had way more atomic bombs.

The leaders of the Japanese Cabinent that served in the military pretty much all wanted to keep fighting and there was an extreme deadlock preventing surrender until then.

This is generally backed up by eyewitness accounts and at least two members of the Japanese Peace Coalition saying "The atomic bombs were a gift from heaven".

Think how bad a situation is, that you not only accept the atomic bombings but are THANKFULL for them.   That was the political and economic situatuion of Japan back then.

It was more of a want to save American lives, which would have been lost encase of a direct invasion - US wanted a swift end to the war to prevent Russians getting there in time to share the glory of toppling the Japanese empire, they had two options - swift landing which would result in hundreds of thousands of americans dead or using unjustified and irresponsible methods such as the WMDs, Japanese fleet generals and such were of a mind to surrender to the US after the loss of both the gained ground and the islands closer to Japan, not all granted, but many were on the verge of accepting humiliation rather than annihilation, they knew they were outmatched, although it is a great shame to surrender in that culture, a few months of utter starvation would have done the trick.

If you think using WMD's under the justification that they "wanted to save lives" on LIVE people and damaging future generations - many of whom are still born with disfigurements, I really can't believe you. Radiation poisoning is probably one of the worst ways to die, and many have perished as a result of it - those who were wiped out immediately would be the lucky ones compared to the shit that the ones that survived had to go through.

I still persist that the main reason they've used that was to see what effect it would have on live, human subjects.

however you fail to answer the question, if Japan was eager to surrender explain the hell that was Okinawa?