NationStates Jolt Archive

This appeared in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) today. I thought it was an interesting article about how we have been marginalising one our most desicive allies of WWII especially in the D-Day commemorations and other similar things.


Saving Private Ivan

Remember Normandy's heroes - but also that the Red army played the decisive role in defeating Nazi Germany

The decisive battle for the liberation of Europe began 60 years ago this month when a Soviet guerrilla army emerged from the forests and bogs of Belorussia to launch a bold surprise attack on the mighty Wehrmacht's rear.
The partisan brigades, including many Jewish fighters and concentration-camp escapees, planted 40,000 demolition charges. They devastated the vital rail lines linking German Army Group Centre to its bases in Poland and Eastern Prussia.

Three days later, on June 22 1944, the third anniversary of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, Marshal Zhukov gave the order for the main assault on German front lines. Twenty-six thousand heavy guns pulverised German forward positions. The screams of the Katyusha rockets were followed by the roar of 4,000 tanks and the battle cries (in more than 40 languages) of 1.6 million Soviet soldiers. Thus began Operation Bagration, an assault over a 500-mile-long front.

This "great military earthquake", as the historian John Erickson called it, finally stopped in the suburbs of Warsaw as Hitler rushed elite reserves from western Europe to stem the Red tide in the east. As a result, American and British troops fighting in Normandy would not have to face the best-equipped Panzer divisions.

But what American has ever heard of Operation Bagration? June 1944 signifies Omaha Beach, not the crossing of the Dvina River. Yet the Soviet summer offensive was several times larger than Operation Overlord (the invasion of Normandy), both in the scale of forces engaged and the direct cost to the Germans.

By the end of summer, the Red army had reached the gates of Warsaw as well as the Carpathian passes commanding the entrance to central Europe. Soviet tanks had caught Army Group Centre in steel pincers and destroyed it. The Germans would lose more than 300,000 men in Belorussia alone. Another huge German army had been encircled and would be annihilated along the Baltic coast. The road to Berlin had been opened.

Thank Ivan. It does not disparage the brave men who died in the North African desert or the cold forests around Bastogne to recall that 70% of the Wehrmacht is buried not in French fields but on the Russian steppes. In the struggle against Nazism, approximately 40 "Ivans" died for every "Private Ryan". Scholars now believe that as many as 27 million Soviet soldiers and citizens perished in the second world war.

Yet the ordinary Soviet soldier - the tractor mechanic from Samara, the actor from Orel, the miner from the Donetsk, or the high-school girl from Leningrad - is invisible in the current celebration and mythologisation of the "greatest generation".

It is as if the "new American century" cannot be fully born without exorcising the central Soviet role in last century's epochal victory against fascism. Indeed, most Americans are shockingly clueless about the relative burdens of combat and death in the second world war. And even the minority who understand something of the enormity of the Soviet sacrifice tend to visualise it in terms of crude stereotypes of the Red army: a barbarian horde driven by feral revenge and primitive Russian nationalism. Only GI Joe and Tommy are seen as truly fighting for civilised ideals of freedom and democracy.

It is thus all the more important to recall that - despite Stalin, the NKVD and the massacre of a generation of Bolshevik leaders - the Red army still retained powerful elements of revolutionary fraternity. In its own eyes, and that of the slaves it freed from Hitler, it was the greatest liberation army in history. Moreover, the Red army of 1944 was still a Soviet army. The generals who led the breakthrough on the Dvina included a Jew (Chernyakovskii), an Armenian (Bagramyan), and a Pole (Rokossovskii). In contrast to the class-divided and racially segregated American and British forces, command in the Red army was an open, if ruthless, ladder of opportunity.

Anyone who doubts the revolutionary elan and rank-and-file humanity of the Red army should consult the extraordinary memoirs of Primo Levi (The Reawakening) and KS Karol (Between Two Worlds). Both hated Stalinism but loved the ordinary Soviet soldier and saw in her/him the seeds of socialist renewal.

So, after George Bush's recent demeaning of the memory of D-day to solicit support for his war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've decided to hold my own private commemoration.

I will recall, first, my Uncle Bill, the salesman from Columbus, hard as it is to imagine such a gentle soul as a hell-for-leather teenage GI in Normandy. Second - as I'm sure my Uncle Bill would've wished - I will remember his comrade Ivan.

The Ivan who drove his tank through the gates of Auschwitz and battled his way into Hitler's bunker. The Ivan whose courage and tenacity overcame the Wehrmacht, despite the deadly wartime errors and crimes of Stalin. Two ordinary heroes: Bill and Ivan. Obscene to celebrate the first without also commemorating the second.

· Mike Davis teaches American history at the University of California at Irvine and is an editor New Left Review; his latest book is Dead Cities

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1236209,00.html

I posted on this a few days ago, in fact I specifically explained the significance of the Belorussian Offensive in the war. Sadly, this is forgotten history, even though the other allied leaders of the days spoke of how much they owed to the Soviet efforts.

The West fought with divisions, the East with Army Groups. There is a stark disparity of scale. But it all got buried the moment the Cold War broke out, because the assistance and achievements of the new enemy could no longer be uttered.

Interesting, but this does not change my respect for the men of D Day. Especially because I am American.

I never realised that it had already been posted :oops:

It is regretable that this History has been forgotten due the two superpowers era.

To Cotton is King: You are not being asked to change your respect for the D-Day soldiers (by which I assume you mean lessen). But to acknowledge the Soviet soldiers role and the great sacrifices and achievements they made in the same war at the same time. Being American should have nothing to do with it, all cultures and nationalities should know when to acknowledge such a strong and staunch ally.

No-one is asking that. Just saying that Americans and British weren't the only people to die in WW2.

I didn't post that exact article, but I linked to and quoted some relevant stuff.

The forgotten history is, after the Siberian Divisions counter-attack under Moscow, then Stalingrad, Kursk, and the 10 Offensives of 1944, Germany was toast. The entire allied effort in Western Europe was equal to two or three of those campaigns.

This great sacrifice and achievement was celebrated by the other Allies, it often made front-page news in British papers. But after the Berlin Airlift, it vanished. It literally became taboo to praise the Soviet Union for anything. Now that we are past all that, we find that half a century of erosion at the hands of the unforgiving forces of time and popular culture have taken place, and none of that ever happened. Somehow, three quarters of the German military and more than 20m Russians have never been.

Now, my grandfather was always upset how the first company he commanded got wiped out without any trace of its existence, and it would be a shame if people were to allow that to be history's official verdict.

Well that's politics for you. The dead will not be honoured unless it is politically expedient.

This appeared in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) today. I thought it was an interesting article about how we have been marginalising one our most desicive allies of WWII especially in the D-Day commemorations and other similar things.


Saving Private Ivan

Remember Normandy's heroes - but also that the Red army played the decisive role in defeating Nazi Germany

The decisive battle for the liberation of Europe began 60 years ago this month when a Soviet guerrilla army emerged from the forests and bogs of Belorussia to launch a bold surprise attack on the mighty Wehrmacht's rear.
The partisan brigades, including many Jewish fighters and concentration-camp escapees, planted 40,000 demolition charges. They devastated the vital rail lines linking German Army Group Centre to its bases in Poland and Eastern Prussia.

Three days later, on June 22 1944, the third anniversary of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, Marshal Zhukov gave the order for the main assault on German front lines. Twenty-six thousand heavy guns pulverised German forward positions. The screams of the Katyusha rockets were followed by the roar of 4,000 tanks and the battle cries (in more than 40 languages) of 1.6 million Soviet soldiers. Thus began Operation Bagration, an assault over a 500-mile-long front.

This "great military earthquake", as the historian John Erickson called it, finally stopped in the suburbs of Warsaw as Hitler rushed elite reserves from western Europe to stem the Red tide in the east. As a result, American and British troops fighting in Normandy would not have to face the best-equipped Panzer divisions.

But what American has ever heard of Operation Bagration? June 1944 signifies Omaha Beach, not the crossing of the Dvina River. Yet the Soviet summer offensive was several times larger than Operation Overlord (the invasion of Normandy), both in the scale of forces engaged and the direct cost to the Germans.

By the end of summer, the Red army had reached the gates of Warsaw as well as the Carpathian passes commanding the entrance to central Europe. Soviet tanks had caught Army Group Centre in steel pincers and destroyed it. The Germans would lose more than 300,000 men in Belorussia alone. Another huge German army had been encircled and would be annihilated along the Baltic coast. The road to Berlin had been opened.

Thank Ivan. It does not disparage the brave men who died in the North African desert or the cold forests around Bastogne to recall that 70% of the Wehrmacht is buried not in French fields but on the Russian steppes. In the struggle against Nazism, approximately 40 "Ivans" died for every "Private Ryan". Scholars now believe that as many as 27 million Soviet soldiers and citizens perished in the second world war.

Yet the ordinary Soviet soldier - the tractor mechanic from Samara, the actor from Orel, the miner from the Donetsk, or the high-school girl from Leningrad - is invisible in the current celebration and mythologisation of the "greatest generation".

It is as if the "new American century" cannot be fully born without exorcising the central Soviet role in last century's epochal victory against fascism. Indeed, most Americans are shockingly clueless about the relative burdens of combat and death in the second world war. And even the minority who understand something of the enormity of the Soviet sacrifice tend to visualise it in terms of crude stereotypes of the Red army: a barbarian horde driven by feral revenge and primitive Russian nationalism. Only GI Joe and Tommy are seen as truly fighting for civilised ideals of freedom and democracy.

It is thus all the more important to recall that - despite Stalin, the NKVD and the massacre of a generation of Bolshevik leaders - the Red army still retained powerful elements of revolutionary fraternity. In its own eyes, and that of the slaves it freed from Hitler, it was the greatest liberation army in history. Moreover, the Red army of 1944 was still a Soviet army. The generals who led the breakthrough on the Dvina included a Jew (Chernyakovskii), an Armenian (Bagramyan), and a Pole (Rokossovskii). In contrast to the class-divided and racially segregated American and British forces, command in the Red army was an open, if ruthless, ladder of opportunity.

Anyone who doubts the revolutionary elan and rank-and-file humanity of the Red army should consult the extraordinary memoirs of Primo Levi (The Reawakening) and KS Karol (Between Two Worlds). Both hated Stalinism but loved the ordinary Soviet soldier and saw in her/him the seeds of socialist renewal.

So, after George Bush's recent demeaning of the memory of D-day to solicit support for his war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've decided to hold my own private commemoration.

I will recall, first, my Uncle Bill, the salesman from Columbus, hard as it is to imagine such a gentle soul as a hell-for-leather teenage GI in Normandy. Second - as I'm sure my Uncle Bill would've wished - I will remember his comrade Ivan.

The Ivan who drove his tank through the gates of Auschwitz and battled his way into Hitler's bunker. The Ivan whose courage and tenacity overcame the Wehrmacht, despite the deadly wartime errors and crimes of Stalin. Two ordinary heroes: Bill and Ivan. Obscene to celebrate the first without also commemorating the second.

· Mike Davis teaches American history at the University of California at Irvine and is an editor New Left Review; his latest book is Dead Cities

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1236209,00.html

That is very true and though I hate to admit it Stalin and his Red army did one good thing and that was to fight back Hitler. Russian casualties were higher then american or british. However their were a far amont of Slavs and I hate to say this but the French did have a crucial part in WWII.

I hate to say this but the French did have a crucial part in WWII.

Why do you hate to say it?

I hate to say this but the French did have a crucial part in WWII.
The French Resistance did tie up quite a few German units in France, as did the more ferocious resistance in the Balkans.

The Free French fought in North Africa and later France, of course.

And then there was the French defeat in 1940. People often make flippant comments about that, but they were losing more than a regiment of men every day. The pilot and somewhat existentialist author Antoine Saint-Exupery had this to say in Flight to Arras:

There were Frenchmen who said: "...We cannot overnight transform a nation of farmers into a people of factory workers such as the Germans are. We cannot change our wheatfields into coalfields. We cannot look for American intervention. The Germans demand Danzig. They thus impose upon us, not the duty of saving Danzig, but of committing suicide in order to preserve our honour. Why? What dishonour is there in possessing a land that brings forth more wheat than machines? What dishonour is there in being only forty million to the other man's eighty million? Why should the dishonour be ours, and not the whole world's?" They were perfectly right. War, for France, signified disaster. Was France to refuse to fight in order to spare herself defeat? I think not. And France must instinctively have thought the same, since these warnings could not dissuade France from war. Among us, spirit conquered intelligence.

Life always bursts the boundaries of formulas. Defeat may prove to have been only a path to resurrection, despite its ugliness. I take it for granted that to create a tree I condemn a seed to rot. If the first act of resistance comes too late it is doomed to defeat. But it is, nevertheless, the awakening of resistance. Life may grow from it as a seed.

France played her part. Her part consisted in offering herself up to be crushed and in seeing itself buried for a time in silence - since the world had chosen to arbitrate, and neither fought nor united against a common enemy. When a fort is to be taken by storm, some men are necessarily in the front rank. Almost always, those men die. But the front rank must die if the fort is to be captured.

Since we of France agreed to fight this war without illusions, this was the role that fell to us. We put farmers into the field against factory workers, one man in the field against three. And who is to sit in judgement upon the ugliness of collapse? Is a pilot brought down in flames to be judged by the consequences? Obviously, he will be disfigured.

So you see, the common soldier did fight. They simply got slaughtered because it was inevitable.

I am not minimizing the Soviet's contribution. Even though I have argued in the past that the Soviets couldn't win without US help, they are not to be belittled.
And yet the Western offensive was a major part of the war. While German troops were fighting the Soviets in the East, American and British troops were storming German cities in the West. It was a symbiosis of military action, basically.
Besides, Roosevelt was forced to place more troops in the East. He wanted a "Germany first" policy, but the court of US public opinion forced more resources, including most of our navy, into the East.

I see both contributions as roughly equal...

The western allies were more efficient with their usage of manpower and less profligate when expending the lives of their average infantry, thus they could use fewer men to accomplish just as much. D-Day is impressive because instead of an overland offensive, this was a massive amphibious assault which is a damned difficult thing to pull off, because ready reserves to exploit a breakthrough within a short period of time are not available, the invasion basically depends on how well lightly armed infantry can do with heavy support, you don't have tank armies and divisions of Cossacks standing pour into a hole. The fact that the US, British, and Canadians poured into fortress europe, established a full beachhead and landed 150,000 men in one day is incredibly impressive.

The Russians and Germans naturally deployed more men, because they were fighting on a front from the baltic sea to the southern Caucases at one point, to hold such a large area, you need that many men. It took the Germans fewer divisions (which did consist of Army Groups, Army Group B was defending Normandy) to hold Italy or Western Europe, because simply, the possible gaps in the front line are shorter.

The Russians killed 75% of the German army and took Berlin, they won the war in the East. However the Western front was just as important in leading to Germany's downfall, as it drew away so much german strength and took so much German territory, that those gains in and of themselves are significant. As someone pointed out, it was military symbiosis...

The Russians also partially depended upon US aid to feed there men, Stalin once admitted that without SPAM being sent over in huge quantities "we might not have been able to cope.". Lend-Lease jeeps and studebaker autos from the US helped maintain Russia's logistics in their massive offensives, which is almost as essential as front-line troops in a modern army...to sustain an advance over such distances, supply lines matter as much as battle lines. The Russians happen to be masters of disrupting the enemy supply line and hence have ejected so many modern invaders.

Overall, I'd say the fronts were even, but it must be said that Russia's sacrifice and accomplishments are seriously understated in the West. And that is very sad indeed...the Red Army deserves more documentaries and films made on them... and that (sadly) is how you achieve historical recognition in this society of ours...

I see both contributions as roughly equal...

The western allies were more efficient with their usage of manpower and less profligate when expending the lives of their average infantry, thus they could use fewer men to accomplish just as much. D-Day is impressive because instead of an overland offensive, this was a massive amphibious assault which is a damned difficult thing to pull off, because ready reserves to exploit a breakthrough within a short period of time are not available, the invasion basically depends on how well lightly armed infantry can do with heavy support, you don't have tank armies and divisions of Cossacks standing pour into a hole. The fact that the US, British, and Canadians poured into fortress europe, established a full beachhead and landed 150,000 men in one day is incredibly impressive.

The Russians and Germans naturally deployed more men, because they were fighting on a front from the baltic sea to the southern Caucases at one point, to hold such a large area, you need that many men. It took the Germans fewer divisions (which did consist of Army Groups, Army Group B was defending Normandy) to hold Italy or Western Europe, because simply, the possible gaps in the front line are shorter.

The Russians killed 75% of the German army and took Berlin, they won the war in the East. However the Western front was just as important in leading to Germany's downfall, as it drew away so much german strength and took so much German territory, that those gains in and of themselves are significant. As someone pointed out, it was military symbiosis...

The Russians also partially depended upon US aid to feed there men, Stalin once admitted that without SPAM being sent over in huge quantities "we might not have been able to cope.". Lend-Lease jeeps and studebaker autos from the US helped maintain Russia's logistics in their massive offensives, which is almost as essential as front-line troops in a modern army...to sustain an advance over such distances, supply lines matter as much as battle lines. The Russians happen to be masters of disrupting the enemy supply line and hence have ejected so many modern invaders.

Overall, I'd say the fronts were even, but it must be said that Russia's sacrifice and accomplishments are seriously understated in the West. And that is very sad indeed...the Red Army deserves more documentaries and films made on them... and that (sadly) is how you achieve historical recognition in this society of ours...
I agree with that all. I think, though, that the invasion of Italy was very important. It may have not threatened Germany directly, but at least it gave the Nazis another headache. After all, Americans and Brits looked tame when the German Army's best general was fighting them in a land far away.
However, I do agree that the Soviet Union's contribution in understated. It's important to note that for every US troop death, 58 Soviets died, and that was both for the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. It was probably lost in the Cold War, though. The last thing the US or UK needed were Stalinist regimes from Russia to the Bay of Biscay.

I am not minimizing the Soviet's contribution. Even though I have argued in the past that the Soviets couldn't win without US help, they are not to be belittled.


This is one of the wonders of having an alliance.

By the same token we, in the west, probably could not have won without the Russians. Without Britain it would have been hard to recapture Europe. Each member was vitaly important. For me the alliance in WWII was greater than the sum of its parts

(regarding the French defeat)So you see, the common soldier did fight. They simply got slaughtered because it was inevitable.

One of the best explanations I have seen for the defeat of the French army, despite the fact that in 1940 they possessed the best tanks in Europe, was that they spread them too thinly across their lines instead of concentrating them in large groups as the Germans and other nations quickly learnt to do. The tanks spread across the line were unable to protect against breakthroughs and thus the lines were quickly broken, leading to chaos.

This, of course, is not a complete explanation but certainly is one aspect which lead to their defeat - it was not a question of cowardice or lack of will to fight in defence of their homeland, but rather a fundamental error in tactical doctrine when faced with the new theory of the Blitzkrieg.

I agree, the WW1-style use of tanks as nothing more than mobile artillery for infantry support was what wrecked the first Soviet attempts at counter-attacks on the Eastern Front. Other crucial factors which contributed to the defeat of France were a lack of mobility of infantry - once static positions were outflanked, they had no hope of recovery, and an inter-war lack of emphasis on air power. Saint-Exupery wrote of complete collapse, an air force diluted to infinity and a slaughter he likened to pouring glasses of water onto a forest fire. They did fight, they had nowhere to run, but the Germans simply over-ran them.

I am not minimizing the Soviet's contribution. Even though I have argued in the past that the Soviets couldn't win without US help, they are not to be belittled.


This is one of the wonders of having an alliance.

By the same token we, in the west, probably could not have won without the Russians. Without Britain it would have been hard to recapture Europe. Each member was vitaly important. For me the alliance in WWII was greater than the sum of its parts
In Europe, at least. However, and this is the part where I'm asking to be flamed, the situation in the Pacific was different. The US didn't singlehandedly defeat the Japanese, but we played the biggest part. In destroying their navy, the massive Japanese army in China didn't matter. They couldn't defend Japan without risking being destroyed at sea. Australia provided a vital base and a good starting point, and the British were good at defending India, but it was the US that fragmented and destroyed most of the Japanese empire. Even if an invasion of Japan occurred, the Japanese knew that it'd be ultimately futile to resist, since their precious raw materials were gone. In fact, by 1945, their was even a shortage of ammo in Japan.

I agree, the war in the Pacific was mostly won by the US, though that did not stop it trying to taking credit for a few British victories. The lightning-quick Soviet annihilation of a 1.5m strong Japanese army in Manchuria at the end of the war, underlined the obvious truth that Japan was well and truly crushed. At that point it had no army, no navy, no air force, and hardly any food. Thus the dropping of the nuclear bombs is justified to this day by the need to prevent a long and bloody battle for the mainland, but the real reason was the need to present the Russians with a show of force.

I agree, the war in the Pacific was mostly won by the US, though that did not stop it trying to taking credit for a few British victories. The lightning-quick Soviet annihilation of a 1.5m strong Japanese army in Manchuria at the end of the war, underlined the obvious truth that Japan was well and truly crushed. At that point it had no army, no navy, no air force, and hardly any food. Thus the dropping of the nuclear bombs is justified to this day by the need to prevent a long and bloody battle for the mainland, but the real reason was the need to present the Russians with a show of force.
Still, I feel the Russian annihilation of the Japanese army meant nothing. They would be unable to get to Japan beforehand, because it'd involve either an air or water crossing. It was like our island-hopping strategy on a bigger scale: starve them out, and isolate them from any help. The only difference was that this was the one island the US couldn't ignore.

Oh, it goes without saying that the Red Army could not have done what it did in Manchuria any earlier than that.

Regarding the Japanese surrender. The nuclear bombs were never necessary. The tried to surrender 8 times before they were dropped. They had no spirit left to fight.
However, regarding the war in the pacific. In the pacific front main, that would be the island hopping fights, America did play the biggest role. On the continent, it was far more equal.

Regarding the Japanese surrender. The nuclear bombs were never necessary. The tried to surrender 8 times before they were dropped. They had no spirit left to fight.
However, regarding the war in the pacific. In the pacific front main, that would be the island hopping fights, America did play the biggest role. On the continent, it was far more equal.
It was more equal on the continent, but the US still played a major role in defeating the Japanese army. For example, our troops were instrumental in building the Burma road. Before that, US cargo planes flew out of India to supply China over the Himilayas, some of the most dangerous airspace in the world.
As for the Japanese surrender, the emperor himself had no will to fight. That was different from the military and the rest of the Japanese population. Besides, Hirohito had no real role in the government, anyhow.

He was still a god to them. They would have obeyed him. Whether or not he was politically active, no-one in Japan would disobey him, so, the surrender would have gone through.

He was still a god to them. They would have obeyed him. Whether or not he was politically active, no-one in Japan would disobey him, so, the surrender would have gone through.
Tell that to Tojo and his like. It is known that Hirohito, for example, embraced the Potsdam agreement. However, the Japanese sent out a message saying something like "We laugh at your proposal".
Hirohito also didn't want to go to war with anyone in the first place. So why was he unable to stop it? It was because the Japanese government was like the Japanese shoguns: they keep the emperor around only as a figurehead.

Not true, when he tried to surrender after TWO bombs, the military higher-ups tried to launch a coup against him. However it failed to materialize and Hirohito got his radio address out to the masses. The Japanese people would have obeyed the emperor, but the Japanese military would not have listened to him, Tojo had basically reduced the man to a figure head early in the war... hence why the Emperor was spared after the surrender, to save Japanese national pride.

Not true, when he tried to surrender after TWO bombs, the military higher-ups tried to launch a coup against him. However it failed to materialize and Hirohito got his radio address out to the masses. The Japanese people would have obeyed the emperor, but the Japanese military would not have listened to him, Tojo had basically reduced the man to a figure head early in the war... hence why the Emperor was spared after the surrender, to save Japanese national pride.
I've actually heard that even after Hirohito got a formal surrender message out, thousands of Japanese troops in China and Burma kept fighting. In fact, the last soldier didn't surrender to Chinese forces until 1974, and that's not a lie.

I know. He wouldn't surrender until the Emperor said so, as He believed The Emperor was a god. The soldier wasn't in contact with Japanese command, as he was isolated, and never heard of the surrender.

This has been a post from Jordaxia, with a new puppet, specifically for those hard to reach character RPs.

I know. He wouldn't surrender until the Emperor said so, as He believed The Emperor was a god. The soldier wasn't in contact with Japanese command, as he was isolated, and never heard of the surrender.

This has been a post from Jordaxia, with a new puppet, specifically for those hard to reach character RPs.
Even though he was isolated, their were pockets of other die-hards throughout China and Korea that just refused to surrender, no matter what the emperor said.

Not true, when he tried to surrender after TWO bombs, the military higher-ups tried to launch a coup against him. However it failed to materialize and Hirohito got his radio address out to the masses. The Japanese people would have obeyed the emperor, but the Japanese military would not have listened to him, Tojo had basically reduced the man to a figure head early in the war... hence why the Emperor was spared after the surrender, to save Japanese national pride.
I've actually heard that even after Hirohito got a formal surrender message out, thousands of Japanese troops in China and Burma kept fighting. In fact, the last soldier didn't surrender to Chinese forces until 1974, and that's not a lie.

Wasnt that last guy stationed somewhere near Guam, or something? And he didnt believe anyone when they told him that Japan had surrendered 30 years before, so they had to hunt down his old commanding officer, and make him tell the guy that they had given up and surrendered. As soon as the guy got off the island, he married some woman and then went on thier honeymoon... to that island.

Not true, when he tried to surrender after TWO bombs, the military higher-ups tried to launch a coup against him. However it failed to materialize and Hirohito got his radio address out to the masses. The Japanese people would have obeyed the emperor, but the Japanese military would not have listened to him, Tojo had basically reduced the man to a figure head early in the war... hence why the Emperor was spared after the surrender, to save Japanese national pride.
I've actually heard that even after Hirohito got a formal surrender message out, thousands of Japanese troops in China and Burma kept fighting. In fact, the last soldier didn't surrender to Chinese forces until 1974, and that's not a lie.

Wasnt that last guy stationed somewhere near Guam, or something? And he didnt believe anyone when they told him that Japan had surrendered 30 years before, so they had to hunt down his old commanding officer, and make him tell the guy that they had given up and surrendered. As soon as the guy got off the island, he married some woman and then went on thier honeymoon... to that island.

That is correct. I am not sure but Guam comes to mind. He walked out of the jungle and surrendered. The guys didn't belive it at first! :D

Didn't know about his marriage......

As to the surrenders? Well I belive a couple were offered with terms to which the allies said no.

There were a couple attempts for an unconditional and they sent it to the one remaining active embassy of the allies; the Soviets.

They conviently forgot to pass on the word and declared war just in time to grab some land.....