Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   The Soviet submariner who saved the world from World War III   ( thesun.co.uk) divider line
    More: Interesting, World War III, world wars, Soviet, bomb shelters, National Security Archive, Cuban Missile Crisis, Emily  
•       •       •

15351 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2012 at 11:14 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-09-24 11:33:13 PM  
6 votes:
Man that story was so full of manure it reeked, yes he did prevent an idiot from launching WWIII but as someone posted above the Soviets knew they would have came out much worse than the US if the war started, so he was not cast out, in fact he was promoted to admiral and later became head of the Kirov Naval Academy, not what you do to someone you want to punish, also the B 59 did not "surrender" to the US destroyer (not battleship) USS Coney, she was forced to surface and identify herself. also the "dropped warning grenades" meant they used practice depth charges to warn the sub what might happen if they didn't surface (IE the next salvo might be real bub come up and lets talk), theres more hyperbole there but I'm tired.

/celebrate his life but tell the story straight, it makes better reading.
2012-09-25 11:09:39 AM  
2 votes:

Jim_Callahan: One of the interesting things that it takes a lot of cold war history to pick up is that the US just thought the Soviets were Evil, but the Soviets thought the US was literally run by the insane. And, frankly, looking at the contemporary documents, I kinda have to side with the Soviets on that one. We won the conflict essentially because the USSR was continually trying to act sensibly and respond to the massively stupid shiat we were continually doing as if we were adults that, for instance, say what they mean instead of spouting meaningless bullshiat that seemed cool at the time. They slipped into Stalinism almost entirely because of the external threat the US imposed, at the time for essentially no reason whatsoever. They went into economic and food shortages because they assumed that, with our continual preparations for war, we must have made some sort of provision for defense because to do otherwise would have been amazingly stupid (we hadn't). They didn't nuke us to death because, unlike us, their soldiers were generally unwilling to exterminate all human life over a political difference.

Basically the US was to the mid 1900s what Iran is to current middle eastern politics. We were trying to be civilized, but there was more of a Mongol Horde vibe going on than a Macedonian or Roman Empire thing there.


Right. Like their soldiers had no problems raping and killing their way across the civilian population of Eastern Europe after the war? And Stalinism started because of the Cold War? You are aware that it started before WWII, right? During which we were allies with the Soviet Union?

The US was far from perfect, but this sort of revisionist "oh, the Soviet totalitarian state wasn't THAT bad, and when they were, it was America's fault" history is just crap.
2012-09-25 12:59:55 AM  
2 votes:

Slartibartfaster: b2theory: strategic bombing

you kinda lose the strategic things when you use nukes


Strategic Deterrent Patrol pin (aka "Boomer Pin").

coneofsilence.info

Strategic Nuclear Weapons: Wiki:

"A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on targets as part of a strategic plan, such as nuclear missile bases, military command centers and heavily populated civilian areas such as large towns and cities.". 

Even with conventional weapons being used in carpet bombing a city (which by the way killed just as many people in Tokyo in one day as the nuclear weapon in Hiroshima did) the proper term is strategic bombing.

Tactical bombing is the more precise application of weapons, and even then there are (or at least were) nuclear weapons designated as tactical (think suitcase bombs).

farm3.staticflickr.com

2012-09-25 12:56:53 AM  
2 votes:

Slartibartfaster: Team Coors Light: Soviet Russia in the 60s

Newsflash, this just in from the 60s

Most of what your "didnt care for the citizens" ass hole of a government told you about all the other governments - was pretty much the same shiat the "other" guys were feeding their own gullible and ignorant citizens

// Welcome to the machine
/ Its alright, we know where you've been


Oh...so Stalin and the rest of his "friends" didn't kill 20 million+ people during WWII?! People in East Berlin that were trying to get to the West to be "free" that were caught in the process were not "reeducated, incarcerated, or shot"? The Atrocities didn't continue?!


Go away
2012-09-25 12:38:57 AM  
2 votes:

Slartibartfaster: Mr. Eugenides: Nukes in Cuba would have been the equivalent of the US putting nukes in western Poland. Havana to DC is about the same as Warsaw to Moscow, there's no way either side would allow something like that. That was probably the single biggest provocation by either side during the cold war

Are you farking serious ?

The US invented nukes, used them on civilian targets, and basically setup corporate monopolies over several other empires.

The USSR was not provoking they were responding
So was Cuba

The US should be farking ashamed of their boycott. You suck, You're number one, You're number one - at being assholes and creating death machines for the 90% of humanity that would be glad to see that chicken shiat nation fall.


I agree with some of your point, however you are wrong in some major ways.

The US did not use nuclear weapons on a civilian target. There was no such thing as a civilian target when it comes to strategic bombing.

In the context of WW2 it was not only an acceptable thing to do it was a moral imperative as it greatly shortened the war and ultimately saved millions of lives. Read up on the planned invasion of Japan for some context. We are still handing out Purple Hearts that were ordered for that campaign.

/The lesser evil is still evil, and killing fewer people still means you are going to have to kill someone.
2012-09-25 12:32:48 AM  
2 votes:
Well we don't KNOW if it would have "started WWIII". It would likely have sunk at least one American ship, maybe the whole task force, hard to say, depends on how close they were together.

Keep in mind that if the Soviet sub nuked OUR ships, the ball would be in our court. It's unlikely the Soviets would take the opportunity to first-strike us, that wouldn't make much sense, many of the higher-ups were well aware of how we had significant superiority in overall nuke power. And the US was aware that first-striking the Soviets was hardly worth it, the Soviets might "lose" but at the cost of millions of American lives, and the loss of some ships really isn't even relevant.

Maybe the US would have attacked some Soviet ships with conventional weapons to make a point, or just invaded Cuba outright.

There's really no telling how that would have gone. The Soviets may even have realized how serious this was and backed down. That may seem farfetched, but they did back down over the whole Cuba thing altogether in the end.
2012-09-25 12:07:48 AM  
2 votes:

BigNumber12: For a week they stayed under water, in sweltering 60 degree heat, rationed to just one glass of water a day.


Wait... what?


Celsius....
2012-09-24 11:23:19 PM  
2 votes:

Kibbler: The painful truth is that the exceptionally exceptional U.S. pushed the world a lot closer to armageddon than the evil godless U.S.S.R.


Nukes in Cuba would have been the equivalent of the US putting nukes in western Poland. Havana to DC is about the same as Warsaw to Moscow, there's no way either side would allow something like that. That was probably the single biggest provocation by either side during the cold war.
2012-09-25 05:45:08 PM  
1 vote:

intelligent comment below: They were already reaching out to surrender, it was just a matter of working out the details. The bombs were only to show the world that America was the new colonial power in town, and don't you dare think you're #1, USSR.

It is simple. The idea that a million men were going to be lost, and Japan would fight to the death, was merely a bs excuse the military used to justify killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a weapons test to show the world that America was top dog.


Well, except for the fact that Japan didn't draft the Imperial Rescript proposing surrender until Aug. 10th, after the bombings and the Soviet declaration of war.
2012-09-25 05:39:32 PM  
1 vote:
I'd go with Kennedy refusing LeMay's repeated requests to send in the bombers (At DEFCON 2, armed with nukes and sitting on the runways with engines running), but whatever floats your boat.
2012-09-25 03:34:26 PM  
1 vote:

intelligent comment below: capt.hollister: I'm sure this is why they surrendered immediately after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.... oh no, wait, they didn't...


They were already reaching out to surrender, it was just a matter of working out the details. The bombs were only to show the world that America was the new colonial power in town, and don't you dare think you're #1, USSR.


Wicked Chinchilla: Its not as simple as either of you are indicating.


It is simple. The idea that a million men were going to be lost, and Japan would fight to the death, was merely a bs excuse the military used to justify killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a weapons test to show the world that America was top dog.


Trying very hard to set the record wrong on these matters, aren't you ? an amusing passtime, no doubt. There was a Fraker asking for suggestions for a hobby the other day. You should make this suggestion to him, he'll surely thank you for the gauranteed years of entertainment to follow.
2012-09-25 01:22:45 PM  
1 vote:
When singapore was sacked ?

We were already at war with Japan by the time Singapore fell. You might want to visit the timline of WW2 ; you'd see that Singapore fell after the Pearl Harbor attack and the US entry into the war. Or you could continue to be a blithering idiot ...
2012-09-25 12:55:37 PM  
1 vote:

WorldCitizen: Jim_Callahan: One of the interesting things that it takes a lot of cold war history to pick up is that the US just thought the Soviets were Evil, but the Soviets thought the US was literally run by the insane. And, frankly, looking at the contemporary documents, I kinda have to side with the Soviets on that one. We won the conflict essentially because the USSR was continually trying to act sensibly and respond to the massively stupid shiat we were continually doing as if we were adults that, for instance, say what they mean instead of spouting meaningless bullshiat that seemed cool at the time. They slipped into Stalinism almost entirely because of the external threat the US imposed, at the time for essentially no reason whatsoever. They went into economic and food shortages because they assumed that, with our continual preparations for war, we must have made some sort of provision for defense because to do otherwise would have been amazingly stupid (we hadn't). They didn't nuke us to death because, unlike us, their soldiers were generally unwilling to exterminate all human life over a political difference.

Basically the US was to the mid 1900s what Iran is to current middle eastern politics. We were trying to be civilized, but there was more of a Mongol Horde vibe going on than a Macedonian or Roman Empire thing there.

Right. Like their soldiers had no problems raping and killing their way across the civilian population of Eastern Europe after the war? And Stalinism started because of the Cold War? You are aware that it started before WWII, right? During which we were allies with the Soviet Union?

The US was far from perfect, but this sort of revisionist "oh, the Soviet totalitarian state wasn't THAT bad, and when they were, it was America's fault" history is just crap.


Both Stalin AND Lenin were balls to the wall insane in terms of inflicting casualties and cruelties on their citizens. One might as well say "Hitler was pretty good to the German people, the Allies just reacted crazy to his policies."
2012-09-25 12:50:07 PM  
1 vote:

Slartibartfaster: Team Coors Light: Oh...so Stalin and the rest of his "friends"

during WW2, the US was Stalin's friend

Yeah - you faught the dude that killed 6 million and armed the soviets and the communist Chinese

sorry if Im not farking grateful for the US involvement ya pack of wankers

Where were you when Nanjing was raped ? When singapore was sacked ? farking pansies



[reads Slartibartfaster's comments here]

Wow, you're a total raging farking idiot. Thanks for coming out in full colors for this thread, I hadn't had occasion to add anyone to the red zone in a while.
2012-09-25 06:53:13 AM  
1 vote:

intelligent comment below: b2theory: In the context of WW2 it was not only an acceptable thing to do it was a moral imperative as it greatly shortened the war and ultimately saved millions of lives. Read up on the planned invasion of Japan for some context. We are still handing out Purple Hearts that were ordered for that campaign.


Completely fabricated. All intercepted cables showed that Japan was going to surrender. There was not going to be a huge invasion and there certainly was not going to be a million lives lost attacking the island. Stop believing in nonsense propaganda to justify the dropping of nuclear bombs.


1) They were offering conditional surrender, not unconditional surrender
2) There were disagreements in the high command and in-fighting in the political structure. Hirohito wanted out before the bombs, the IJA high command never wanted out and would have fought to the death if it weren't for the bombings AND dozens of Soviet Divisions screaming into Northern China.
3) Official feelers were sent out by the Japanese government as well...to the USSR who kept stringing them along and not forwarding them to the US

Its not as simple as either of you are indicating.
All actions must be judged by the prism of their own time and information, if they are to be judged honestly. Given what Truman new about the possibilities of surrender and the total cost of an invasion (in both Japanese and US lives) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were the right call. Besides, if its the civilian deaths you are upset about we killed an order of magnitude more people in the fire bombings of every major city on the Home Islands. Is it somehow worse to kill civilians with one bomb than with thousands?

/WWII: perfect example of a fighting a war for very just reasons in a very unjust manner.
//Just War Theory: interesting stuff.
2012-09-25 06:31:54 AM  
1 vote:
Okay, going by the Sun he died humiliated and outcast. While somehow going up through the ranks, achieving command of submarine squadrons, and eventually ending up Vice-Admiral. This is a rather odd way of humiliating someone. Or maybe just the Sun's typical level of journalistic excellence.
2012-09-25 04:06:19 AM  
1 vote:

Satanus Maximus: These weapons... were they... torpedoes? I have no idea what a sub would have on board that could destroy an entire fleet.... Plausible?


Absolutely. We had the Mk 45 ASTORduring that same time period.
2012-09-25 03:35:53 AM  
1 vote:

Oznog: Not sure why a sub would get so hot throughout- it's in cold water. I guess the hull's insulated and maybe they didn't have spare power to run heat exchangers to pump the heat out of the ship?


60 degrees might be a "Feels like" temperature and not the actual temp and the water off of Florida\Bahamas\Cuba is not all that cold. I can't speak for Soviet boats but our hulls are insulated (except for the bilge areas) to prevent condensation. The heat can build up just from using electricity and the crews body heat (over time). Diesel boats don't normally have any air conditioning to remove excess heat because they need to constantly refresh their air supply anyway and that is enough to keep the boat cool most of the time, besides which they need the electrical power for the main motors. Crew comfort will always come second to the mission at hand.
2012-09-25 03:07:41 AM  
1 vote:
One of the interesting things that it takes a lot of cold war history to pick up is that the US just thought the Soviets were Evil, but the Soviets thought the US was literally run by the insane. And, frankly, looking at the contemporary documents, I kinda have to side with the Soviets on that one. We won the conflict essentially because the USSR was continually trying to act sensibly and respond to the massively stupid shiat we were continually doing as if we were adults that, for instance, say what they mean instead of spouting meaningless bullshiat that seemed cool at the time. They slipped into Stalinism almost entirely because of the external threat the US imposed, at the time for essentially no reason whatsoever. They went into economic and food shortages because they assumed that, with our continual preparations for war, we must have made some sort of provision for defense because to do otherwise would have been amazingly stupid (we hadn't). They didn't nuke us to death because, unlike us, their soldiers were generally unwilling to exterminate all human life over a political difference.

Basically the US was to the mid 1900s what Iran is to current middle eastern politics. We were trying to be civilized, but there was more of a Mongol Horde vibe going on than a Macedonian or Roman Empire thing there.
2012-09-25 02:08:44 AM  
1 vote:

intelligent comment below: b2theory: In the context of WW2 it was not only an acceptable thing to do it was a moral imperative as it greatly shortened the war and ultimately saved millions of lives. Read up on the planned invasion of Japan for some context. We are still handing out Purple Hearts that were ordered for that campaign.


Completely fabricated. All intercepted cables showed that Japan was going to surrender. There was not going to be a huge invasion and there certainly was not going to be a million lives lost attacking the island. Stop believing in nonsense propaganda to justify the dropping of nuclear bombs.


I'm sure this is why they surrendered immediately after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.... oh no, wait, they didn't...
2012-09-25 01:09:42 AM  
1 vote:

serialsuicidebomber: Pribar: Man that story was so full of manure it reeked, yes he did prevent an idiot from launching WWIII but as someone posted above the Soviets knew they would have came out much worse than the US if the war started, so he was not cast out, in fact he was promoted to admiral and later became head of the Kirov Naval Academy, not what you do to someone you want to punish, also the B 59 did not "surrender" to the US destroyer (not battleship) USS Coney, she was forced to surface and identify herself. also the "dropped warning grenades" meant they used practice depth charges to warn the sub what might happen if they didn't surface (IE the next salvo might be real bub come up and lets talk), theres more hyperbole there but I'm tired.

/celebrate his life but tell the story straight, it makes better reading.

I'll have to disagree. Yes, he got 'promoted' (assuming you did more research than I did, which was zilch) to a desk job overseeing an academy, but to a naval guy who wants to be at sea, that isn't exactly a promotion. [just my opinion]. But I do agree that he wasn't exactly demoted to a lower rank.




I have a translation of a soviet era bio of him on a shelf downstairs, he was famous for both this episode and for being the executive officer of the sub K-19 during its 1961 nuclear accident. (the guy Liam Neesons character was based on in the movie K-19 the widowmaker), he commanded several subs and even 2 submarine squadrons after this incident so he was hardly booted into a desk job.
2012-09-25 12:19:26 AM  
1 vote:
Well thanks a lot, Jim Galecki's grandpa

i.imgur.com
2012-09-25 12:08:15 AM  
1 vote:

fusillade762: Is this a promo for that "Last Resort" show?


The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades

Warning grenades?? The hell?


They're called Practice Depth Charges or PDC's. Really only a signal device, about as strong as a grenade but won't damage the hull of a submarine. I've been on a sub where they've dropped them on us, there's no way they'll force you to the surface, just let's you know you've been found and you're not getting away.
2012-09-25 12:08:05 AM  
1 vote:

capt.hollister: capt.hollister: JesusJuice: Mr. Eugenides: Kibbler: The painful truth is that the exceptionally exceptional U.S. pushed the world a lot closer to armageddon than the evil godless U.S.S.R.

Nukes in Cuba would have been the equivalent of the US putting nukes in western Poland. Havana to DC is about the same as Warsaw to Moscow, there's no way either side would allow something like that. That was probably the single biggest provocation by either side during the cold war.

Don't let facts interfere with hating America!

Never mind Warsaw. The US had nuclear missiles already stationed in Turkey. The distance between Ankara, Turkey, and Moscow is slightly less than the distance between Havana and Moscow Washington, DC.

What was that about the single biggest provocation ?

FTFM. Talk about invalidating my own point !


A part of the missile crisis negotiations resulted in the quiet removal of those missiles (about six months later) from Turkey.
2012-09-25 12:02:21 AM  
1 vote:
www.freeinfosociety.com

/All of this would be a moot point, if you had listened to me...er, him.

//Seriously

///FLAME ON!
2012-09-24 11:48:31 PM  
1 vote:

JesusJuice: Mr. Eugenides: Kibbler: The painful truth is that the exceptionally exceptional U.S. pushed the world a lot closer to armageddon than the evil godless U.S.S.R.

Nukes in Cuba would have been the equivalent of the US putting nukes in western Poland. Havana to DC is about the same as Warsaw to Moscow, there's no way either side would allow something like that. That was probably the single biggest provocation by either side during the cold war.

Don't let facts interfere with hating America!


Never mind Warsaw. The US had nuclear missiles already stationed in Turkey. The distance between Ankara, Turkey, and Moscow is slightly less than the distance between Havana and Moscow.

What was that about the single biggest provocation ?
2012-09-24 11:46:59 PM  
1 vote:

Mr. Eugenides: Nukes in Cuba would have been the equivalent of the US putting nukes in western Poland. Havana to DC is about the same as Warsaw to Moscow, there's no way either side would allow something like that. That was probably the single biggest provocation by either side during the cold war


Are you farking serious ?

The US invented nukes, used them on civilian targets, and basically setup corporate monopolies over several other empires.

The USSR was not provoking they were responding
So was Cuba

The US should be farking ashamed of their boycott. You suck, You're number one, You're number one - at being assholes and creating death machines for the 90% of humanity that would be glad to see that chicken shiat nation fall.
2012-09-24 11:41:11 PM  
1 vote:

fusillade762: Is this a promo for that "Last Resort" show?


The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades

Warning grenades?? The hell?


I wondered if this is a case of:

1.bp.blogspot.com

But the Googles seem to confirm that that is what an underwater warning shot is.

In my day we'd just give one ping:

beerstreetjournal.com
2012-09-24 11:40:59 PM  
1 vote:
www.balettie.com

/oblig
2012-09-24 11:37:14 PM  
1 vote:
Sorry, I'm still stuck on "warning grenades".

*pulls pin*
*plink*
*toss*
*nothing happens*

OK BUDDY THE NEXT ONE'S FOR REAL!
2012-09-24 11:34:27 PM  
1 vote:

fusillade762: Is this a promo for that "Last Resort" show?


The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades

Warning grenades?? The hell?


It's meant to tell them that they that they know that they are there and that they could've used depth charges instead. Both sides did it, and both sides had some of their diesel boats forced to surface. It's one of the main reasons that both navies wanted nuclear powered boats so badly.
2012-09-24 11:32:21 PM  
1 vote:
First chapter of this book:

3.bp.blogspot.com

It's a fantastic read. Somehow he didn't panic when everyone else on the sub did.

/did LOL when the US Sailors taunted them when they surfaced by throwing cigarettes and candy at them while playing jazz
//maybe not the smartest thing to do in retrospect
2012-09-24 11:28:46 PM  
1 vote:

Mr. Eugenides: Kibbler: The painful truth is that the exceptionally exceptional U.S. pushed the world a lot closer to armageddon than the evil godless U.S.S.R.

Nukes in Cuba would have been the equivalent of the US putting nukes in western Poland. Havana to DC is about the same as Warsaw to Moscow, there's no way either side would allow something like that. That was probably the single biggest provocation by either side during the cold war.


Don't let facts interfere with hating America!
2012-09-24 11:25:40 PM  
1 vote:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Sometimes I think it would have been better if it hadn't been stopped


that's a horrible thing to say. Imagine all those innocent people and children that would have been killed. And all the advances we've had since then. Like, iPhones, and Facebook, and American Idol, and Jersey Shore, The Kardashians and Real Housewives of...

Actually, you make a good point.
2012-09-24 11:25:39 PM  
1 vote:
On the plus side, the first thing to get nuked would have been Florida, so there's that.
2012-09-24 11:17:04 PM  
1 vote:
The painful truth is that the exceptionally exceptional U.S. pushed the world a lot closer to armageddon than the evil godless U.S.S.R.
2012-09-24 10:46:18 PM  
1 vote:

WorldCitizen: It's amazing that we survived that at all. Kennedy was surrounded by his generals telling him to attack (which we now know would have been after the Soviets had active nukes ready to launch). Little mistakes here and there. A Russian wanting to launch his nuclear torpedo but vetoed at the last minute. So many ways that could have been the end of civilization. I think it is an excellent example of why rational, cooler heads should prevail, and this modern "act on your gut" streak in many Americans could be the death of us all.


It isn't commonly known that there was a reason why the US generals were so brazen and why Kennedy could demand the Russians remove their missiles from Cuba while we had deployed our nukes to Turkey. The US knew they had an overwhelming advantage over the Russians in both the total number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. While it may sound rediculous to speculate about how limited our losses may have been, it wouldn't have been quite the doomsday that many speculated and it would have been a terribly loopsided fight (something the Russians were all too aware of).

That said, the Russians went on a nuke building binge to make sure they were never in the same position again.
2012-09-24 09:36:01 PM  
1 vote:
Sometimes I think it would have been better if it hadn't been stopped
2012-09-24 09:09:38 PM  
1 vote:
Is this a promo for that "Last Resort" show?


The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades

Warning grenades?? The hell?
2012-09-24 08:49:46 PM  
1 vote:
Hope the special makes it to the US.

It would have been very interesting to know what the captain and crew know of US/Soviet relations at that point. Did the Captain know the level of the Cuban missile crisis? Did the political officer?
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report