New Testingstan

the sad part is it is only now, after so many years of accepting it, that i actually realized it was a false dilemma all along

i guess better to be a late convert than never at all

but it makes me sad

That's why guys basically quoting and believing any military report is hilarious

Graph said mars by 1981 RUINED BY KENNEDY

They'll just say that if we stopped Japan would have rebuilt and been a threat later again.

wait so are you proposing that america just kind of hang back and be like 'okay empire of japan, if you're tired we can just wait up until you've gotten some rest and then we can shoot at each other again'

or do you think they should have just patted themselves on the back and declared the war over and never touch japan again and just leave them a starving smoking ruin to pull themselves up by their bootstraps

and ask stalin to do likewise i guess

and not have any of that american re-construction rebuilding their shattered infrastructure and society

like what do you see as the endgame of america deciding that it's miller time when japan's refusing to surrender

Ps that's not what he said

Ps have you actually read the absurdly pathetic rationale for how every Japanese woe build 100 pinko puts and kill a dozen gi joes

It's funny because it's so desperate

There's a reason to use nukes but it isn't to make japan a better place

Ps you ready said he answer

Dooey Jo wrote:no no didn't you hear ww2 was to save polish sovereignty, which is why poland was given away to the russians after war ds

german takeover of east and south european markets in the preceding years due to various post-depression and ww1 policies had nothing to do with it

good thing we later found out the nazis were actually batshit insane so we could ignore some circumstances that might otherwise have turned people to the idea that dying and killing fellow workers in the interests of big capital is bullshit

this isn't really fair

churchill particularly was incredibly set on bringing the polish government in exile back to warsaw to hold elections

reading the minutes of the yalta conference it's pretty obvious that stalin just outplayed churchill through the leverage of 'has millions of soldiers in warsaw and actually has plans to lure the polish democrats back into the country so he can murder them'

if you have any evidence that churchill's motives were financial i'd be interested

If only roosevelt hadnt trusted stalin lol

starku wrote:Ps that's not what he said

Ps have you actually read the absurdly pathetic rationale for how every Japanese woe build 100 pinko puts and kill a dozen gi joes

It's funny because it's so desperate

There's a reason to use nukes but it isn't to make japan a better place

Ps you ready said he answer

well i just want to know what he means by 'end the war'

what does that mean

you need to unpack that statement if you want to make a proposal for an alternative policy decision

like a white peace where america claps itself on the back and japan takes over korea again

or just deciding not to touch japan and hoping stalin isn't interested

or going for a conditional surrender

or ending the blockade and just kind of... waiting around?

i've read the various arguments for and against the use of nukes and american estimates at the time of the cost of invasion of the home islands or later estimates of the death toll from continuing the blockade but that's not what i care about sooo

I think the allies insistence early on on only unconditional surrender had a lot of negative consequences

And ps they used nukes to scare Stalin the end
It's dumb to talk about civilian casualties when America had been slaughtering the Japanese like cattle for ages

But the idea that You need BOOTS ON THE GROUND to REGEIME CHANGE Japan is a lol

Yeah they'd totally just roll back over Asia with their no anything left

Bamboo spears like in those pathetic 'estimates'

I think the core is racism, going way back to before ww1, meanin that a generation of advanced Japanese knew white people would never take them seriously

The spear thing is pretty fucking sad. Yeah guys, they'll just use them to shield against massive naval gunfire, air support and all that armour.

So much oil to invade other countries they couldn't move anything anymore lol

Yeah. I mean obviously it would be rough but the shit SS and White Trash trot is just sad.

See there's a difference between defeating the army and the idea that ever jap would fight the white race to the end

Probat because they burned their entire family to ash lol

Nietzslime wrote:like what do you see as the endgame of america deciding that it's miller time when japan's refusing to surrender

Even before the bombs dropped there was some overtures from Japan basically saying "Okay you guys are kicking our asses. We'll surrender if you don't make us get rid of the Emperor."

The Allies rejected it because they would only accept unconditional surrender.

Then when Japan finally surrendered unconditionally, the US didn't make them get rid of the Emperor.

Nietzslime wrote:wait so are you proposing that america just kind of hang back and be like 'okay empire of japan, if you're tired we can just wait up until you've gotten some rest and then we can shoot at each other again'

ok so imagine you're in a fight with someone

you beat the living shit out of him and am capable of doing even more


are your options really just "give him some pcp and keep beating him" (people often fight more srs when foreigners are invading their homeland) or "shoot him in the head"?


here's a few ideas

1) walk away. you beat him once. if he starts shit later, you can beat him again. hell you still have those atomic bombs for next time if there is a next time.

really u can't have it both ways

you can't justfiy the invasion on "and not have any of that american re-construction rebuilding their shattered infrastructure and society" grounds while at the same time dismissing a unilateral armistice on "we can just wait up until you've gotten some rest and then we can shoot at each other again"

if they are shattered they aren't a threat

if they start to rebuild to attack again maybe you can cross that bridge when you come to it. there's no guarantee though that they'd get up all bloodied and decide to jump right back into it

and besides if the goal is to rebuild is NUKING THEM really a sane step?


"we're here to fix your broken windows"

"what broken windows?"

SMASH

"that one now pay up"


PS the Marshall Plan and stuff like that sounds like generosity but it really isn't. just another kind of colonialism - creating markets for american shit


2) ask if he has had enough. if he says "i've had enough. you can have my wallet just let me keep the picture of my kids" you could always give him the picture of his kids.

the unconditional surrender demands were just fucking ridiculous

and ask stalin to do likewise i guess

this here is the real reason. naked american aggression toward the soviet union

the soviets weren't really a military threat to america

but the idea that maybe the workers could keep the fruits of their own labor is a dangerous one to the rich who live off exploiting the workers

so we couldn't let that idea take hold

starku wrote:I think the allies insistence early on on only unconditional surrender had a lot of negative consequences

well sort of

at a certain level some degree of rigidness in terms was necessary for establishing the legal framework around this kind of conflict when the war did basically consist of a series of black-and-white unprovoked series of attacks by germany, italy, and japan

And ps they used nukes to scare Stalin the end

[citation needed]

It's dumb to talk about civilian casualties when America had been slaughtering the Japanese like cattle for ages

hold on here

the argument 'the american military brass cared about japanese civilian casualties and that's why they dropped the bomb'

and the argument 'if the bomb had not been dropped japanese casualties would have been worse under every other realistic scenario'

are two different things, and for the second it doesn't really matter if truman dropped the bomb as an expedient way of expressing upon the world america's technological might

But the idea that You need BOOTS ON THE GROUND to REGEIME CHANGE Japan is a lol

do you think japan would have recovered better or worse had america not occupied and re-constructed the country?

Yeah they'd totally just roll back over Asia with their no anything left

this is why i ask what 'end the war' means

does america force japan to cede its legal dominion over korea? what about port arthur, or sakhalin, or other properties that were legally japan's according to a peace treaty negotiated in america under a roosevelt?

I think the core is racism, going way back to before ww1, meanin that a generation of advanced Japanese knew white people would never take them seriously

i won't say that's wrong, but america had previously supported japan's rights as a world power in the aforementioned portsmouth treaty, and germany's treatment after the war was in fact far worse than japan's, being divided in two and having its entire structure and legal framework torn up and most of its human resources forced to remain outside of the public sphere during de-nazification, so clearly there is a lot more going on than just 'bad white people'

Civil War Man wrote:

Nietzslime wrote:like what do you see as the endgame of america deciding that it's miller time when japan's refusing to surrender

Even before the bombs dropped there was some overtures from Japan basically saying "Okay you guys are kicking our asses. We'll surrender if you don't make us get rid of the Emperor."

The Allies rejected it because they would only accept unconditional surrender.

Then when Japan finally surrendered unconditionally, the US didn't make them get rid of the Emperor.

that's a pretty big oversimplification

adr wrote:stuff

so answer the question: you keep using this analogy of 'just walk away and declare the war over'

you need to explain to me what that means

does japan have to cede port arthur, or taiwan, or korea

does america end the blockade and return to peacetime

does america re-open an embassy in japan and if so what sort of diplomatic relations are established

does america attempt to prevent the soviet union from invading hokkaido

does america attempt to end britain, canada, the netherlands, china, etc's coterminous war against japan

is japan in the hole for restitution payments and if so how does america expect japan to pay them

what about american prisoners of war being held in japan

who takes control of japan's pacific islands; do they still have them?

this isn't frivolous stuff

turns out the legal structure of warfare requires something more complicated than stupid analogies about streetfights

I think at first the strategic bombing was viewed as a necessary evil to neutralize enemy war production and hasten the end of the war, but at some point the allies crossed the line between that and "lets just burn shit." IIRC Nagasaki had a major shipyard that they were using to crank out suicide boats with which to attack an allied invasion force, ok fine. Why nuke the whole city? Surely a flight of B29s could blow up just the shipyard? I mean at that point B29s had such a high flight ceiling that they were pretty much invulnerable to anti-aircraft fire right? Why not send a few flights to take out specific targets in the cities instead of nuking them? I mean what, were 200,000 Japanese civilians not worth the extra fuel?

i means exactly what i said

walk away

blockade ends

japan is not forced to cede anything. not land, not money

they do not fight the soviets nor force the british


do you still talk? hell yes

do you still kill? hell no


the fact is the japanese DID NOT WANT war with america but were stonewalled in peace and deliberately provoked before pearl harbor

http://news.yahoo.com/did-fdr-provoke-p ... 00926.html

ww2, like iraq, vietnam, and every other war, was been based on LIES

Nietzslime wrote:what about american prisoners of war being held in japan

we could always ask for them

Darksi4190 wrote:I mean at that point B29s had such a high flight ceiling that they were pretty much invulnerable to anti-aircraft fire right? Why not send a few flights to take out specific targets in the cities instead of nuking them? I mean what, were 200,000 Japanese civilians not worth the extra fuel?

Because at the time strategic bombing was so inaccurate at these altitudes that in order to destroy the targets you would have had to destroy the whole city anyway ?

Why do you think Strategic Bombing was so indiscriminate during WWII ? it wasn't for shit'n'giggles, but because it was perceived as "bomb the shit out of them at high altitude and let god sort'em'out" vs. "send the bombers un-escorted at low-altitude to be sitting ducks for the enemy's AA defenses just in order to achieve more precise bombing runs".

adr wrote:the fact is the japanese DID NOT WANT war with america but were stonewalled in peace and deliberately provoked before pearl harbor

Japan did want war with China and southeast Asia, though. And, given the scale of atrocities in China, I think the US going to war against Japan was not particularly unjustified.

There were also some legitimate concerns about what the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere would have actually done if Japan could have used it, since it was an explicit adventure by Japan to create it's own giant chain of colonies throughout Asia. US liberation of those areas at least helped those areas achieve some sort of independence later (even though many of those nations were later invaded or otherwise interfered with by the US). Would the same have happened under Imperial Japanese occupation? That is much more difficult to say, though given the brutality of the Japanese regime in those nations, even European colonial adventures in the region after WWII were significantly less vile than what the Japanese had during the war and likely would have had afterward.

Turns out America didn't use a monopoly on doing anything it took to create 'security'

if 'don't sell murderous aggressor oil to fund their rape and pillage machine' is a deliberate provocation then that definitely also explains the japanese invasion of dutch indonesia and british hong kong

yep

Ending Canadas contribution is an easy sell though. Considering it was a cruiser and the crew mutinied over going.