ADVERTISEMENT

45 . . . You Know, Mr. Patriot . . Doesn't Know the Words to 'God Bless America'

strummingram said:
Right...

Germany had plans to rule the world... I don't think japan had plans to rule the world. They sure as hell weren't going to split it 3-ways either.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Japan had plans to rule the world, but that was the goal of the Axis powers as a whole.

Japan's slice of the pie would have been Asia which they began to invade and conquer as early as July 1937. In fact, following their unconditional surrender previously annexed areas of China, including Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores Islands, were returned to China and they were expelled from the Korean Peninsula.
 
Heels Noir said:
I didn't say Japan had plans to rule the world, but that was the goal of the Axis powers as a whole.

Japan's slice of the pie would have been Asia which they began to invade and conquer as early as July 1937. In fact, following their unconditional surrender previously annexed areas of China, including Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores Islands, were returned to China and they were expelled from the Korean Peninsula.
Click to expand...
And, we got to fight the Chinese in Korea a short 5 years later for more war profits and more dead soldiers! YAY!
 
strummingram said:
I don't look at the 2nd World War (or any war, if I can help it) as "our" and "us", and "them" and "they", first of all. I live here in the USA, and I pay taxes and do what I have to so as to not be hassled by any LEO's, or whatever. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But, I don't get all jingo'ed-out about America's military endeavors.

I absolutely do NOT condone Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor. That was definitely asking for serious retaliation, which it got, in spades. But, to claim that America was just sitting around giving Japan hugs-and-kisses and then outta nowhere, they go Rambo on us... that's not true. FDR had Chinese preferences.

I'm not using "pacifist" glasses. I'm trying to use "totally objective, and I don't have a dog in this fight, except to see it from all sides" glasses. Howard Zinn wrote a good book called "The People's History of the United States", and he was using the same approach. Your history is from ONE perspective. I already cited a book by a former Marine General about how wars are rackets. I believe him. I believe that his perspective is worth consideration and that it plays a huge roll in these international slaughterfests.

As far as Japan being "unprovoked", I'll offer these (I didn't check to see what nationality the authors were):

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-attack-on-pearl-harbor/

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

I would use Mises.org again, but I know you're suspect of that source because they might be Austrian. We all know Austrians are biased.

Good night!

ETA: I'm also not claiming that the Japanese Empire were made-up of cool cats either. I'm just saying that it wasn't just an OOTB event!
Click to expand...

Iโ€™ve read Howard Zinn and I could not disagree more with most of his assertions. Way too left.

Come on, you know I donโ€™t give a shit about whether someone is Austrian. I just donโ€™t think that institution has the best perspective of that theater of the war.
 
carolinablue34 said:
Iโ€™ve read Howard Zinn and I could not disagree more with most of his assertions. Way too left.
Click to expand...
Way too left???

So, he's lying? What?

Sooo, is Uncle Tom's Cabin "way to the left" or just closer to the truth of life on a Southern plantation???

Never mind... I've had all I can take.
 
carolinablue34 said:
South Korea says thank you.
Click to expand...
And, South Vietnam says what?

I guess we picked the wrong Asian country at the end of WWII? We wound up fighting them in Korea. Whatever keeps those rifles and tanks rolling off the assembly line.
 
Heels Noir said:
I don't buy that argument. At all.

Consider this one undeniable fact: after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and amid America's threat for more equally devastating strikes to come, Imperial Japan still refused to surrender.


That is not true, strum. Emperor Hirohito remained emperor in title only. He was stripped of all political power once The Constitution of Japan was enacted in 1947 and eliminated the power of the monarchy. Hirohito was reduced to a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty.
Click to expand...
The agreement to only accept unconditional surrender was agreed on at Malta by all of the allied powers. It was a needed requirment, just think what could have happened if Russia had decided to strike another deal with Germany after D Day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heels Noir
230211_image.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: carolinablue34 and Heels Noir
strummingram said:
And, South Vietnam says what?

I guess we picked the wrong Asian country at the end of WWII? We wound up fighting them in Korea. Whatever keeps those rifles and tanks rolling off the assembly line.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was different. That war was pointless, but Korea was entirely worth it. That nation is thriving and their people are free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirtyfredo
strummingram said:
Way too left???

So, he's lying? What?

Sooo, is Uncle Tom's Cabin "way to the left" or just closer to the truth of life on a Southern plantation???

Never mind... I've had all I can take.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. Iโ€™m not saying heโ€™s lying. Certain aspects of history are subjective. I just donโ€™t always agree with his analysis.

In addition, comparing his work to uncle toms cabin is apples and oranges.
 
tarheel0910 said:
No list of shitty presidents is complete without FDR.


But you still have a useless degree.
Click to expand...

1. Ehhhh...I can't get on the FDR being shitty hype that seems to be gaining steam lately. The guy was dealt an absolutely awful hand in 1932 and turned it around. I agree the New Deal was a bit overrated since the economy didn't actually recover until WW2 but I gotta give him credit that he did recognize that in this extreme scenario, the government had to step in. I'm a small gov guy, but in that case, individualism was not the way out.

2. I disagree that it's useless. First, I wouldn't have the job I have now without the piece of paper (just gotta check that box with large companies). Second, I'm awesome at bar trivia.
 
strummingram said:
That's a decent list to get the ball rolling.

One decided to round-up, remove citizenship, confiscate property and businesses, and incarcerate based on their ethnicity.

One force-marched innocent people to walk 1,000 miles across the landscape, where 4000 met their deaths.

One authorized two bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a matter of a few seconds. In fact, there have been several who had no problem killing innocent people... more than I feel like counting.
Click to expand...

So...first and third were during war when we were so freaking paranoid that it was ridiculous. Not pardoning them, but in war, I SORTA get why they made the mistakes.

For #2, yeah, no excuse for the trail of tears. Awful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
strummingram said:
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, โ€œthe Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasnโ€™t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.โ€

No one took Ike'sadvice, apparently, and why would they? He didn't think it was necessary.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that Ike became a gigantic pussy in his later years, he's just wrong here.

Every piece of intel we have (very accurate, we were breaking Japanese codes within hours of them changing them by 1945) they were going to fight to the death of every last man.

I've read multiple historians make the argument that Truman saved more lives of American soldiers than any President in history. The bombs were horrific, but another 3 years of a Pacific battle would have been far far worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carolinablue34 and Hark_The_Sound_2010
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
Nah, just wanted to make sure I didn't have to play message board police and call you out for having location NYC when you lived in NJ. Story checks out ;)
Click to expand...

Haha well I still live in NYC, bought the house in NJ but haven't moved into it yet. So it checks out.

Plus, @gunslingerdick was apparently at my mom's house for like 6 months. I hope he at least put in some new siding or updated the electrical, don't be a mooch bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncboy10, Raising Heel, dirtyfredo and 2 others
dadika13 said:
1. Ehhhh...I can't get on the FDR being shitty hype that seems to be gaining steam lately. The guy was dealt an absolutely awful hand in 1932 and turned it around. I agree the New Deal was a bit overrated since the economy didn't actually recover until WW2 but I gotta give him credit that he did recognize that in this extreme scenario, the government had to step in. I'm a small gov guy, but in that case, individualism was not the way out.
Click to expand...
Excellent points. Franklin Roosevelt is still today one of the greatest presidents we have seen which helps explain why he was reelected three times. On the other hand, Herbert Hoover was evidence enough that this country needed an astute and imaginative Democrat to take office in the midst of the worst economic crisis in American history.

2. I disagree that it's useless. First, I wouldn't have the job I have now without the piece of paper (just gotta check that box with large companies). Second, I'm awesome at bar trivia.
Click to expand...
No college degree is useless and anyone who says it is likely doesn't have much of an education to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dadika13
dadika13 said:
Aside from the fact that Ike became a gigantic pussy in his later years, he's just wrong here.

Every piece of intel we have (very accurate, we were breaking Japanese codes within hours of them changing them by 1945) they were going to fight to the death of every last man.

I've read multiple historians make the argument that Truman saved more lives of American soldiers than any President in history. The bombs were horrific, but another 3 years of a Pacific battle would have been far far worse.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Every indication I've seen from books and historians I've read basically states that the fighting in the Pacific would have lasted at least another 2 years (possible 3) and killed millions, including untold numbers of Japanese civilians. I'm not proud of the fact that we had to use the atomic bomb, but we still had to.

The greatest two black stains in American history in my opinion: the allowance of slavery and the treatment of Indians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dadika13
dirtyfredo said:
It's no more shit than the supposition you've been posting. Quoting bullshit is still bullshit
Click to expand...
I guess you're right. They could have fought the Russians and the USA with Ninja Stars and killed millions of people.

At least I have been citing sources, historians, and other academics and military quotes.

retorting with "Ike became a pussy" is even more juvenile bullshit that's been shoveled throughout the thread.
 
strummingram said:
You are talking complete shit, here.
Click to expand...

Like hell I am. I've actually studied this goddamn war extensively and read numerous books on the subject. If you actually believe invading the Japanese mainland would have been easy as us and the Russians facing "ninja stars" then you're talking out of your ass. It was a questions of millions of lives lost versus thousands. Take your pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dadika13
strummingram said:
You are talking complete shit, here.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of military experts who have weighed in on both sides of the debate, strum. But when you consider how long it took the Allies to prevail at Iwo Jima (36 days, defended by 23,000 Japanese army and navy troops) and Okinawa (83 days, defended by 130,000 members of Japan's 32nd Army), it seems entirely reasonable that it may have taken years to conquer the entire mainland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carolinablue34
Heels Noir said:
There are plenty of military experts who have weighed in on both sides of the debate, strum. But when you consider how long it took the Allies to prevail at Iwo Jima (36 days, defended by 23,000 Japanese army and navy troops) and Okinawa (83 days, defended by 130,000 members of Japan's 32nd Army), it seems entirely reasonable that it may have taken years to conquer the entire mainland.
Click to expand...
I was hoping someone would make this excellent point.
 
Heels Noir said:
There are plenty of military experts who have weighed in on both sides of the debate, strum. But when you consider how long it took the Allies to prevail at Iwo Jima (36 days, defended by 23,000 Japanese army and navy troops) and Okinawa (83 days, defended by 130,000 members of Japan's 32nd Army), it seems entirely reasonable that it may have taken years to conquer the entire mainland.
Click to expand...

Strum doesn't like predictions. Not even reasonable ones.
 
carolinablue34 said:
If you actually believe invading the Japanese mainland would have been easy as us and the Russians facing "ninja stars" then you're talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...
Easy? No... not "easy."

But, 2-3 years? You're out of your fvcking mind.
 
Heels Noir said:
There are plenty of military experts who have weighed in on both sides of the debate, strum. But when you consider how long it took the Allies to prevail at Iwo Jima (36 days, defended by 23,000 Japanese army and navy troops) and Okinawa (83 days, defended by 130,000 members of Japan's 32nd Army), it seems entirely reasonable that it may have taken years to conquer the entire mainland.
Click to expand...
With what exactly are they going to use to fight 2 fronts at the same time? Where are they going to get any ammunition? They need supplies and the tools to do it.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
Strum is of the belief that there's always a third option where everyone sings kumbaya and no one dies.
Click to expand...
No, that's obviously not possible. It's much more sane to kill as many people as possible and then justify it so it doesn't burn the conscience too bad when we go to church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back