Hi , intolerance exists in so many ways , but i cant help but wander why are some generally excepted.
First of all we have racial , this is the most strict and understandable ( with blacks been slaves within recent centuries )
Gender , not as strict , but still people behave to not get sued.
Then we have countries . The hate , intolerance of other country where we are free to bash , insult , make fun of all we want.
without any sort of consequences , why is like this?
Is this where the direction is going now? all the people that are racist but couldnt express it now find a new outlet to spread their hate?
Some people are brought up being racist and it sticks with them for the rest of there life. I cant stand racism and people who know me are never racist around me as they know il go nuts on them.
Gender: Im not realy sure what your getting at about gender.
Countries: A little competition never hurt anyone But I do find it very very irritating when 7-10 year old little Americans say stuff like "Everyone in The UK is gay" and "America won world war two cause we nuked Japan". The amount of ignorance little kids on Xbox live is amazing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Tolerance isn't about just mindlessly accepting the different. It's simply about knowing when to hold you tongue, and live and let live.
Hmm am i perhaps using the wrong word? ( what would be better to describe it? )
Wanna know if your using the right word? Pick from the list
Most of them are gak, but a quick google search I found these:
impatience with annoyances; "his intolerance of interruptions"
unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Intolerance: Love's Struggle Through the Ages, a silent film directed by D. W. Griffith in 1916, is considered one of the great masterpieces of ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerance_(film)
the state of being intolerant; An intolerant word or action; extreme sensitivity to a food or drug; allergy
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intolerance
intolerant - unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion
intolerant - illiberal: narrow-minded about cherished opinions
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
intolerantly - in a narrow-minded manner; "his illiberally biased way of thinking"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Intolerant is a Filipino thrash/metalcore band from Manila, Philippines. Formed by the members of two genre-defining bands, Intolerant's music is ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerant
intolerant - Unable or indisposed to tolerate, endure or bear; Not tolerant; close-minded about new or different ideas. ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intolerant
allergy or sensitivity to a food, drug, or other substance.
www.uchospitals.edu/online-library/content=P00372
an attitude of not accepting or respecting different opinions, practices, or people.
www.creativephotography.org/education/educatorsGuides/reframe/glossary.html
the inability of a tree species to survive in the shade of other trees. See "shade tolerance."
www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/ssfor11.htm
inability of the body to tolerate the adverse side effects of a drug.
www.sfaf.org/custom/glossary.aspx
A set of complaints experienced by a patient which does not fit a true allergy. A true allergy involves activation of the immune system. Thus, nausea is not an allergy but an intolerance to a substance.
www.gastromd.com/definitionsi.html
was a colossal undertaking filled with monumental sets, lavish period costumes, and more than 3,000 extras. The film consisted of four distinct but parallel stories that demonstrated mankind's intolerance during four different ages in world history. ...
india.smashits.com/wikipedia/Intolerance_(movie)
Lord-Loss mayhaps you should quit listening to 7-10 kids or, er any age. With the exception of Genghis Connie who was of course brilliant, you're talking to kids who are busy watching Spongebob Squarepants for crying out loud.
Luna: I think that the source of this idea that it's okay to bash other countries is nationalism. We're still working to come out of the hyper-nationalist 19th and 20th centuries. The idea that one's nation is superior to the other countries of the world is a pretty deeply rooted one.
Basically, it stems from the time of Imperialism, when the countries in Europe starting carving up the world into their colonies. These nations felt they were superior (they felt they needed to enlighten and uplift other nations, it's very disgusting to modern sensibilities). Meanwhile, as the colonial powers were distracted by wars, the subjugated peoples wanted to prove that, in fact, they were NOT inferior to the colonial powers. In some countries, such as Canada, who gained our freedom through bureaucracy, this manifested into a general feeling that we're pretty awesome. In other places, especially those who gained their freedom through fighting, this manifested as knowledge of superiority, mixed in with a distrust of outsiders.
This is going to keep on happening for a long time, until global unification ideas can take hold. We're seeing great steps in this direction (the UN, the European Union forming) but there's a long way to go.
Lord-Loss mayhaps you should quit listening to 7-10 kids or, er any age. With the exception of Genghis Connie who was of course brilliant, you're talking to kids who are busy watching Spongebob Squarepants for crying out loud.
I try not too, but when your in a online game and they hear my accent, it takes them 5-10 seconds to be racist about the UK, while I have to finish the guy Im killing and mute them.
Lord-Loss wrote:Victoriously killing alot of innocent people.
Not even getting into the moral implications of that statement, killing innocent people has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it ended the war.
Lord-Loss wrote:Victoriously killing alot of innocent people.
But Im not going to get into a heated discussion about it, thats not what this threads about.
The morality of war was different even then. We're all used to an idea of Great Powers fighting minor powers, not great powers fighting each other. Decisions were made then that we would not make now, due to pressures we don't feel now. There was not a single major participant in that war, not one, that didn't commit at least some actions that would today be labeled atrocities. That's not even addressing the utilitarian argument over how many would have died during an invasion, or even due to starvation/disease/bombing while waiting for the invasion.
Now, if you want to get into an interesting moral debate you start asking question about the validity/necessity of unconditional surrender.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord-Loss wrote:Seems like a waste of human life. Did those people deserve to die?
Lord-Loss wrote:"America won world war two cause we nuked Japan"
Didn't we?
I mean, we ended the war in that fashion. Victoriously.
Russia won WW2. If Uncle Joe hadn't used up millions of his own people to soak up Nazi bullets, the entirety of Europe, including the UK, would have fallen to the 3rd Reich. USA would not have had the ability to wage a war on both oceans.
Only a monster like Stalin beat a monster like Hitler. That's what broke the back of the axis, the Nazi war on the Eastern Front.
Lord-Loss wrote:"America won world war two cause we nuked Japan"
Didn't we?
I mean, we ended the war in that fashion. Victoriously.
Russia won WW2. If Uncle Joe hadn't used up millions of his own people to soak up Nazi bullets, the entirety of Europe, including the UK, would have fallen to the 3rd Reich. USA would not have had the ability to wage a war on both oceans.
Only a monster like Stalin beat a monster like Hitler. That's what broke the back of the axis, the Nazi war on the Eastern Front.
BrookM wrote:Same with Italy really. People tend to forget the war being fought there.
My great-grandfather never forgave the Italians after the World Wars. 'Dirty traitors' he called them, and I think he could have justified that in years gone by, but the same can't be said for the present.
Lord-Loss wrote:...when 7-10 year old little Americans say stuff like "Everyone in The UK is gay".
Are you saying that isn't true? I have it on quite good authority that it is.
And I've seen dozens of books on the Eastern Front of the european theater, so that is hardly a dirty secret. Feel free to peruse this website you may have heard of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Absolutely Uncle Joe was critical in the war effort in Europe, and even played a part in the surrender of Japan. He was also absolutely a monster.
And here is how much guilt I feel over dropping Fat Man and Little Boy: ZERO. Is it a shame? Yes. Did we kill plenty of civilians (I find the term innocent pointless in a debate about war on a scale the likes of which no one in this thread can even comprehend)? Yes. Is that regrettable? Yes. Did my grandfathers have to fight on the Japanese mainland against a fierce and dedicated foe after a brutal campaign in Europe? No. Anyone so inclined may also use the above website to peruse the war crimes committed during WWII. My country certainly committed it's fair share (as did all of the Allies), which is shameful. But the crimes committed by the Axis countries (and to a lesser extent Russia in the aftermath of Germany's downfall) were so far beyond that, that if any country did actually deserve the nuke (and none did), it was Germany and Japan.
Where I live they have signs that say "JAPANESE ONLY" or "NO FOREIGNERS". How's that for racism? Renting an apartment: No smokers, no pets, no foreigners. Just in case someone decides to bring up the possibility of the Japanese only defending their culture, as a French tourist staying with a friend of mine in town less than a week ago, there is the whole whale/culture argument.
A lot of intolerance on all sides exist because most people are so self absorbed and self centred that they are just incapable of understanding the position of someone else. Also , I think a lot of these problems exist because the politicians and the powers-that-be whip up public sentiment to build support. If the masses are divded, they are easily ruled.
Lord-Loss wrote:"America won world war two cause we nuked Japan"
Didn't we?
I mean, we ended the war in that fashion. Victoriously.
Russia won WW2. If Uncle Joe hadn't used up millions of his own people to soak up Nazi bullets, the entirety of Europe, including the UK, would have fallen to the 3rd Reich. USA would not have had the ability to wage a war on both oceans.
Only a monster like Stalin beat a monster like Hitler. That's what broke the back of the axis, the Nazi war on the Eastern Front.
However, "win" can mean a lot of things. Being the most significant force in a fight can mean you've "won" it (You can argue for either the USA or the USSR for that status; The USSR would have been fighting on two fronts too if the US had instead remained neutral). Finishing the war can also mean "winning" it, and while the nuclear bombings didn't do much to swing the tides, they did finish the war.
To use a Warhammer 40,000 example, your 500 points of biker nobs killed 1,000 points of troops, and killed off all of your opponent's scoring units before dieing. However, a squad of grots, your last scoring unit, ran onto your objective at the end of the turn. Did the nobs or the grots win the game for you? You could say either one did.
Lord-Loss wrote:Seems like a waste of human life. Did those people deserve to die?
No, but more people died in the Nanking Massacre than from the nuclear bombs. More civilians died from conventional firebombing by the US. than they did from the nuclear bombs. At least as many civilians died from bombing in Europe as Japan, nuclear bombs included.
Lets just return to the question of intolerance and steer clear of the gak storm I can see on the horizon of this thread atm.
I think I can be prejudiced, I certainly make assumptions based on many things when first encountering someone and one of those things will be their ethnic group or social outlook. If I met someone of, say oriental features, I would wonder in my head if that meant chinese, japanese, korean etc. I have always said that the colour of someone's skin isn't relevant to me, I do consider it, but it should not adversely affect my judgement of them.
Religion is a different kettle of fish though, I do hold a particularly negative view on Islam, mostly because I feel it holds a particularly negative view on me, every one i know and anyone else in the world who isn't in the club. I have met a few muslims who I have conversed with and who I have enjoyed their company, but non that I could sit down and discuss Islam as i see it and ask them to either help me understand or justify how I see that religion behaving the world over.
Orkeosaurus said: However, a squad of grots, your last scoring unit, ran onto your objective at the end of the turn. Did the nobs or the grots win the game for you? You could say either one did.
Lord-Loss wrote:Seems like a waste of human life. Did those people deserve to die?
Projections at the time had a lot more people dying if we hadn't used the bomb. You're doing the armchair general thing and second guessing. My father was in the Pacific during WW2 and it was an ugly business. The Japanese were set to fight to the last man where ever possible and they weren't above throwing away the lives of their own people if they thought it would cause the death of even one of their enemies.
This actually dovetails nicely to the intolerance thread since the Japanese notions of superiorty at the time led to such gems as the rape of Nanking.
My father had also heard about and seen a lot of fairly nasty stuff that had been done in the Phillippines by the occupying Japanese forces.
This was the image of Japan at the time, a monster that had to be stopped, and after witnessing the aftermath of Japanese occupied areas, the bomb seemed an entirely reasonable option to the US commanders.
What makes this interesting to me is the fact I had a Japanese room mate whose father fought in China in WW2. The first time he and his friends had ever heard about this, the Baatan death march or Korean comfort women was from a news special talking about WW2.
Relapse wrote:
Projections at the time had a lot more people dying if we hadn't used the bomb. You're doing the armchair general thing and second guessing. My father was in the Pacific during WW2 and it was an ugly business. The Japanese were set to fight to the last man where ever possible and they weren't above throwing away the lives of their own people if they thought it would cause the death of even one of their enemies.
And yet they didn't fight to the last man. They actually gave up after losing 220,000 people. The notion that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man simply doesn't jive with history. That said, the entire question of 'was it right to drop the atomic bomb' really misses the point. To the extent that total surrender was the only possible outcome of the war (which is debatable) there was going to be some terrible loss of life in bringing it about. Once you start arguing what was more terrible, dropping the atomic bomb or an amphibious assault followed by a protracted ground campaign, you're just splitting hairs.
Relapse wrote:
This was the image of Japan at the time, a monster that had to be stopped, and after witnessing the aftermath of Japanese occupied areas, the bomb seemed an entirely reasonable option to the US commanders.
It wasn't even the greatest Allied sin of the war. When considering relevance to the overall aim of victory Dresden was much, much worse.
To ask if intolerance and racism is our future, one must have absolutely no idea what the worlds past has been. We live in far better conditions than in the past, and while that is not true everywhere it is true of most places.
And here is how much guilt I feel over dropping Fat Man and Little Boy: ZERO. Is it a shame? Yes. Did we kill plenty of civilians (I find the term innocent pointless in a debate about war on a scale the likes of which no one in this thread can even comprehend)? Yes. Is that regrettable? Yes. Did my grandfathers have to fight on the Japanese mainland against a fierce and dedicated foe after a brutal campaign in Europe? No. Anyone so inclined may also use the above website to peruse the war crimes committed during WWII. My country certainly committed it's fair share (as did all of the Allies), which is shameful. But the crimes committed by the Axis countries (and to a lesser extent Russia in the aftermath of Germany's downfall) were so far beyond that, that if any country did actually deserve the nuke (and none did), it was Germany and Japan.
And in facing evil dienekes96 has no problem in becoming evil. This is not a sign of weakness of morality, rather it's a weakness of character. Sacrificing ideals for ease of continued existence.
Alpharius wrote:My irony meter almost broke when reading this thread, which has received multiple Mod Alerts in its short life.
I'm not sure how this can stay On Topic and remain polite, so, I guess this means that this thread is on notice.
And so is everyone posting in it.
The thread originally was asking something else , but knowing how badly i word things , it probably was read as something else.
I was asking " with racism , and sexism having immediate and harsh consequences , are the intolerant type of people that used to
be associated with those 2 listed , moving onto a more acceptable target. "praying" on other powerless countries for fun and chuckles .
ShumaGorath wrote:To ask if intolerance and racism is our future, one must have absolutely no idea what the worlds past has been. We live in far better conditions than in the past, and while that is not true everywhere it is true of most places..
Yes now there are consequences , that doesnt mean people actually morally changed. As far as im concerned people are still just as much jerks and asses now
then before.
Relapse wrote:
Projections at the time had a lot more people dying if we hadn't used the bomb. You're doing the armchair general thing and second guessing. My father was in the Pacific during WW2 and it was an ugly business. The Japanese were set to fight to the last man where ever possible and they weren't above throwing away the lives of their own people if they thought it would cause the death of even one of their enemies.
And yet they didn't fight to the last man. They actually gave up after losing 220,000 people. The notion that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man simply doesn't jive with history. That said, the entire question of 'was it right to drop the atomic bomb' really misses the point. To the extent that total surrender was the only possible outcome of the war (which is debatable) there was going to be some terrible loss of life in bringing it about. Once you start arguing what was more terrible, dropping the atomic bomb or an amphibious assault followed by a protracted ground campaign, you're just splitting hairs.
Relapse wrote:
This was the image of Japan at the time, a monster that had to be stopped, and after witnessing the aftermath of Japanese occupied areas, the bomb seemed an entirely reasonable option to the US commanders.
It wasn't even the greatest Allied sin of the war. When considering relevance to the overall aim of victory Dresden was much, much worse.
You seem to be missing the part where I said this was the image Japan projected at the time.
I also had a few uncles in Europe during WW2 and from their point of view, after coming across pregnant women in France that had been cut open by German soldiers, Dresdan gave little cause for tears. On the other hand, my friends with German parents in WW2 and people I knew that fought for Germany said they didn't have the real news about what was happening at that time. My point is that it comes easily to the lips, to condemn tactics used in what was literaly a life and death war for nations and classes of people, when you're 60+ years from the event and not thrust into the middle of something like this.
Something I learned through all of this, though is how badly a lot of South Koreans hate North Koreans. With everything Japan did in Korea, a friend of mine from Korea still said she'd marry a Japanese before she married a North Korean as a way to show what she thought of those from the north.
Like was stated earlier, there are many different kinds of intolerance. My guess goes with some of what's been said earlier, one group of people feels either threatened or has the need to lord it over another group. Look at any sports event, there's usually a good brawl going on somewhere between supporters of the different teams.
Orkeosaurus wrote:However, "win" can mean a lot of things. Being the most significant force in a fight can mean you've "won" it (You can argue for either the USA or the USSR for that status; The USSR would have been fighting on two fronts too if the US had instead remained neutral).
True, and the supplies (especially the trucks) given to the Soviets under the Lend Lease program were critical in their maintaining the war. But at the end of the day the Soviets built more tanks in 1943 than anyone produced over the entire length of the war. And the overwhelming majority of casualties inflicted on the Germans were from the Soviets.
And being caught in the mire of China, it’s doubtful the Japanese could have committed to a meaningful attack on Russia. Even if they had it probably wouldn’t have achieved much, when the Japanese and Soviets did fight in Manchuria the Japanese copped a horrendous spanking. If the Japanese hadn’t fought the US and instead attacked the Soviets more often, I doubt it would have exhausted the Soviets much.
At the end of the day, I think the defeat of the Axis powers was likely without US intervention. The US certainly made it quicker and less bloody., but really what the US should be very proud of is stopping the USSR from expanding in Europe after the war.
Finishing the war can also mean "winning" it, and while the nuclear bombings didn't do much to swing the tides, they did finish the war.
That’s true, but when the OP is talking about kids on-line start declaring the US won the war by nuking Japan, I doubt those kids mean ‘while recognising the significant contributions of multiple parties during the war and that the war was all but over when the bombs were dropped, they were the acts that finished the war’.
Relapse wrote:I also had a few uncles in Europe during WW2 and from their point of view, after coming across pregnant women in France that had been cut open by German soldiers, Dresdan gave little cause for tears. On the other hand, my friends with German parents in WW2 and people I knew that fought for Germany said they didn't have the real news about what was happening at that time. My point is that it comes easily to the lips, to condemn tactics used in what was literaly a life and death war for nations and classes of people, when you're 60+ years from the event and not thrust into the middle of something like this.
True, we should be slow to condemn people operating with limited skills sets in life and death situations. I don’t condemn anyone involved for the dropping of the bomb on Japan (while Japanese defences weren’t that impregnable, that wasn’t known at the time, the US had projected hundreds of thousands of casualties).
But there is no shortage in the information set that justifies the bombing of Dresden. It had marginal strategic benefit, and was all about the Allied policy to focus on strategic bombing, targeting civilian centres to crush the German population’s will to fight. It was a stupid, bloodthirsty strategy that prolonged the war and got a lot of people killed.
Something I learned through all of this, though is how badly a lot of South Koreans hate North Koreans. With everything Japan did in Korea, a friend of mine from Korea still said she'd marry a Japanese before she married a North Korean as a way to show what she thought of those from the north.
Koreans I’ve known have been quite different. Despite the Korean war, despite a national identity based on resisting the Chinese over hundreds of years, the Koreans I’ve known have really, really hated the Japanese. That’s with the Japanese having only occupied Korea for a few years during WWII… it really tells you how horrible the Japanese were.
sebster wrote:
Koreans I’ve known have been quite different. Despite the Korean war, despite a national identity based on resisting the Chinese over hundreds of years, the Koreans I’ve known have really, really hated the Japanese. That’s with the Japanese having only occupied Korea for a few years during WWII… it really tells you how horrible the Japanese were.
Very true words, it's a major insult to a Korean to be mistaken for Japanese. My friend really hated North Koreans and she used that example to show the depth of her hatred. What's ironic is that I had both Korean and Japanese room mates at the same time and everyone got along well. It just goes to show how jacked and screwy things get in the world and what a complicated thing intolerance can really be.
I grew up thinking Russians were out to kill us all(nucular attack drills, civil defense literature, etc.) and then I got to be pals with some Russians later in life. Turned out they were science fiction geeks lile me and grew up thinking the US was out to kill them!
Relapse wrote:Very true words, it's a major insult to a Korean to be mistaken for Japanese. My friend really hated North Koreans and she used that example to show the depth of her hatred. What's ironic is that I had both Korean and Japanese room mates at the same time and everyone got along well.
Hmm, I was just thinking about my earlier point... the South Koreans I've known either left Korea a long time ago or are second generation migrants, so it's possible that among the Koreans living there N Korea has become enemy number one. I'm going to see District 9 with a mate who lived in Korea for a few years, I'll ask him if he noticed any nationalism and who it was generally opposed to.
It just goes to show how jacked and screwy things get in the world and what a complicated thing intolerance can really be.
I grew up thinking Russians were out to kill us all(nucular attack drills, civil defense literature, etc.) and then I got to be pals with some Russians later in life. Turned out they were science fiction geeks lile me and grew up thinking the US was out to kill them!
I was in India recently, and one Hindu family I stayed with for a night got talking about those Muslims over the border in Pakistan. It was odd because they were a Rajasthani family, many of their neighbours were Muslim. I had dinner with a Muslim family later on, and they spent a bit of time ragging on those Pakistanis, never mentioning religion.
I think in a lot of cases people first make the decision to hate, and then figure out what differences they have to justify that hatred.
Sebster wrote:I think in a lot of cases people first make the decision to hate, and then figure out what differences they have to justify that hatred.
This, in my eyes, is the core of true intolerance.
It becomes the goal rather than the direction, a vague yet very defined anti-you, or something along those lines. Most often intolerance can be directly attributed to how ignorant a person chooses to be, rather than how ignorant they happen to be. It is not a random action for people to override their emotional response circuit, or however you deem objectifying your rational interpretations of a situation that could stand to alter your perspective beyond what can be tangibly anchored into words. This is where you objectify your objectification, you are effectively denying any rational input to your thoughts, and you have altered your perspective in a very physical way, beyond that which a simple cup of coffee and a deep conversation could ever hope to achieve for most... like the fact that puddles are deeper than oceans because an ocean is an undefined mass with variables and... stuff besides simple ecosystems... yeah, I like dem beach.
So you take your misdirected perspective and apply to a group of people in order to bring them together, and more often than not the group will be mainly composed (or administrated and managed by) the most irate of these believers. Intolerance does manifest actual changes in the way you live your life, rather than being a monk (all of which live by a set of intolerance's that define what they see to be the true path, this is no insult, just an observation) you can simply allow your opinions and thoughts to take new forms as the information to do so arises.
Yeah, this is better over a cup of joe or something, I really cannot get my points across without funny faces that people choose to ignore until the funny just gets too loud. That is something that all of the debaters on here should practice, just get a partner and try to compete with their funny faces with a stone face. Unless you can just shut down and read (heh, intolerance with variables... funny stuff ) what you have trained your mind to create in a fashion that suits the debate, you will be trumped by the funny every time. Cheating? Well... not really, you just are not tolerant enough to let those funny faces walk by, or something along those metaphorical brain-frenzy lines.
sebster wrote:Hmm, I was just thinking about my earlier point... the South Koreans I've known either left Korea a long time ago or are second generation migrants, so it's possible that among the Koreans living there N Korea has become enemy number one. I'm going to see District 9 with a mate who lived in Korea for a few years, I'll ask him if he noticed any nationalism and who it was generally opposed to.
I was in India recently, and one Hindu family I stayed with for a night got talking about those Muslims over the border in Pakistan. It was odd because they were a Rajasthani family, many of their neighbours were Muslim. I had dinner with a Muslim family later on, and they spent a bit of time ragging on those Pakistanis, never mentioning religion.
I think in a lot of cases people first make the decision to hate, and then figure out what differences they have to justify that hatred.
I'll be interested to see what your friend says, and if anything has changed much since I lived with the Koreans. Your India story reminds me of when I lived in New Orleans. I was walking down Canal street one night and saw a black guy I knew that was a cab driver talking with a good ole' boy about the Vietnamese that lived in the city. They were both complaining back and forth about how all the Vietnamese did was get welfare, drive big cars, and cause crime. It was at that point I realized that at least that area of the south had changed, and led me to see that intolerance can happen when people feel threatened by strangers. Pretty much a few short years before the Vietnamese appeared on the scene, those two would have been at each other's throats.
sebster wrote:True, and the supplies (especially the trucks) given to the Soviets under the Lend Lease program were critical in their maintaining the war. But at the end of the day the Soviets built more tanks in 1943 than anyone produced over the entire length of the war. And the overwhelming majority of casualties inflicted on the Germans were from the Soviets.
And being caught in the mire of China, it’s doubtful the Japanese could have committed to a meaningful attack on Russia. Even if they had it probably wouldn’t have achieved much, when the Japanese and Soviets did fight in Manchuria the Japanese copped a horrendous spanking. If the Japanese hadn’t fought the US and instead attacked the Soviets more often, I doubt it would have exhausted the Soviets much.
At the end of the day, I think the defeat of the Axis powers was likely without US intervention. The US certainly made it quicker and less bloody., but really what the US should be very proud of is stopping the USSR from expanding in Europe after the war.
Is America still willing to trade oil and scrap metal to Japan in the hypothetical scenario? I recall that being one of the big hamstrings in Japan's military industry (Germany produced about three times at much oil), but that's more what America didn't do than what we actually contributed.
Also, are you sure about that tank stat? Wikipedia seems to place America as having produced a similar number of tanks (although Russian tanks were more heavily armored), with Germany producing about half as many. Maybe "self-propelled guns" are throwing the numbers off.
This chart puts the US ahead in tank production, probably because of the lighter vehicles.
:EDIT: Ah, here's a better one that I missed before.
That’s true, but when the OP is talking about kids on-line start declaring the US won the war by nuking Japan, I doubt those kids mean ‘while recognising the significant contributions of multiple parties during the war and that the war was all but over when the bombs were dropped, they were the acts that finished the war’.
Probably not, knowing the type, but I still wouldn't take it out as an example of stupidity with the possibility of it being well-informed (and probably ill-expressed).
True, we should be slow to condemn people operating with limited skills sets in life and death situations. I don’t condemn anyone involved for the dropping of the bomb on Japan (while Japanese defences weren’t that impregnable, that wasn’t known at the time, the US had projected hundreds of thousands of casualties).
That's the big thing. The Japanese army was pretty well vested in maintaining an image of never surrendering no matter the odds, both to rally themselves and try and get the US to withdraw from their campaign. It may have worked a little too well in that regard.
I don't think the bombings were necessary, but I don't think Truman had any way of knowing that at the time. An invasion of mainland Japan would have been terrible for both sides (something I think Japan was counting on as a defense).
Relapse wrote:
You seem to be missing the part where I said this was the image Japan projected at the time.
I thought that was implicit in my comment about the necessity of total surrender.
Relapse wrote:
I also had a few uncles in Europe during WW2 and from their point of view, after coming across pregnant women in France that had been cut open by German soldiers, Dresdan gave little cause for tears. On the other hand, my friends with German parents in WW2 and people I knew that fought for Germany said they didn't have the real news about what was happening at that time. My point is that it comes easily to the lips, to condemn tactics used in what was literaly a life and death war for nations and classes of people, when you're 60+ years from the event and not thrust into the middle of something like this.
I'm not one to judge any tactical choice based upon moral criteria, except in those instances where morality is important to the outcome of the conflict. I was simply using Dresden as a means of framing Hiroshima/Nagasaki in the context of a separate event with far less strategic relevance.
Wrexasaur wrote:So you take your misdirected perspective and apply to a group of people in order to bring them together, and more often than not the group will be mainly composed (or administrated and managed by) the most irate of these believers. Intolerance does manifest actual changes in the way you live your life, rather than being a monk (all of which live by a set of intolerance's that define what they see to be the true path, this is no insult, just an observation) you can simply allow your opinions and thoughts to take new forms as the information to do so arises.
Yeah, selection bias reinforcing a pre-conceived notion explains a lot of intolerance. Witness the emphasis that some of the more vocal atheists on this board put on horrible Christians, or some of the more vocal Christians put on horrible atheists. Because they're looking for the people that reinforce their negative views.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Is America still willing to trade oil and scrap metal to Japan in the hypothetical scenario? I recall that being one of the big hamstrings in Japan's military industry (Germany produced about three times at much oil), but that's more what America didn't do than what we actually contributed.
Yeah, that's a good question. I was moving on the assumption that the US did everything it did, but the Japanese didn't react to the embargoes, and instead of Pearl Harbour they focussed on pacifying China and marching into Russian territory. But you're right that US embargoes played a big part.
Also, are you sure about that tank stat?
Less sure now that you question it I might have been thinking of a comparison purely against Axis totals.
Wikipedia seems to place America as having produced a similar number of tanks (although Russian tanks were more heavily armored), with Germany producing about half as many. Maybe "self-propelled guns" are throwing the numbers off.
Yeah, those figures are off. 60,000 for the Russians is very small, that's not far off the production total for T-34s alone.
This chart puts the US ahead in tank production, probably because of the lighter vehicles.
:EDIT: Ah, here's a better one that I missed before.
That looks a lot more reasonable, although its pretty much just about the death knell for my claim on Russia's production in one year being greater than anyone else for the full war. Maybe if I use this, http://216.93.184.240/kr/encyclopedia/Soviet_tank_production_during_World_War_II, and switch my claim to 1944 and just the axis countries, and just tanks and not the self-propelled guns the Nazis cranked out... I'll be a little closer?
Probably not, knowing the type, but I still wouldn't take it out as an example of stupidity with the possibility of it being well-informed (and probably ill-expressed).
I don't know, when it comes to kids on x-box live isn't it pretty safe to assume they're idiots and wait for evidence to the contrary? (speaking of intolerance... whoops)
That's the big thing. The Japanese army was pretty well vested in maintaining an image of never surrendering no matter the odds, both to rally themselves and try and get the US to withdraw from their campaign. It may have worked a little too well in that regard.
It'd be kind of funny, if it didn't get so many people killed.
I don't think the bombings were necessary, but I don't think Truman had any way of knowing that at the time. An invasion of mainland Japan would have been terrible for both sides (something I think Japan was counting on as a defense).
This is my opinion as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadowbrand wrote:Even fewer people know that Japan was studying about the atom bomb as well.
They maybe needed another week, part's the Nazis sent got taken.
It's likely you're thinking of an old story about that relies on a funny coincidence. U-boat 234 was going to Japan when Germany surrendered, it subsequently gave itself up. On board was radioactive material, but it was almost definitely not weapons grade uranium (it was likely material for synthesising oil). The crate was labelled U-235 but this was likely a mislabelling of the sub's name.
Either way, having access to fissionable material doesn't mean you're capable of building a bomb. You still need heavy water, you still need to actually construct the mechanisms capable of creating fission at a sufficient ratio.
You just have to consider the scale of the Manhatten project to realise how many resources are needed to produce nuclear weapons quickly during war time. Both the Germans and the Japanese programs were a micro level compared to Manhatten, and they were being bombed at the time. Both were many, many years away from developing the bomb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:Every army , from every war have done their share of atrocious actions .
However , its up to the winner of the war to erase / emphasize the incidents.
What we need to remember , is its all in the past.
The generations now are innocent , and shouldnt be burdened with such grudge and hate.
Sort of. But it would be a mistake to assume every army equally guilty. While there is Dresden and the atomic bombs, the Western powers were not the Russians, they weren't the Japanese and they weren't the Russians. It's important to distinguish the more moral from the less moral, and in turn from the utterly immoral, to maybe get more armies acting as morally as possible.
And while it's good to move on, we need to know what atrocities were done, and why. If only we spent the time to really know what war entails we might be less likely to charge into one next time.
DAAAAAAMN!!! that is one sexy chart mate... oooh right.
Very interesting though, and confusing... but still interesting.
Damn... look at all of the tiny countries who got totally owned... this is a no joke zone Wrex, keep your cool.
Yeah, I feel bad now, Lithuania I apologize, these other cats just don't know your pain... seriously though like 13% of the frakking population and stuff...
This chart is evil, it brings only more questions than it chooses to answer. This... is the chart of madness and despair and stuff... (twice heh)
What we need to remember , is its all in the past.
The generations now are innocent , and shouldnt be burdened with such grudge and hate.
I entirely agree with Lunahound.
That said, there is that old saying that should apply in relation to the discussion in this thread about the great wars of recent history:
'Those who for get the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them'... As the last tommy to survive the first world war has died, as time relegates those who lived through the second great war and saw the horrors of that time to the very old, a place where we in the West cease listening to them. I think we must take steps to understand how the world got to that stage last time and ever strive to avoid it again. The attempts of those of the extreme right, and the extreme left, to gain power and influence must be blocked in any way we can.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The attempts of those of the extreme right, and the extreme left, to gain power and influence must be blocked in any way we can.
Well, I did just kind of ninja my post over here buuuut...
Me and my family (especially my dad and brothers) often make butter chicken or sumfink for dinner. Is it really racist to speak in a mock-indian accent the whole time? We're not hurting anyone, and we have a great laugh. Is this behaviour harmless or unnacceptable?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I did just kind of ninja my post over here buuuut...
Me and my family (especially my dad and brothers) often make butter chicken or sumfink for dinner. Is it really racist to speak in a mock-indian accent the whole time? We're not hurting anyone, and we have a great laugh. Is this behaviour harmless or unnacceptable?
As long as you are able to contain it just within that joke , its ... sort of ok ( no one else know right ? )
but the reason i said sort of , because sometimes ( oh god this concept is confusing and im the worst person possible at trying to explain things >.< )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus
For example! say you like burgers . But if every time you are served hamburgers , you are also forced to watch the mutilated corps or stuff on 4chan.
Eventually the homunculus will be created inside your mind's system and stored away. And everytime you see burger , the stored homunculus will be
active , despite not seeing the 4chan pictures. Thus even if the pictures are not there , you might feel grossed out by burgers.
...well...I think that kind of works like Pavlovas Response.
1) Ring a Bell every time you feed a dog.
2) Dog will expect to be fed when bell rings.
3) Ring bell, but don't feed dog.
4) Dogs mouth will still water.
But I still don't know what that explanation had to do with my story. (BTW we do the same thing with chinese food...and mexican...and pretty much any accent we can make fun of)
Lord-Loss wrote:"America won world war two cause we nuked Japan"
Didn't we?
I mean, we ended the war in that fashion. Victoriously.
Russia won WW2. If Uncle Joe hadn't used up millions of his own people to soak up Nazi bullets, the entirety of Europe, including the UK, would have fallen to the 3rd Reich. USA would not have had the ability to wage a war on both oceans.
Only a monster like Stalin beat a monster like Hitler. That's what broke the back of the axis, the Nazi war on the Eastern Front.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
But I still don't know what that explanation had to do with my story. (BTW we do the same thing with chinese food...and mexican...and pretty much any accent we can make fun of)
Ah im trying to make example that if you are able to draw a clear line and stop at (funny accents) all is good.
But some people cant be so self controlled and goes on doing *more things thats less acceptable. ( Pringles? )
and eventually it becomes normal to them and becomes a part of them before they even realize it.
Frazzled wrote:
We had two opponents to deal with, not just one, unlike some people....
And after you decided to join the fight somewhat late...again... two oceans to sit behind as comfort zones, unlike some people...
Not at all like a country located on an island, surrounded by oceans to sit behind as comfort zones else they'd all be speaking French Vive La Napoleon! unlike some people...
Frazzled wrote:
Not at all like a country located on an island, surrounded by oceans to sit behind as comfort zones else they'd all be speaking French Vive La Napoleon! unlike some people...
The English Channel is 21 miles wide... The British kicked the French in the nuts on their home turf. We owned their navy and we owned their armies.
Always outnumbered, always outgunned and we still owned them every step of the way, pushed them out of Spain and across France, despite the overwhelming smell of garlic and smug.
Your only neighbours are the hippy in the attic and the maintainance guy from the basement you get to do all the things you don't like doing yourself.
Frazzled wrote:
Not at all like a country located on an island, surrounded by oceans to sit behind as comfort zones else they'd all be speaking French Vive La Napoleon! unlike some people...
The English Channel is 21 miles wide... The British kicked the French in the nuts on their home turf. We owned their navy and we owned their armies.
Always outnumbered, always outgunned and we still owned them every step of the way, pushed them out of Spain and across France, despite the overwhelming smell of garlic and smug.
Your only neighbours are the hippy in the attic and the maintainance guy from the basement you get to do all the things you don't like doing yourself.
It was wide enough to keep the French, Spanish, and Germans out wasn't it?
Spain? A sideshow, like your and our African adventures in WWII.
Er no, you beat Napoleon in a major battle once. That was in Belgium, not France, and the Germans were coming. He was more worried about the Germans than you, as the Germans have this bad habit of ending up walking around Paris.
As has been noted vs. the Germans, it took Mother Russia to beat Napoleon.
You did not beat the Japanese. I am not sure if you ever beat them in an actual battle or naval engagement. Thats ok, no one else did either, except us and the rooskies. Further, they kind of sneak attacked you like they did everyone else (hence that whole no one beating them initially thing).
sebster wrote:At the end of the day, I think the defeat of the Axis powers was likely without US intervention.
Interesting....That's like saying Australia would have been fine fighting the Japanese by themselves, without US intervention.
Sebster, I'm really surprised that you would make that comment, I thought you knew more about history than that. Do you really think that Britain would have kicked Germany/Italy out of Africa and Itlay without the U.S.A.?
Stalin in fact complained bitterly to the Allies as to what was taking them so long to attack mainland Europe. If you really think that the USSR could have beaten Germany without the pressure that the U.S./British combined, placed on them your crazy.
Exarch_Nektel wrote:Intolerance is a fact of life, and we just have to tolerate it.
In other words, if you have a brain, you shouldn't give a flying feth about intolerant comments.
Many people mention America's intolerance. Here's to show that the feeling is mutual towards us.
Someone call Russia, we have some unfinished business with Germany...
On the topic of WW2 I had two grandfathers in it and several great uncles in it. One of my granfathers was lucky enough to just turn the legal age in 1944, and when he was being shipped over to europe germany surrendered he got his badge of courage in korea later. Another great uncle was in an anti tank crew mounted in a halftrack and were stiiting near a lake when all of a sudden a german tank drove out of the lake needles to say the tank lost. My other grandfather was stationed in pearl harbor, lucky guy survived and still hates the japs.
He was quoted when we were fixing his roof and we found japanese beetles chewing it up, he said "Damn japs still won't leave me alone.".
Now back to rascism and intolerance, its so easy to be it. Personally I went away from the thin-skin approach and I choose to piss off every nationality/race/creed/ethnic group possible. Anything is fair game to me, even myself, damn whiteys.
Also, its easy to think anything is rascist. I was talking to a black girl about the jena 6 last year and I said "I don't care what color you are, it's not right if a gang of people beat up one person." she responded heatedly with "OH! BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK THEY HAVE TO BE A GANG HUH?", I responded with "No, a gang is a group of people, ever hear of Scooby Doo and the Mystery GANG, so shut the hell up you rascist *female dog*!".
generalgrog wrote:
Interesting....That's like saying Australia would have been fine fighting the Japanese by themselves, without US intervention.
No, it really isn't. Unless you want to make the argument that the Cold War was not a duel between superpowers, but between a hegemon and Australia.
generalgrog wrote:
Sebster, I'm really surprised that you would make that comment, I thought you knew more about history than that. Do you really think that Britain would have kicked Germany/Italy out of Africa and Itlay without the U.S.A.?
You're equating an Axis defeat with kicking the Axis our of all those territories they acquired in the course of the war, while also deposing Hitler; these are not the same things. Though I think 'stop' would have been a better word to use than defeat; as there would have probably been some form of settlement before France was retaken.
generalgrog wrote:
Stalin in fact complained bitterly to the Allies as to what was taking them so long to attack mainland Europe. If you really think that the USSR could have beaten Germany without the pressure that the U.S./British combined, placed on them your crazy.
GG
Again, you're assuming that the only way to defeat Germany was to force its unconditional surrender.
Relapse wrote:My father had also heard about and seen a lot of fairly nasty stuff that had been done in the Phillippines by the occupying Japanese forces.
I've heard a couple stories from a Chinese friend whose grandparents lived under the Japanese occupation. It was pretty gruesome stuff.
sebster wrote:Koreans I’ve known have been quite different. Despite the Korean war, despite a national identity based on resisting the Chinese over hundreds of years, the Koreans I’ve known have really, really hated the Japanese. That’s with the Japanese having only occupied Korea for a few years during WWII… it really tells you how horrible the Japanese were.
I have trouble saying that anyone should harbor bad feelings toward someone of another nationality based on things their grandparents' generation did. That just seems like prejudice of the worst kind. But when you learn about how the Chinese and Koreans suffered under the Japanese, and how the Japanese -- unlike the Germans -- have generally been less than enthusiastic about apologizing or even showing remorse for their actions...
Well, it really makes me think about how I'd feel in that situation. It's complicated. I think most people would hesitate to forgive someone for something the other person doesn't really regret or think they need to apologize for. It doesn't make it right. But I recognize that kind of forgiveness doesn't really come naturally to human beings.
And yes, I agree about feelings toward the Japanese. As a non-Asian, it's a little startling the first time you realize just how bad the blood can be between Japanese and virtually everyone else in the region. I'm lucky in that my in-laws were extremely open, non-prejudiced people. Although I'm also aware that many Korean parents would probably rather have their daughters marry a miguk like me than marry a Japanese guy.
Frazzled wrote:For Russia I think thats a safe assumption.
Why? Stalin was renowned for his pragmatism. If he couldn't force Germany into total surrender he would've accepted a peace treaty.
There's this common understanding of Stalin as a warmonger which is just absolute nonsense when you look at his conduct both before, and after WWII; especially in light of the balance of forces in Europe. Most of his mistakes were made as a result of being too calculating, not too bent on the destruction of the evil capitalists.
Frazzled wrote:For Russia I think thats a safe assumption.
Why? Stalin was renowned for his pragmatism. If he couldn't force Germany into total surrender he would've accepted a peace treaty.
There's this common understanding of Stalin as a warmonger which is just absolute nonsense when you look at his conduct both before, and after WWII; especially in light of the balance of forces in Europe. Most of his mistakes were made as a result of being too calculating, not too bent on the destruction of the evil capitalists.
Nonsense. England wouldn't entertain surrender and they hadn't even been bombed yet. The Societ Union lost 25,000,000 people. Thats nuclear war level casualties.
Stalin thought about briefly and realized he would have been dead within the hour.
The war between the Soviet Union and Germany was to the death, literally. This wasn't peace treay armistice stuff.
If Germany won, everyone within their occupation would have eventually been killed. After the dozens of millions of Soviet dead, they could not, would not, stop with an intact Germany, which would wait a year and do it again.
Frazzled wrote:
Nonsense. England wouldn't entertain surrender and they hadn't even been bombed yet. The Societ Union lost 25,000,000 people. Thats nuclear war level casualties.
Stalin thought about briefly and realized he would have been dead within the hour.
Right, because the Great Purge was clearly not indicative of his level of control. The number of recorded death sentences approaches 700,000. A number which doesn't include the people who died in the Gulags.
Frazzled wrote:
The war between the Soviet Union and Germany was to the death, literally. This wasn't peace treay armistice stuff.
For Hitler that's true. For everyone else in the government, especially those Generals who advised against the opening of the Eastern Front, its false.
Frazzled wrote:
If Germany won, everyone within their occupation would have eventually been killed. After the dozens of millions of Soviet dead, they could not, would not, stop with an intact Germany, which would wait a year and do it again.
That's highly unlikely. There were no systematic exterminations of the general French populace. You have absolutely nothing to base that assumption on other than the Holocaust, which was targeted at an extremely narrow group of people.
I find it SO funny that America takes credit for winning both World Wars while actually doing feth all compared to the other countries. Why must they wait till the last moment to enter and claim the glory?
Right, because the Great Purge were clearly not indicative of his level of control. The number of recorded death sentences approaches 700,000. A number which doesn't include the people who died in the Gulags.
************
1. 700,000<25,000,000
2. They also realized, correctly, that any cease fire would be just that, a temporary thing.
The war between the Soviet Union and Germany was to the death, literally. This wasn't peace treay armistice stuff.
For Hitler that's true. For everyone else in the government, especially those Generals who advised against the opening of the Eastern Front, its false.
****Irrelevant. Hitler was in power until literally, the end.
Frazzled wrote:
If Germany won, everyone within their occupation would have eventually been killed. After the dozens of millions of Soviet dead, they could not, would not, stop with an intact Germany, which would wait a year and do it again.
That's highly unlikely. There were no systematic exterminations of the general French populace. You have absolutely nothing to base that assumption on other than the Holocaust, which was targeted at an extremely narrow group of people.
****You mean other than the 25,000,000 dead Soviets right? Casualties among the subject populations were extreme. At best, the original plan was to move them all out-that was early before the conflict actually started.
Your conveniently forgetting the fundamental concept of untermenschen. To the Germans, the Slavs weren't French, or British. They were subhuman.
Don't try to whitewash the intent of one of the great killer regimes of history.
Dogma: No, I was simply pointing out the fact that if the U.S.A. did not get pulled in(Yes Germany declared on us, thereby pulling us in), Germany would not have had to keep so many units in France,Italy and Africa which could have been used on the Eastern front. What if Rommel was sent to Stalingrad instead of Kasserine.
Churchills famous comment when Germany declared war on the U.S.A. "Thank God we've just won the war." (I think that's the right quote)
Emperors Faithfull: 1941 was hardly last moment considering the war lasted until 1945. WWI it is true that USA entered later, but at the time it was considered your war, not ours. Also to make this comment "America takes credit for winning both World Wars while actually doing feth all compared to the other countries" Is one of the most ignorant comments I have seen yet on the OT forum.
Where are you getting 25 million from? The highest statistic I've ever heard was 11 million. Let's also not forget that there's a massive difference between executing 700,000 of your own people, and simply putting an end to a war.
Frazzled wrote:
2. They also realized, correctly, that any cease fire would be just that, a temporary thing.
All cease fires are temporary, especially in a balance of power system.
Incidentally, you don't get to claim that a realization is correct on the basis of speculation.
Frazzled wrote:
Irrelevant. Hitler was in power until literally, the end.
And the end came much earlier because of American involvement. You don't really seem to get this whole alternate history thing.
Frazzled wrote:
You mean other than the 25,000,000 dead Soviets right? Casualties among the subject populations were extreme. At best, the original plan was to move them all out-that was early before the conflict actually started.
11 million. Casualties among subject populations were extreme, but that had as much to do with scarcity within the German warmachine as it did the enforcement of ideological principle.
Frazzled wrote:
Your conveniently forgetting the fundamental concept of untermenschen. To the Germans, the Slavs weren't French, or British. They were subhuman.
Don't try to whitewash the intent of one of the great killer regimes of history.
I'm not whitewahing anything. You only believe that because I'm not screaming at the top of my lungs about how evil the Nazis were, and how essential America was to victory in WWII.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I find it SO funny that America takes credit for winning both World Wars while actually doing feth all compared to the other countries. Why must they wait till the last moment to enter and claim the glory?
World War 2 started the 1st of September 1939. Two years later the USA joined in. I wouldnt say they joined at the last moment when there was four years left, Would you?
Whats people's take on the start of WW2. Who's to blame (If anyone). Its possible it part Allied forces fault as they imposed the very unfair treaty of versailie (sp?)
generalgrog wrote:Dogma: No, I was simply pointing out the fact that if the U.S.A. did not get pulled in(Yes Germany declared on us, thereby pulling us in), Germany would not have had to keep so many units in France,Italy and Africa which could have been used on the Eastern front. What if Rommel was sent to Stalingrad instead of Kasserine.
Churchills famous comment when Germany declared war on the U.S.A. "Thank God we've just won the war." (I think that's the right quote)
The German declaration of war on he US was one of the biggest blunders of the war, because it was so horribly unnecessary. And yes, once the US joined the conflict the result was almost inevitable (70 million Germans against 700 million Allies, even Hitler was said to have balked). However, the course of the war on the Eastern Front had already been set by Jan. 1942 by the first Winter Offensive. The Germans might have shifted forces from Europe and North Africa, but that would only be feasible in the event that Britain had been overcome. All while fighting a Soviet Union that would only increase in strength.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I find it SO funny that America takes credit for winning both World Wars while actually doing feth all compared to the other countries. Why must they wait till the last moment to enter and claim the glory?
What are you talking about? We did a hell of a lot during WW2.
Like, most of the offensive work against Japan, and about as much offensive work against Germany and Italy as the UK. Plus economic aid before we actually entered as a combatant.
dogma wrote:The German declaration of war on he US was one of the biggest blunders of the war, because it was so horribly unnecessary.
As well as attacking Russia.
Dumbass hitler.
On another note I was slightly worried when I heard from some random documentary that Churchill had to bribe the US into joining the war by offering military secrets of some sort.
dogma wrote:The German declaration of war on he US was one of the biggest blunders of the war, because it was so horribly unnecessary.
As well as attacking Russia.
Dumbass hitler.
On another note I was slightly worried when I heard from some random documentary that Churchill had to bribe the US into joining the war by offering military secrets of some sort.
I think Hitler was just going off the way Germany beat Russia all over the place and eventually saw them quit in WW1.
What did the Russians in WWI was the revolution in 1917, Great Britain did give a few secrets to the U.S in WWII, like the jet engine, radar, sonar and the Rolls Royce Merlin engine which was fitted into the Mustang which before it had said engine was about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
Well us Aussies didn't need no dirty military secrets, we beat the Japanese without any of your namby-pamby atomic bombs or tanks. We had nothing but grit, guns, and balls of steel (stainless so they didn't rust in the jungle of course).
Vulkan77 wrote:What did the Russians in WWI was the revolution in 1917, Great Britain did give a few secrets to the U.S in WWII, like the jet engine, radar, sonar and the Rolls Royce Merlin engine which was fitted into the Mustang which before it had said engine was about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
This is true, but the Germans were rolling all over the Russians in the meantime. Russian training at the time was fairly substandard for the most part. Their military exericises consisted of lining up opposite groups of soldiers and just marching them towards each other. The Russian army at the time was no match for the Germans.
On a side note, I've read that when the Germans went into Russia, they were at first hailed as liberators, especially in the Ukraine where Stalin had pretty much starved a large portion of the people to death.
i hate racism im native american and every teacher paises me alot its annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will state this, and you may hate me if you so wish. Lots of people already do.
I make jokes about races and gender. But I make them about my own race, my own gender. My buddies do too. But we aren't (that) stupid. Weknow only to do it behind close doors.
Remember kids, Rascism isn't funny. Except in small groups of close friends.
So put me on your ignore list if you so choose now. I'll still make jokes about me drunken, beer soaked Irish ancestry.
generalgrog wrote:Interesting....That's like saying Australia would have been fine fighting the Japanese by themselves, without US intervention.
Sebster, I'm really surprised that you would make that comment, I thought you knew more about history than that. Do you really think that Britain would have kicked Germany/Italy out of Africa and Itlay without the U.S.A.?
First up, the US forces hastened the defeat of Rommel, but victory was inevitable after the second battle of El Alamein, which occurred before the US showed up late in 1942. Second up, the African campaign was never more than a sideshow. Look at the scale of fighting in Africa, where the Germans at full strength had about 300,000 German troops (not completely certain, but there were 5 or 6 divisions…). On the other hand, there were around 18 million German soldiers in total, and around six million of them were killed in fighting on the Eastern front.
The Australians wouldn’t have done much to stop the Japanese by themselves. But logistics were already stretching the Japanese, and they were losing increasing numbers to Chinese guerrillas. The Japanese advanced as much as they could have given their capabilities. What would have happened from there is anyone’s guess, it’s a very good thing the US stopped that horrible regime from continuing as soon as they did.
Stalin in fact complained bitterly to the Allies as to what was taking them so long to attack mainland Europe. If you really think that the USSR could have beaten Germany without the pressure that the U.S./British combined, placed on them your crazy.
GG
Yes, and Stalin complained bitterly about the lack of support, and toured members of the high command of both around impoverished Russian regiments. In the meantime he secretly amassed an immensely powerful tank army for counter attack around Stalingrad. That’s just how Stalin rolled.
And yes, the Russians really would have beaten the Germans alone. That said, the US stopped the Russians from carrying on past Berlin and into France, so I’m not trying to discredit the achievements of the US, just putting the proportions in proper measure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:I have trouble saying that anyone should harbor bad feelings toward someone of another nationality based on things their grandparents' generation did. That just seems like prejudice of the worst kind. But when you learn about how the Chinese and Koreans suffered under the Japanese, and how the Japanese -- unlike the Germans -- have generally been less than enthusiastic about apologizing or even showing remorse for their actions...
Well, it really makes me think about how I'd feel in that situation. It's complicated. I think most people would hesitate to forgive someone for something the other person doesn't really regret or think they need to apologize for. It doesn't make it right. But I recognize that kind of forgiveness doesn't really come naturally to human beings.
Yeah, it isn't good to harbour that kind of resentment, but on the other hand no-one from my family was ever worked to death in a slave camp so I'm not all that eager to tell other people how forgiving they ought to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:I think Hitler was just going off the way Germany beat Russia all over the place and eventually saw them quit in WW1.
It had a lot to do with his ideas of race and the failings of the Russian people. In the early days of Barbarossa it might have looked like he had a pretty good point as well, Russian losses were horrendous.
What caught everyone by surprise was how the Russians were able to maintain production and replace losses so rapidly.
Not sure how to quote someone, but rue the Russian army was terrible after Stalin purged all the best officers in the mid 1930's and replaced them with his own sycophants he killed about 37,000 men many of then the best Generals and leaders he had. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler he just did it in a different way, instead of gassing and murdering all the people who disagreed he used them a s cannon fodder which contributed to the massive loss of life on the Russian side which was around 28,000,000 people.
@Generalgrog: Calm down, mate, only a bit of harmless trolling. But answer this, why is the war that most americans were killed in the American Civil War? It just doesn't seem they go hell bent on a war, joining it half-heartedly.
Funnily enough, D-Day (which was not just a US action) was not necessary at all. It was merely pressure from the allies to get to Berlin before the Soviets. Germany was already defeated. Italy was turning against it, Northern Africa was lost, but worst of all, the Eastern Front was shattered and Mother Russia was rolling up the jerries back yard. The reason for D-Day and subsequent reconquering of western europe? Mostly political.
And again, Japan was virtually defeated by the time the nuke was dropped. And I also find the mass sluaghter of entire cities to be a gross form of sickening genocide. There was no warning. Horoshima was not a military target. It was a city. That was a sickening act of genocide, and little else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulkan77 wrote:Not sure how to quote someone, but rue the Russian army was terrible after Stalin purged all the best officers in the mid 1930's and replaced them with his own sycophants he killed about 37,000 men many of then the best Generals and leaders he had. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler he just did it in a different way, instead of gassing and murdering all the people who disagreed he used them a s cannon fodder which contributed to the massive loss of life on the Russian side which was around 28,000,000 people.
Actually, WWII was one of the moments where Stalin and the people were closest. Remember, Hitlers plans for Russia were little better than the other minorites, he also viewed these people as sub-human. The communist regime was much harsher pre and post war than it was during. Do you really think that Russia could have won without such losses? (BTW , Germany and Russia lost roughly the same amount of men, but the russians could replace them more easily.)
Where are you getting 25 million from? The highest statistic I've ever heard was 11 million. Let's also not forget that there's a massive difference between executing 700,000 of your own people, and simply putting an end to a war.
Actually Frazzled is pretty accurate on this one. The 11 million you are thinking of is concerning military casualties, the 25 million is a rough estimate of total casualties, which of course includes civilians. At a lecture I went to last year, the scholar said that we will never know the full amount of death on the Eastern front, but he said 25 million was a rough MINIMUM. Due to the nature of the USSR info was limited and therefore not complete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_USSR
dogma wrote:
The German declaration of war on he US was one of the biggest blunders of the war, because it was so horribly unnecessary. And yes, once the US joined the conflict the result was almost inevitable (70 million Germans against 700 million Allies, even Hitler was said to have balked). However, the course of the war on the Eastern Front had already been set by Jan. 1942 by the first Winter Offensive. The Germans might have shifted forces from Europe and North Africa, but that would only be feasible in the event that Britain had been overcome. All while fighting a Soviet Union that would only increase in strength.
This isn't just to you Dogma but to all those who claim that the US wasn't necessary for an allied victory. The US was essential to any hope of Allied victory. It had been "officially neutral" since the start, but lets be honest, between the lend lease program, shipping supplies to the British Empire and USSR, volunteers fighting in Asia and Europe, etc., the US was involved from the get go. No respectable historian would even think to claim that an Allied victory was possible without the US. Britain and the USSR may have been able to beat Germany and Italy, highly unlikely though considering that their limited success and stalling of Nazi forces was heavily supplemented by supplies from the US, but they would not have beaten Japan. Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had. An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
@JEB: Now, calm down, mate. The soviet would have crushed germany straight up. Help from US nice, but not vital. There's no denying that (like Napoleon 300 years before) the war was won and lost on the Eastern Front.
Japan is another matter. It is certainly possible (even likely) that Japan would have been able to consolidate it's power in asia and such areas unless America intervened, but they would not have gone on to conquer the world. In fact, the Japanese were not Nazis in WWII, they were colonials. Much like the British Empire had been. They were certainly too stretched to take on Australia single-handed. (They couldn't even take New Guinea).
I hate this view that (again) US came in guns blazing to save the day. In fact it sounds familiar...
*shuffle shuffle*
Emperors Faithful wrote: And again, Japan was virtually defeated by the time the nuke was dropped. And I also find the mass sluaghter of entire cities to be a gross form of sickening genocide. There was no warning. Horoshima was not a military target. It was a city. That was a sickening act of genocide, and little else.
Actually there was a warming. The Potsdam Ultimatum warned Japan that if it didn't surrender it would suffer the, "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." While it wasn't explicitly said, "We will atom bomb you back to the Shogunate," I think that is a fairly sufficient warning. Second the bombing of Hiroshima was in fact a military and industrial target. Hiroshima, apart from being an industrial center, was also the HQ of the Japanese Army's 5th Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata, who was in charge of the entire southern defense of Japan. So it really was a significant military target. While yes, many civilians were killed as well, one has to ask the question: was it worth it? The Allied High Command did not order the bombing lightly. They were first presented the projections of casualties if the main islands of Japan were invaded, and the casualties to Allied troops ALONE were projected at at least 1 million, and that was just to invade and begin pacification. That does not include the Japanese armed forces and civilians population. I think that in an effort to avoid such staggering losses of human life, the bombs were necessary. They avoided the cost of millions of civilians' deaths etc. Were they horrific? Yes. Were they gruesome? Yes. Was it genocide? No. I don't like the legacy that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have left, but I believe the decision to bomb them was ultimately right considering the alternative that was the invasion of the Japanese mainland... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties
Oh, I don't mean to be frustrated or high strung, I am just a historian and these topics really get me goin! I will concede that we didn't win WWI for Europe, although we certainly helped to demoralize Germany. But I must contend that the US was essential to an Allied victory in WWII. Again, I don't mean to be overly zealous here, but as a historian I really get involved in this stuff.
I remember that one Japanese soldier on the island somewhere who carried on fighting and shooting at people for many years after the war and eventually only stood down on the orders of his commanding officer, who they had to fly over there. The Japanese people hailed him as a true folkhero. If the nation of Japan had not been nuked, the culture of Japan at that time, that extolled glorious death over defeat, would have fought to the last, it would have been a foot-slogging atrocity of an occupation. Instead, the nukes utterly shocked the Japanese into surrender and left the world forever changed.
Nuclear weaponry has likely halted far more conflict and stayed the hand of the major military powers far more often than we realise.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
And again, Japan was virtually defeated by the time the nuke was dropped. And I also find the mass sluaghter of entire cities to be a gross form of sickening genocide. There was no warning. Horoshima was not a military target. It was a city. That was a sickening act of genocide, and little else.
Actually there was a warming. The Potsdam Ultimatum warned Japan that if it didn't surrender it would suffer the, "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." While it wasn't explicitly said, "We will atom bomb you back to the Shogunate," I think that is a fairly sufficient warning. Second the bombing of Hiroshima was in fact a military and industrial target. Hiroshima, apart from being an industrial center, was also the HQ of the Japanese Army's 5th Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata, who was in charge of the entire southern defense of Japan. So it really was a significant military target. While yes, many civilians were killed as well, one has to ask the question: was it worth it? The Allied High Command did not order the bombing lightly. They were first presented the projections of casualties if the main islands of Japan were invaded, and the casualties to Allied troops ALONE were projected at at least 1 million, and that was just to invade and begin pacification. That does not include the Japanese armed forces and civilians population. I think that in an effort to avoid such staggering losses of human life, the bombs were necessary. They avoided the cost of millions of civilians' deaths etc. Were they horrific? Yes. Were they gruesome? Yes. Was it genocide? No. I don't like the legacy that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have left, but I believe the decision to bomb them was ultimately right considering the alternative that was the invasion of the Japanese mainland...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties
Oh, I don't mean to be frustrated or high strung, I am just a historian and these topics really get me goin! I will concede that we didn't win WWI for Europe, although we certainly helped to demoralize Germany. But I must contend that the US was essential to an Allied victory in WWII. Again, I don't mean to be overly zealous here, but as a historian I really get involved in this stuff.
I also have a love for history, but honestly JEB, your view on the bombings disgusts me. That was purebred sluaghter of thousands. (Not to mention the indiscriminate firebombing of Tokyo earlier). If it had been a military base then sure, but this was a city JEB. Men women and children were obliterated all becuase (in the high brass's eyes, 1 yank life was worth 1000 japs).
BTW, there was no warning of an atomic attack. How is that meesage was anything other than a vague threat? Very similar to Hitlers threats in Eurpoe in fact. (We actually had to do a whole course concerning this, not fun, and even less fun to see the victims of the bombings. Damn, does history repeat itself in about 20 years in Vietnam.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: @MGS: A similar story about a Jap soldier who had been seperated from his force in Papa New Guenia (misspelt). In 1980's he stumbled out of the jungle onto a beach resort and surrendered. On the other hand, there was a lot of angst from the generals despite the bombings. I don't deny the fact that losses would be terrible if US had to do a land invasion of Japan, but why did they not give a demonstration at least? Aim it at a purely Miltitary target?
See MGS' statement. He is absolutely right. But a question for you EF: how would you then justify the millions of deaths, both military and civilian, that would have ensued from the invasion of Japan? I don't think you can, it isn't morally or ethically possible or responsible. The losses taken by Japanese would have been infinitely greater than those suffered by the Americans. Any professional historian, including myself, or military expert would agree that the number of deaths that would have ensued from an invasion would have been on an unimaginable scale. Also, I did point out why Hiroshima was a military and industrial target, not a random city that was bombed for no reason.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I remember that one Japanese soldier on the island somewhere who carried on fighting and shooting at people for many years after the war and eventually only stood down on the orders of his commanding officer, who they had to fly over there. The Japanese people hailed him as a true folkhero. If the nation of Japan had not been nuked, the culture of Japan at that time, that extolled glorious death over defeat, would have fought to the last, it would have been a foot-slogging atrocity of an occupation. Instead, the nukes utterly shocked the Japanese into surrender and left the world forever changed.
Nuclear weaponry has likely halted far more conflict and stayed the hand of the major military powers far more often than we realise.
You are absolutely right MGS. The lone Japanese story that you recall is just one of many stories. In instance a NatGeo team was shot at after they landed on an island by the 12 remaining men of an entire Japanese garrison. They had been forced to eating mush and drinking urine to stay alive. The Emperor of Japan himself had to come out to the island and convince the remaining soldiers that the war was over. I shudder to think of the level of carnage and destruction that would have ensued across Japan had Operation: Downfall actually taken place...
@JEB: As I recall, the yanks to not have a history of 'restraint'. What was the name of that German town that was utterly annihillated? Horishma and Nagasaki were not purely (or even predominantly) military bases. Pretty much every city would have had a military force or something present. These bombings were not a tactical strike, they were a demonstration of mass slaughtwer.
Also, who can play god and decide that a yank soldiers life is worth more than 10 jap civilians? Would it not have been possible to simply blockade Japan? Destroy thier airfields? There were other options other than wholescale slaughter.
Actually the city in Germany you were thinking of was Dresden, and that was firebombed mostly by the RAF, and I agree that the whole thing was disgraceful and saddening. I also think you are missing one of my main points. I am not trying to justify American lives vs Japanese lives. I am stating the fact that the deaths of millions of more JAPANESE through an invasion is not justifiable in comparison. The sheer prevention of the deaths of millions of JAPANESE is enough to convince me of the pragmatism of the nukes. And as MSG stated the atom bombs shocked the Japs into surrender. A blockade would have done nothing except let them starve themselves to death, which also could have resulted in the death of millions. It was also not a viable solution, as the war needed to end instead of drag on for several more years. I will never claim that the bombings were great or wonderful, I find them to be quite the opposite. But I must admit that they were the lesser of two evils in this situation.
Well, by Blockade I wasn't exactly thinking about starving them to death. I see your point, I really do. But why was there no warning or demonstration?
(P.S. That it was mostly RAF at Dresden is news to me)
BTW, do you honestly think that Japanese lives were a priority at the time?
Would you guys mind if i ask mod to close this thread?
( it really is off topic compared to what i was asking , not that i mind it been OT ) I just dont want to see people arguing over this matter when that wasnt the purpose or intention of this thread. Maybe make a new thread?
Hmm, I think we can come to a compromise and both be satisfied. I will concede that there should have been a more explicit warning or at the very least a demonstration. (Although some might make the argument that because it took two bombs to achieve a surrender of the Japs, this would have been meaningless.) I admit that I would see the issue as less abominable had there been something of what you suggest. As for your other point, frankly no. I doubt very much that the Allies were very worried about Japanese lives, but they definitely were worried about Allied lives. But that doesn't stop me from seeing the reality of the loss of life for both sides had the bombs not been dropped. It is hindsight evidence, but that does not negate the fact that it is true. There is no way I could justify the deaths of millions in the face of an invasion over the dropping of the bombs. One thing we must always remember though is what a tragedy and horrifying incident both bombings were, and fight for the prevention of any such future occurrences.
Well written JEB.
*stroke chin*
...Agreed. Personally, I find any situation where civillians are killed to be just plain disgusting. (BTW, picking up a gun and joining the resistance kinds of defeat the whole idea of 'civilian' (unless it's self defense)) It's a frustrating situation, no mistake, but would it have been possible for us to just ignore that angry little island? (impossible to answer)
LunaHound wrote:Would you guys mind if i ask mod to close this thread?
( it really is off topic compared to what i was asking , not that i mind it been OT ) I just dont want to see people arguing over this matter when that wasnt the purpose or intention of this thread. Maybe make a new thread?
Please don't close this thread. This is stimulating conversation, and I fear that if we try and start a new thread the interest will just die out. If you really want to then go ahead, but I would really like it if it were left open!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well written JEB.
*stroke chin*
...Agreed. Personally, I find any situation where civillians are killed to be just plain disgusting. (BTW, picking up a gun and joining the resistance kinds of defeat the whole idea of 'civilian' (unless it's self defense)) It's a frustrating situation, no mistake, but would it have been possible for us to just ignore that angry little island? (impossible to answer)
*hold out hand*
Friends?
Yay!...ahem *manly voice* Of course, this was all just civil discourse, yes? *Accepts handshake*
I can only imagine what Sebster and Dogma are gonna do when they read this...
K since this is my thread ( im guessing i can go off topic alittle bit , for sake of not opening a whole new thread >.> )
Would you allow this to be fielded as Dreadnought?
I've read some amazingly historically accurate stuff in this thread, and some amazingly INaccurate stuff. But since the threads been going 4 or 5 pages now, it would be pointless to start pulling stuff up from page 2.
On the nuclear bombing of Japan, it was unnecessary. Approximately half of Japans infrastructure was leveled in the Great Firembombing. Whilst the Japanese succeeded in keeping casualities to a minimum, napalm, and magnesium thermite bombs are nasty stuff.
Japan had nothing going for it in terms of supplies. When their navy set off for it's last engagement with the American fleet at Okinawa (although at this stage, all they actually had left was the battleship Yamato, the light cruiser Yahagi, and eight destroyers), it actually only had enough fuel for a one way journey.
Japan is worse off than the UK in terms of natural resources, they really do have nothing there. There are no raw minerals, metals, oil, or coal. Most of the country is rocky mountainous terrain, unsuitable for farming, and what flat space there is is heavily populated.
A blockade at that stage would have been just as effective as the nukes. The Japanese have always possessed this image of 'never surrender!', and it's true, they would fight longer, and more tenaciously then their western counterparts, even going as far as suicide at times. But that's more down to cultural difference.
You can quote about the 'way of samurai', and the like, but most of that is urban myths and propaganda. Most of the samurai families were overthrown with the installation the Meiji government much earlier. The propaganda of the Japanese government to their own people was the main reason they kept on fighting when all seemed lost, because they genuinely believed that their government had everything under control, and that they were winning. After all, who wuld surrender when they believed reinforcements and supplies were a few days away?
A blockade would have stripped away the Japanese governments ability to continue lying to their own people. When there's no food to eat, no means to continue making war, and enemy aircraft dominate the skies, it's obvious you've lost.
The main thing that kept the Japanese balking at surrender was the idea of 'unconditional surrender'. Had the Americans been content with slightly less (say a treaty with something along the lines of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles-and yes I know Versailles was an unconditional surrender, I'm just referring to the articles in it), I believe the Japanese would have been more likely to capitulate. The cultural difference meant that for the Japanese, a completely unconditional surrender was unthinkable. They'd rather commit seppuku first.
A blockade combined with a slightly less harsh treaty would have seen the war end without the nukes I believe.
Ketara, thank you for bringing this thread back to live.
I mean it , i was getting abit angry with some of other's inaacurate info but didnt want to be involved :x
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I remember that one Japanese soldier on the island somewhere who carried on fighting and shooting at people for many years after the war and eventually only stood down on the orders of his commanding officer, who they had to fly over there. The Japanese people hailed him as a true folkhero. If the nation of Japan had not been nuked, the culture of Japan at that time, that extolled glorious death over defeat, would have fought to the last, it would have been a foot-slogging atrocity of an occupation. Instead, the nukes utterly shocked the Japanese into surrender and left the world forever changed.
His name was Lt. Onoda Hiro. He surrendered on 10 March 1974 only after his wartime commanding officer was brought to the Philippines and ordered him to surrender to his face. Earlier attempts to get him to give himself up by having his family members visit the island and coax him out of the jungle were seen by him as an American Trick. Originally, he was sent to the island as a special ops guy to blow up some docks and other installations that the Americans would be able to use in their invasion of the capital, Manilla. Everything went pear shaped for him and he with about 10 other guys hit the jungle. Slowly the numbers of his hold out unit dropped. For the longest time there were only 3 of them. The "weakest" of the group surrendered in 60s to Filipino Marines and his last compatriot was shot through the lung near a stream on their little island. Despite all the attempts to get him out of the jungle, it was a Japanese college dropout/adventurer who lured him out and set in motion with the help of the Japanese Embassy in Manila getting Lt.Onoda's CO to come over and getting him to give up. During his time in the jungle, Onoda believed that all the newspapers and magazines that were left for him with notes to give himself up were elaborate tricks. In his mindset, he believed that if Japan had lost the war, it could no longer exist as everyone would've fought to the death...which is kind of ironic seeing as about half of his guys had no problems giving up.
When he got back to Japan, his medical/psyche evaluation showed that he was healthier than the average Japanese his age. When he got off the plane in Tokyo to fanfare, he waved a 10,000 yen note showing Japan's economic ascendancy (while everyone is arguing over "Who won the war?" Maybe they should take the time to argue "Who won the peace?") Eventually, he became disgusted with the way that Japanese society had changed, and after spending some time in his home in Wakayama Prefecture, he picked up stakes and moved to Brazil to raise cattle with his brother. Japan's greatest, and arguably, only war hero from the Pacific War turned his back on Japan after 30 years in the jungle because he no longer saw Japan as "Japan".
Even in the aftermath of the A-bombs, the government wished to fight on. Most Japanese cities had already been firebombed into oblivion, especially in the Kanto/Kansai regions that the loss of 80,000 souls wasn't such an immense shock. The means of the destruction were the shock. The accepted historical "fact" around these parts is that the Showa Tenno, Emperor Hirohito, himself decided to throw in the towel and ordered the military to surrender. When he got on the radio to address the populace, or what was left of it, no one knew his voice as he had never spoken to the masses before. The writing was on the wall. The US had taken Okinawa and the Soviets steamrollered into Manchuko shattering any kind of defense the Japanese could muster there.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the query of the OP in regards to intolerance (Racial, Gender, Country etc), but I thought I'd jump in an elaborate on one point of minutiae as the thread goes careening off the rails.
JEB_Stuart wrote:This isn't just to you Dogma but to all those who claim that the US wasn't necessary for an allied victory. The US was essential to any hope of Allied victory. It had been "officially neutral" since the start, but lets be honest, between the lend lease program, shipping supplies to the British Empire and USSR, volunteers fighting in Asia and Europe, etc., the US was involved from the get go. No respectable historian would even think to claim that an Allied victory was possible without the US. Britain and the USSR may have been able to beat Germany and Italy, highly unlikely though considering that their limited success and stalling of Nazi forces was heavily supplemented by supplies from the US, but they would not have beaten Japan. Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had. An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
You can be shocked all you want, but you just have to look at the production figures for the Soviet Union and compare them to the Germans. Then you have to consider how far the Germans had to advance to take out Russian manufacturing. The German invasion was an extremely unlikely prospect by itself.
You could make the argument that is was more likely that the Germans would have beaten the USSR without US aid. You could make the claim that the Germans might have stalled the Russians somewhere in Eastern Europe without the US in Western Europe. But the claim that the US was essential to the war effort just doesn't stack with the material produced in Russia, nor with the scale of occupation the Nazis would have needed to pacify Russia.
On the nuclear bombing of Japan, it was unnecessary. Approximately half of Japans infrastructure was leveled in the Great Firembombing. Whilst the Japanese succeeded in keeping casualities to a minimum, napalm, and magnesium thermite bombs are nasty stuff.
Japan had nothing going for it in terms of supplies. When their navy set off for it's last engagement with the American fleet at Okinawa (although at this stage, all they actually had left was the battleship Yamato, the light cruiser Yahagi, and eight destroyers), it actually only had enough fuel for a one way journey.
Japan is worse off than the UK in terms of natural resources, they really do have nothing there. There are no raw minerals, metals, oil, or coal. Most of the country is rocky mountainous terrain, unsuitable for farming, and what flat space there is is heavily populated.
A blockade at that stage would have been just as effective as the nukes. The Japanese have always possessed this image of 'never surrender!', and it's true, they would fight longer, and more tenaciously then their western counterparts, even going as far as suicide at times. But that's more down to cultural difference.
You can quote about the 'way of samurai', and the like, but most of that is urban myths and propaganda. Most of the samurai families were overthrown with the installation the Meiji government much earlier. The propaganda of the Japanese government to their own people was the main reason they kept on fighting when all seemed lost, because they genuinely believed that their government had everything under control, and that they were winning. After all, who wuld surrender when they believed reinforcements and supplies were a few days away?
A blockade would have stripped away the Japanese governments ability to continue lying to their own people. When there's no food to eat, no means to continue making war, and enemy aircraft dominate the skies, it's obvious you've lost.
The main thing that kept the Japanese balking at surrender was the idea of 'unconditional surrender'. Had the Americans been content with slightly less (say a treaty with something along the lines of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles-and yes I know Versailles was an unconditional surrender, I'm just referring to the articles in it), I believe the Japanese would have been more likely to capitulate. The cultural difference meant that for the Japanese, a completely unconditional surrender was unthinkable. They'd rather commit seppuku first.
A blockade combined with a slightly less harsh treaty would have seen the war end without the nukes I believe.
Plus, we British like our blockades.
Nuking Japan was definitely necessary when you consider the projected amount of casualties the Japanese were to inflict on Allied invaders. This is a nation that took not one but TWO nuclear strikes in order for them to finally surrender to the victor's terms; and this is a time when such bombs were in the realms of science fiction than reality. That in itself should be enough to showcase the kind of mentality the Japanese had and looking at battles like Iwo Jima - they were probably the most determined and zealous group of warriors in the war. Fighting them on their own turf would've been even worse.
Anyone remember the story of that WW2 Japanese soldier found isolated on an island years back? He was still itching to fight; the Japanese empire were kings of propaganda and population mind control.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Generalgrog: Calm down, mate, only a bit of harmless trolling. But answer this, why is the war that most americans were killed in the American Civil War? It just doesn't seem they go hell bent on a war, joining it half-heartedly.
Funnily enough, D-Day (which was not just a US action) was not necessary at all. It was merely pressure from the allies to get to Berlin before the Soviets. Germany was already defeated. Italy was turning against it, Northern Africa was lost, but worst of all, the Eastern Front was shattered and Mother Russia was rolling up the jerries back yard. The reason for D-Day and subsequent reconquering of western europe? Mostly political.
Well, it hastened the end of the war and that saved a lot of people's lives. It meant that the Soviets didn't just keep rolling all the way to Paris. While it wasn't the decisive moment of WWII that you'll often see in US made war movies, I'd hesitate to call it 'political' either.
Actually, WWII was one of the moments where Stalin and the people were closest. Remember, Hitlers plans for Russia were little better than the other minorites, he also viewed these people as sub-human. The communist regime was much harsher pre and post war than it was during. Do you really think that Russia could have won without such losses? (BTW , Germany and Russia lost roughly the same amount of men, but the russians could replace them more easily.)
Ever heard the stories about the peasants celebrating the arrival of the Nazis, as they were now free of Stalin, then a few years later celebrating the arrival of the Red Army, as they were now free of the Nazis?
Emperors Faithful wrote:I find it SO funny that America takes credit for winning both World Wars while actually doing feth all compared to the other countries.
American history books say we saved the day, British history books probably put the UK front and center, and the Australian books probably say they had the Pacific under control. It's just the way "history" gets polluted by nationalism. Meanwhile (as others have stated), the Soviets did the most to win the war but still get little credit in the above countries. That's because textbooks written in NATO and allied nations in the decades during the Cold War sure as heck weren't going to out of their way to praise the Soviets and their accomplishments. And that's how history gets polluted by politics.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
This isn't just to you Dogma but to all those who claim that the US wasn't necessary for an allied victory. The US was essential to any hope of Allied victory. It had been "officially neutral" since the start, but lets be honest, between the lend lease program, shipping supplies to the British Empire and USSR, volunteers fighting in Asia and Europe, etc., the US was involved from the get go. No respectable historian would even think to claim that an Allied victory was possible without the US.
There's a distinction between US aid, and direct US involvement. The scenario I'm considering is one where Roosevelt was unable to bring the country to war. Basically a 'Pearl Harbor never happened' kind of alternate history. I should have been more specific.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Britain and the USSR may have been able to beat Germany and Italy, highly unlikely though considering that their limited success and stalling of Nazi forces was heavily supplemented by supplies from the US, but they would not have beaten Japan.
They didn't need to. Without US involvement Japan is essentially taken out of the equation. Eventually they would have come for the USSR, but they had to deal with China before that ever happened. Not to mention fight through Manchuria, which was far more difficult terrain than the sort which overcame the Panzer divisions.
Just for the record, in much of the world there is a distinction between WWII, and the Pacific War, largely due to the above reason.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had.
The USSR would never have fought a naval battle against the Japanese, because they didn't need to do so. You could argue that the British would want their colonies back, but they could have just as easily abdicated them.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
The supplies delivered to the Soviets via lend-lease had very little significance to the Siege of Leningrad, most of them being destroyed by the Luftwaffe en route. They were significant to the overall war effort on the Eastern Front, though not until the later stages when logistical operations became extended. The matter was quite different with respect to England, but that's a different part of this conversation.
How many Japanese carriers did the Soviets and British sink again? The Soviets could take Manchuria but couldn't stop the island empire of Japan. If the US were NOT in the picture the Soviets would have had to keep substantial forces in Siberia. This would have further imperiled them if there were no countervailing allied forces to pin down Germans.
Germany was an allied effort with the bulk of the dying on the Russian shoulders. That would be expected as the Germans never made it into London or Virginia.
Could the Russians have beaten the Germans without the US and Britain-good chance with all things being equal. I'd argue the logistical support and conflicts in Africa and then Europe were sufficient to draw off resources. We have to remember at Kursk, Hitler started pulling corps out of the battle when the allies invaded Italy. But had conditions remained the same I think so.
But it would have been substantially harder for the Russians. More importantly, without other threats the entire Wehrmacht would have been in Eastern Europe, delaying the Russians for a year or more. What happens then? If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that. What they did in reality was already literally superhuman (and yes it was 25MM casualties on the Soviet side: civilian and military-look it up).
Boy, do I have my work cut out for me today! I am definitely earning my historian pay this month!
Ketara wrote: On the nuclear bombing of Japan, it was unnecessary. Approximately half of Japans infrastructure was leveled in the Great Firembombing. Whilst the Japanese succeeded in keeping casualities to a minimum, napalm, and magnesium thermite bombs are nasty stuff. A blockade at that stage would have been just as effective as the nukes. The Japanese have always possessed this image of 'never surrender!', and it's true, they would fight longer, and more tenaciously then their western counterparts, even going as far as suicide at times. But that's more down to cultural difference. You can quote about the 'way of samurai', and the like, but most of that is urban myths and propaganda. Most of the samurai families were overthrown with the installation the Meiji government much earlier. The propaganda of the Japanese government to their own people was the main reason they kept on fighting when all seemed lost, because they genuinely believed that their government had everything under control, and that they were winning. After all, who wuld surrender when they believed reinforcements and supplies were a few days away? The cultural difference meant that for the Japanese, a completely unconditional surrender was unthinkable. They'd rather commit seppuku first.
A blockade combined with a slightly less harsh treaty would have seen the war end without the nukes I believe.
The nukes weren't about eliminating Japanese infrastructure. They were an ugly, but necessary alternative, in order to prevent a massive loss of life that was unnecessary. Many military leaders openly admitted that the atom bombs were psychological weapons as much as they were military. A blockade would NOT have shocked the Japanese into surrender, I really think you are underestimating their resolve here. The talk of Bushido is not really as much propaganda and myth as you claim. Sure the Samurai had been overthrown earlier in the Meiji era, but that did not change the fact that the population was indoctrinated with those same ideas. Look at the Emperor for example, it practically took Gen. MacArthur with a pistol in his hand to have the Emperor admit to his people that he wasn't actually a god, and that was just to let them know. Traditionalists in Japan still consider the Emperor to be divine! The Japanese were utterly committed to their Emperor's cause, there is no way to deny that, and it took the horrifying shock of the atom bombs to convince them that surrender was a viable option. On this issue of surrender: Unconditional surrender was not the problem, it was the reality of surrender that was. It is hard for us in the West to believe that such advanced people would have that attitude willingly, but its true. I have found many historical revisionists trying to claim that the Japanese were not as radical as we used to believe, and this would justify the no nuke theory, but in light of historical fact, this argument does not add up.
sebster wrote: You can be shocked all you want, but you just have to look at the production figures for the Soviet Union and compare them to the Germans. Then you have to consider how far the Germans had to advance to take out Russian manufacturing. The German invasion was an extremely unlikely prospect by itself.
You could make the argument that is was more likely that the Germans would have beaten the USSR without US aid. You could make the claim that the Germans might have stalled the Russians somewhere in Eastern Europe without the US in Western Europe. But the claim that the US was essential to the war effort just doesn't stack with the material produced in Russia, nor with the scale of occupation the Nazis would have needed to pacify Russia.
If you are looking at end of the war figures for production, then yes you would be right. But that isn't the case when it comes to production throughout. The American supplies, and British convoys, were essential to the Soviet effort. How do you think they kept their ill supplied troops supplied at all during those first few critical years? Your argument is illogical, considering the Russians could not even equip all of their troops with basic rifles, let alone field a fully equipped and well supplied army. And the Germans weren't concerned with pacifying Russia, they were more concerned about offing the population for Hitler's Lebensraum. The USSR did not start having truly massive production numbers till war's end, and that was only able to happen because of American supplies.
gorgon wrote: American history books say we saved the day, British history books probably put the UK front and center, and the Australian books probably say they had the Pacific under control. It's just the way "history" gets polluted by nationalism. Meanwhile (as others have stated), the Soviets did the most to win the war but still get little credit in the above countries. That's because textbooks written in NATO and allied nations in the decades during the Cold War sure as heck weren't going to out of their way to praise the Soviets and their accomplishments. And that's how history gets polluted by politics.
In my experience, my colleagues are all very willing and proactive in acknowledging the accomplishments of the Soviets, and British...but not the French. The Soviets may have lost the most human life, but that was because of poor tactics and poor equipment. There is a reason the US was called the Arsenal of Democracy. That is because it was our industry that quite literally drove the war effort. When looking at the combination of everything the US really did do the most for the war effort.
dogma wrote: There's a distinction between US aid, and direct US involvement. The scenario I'm considering is one where Roosevelt was unable to bring the country to war. Basically a 'Pearl Harbor never happened' kind of alternate history. I should have been more specific.
Ah, that makes it more clear. Thank you!
dogma wrote: They didn't need to. Without US involvement Japan is essentially taken out of the equation. Eventually they would have come for the USSR, but they had to deal with China before that ever happened. Not to mention fight through Manchuria, which was far more difficult terrain than the sort which overcame the Panzer divisions. Just for the record, in much of the world there is a distinction between WWII, and the Pacific War, largely due to the above reason.
Actually Japan had already conquered much of China, and had total control of Manchuria, ie Manchuko. And no, Japan's involvement was not reliant on the US, they had been at war with the British Empire for some time. Britain would not sit idly by and let Japan take its crown jewel, India, or Australia, New Zealand, etc. This distinction that you are making between WWII and the Pacific War is...well, to be frank non-existent. I don't know of any historian, both in my personal experience, or in my professional experience, who has even entertained this idea. It is true that it is separate from the European theater, but to consider them two different wars is really ridiculous and mind boggling. I really don't know how you justify considering them two separate wars...
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote: Japan had the upper hand in its naval forces, which included many powerful aircraft carriers that neither the USSR nor the British Empire had.
The USSR would never have fought a naval battle against the Japanese, because they didn't need to do so. You could argue that the British would want their colonies back, but they could have just as easily abdicated them.
I disagree. The USSR would have had to eventually fight the Japanese navy, and the British, as aforementioned, would not have so easily given up their colonies, especially India and Australia, which were both essential for their natural resources that helped to drive the war effort.
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote: An example of just how important US supplies were to Russia is the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the fear that the Allies had of the Tirpitz. These supplies were essential to maintaining the Soviet war effort, especially in the Siege of Leningrad. I really believe the importance of the US' involvement in WWII is beyond debate, and frankly I am shocked that this is even considered as a viable subject for debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
The supplies delivered to the Soviets via lend-lease had very little significance to the Siege of Leningrad, most of them being destroyed by the Luftwaffe en route. They were significant to the overall war effort on the Eastern Front, though not until the later stages when logistical operations became extended. The matter was quite different with respect to England, but that's a different part of this conversation.
Again, I have to cry foul. Any realistic look at the influence American supplies had on the Eastern front points to them being essential to at least stalling the German war effort. These supplies helped to keep the Wermacht tied down, and prevented them from advancing. They were especially essential to the Siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad. Also see my above post to Sebster, as it covers alot of the same stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:How many Japanese carriers did the Soviets and British sink again? The Soviets could take Manchuria but couldn't stop the island empire of Japan. If the US were NOT in the picture the Soviets would have had to keep substantial forces in Siberia. This would have further imperiled them if there were no countervailing allied forces to pin down Germans.
Germany was an allied effort with the bulk of the dying on the Russian shoulders. That would be expected as the Germans never made it into London or Virginia.
Could the Russians have beaten the Germans without the US and Britain-good chance with all things being equal. I'd argue the logistical support and conflicts in Africa and then Europe were sufficient to draw off resources. We have to remember at Kursk, Hitler started pulling corps out of the battle when the allies invaded Italy. But had conditions remained the same I think so.
But it would have been substantially harder for the Russians. More importantly, without other threats the entire Wehrmacht would have been in Eastern Europe, delaying the Russians for a year or more. What happens then? If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that. What they did in reality was already literally superhuman (and yes it was 25MM casualties on the Soviet side: civilian and military-look it up).
Thank you fraz, the voice of reason comes roaring in to clear out the dissidents! Also, I already posted on your figures of 25 million, since they are in fact a reality.
gorgon wrote:American history books say we saved the day, British history books probably put the UK front and center, and the Australian books probably say they had the Pacific under control. It's just the way "history" gets polluted by nationalism. Meanwhile (as others have stated), the Soviets did the most to win the war but still get little credit in the above countries. That's because textbooks written in NATO and allied nations in the decades during the Cold War sure as heck weren't going to out of their way to praise the Soviets and their accomplishments. And that's how history gets polluted by politics.
I wouldn't say that at all Gorgan, tbh most WW2 books I've read and the brief time inschool we covered on WW2 have been pretty good on the whole who did what part. Okay Soviet Union aside which did get a mention, but not as much as it probably deserves, usually at that point the book stresses more on Hitlers error of attacking Russia full stop, more than the heroic fight and vengeful charge the Russians led against the eastern front.
But aye, I wouldn't say any book I have read has felt as if it was suggesting we where more awesome than our allies. It's given credit where credits due, the civilian populations response to the Blitz, the Battle of Britain etc, but I remember reading good things about Patton and various other US actions, especially in the Pacific, where as folks have already noted the US pretty much ran the show.
However I do think alot of anger over here comes from the changes often intoduced by Hollywood oddly, things like the film about the capturing of the Enigma machine was viewed very poorly here, and even though I like the film, some folks didn't like the inclusion of Steve McQueens character in the Great Escape. I tend to see much more moaning about the US regarding WW2 when movies show up that distort or change facts to add a US character etc.
Everyone is intolerant about something at some point. People aren't willing to admit such because they don't like to find fault within themselves.
The act of removing such intolerance would in and of itself create the most intolerant and ineffective of societies.
The reason I say this is that there are some things that should not be tolerated but what these things are evolves and changes according to the needs of society at that particular point in their developement.
The best you can hope for is to be tolerant and to hope your example influences the people you meet in a positive manner.
Off-topic:
Emperors faithfull-The soviets would not have won the war if not for the American supply-line. Russia was under industrialized and was unable to effectively stop the Nazi advance until the supply ships and american aircraft started to arrive.
Your analysis and others here ignores that a wars are won through resources. So what if america didn't lose as many lives. That is just plain smart. We substitute raw resources for manpower and follow Gen. Pattons axiom, "You don't win wars by dying for your country, you win wars by making some other por SOB die for his country."
To state that US intervetion was unnecessary for winning the war is to ignore the US industrial resources that were used in order for Britain and the USSR just to survive.
Frazzled wrote:If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that.
Excellent point Frazz. If we were on topic I would say that you win the thread, however I think I can say that you win the whole "Soviets would have beaten the Nazis without Uncle Sam", nonsense.
Jets and nukes vs Moscow and Stalingrad..... Hitler wins.
You're right, we're blindingly off topic at this point. I imagine we should start a Nazis vs. Commies Deathmatch 1946 so we could go off topic and begin discussing intolerance...
Vulkan77 wrote:... Stalin purged all the best officers in the mid 1930's and replaced them with his own sycophants he killed about 37,000 men many of then the best Generals and leaders he had. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler he just did it in a different way, instead of gassing and murdering all the people who disagreed he used them a s cannon fodder which contributed to the massive loss of life on the Russian side which was around 28,000,000 people.
Yeah, but they were his own people. As Eddie Izzard has pointed out, we're generally ok with people killing their own people, it's when they start to look next door that we get involved.
More on-topic;
New acceptable intolerances: fatties and smokers. People cannot help the race or gender they're born with. They can put down the twinkie and stop smoking though.
Frazzled wrote:How many Japanese carriers did the Soviets and British sink again? The Soviets could take Manchuria but couldn't stop the island empire of Japan.
Why would the Soviets even care about Japanese holding in the Pacific outside of general balance considerations? You're acting as if there was some grand, unified Allied political apparatus that had the same uniform set of goals. A notion which is utter nonsense considering the in-war political maneuvering between both the US and Great Britain, and the fact that the Soviets didn't declare war on Japan until two months before the Pacific War was over.
The British had an interest in maintaining colonial authority, but those territories which were threatened during the was quickly became the subject of the anti-colonization debate. So its exceedingly difficult to see how their maintenance would be necessary in a more tenuous military situation.
Frazzled wrote:
If the US were NOT in the picture the Soviets would have had to keep substantial forces in Siberia.
Why? Given the difficulty in pacifying China, the poor quality of the Japanese army, and the presence of a neutrality agreement which both sides held to even before America became an issue its really difficult to see why Stalin would have kept his force levels any higher than they were.
Frazzled wrote:
This would have further imperiled them if there were no countervailing allied forces to pin down Germans.
There weren't any, at least in mainland Europe, for the vast majority of the war.
Frazzled wrote:
Could the Russians have beaten the Germans without the US and Britain-good chance with all things being equal. I'd argue the logistical support and conflicts in Africa and then Europe were sufficient to draw off resources. We have to remember at Kursk, Hitler started pulling corps out of the battle when the allies invaded Italy. But had conditions remained the same I think so.
I'd agree.
Frazzled wrote:
But it would have been substantially harder for the Russians. More importantly, without other threats the entire Wehrmacht would have been in Eastern Europe, delaying the Russians for a year or more. What happens then? If Bagration starts in 1946 they are met by a full on jet powered Luftwaffe and the potential for nukes. I’m not sure if even the Russians could have driven through all that.
So long as the British remained unconquered the threat on the Western Front (combined with Hitler's determination) would have ensured that few soldiers would have been shifted to the East. And a jet powered Luftwaffe? The Luftwaffe was jet powered even with American aid. It wasn't the lack of aircraft that prevented their service, but the lack of fuel. It should also be remembered that the Soviets independently produced a jet fighter in 1946 (the SU-9).
And nukes? No way. Nothing the Germans undertook during the war matched the scale of the Manhattan Project.
Frazzled wrote:
What they did in reality was already literally superhuman (and yes it was 25MM casualties on the Soviet side: civilian and military-look it up).
Or inhuman; depending on how you read Stalin's control over the state. The little monster (Hitler) got eaten by the bigger, smarter monster (Stalin).
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Actually Japan had already conquered much of China, and had total control of Manchuria, ie Manchuko. And no, Japan's involvement was not reliant on the US, they had been at war with the British Empire for some time. Britain would not sit idly by and let Japan take its crown jewel, India, or Australia, New Zealand, etc.
If the alternative was the surrender of the British Isles, then yes they would have. Regardless, the Japanese never made it to India because they never fully took control of China. Australia was already quasi-independent, and became closer to the United States following the war as a direct result of the British willingness to abandon their colonial holdings in the face of German/Japanese aggression.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
This distinction that you are making between WWII and the Pacific War is...well, to be frank non-existent. I don't know of any historian, both in my personal experience, or in my professional experience, who has even entertained this idea. It is true that it is separate from the European theater, but to consider them two different wars is really ridiculous and mind boggling. I really don't know how you justify considering them two separate wars...
Three elements here:
1) The lack of a Soviet presence in the Pacific conflict (not including covert aid to China).
2) The willingness of the British to abandon their colonies.
3) The historical legacy of the dispute in East Asia. Unlike WWI there was no intermission.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I disagree. The USSR would have had to eventually fight the Japanese navy,
Why? What incentive would they have had to do so?
JEB_Stuart wrote:
and the British, as aforementioned, would not have so easily given up their colonies, especially India and Australia, which were both essential for their natural resources that helped to drive the war effort.
India itself was nearly self-sufficient, it didn't need protection. There's a reason the Japanese never attempted a landing.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Again, I have to cry foul. Any realistic look at the influence American supplies had on the Eastern front points to them being essential to at least stalling the German war effort. These supplies helped to keep the Wermacht tied down, and prevented them from advancing. They were especially essential to the Siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad. Also see my above post to Sebster, as it covers alot of the same stuff.
They were essential to the war effort, but not to Leningrad. You're reading general rejection into my comment. Over the course of the war America was primarily involved in providing logistical equipment to the Soviet Union in order to permit a focus on the production of military materiel. The program was very different for the British, however.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Didn't Mao end up with more murders on his hands than Stalin?
The only reason that USA doesn't want to admit the Mother Russia had the war in the bag is probably becuase of the ensuing Cold War. (My personal guess is that's why your history books are written tht way)
Stalin and Russia could have beaten Germany without aid. It would have been a long and tragic war, but they would most likely have won in the end. (Remember, this was not the sam backward russia of 1914, Russia had become much more industrialised.) The aid and convoys were nice, but not as crucial to the overall outcome as you might think. Having multiple fronts merely sealed the coffin for Hitler. He had sent his best and brightest soldiers. (Was it the 5th Army? Can't remember)
And I must say again, losses in the major battles were roughly even, but Russia could replace their losses more easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @generalgrog: BTW, Nukes and Jets? Please, that tech only came into play near the end of the war, and the germans were more into V2 missiles than nukes.
The nukes weren't about eliminating Japanese infrastructure. They were an ugly, but necessary alternative, in order to prevent a massive loss of life that was unnecessary. Many military leaders openly admitted that the atom bombs were psychological weapons as much as they were military. A blockade would NOT have shocked the Japanese into surrender, I really think you are underestimating their resolve here.
I never tried to claim the nukes were to force a collapse of infrastructure. I think it's pretty historically established that Japan was already on it's last legs economically, as they produce very little in terms of raw materials (food, metals, oil) inside Japan itself. I would agree over a Blockade not 'shocking' the Japanese into surrender. Shocking implies a sudden out of character response to one unexpected event. A blockade is a protracted, and lengthy strategy. The idea that nukes were necessary in order to prevent loss of life only works if you accept the fact that a physical invasion of the Japanese home isles was the only other options. A blockade combined with more regular bombing would have been sufficent.
The talk of Bushido is not really as much propaganda and myth as you claim. Sure the Samurai had been overthrown earlier in the Meiji era, but that did not change the fact that the population was indoctrinated with those same ideas. Look at the Emperor for example, it practically took Gen. MacArthur with a pistol in his hand to have the Emperor admit to his people that he wasn't actually a god, and that was just to let them know. Traditionalists in Japan still consider the Emperor to be divine!
Which is of course that much more illogical than most of the American soldiers belief in a big bearded man in the sky. Most countries are like that. A good example would be Churchills famous speech about fighting them in the streets, beaches and so on. Shinto wasn't the prevalent religion that you seem to be assuming it to be, buddhism and to a certain extent, taoism were well established by this date. As a ken-jutsu student myself, I'm more than familiar with the mindset of the 'samurai', and a large chunk of what is considered to be fact is no more than balderdash. Just because the Japanese were dedicated to their form of government, and believed the propaganda the afore emntioned government put out does not make them unreasonable, and mean they'll fight to the bitter end. As I already pointed out, the British in WW2 are a good analogy, as they too were bombarded with a tremendous amount of propaganda against the nazi's.
The Japanese were utterly committed to their Emperor's cause, there is no way to deny that, and it took the horrifying shock of the atom bombs to convince them that surrender was a viable option. On this issue of surrender: Unconditional surrender was not the problem, it was the reality of surrender that was. It is hard for us in the West to believe that such advanced people would have that attitude willingly, but its true. I have found many historical revisionists trying to claim that the Japanese were not as radical as we used to believe, and this would justify the no nuke theory, but in light of historical fact, this argument does not add up.
The reality of surrender itself is hard for any advanced nation to contemplate. Bar the quick capitulations of the French and the Italians in WW2, I can't think of a country ever surrendering before the government itself was shattered. The Germans were in no rush to surrender, even when it was obvious the war was lost, yet do we consider them to be maniacal and completely closed to any kind of negotiation? Much of what is taken as established fact with regards to japanese society during WW2 is taken from biased and inaccurate sources immediately following the war. The historical revisionists to which you refer have newly established facts, and a different perspective to view it from, even if they can be just as inaccurate as the other historians at times.
To conclude, I refute your claim that an atomic strike was the only thing capable of making the Japanese surrender barring a physical invasion. A blockade with more conventional methods was an entirely viable method of warfare, the American generals simply wished to conclude the war quickly, and test out their big shiny new weapon.
As a War Studies student myself I'm afraid I'm just as bad as you when it comes to debating a topic such as this JEB.
Ketara wrote:I've read some amazingly historically accurate stuff in this thread, and some amazingly INaccurate stuff. But since the threads been going 4 or 5 pages now, it would be pointless to start pulling stuff up from page 2.
On the nuclear bombing of Japan, it was unnecessary. Approximately half of Japans infrastructure was leveled in the Great Firembombing. Whilst the Japanese succeeded in keeping casualities to a minimum, napalm, and magnesium thermite bombs are nasty stuff.
Japan had nothing going for it in terms of supplies. When their navy set off for it's last engagement with the American fleet at Okinawa (although at this stage, all they actually had left was the battleship Yamato, the light cruiser Yahagi, and eight destroyers), it actually only had enough fuel for a one way journey.
Japan is worse off than the UK in terms of natural resources, they really do have nothing there. There are no raw minerals, metals, oil, or coal. Most of the country is rocky mountainous terrain, unsuitable for farming, and what flat space there is is heavily populated.
A blockade at that stage would have been just as effective as the nukes. The Japanese have always possessed this image of 'never surrender!', and it's true, they would fight longer, and more tenaciously then their western counterparts, even going as far as suicide at times. But that's more down to cultural difference.
You can quote about the 'way of samurai', and the like, but most of that is urban myths and propaganda. Most of the samurai families were overthrown with the installation the Meiji government much earlier. The propaganda of the Japanese government to their own people was the main reason they kept on fighting when all seemed lost, because they genuinely believed that their government had everything under control, and that they were winning. After all, who wuld surrender when they believed reinforcements and supplies were a few days away?
A blockade would have stripped away the Japanese governments ability to continue lying to their own people. When there's no food to eat, no means to continue making war, and enemy aircraft dominate the skies, it's obvious you've lost.
The main thing that kept the Japanese balking at surrender was the idea of 'unconditional surrender'. Had the Americans been content with slightly less (say a treaty with something along the lines of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles-and yes I know Versailles was an unconditional surrender, I'm just referring to the articles in it), I believe the Japanese would have been more likely to capitulate. The cultural difference meant that for the Japanese, a completely unconditional surrender was unthinkable. They'd rather commit seppuku first.
A blockade combined with a slightly less harsh treaty would have seen the war end without the nukes I believe.
Plus, we British like our blockades.
Yes blockades worked so well at getting islands to surrender in the past didn't they.
Ketara wrote:
To conclude, I refute your claim that an atomic strike was the only thing capable of making the Japanese surrender barring a physical invasion. A blockade with more conventional methods was an entirely viable method of warfare, the American generals simply wished to conclude the war quickly, and test out their big shiny new weapon.
The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.
With the collapse and surrender of Nazi Germany; America and its allies undoubtedly wanted to end the war full-stop. Its easy enough with our hindsight and sitting in the status quo to tell the allied nations to prolong an already prolonged war effort but quite simply the leaders and citizens of this era was long tired of sacrificing their sons overseas. Not to mention Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese were stubborn and their leadership out of the realm of reality ala Kim Jung Il, not to mention they were incredibly proud. Sure these are qualities that can be found in allied nations but not to the extent of Japan's infamous living god - it took TWO nuclear strikes to render their surrender.
Blockade or not, mainland Japan would have had to be invaded eventually and such casualty numbers would rank in the millions and its length in years. Its people was more than ready to die of starvation, generally speaking of course.
I'm not sure how "starve hundreds of thousands to death with blockades" is better than "kill hundreds of thousands with nukes".
It isn't. It's just as humane. I'm just disagreeing with the view that nukes were the only way.
The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.
Churchills idea of farmwives attacking nazis with frying pans springs to mind. As does the last stand of the SS soliders in Berlin. As does the Chinese guerillas. Modern Warfare is rife with such examples. Plus, Kamikaze is overexaggerated, as is the circumstances in which it took place. An account by a survivor springs to mind. He was a university student, and by no means an extremist, he just viewed it as doing what had to be done.
With the collapse and surrender of Nazi Germany; America and its allies undoubtedly wanted to end the war full-stop. Its easy enough with our hindsight and sitting in the status quo to tell the allied nations to prolong an already prolonged war effort but quite simply the leaders and citizens of this era was long tired of sacrificing their sons overseas. Not to mention Pearl Harbor.
Certainly, as I said, the use of the nuke was down to two factors, wanting to end the war quickly, and wanting to test their new superweapon.
Blockade or not, mainland Japan would have had to be invaded eventually and such casualty numbers would rank in the millions and its length in years. Its people was more than ready to die of starvation, generally speaking of course.
I disagree. To put it bluntly, Japan cannot produce war material. They had spent about 90% of what they had remaining. Once a blockade was in place, they could keep sending up fighter planes. That is, until they ran out of fuel and the materials to construct such planes with. As my example with the Yamato above has already proven, they had little petroleum reserves remaining in any case. Starvation would have become rife in Japan, as they are completely incapable of feeding their population.
I'm not debating ethics here, and whether it would have been better than nukes, but eventually Japan WOULD have been forced to the negotiation table without a single allied soldier setting foot on Hokkaido. If they did not, they would have all died of starvation eventually. It may have taken another year of waiting, but once the Japanese were contained and isolated on the home isles, they would have no way to fight back. They would have lacked the material necessary. That is a fact.
The only point of debate here is whether the blockade would have forced them to surrender. I believe it would have. You don't. You'd have to quote some damn good sources to get me to change my mind on this, as I know as a fact that a lot of what is taken for granted about Japan, shinto, and bushido is nothing more than urban myth, tales retold, and incredibly biased and shortsighted historians neglecting certain sources in order to support other more exaggerated claims.
Ketara wrote:I disagree. To put it bluntly, Japan cannot produce war material. They had spent about 90% of what they had remaining. Once a blockade was in place, they could keep sending up fighter planes. That is, until they ran out of fuel and the materials to construct such planes with. As my example with the Yamato above has already proven, they had little petroleum reserves remaining in any case. Starvation would have become rife in Japan, as they are completely incapable of feeding their population.
QFT , the Kamikaze didnt happen because they are crazy fanatics . They know their fuels are only enough for them to reach there ,
drop w/e bombs they have , do w/e damage they can before the fuel run out , and do the most they can by crashing the plane into something.
@others , too lazy to quote 2 pages
Its not that Japanese military are stubborn , or they are fanatics that dont fear death.
They just value loyalty + doing their duties the best they can .
*Also , comparing starvation to nukes , have you even seeing the after effects of a atom bomb?
I fail to see how it's worse than starving to death.
Maybe it's worse to die of poisoning over a period of several months than starvation and disease over a period of several months (or maybe not), but half the people were killed in the initial blast anyways.
the Kamikaze didnt happen because they are crazy fanatics .
In no way do i defend this luna, but try to take a look from a different point of view here.
To you its a crazy fanatic, to them its simply a way to express how patriotic they are.
As for the main topic here, i dont have any hates when it comes to a set group (ill stick with this terminology) allthough i may get annoyed by one at any time due to things being said or done, i simply leave it, pointless getting into an argument that would ruin my job, or cause an akward situation (i have enough of those at work)
I'm not sure how "starve hundreds of thousands to death with blockades" is better than "kill hundreds of thousands with nukes".
It isn't. It's just as humane. I'm just disagreeing with the view that nukes were the only way.
The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.
Churchills idea of farmwives attacking nazis with frying pans springs to mind. As does the last stand of the SS soliders in Berlin. As does the Chinese guerillas. Modern Warfare is rife with such examples. Plus, Kamikaze is overexaggerated, as is the circumstances in which it took place. An account by a survivor springs to mind. He was a university student, and by no means an extremist, he just viewed it as doing what had to be done.
However such extreme behavior was especially (and in the case of kamikaze and bayonet charges, exclusively?) evident and really practiced only by the Japanese though so the rest is conjecture. You are correct in that citizens and underground guerillas would use less than worthy tactics but the fact of the matter is no other side has demonstrated the will to sacrifice themselves as the Japanese did in WW2.
In the right kind of circumstance, anyone can be led to believe in what they're doing is "right" or "justified". 9/11 for a more recent example; doesn't mean that their attitudes hold any real weight beyond face value though and more of a byproduct of social conditions. Lets not forget that Japanese used a ton of chemical weapons against China and pretty much raped and pillaged their neighbors until they poked at the wrong country.
Certainly, as I said, the use of the nuke was down to two factors, wanting to end the war quickly, and wanting to test their new superweapon.
The weapon was already tested so I don't really buy into that reason; it was moreso about ending the war and not prolonging the war effort which includes having to maintain a costly blockade which undoubtedly would've met much resistance.
I disagree. To put it bluntly, Japan cannot produce war material. They had spent about 90% of what they had remaining. Once a blockade was in place, they could keep sending up fighter planes. That is, until they ran out of fuel and the materials to construct such planes with. As my example with the Yamato above has already proven, they had little petroleum reserves remaining in any case. Starvation would have become rife in Japan, as they are completely incapable of feeding their population.
True they were down but they would never have considered themselves out. Look at North Korea and Cuba as examples of how resilient nations and their leaders can be or at the WW2 Japanese survivors found on remote islands. The Japanese still had a substantial amount of military infrastructure and their pride was nearly invincible; they would've kept fighting the enemy especially if he was just floating next door.
I'm not debating ethics here, and whether it would have been better than nukes, but eventually Japan WOULD have been forced to the negotiation table without a single allied soldier setting foot on Hokkaido. If they did not, they would have all died of starvation eventually. It may have taken another year of waiting, but once the Japanese were contained and isolated on the home isles, they would have no way to fight back. They would have lacked the material necessary. That is a fact.
I think you seriously underestimate the Japanese leadership and their people's mentality; these guys make Kim Jung Il look like Luke Skywalker than Darth Vader (hyperbole). It took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender. TWO. Thats just bonkers.
The only point of debate here is whether the blockade would have forced them to surrender. I believe it would have. You don't. You'd have to quote some damn good sources to get me to change my mind on this, as I know as a fact that a lot of what is taken for granted about Japan, shinto, and bushido is nothing more than urban myth, tales retold, and incredibly biased and shortsighted historians neglecting certain sources in order to support other more exaggerated claims.
Right, there's going to be bias everywhere and concepts like bushido was bastardized by the Japanese government and people themselves in order to be used as a way to control people and fight mindlessly and selflessly. However considering that you have a Japanese anime name, avatar, and signature --- its safe to say you're pretty biased in this topic as well, or at least can be perceived as such since it seems you underestimate the mentality the Japanese had.
EDITED IN: Speaking as someone who was born and lived in South Korea; Japanese relations with other Asian nations have always been rocky. They routinely deny and edit their textbooks in a fashion not too far from Iranian leaders' denial of the holocaust - this is one of many reasons why Japan/China/SK/etc can't seem to get along.
Two nukes, accepted use of desperate suicide attacks, surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese soldier's incredible resilience and courage (Iwo Jima anyone?), the fact that North Korea is still around, and the findings of Japanese WW2 survivors still ready to fight long after the conflict was over; these all point towards a blockade being just about useless in stopping the proud and armed Japanese from trying to rise up again and killing off gaijin. American top brass and leadership realized what kind of opponent they were dealing with and the last thing they wanted to do was prolong any kind of war effort especially since the Nazi's surrendered and Japan was on the other side of the world which presents a logistical nightmare.
A-bombing Japan was the lesser of the evils involved and just for the sake of mentioning it, American firebombing did more total damage than the two nuclear strikes. The Japanese were simply too tough and proud to end it by blockading and the manpower and infrastructure required for it was something that allied leaders of the time would readily drop in order for a quicker and less deadly end.
Frazzled wrote:What if the fatty has bad knees and can barely walk? Are they a "fatty" then?
Yup.
My co-workers and I have come up with a new diet. Being engineers, we're fairly straightforward. It doesn't have any trick, like eat as much yogurt as you want or anything like that. It's actually pretty simple - we call it the F.L.O.T. diet, and it will work for anyone, even those with bad knees.
F.L.O.T. = First Law of Thermodynamics, which basically states that energy is conserved, and therefore, if you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight. I'm sure eating less is a novel concept, but really, anyone can do it, even people with bad knees.
I also believe a blockade of Imperial Japan would've done sweet FA. Distribution of food might have been a problem, but starvation, I'm not fully on board with that. I can tell you that in my own experience plants grow in Japan with absolutely no human help at all. Throw some orange seeds out the window and you'll have a tree popping up in no time. Also, the Japanese weren't beyond cannibalization. Late Edo/early restoration, when there was scarcity of food, it was time to eat Grampa. The term Mizunomi hyakusho - Water drinking peasant - is still used to this day to describe someone who can't afford food and only drinks water during the day because they're so poor.
The Japanese people are a team from cradle to grave. They do everything together. Everyone depends on one another for their survival. In my time here, I've met a lot of old timers who told me stories of the B-17s hammering their hometowns and then picking up the body parts. Or Bayonet/Tank charging practice in Grade 8 gym class. They were in it for the long haul. As long as the leadership towed the line, the populace would've as well. It still happens today. Ask a Japanese person about the whole loyalty to and beyond the grave and they'll tell you that you don't understand because you're not Japanese.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
@generalgrog: BTW, Nukes and Jets? Please, that tech only came into play near the end of the war, and the germans were more into V2 missiles than nukes.
EF you missed the point I think. You yourself admit that without Uncle Sam the Great Patriotic war would have gone on longer. Soooo that means by 1946 1947 Germany is rolling out the Jets to take out those Russian tanks. Dogma may be correct on the nuke angle, but I'm not so sure that by 1947/48 Germany couldn't have had a nuke by then.
I do also wonder if there wasn't the additional angle of the US showing the USSR that it was nuclear capable when it bombed Japan, it's highly cynical of me but I do wonder if there wasn't a posturing going on there as the two newly emerging superpowers started to give each other dirty looks.
Khornholio wrote:I also believe a blockade of Imperial Japan would've done sweet FA. Distribution of food might have been a problem, but starvation, I'm not fully on board with that. I can tell you that in my own experience plants grow in Japan with absolutely no human help at all. Throw some orange seeds out the window and you'll have a tree popping up in no time. Also, the Japanese weren't beyond cannibalization. Late Edo/early restoration, when there was scarcity of food, it was time to eat Grampa. The term Mizunomi hyakusho - Water drinking peasant - is still used to this day to describe someone who can't afford food and only drinks water during the day because they're so poor.
The Japanese people are a team from cradle to grave. They do everything together. Everyone depends on one another for their survival. In my time here, I've met a lot of old timers who told me stories of the B-17s hammering their hometowns and then picking up the body parts. Or Bayonet/Tank charging practice in Grade 8 gym class. They were in it for the long haul. As long as the leadership towed the line, the populace would've as well. It still happens today. Ask a Japanese person about the whole loyalty to and beyond the grave and they'll tell you that you don't understand because you're not Japanese.
Wouldn't mass cannibalization be indicitive of starvation?
(Also, I do recall some POWs being eaten by the Japanese. Starvation and disease killed somewhere around 2/3 of the Japanese army.)
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I do also wonder if there wasn't the additional angle of the US showing the USSR that it was nuclear capable when it bombed Japan, it's highly cynical of me but I do wonder if there wasn't a posturing going on there as the two newly emerging superpowers started to give each other dirty looks.
I think that was definately part of it, especially the 2nd one.
the Kamikaze didnt happen because they are crazy fanatics .
In no way do i defend this luna, but try to take a look from a different point of view here.
To you its a crazy fanatic, to them its simply a way to express how patriotic they are.
No JD, read the whole paragraph especially the one that follows.
the "crazy fanatics" part was quoting what someone said earlier .
Thus why the paragraph follows to why i dont think they are fanatics.
I guess i should have written the sentence like:
" the kamikaze didnt happen because they are "crazy fanatics" " ( er does that make more sense i dunno... )
It's dang easy to sit in a chair saying we should or shouldn't have done something concerning one of the most Hellish periods in this planet's history.
I hope we don't have to see our theories on how to act in a similar situation put to the test in a repeat of that time, but if we did, I have the feeling that a lot of them would be proven way mistaken.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
(Also, I do recall some POWs being eaten by the Japanese army. Starvation and disease killed somewhere around 2/3 of the Japanese army.)
2/3 of the army or 2/3 of their casualties? Maybe in China and in other occupied areas, but if Japan were to have become an island fortress the military would have rationed the fighting men over everyone else. The elderly, although respected and revered, would more than likely have offered themselves to be eaten as they did in the late shogunate in the Tohoku region when typhoons came early and wiped out the crops. They eat bamboo, and it grows everywhere. Eating the weak would've been the last resort.
Nathan Explosion: Whoa. Eating the weak. Great song title.
However, industrially they would've been hooped as they don't have significant natural resources (metal, oil) to sustain their war machine. That was the whole point of invading South East Asia: the Oil in Brunei, the rubber in Indonesia, etc. They went south for resources.
On the point of the 2 Atomic bombs needed to wipe them out ( somewhere miles ago in the thread), I believe that is just playing up to their wartime mystique. After the first Atomic bomb, the Japanese government, at the bequest of the Emprah himself, did communicate their desire to surrender - albeit in flowery language that they were accustomed to using diplomatically that was muddled in translation. I believe it was a case of the certain Kanjis which have similar sounds being translated incorrectly at some point. There are many homonyms in Japanese which would certainly through any non-native Japanese speaker for a loop especially translating from a mores code . Of course, it something of moot point as the US was demanding unconditional surrender and the only answer they were looking for is "We surrender."
In essence, the Imperial Japanese downfall was underestimating the US's industrial power/resolve and not consolidating their attack on Hawaii. Their fate was pretty much sealed on 8 December 1941. Postwar Japanese were pretty surprised and the benevolence of the American occupying forces as they were expecting the US military to behave as they had in China. The Korean War was a blessing for the Japanese as it forced the US to rebuild Japan's infrastructure rapidly as a munitions factory for what they saw as a protracted war against Chinese Communism. When the peace treaty between the US and Japan was signed in 1952, they had become best buds. To my knowledge Russia and Japan have never signed a peace treaty in regards to WWII. The Japanese still contest the occupation/annexation of two islands off the north coast of Hokkaido. Nowadays, most of the Japanese renounce war altogether, but when the North Korean bogeyman makes its appearance on TV, a lot of them are ready to drop the gloves. But that's what the US is for.
2/3 of the dead. 2/3 of the army would have been really bad.
And I'm pretty sure there was a peace treaty between Japan and the USSR at some point. Japanese horses were eating Russian grass or something, and there was a scuffle that Japan lost and had them both ready to call a truce (the Red Army was a serious threat to to Manchuria, but Russia was far too concerned with Hitler to worry about that).
Emperors Faithful wrote:The only reason that USA doesn't want to admit the Mother Russia had the war in the bag is probably becuase of the ensuing Cold War. (My personal guess is that's why your history books are written tht way)
Nah. There are probably two reasons the Soviet role is commonly minimized (in current textbooks, anyway).
1) In the US the larger war is considered equally split between Europe and the Pacific.
2) A failing Germany inevitably links the invasion of Europe to political maneuvering, and Americans tend to believe that politics have no place in war (they're wrong, of course).
JEB_Stuart wrote:If you are looking at end of the war figures for production, then yes you would be right. But that isn't the case when it comes to production throughout. The American supplies, and British convoys, were essential to the Soviet effort. How do you think they kept their ill supplied troops supplied at all during those first few critical years? Your argument is illogical, considering the Russians could not even equip all of their troops with basic rifles, let alone field a fully equipped and well supplied army. And the Germans weren't concerned with pacifying Russia, they were more concerned about offing the population for Hitler's Lebensraum. The USSR did not start having truly massive production numbers till war's end, and that was only able to happen because of American supplies.
Uhh, the thing about more men than rifles was a WWI thing. You haven't been getting your facts from Enemy at the Gates, have you?
Meanwhile, supplies given under lend lease to the Soviets have been greatly exagerated in this thread. You're aware that three times the amount was given to the Brits as to the Soviets.
Then consider that the Russians received few guns or tanks, mostly receiving trucks and locomotives. These were very valuable and helped the Russians, but it's another thing entirely to say the Soviets would have lost if they didn't have US trucks.
And when I talked about pacify, I was talking about bringing the Russian war machine to an end. Capturing Moscow wouldn't simply end the war, Moscow just wasn't important like Paris was to France (ask Napoleon about that one). Russian military industry had largely relocated further east, or been newly built there. When the German logistics were such a mess in just reaching Moscow, how can you expect them to continue on well into Siberia?
focusedfire wrote:Emperors faithfull-The soviets would not have won the war if not for the American supply-line. Russia was under industrialized and was unable to effectively stop the Nazi advance until the supply ships and american aircraft started to arrive.
Your analysis and others here ignores that a wars are won through resources.
So what if america didn't lose as many lives. That is just plain smart. We substitute raw resources for manpower and follow Gen. Pattons axiom, "You don't win wars by dying for your country, you win wars by making some other por SOB die for his country."
To state that US intervetion was unnecessary for winning the war is to ignore the US industrial resources that were used in order for Britain and the USSR just to survive.
Your analysis relies on a stereotype of the Soviet war machine that isn't true. When looking at total war you look at raw numbers, how many tanks, planes and field guns did each side produce. The USSR outproduced the Germans by themselves. Then you look at the end game for each nation, and there was no sensible way for the German military, built as it was, to continue east of Moscow, which they would have to manage to defeat the Russians.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Didn't Mao end up with more murders on his hands than Stalin?
No, not more murders. He got more killed through bad policies that starved people to death, but that isn't really the same thing. If it were, the British would take a high rank for their policies leading to famine in India, that killed tens of millions too. Ultimately bad policy, even policy as dumb as the Great Leap Forward, isn't the same thing as directly executing people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:And I'm pretty sure there was a peace treaty between Japan and the USSR at some point. Japanese horses were eating Russian grass or something, and there was a scuffle that Japan lost and had them both ready to call a truce (the Red Army was a serious threat to to Manchuria, but Russia was far too concerned with Hitler to worry about that).
There was peace, based largely on the fact that neither had much to gain from attacking the other. The Japanese were fully committed to China and hardly wanted to stretch their lines of supply further by engaging the Russians. The Russians had a bigger issue with that whole Germany thing.
When the Germans were defeated and the Russians turned their attention to land grabbing, they attacked the Japanese in Manchuria. The ending result, between a modern war economy that had developed a brutally efficient war machine, and what was basically an island nation with colonial ambitions, was one of the great stompings of the war.
Even in 1941 or 1942, in the wake of the early successes of Barabarossa, if the Japanese had completely changed their strategic aims* and shifted to attack the Soviets they wouldn't have gotten very far.
*And we are, of course, ignoring the cultural and political elements of Japan's Manifest Destiny. They saw themselves as rules of the Asian people, why they'd suddenly ignore that to attack Russia I do not know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Nah. There are probably two reasons the Soviet role is commonly minimized (in current textbooks, anyway).
1) In the US the larger war is considered equally split between Europe and the Pacific.
2) A failing Germany inevitably links the invasion of Europe to political maneuvering, and Americans tend to believe that politics have no place in war (they're wrong, of course).
It also took a long time for historians to get their heads around the scale of the Eastern front. Understandably, you had to treat anything coming out of Russia with a grain of salt, so Russian stories about the scale of tank battles on the Eastern front were treated with scepticism.
sebster wrote:No, not more murders. He got more killed through bad policies that starved people to death, but that isn't really the same thing. If it were, the British would take a high rank for their policies leading to famine in India, that killed tens of millions too. Ultimately bad policy, even policy as dumb as the Great Leap Forward, isn't the same thing as directly executing people.
Ah, on further research it was mostly famines. It looks like a little less than Hitler with the purges, but dear god the famines that guy caused. And they still exported grain during them, to save face.
I mean, I get what you're saying about the difference between ordering executions and bad policy, but still... there's a point where it's not a matter of just messing up any more.
sebster wrote: if the Japanese had completely changed their strategic aims* and shifted to attack the Soviets they wouldn't have gotten very far.
*And we are, of course, ignoring the cultural and political elements of Japan's Manifest Destiny. They saw themselves as rules of the Asian people, why they'd suddenly ignore that to attack Russia I do not know.
I wonder if the Japanese could have been bouyed up by thier success in their earlier war, where against everyone's expectations except their own, they literaly kicked the crap out of Russia. I leave that open to the table and someone with a better knowledge of history than me..
Orkeosaurus wrote:Ah, on further research it was mostly famines. It looks like a little less than Hitler with the purges, but dear god the famines that guy caused. And they still exported grain during them, to save face.
I mean, I get what you're saying about the difference between ordering executions and bad policy, but still... there's a point where it's not a matter of just messing up any more.
Yeah, that's true. It's why bodycount maths only get you so far. You either include all deaths, at which point your greatest monsters are going to be people with bad agricultural policy, or you don't include them at all, at which point you're ignoring the dead if they were killed through good intentions. Either way it's kind of ridiculous.
Meanwhile there's an in-built bias to people with bigger populations to kill off. I'd say Pol Pot is worse than any of them, but he doesn't make the list because he was working with a smaller group of victims.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:I wonder if the Japanese could have been bouyed up by thier success in the Sino-Soviet war, where against everyone's expectations except their own, they literaly kicked the crap out of Russia. I leave that open to the table and someone with a better knowledge of history than me..
Not sure. It's worth remembering that in addition to the stomping suffered by the Russian navy, there was a protacted land engagement. The forces of the Tsar were quite disfunctional and were beaten handily by the Japanese, but they soon reached a point where further advance was impossible, they didn't have the logistics to supply deeper and deeper assaults. Capabilities improved significantly by WWII, but not by enough to expand far into Siberia.
Culture was also a big problem, it's the same Japanese that suffered ludicrous casualties at the hands of US submarines as the Japanese just didn't understand attritional war, focussing their military on delivering decisive strikes. Looking at the extremes to which supply trains would be stretched over the Russian frontier, I could see mobile guerilla units having a grand old time with a Japanese invasion.
You must remember that the Tsarist forces were VASTLY different from the communist forces years later. The tsarist forces were a good 30-40 years behind every other country, Commies were far more advanced.
generalgrog wrote:
EF you missed the point I think. You yourself admit that without Uncle Sam the Great Patriotic war would have gone on longer. Soooo that means by 1946 1947 Germany is rolling out the Jets to take out those Russian tanks. Dogma may be correct on the nuke angle, but I'm not so sure that by 1947/48 Germany couldn't have had a nuke by then.
Look... I mean this is all hindsight stuff right?
GG
Jets are a non-issue no matter the theoretical timetable. Roughly 1400 ME-262s were built during the course of the war, but fewer than 200 were deployed due to various shortages (primarily fuel, but also pilots, and suitable runways). Its also worth remembering that the 262 made its first flight in 1941, so it wasn't as those it was some major end-game development.
Things were no so simple as some might wish at the end of WWII.
Let´s say that mainland Japan could be blockaded successfully in summer 45 as some posters say.
What do you propose to do with the IJA still in China or most southeast Asia? Leave them in place pillaging the countryside and turning into bandits and robbers as discipline disappeared or sacrifice thousands of troops to root them out at a time when already Australia was complaining about wasted lives in a war already won?
Unfortunately the nuclear bomb was the less evil option in a very cruel war.
Also the IJA folded in front of the Soviets because a million war forged veterans were transfered from Europe to the Manchurian frontier. Prior to Victory Europe the forces holding the frontier were as starved and equipment lacking as their Japanese enemies.
sebster wrote:
When the Germans were defeated and the Russians turned their attention to land grabbing, they attacked the Japanese in Manchuria. The ending result, between a modern war economy that had developed a brutally efficient war machine, and what was basically an island nation with colonial ambitions, was one of the great stompings of the war.
The discrepancy between the Japanese army and, well, every single other army involved in WWII (except the Italians) is one of the things that many people fail to appreciate when considering them a significant threat to the Soviets. The most obvious comparative line can be drawn between the the Soviet T-34 and the Japanese Type 4 Chi-To. The Type 4 only began production in 1945, and was far inferior to anything being produced by the other forces involved (except, possibly, the Sherman). Had the Japanese invaded in, say, 1942, they would have used tanks like the Type 97 which was armed with a gun that couldn't penetrate the armor of a Sherman, let alone a T-34.
The Japanese were a formidable naval power, which also possessed a good deal of staying power in island defense where entrenchment could effectively counter the Allied technological advantage. However, on land they were nearly useless.
Faced with an incredible number of casualities among my forces and unknown number of civilians killed among the enemy and a prolongation of the war with unexpected results? Yup, I would do it.
M.
*puke*
Would you yourself order the cold-blooded killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents? Push the button yourself? BTW, you have not answered the first question.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So many (too many) are posting on and on about how dropping the atom bomb on a city or two was the 'lesser evil' but here are two questions for you.
1) Why was there no warning or demonstration?
2) Would YOU do it?
1) What warning did you want? They only had two bombs. Use one as a warning, drop the other one and then what? You're back to having to invade, the worst of both worlds.
2) Don't know. I'm glad to never be in a situation, and it's a big reason I'm not running for US President. To turn it around, would you order troops to invade, leading to unknown casualties when you had a weapon available that could end the war?
The thing is, they were working with limited knowledge of the situation. They certainly believed casualties would be horrendous (I've been told by a pretty reliable fellow that the purple hearts manufactured in anticipation of the invasion were only finally used up in the first gulf war), and every day the war drags on countless more wil die in China. Why aren't you as outraged about Dresden? At least there was real, meaningful good to come out of the a-bombs, what good came out of Dresden? What about the switch to strategic bombing of Berlin? Or Stalin stopping at the gates of Warsaw, happy for the Nazis to slaughter the resistance (knowing that the people who took up arms against the Nazis would be the same ones to take up arms against the Communists)?
Emperors Faithful wrote:*puke*
Would you yourself order the cold-blooded killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents? Push the button yourself? BTW, you have not answered the first question.
This is too easy, I already knew you were going to answer that. You are taking my decision in a vacuum. I stated:
Faced with an incredible number of casualities among my forces and unknown number of civilians killed among the enemy and a prolongation of the war with unexpected results?
I fail to see how this is cold-blooded killing. If we are discussing WWII not an alternative scenario my forces are already killing thousands of innocents each day, my military commanders gave me this new super weapon that will end the war at the cost of two cities, now is my job to decided which option is the less evil... there is no contest I´ll happily order the killing of 250.000 civilians in exchange for at the very least that number of my troops and incidentally the whole population of the areas they´ll be invading in a few weeks if I don´t order this super weapon use.
As for your first question, I don´t have an answer, perhaps I´ll search it later.
Emperors Faithful wrote:1) They had two bombs so they dropped BOTH?!?
Yeah, they didn't surrender after the first one so they dropped another.
And you didn't answer my question. Why the fixation on dropping the bomb, and not Dresden or the firebombing of Tokyo? They killed as many civilians without having the clear outcomes.
No they didn't! That is a profound lie! They were dropped seqeuntially. It wasn't toast-Hiroshima-give-'em-a-chance-to-surrender-then-toast-Nagasaki, it was one after the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and in answer to your question (didn't know it was a question) I focus on The atomic bombs becuase pretty much everyone knows about those and they were more 'sudden' than dresden or tokyo. (While ALL were targeted for sheer-scale destruction instead of purely military)
Frazzled wrote:What if the fatty has bad knees and can barely walk? Are they a "fatty" then?
Yup.
My co-workers and I have come up with a new diet. Being engineers, we're fairly straightforward. It doesn't have any trick, like eat as much yogurt as you want or anything like that. It's actually pretty simple - we call it the F.L.O.T. diet, and it will work for anyone, even those with bad knees.
F.L.O.T. = First Law of Thermodynamics, which basically states that energy is conserved, and therefore, if you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight. I'm sure eating less is a novel concept, but really, anyone can do it, even people with bad knees.
Tell me that when you're seventy and live in their shoes. Until then STFU.
Frazzled wrote:
Tell me that when you're seventy and live in their shoes. Until then STFU.
Maybe if they weren't carrying so much weight, their knees wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be able to move a bit better. You seem a bit touchy on this one...
Frazzled wrote:
Tell me that when you're seventy and live in their shoes. Until then STFU.
Maybe if they weren't carrying so much weight, their knees wouldn't be so bad, and they'd be able to move a bit better. You seem a bit touchy on this one...
1. yep, I'm touchy on this one.
2. Bad knees can result from a whole lot of things. Indeed, being an athlete in your younger days can turn you into a defacto hobbler at 40.
3. Its not an excuse but a reality of living. Getting older impacts your stamina levels and all those aches and pains start slowing you up.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Bad knees can result from a whole lot of things. Indeed, being an athlete in your younger days can turn you into a defacto hobbler at 40.
I understand that. I've got hip problems and I'm 36. But, I've lost 30 pounds so far this year, and along with those extra pounds I've also reduced the number of days when I feel hip pain.
This wasn't a huge lifestyle change either. We bought a kitchen scale - so we know how much we're eating now. Proper serving sizes will do wonders for you. And, cutting out on excess snacks. That's about all I changed. I have dessert every night - but one scoop of ice cream instead of two. I still drink proper (non-lite) beer, put bacon on just about anything I can, and I don't have any forbidden food.
3. Its not an excuse but a reality of living. Getting older impacts your stamina levels and all those aches and pains start slowing you up.
Hence the concept of eating less than you use. No one is doubting that you slow as you age. But are you reducing your diet to compensate for the lowered activity level? When I was still growing and active, I'd eat a box of cookies at a time and show nothing for it. Seconds with dinner every night, you know the story. But there comes a point where that just doesn't work anymore - you have no where else to grow but out. I'm not Michael Phelps, burning 5000 calories per workout - so I don't need to eat like him.
Whatever man, it's America, you're free to eat your way to being a lardass, and you're free to defend your right to do so. But, this is the thread on intolerance, and I'm free to judge you on those choices too.
No this is the intolerance thread. The WWII is thataway.
As you noted, you're 36. You literally don't know what you're talking about when it comes to older people. I'm not meaning that as an attack, but as a statement of truth.
Frazzled wrote:
As you noted, you're 36. You literally don't know what you're talking about when it comes to older people. I'm not meaning that as an attack, but as a statement of truth.
A statement of "truth" with no research behind it and no evidence to support your assertion. I probably know more about the nutritional needs of the geriatric than you do, as my wife reads out-loud as she studies to be a dietitian, including the classes on senior health and nutritional needs.
Are you suggesting that older people need to eat more calories than they burn in order to... do what exactly? Because the only claim I've made is that you can lose weight by burning more calories than you eat.
Frazzled wrote: As you noted, you're 36. You literally don't know what you're talking about when it comes to older people. I'm not meaning that as an attack, but as a statement of truth.
A statement of "truth" with no research behind it and no evidence to support your assertion. I probably know more about the nutritional needs of the geriatric than you do, as my wife reads out-loud as she studies to be a dietitian, including the classes on senior health and nutritional needs.
Are you suggesting that older people need to eat more calories than they burn in order to... do what exactly? Because the only claim I've made is that you can lose weight by burning more calories than you eat.
Not diet. Actually living-you know exercise. EDITED FOR BEING OVERLY HARSH.
I'll just restate myself here. Unless you actually know people of this age or are of this age, then your informaiton base is theoretical at best, and does not take into account a plethora of real world factors.
Frazzled wrote:
I'll just restate myself here. Unless you actually know people of this age or are of this age, then your informaiton base is theoretical at best, and does not take into account a plethora of real world factors.
Well, I'm not an orphan, so I do actually know people of this age. I actually know people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and, until recently, 90s.
It seems to me that you're making excuses for why people should be overweight. I've heard them all - you don't have a nutritionist in your house without hearing the stories. The only two options when it comes to this situation are eating less, or putting on blinders. (Exercising more is not a solution, oddly enough. Recent studies have shown that exercise, even lots of exercise, without dietary changes won't lose you weight, and may lead to weight gain as you eat more to compensate).
Anyone can change their diet. The old, the young, the infirm. Saying that I don't know the person in question doesn't change that fact. It may not be easy. There might be cultural issues involved. There may be financial issues involved. But anyone can do it if they want to. It's that part that's the real issue - unless a person wants to effect change, they're not going to.
Emperors Faithful wrote:No they didn't! That is a profound lie! They were dropped seqeuntially. It wasn't toast-Hiroshima-give-'em-a-chance-to-surrender-then-toast-Nagasaki, it was one after the other.
Nah, the first bomb was dropped August 6, the second bomb August 9.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and in answer to your question (didn't know it was a question) I focus on The atomic bombs becuase pretty much everyone knows about those and they were more 'sudden' than dresden or tokyo. (While ALL were targeted for sheer-scale destruction instead of purely military)
Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.
sebster wrote:
Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.
So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )
Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.
Frazzled wrote:
I'll just restate myself here. Unless you actually know people of this age or are of this age, then your informaiton base is theoretical at best, and does not take into account a plethora of real world factors.
Well, I'm not an orphan, so I do actually know people of this age. I actually know people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and, until recently, 90s.
90s, pah, those are just kids.
It seems to me that you're making excuses for why people should be overweight. I've heard them all - you don't have a nutritionist in your house without hearing the stories.
No I just realize the real world gets in the way a lot more than people realize. We'll have to agree to disagree.
The only two options when it comes to this situation are eating less, or putting on blinders. (Exercising more is not a solution, oddly enough. Recent studies have shown that exercise, even lots of exercise, without dietary changes won't lose you weight, and may lead to weight gain as you eat more to compensate).
Agreed, often the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
sebster wrote:
Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.
So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )
Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.
Yea Luna, thats standard policy.
US policy was Massive Retaliation until Russia had enough nuckes to fight back. Its still Massive Retaliation (capitalized as its a defined term) for everyone else, including the Chinese. MANY were surprised that Afghanistan was not hit with at least tacticals over Al Qaeda locations.
sebster wrote:
Sure, but what I'm saying is that greater destruction was carried out in operations with no clear objectives. Whereas the atomic bombs, while horrific, were dropped with the aim of ending the war, which they achieved. I'm not saying it was right to drop the bomb because I just don't know, but there were plenty of other allied operations that killed a lot of people for no good reason.
So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )
Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.
Its worthy to note that even after the official surrender, several Japanese military units continued to fight long after.
If China and the USA went to war it'd be a conflict of apocalyptic proportions and that example is pretty bad in the context of the discussion since no one other than the USA had such weapons in WW2. Nuking Japan, remember it took two nukes and the Soviet invasion for them to officially surrender, was the less deadly and evil option than mounting a mainland invasion. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight and were prepared to fight to the last man; it took weapons out of the pages of science fiction to bring them into reality. In fact several higher level positions in their leadership were still itching to fight and die after the bombings and news of the Soviet invasion.
On another tangent; speaking as a South Korean its pretty revolting how the Japanese have treated this time in history since they routinely deny and edit their textbooks to paint their heinous warcrimes in a more suitable light. Rape of Nanking is a particularly heated example; "comfort women" my ass - more like rape victims that were tortured and killed (and those are just the lucky ones...being a POW under the Empire of Japan you'd be subject to despicable accounts of 'medical research' where people were injected with things like the Bubonic Plague just to see how humans tick). As a people the Japanese were some of the most proud and patriotic of any other group - these guys were the top dogs in the Pacific and had an impeccable war record...being beaten is just something their mentality handled by fighting to the death rather than facing reality.
The Japanese were ruthless, these are the guys who launched a surprise attack in the month of X-mas, unleashed chemical and biological weapons, raped and pillaged, fought to the last man, Kamikaze'd, bayonet charged, etc --- any other action other than nuking them would've inflicted more deaths and hardships than nukes and wouldn't have brought them to surrender. And like 'Graves of the Fireflies' showed; conventional bombings like allied firebombing over the wooden houses of Japan did more damage than their WMD counterparts.
And on the subject of the hypothetical, I'd rather the USA be the only country to launch nukes in aggression than not. Nuking Japan showed the world the power and destruction of such weapons and in the status quo we have missiles that make the 'fat man' look thin and those two bombings have helped keep the world in check from MAD. Its a gakky deal no matter how you slice it but I can't really think of a better context to showcase such weaponry since it undoubtedly would've been used eventually if it wasn't used against Japan.
Frazzled wrote:MANY were surprised that Afghanistan was not hit with at least tacticals over Al Qaeda locations.
Um, who were these many? Because that's literally the worst idea I've ever heard. And at least tactical weapons? What, did someone want the military to use a MIRV?
The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.
In the right kind of circumstance, anyone can be led to believe in what they're doing is "right" or "justified". 9/11 for a more recent example; doesn't mean that their attitudes hold any real weight beyond face value though and more of a byproduct of social conditions. Lets not forget that Japanese used a ton of chemical weapons against China and pretty much raped and pillaged their neighbors until they poked at the wrong country.
Sorry, I seem to remember a lot of similar things earlier on in WW1. The Somme ring a bell? Trench warfare was notorious for throwing men into machine gun fire. The officers ordered it, and the soldiers went. Were they fanatical? No. They were obeying orders, the primary task of the soldier.
The second paragraph is irrelevant.
True they were down but they would never have considered themselves out. Look at North Korea and Cuba as examples of how resilient nations and their leaders can be or at the WW2 Japanese survivors found on remote islands. The Japanese still had a substantial amount of military infrastructure and their pride was nearly invincible; they would've kept fighting the enemy especially if he was just floating next door.
Substantial amount of military infrastructure? Sorry. Let me get this straight. Japan had so little in the way of fuel, they sent their navy on a one way trip. Firebombing had leveled about two thirds of Japan already. Economically, they had hit rock bottom. If you're referring to the command structure, I'd agree. Everything else was falling apart. Japan has nor resources to produce war material. Once they've used up what they've got left inr eserve, that's it. Kaput. They'd be reduced to throwing rocks and harsh language. By the time the nukes were used, Japans capacity to make war had been all but destroyed. This is a fact, however you try and look at it.
And what does their patriotism have to do with their ability to make war? Like I said, you can want to make war if you like, but if all you've got left is a plank with a nail in, don''t expect to get very far. (I'm aware this is an exaggeration and that there no doubt would be have been ample rifle bullets, but Japan would unable to profuce armed naval vessels, or any kind of aircraft or aerial defenses. In other words, they would trapped on their island without the capability to make war)
I think you seriously underestimate the Japanese leadership and their people's mentality; these guys make Kim Jung Il look like Luke Skywalker than Darth Vader (hyperbole). It took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender. TWO. Thats just bonkers.
I think you seriously overestimate it. They were extremely patriotic and nationalistic. That's true. However, they were not fanatics. Portraying the entire Japanese culture and society as a bunch of fanatics every bit as dedicated as Al-Quaeda is ridiculous. This is an entire country full of people. That's like saying all Americans are Amish. It's nothign more than a sterotype. I would like to to see some hard concrete proof to establish the entire Japanese people as a bunch of fanatics at every level of society before I accept it as fact.
Right, there's going to be bias everywhere and concepts like bushido was bastardized by the Japanese government and people themselves in order to be used as a way to control people and fight mindlessly and selflessly. However considering that you have a Japanese anime name, avatar, and signature --- its safe to say you're pretty biased in this topic as well, or at least can be perceived as such since it seems you underestimate the mentality the Japanese had.
The Japanese name is actually a variation on a Japanese word which I invented, whilst learning the Japanese language. I like anime, but I am not a Japanophile. Certain aspects of the culture, such as the sexism, disgust me. I'm a Ken-Jutsu student(that means I've learnt how to actually use a katana, and the principles behind much of Japanese society). I'd like to say that from where I'm sitting, I think I understand the Japanese mentality pretty well. Since my own personal opinion on thew Japanese seems to have become relevant however, can I ask for your credentials? What qualifies you to make such a generalised statement as the Japanese soldier fighting 'mindlessly'? What are your sources? So far, you just seem to have gone on endlessly about how brainwashed and fanatical they were without providing any evidence.
By bias, I'm referring to the many American historians who got most of their source material from American soldiers and the press shortly after WW2. The Japanese were exceedingly driven, and more dedicated than most soldiers. That is true. However, the prtrayal of the entire Japanese nation as a bunch of fantics fighting mindlessly , and being completely unamenable to any kind of negotiation is a Western stereotype that taints textbooks to this day with it's inaccuracy.
Speaking as someone who was born and lived in South Korea; Japanese relations with other Asian nations have always been rocky. They routinely deny and edit their textbooks in a fashion not too far from Iranian leaders' denial of the holocaust - this is one of many reasons why Japan/China/SK/etc can't seem to get along.
Two nukes, accepted use of desperate suicide attacks, surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese soldier's incredible resilience and courage (Iwo Jima anyone?), the fact that North Korea is still around, and the findings of Japanese WW2 survivors still ready to fight long after the conflict was over; these all point towards a blockade being just about useless in stopping the proud and armed Japanese from trying to rise up again and killing off gaijin.
I'm not too sure why you keep referring to North Korea, or whether you are trying to make some kind of analogy between the nations. If you are, would you please clarify it?
The Japanese probably do edit their textbooks to make themselves appear better. I'm not surprised. Textbooks the world over are edited in order to make your nation seem better, and other people's seem worse. Russia and America are two other evry guilty participants in this practice. But then again, so are most, if not all countries in the world. The Japanese did some pretty nasty stuff. I was documenting the results of their chemical weapons tests on Chinese peasants during WW2 a while back. Interestingly enough, the second Japan was conquered, the USA hired virtually all the scientists, and granted them an amnesty in exchange for their results. Most of these war criminals were never prosecuted due to being sheltered by Good ol Uncle Sam. I'm not passing judgment, It was just to try and stop Uncle Joe getting his hands on 'em, but it shows how flexible morality could be in the American military.
American top brass and leadership realized what kind of opponent they were dealing with and the last thing they wanted to do was prolong any kind of war effort especially since the Nazi's surrendered and Japan was on the other side of the world which presents a logistical nightmare.
A-bombing Japan was the lesser of the evils involved and just for the sake of mentioning it, American firebombing did more total damage than the two nuclear strikes. The Japanese were simply too tough and proud to end it by blockading and the manpower and infrastructure required for it was something that allied leaders of the time would readily drop in order for a quicker and less deadly end.
That's the truth of it. It was quicker and easier. I'm not saying the blockade was any better or worse than the A-Bomb. I'm not looking at this from a moralistic perspective. But I'm pretty damn sure a few years of blockade would have had the same results. It's just the A bomb was less effort, less time consuming, and less expensive.
The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.
In the right kind of circumstance, anyone can be led to believe in what they're doing is "right" or "justified". 9/11 for a more recent example; doesn't mean that their attitudes hold any real weight beyond face value though and more of a byproduct of social conditions. Lets not forget that Japanese used a ton of chemical weapons against China and pretty much raped and pillaged their neighbors until they poked at the wrong country.
Sorry, I seem to remember a lot of similar things earlier on in WW1. The Somme ring a bell? Trench warfare was notorious for throwing men into machine gun fire. The officers ordered it, and the soldiers went. Were they fanatical? No. They were obeying orders, the primary task of the soldier.
WW1 =/= WW2. The Japanese didn't care so much for true tactics as they did their code.
The second paragraph is irrelevant.
What a cop out!
Substantial amount of military infrastructure? Sorry. Let me get this straight. Japan had so little in the way of fuel, they sent their navy on a one way trip. Firebombing had leveled about two thirds of Japan already. Economically, they had hit rock bottom. If you're referring to the command structure, I'd agree. Everything else was falling apart. Japan has nor resources to produce war material. Once they've used up what they've got left inr eserve, that's it. Kaput. They'd be reduced to throwing rocks and harsh language. By the time the nukes were used, Japans capacity to make war had been all but destroyed. This is a fact, however you try and look at it.
And what does their patriotism have to do with their ability to make war? Like I said, you can want to make war if you like, but if all you've got left is a plank with a nail in, don''t expect to get very far. (I'm aware this is an exaggeration and that there no doubt would be have been ample rifle bullets, but Japan would unable to profuce armed naval vessels, or any kind of aircraft or aerial defenses. In other words, they would trapped on their island without the capability to make war)
Hmm yea I retract the substantial amount of military infrastructure comment, its more like they had an incredible amount of small arms and still very much had the capability to defend themselves and continue launching offensive efforts towards an ill-conceived idea of a blockade. They've more than demonstrated the will and ability to fight to the death when the chips were down; look at how you described the state Japan was in...their leaders and people were more than willing to go on and it took two nukes and a Soviet invasion for key leaders to be persuaded otherwise - and conflict was far from over after the surrender since many Japanese leaders refused to give up. If Vietnam, Iraq, etc. has shown us anything its that supposed military dominance fails to destroy a people's spirit and IED's are easy enough to make without a lot of materials.
I think you seriously overestimate it. They were extremely patriotic and nationalistic. That's true. However, they were not fanatics. Portraying the entire Japanese culture and society as a bunch of fanatics every bit as dedicated as Al-Quaeda is ridiculous. This is an entire country full of people. That's like saying all Americans are Amish. It's nothign more than a sterotype. I would like to to see some hard concrete proof to establish the entire Japanese people as a bunch of fanatics at every level of society before I accept it as fact.
Of course we're generally speaking, not everyone in America hated blacks and non white people either. However the majority were trained from birth to believe that the Japanese were more than just superior than their counterparts, they were on a divine level and lived and breathed this concept and despised gaijin. The Empire of Japan's leadership and much of their society revolved around a fanatical, selfless concept unprecedented in cultural anthropology. "Flags of our Fathers" is a great book that touches upon this not to mention the plethora amount of information easily available on Google. I think you're the one that needs to back up your claims in this area. Look up Iwo Jima casualty rates if you want numbers.
The Japanese name is actually a variation on a Japanese word which I invented, whilst learning the Japanese language. I like anime, but I am not a Japanophile. Certain aspects of the culture, such as the sexism, disgust me. I'm a Ken-Jutsu student(that means I've learnt how to actually use a katana, and the principles behind much of Japanese society). I'd like to say that from where I'm sitting, I think I understand the Japanese mentality pretty well. Since my own personal opinion on thew Japanese seems to have become relevant however, can I ask for your credentials? What qualifies you to make such a generalised statement as the Japanese soldier fighting 'mindlessly'? What are your sources? So far, you just seem to have gone on endlessly about how brainwashed and fanatical they were without providing any evidence.
My sources are biased but I was born in Korea and have an incredible amount of relatives with their prejudices towards the Japanese due to their raping and pillaging history. As for fighting mindlessly and the like, read up on Iwo Jima, Kamikazes, bayonet charges, island survivors still ready to fight, conversations of Japanese leadership, their school and training methods, bastardized bushido, etc.
By bias, I'm referring to the many American historians who got most of their source material from American soldiers and the press shortly after WW2. The Japanese were exceedingly driven, and more dedicated than most soldiers. That is true. However, the prtrayal of the entire Japanese nation as a bunch of fantics fighting mindlessly , and being completely unamenable to any kind of negotiation is a Western stereotype that taints textbooks to this day with it's inaccuracy.
Look up Iwo Jima. Of course not every single Japanese was a gaijin hating raper willing to commit suicide; but thats definitely some of the major contributions their empire added before and during WW2; authorized from their living god Emperor on down.
I'm not too sure why you keep referring to North Korea, or whether you are trying to make some kind of analogy between the nations. If you are, would you please clarify it?
Sure, its an example of how resilient relatively crazy and dedicated people and their nations can be. Kim Jung Il and the rest of his leaders have managed to keep NK around despite all the embargos and such placed on them; they're even to the point of being able to launch nukes. Not the same as a blockade but NK and Cuba are great examples of how governments similar to the Empire of Japan's can stay alive.
The Japanese probably do edit their textbooks to make themselves appear better. I'm not surprised. Textbooks the world over are edited in order to make your nation seem better, and other people's seem worse. Russia and America are two other evry guilty participants in this practice. But then again, so are most, if not all countries in the world. The Japanese did some pretty nasty stuff. I was documenting the results of their chemical weapons tests on Chinese peasants during WW2 a while back.
Sure it makes Japan 'look better' just like how Iran 'looks better' for denying the Holocaust in the same light, its fething despicable. The amount of controversy over the denial and editing in Japanese textbooks is an international crime that China, SK, and others resent vehemently and proof of the kind of mentality and homogeneous nation Japan has been and still is.
Interestingly enough, the second Japan was conquered, the USA hired virtually all the scientists, and granted them an amnesty in exchange for their results. Most of these war criminals were never prosecuted due to being sheltered by Good ol Uncle Sam. I'm not passing judgment, It was just to try and stop Uncle Joe getting his hands on 'em, but it shows how flexible morality could be in the American military.
Ditto with the research used from the Holocaust; simply the lesser of the evils involved in order to be able to preserve and use such knowledge rather than having those perpertrators burn their documents like they did their subjects.
That's the truth of it. It was quicker and easier. I'm not saying the blockade was any better or worse than the A-Bomb. I'm not looking at this from a moralistic perspective. But I'm pretty damn sure a few years of blockade would have had the same results. It's just the A bomb was less effort, less time consuming, and less expensive.
Again, a nation that refused to officially surrender until a second nuke was dropped and was invaded by the Soviets - even then some of the Japanese leadership still wanted to wage war to the bitter end and many did since several military units continued to fight long after the surrender; not to mention those island survivors found a few decades ago. All these points towards a blockade being just about useless since the Japanese leadership and mentality simply wouldn't allow it.
A blockade is simply an unrealistic method to handle this kind of nation and imo largely ignores how the Americans and their leaders were feeling at the time which is a grave mistake since the Japanese acted like douchebags from the start to the end of the entire conflict, generally speaking of course. Last thing they wanted was more war against Japan.
Well, I guess it comes down to both of our own opinions as to the Japanese psyche of the era. I doubt I'll convince you here, and I doubt you'll convince me, so I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Thank you for an intelligent debate on the subject matter though. Discussions like this are one of the many reasons I think DakkaDakka is one of the best forums out there.
Frazzled wrote:
Why? A crater where Tora Bora was would have solved a lot of problems and kept a lot of people alive.
Who would it have kept alive, the 200 members of the Taliban killed in the assault on the complex? Because there were no coalition casualties during the battle.
But hey, its not like we would mind setting a precedent for the deployment of nuclear weapons. That wouldn't do anything at all to accelerate arms programs within the various states we don't like.
Yea this was an interesting and engaging debate and anytime when people can exercise a relatively civil discussion about a grotesquely uncivil subject like war is always a plus. Props and respect is something rarely seen!
I think this thread has finally run its course but we'll see
Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Flyboys" is a great book about this subject and goes into detail about how Japanese and American relations/politics were before and during WW2 including much of the darker chapters of American endeavors like shooting kids in the Philippines (ordered from the top brass down).
The Japanese probably do edit their textbooks to make themselves appear better. I'm not surprised. Textbooks the world over are edited in order to make your nation seem better, and other people's seem worse. Russia and America are two other evry guilty participants in this practice. But then again, so are most, if not all countries in the world. The Japanese did some pretty nasty stuff. I was documenting the results of their chemical weapons tests on Chinese peasants during WW2 a while back. Interestingly enough, the second Japan was conquered, the USA hired virtually all the scientists, and granted them an amnesty in exchange for their results. Most of these war criminals were never prosecuted due to being sheltered by Good ol Uncle Sam. I'm not passing judgment, It was just to try and stop Uncle Joe getting his hands on 'em, but it shows how flexible morality could be in the American military.
I know for a fact from seeing the surprise my Japanese friends had in learning of Korean comfort women from a television special that Japanese schools fudged a bit on the history.
As far as US history goes, I can't deny there's glossing over, but we are also one of the more open, apologetic and self critical nations going in the way we wage war. Here's an example:
The picture of the South Vietnamese policeman shooting the captured Viet Cong suspect in the head during the Tet offensive is one of the more enduring images that is used to critisize US involvement in that country. There was absolutly no mercy for the policeman nor the US because of it in the world view from the news reports I saw at the time it happened. The thing that wasn't brought out was the fact that the guy being shot was captured in the home of the policeman's friend's house and he was standing in the middle of the where bodies of the entire freshly murdered family lay, yet the US news media really downplayed that part. They only focused on the summary execution..
Frazzled wrote:The people killed by AlQaeda since then.
Um, ok, so Al-Qaeda, a multinational terrorist network, would have been obliterated by selective nuclear strikes on Afghanistan. A course of action which also would never have produced additional terrorists due to the use of ridiculously disproportionate force. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Should we nuke Cairo to? There were Al-Qaeda operatives there. Maybe Tehran, or Islamabad, why not any American city where they might be at. Hell, let's drop end all life on the planet, no terrorism then.
Say you dropped a nuke a Tora Bora, that's maybe 300 terrorists dead. Are you going to drop nukes on every suspected Al Qaeda facility? That's half the country. Worst. Idea. Ever.
To be honest Frazz I never heard any notion of nuking Afghanistan until your post. I really don't think it would have been a wise move, and am glad they didn't.
Do you have a source (besides Glenn Beck) for your nuke afghanistan idea.
LunaHound wrote:So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )
Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.
Your question above is silly and I’m disappointed that you asked it.
I was talking about the specific use of nuclear weapons in one circumstance. Use of nukes in other circumstances should be judged, shockingly enough, by those circumstances.
It was probably better that humanity used the bomb and learned of it true devastating potential when there wasn't a whole stockpile of them. It is most likley what kept us from blowing ourselves up in the cold war.
Think of this as we learned something something positive out of a great big negative.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So many (too many) are posting on and on about how dropping the atom bomb on a city or two was the 'lesser evil' but here are two questions for you.
1) Why was there no warning or demonstration?
2) Would YOU do it?
1) The jingoist mentality of the Japanese Cabinet would've dismissed any verbal/clandestine warning as BS, and I don't mean battle sisters. The big 5 of the inner circle of the Imperial Japanese cabinet were constantly jockeying for position to improve the lot of their own departments. The Army and Navy were practically at war with each other on a political level and resource level from the time of the Marco Polo bridge incident. These men had their reputations, their family's reputations (coming directly from Samurai roots)and their branches of the government to consider when making any decisions. "Patriotism", or "Aikoku", was not only seen as a virtue but in a lot of cases the only leverage any of them had. In essence, be more patriotic than your peers or disprove their peers' patriotism. Materially, a 3rd A-bomb would've been too expensive to manufacture as the US had the Soviets to worry about in Europe and the massive debt they had already accumulated over the 4 years during their direct involvement in the war. The "Human" factor in the equation is dwarfed by political and economic ones for both the United States and Japan.
LunaHound wrote:So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )
Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.
Your question above is silly and I’m disappointed that you asked it.
I was talking about the specific use of nuclear weapons in one circumstance. Use of nukes in other circumstances should be judged, shockingly enough, by those circumstances.
Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.
LunaHound wrote:So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )
Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.
Your question above is silly and I’m disappointed that you asked it.
I was talking about the specific use of nuclear weapons in one circumstance. Use of nukes in other circumstances should be judged, shockingly enough, by those circumstances.
Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.
LunaHound wrote:
Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.
You make it sound as if the people creating the propaganda should be considered subject to its influence, which is not particularly astute.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So many (too many) are posting on and on about how dropping the atom bomb on a city or two was the 'lesser evil' but here are two questions for you.
2. That is a difficult question for me since my wife is Japanese so I have relatives by marriage who were involved in the war. For example, my mother-in-law has no family photographs taken before the late 1950s because they were all burnt in the Tokyo firestorm attack, and she was too poor to afford a camera until Japan's economy started to recover.
On balance, however, if I am thinking as a Allied strategist I would have to say I would have dropped both bombs, given the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Cryonicleech wrote:Isn't it funny that much of society is more intolerant of Gays rather than Lesbians...
That's because 'society' is still largely directed by white men, many of whom find homosexuals threatening but who are somewhat excited by the thought of lesbians.
Thinking about it rationally, heterosexual men should welcome homosexual men because it reduces the competition for women.
@Killkrazy: Those leaflets were dropped before Nagasaki, but AFTER Hiroshima (it says so in the leaflet itself). I'm also not 100 percent sure about the reliability of this source.
Cryonicleech wrote:Isn't it funny that much of society is more intolerant of Gays rather than Lesbians...
That's because 'society' is still largely directed by white men, many of whom find homosexuals threatening but who are somewhat excited by the thought of lesbians.
Thinking about it rationally, heterosexual men should welcome homosexual men because it reduces the competition for women.
Don't forget that whole inconvenient Bible thing right. Of course, let's forget the whole Bible thing and blame heterosexual white men.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
generalgrog wrote:
Don't forget that whole inconvenient Bible thing right. Of course, let's forget the whole Bible thing and blame heterosexual white men.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
GG
You would prefer that we blame the Bible?
Anyway, according to that homosexuality is acceptable among women, but not among men.
And don't ever use the NKJ Bible as an authoritative source. It may as well be a pop-up book.
I was merely pointing out the flaw of "blaming" white males. When many people, male and female, use the Bible as the source of their antoganism towards gays.
For you anti NKJ folks
Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.
Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.
GG
See, it really isn't clear. For example "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." simply means that you shouldn't engage in the same sexual activity with different genders. So, if you don't have anal sex with women, you aren't violating the clause.
A sound translation is incredibly important when dealing with scripture, and otherwise minor differences can profoundly affect that nature of the text; as illustrated here.
generalgrog wrote:I was merely pointing out the flaw of "blaming" white males. When many people, male and female, use the Bible as the source of their antoganism towards gays.
For you anti NKJ folks
Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.
GG
Maybe the people who wrote the Bible were homophobic, and that's why those bits were written. If so, we circle back to my point.
A proportion of men are homophobic. Some of them use the Bible for justification and others have never read the book.
LunaHound wrote:Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.
Not only will views change before and after the event, they'll change before and after every event. All we can do is attempt to build the most complete picture of current events and try to make the best possible decision.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that you can't judge the moral correctness of one action by the morality of an action in a contrived hypothetical.
It's sad that sexuality even comes into life anymore, surely we've moved beyond caring, I don't really want to hear my neighbours doing it at 3 in the morning but it's okay caus' they're straight...
Yet if I make a passing comment about Brad Pitt all hell breaks loose, and it was only about how cool his shoes were...:|
Sexuality is probably about the most powerful driving instinct after basic food, shelter and survival urges.
Nurses say they know when a male patient in hospital has turned the corner to recovery because me starts flirting with them.
When you consider that humans, more than other animals, use sexuality as a source of pair bonding and pleasure, it becomes very understandable that it can't be eradicated from society.
Societies which deprecate sexuality put considerable effort into suppressing it, and often fail badly.
Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I don't really see much difference there Dogs. They're both fairly clear to me what the intent is.
GG
See, it really isn't clear. For example "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." simply means that you shouldn't engage in the same sexual activity with different genders. So, if you don't have anal sex with women, you aren't violating the clause.
Maybe to a rules lawyer or someone trying to warp the Bible to their own slant. Everyone with common sense knows exactly the kind of behaviour that passage is talking about. It's only the people that want to make things complicated for their own agenda, that try to twist it. And there are other passages throughout the Bible that make similar condemnations against homosexuality, and other sexual sins.
I didn't follow your link Dogma, as I have seen those homosexual apologist sites before, and for every one of those homosexual apologist sites, I can place a link to a Biblically sound site explaining why the homosexual apologists are wrong.
Bottom line... homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, there is no way of getting around that fact with a sound contextual exegesis of the Bible. But as always you should love the sinner and hate the sin. I don't hate gays, but I won't hesitate to tell them they have a problem, in the same way I would tell someone that is addicted to pornography, or cheats on their wife, that they have a problem and that Jesus can deliver them.
I won't lie to them, or play the enabler, and tell them they were born gay or that the Bible says it's ok for them to be gay.
Good points Kill, I'd like to amend my last post to 'sexual labels' and sexual identity.
In an ideal world it shouldn't matter how we fulfil the urge, with exceptions to the legal side of things of course. I suppose there are people who make an issue out of their chosen sexual preference, but that's their choice; and they often look shocked and taken aback when they're met with grief.
Half the issue (I think this is my point, who knows) is that people make an issue out of their being an issue. People expect people to offended by racist jokes, so often blow the incident well out of proportion in a weird 'defend the rights' sort of way.
I dunno...I used to go prancing around proclaiming my love for man jesus, kylie monogue and prada shoes, more grief than it's worth. Keep your ideas to yourself and be the person you are without the labels and stigmas forced into your own perspective and life is alot easier.
(I'm sure somebody will dissect this post shortly and make me realise what it is I'm trying to say. I'd not bother posting but the internet has this effect on me...that, and it makes me watch Barney...alot...)
generalgrog wrote:
Maybe to a rules lawyer or someone trying to warp the Bible to their own slant.
How is it warping anything? I'm following the text to the letter. Now, you could argue that Christian tradition can be used as a lens with which to interpret the Bible, but that's a very different argument from "The Bible says so."
generalgrog wrote:
Everyone with common sense knows exactly the kind of behaviour that passage is talking about.
There's no such thing as common sense. Only logic that you don't know how to explain.
generalgrog wrote:
It's only the people that want to make things complicated for their own agenda, that try to twist it. And there are other passages throughout the Bible that make similar condemnations against homosexuality, and other sexual sins.
The Bible never condemns homosexuality specifically, it can't, the word didn't exist. The Bible makes references to behavior which many equate to homosexuality. These are different things.
generalgrog wrote:
I didn't follow your link Dogma, as I have seen those homosexual apologist sites before, and for every one of those homosexual apologist sites, I can place a link to a Biblically sound site explaining why the homosexual apologists are wrong.
First, I wouldn't ever use the phrase 'homosexual apologists'. That second word carries a connotation which doesn't bode well for your argument.
Second, that site had nothing to do with any supposed apologist thought. Religioustolerance.com indexes varied opinions on the meaning of Biblical text. The whole point being to show that there is no correct way to read the Bible. A point which I support, and commonly make in our conversations.
The difference between us is that you're attempting to argue that the Bible says one thing, and only one thing. I'm making the point that the Bible can say just about anything you want it to say, just like any other dated text.
generalgrog wrote:
Bottom line... homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, there is no way of getting around that fact with a sound contextual exegesis of the Bible.
Do you eat pork? Do you know a man and a woman who live together out of wedlock?
The Bible mentions many sins which very few people take seriously. Why do you place so much emphasis on homosexuality, which is only addressed tangentially?
generalgrog wrote:
But as always you should love the sinner and hate the sin. I don't hate gays, but I won't hesitate to tell them they have a problem, in the same way I would tell someone that is addicted to pornography, or cheats on their wife, that they have a problem and that Jesus can deliver them.
At some point your zeal to separate sin from sinner leaves nothing of the person being considered.
generalgrog wrote:
Bottom line... homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, there is no way of getting around that fact with a sound contextual exegesis of the Bible.
Do you eat pork? Do you know a man and a woman who live together out of wedlock?
The Bible mentions many sins which very few people take seriously. Why do you place so much emphasis on homosexuality, which is only addressed tangentially?
Here we go again with the "Why do you place so much emphasis" thereby implying I have some sort of axe to grind on this particular issue. My original post was to point out that white males may be basing their disdain for homosexuality based on what the Bible says concerning homosexuality. Not becuase they are simply white males. Afterall a long time ago in Greece homosexuality wasn't considered a problem with white males, in fact the pagan Greek culture considered it normal, if I recall my Greek history correctly.
As I have said before homosexuality, and adultery, fornication are all considered sins before God. I have said that repeatedly in other posts, yet you and others seem to fixate on homosexuality as your pet "issue" The problem is with you, not me. :-)
The whole pork red herring that you and others keep bringing up, is a product of the doctrine of progressive revelation. Christians aren't required to follow the law of Moses to the letter, Jesus gave us a new covenant. That's why we don't wear our hair like Jews, or follow the feast days, or any of the other thousands of Levitical laws, because Jesus fulfilled the law. The law is written in our hearts, and Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, Who indwells us.
generalgrog wrote:
As I have said before homosexuality, and adultery, fornication are all considered sins before God. I have said that repeatedly in other posts, yet you and others seem to fixate on homosexuality as your pet "issue" The problem is with you, not me. :-)
Adultery and fornication are repeatedly indited within the Bible. Homosexuality is only mentioned in tangent; placing it roughly on par with the other Levitical laws.
generalgrog wrote:
The whole pork red herring that you and others keep bringing up, is a product of the doctrine of progressive revelation.
And yet you chose to quote Leviticus, rather than Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, or Jude 1:7.
generalgrog wrote:
Christians aren't required to follow the law of Moses to the letter, Jesus gave us a new covenant.That's why we don't wear our hair like Jews, or follow the feast days, or any of the other thousands of Levitical laws, because Jesus fulfilled the law. The law is written in our hearts, and Christians are led by the Holy Spirit, Who indwells us.
GG
If you aren't required to follow the law of Moses, then it seems hardly proper to cite it as a motivating factor in the condemnation in same sex behavior. Otherwise you're simply making an argument from personal preference. A point furthered by the notion that the law is 'written on your heart'.
OK, so sue me for choosing the 2 NKJ leviticus passages, in a hurry, and not spending 4 hours writing up an entire sermon using Thompson chain references so that Dogma would be satisfied. I'm still right, and my point still stands, no matter what all the hand ringing your doing. You yourself mentioned Romans, Corinthians, Jude, 1 Timothy. I don't feel the need to type up looooong posts in an effort to "prove" my view, that no one will read, and choose selective quotes to jump up on a soapbox creating a mountain out of a mole hill, just because someone used a Bible passage to make a point.
This isn't Dallas Theological seminary, Notre Dame or Oral Roberts university where every point needs to be backed up by a 3 hour 10 page thesis.
I made my point simple and to the point, regarding singling out white males as somehow inherently intolerant of homosexuality, and you choose to single out my choice of using New King James over King James(or other Bibles) and then using "only" leviticus and not going far enough with my point and not also refering the new testament warnings against Homosexuality.
dogma wrote:
The Bible never condemns homosexuality specifically, it can't, the word didn't exist. The Bible makes references to behavior which many equate to homosexuality. These are different things.
Actually it does. If you will look up 1 Corinthians 6:9 (the irony of this verse number is not lost on me) St. Paul clearly states that, among many other things, homosexuality is a sin, and those offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. Now, I really hate it when people focus on just one aspect of Biblical morality: ie abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc. There is a spectrum of items that Christians are commanded not to do, but I do not see anywhere how this applies to non-believers. Scripture is very clear in that it commands us to not judge those outside the Faith, because God has already done so. This is also another reason that I left the Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement. They were too focused on single issues and they interpreted the Scripture literally. Using Church tradition is essential to helping to provide context and scope to the meaning of the Bible.
dogma wrote:
Do you eat pork? Do you know a man and a woman who live together out of wedlock?
The Bible mentions many sins which very few people take seriously. Why do you place so much emphasis on homosexuality, which is only addressed tangentially?
As a reference to the pork thing, God specifically told St. Paul that it was ok to eat "unclean" meets since the Law was no longer the harsh task master it once was. And yes I do know Christians who live together out of wedlock, that doesn't make it ok. All sins will be judged in the end, and to me I tolerate hypocrisy as little as possible. I am a forgiving person, but if one will not try to amend their ways, I will not hesitate to confront them with their own sin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:DOGMA-
OK, so sue me for choosing the 2 NKJ leviticus passages, in a hurry, and not spending 4 hours writing up an entire sermon using Thompson chain references so that Dogma would be satisfied. I'm still right, and my point still stands, no matter what all the hand ringing your doing. You yourself mentioned Romans, Corinthians, Jude, 1 Timothy. I don't feel the need to type up looooong posts in an effort to "prove" my view, that no one will read, and choose selective quotes to jump up on a soapbox creating a mountain out of a mole hill, just because someone used a Bible passage to make a point.
This isn't Dallas Theological seminary, Notre Dame or Oral Roberts university where every point needs to be backed up by a 3 hour 10 page thesis.
I made my point simple and to the point, regarding singling out white males as somehow inherently intolerant of homosexuality, and you choose to single out my choice of using New King James over King James(or other Bibles) and then using "only" leviticus and not going far enough with my point and not also refering the new testament warnings against Homosexuality.
Deal with it.
GG
No offense dude, but just calm down. Don't get frustrated just because Dogma is asking good questions and leading this argument. I learned a long time ago, that my frustration in an argument is generally not with the other person, but rather with my own inability to deliver a solid front. Maybe you should examine why you are having issues with this debate and do more reading and such in order to provide a stronger point. Just a suggestion to help you out...
JEB_Stuart wrote:No offense dude, but just calm down. Don't get frustrated just because Dogma is asking good questions and leading this argument. I learned a long time ago, that my frustration in an argument is generally not with the other person, but rather with my own inability to deliver a solid front. Maybe you should examine why you are having issues with this debate and do more reading and such in order to provide a stronger point. Just a suggestion to help you out...
Yeah... relevant as always, just step over here and take a quick look... there ya go, your eyes seem to be doing fine, now act like a rock.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
No offense dude, but just calm down. Don't get frustrated just because Dogma is asking good questions and leading this argument. I learned a long time ago, that my frustration in an argument is generally not with the other person, but rather with my own inability to deliver a solid front. Maybe you should examine why you are having issues with this debate and do more reading and such in order to provide a stronger point. Just a suggestion to help you out...
JEB thanks for jumping in. If you notice I used an emoticon at the end of my post. Believe me, I'm not upset.
I agree with you that I'm not an internet arguer extraordinaire, but I think I hold my own in most cases. I think it's mainly due to the fact that I'm kind of lazy when it comes to posting, and don't always feel like posting really long comebacks when I feel a short blurb should be good enough. Also A lot of times I'm at work so I can't really spend inordinate amounts of time on long eloquent internet posts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "leading the argument".
gg.... not to make this a religion thing... but i see a lot of picking parts of that book you like and ignoring the rest.... i think we should all stone our children to death when they are disobedient!
Of course.... it recommends death for most offenses... here are some examples...
Cursing Parents
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9
Working on the Sabbath
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15
Premarital Sex (girls only)
. . .If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, Deuteronomy 22:20
Disobedience (boys only)
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18
Worshipping any god but Yahweh
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that . . . hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; . . .Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
Witches
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22: 18
Wizards (epileptics? migraine sufferers? schizophrenics?)
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
Loose Daughters of Clergy
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9
Girls who are Raped within the City Limits
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city . . . But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25
Blasphemers
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16
Anyone Who Tries to Deconvert Yahweh Worshipers
If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," . . . you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them. Deuteronomy 12:6
Men who Lie With Men
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13
Adulterers
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12
Men who Lie with Beasts and Beasts who Lie with Men
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Leviticus 20:15
I GUESS my point is...
If you can pick and chose which parts you follow (aka any of the above or countless other quotes I am sure I can find for you in the bible...) then how can you possibly tell others they can't decide to ignore that laying with another man thing.
sighh.. I just spent a long time typing a reponse to frigs when it got lost in the warp.
Bottom line, Old testament (which those quotes you typed were from) was a precursor covenent to be followed by the Hebrews. Jesus fulfilled the law by being the ultimate sacrifice creating a New covenent, thus the Law is no longer needed. I'm not being selective since the New testement writers such as Paul repeated the condemnations of certain sins such as homosexuality. So the Bible makes it plain that some things such as stoning people for adultery is gone as prescribed by the law. Homosexuality is still sin, but you don't stone people for it any more than you would stone an adulterer anymore.
actually.... if you are a true follower of "jesus" then you should know that no where in the NT did "jesus" ever condemn homosexuality.
sure the apostles may have, but they must surely, as not "divine" be subject to the frailness of the human mind. They unfortunately were raised to hate... and so still hated what they were told to hate as they grew up. Just like racism in the Southern US...
all know a racist grampa somewhere.
Yes I just related the gospel writers to racist grampas. (but merely to shed light on why they would do what jesus didn't. )
I guess in the end it ties into the original topic. intolerance leading to the breeding of more intolerance
JEB_Stuart wrote:Actually it does. If you will look up 1 Corinthians 6:9 (the irony of this verse number is not lost on me) St. Paul clearly states that, among many other things, homosexuality is a sin, and those offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Which translation? 1 Corinthians 6:9 is probably the most ambiguous of the clobber passages because there is no direct translation for the word utilized in the original Greek.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Now, I really hate it when people focus on just one aspect of Biblical morality: ie abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc. There is a spectrum of items that Christians are commanded not to do, but I do not see anywhere how this applies to non-believers. Scripture is very clear in that it commands us to not judge those outside the Faith, because God has already done so.
It gets complicated when you start to introduce ownership with regard to social institutions, or really any political matter at all.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
This is also another reason that I left the Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement. They were too focused on single issues and they interpreted the Scripture literally. Using Church tradition is essential to helping to provide context and scope to the meaning of the Bible.
Yes, it is. However, the judicious use of context doesn't make for easily remembered rhetoric. That's why nearly all of histories truly earth-shattering movements have been fundamentalist in some sense.
Its the difference between saying: "The Bible is the word of God, read this book and you will be saved." and "The Bible is the word of God, read this book and you will be saved. Oh, you'll also need these 32 other books chronicling Church history to understand it."
JEB_Stuart wrote:
As a reference to the pork thing, God specifically told St. Paul that it was ok to eat "unclean" meets since the Law was no longer the harsh task master it once was. And yes I do know Christians who live together out of wedlock, that doesn't make it ok. All sins will be judged in the end, and to me I tolerate hypocrisy as little as possible. I am a forgiving person, but if one will not try to amend their ways, I will not hesitate to confront them with their own sin.
I simply find it easier to assume that the doctrine of progressive revelation didn't stop with the end of the New Testament.
frgsinwntr wrote:
sure the apostles may have, but they must surely, as not "divine" be subject to the frailness of the human mind. They unfortunately were raised to hate... and so still hated what they were told to hate as they grew up. Just like racism in the Southern US...
And now you've hit on one of key components of the Christian theological debate: the veracity of divine inspiration.
frgsinwntr wrote:actually.... if you are a true follower of "jesus" then you should know that no where in the NT did "jesus" ever condemn homosexuality.
What about the Christian that was just saved 2 seconds ago, and hasn't read the Gospels yet? are they a "true" follower of Jesus?
What about the Christian who is illiterate and can't yet read, thereby not having a chance to read the Gospels, are they a "true" follower of Jesus?
What about the millions of Christians who just plain haven't studied the issue, are they "true" followers of Jesus?
What about the homosexual apologists that may think they know this, are they "true" followers of Jesus?
See.. sweeping generalizations don't work. I hope you see where I'm going with this.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (MAT 19:4,5-KJV)
Jesus said that God made them male and female (not male and male) a man shall cleave to his WIFE, (not his boyfriend).
So you are correct in that the Gospels don't show Jesus outright condemning homosexuality, however the above passages do show his confirmation of God's intended plan of marriage. Also don't forget that the Gospels don't show every last word that Jesus ever said, so it's a fallacy to imply that "just because Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality in the Gospels, this means Jesus is OK with it".
frgsinwntr wrote:
sure the apostles may have, but they must surely, as not "divine" be subject to the frailness of the human mind. They unfortunately were raised to hate... and so still hated what they were told to hate as they grew up. Just like racism in the Southern US...
all know a racist grampa somewhere.
Yes I just related the gospel writers to racist grampas. (but merely to shed light on why they would do what jesus didn't. )
I guess in the end it ties into the original topic. intolerance leading to the breeding of more intolerance
Of course that type of thinking is coming from a narrow minded view that totally washes away the doctrine of Divine inspiration. In other words Christians believe that the books of the Bible are Divinely inspired, so Paul and others were inspired by God to write what they did. In fact Jesus said this very thing
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (JN 16:13-15-KJV)
Jesus states that God will show truth unto his followers. Paul was a follower, and therefore a truth bearer.
If you really believe that Paul and the apostles were racist, then you are really saying that God is racist.
generalgrog wrote:
Jesus said that God made them male and female (not male and male) a man shall cleave to his WIFE, (not his boyfriend).
So you are correct in that the Gospels don't show Jesus outright condemning homosexuality, however the above passages do show his confirmation of God's intended plan of marriage. Also don't forget that the Gospels don't show every last word that Jesus ever said, so it's a fallacy to imply that "just because Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality in the Gospels, this means Jesus is OK with it".
I believe if you are saying Jesus was against homosexuals, it is your job to prove he did this. Jesus makes no mention of marriage in that statement. All he does is refer to the genesis story. A story that has been disproved for a VERY long time (we will get to that on another debate tho!)
generalgrog wrote:
Of course that type of thinking is coming from a narrow minded view that totally washes away the doctrine of Divine inspiration. In other words Christians believe that the books of the Bible are Divinely inspired, so Paul and others were inspired by God to write what they did. In fact Jesus said this very thing
di·vine (d-vn)
adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est
1. a. Having the nature of or being a deity. b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation. c. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
2. Superhuman; godlike.
3. a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto. b. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
4. Heavenly; perfect.
The definition of this term "devinely inspired" comes from. The Second Epistle of Peter claims that "no prophecy of Scripture ... was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20–21).
If you assume that these books are divinely inspired then there should be no mistakes. If we assume Jesus is divine he should make no mistakes.
Yet... he does and there are many mistakes in the bibles.
in Prov. 15:10 NIV [New International Versison] ("he who hates correction will die") and Prov. 12:1 NASB ("he who hates reproof is stupid") because I seek to "Prove all things" (1 Ths 5:21).
1) First off! Except for those of biased Christian writers, there isn't one writing outside the bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.
2) Isn't Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would be buried 3 days and 3 nights as Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only 1 1/2 days.
3) Another prophecy by Jesus in John 13:38 ("The cock shall not crow, TILL THOU (Peter) HAST DENIED ME 3 TIMES") is false because Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock actually crowed after the first denial, not the third.
4) In 1 Cor. 1:17 ("For christ sent me (Paul--Ed.) NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matt. 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them..." So how could Jesus be the fountain of wisdom?
5) How could Jesus, whom the NT repeatedly refers to as the son of man, be our saviour when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm 146:3 ("Put not your trust in princes, nor in THE SON OF MAN in whom there is no help") and Job 25:6 ("How much less man, that is a worm? and THE SON OF MAN, which is a worm")?
6) Jesus told us to "honor thy father and mother" (Matt. 15:4) but contradicted his own teaching in Luke 14:26 ("If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother...he cannot be my disciple").
7) In John 3:13 ("And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man....") Jesus erred because 2 Kings 2:11 ("...Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") shows Elijah went earlier.
8) In Matt. 16:28 Jesus said, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Yet, they all died and he never came.
9) Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that this comment in Matt. 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matt. 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: FOR ALL THAT TAKE THE SWORD SHALL PERISH WITH THE SWORD").
10) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom 1:3, Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet the requirement since his genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David THROUGH JOSEPH who was not his natural father (The Virgin Birth).
11) Jesus told a man in Mark 8:34 that "whosoever will come after me let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." What cross? He hadn't died on the cross yet. There was nothing to take up. That man would have had no idea what he was talking about.
12) In Mark 10:19 Jesus told a man to follow the commandments. Yet, one of those listed by Jesus was "defraud not" which isn't even an Old Testament commandment.
13) In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." But how could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb 3 days?
Mind you these are just a few instances of mistakes/errors simple proof reading would catch that I had saved on my computer a long time ago from a web site. There are MANY more.
OK soo.....
GG, you mention being divinely inspired... this leaves me with
1) Either Jesus was not divine and made misstakes OR 2) jesus was divine and the writers of the books make mistakes.
ok, GG, we were talking in PMs so lets keep it there.
It is impossible for us to continue this debate in open with out attacking documents of faith.
Your argument, IMHO is that the bible allows for intolerance.
My argument, is that the book, being 2000+ years old has been translated many times, published by numerous people, and can no longer be assumed to be infallible and thus can not be strictly adhered to but instead should be debated upon the meaning (but no real conclusion should ever be made!). So I am attacking your argument... not the book.
As this could be rough in an open forum and easily misunderstood as attacking faiths/articles of faith, lets take the debate to PM's as frazzle suggested where I welcome your intellectual challenge : )
P.S. too bad I didn't get to debate with you at the necro!
I believe that the bible is a book that should be read with a grain of salt. Some stories are true and others are false, literal and illiteral.
Other than that, its like the quran and the torah and dianetics and that one book that the mormons read and the other book hindus read and the book that buddhists read and the book that atheists read and the book that satanists read and the wiican stuff and such. I believe that I have covered all religions, remember if you bash one religion you must bash them all or else your intolerant.
I see intolerance in removing holloween, christmas trees, and ,in later institutions, affirmative action.
Personally I don't get why people don't like christmas trees(guess what people, they're just evergreens with decorations) and I also don't see why holloween offends people.
The answer to intolerance isn't removal, its exposure to said cultures. I wouldn't mind a menorah sitting next to a manger scene. The thinking is that if they remove all culture then they don't have to worry about hurt feelings, and so when the kids leave school and enter the real world they have, surprise surprise, no culture.
I dont have time to read the 10 pages of posts, so I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.
Intolerance, or tolerance, in regards to racial/gender/religion view, is a silly thing. Tolerating something is not the same as accepting it. Those folks over there are how they are. Its as simple as that. You either accept it or you dont.
Now, if they start spouting their stuff at you (as in the case of some religious groups), and you just nod and smile until they go away, then you are tolerating them. When you start turning the hose on them, you are intolerating them.
Point being, "tolerating" someone on the basis of who they are, and not from what they do, is not really the enlightened view you thing it to be.
Example; I accept that some folks are short tempered. Thats fine. I tolerate it when they start raising their voice because, say, their dice are rolling badly for them. However, I will not suffer their attitude when they start throwing their dice around the shop in frustration. I dont dislike them for who they are, I dislike them for what they do.
It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.
OK, so that was more like $3.47. Sorry for the rant.
paulguise wrote:I dont have time to read the 10 pages of posts, so I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.
Intolerance, or tolerance, in regards to racial/gender/religion view, is a silly thing. Tolerating something is not the same as accepting it. Those folks over there are how they are. Its as simple as that. You either accept it or you dont.
Now, if they start spouting their stuff at you (as in the case of some religious groups), and you just nod and smile until they go away, then you are tolerating them. When you start turning the hose on them, you are intolerating them.
Point being, "tolerating" someone on the basis of who they are, and not from what they do, is not really the enlightened view you thing it to be.
Example; I accept that some folks are short tempered. Thats fine. I tolerate it when they start raising their voice because, say, their dice are rolling badly for them. However, I will not suffer their attitude when they start throwing their dice around the shop in frustration. I dont dislike them for who they are, I dislike them for what they do.
It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.
OK, so that was more like $3.47. Sorry for the rant.
Wow Paulguise wins the thread! and with only 7 postcount.
I just wanted to say that I am not personally offended by the challenges to the Bible that some people have posted. I of course believe they are misinformed and as frgs stated we will keep our discussion to pm's as to not totally derail the thread.
I hope that anyone that has seen me post, realizes that I don't get offended that easily. In fact the only poster that has offended me that I can remember, is Gwar, and that was becuase his attacks were pure intolerant spite and had nothing to add to an open measured discussion. I don't have a problem with what frgs posted, as I take at face value that he genuinely believes what he copied and pasted.
And as paulguise so eloquently pointed out. I tolerate him. :-)
paulguise wrote:I dont have time to read the 10 pages of posts, so I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.
Intolerance, or tolerance, in regards to racial/gender/religion view, is a silly thing. Tolerating something is not the same as accepting it. Those folks over there are how they are. Its as simple as that. You either accept it or you dont.
Now, if they start spouting their stuff at you (as in the case of some religious groups), and you just nod and smile until they go away, then you are tolerating them. When you start turning the hose on them, you are intolerating them.
Point being, "tolerating" someone on the basis of who they are, and not from what they do, is not really the enlightened view you thing it to be.
Example; I accept that some folks are short tempered. Thats fine. I tolerate it when they start raising their voice because, say, their dice are rolling badly for them. However, I will not suffer their attitude when they start throwing their dice around the shop in frustration. I dont dislike them for who they are, I dislike them for what they do.
It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.
OK, so that was more like $3.47. Sorry for the rant.
I don't know, when it comes to kids on x-box live isn't it pretty safe to assume they're idiots and wait for evidence to the contrary? (speaking of intolerance... whoops)
Your talking about a place where trashtalking is very much part of the culture. Also you are talking about a group of people who don't really have fully matured social skill and yet you expect them to to act in a mannersimilar to that of a older adolescent. FOr younger people it is expeceted and not socially condemning because htey have the excuse of being young. For the older popuylation on xbox live it is mostly just the trashtalking and snonymity speaking. They propably jknow what they say is wrong or hihgly ignorant bythtey say it anyways to get your goat and throw oyur intoa a fit or get you off your game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.
But our genes, made up of those little molecules may and do attribute certain character defining actions. You may have inherited the anger problems that lead to your thorwing the dice aroundthe shop. So in that case your would be tolerating or not tolerating htat persons actions based upon something they cannot contorl or that may be inherent in their makeup. Does that make them blameless? Or if that trait is inherent to an entire people does that make it racist to expect them to be an angry person?
And these may also be attributed to culturally inhereted traists as well. For instance some cultures expect the man to have the ocassional rage and loses all control damage things, throw stuff and be an all around ass for a while. Should you be called racist for calling that culture an angry culture? And then not let them borrow somehitng based on the risk that they may get into a tantrum and brake it?
What I mean is that in a culture which condones or encourages misogynism (for example) the men of that culture have a greater tendency to become misognistic compared to non-misogynistic cultures because any tendencies they may already have are given free reign, and if they do not have tendencies, they are encouraged to act that way by peer group pressure.
But I do find it very very irritating when 7-10 year old little Americans say stuff like "Everyone in The 
