Jump to content


Photo

When Germany Bombed Pearl Harbor, And The Ostrich Died For Nothing


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#41 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0023 AM

 

No oil embargo, no PH.

Japan CHOSE to attack the United States just as the United States then CHOSE to nuke two Japanese cities.

 

 

That's Japan's 50% of the share for the start of the Pacific War.

 

The other 50% is the US's oil embargo, unwillingness to meet Konoye, and desire to keep backing CKS.


Edited by JasonJ, 26 January 2020 - 0026 AM.

  • 0

#42 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,045 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0030 AM

 

 

No oil embargo, no PH.

Japan CHOSE to attack the United States just as the United States then CHOSE to nuke two Japanese cities.

 

 

That's Japan's 50% of the share for the start of the Pacific War.

 

The other 50% is the US's oil embargo, unwillingness to meet Knoye, and desire to keep backing CKS.

 

Wrong.  The US and allies CHOOSING not to sell oil to Japan is their prerogative; Japan never had and still has no inherent right to some other nation's wealth.  100% Japan started the war in the Pacific, nobody else attacked Japan, and choosing not to sell resources to a nation is not casus belli for war.  It's called economic leverage and it sucks to be you if you don't have resources you wished you did, but it is not reason to wage war.  Turns out doing so can end up getting your nation nuked.


  • 0

#43 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,045 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0033 AM

 

The big elephant in the room is you, as a supposed anti-commie American right winger, are defending democrat FDR who favored the SU over Imperial Japan.

 

Remind us, when did the SU attack the United States or US territory?


  • 0

#44 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0034 AM

 

 

 

No oil embargo, no PH.

Japan CHOSE to attack the United States just as the United States then CHOSE to nuke two Japanese cities.

 

 

That's Japan's 50% of the share for the start of the Pacific War.

 

The other 50% is the US's oil embargo, unwillingness to meet Knoye, and desire to keep backing CKS.

 

Wrong.  The US and allies CHOOSING not to sell oil to Japan is their prerogative; Japan never had and still has no inherent right to some other nation's wealth.  100% Japan started the war in the Pacific, nobody else attacked Japan, and choosing not to sell resources to a nation is not casus belli for war.  It's called economic leverage and it sucks to be you if you don't have resources you wished you did, but it is not reason to wage war.  Turns out doing so can end up getting your nation nuked.

 

The US made the condition to leave all of china as condition for resuming oil. So it was clear that the oil embargo was as a geopolitical policy. Not just some innocent decision of not being able to sell. Also apparently, the US put quite some pressure on the Dutch to get them to go along with it. The decision also came after the US have given lines of credit to CKS and have started the formation of the flying tigers meant for fighting against Japan.


  • 0

#45 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0036 AM

 

 

The big elephant in the room is you, as a supposed anti-commie American right winger, are defending democrat FDR who favored the SU over Imperial Japan.

 

Remind us, when did the SU attack the United States or US territory?

 

If no care, then the US should have not cared about Manchuria instead of given recognition to the SU in 1933 as a response to Manchuria.


  • 0

#46 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,045 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0053 AM

The US made the condition to leave all of china as condition for resuming oil. So it was clear that the oil embargo was as a geopolitical policy. Not just some innocent decision of not being able to sell. Also apparently, the US put quite some pressure on the Dutch to get them to go along with it. The decision also came after the US have given lines of credit to CKS and have started the formation of the flying tigers meant for fighting against Japan.

 

 

Japan could have chosen to leave China and have the oil trade resumed, instead they thought the better idea was to attack the United States, Britain, France, Australia and the Netherlands.  Japan chose poorly. Not only did Japan not get China, they got nuked for their troubles.


Edited by DKTanker, 26 January 2020 - 0053 AM.

  • 0

#47 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0054 AM

 

The US made the condition to leave all of china as condition for resuming oil. So it was clear that the oil embargo was as a geopolitical policy. Not just some innocent decision of not being able to sell. Also apparently, the US put quite some pressure on the Dutch to get them to go along with it. The decision also came after the US have given lines of credit to CKS and have started the formation of the flying tigers meant for fighting against Japan.

 

 

Japan could have chosen to leave China and have the oil trade resumed, instead they thought the better idea was to attack the United States, Britain, France, Australia and the Netherlands.  Japan chose poorly.

 

Why you being so obtused?

 

http://www.tank-net....44369&p=1465825


  • 0

#48 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,645 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0202 AM

Well the comintern was announcing its intentions to spread communism around the world in the 1920s. Maybe it is hard for the US to visualize since they are surrounded by oceans and weak neighbors. In the mid 1920s, the Soviets went into Mongolia and setup a puppet regime.


And what of ANY OF THAT REQUIRED CUTTING THE HEADS OFF OF MOTHERS?
 
 

The big elephant in the room is you, as a supposed anti-commie American right winger, are defending democrat FDR who favored the SU over Imperial Japan.


Japan could have entirely fronted and allied with the west if it had chosen the path. Instead it signed an armistice with the USSR, a non aggression pact and attacked the west.

Your words are mud here in this regard. 
 

Tojo and his advisors were a bunch of barbarians in charge of a nominally 1st world nation. They could have chosen a different path. They did not. They thought the US would roll over and slink off. We did not. Their nation paid the price for their foolish decisions. 


Edited by rmgill, 26 January 2020 - 0205 AM.

  • 0

#49 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0204 AM

 

Well the comintern was announcing its intentions to spread communism around the world in the 1920s. Maybe it is hard for the US to visualize since they are surrounded by oceans and weak neighbors. In the mid 1920s, the Soviets went into Mongolia and setup a puppet regime.


And what of ANY OF THAT REQUIRED CUTTING THE HEADS OFF OF MOTHERS?
 
 

The big elephant in the room is you, as a supposed anti-commie American right winger, are defending democrat FDR who favored the SU over Imperial Japan.


Japan could have entirely fronted and allied with the west if it had chosen the path. Instead it signed an armistice with the USSR, a non aggression pact and attacked the west.

Your words are mud here in this regard.

 

You need caps?

 

You are troll.


  • 0

#50 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,645 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0210 AM

It's the equivalent of yelling.

Somehow that imagery and set of facts is propaganda to you. Well, if it is, then it's true propaganda. There's nothing to indicate that Japan's replete atrocities spanning the breadth of Asia were not just what they appear to be. From bayonetting civilians to shooting Sikh Prisoners for Target Practice ( tied sitting so they stay vertical longer) to hell ships to full on slavery of women or prisoners of war. 
 

The challenge is that Japan tried it's flavor of medieval war ala shoguns and daimyo and what not, and found that the modern technology and 15th century ethics really only steeled the resolve of the west and it magnified the karmic boomerang. 


Edited by rmgill, 26 January 2020 - 0211 AM.

  • 0

#51 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0211 AM

 

 


 ...
 

 


...
 

Tojo and his advisors were a bunch of barbarians in charge of a nominally 1st world nation. They could have chosen a different path. They did not. They thought the US would roll over and slink off. We did not. Their nation paid the price for their foolish decisions. 

 

The US never imagined the possibility of a PH attack, given them confidence to keep pressuring by moving naval forces from the West Coast to Hawaii as a sign of intention to use.

 

But of course, I'm still maintaining the 50/50. It also goes along with that Japan committed many atrocities and such. But it it you that continues this American exceptionalism when it is so obviously stands on weak legs. You can't even admit the fall of China to communism and the US cutting Korea in half. You are such a coward with no integrity.


  • 0

#52 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,645 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0214 AM

I don't need to admit to the fall of China. It's something that happened and that it was what it was. There's no need to apologize for cutting Korea in half becuase what were we to do? Go on for another 10 years fighting a war with the USSR? Would Japan have been able to support that? No. Japan would have suffered famines, the rest of asia would have too. So too Europe. Ideally we should have but the west wasn't up to fighting with the USSR and the PRC on top of all of the other burdens it then had in rebuilding Japan after nearly destroying it. 

 

Japan didn't have ANY noble objectives in fighting communism. They weren't even fighting Communism with the Russo Japanese War. It was them against any other Empire they felt they could dominate. Don't try to dredge up some sort of noble anti-communist bent there. If it was there it was a millet's seed of truth with a giant rice ball of imperialist conquest with Japan at the top. It might as well be a fly speck. 

 

Going off on a tangent about Japan's role in starting WWII wasn't remotely the point I was trying to make or raise. I'm done with this tangent that's ceased to intersect with the primary topic. 


Edited by rmgill, 26 January 2020 - 0218 AM.

  • 0

#53 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0215 AM

It's the equivalent of yelling.

Somehow that imagery and set of facts is propaganda to you. Well, if it is, then it's true propaganda. There's nothing to indicate that Japan's replete atrocities spanning the breadth of Asia were not just what they appear to be. From bayonetting civilians to shooting Sikh Prisoners for Target Practice ( tied sitting so they stay vertical longer) to hell ships to full on slavery of women or prisoners of war. 
 

The challenge is that Japan tried it's flavor of medieval war ala shoguns and daimyo and what not, and found that the modern technology and 15th century ethics really only steeled the resolve of the west and it magnified the karmic boomerang. 

I'm actually rather surpirsed how far the point of bayonet vs gun bullet is being elevated. It reflects harsh treatment. That was barbarity. But it was not introduced into the China mainland by the Japanese. It was used by the Chinese on each other as well. Regardless, that does not portray the whole picture. Again, the Chinese in the Japanese occupied areas would have not collaborated to the extent that they did if the Japanese were rampant with that level of barbarity you accuse them of in Japanese controlled areas.


  • 0

#54 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0216 AM

 

That's Japan's 50% of the share for the start of the Pacific War.

 

The other 50% is the US's oil embargo, unwillingness to meet Konoye, and desire to keep backing CKS.

 

 

Look, it's really simple. 

 

If the war you started looks like this

 

40733887_303.jpg​

 

or like this

 

massacre.jpg

 

...you don't get to complain afterwards that the other side was 50% to blame for it.

 

Also, it wasn't YOUR war, you weren't alive back then. There is no need at all for you, personally, to defend any of it or look for ways to evenly spread the blame. 


Edited by Der Zeitgeist, 26 January 2020 - 0219 AM.

  • 0

#55 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0218 AM

I don't need to admit to the fall of China. It's something that happened and that it was what it was. There's no need to apologize for cutting Korea in half becuase what were we to do? Go on for another 10 years fighting a war with the USSR? Would Japan have been able to support that? No. Japan would have suffered famines, the region would have too. Ideally we could have but the west wasn't up to fighting with the USSR and the PRC on top of all of the other burdens it then had in rebuilding Japan after nearly destroying it. 

You should admit it. Doesn't have to involve apologizing though. The whole trend of events, one after another, its all history and done deal. The points I'm making is for proper knowing of the history. If you continue with fake American exceptionalism, then there's always going to be a problem with interpretation of past, present, and how things mean for the future. A problem being kept alive because of you.


  • 0

#56 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0227 AM

 

 

That's Japan's 50% of the share for the start of the Pacific War.

 

The other 50% is the US's oil embargo, unwillingness to meet Konoye, and desire to keep backing CKS.

 

 

Look, it's really simple. 

 

If the war you started looks like this

 

[image]

 

or like this

 

[image]

 

...you don't get to complain afterwards that the other side was 50% to blame for it.

 

Also, it wasn't YOUR war, you weren't alive back then. There is no need at all for you, personally, to defend any of it or look for ways to evenly spread the blame. 

 

 

Well actually, it started like that from the Chinese side with the Tungchow Mutiny shortly after the Marco Polo incident. Although I'm still not holding the cause of the Second-Sino Japanese War that high on the Chinese because of it.


  • 0

#57 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0234 AM

...

 

Japan didn't have ANY noble objectives in fighting communism. They weren't even fighting Communism with the Russo Japanese War. It was them against any other Empire they felt they could dominate. Don't try to dredge up some sort of noble anti-communist bent there. If it was there it was a millet's seed of truth with a giant rice ball of imperialist conquest with Japan at the top. It might as well be a fly speck. 

 

...

 

Well Japan lost so we got what they might have been fearing the whole time.

mao.jpg


  • 0

#58 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,122 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0445 AM

Good Lord, Jason, give it a rest. Seriously. The conduct of Imperial Japanese soldiers is indefensible. Japan gave it a try at conquering an empire, and lost in the process. If you see Bushido code as a desirable ethic still, at least acknowledge that it was abused and let astray just like the Nazis abused and tainted patriotism.

Maybe to Japan at the time the rest of the world appeared so alien as Japan still appears to the world today that they didn't understand how their conduct would be perceived. The world would have turned the other eye to Japanese conquest, probably even the Dutch and other colonies at the time, or at least the European nations were in no shape to actually do something about it. But then Japan decided to go all in and attack Pearl Harbor in the attempt to gain the upper hand in the peace negotiations because they mistakenly thought that America was weak.

 

Miscalculation. And there is nobody to blame for it but Japan.

 

It's permissible to look at it as a tragedy of cultural mismatch if you want. But Japan wasn't content with peaceful development. It wanted to conquer, and received a conqueror's fate in the age of industrialized warfare because they had to kick the sleeping giant into the ballsack. That the US chose to defeat Japan in the least costly way by demonstrating technological superiority may still be a thorn in Japanese collective memory, but I can't blame the US for it. Japan still impostered will and capability for prolonged warfare - another miscalculation, when giving the mission orders for Okinawa - so the US president chose the option that offered the greatest chance of success without the expense in blood and treasure to bring the war to an end.


  • 0

#59 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,782 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0501 AM

Good Lord, Jason, give it a rest. Seriously. The conduct of Imperial Japanese soldiers is indefensible. Japan gave it a try at conquering an empire, and lost in the process. If you see Bushido code as a desirable ethic still, at least acknowledge that it was abused and let astray just like the Nazis abused and tainted patriotism.

Maybe to Japan at the time the rest of the world appeared so alien as Japan still appears to the world today that they didn't understand how their conduct would be perceived. The world would have turned the other eye to Japanese conquest, probably even the Dutch and other colonies at the time, or at least the European nations were in no shape to actually do something about it. But then Japan decided to go all in and attack Pearl Harbor in the attempt to gain the upper hand in the peace negotiations because they mistakenly thought that America was weak.

 

Miscalculation. And there is nobody to blame for it but Japan.

 

It's permissible to look at it as a tragedy of cultural mismatch if you want. But Japan wasn't content with peaceful development. It wanted to conquer, and received a conqueror's fate in the age of industrialized warfare because they had to kick the sleeping giant into the ballsack. That the US chose to defeat Japan in the least costly way by demonstrating technological superiority may still be a thorn in Japanese collective memory, but I can't blame the US for it. Japan still impostered will and capability for prolonged warfare - another miscalculation, when giving the mission orders for Okinawa - so the US president chose the option that offered the greatest chance of success without the expense in blood and treasure to bring the war to an end.

Well, in the bold part, they attack PH precisely because they knew the US was not weak. They did it to not get a leg up in negotiations but to improve chances of winning. If not attacking PH, then it would have been just a conquest of the Philippines and the US Navy of 8 battleships and 3 carriers being able to immediately sale west. ALso the Japanese knew even if doing the PH attack, that the US was still strong, which is why Konoye was given a chance to try negotiation with the US after the oil embargo was put in place.

 

The condition of "leave all of China" was too much. Do you have anything to say about the Wang regime? By 1941, should it have been so easy to expect the Japanese to walk away from all that? And even if Japan was to walk out of China, shouldn't that at least still warrant meeting with the US president so as to determine withdrawal extent and time table? That's a big project and even if leaving, should Konoye at least the chance to meet with FDR.


  • 0

#60 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,515 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0507 AM

Good Lord, Jason, give it a rest. Seriously. The conduct of Imperial Japanese soldiers is indefensible. Japan gave it a try at conquering an empire, and lost in the process. If you see Bushido code as a desirable ethic still, at least acknowledge that it was abused and let astray just like the Nazis abused and tainted patriotism.

Maybe to Japan at the time the rest of the world appeared so alien as Japan still appears to the world today that they didn't understand how their conduct would be perceived. The world would have turned the other eye to Japanese conquest, probably even the Dutch and other colonies at the time, or at least the European nations were in no shape to actually do something about it. But then Japan decided to go all in and attack Pearl Harbor in the attempt to gain the upper hand in the peace negotiations because they mistakenly thought that America was weak.

 

Miscalculation. And there is nobody to blame for it but Japan.

 

It's permissible to look at it as a tragedy of cultural mismatch if you want. But Japan wasn't content with peaceful development. It wanted to conquer, and received a conqueror's fate in the age of industrialized warfare because they had to kick the sleeping giant into the ballsack. That the US chose to defeat Japan in the least costly way by demonstrating technological superiority may still be a thorn in Japanese collective memory, but I can't blame the US for it. Japan still impostered will and capability for prolonged warfare - another miscalculation, when giving the mission orders for Okinawa - so the US president chose the option that offered the greatest chance of success without the expense in blood and treasure to bring the war to an end.

Well said!


  • 0