RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII

RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/8/2008 1:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 3) in war, it must be war - no quarter unless there is total surrender. It is ridiculous to stand at some distance from all this and try to discuss the morality of either Dresden or Hiroshima as if our position of safety and security gives us some greater insight than those who were there and then involved in pursuing the horror to its conclusion. E I'm not so sure I agree, Ellen, but assuming you're near the mark, then the onus is on the people to ensure their governments don't get involved in foreign entanglements that inevitably lead to chaos, destruction and widespread human misery (e.g. Iraq).

LadyEllen -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/8/2008 1:14:06 PM)
Absolutely NG - but we all saw the result in a modern age with full media information (Iraq) when the people protested. If we're talking 1939-45 with less media and an Empire education? E

slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/8/2008 2:33:05 PM)
Okay Gent and Ellen,a little apology here about the propping up the UK line it was uncalled for and a knee jerk reaction to Gent's earlier post(throw in a little frustration with Meatcleaver's mindless and never ending America bashing and this is what you get)so anyway sorry and all that.The remark was silly,though I still object to Gent's prognosis of America's inevitable slide....tata and good day to both of you.

NorthernGent -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 2:35:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Absolutely NG - but we all saw the result in a modern age with full media information (Iraq) when the people protested. If we're talking 1939-45 with less media and an Empire education? E Well, it's a difficult one....when is ignorance acceptable? and when do people cross the line from being partially informed to sufficiently informed to make a sound judgement?.......

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 2:51:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 3) in war, it must be war - no quarter unless there is total surrender. It is ridiculous to stand at some distance from all this and try to discuss the morality of either Dresden or Hiroshima as if our position of safety and security gives us some greater insight than those who were there and then involved in pursuing the horror to its conclusion. E I'm not so sure I agree, Ellen, but assuming you're near the mark, then the onus is on the people to ensure their governments don't get involved in foreign entanglements that inevitably lead to chaos, destruction and widespread human misery (e.g. Iraq). This is so easy to say when you know you aren't going to get a midnight visit with the chance of you will never see your family again. However, what did the Iraqis do to deserve the US and lapdog invasion? Put western access to oil in danger when they invaded that other dictatorship, Kuwait? What did they do werong in the second invasion, have a brutal dictator who was a former allie to the US but had since become a liability?

NorthernGent -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 2:52:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Okay Gent and Ellen,a little apology here about the propping up the UK line it was uncalled for and a knee jerk reaction to Gent's earlier post(throw in a little frustration with Meatcleaver's mindless and never ending America bashing and this is what you get)so anyway sorry and all that.The remark was silly,though I still object to Gent's prognosis of America's inevitable slide....tata and good day to both of you. No problem, Mike, though I think it's something of a cop out to dismiss Meat's arguments as "America bashing". Believe it or not, the United States doesn't register on our 'rivals for bashing' list, which is a consequence of geography. France is our main political rival - see hundreds of years of competition; Scotland, Germany and Argentina are our main football rivals; Australia, France and Wales are rugby rivals; Australia is our main cricket rival. So, when we slide into jingoism and 'bashing' is on the menu, you'll find it's aimed at any one of the aforementioned countries. The US simply doesn't feature. In fact, I'd say that generally speaking the US is viewed in a positive light here for one simple reason: historically, continental Europe has meant trouble for us, and we still view them with a certain amount of suspicion because, ultimately, the Germans and French don't think like us (us being the English) which leads us to instinctively look for closer ties elsewhere.......................and who better to turn to than a country that does you 2% IR loans (WW2) and doesn't mind if you don't pay back the original loan (WW1 loan still outstanding)........happy fuckin' days!!!

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 2:55:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Hey Meat....war is hell.And in actuality the only justification Truman needed was the projected numbers of American serviceman who would have died.Truman was the American President,not the protectorate of innocent Japanese civilians.Total war is just that total....When America is attacked prior to a declaration of war,she tends to get pissed,not a good idea to piss off America meat,perhaps you should keep this in mind....[:D] The projection was 1 million which was a ridiculous figure when it had taken 90,000 to push the Japanese all the way back to Japan. It was a figure to justify the bomb. The Japanese knew what they were doing, they deserved what they got but that doen't make the US's or European presence in SE Asia as benigh.

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 2:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u we shall keep propping up the U.K. while we are at it...... Dont be so silly. This sort of attitude is what has landed the US (and UK) in very hot water over the last eight years. That's what you get for being plastic Americans.

NorthernGent -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 3:19:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver As for the rise of Hitler. The French and the Belgians were the main culprits in that affair in creating the situation and the resentment in Germany that Hitler was able to take advantage of. What actually happened at the Treaty of Versailles was this: The Italian, British, French and US officials were all liberals but held different aims: the Italian wanted some Austrian land, the French wanted the Germans crushed, the British and US wanted Germany to transition to a democracy. At this point, there was never any intention to impose a war guilt clause on Germany or discuss reparations - the two issues that caused such resentment in Germany. The conversation, however, turned to the money that France owed Britain and the US as they had bankrolled the French. Well, France was bankrupt. The British couldn't afford to write off France's debt as she too was on her knees, but were preferred to waive it 'til a later date; the US, on the other hand, wanted her money ASAP. In order to get her money, a war guilt clause had to be included in the treaty. The position suddenly changed. The US line hardened and Wilson danced in tune with Clemenceau. It was left to Lloyd George and those such as John Maynard Keynes to call for some balance as they believed this was in wasp's nest territory, was totally unfair and totally inhumane. On leaving Versailles, the position was this: the Americans were happy because reparations meant they'd get their money back, or so they thought; the French weren't happy because they felt the treaty didn't go far enough in crushing Germany and I think Joffre predicted the date of WW2 give or take 60 days; the British weren't happy because they felt it was too much and would inevitably lead to a resentment and problems further down the line. In sum, the harsh aspects of the Treaty of Versailles - reparations and the war guilt clause - would have been avoided had the Americans been prepared to waive the debt for the time being, and been prepared to stay inline with the position adopted by the British rather than move to the hard line adopted by the French.

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 3:32:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent In fact, I'd say that generally speaking the US is viewed in a positive light here for one simple reason: historically, continental Europe has meant trouble for us, and we still view them with a certain amount of suspicion because, ultimately, the Germans and French don't think like us (us being the English) which leads us to instinctively look for closer ties elsewhere.......................and who better to turn to than a country that does you 2% IR loans (WW2) and doesn't mind if you don't pay back the original loan (WW1 loan still outstanding)........happy fuckin' days!!! It's time Britain decided it was European and stopped fighting the Napoleonic wars and WWII. America speaks the same language as Britain but that is where the similarities in cultures end. If you spend significant time in the US (my brother is taking out citizenship there) you will realize there is bearly anything else in common between Britain and the US. The USA's interest lies with itself, rightly, it is very parocial when it comes to its considerations of the merits of other countries and particularly their cultures. Nothing is good as all things American which when you have been there awhile you will realize is not true. My brother who thinks all things American were the gift from god, has a blind eye when it comes to healthcare. He keeps up his national insurance payments so if any of his family have any expensive medical condition that could financially ruin them, he can catch a plane to Britain. Though probably more significantly, as one neocon said in regard to Europe being against the war in Iraq, "America is not Europe, it is not Europe moved west, it doesn't want to be Europe. Americans aren't Europeans too lazy to go home, they are what we call Canadians." Then there was Rumsfeld's insult about new Europe and old Europe and the further efforts to destabilize Europe with the siting of weapons in Poland. Here again Britain is out of line and becoming the US's lapdog, even thouh as a NATO member, Britain didn't want the missiles placed there. Britain should decide if it is part of Europe or an island off the coast of Maine.

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 3:38:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver As for the rise of Hitler. The French and the Belgians were the main culprits in that affair in creating the situation and the resentment in Germany that Hitler was able to take advantage of. What actually happened at the Treaty of Versailles was this: The Italian, British, French and US officials were all liberals but held different aims: the Italian wanted some Austrian land, the French wanted the Germans crushed, the British and US wanted Germany to transition to a democracy. At this point, there was never any intention to impose a war guilt clause on Germany or discuss reparations - the two issues that caused such resentment in Germany. The conversation, however, turned to the money that France owed Britain and the US as they had bankrolled the French. Well, France was bankrupt. The British couldn't afford to write off France's debt as she too was on her knees, but were preferred to waive it 'til a later date; the US, on the other hand, wanted her money ASAP. In order to get her money, a war guilt clause had to be included in the treaty. The position suddenly changed. The US line hardened and Wilson danced in tune with Clemenceau. It was left to Lloyd George and those such as John Maynard Keynes to call for some balance as they believed this was in wasp's nest territory, was totally unfair and totally inhumane. On leaving Versailles, the position was this: the Americans were happy because reparations meant they'd get their money back, or so they thought; the French weren't happy because they felt the treaty didn't go far enough in crushing Germany and I think Joffre predicted the date of WW2 give or take 60 days; the British weren't happy because they felt it was too much and would inevitably lead to a resentment and problems further down the line. In sum, the harsh aspects of the Treaty of Versailles - reparations and the war guilt clause - would have been avoided had the Americans been prepared to waive the debt for the time being, and been prepared to stay inline with the position adopted by the British rather than move to the hard line adopted by the French. I bow to your knowledge of the Treaty of Versailles but I was thinking more of the Ferench and Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in 1923-4 which gave inflated German nationalism by causing wide spread resentment in Germany.

LadyEllen -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 4:19:46 AM)
My impression was that Wilson argued against punitive damages against Germany with the view that there would be another war within a short time were they prosecuted - another war which would inevitably drag the US in again. This was on a TV documentary whose name I no longer recall, and of course with hindsight and a little bias this might be incorrect. Perhaps I should refer to my copy (inherited from my granddad) of The Great War (first print)? E

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 4:33:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen My impression was that Wilson argued against punitive damages against Germany with the view that there would be another war within a short time were they prosecuted - another war which would inevitably drag the US in again. This was on a TV documentary whose name I no longer recall, and of course with hindsight and a little bias this might be incorrect. Perhaps I should refer to my copy (inherited from my granddad) of The Great War (first print)? E I think you can safely say it was the French that were the belligerent ones and the Belgians, who also suffered greatly but the Beligians were one of the cruelest of all imperial powers so its difficult to have too much sympathy. Anyway, it was a war that shouldn't have been fought and was purely about national ego, being slighted and who should have the biggest dick to wave around.

LadyEllen -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 4:52:45 AM)
Most definitely the French have borne most of the blame I'd agree - with the Belgians perhaps having a greater claim than anyone else, given the destruction of their country. But agreed too that this was primarily about imperial ego. German history has been strongly affected by it, what with them coming to the table so late, being then the most powerful nation and desiring their own Empire on a par with the Kaisers' extended family - the roots were laid down in the 1870s for all that transpired over the next 75 years in Europe. E

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 5:00:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen But agreed too that this was primarily about imperial ego. German history has been strongly affected by it, what with them coming to the table so late, being then the most powerful nation and desiring their own Empire on a par with the Kaisers' extended family - the roots were laid down in the 1870s for all that transpired over the next 75 years in Europe. E This is where I came in about Japan. You can't start Japanese-American history at Pearl Harbour, there was an history to the event and that is why it is so important to consider the implications of foreign policy. An invasion like Iraq and potentially an attack on Iran, will direct history for generations.

slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 8:00:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Okay Gent and Ellen,a little apology here about the propping up the UK line it was uncalled for and a knee jerk reaction to Gent's earlier post(throw in a little frustration with Meatcleaver's mindless and never ending America bashing and this is what you get)so anyway sorry and all that.The remark was silly,though I still object to Gent's prognosis of America's inevitable slide....tata and good day to both of you. No problem, Mike, though I think it's something of a cop out to dismiss Meat's arguments as "America bashing". Believe it or not, the United States doesn't register on our 'rivals for bashing' list, which is a consequence of geography. France is our main political rival - see hundreds of years of competition; Scotland, Germany and Argentina are our main football rivals; Australia, France and Wales are rugby rivals; Australia is our main cricket rival. So, when we slide into jingoism and 'bashing' is on the menu, you'll find it's aimed at any one of the aforementioned countries. The US simply doesn't feature. In fact, I'd say that generally speaking the US is viewed in a positive light here for one simple reason: historically, continental Europe has meant trouble for us, and we still view them with a certain amount of suspicion because, ultimately, the Germans and French don't think like us (us being the English) which leads us to instinctively look for closer ties elsewhere.......................and who better to turn to than a country that does you 2% IR loans (WW2) and doesn't mind if you don't pay back the original loan (WW1 loan still outstanding)........happy fuckin' days!!! Sorry you see it that way Northern Gent,but from where i sit and the post's I have read all Meat does is take swings at America and her policies.Perhaps it has something to do with his brother's seeking of American citizenship,sibling rivalries can be a bitch. For all her ills America is at times a powerful force for good in the world and has a long and glorious history of charity and philanthropic endeavors.....of course in Meat's world this would all just be imperialism by new means...oh well,America will get along fine without winning over Meat's good will. It is Sunday morning here and Football (the real American version) starts soon...so the field is open for Meats revisionist hisory to go unchallenged by me .

NorthernGent -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 10:04:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen My impression was that Wilson argued against punitive damages against Germany with the view that there would be another war within a short time were they prosecuted - another war which would inevitably drag the US in again. E He did....initially.....but changed his tune when it became apparent that the French couldn't redeem US loans......they wanted their money from somewhere, hence the idea of reparations from Germany and inserting the War Guilt Clause as a means of extracting said money. The French were only too willing to oblige, as they thought they'd pay for letting Germany 'off the hook' (French thought); the British were the main proponents of a measured treaty. Edited to add: the French and the British understood the 'German question' to be a case of how do we control a huge country in central Europe with a tradition of achievement in science etc. They both knew they had a problem, but disagreed on the solution. The British advocated a more liberal approach; the French wanted them crushed; the Americans wanted their money. By the way, not only did this store up German resentment, but French resentment toward Britain and the US too, as the French felt they'd been hung out to dry.

Politesub53 -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 10:52:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Then there was Rumsfeld's insult about new Europe and old Europe and the further efforts to destabilize Europe with the siting of weapons in Poland. Here again Britain is out of line and becoming the US's lapdog, even thouh as a NATO member, Britain didn't want the missiles placed there. Britain should decide if it is part of Europe or an island off the coast of Maine. Of course Blair didnt want the missiles based in Poland. He wanted them based in the UK ! I think your constant whinging about being a US lapdog is far from the truth. France didnt want any part of the second Iraqi invasion, due to there ties to oil companies and others in Iraq. If you think for one minute the French and Germans put the interest of the EU before their own, you are sadly mistaken.

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 11:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Then there was Rumsfeld's insult about new Europe and old Europe and the further efforts to destabilize Europe with the siting of weapons in Poland. Here again Britain is out of line and becoming the US's lapdog, even thouh as a NATO member, Britain didn't want the missiles placed there. Britain should decide if it is part of Europe or an island off the coast of Maine. Of course Blair didnt want the missiles based in Poland. He wanted them based in the UK ! I think your constant whinging about being a US lapdog is far from the truth. France didnt want any part of the second Iraqi invasion, due to there ties to oil companies and others in Iraq. If you think for one minute the French and Germans put the interest of the EU before their own, you are sadly mistaken. Where is Britain's interest in being the US's lapdog? Where is Britain's interest in joining in the invasion of Iraq? We know why British Prime Ministers become plastic Americans, they earn a fortune on the American lecture tour once they leave office. Blair earned $12 million last year on such a tour, it earned Thatcher millions of dollars too. However, what do you or other Brits get out of it? Britain has interest in Iraq, the British establishment has fortunes of their own money invested in the USA, that is why it is made yours and every other Brits issue. There was no way Germany or France could have joined the invasion of Iraq because their populations wouldn't have let them, it has nothing to do with economic interests. As for your carping about Germany and France putting their national interest before the EU, both countries wanted to give up more soveraignty to the EU and deepen it and give the Parliament more powers. (I'm talking about before the constitution vote when the EU had been broadened and enlarged which was one of the main reasons for the vote going against the constitution) It was the British that objected and wanted to broaden the EU rather than deepen it so gon't give me that shit. Of course they put their national interest first until an agreement has been reached, what do you expect? They wanted to give more powers to the EU, Britain as usual didn't because it is in the personal interests of Britain's politicians to be plastic Americans.

NorthernGent -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/9/2008 11:16:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Britain as usual didn't because it is in the personal interests of Britain's politicians to be plastic Americans. Relax Meat, we like Belguim and France......it's just we like our own space. No hard feelings, pal.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875