(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

CynicAl -> (3/20/2002 12:04:26 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard [B]Many might say that the US offered Japan no other option but war in 1941.[/B][/QUOTE] "They" might say that, but "they" would be wrong. The idea that the US backed Japan into a corner comes from the US embargoes, and if those had come in a vacuum, then "they" might be correct. I highly recommend the discussion of this subject in Evans and Peattie's Kaigun. The IJN planning staff anticipated relatively early on that a likely cause of war between Japan and the US was a US oil embargo; they further expected that the most likely cause of such an embargo would be a strong Japanese move into Indochina, threatening Malaya and Singapore. But there wasn't much risk of that, because that would be an Army operation, and the Army was focussed on the Northern Resource Area (aka Siberia). All that changed, though, when the IJA butted heads with Zhukov's tanks at Nomonhan. They discovered that they couldn't go north, so they decided to go south instead. Then came 1940, and the Fall of France. Indochina became just too ripe a morsel for the IJA to pass up, and they moved in. In force. Threatening Malaya and Singapore. Embargoes, and war, followed just as the IJN planners had predicted they would. The Japanese leaders knew what they were doing, they knew what the likely US response would be, they knew that would lead to war. They did it anyway. If they didn't want war, they had a very peculiar way of showing it.

Jeremy Pritchard -> (3/20/2002 12:28:30 PM)
I think that many did want a war. Most did not believe that they could be defeated primarily because they saw the United States as being unable to become united (due to the strong anti-war sentiment). Still, Japan did see the occupation of Indo-China merely as an extension of their rightful sphere of influence (like America going to war against Spain to control the Carribean). France was defeated, and Indo-China offered Japan more bases to fight against China. Actually, southern Indo-China was only occupied well after the oil embargo, and southern Into-China was the only place for a base of operations against British and Dutch posessions. Northern Indo-China offered no immediate threat to Western colonies, except for Southern Indo-China. The United States government knew full well, just like the Japanese government did, that the actions that they take will inevitably lead to war. Both sides were preparing for war months before it broke out. The embargo was seen by both sides as the lynchpin to peace, and neither side was willing to budge. The Embargo was caused by Japan occupying Northern Indo-China. Northern Indo-China was occupied by Japan through their alliance with Germany, and the possibility of using the base as an attack against China, or for future attacks against the United States (just like the US traded 50 destroyers for the use of bases in Newfoundland, kind of like a military occupation for future offensive operations?) The Japanese Army did have exceptional control over the process of govermnent, and actually did many things without the government's knowledge! War was declared on China without government permission! However, much of the US expansion westward was directly against government direction, as independent settlers moved west, the military had to follow to guarantee their protection (as massacres don't look too good on government records!). There is no question that Japan was the major aggressor in this theatre, but the US government was fully aware that the actions that they were taking would lead to war (even though they really had no business defending British and Dutch posessions since they were officially neutral!). Both sides knew what they were doing, and knew that war was coming. Pearl Harbour just changed the war from a war on commerce and regional dominaiton to a war on vengeance and ideology. Too bad nobody told the Japanese!

Raverdave -> (3/20/2002 12:29:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard [B]Canada's Contribution... Hong Kong 1941 The Royal Rifles of Canada Winnipeg Grenadiers Alaskan Islands 1943 13th Infantry Brigade Many RCAF Fighter and Bomber Squadrons Much Canadian Shipping including 2 AMC's Ceylon 1942 Canadian FAA Pilots spotted the IJN TF heading for Ceylon, and allowed the builk of the Eastern Fleet to flee to Addu Atoll. Indian and Pacific Oceans HMS Uganda (Later HMCS Quebec) HMS Ontario Burma Canadian Pilots filled out many RAF P-47 Squadrons in the Arakan region, and experienced heavy fighting. Proposed Operation Olympic 6th Infantry Division Sure, our contribution was not as much as most nations involved, but we had 99% of our forces fighting in Europe. Since we had a population of only 1/10 of the US we, like Australia, could only fight (in strength) in one theatre at a time. However we did experiene high proportional losses (especially with our forces at Hong Kong). [/B][/QUOTE] Thanks mate, this goes some way to filling in my lack of knowledge of Canadian units in the Pacific

Ranger-75 -> (3/20/2002 1:40:18 PM)
I didn't say that the Japanese were blind to the past, I said that they REFUSE TO ADMIT THEIR GUILT AND RESPONSIBILITY for starting the war. Yes that is a harsher statement, but its a TRUE statement. If Japan didn't try to take over all of asia and the pacific, we wouldn't have had to nuke them. (now I'm being a little satrical). Really, it all started in 1848 or so, when the Japanese "lost face" at the hands or commodore Perry. They never forgot it and they paid the price for trying to lock horns with the US. The whole "face" thing is another Japanese problem that gets them into trouble all the time. Still does.

TIMJOT -> (3/20/2002 9:42:32 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave [B]Hey TimJot, I have found the transcript of the doco on the Fall of Singapore that I told you about a few days ago, goto the following link.....enjoy! http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s498399.htm [/B][/QUOTE] Hi Raverdave Thanks for the link, very interesting, being a transcript, its a little difficult to follow, but very interesting read nontheless.

TIMJOT -> (3/20/2002 10:24:45 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75 [B]This person tohoku, is just another reminder of the Japanese collective unwillingness to face up to the realities of their ancestors' agression. If anyone wwants to get a dose of reality, read hirohito's surrender proclamation. One of the funnier parts is when he stated: "Despite the best efforts of our armed forces, the progress of the war has not nescessarily gone to Japan's advantage." This was after to two big booms and after the soviets had nearly overrun all of Manchuria and korea (in less than a week). the proclamation, like the earler proclamation declaring war (a day after the peaceful US and Great Britain were attacked) is full of this type of absolute bullsh!t. The Japanese have never admitted to their guilt in starting the war, remember that. I still blame Mac for the failure to protect the air strength on day 1. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi Ranger I have lived in Japan peroidically and can catagorically state that you are correct, Japan has and continues to deny responsibility of the war. Though its hard to fault the younger generations, becuase, basically the subject has been stricken from the history books. All the youth of Japan are taught is that Japan was a "VICTIM" of the war. RE; PI airforce. its losses on Dec.8th can be attributed to a combination of.... A) Over protectiveness, Not wanting to be caught on the ground, the USAFFE AF was scrambled into the air everytime a un-confirmed siteing of an attack was reported. This intern led to the B-17s being on the ground refueling when the actual attack came. B)Over agressivness, The reason the B-17s where at Clark in the first place, was to stage an ill advised attack on Formosa that had little chance of succeding. In hindsite it would have been better to withdraw the B-17s to Mindanao, where they would have been safe from attack, but such a cautious approach was probabley seen as unthinkable inlight of the circumstances of the PH attack.

TIMJOT -> (3/20/2002 10:32:58 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave [B] Just for my interest, was Canada involved in the Pacific war? I don't recall reading or seeing anything about it......just curious. [/B][/QUOTE] I believe, there were some Canadian units garrisoning HongKong when it fell.

Jeremy Pritchard -> (3/20/2002 10:38:58 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75 [B]I didn't say that the Japanese were blind to the past, I said that they REFUSE TO ADMIT THEIR GUILT AND RESPONSIBILITY for starting the war. Yes that is a harsher statement, but its a TRUE statement. If Japan didn't try to take over all of asia and the pacific, we wouldn't have had to nuke them. (now I'm being a little satrical). Really, it all started in 1848 or so, when the Japanese "lost face" at the hands or commodore Perry. They never forgot it and they paid the price for trying to lock horns with the US. The whole "face" thing is another Japanese problem that gets them into trouble all the time. Still does. [/B][/QUOTE] Tell me which nation in the world does not have this problem? The US did not leave Vietnam until 1975! Just because the US did not want to go on the record of having lost a war! (even though they like to forget 1812!) :D Japan is guilty for initiating the war, but in their minds, were only working in there sphere of influence. That justified it in their minds, like the US is justified in doing whatever it wants in its sphere of influence! The US has been to war with just about every nation in its sphere of influence since 1800! What if another nation tried to interfere in the Spanish-American war and the US lost in their 'war of aggression'? Would that have given any nation the right to demand an appology for starting the conflict? I see it like beating a dead cat that died 60 years ago. There is no point, and it is not like Japan is, or will be (due to their constitution) a military power capable of armed world domination. The US wants an appology and acceptance for Pearl Harbour, and the Japanese want an appology for the Atomic bombs. Neither sees that they were generally wrong in their own acts, and will never offer an appology for what they see as justified. Talk to any Japanese and they will say that Americans refuse to admit their guilt and responsibility for killing millions of Japanese civilians (albiet only 300 000 with the atomic bomb). It is THE SAME "face" problem that the Japanese have. We will not even admit to ourselves that the dropping of the bombs was merely a way to get the war over with BEFORE THE RUSSIANS WIN IT! The Japanese were greatly concerned about the Russians, since they easily overan Manchuria and were on their doorstep in the north. They knew that the Russians would not care about losses like the Allies. Of course, if the Americans would have let this happen, Communism would have spread to South Korea, and Japan itself! I am sure that American youth do not like to own up for their nation's responsibility in Vietnam! Although it is repeatedly bombrarded in their history. Japan IS A CULTURALLY CLOSED NATION. However, complaining about their inability to accept their past acts is trivial, since nobody does it much. Germany is an anomoly. No other nation has accepted their past as much as Germany, yet we still feel that they have not appologised enough. Japan might see this as a no win situation. You appologise, and you are still deomonzed in history. Why not just deny it?

Jeremy Pritchard -> (3/20/2002 10:53:21 PM)
Brereton saw the vulnerability of having B-17's at Clark Field, as the field at Del Monte was being heavily worked on before the war started to handle B-17's, and this was where the survivors were based after Clark. Also, the bombers, in my mind, were never as important as the Fighters. The 7th BG arrived in Northern Australia and were in range of landing in the Philippines, and even operated over the Philippines. The 7th had 30 bombers, which easily replaced the losses to the 19th BG. The main sting came from the loss of 50+% of the fighters. Without them, air superiority was instantly lost over the entire island chain! Sure, they would have inevitably had been whittled down, but would almost certainly not have sustained 50% losses in the matter of hours! 100+ Fighters were caught on the ground, 8 hours after Pearl Harbour. I am sure they could have given 30-40 pilots early lunch to have them on CAP!! Of course, this I believe is under the responsibility of the base commander, not MacArthur. But the loss of the bombers was. Most accounts that I have read, including those of the air commander, stated that an attack on long established, and long known, Formosan air bases would have resulted in more Japanese losses then Allied, primarily because of lucky weather. The Japanese were fogged in, the Americans were not. The US planned to sent its bomber force over the airfields at just the time the fog was clearing (by luck!), with the Japanese having their aircraft caught on the ground. US losses would be extremely minimal, as even the early versions of the B-17 were tough to kill and dangerous to attack (especially by the weaker Japanese fighters!). Both Japanese and American military analysts state that if the USAAF had launched the attack, the Japanese airfleet would have been damaged, and delayed the invasion of the island group, and would have resulted in the US fighter force being saved because no strong attack on Clark could have been launched! It is hypothetical and conjecture, but based with contemporary insight by commanders on both sides. Want to talk about denying responsibility, just talk to MacArthur! He is all over that! :D

Ranger-75 -> (3/20/2002 11:17:31 PM)
Hi all, by the way, the new bbs won't display my name (Mike Santos) but that was (and is) me. The cat isn't dead as long as the collective Japanese mind set refuses to own to and take responsibility for their actions, however long ago. I'n not demanding an apology, just noting that the Japanese refuse to face reality to this day. An apology won't bring back the millions of lives. The soviets weren't going to "win the war", they had no capability to invade japan. But, we didn't want them to take over all of korea and manchuria, and we didn't want the hundreds of thousands of predicted casualties in an invasion, so bombs away. The USSBS (strategic bombing survey, or whatever it was), published many years ago, concluded that Japan would have EVENTUALLY surrenderred without an invasion and without the a-bombs being dropped. So, we have admitted this, many years ago. They were used to shorten the war and to REDUCE US/ allied casualties. Are you saying we should have invaded or stood of the coasts getting kamikazied daily for another 3-9 months while Japan finally starved into submission? The Japanese were warned prior to the attacks, the two countries were at war, a war the Japapese started with a sneak attack prior to a declaration of war. They refused to listen. Even after the attacks, Tojo and the hard liners were about to call the US bluff (because a third bomb was still some months away from being completed), it was only hirohito's intervention that stopped things. Even that very nearly backfired, because there was an attempted coup that was narrowly thawarted. I don't think Japan's "sphere of influence" extended to attacking the US Pacific Fleet at anchor prior to declaring war. I have a problem with the recent colonial imperialism that the US has been involved in, particularly under the reign of "I didn't do it" Clinton. Let mee see, did we attack spain or its territory without a declaration of war??? NO. Nobody intervened in the 1898 war with spain, because 1: Britain and France didn't like Spain anyway and 2: We didn't step on their toes in the prosecution of the war. Contrast this with British astions leading up to the war of 1812. Nobody intervened in the US civil war for the same reason (#2) above. France started the colonial war in vietnam, partly as a result of Japan's prior agression. We continued it because of the implications of failing to stop communism (same reasons for Korea, withiut the boost of a UN sanctioned effort). We failed and largely because the government failed to enlist and maintain popular support for the war effort. We left vietnam in 1973 not 1975. It took the notrth 2 years to build up enough strength to quickly overpower the south. We declared a "tie" which it was in 1973, but we knew full well that if the north did what they eventually did, the south wouldn't stand a chance. We didn't lose the war of 1812, our objectives of getting the British to stop taking our merchant mariners and "pressing" them into the Royal Navy was acheived. So we had our capitol burned, we got a nice antional anthem out of it didn't we? :D Hitler's Germany was far more evil that the militriast Japan. Japan's culture was radically different that the Wests; their militrast nature go way to far out of control leading up to the war. Germany on the other hand was supposed to be a "civilized" country and the horrors that wen on there still defy comprehension.

mdiehl -> (3/20/2002 11:35:31 PM)
"Are you saying we should have invaded or stood of the coasts getting kamikazied daily for another 3-9 months while Japan finally starved into submission? " I think it is more likely that American analysts would have decided that manpower casualties in ground assault were not worth the cost. We'd probably have continued the strategic bombing effort and blockade through 1946. After a 50 or 70 million Japanese civilian deaths, the Emperor's Advisors would have come around to the Unconditional Surrender demand or they'd have been assassinated. The shock and horror of the two nuclear attacks probably saved more Japanese lives by an order of magnitude over projected losses in an Allied invasion, and two orders of magnitude over the blockade+continued strategic bombing option. It was the right thing to do at the time by all analyses, if minimizing long-term casualties (including those due to cancer) was the desired outcome.

TIMJOT -> (3/21/2002 12:55:58 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard [B]Brereton saw the vulnerability of having B-17's at Clark Field, as the field at Del Monte was being heavily worked on before the war started to handle B-17's, and this was where the survivors were based after Clark. Also, the bombers, in my mind, were never as important as the Fighters. The 7th BG arrived in Northern Australia and were in range of landing in the Philippines, and even operated over the Philippines. The 7th had 30 bombers, which easily replaced the losses to the 19th BG. The main sting came from the loss of 50+% of the fighters. Without them, air superiority was instantly lost over the entire island chain! Sure, they would have inevitably had been whittled down, but would almost certainly not have sustained 50% losses in the matter of hours! 100+ Fighters were caught on the ground, 8 hours after Pearl Harbour. I am sure they could have given 30-40 pilots early lunch to have them on CAP!! Of course, this I believe is under the responsibility of the base commander, not MacArthur. But the loss of the bombers was. Most accounts that I have read, including those of the air commander, stated that an attack on long established, and long known, Formosan air bases would have resulted in more Japanese losses then Allied, primarily because of lucky weather. The Japanese were fogged in, the Americans were not. The US planned to sent its bomber force over the airfields at just the time the fog was clearing (by luck!), with the Japanese having their aircraft caught on the ground. US losses would be extremely minimal, as even the early versions of the B-17 were tough to kill and dangerous to attack (especially by the weaker Japanese fighters!). Both Japanese and American military analysts state that if the USAAF had launched the attack, the Japanese airfleet would have been damaged, and delayed the invasion of the island group, and would have resulted in the US fighter force being saved because no strong attack on Clark could have been launched! It is hypothetical and conjecture, but based with contemporary insight by commanders on both sides. Want to talk about denying responsibility, just talk to MacArthur! He is all over that! :D [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry Jeremy; RE the formosa raid; you need to re-check your soucres on that. Contrary to your statement the USAFFE had very little intellegence on either the location of the airfields or the strengths of the airforces on Formosa. Hence the need for recon flights before an attack could be launced. Even if they had known the locations (they didnt) the effect would have been minimal. High level bombing just wasnt very acurate in WWII. Hence the need for 1000 plane raids. There were over a dozen airfields on Formosa; divided over at most 36 bombers; would mean roughly 3 bombers per airfield. Not exactly a scary thought. Re: the fog; This theory relies on timming that assumes the US launched an immediate attack, without first getting photo reconaisance. As I mentioned above; that would have been futile I do agree that zeros had a hard time knockig down even the early versions of B-17s.

GET TRANSPT -> Lt. Gen Harmon deserves credit, not Dugout Doug (3/28/2002 5:47:48 AM)
Hi guys, I posted something similar on the GG's PACWAR site. An interesting article that show's how MacArthur got good press when it came to air tactics. On a side note, I wonder if this new game migh be able to simulate leader casualties from accidents (like Harmon's), not just combat. http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-000021507mar25.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dliving

Raverdave -> Re: Lt. Gen Harmon deserves credit, not Dugout Doug (3/30/2002 8:09:02 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GET TRANSPT [B]Hi guys, I posted something similar on the GG's PACWAR site. An interesting article that show's how MacArthur got good press when it came to air tactics. [/B][/QUOTE] Well he was sure good at that.......getting good press! But I wonder how he got good press about [I]air tactics[/I] ??????

bradfordkay -> (3/31/2002 10:48:46 AM)
Gee, didn't El Supremo claim credit for every victory and good idea that occurred under his SouthWest Pacific command? And didn't he try to blaim every failure on the Navy??? Since Kinney's air force flew for MacArthur, it stands to reason that all their successful methods had sprung forth from the well of military wisdom that was the supreme commander, southwest pacific....

corbulo -> (4/3/2002 8:28:57 PM)
The greatest thing MacArthur did was recreate Japan after WW2.

tohoku -> (4/5/2002 12:38:53 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT [B] How old are you Tohoku? Because He may or may not have been a fool, but I very much doubt your grandparents felt that way. In a country use to obeying a supreme ruler, Mac was basically looked upon as a psuedo emperor. . Oh yeah..... your for all practical purposes 1 party parlimentary system is sooo much better than a republic. How many PMs now in the past 10years? Everyone knows the real power in your country belong to the burueacrats. Your recession has been going on for how long now? Going on ten years isnt it? Maybe its time you guys try a Republic. [/B][/QUOTE] My parents, when they weren't simply struggling to survive starvation following the end of the war, tell me they thought he was an idiot. Should I tell them that you know they thought otherwise? FWIW, they liked the British and Australian occupation forces, but say the Americans were either very nice or extremely stupid and violent. Complaints about mis-treatment were simply ignored. That is the fault of the person in charge: MacArthur. EOS. They wanted the representative democracy that existed back in the first twenty years of the century - the Emperor was very much a remote and symbolic figure for them. It wasn't until the collapse of the economy in the late 1920's and the subsequent rise of the military factions that the whole 'venerate the Emperor' thing was rekindled. But thank-you for trying to foist off a western cliche on me and the country - you'll excuse me if I believe my parents statements about their beliefs over your statements of my parents beliefs, won't you? ;-) As for the republic thing, why are you so defensive about it? I don't happen to like republics. Doesn't mean anything other than I don't happen to like them. No need to jump down my throat. Lastly, why do you capitalise the 'h' when you wrote abouted MacArthur ("He")? Is he some sort of god to you? How quaint. ;-) tohoku YMMV

tohoku -> (4/5/2002 1:19:39 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CynicAl [B] "They" might say that, but "they" would be wrong. The idea that the US backed Japan into a corner comes from the US embargoes, and if those had come in a vacuum, then "they" might be correct. I highly recommend the discussion of this subject in Evans and Peattie's Kaigun. The IJN planning staff anticipated relatively early on that a likely cause of war between Japan and the US was a US oil embargo; they further expected that the most likely cause of such an embargo would be a strong Japanese move into Indochina, threatening Malaya and Singapore. But there wasn't much risk of that, because that would be an Army operation, and the Army was focussed on the Northern Resource Area (aka Siberia). All that changed, though, when the IJA butted heads with Zhukov's tanks at Nomonhan. They discovered that they couldn't go north, so they decided to go south instead. Then came 1940, and the Fall of France. Indochina became just too ripe a morsel for the IJA to pass up, and they moved in. In force. Threatening Malaya and Singapore. Embargoes, and war, followed just as the IJN planners had predicted they would. The Japanese leaders knew what they were doing, they knew what the likely US response would be, they knew that would lead to war. They did it anyway. If they didn't want war, they had a very peculiar way of showing it. [/B][/QUOTE] I think you paint too simple a picture. Many of the leaders in Japan (especially the most of the Army factions) did want a war and thought they could win one. But others didn't, especially among the Naval and non-military factions. On the US side, there were also groups and people agitating (more quietly!) for war, Hull and Admiral King being prime amongst the 'names'. I think there was a basic case of racism and naked ambition on both sides. The US had what amount to imperial ambitions (a sort of US-style commercial imperialism) just as the Japanese had (really, much the same commercial motivations, but less dressed up in 'polite rhetoric' IMO) them. Once Japan had been shoehorn into China (by the Army) the US and Japan were both too pig-headed to back down and set to end up fighting. The US, as the more experience international player, should have understood that Japan wouldn't blink, which is where, again IMO, the 'Japan backed into a corner' thing comes from. Japan was backed into a corner: it was running out of food and fuel domestically because of the embargoes. The US knew that would be the effect. The Japanese didn't take the chance to compete with the US in China non-militarily when they had it and should have known what the US response would be to a competeing Asian power. It's no use saying one side or the other knew and should, therfore, have acted differently: both sides knew and both sides choosed to follow the path they did. There is no 'who started' it, either - you can all the way back to Perry in that sort of silly chain. It7s pointless. Both sides are to blame, IMO. tohoku YMMV

tohoku -> (4/5/2002 1:31:53 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75 [B]I didn't say that the Japanese were blind to the past, I said that they REFUSE TO ADMIT THEIR GUILT AND RESPONSIBILITY for starting the war. Yes that is a harsher statement, but its a TRUE statement. If Japan didn't try to take over all of asia and the pacific, we wouldn't have had to nuke them. (now I'm being a little satrical). Really, it all started in 1848 or so, when the Japanese "lost face" at the hands or commodore Perry. They never forgot it and they paid the price for trying to lock horns with the US. The whole "face" thing is another Japanese problem that gets them into trouble all the time. Still does. [/B][/QUOTE] But that (admitting guilt and responsibility) depends upon your view of both facts and what we know of peoples motivations at the time. Many in Japan see the US as bearing a far greater burden of responsibility than it acknowledges. There is no 'simple' fact when it comes to motivations and that has a large bearing on responsibility. Face is both a benefit and problem. It gets you into trouble less often, allows you to bear up under pressure, but also prevents you from simply doing something more intelligent when it's obvious you should. In this respect I'd sugest the US is really no different from Japan at the time. Really - can anyone imagine the US backing down in the face of an Asian nation even for the sake of peace? I can't. Not now and not of what I've read and been told of it then. The only difference is that these days all sides have a better dea of why trying to find a (and the term is well chosen) face saving solution. tohoku YMMV

tohoku -> (4/5/2002 1:52:04 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75 [B]This person tohoku, is just another reminder of the Japanese collective unwillingness to face up to the realities of their ancestors' agression. If anyone wwants to get a dose of reality, read hirohito's surrender proclamation. One of the funnier parts is when he stated: "Despite the best efforts of our armed forces, the progress of the war has not nescessarily gone to Japan's advantage." This was after to two big booms and after the soviets had nearly overrun all of Manchuria and korea (in less than a week). the proclamation, like the earler proclamation declaring war (a day after the peaceful US and Great Britain were attacked) is full of this type of absolute bullsh!t. The Japanese have never admitted to their guilt in starting the war, remember that. [/B][/QUOTE] I really object to that. Here I am, discussing it and you're busy saying that I don't know anything about it! As for "facing up to past aggression", Japan has (in the SF peace treaty and at other times & places) acknowledged it's part in blame. What it hasn't done is the sort of bending-over backwards apololgising that the likes of Germany did. But then, Germany has more to apologise for. Which would people prefer, that Japan change the way it acts viz the world, or that it simply apologise for fifty years yet remain basically the same? As for the proclamations of war and surrender, Japan declared war in the prescribed manner (although it managed to deliver it a few hours late, Hull already knew) and the quoted statement above is somewhat unfair: if I were to translate formal English into keigo it's be just as silly - and having read the actual surrender speech, I can assure you the translation above isn't all that good. The surrender speech was delivered in keigo. You simply don't say things like, "We surrender" in keigo! You mess about, avoiding the subject and spend lots of time on formal verbiage. Again, the statements above, from my perspective, looks like an accusation borne of ignorance of Japanese cultural/linguistic norms. I'd agree there are points that do need better airing in Japan, but the situation isn't as bad as ranger or some others have made out. Japan is facing up to it's past. It just isn't doing it at the speed some people (here) might like. Ranger, would you like the ISBN numbers of some of the school textbooks that mention all the things often claimed as not being mentioned in Japanese texts? You can check for yourself what the Japanese actually learning in school, opposed to what the US media claim they do. Don't. Something. :-) (all this english is hurting my brain!) tohoku YMMV

tohoku -> (4/5/2002 2:05:05 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]"Are you saying we should have invaded or stood of the coasts getting kamikazied daily for another 3-9 months while Japan finally starved into submission? " I think it is more likely that American analysts would have decided that manpower casualties in ground assault were not worth the cost. We'd probably have continued the strategic bombing effort and blockade through 1946. After a 50 or 70 million Japanese civilian deaths, the Emperor's Advisors would have come around to the Unconditional Surrender demand or they'd have been assassinated. [/B][/QUOTE] IMO, the biggest problem was the US unconditional surrender demand. It lengthened the war by several months. The Japanese were already trying to surrender (through the Swiss). They had even got to the point (a week before the US atomic attack) of asking to surrender so long as the Emperor wasn't tried as a war criminal. But the US would have none of it. Given that, there's not much point in surrendering - you may as well continue fighting when your enemy has specifically stated they reserve the right to do anything they want to you once you lose. Unilateral statements are apt to lead to bad results for all concerned. Bush II doesn't seem to have learnt this lesson of history. tohoku YMMV

mdiehl -> (4/5/2002 10:06:59 PM)
"Really - can anyone imagine the US backing down in the face of an Asian nation even for the sake of peace? I can't." I can. 1. Korea, in which the US backed down in the face of China rather than unify the peninsula under southern rule. 2. Viet Nam, in which the US backed down in face of China rather than unify the country under southern rule. 3. The Phillippines, in which a vocal majority of the populace said "please get out" to the US installations at Clark and the US, to their surprise (and economic demise), said "OK." Japan casts the US as the irresolute party in this in much the same way that the Old South claims that the War of the Rebellion had primarily to do with "states rights" rather than slavery. It's after-the-fact extemporaneous excuse-making. The US position vis a vis China, prior to the Truman administration, was decolonialism. If Japan had come up with an economic development plan in China that involved international access and cooperation with the United States, there'd have been no war. Heck, there probably would have been a Pacific Rim Golden Age ;) The problem with Japan was that the Army was calling the shots, and self-interest was allowed to take priorty over national interest. The Japanese apology is warranted because history matters to its vicitms. An apology is not needed to the US as a people, because the US did not suffer all that badly. Rather to the POWs, and to Koreans, Phillippinos and Chinese. Their experience with the Japanese makes the revisionist Japanese claim to 'merely have wanted freedom for Asians' an ongoing tragic joke. And, no, Japan was not about to surrender. And no, "No war crimes trial for the Emperor" was not the only sticking point. See the recent book Downfall, by, uh, Richard Frank I think.

CynicAl -> (4/6/2002 4:04:32 AM)
Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B Frank, from Penguin Books, ISBN# 0-14-100146-1. BookCloseOuts.com has a really good price on this book right now, at http://www.bookcloseouts.com/bc/display.book.asp?isbn=0141001461&keywords=Downfall&ta=Frank%2C+Richard+B%2E&sf=T&pagenum=1 .

TIMJOT -> (4/6/2002 4:10:34 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [B]"Really - can anyone imagine the US backing down in the face of an Asian nation even for the sake of peace? I can't." I can. 1. Korea, in which the US backed down in the face of China rather than unify the peninsula under southern rule. 2. Viet Nam, in which the US backed down in face of China rather than unify the country under southern rule. 3. The Phillippines, in which a vocal majority of the populace said "please get out" to the US installations at Clark and the US, to their surprise (and economic demise), said "OK." Japan casts the US as the irresolute party in this in much the same way that the Old South claims that the War of the Rebellion had primarily to do with "states rights" rather than slavery. It's after-the-fact extemporaneous excuse-making. The US position vis a vis China, prior to the Truman administration, was decolonialism. If Japan had come up with an economic development plan in China that involved international access and cooperation with the United States, there'd have been no war. Heck, there probably would have been a Pacific Rim Golden Age ;) The problem with Japan was that the Army was calling the shots, and self-interest was allowed to take priorty over national interest. The Japanese apology is warranted because history matters to its vicitms. An apology is not needed to the US as a people, because the US did not suffer all that badly. Rather to the POWs, and to Koreans, Phillippinos and Chinese. Their experience with the Japanese makes the revisionist Japanese claim to 'merely have wanted freedom for Asians' an ongoing tragic joke. And, no, Japan was not about to surrender. And no, "No war crimes trial for the Emperor" was not the only sticking point. See the recent book Downfall, by, uh, Richard Frank I think. [/B][/QUOTE] You go Mdiehl, and not a single statistic sited. :D I just cant believe we actually agree for once.:confused: :)

GET TRANSPT -> (4/6/2002 4:27:40 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl [ The US position vis a vis China, prior to the Truman administration, was decolonialism. If Japan had come up with an economic development plan in China that involved international access and cooperation with the United States, there'd have been no war. [/B][/QUOTE] I've read many xenophobic, myopic posts from the US (not reflective of all of us, really), but this this one got me to reply because of its arrogance. I wonder (not much effort really needed) what "phillippinos" as you name-colonize Filipinos, think about Douglas MacArthur's father and how he helped, uh, "non colonize" the Philippines from 1899-1902. Similarly, not much wonder nor effort is needed to see what China as a whole thought about US "access and cooperation" with Chiang's corrupt and venal despotism pre-1949. And Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1910s, 20s and 30s? Can't blame Truman or Japan for that Banana Republicanism. Colonialism in the 20th century isn't a bunch of European guys in bush hats with porters beatng the bush: it's Coca Cola, Exxon, Ford, IBM, GM ,and yes, Microsoft; US based multi- and supra- national corporations staffed by arrogant functionaries who are the last to feel its nefarious effects. Colonialism isn't juts economic-- it's psychological, linguistic and pedagogic. It's notbale in the logorrhea of quotes and citations that self righteous US colonial authors are deployed to support US colonialism with attendant colonization of language. Colonialism still continues, and seeing it supported TODAY on this list by deflecting the responsibility for its insidiousness on Japan of the 1940s is silly and disingenuous. but oh so colonial

mdiehl -> (4/6/2002 4:59:55 AM)
Get Transpt writes: "I've read many xenophobic, myopic posts ... [yadayada]... is silly and disingenuous. " I'll ignore all your pejoratives, and oblique smears at my intention. I'll assume that you were being so hasty that you did not spend any time thinking about was said. "You are," as Pete Townsend said, "forgiven," whether you like it or not. There's no disputing that many Americans in the PI treated Phillippinos like chattel. There is also no disputing that, uniquely among colonial powers, (well, there was Hong Kong), the US set timetables for handing over the administration of the PI, Panama, and Cuba to local governments. Nothing in this implies any generosity towards the locals. Only that American military imperialism was different, prior to the late Truman and Eisenhower admins. Sadly, everything changed when American foreign policy became about opposing communists to the exclusino of remembering what we were supposed to be for. Chiang was corrupt. The US open-door policy in China predates Chiang. The extraterritoriality agreements wrest from China are offensive. But the US did not establish any significant colonies in China, and the foreign policy goal was always equal access to development in China. That may be a kind of economic imperialism as you have implied, but it's not military imperialism, and there is a world of difference between the two, behavior-wise. One could argue that the Sp-Am war was abject colonialism. If so, it resulted in the replacement of one colonial regime, the genocidal Spanish one, with a repugnant but far less genocidal one backed by the US. Among the World Class Skunks of the time, the US was a rather minor mustelid. Corporate globalism is another thing entirely. Most of the examples that you mentioned, however debatable their list of offenses, post-date the Truman administration. So they do not apply to my post. Frankly, I did not say anything arrogant. Nor did I attempt to deflect the responsibility for the world's ills on Japan. I merely remarked that Japanese unwillingness to come up with a satisfying apology to Koreans, Chinese and PIslanders hurts them deeply in an emotional and nationalist way. And bayoneting babies, raping civilians en masse, driving your own nationals off of cliffs (in Okinawa) in the thousands, enforced prostitution, brutalizing and systematically starving POWs, and the numerous other offenses are acts that warrant a Japanese apology. I'm not an expert on Japanese apologies. I understand that they come in many more kinds and subtleties than American ones. Surely there must be some form of apology that allows one to honorably bear witness to the historical wrongs inflicted by Japan on other countries, without having to get all weepy abou it or without assuming an excessive economic responsibility. If your honor can't embrace that much, then you have no honor worth mentioning, as far as I am concerned.

Ranger-75 -> (4/8/2002 9:24:39 AM)
Looks like mdiehl and I are in complete agreement. I'm not going to blast get tnrspt but I will re-emphasize the importance of economic versus military imperialism. Big difference, the first you can ignore or even play off against another offer. The latter is literally "an offer that you can't refuse" As far as tohoku's posts are concerned, I will respond to them, I just need a few days to get the Enola Gay warmed up and out of the smithsonian for a return trip to Hiroshima. :D

tohoku -> (4/9/2002 10:35:19 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75 [B] As far as tohoku's posts are concerned, I will respond to them, I just need a few days to get the Enola Gay warmed up and out of the smithsonian for a return trip to Hiroshima. :D [/B][/QUOTE] That is a surprisingly tasteless comment, even for an American. tohoku YMMV

Raverdave -> (4/9/2002 12:06:10 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tohoku [B] What it hasn't done is the sort of bending-over backwards apololgising that the likes of Germany did. But then, Germany has more to apologise for.[/B][/QUOTE] Hmmmm.....comfort women and allied POW's might have a different view on that. [B][QUOTE] I'd agree there are points that do need better airing in Japan, but the situation isn't as bad as ranger or some others have made out. Japan is facing up to it's past. It just isn't doing it at the speed some people (here) might like.[/B][/QUOTE] It is now 2002, the war ended in 1945....how much longer do we have to wait????? [B][QUOTE] (all this english is hurting my brain!) [/B][/QUOTE] Your English is as good as mine.....keep the posts coming.....I enjoy reading the view from the "other" side:) tohoku YMMV [/B][/QUOTE]

Kensai -> (4/9/2002 6:23:58 PM)
quote: As far as tohoku's posts are concerned, I will respond to them, I just need a few days to get the Enola Gay warmed up and out of the smithsonian for a return trip to Hiroshima. Well, if its so funny to kill civillians, I wonder what you think about the WTC? Maybe we should make some fun about this too.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.8125