No, but I would have allowed them to withdraw to within their own borders, forget about the "final solution" and the "1000 years Reich" and resign from power.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Printable View
No, but I would have allowed them to withdraw to within their own borders, forget about the "final solution" and the "1000 years Reich" and resign from power.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
And why would they have done that? Negotiations? Threats?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Are you that naive?
Because they may have seen they're going to lose eventually and this way they could have had a chance to save their lives and freedom. At least they would have been given a chance to throw in the towel. Finland agreed to make a peace with the Soviet Union both in March 1940 and in September 1944, because they realized they were going to lose anyway sooner or later and this way they could at least make a tolerable deal sooner instead of an unconditional surrender later.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
At least Himmler was ready to negotiate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler
So was Hess:Quote:
In the winter of 1944–45, Himmler's Waffen-SS numbered 910,000 members, with the Allgemeine-SS (at least on paper) hosting a membership of nearly two million. However, by early 1945 Himmler had lost faith in German victory, likely due in part to his discussions with his masseur Felix Kersten and with Walter Schellenberg.[22] He realized that if the Nazi regime were to survive, it needed to seek peace with Britain and the United States. He also believed that Hitler had effectively incapacitated himself from governing by remaining in Berlin to personally lead the defence of the capital against the Soviets.
To this end, he contacted Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden at Lübeck, near the Danish border. He represented himself as the provisional leader of Germany, telling Bernadotte that Hitler would almost certainly be dead within two days. He asked Bernadotte to tell General Dwight Eisenhower that Germany wished to surrender to the West. Himmler hoped the British and Americans would fight the Soviets alongside the remains of the Wehrmacht. At Bernadotte's request, Himmler put his offer in writing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_...ht_to_Scotland
Quote:
Like Goebbels, Hess was privately distressed by the war with the United Kingdom because he, like almost all other Nazis, hoped that Britain would accept Germany as an ally. Hess may have hoped to score a diplomatic victory by sealing a peace between the Third Reich and Britain,[16] e.g., by implementing the behind-the-scenes move of the Haushofers[clarification needed] in Nazi Germany to contact Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton.[17]
On 10 May 1941, at about 6:00 P.M., Hess took off from Augsburg in a Messerschmitt Bf 110, and Hitler ordered the General of the Fighter Arm to stop him (squadron leaders were ordered to scramble only one or two fighters, since Hess' particular aircraft could not be distinguished from others).[18] Hess parachuted over Renfrewshire, Scotland on 10 May and landed (breaking his ankle) at Floors Farm near Eaglesham.[citation needed] In a newsreel clip, farmhand David McLean claims to have arrested Hess with his pitchfork.[18]
So you would have been OK with the Nazis to go on Committing Genocide and remain a threat to the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Even bigger thumbs-up on this move.
America is making the right move by steadying relations with Asian countries.
China is probably going to be a little upset that America is playing in their backyard, but tough!
No-one knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The Potsdam Declaration was issued on the 26th of July. Japan initially rejected the terms of surrender because they included the removal of the Emperor. On the 30th of July they asked for 14 days to consider the proposal, and were granted it.
Important Date: The Japanese were given until the 13th of August.
On July 2, Hirohito flew to Vladivostok for a conference with Stalin. At this point we either have to concede that Hirohito was either looking for an ally for negotiations with Potsdam, or perhaps to for Japan to become a Soviet Protectorate. I guess we'll never know.
On the 3rd, The US Air Force destroyed Vladivostok's air strip and port facilities citing that intelligence had detailed "important activity in that area". It has never been stated by US official just what that "important activity" was, but it effectively locked Hirohito in Soviet territory.
On the 5th, the Japanese parliament was deadlocked 6-6 on whether to accept the terms of surrender; Hirohito had the casting vote but he couldn't issue it because he was still stuck in Vladivostok's because the US Air Force destroyed all the air and sea ports.
The Japanese PM Kantaro Suzuki issued a statement of "Mokusatsu" with regards the instrument of surrender.
On the 6th of August, 140,000 people were killed by the first nuclear bomb. This was 8 days before the Japanese would have been required to surrender. Nagasaki was bombed on the 9th.
Make up your own mind.
What does Mokusatsu mean? What would have Hirohito done if he'd been allowed to fly back to Japan? Who honestly knows?
Personally I think that dropping the bomb did save more lives than would have been killed if an invasion had taken place, but that might have never have happened, and at any rate it was slated for X-Day and Y-Day which wouldn't have been until November 1, 1945 and March 1, 1946.
I kind of half agree with this and half not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
The Japanese treatment of peasantry throughout South East Asia and Prisoners of War was evil. Although dropping the bombs did achieve the ends required, it was cowardly and ultimately I think unjustified.
On the other hand apologizing doesn't really achieve anything useful or lasting - Actual action does. I think that both Japan and the United States have both showed that action several thousand times over.
I don't think however they they should be glad that they didn't have to face another mushroom cloud, as I don't think that the first two were justified, not what was to follow:
"the next bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18."
- Major General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project. August 10, 1945.
I think that that "next bomb" would have been just as cowardly and unjustified as the two which proceeded it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Where did you get that crap?
The Emperor never left Japanese soil doing WW2
Hirohito never went to Russia
The US did not bomb Vladivostok(That is beyond ridiculous)
The Parliament could only recommend to the Emperor. The Emperor was not a "Deciding Vote".....He was the Only Vote.
And the Potsdam Declaration did not set a date of August 13th. It didn't set any date.
Quote:
Potsdam Declaration
July 26, 1945
(1) We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.
(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.
(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.
(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese, participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.
You'll find details in Thomas Parrish's book: Roosevelt and Marshall: Partners in Politics and War , though he seems to reference George C. Marshall's four part biography quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Herbert Bix's book Hirohito And The Making of Modern Japan also looks at where the emperor went based on government documents.
I never said it did, you're putting words into my mouth:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Sorry, but I said that Japan had asked for time to consider it, not that the declaration itself had a date set. These are very different concepts, but somehow I doubt that you know the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
You wrote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The rest of your stuff just came from a bunch of conspiracy theorists who write garbage because they can sell it to people like you who won't question it's validity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Such as:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/a...hirostal96.jpg
Oops. Hirohito never went to Russia indeed... feh. I'd rather believe properly researched material than heresay from you.
No, as I said, stopping the genocide would have been one of the main peace terms, as well as resigning from power and new free elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Funny how that picture has Stalin but not Hirohito! It is Japanese Foreign Minister Yōsuke Matsuoka but I guess they all look the same to you.
And it isn't 1945 but actually 1941.
http://plhb.tripod.com/p1.html
How well did the Americans understand Japanese culture back in the 40's? Maybe a lack of understanding a foreign culture (from the US side) played part in Japan refusing to surrender. The wars America has fought recently (especially Iraq) show a clear lack of understanding of non-Western type cultures and their reactions to things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I would say that's very likely - especially in the 40's. I'd say our overall view of "Orientals" was very similar to the British and the French at that time: interesting but inferior.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
I'd say there was a fair lack of cultural understanding on both sides. But the problem is, when you're losing... and badly at that, you better (quickly) figure out what your opponent might do to you if you don't surrender.
Why the hell are we even discussing the reasons behind going to war in 1939-41? Bit late, isn't it? On this subject, what's done is well and truly done.
That is a two way street. Admiral Yamamoto advised that the bombing of Pearl Harbor would have the opposite effect of that Japan predicted, stating it would not cause us to surrender but strengthen our resolve to win at all costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
And this was the man that planned the invasion.
We had a clear understanding of why they did not wish to surrender, but apparently they had no clear understanding of why they shouldn't have attacked us, or the fact that we were not going to negotiate based on their hostile actions.
Rollo?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Hello?
No Comment?
Mokusatsu :DQuote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
You are aware that Matsuoka is the chap in the middle, ie the guy with the hat on, aren't you?
Obviously a tripod website with such delights as this:
http://plhb.tripod.com/p212.jpg
is highly credible.
I doubt that very much. If you don't understand the Iragi on this day and age, I very much doubt the US government understood the Japanese and how they should be dealt with back in WWII. Still, they were the ones who started it.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
No it is not.
Give it up. Hirohito never met with Stalin in 1945. The US never bombed Vladisvostok.
If the Japanese did not understand U.S. culture, they should have kept their planes at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Stupidity has just rewards and Japan reaped three-fold.
So you're not going to even ponder the question I presented. What kind of chit chat is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Japan had already invaded China, had a war with Russia in northern China, the U.S. had already seen all of Japanese culture it needed to, plus the U.S. did not attack Japan.
The soon to be, General Chenault had been a part of the International Squadron and he along with other pilots had brought back facts about how the Japanese treated the Chinese, Washington was well aware of what type of murderous criminals the Japanese military was.
They didn't? How do you explain the US military bases in Japan and the atom bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US did way more than was needed to keep the Japanese away from the US soil. You can't claim it was just defensive warfare from the US part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
The U.S defended itself, and took the war to the enemy that attacked the U.S. and its allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Any one country who is attacked and does not counter-attack in defense to the utmost degree, the ideal is to the obliviation of the enemy, is a fool who deserves what ever comes its way.
So, you agree that Al Qaeda should plot more 911 attacks now that the US invaded Afghanistan? And the Taliban should take their fight also to the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
IMO the ideal is to the make the enemy understand fighting is not worth it.
That's what the Soviets did to the Germans in Stalingrad and the Finns did to the Soviets in Suomussalmi and Tali-Ihantala.
I was talking about cultural anthropology, but forget it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Lol, are you trying to rise the level of the discussion, better to keep it on Colt/ Donald Duck level, so that the other guy understand what you talk about.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
I don't know why we would not let them rebuild their military might. We are OK with Iran building Nukes. Maybe they could pop a few terrorists over in that part of the world. Or even that kim jong puke. We should take our bases out of there and save the money - we have Guam and that is close enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The thing is, the constitution that the Commander of the the U.S. occupying force drafted for Japan, has stuck and the Japanese still live by it. Colt, Donald Duck, Gummy Bears, heavy metal and most other things American/Western thrive on Japanese soil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
The same could easily be asked of the Japanese understanding of American culture at the time. The overwhelming consensus in the Japanese military and political community was that Americans had no stomach for war and would not fight, least of all to secure the liberty of a bunch of Asians. They thought if they could destroy our immediate strike capability, we would sit the rest of it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Funny thing about Americans and our culture. We will roll over for all kinds of nonsense so you never really know what you might do that will thoroughly piss us off. However, once pissed, we are an extremely dangerous adversary and will do whatever is seen fit to destroy you and your ability to make war. Note that "insurgencies" and general hooliganism does not constitute war in the conventional sense of a recognized government fielding conventional forces against the same.
Insurgencies are a different matter and can only be stopped by effective destruction of the groups manpower and logistics base. The argument of "...every time you kill, you compel others to join their ranks..." is a lot of tosh espoused by the fashionably stupid. The people that join these organizations would be attracted to any outlaw cause because it's their only hope for advancement and enrichment in their native society anyway. You either goatherd as nothing behind a donkey cart your entire life like your father and grandfather or you grab an AKM and go marauding with the boys, basking in the respect of the common people. What they call respect is fear. The fear the common people have of an unstable loose cannon in their midst with an automatic weapon that may kill with impunity for the slightest of reasons. The problem with giving in to insurgency groups is that one, it will cause even more to join their ranks (everybody loves a winner) and two, it will give birth to other groups that don't like things the way they are and want their own piece of the pie too. So you either combat insurgency or you dissolve the government and let anarchy reign and just allow everybody to do what they want as long as they are big enough and bad enough to do it. Now everybody is happy because everybody is in charge. It is working to some extant in Somalia right now.
Iraq was a mistake based upon the gratitude of the populations liberated from Nazi control after WW II. The nations that could, immediately began to form democracy based governments and used those as a basis to improve their standards of living. It never occurred to us that given the gift of liberty from a dictator, the Iraqis would be completely helpless, unable, and unwilling to shoulder the tasks and responsibilities needed to make democracy work. It would seem they are much happier having one guy in charge even if he feels the need to imprison and kill a couple of thousand from time to time.
Lastly, we in the west understand the need for wars, but we prefer short wars. 5 years is about our max before we start grumbling. We have high standards of living in our countries and want to get back to our leisure time activities, jobs, and families. Nosing into conflicts in areas where a donkey cart is high tech and and the standard of living is what it was 100 years ago is something we should avoid. If they want better, let them fight for it themselves. I never would have run my head about bagging Bin laden. I would have and would still gather all the intelligence I could on al-Qaeda and use either high tech like drones, small special forces, and quick, shoot n' scoot strikes to keep them backing up.
How about Afghanistan? A former Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri wrote in his column few days ago that the Finnish peace keepers in Afghanistan are there protecting opium production, because the current Karzai government in Afghanistan is corrupted to the core with drug money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
The latter part of Fiero's post, which you ignore Eki, deals very well with the situation in Afghanistan.
There is little doubt the current regime is corrupt and I think most countries involved would love to get out but at the present time cannot see how to do so without allowing the Taliban to regain control. Then the massacres would begin and the country would go even further backwards.
The countries who actually are fighting the Taliban terrorists being the US, UK, Holland and Canada would all like to get out but are hoping for a stable honest Govt first.
I, personally doubt that will happen.
I was speaking of war and those who start them; you can live in Neverland if you wish, but like Chamberlain, such naive thinking is dangerous at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Seems like the Afghans don't believe in it themselves either. Recently, three Afghan officers came to Finland to get training at our artillery school. After arriving here, two of them asked for an asylum in Finland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Drifter
I am a student of military history and the strategic, operational, and tactical application of military forces. I once earned my living teaching the use of small arms and the application of small unit tactics to engage unconventional forces. The biggest reason the US situation in Afghanistan is so ridiculous is as I have stated before but y'all refuse to see and refuse to believe. We have no defined mission in Afghanistan but will remain there until the idiot Obama decides what he will do about Iran. Our presence in Afghanistan is nothing more than a staging area for an invasion of Iran. Even the Iranians have wised up to this now and are making preparations. Don't think for a minute that our top military men really believe they can do anything useful in Afghanistan. We pretty much ran the Taliban and al-Qaeda out, smacking them about and putting some severe hurt on them in the process. Neither group is anywhere near as strong as it was and the Afghans are well capable of making life miserable for them should they decide they want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Every government out there is rife with corruption of some sort be it drugs, fooling with expenses, or passing laws favorable to good friends. If Finland wants out, pack up and leave. You don't need corruption for an excuse. As soon as Obama realizes Iran isn't worth messing with, our troops will come home from Afghanistan and hopefully we will avoid this "long term for no permanent reward" type of campaign in the future.
Do you blame them? Coming from Afghanistan to a free, western culture with TV, movies, cars, motorcycles, women in short skirts, nightlife, personal freedoms, and many personal opportunities, I'd want to stay too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You going to let them in?
As I expect Fiero will agree the most effective way to deal with guerilla/terrorists is small special forces units like the SAS, Delta Force and Canada's J2T2. Especially ones who can live off of the country and remain mostly out of sight and cooperating with locals.
You might want to read up on Yamamoto, and his studies in the US. It's not as if the US has isolated itself from other cultures over the years. I'd venture to bet that the US government employs more various cultural experts from other countries than any other nation, including those employed in their military joint commands.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
The US had anticipated even higher casualties in the Pacific campaigns, so it's not as through we underestimated the resolve and will of the Japanese. We had planned for the invasion of Japan and used the nukes as a last hope to get into the minds of the public enough to force surrender. Had we not understood the culture we likely would have never recovered from Pearl Harbor, yet the US overcame a tactical disadvantage to finally cause a surrender.
I would say that they should have listened to the man they best trusted to execute Pearl Harbor, who told them they were heading in a direction they likely would not return from.
Who knows what direction it would have all taken if the Japanese had not attacked American interests. It's quite possible that the USA would have remained out of both Europe and the Pacific. Although I believe that Britain and it's allies at the time could have successfully stopped Germany from invading the UK I very much doubt we could have forced Germany into a total surrender.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter