Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55

Thread: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    As for your second statement, while others were "in the fight" and we were grateful that they were, by and large it was an American show. Of all the naval ships in the Pacific zone of battle, how many were U.S. warships and how many were Allied? I'd bet that 90 to 95 percent were American. And I'd bet that the greatest amount of other weapons of war (material and soldies/sailors) were either American or American produced. I'm not trying to arrogant here, just trying to be factual.
    It depends upon the part of the war you're talking about, and whether you want to focus on fighting surface ships or the whole picture.

    The American naval forces were the major part of the pivotal Battle of the Coral Sea; Guadalcanal; and all of Midway. And of the American advances in 1944-45.

    However, what seems generally to be unknown or ignored is the contribution made by the Dutch with the naval and merchant forces they withdrew to Australia. I and others have posted on it in a thread or three in this forum, but without the Dutch merchant ships supplying the troops the initially primarily Australian but increasingly American effort in Papua New Guinea 1943-44 which paved the way for MacArthur's advance could not have occurred. The Dutch also took surface ships and submarines which they based in Australia and were used against the Japanese. I can't find the relevant threads at the moment.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    You make a good point on the land forces numbers. Yes, if I recall Commonwealth forces were large, probably more so than the Americans. Would like to see the actual figures as to the numbers.
    I don't know the numbers and it would depend upon which part of the war against Japan one was looking at.

    I can't comment on the BCI theatre as I lack knowledge.

    The Americans were alone in the central Pacific thrusts westwards in 1944 onwards, but not in previous years further south.

    The numbers in the Pacific are less important than the strategic impact they had.

    On a short term basis the most important Allied land troops against the Japanese were the Americans on Guadalcanal and the Australians in Papua in the second half of 1942 as they stemmed the Japanese advance.

    On a longer term basis the Australian and American troops in New Guinea 1943-44 were the most important land troops, as distinct from US Marines and Army in amphibious assaults elsewhere, as they laid the basis for MacArthur's advance from 1944 and tied down a very large number of Japanese troops; diverted Japanese resources in attempts to supply them; and precluded them from being used to defend islands attacked by the Americans in their central Pacific thrusts.

    In a way, for three years the Pacific war really took place in New Guinea. It was an important side theatre that for the length of the war conveniently pinned down 350,000 elite Japanese troops as MacArthur island-hopped his way to Tokyo.

    In New Guinea, Japan lost 220,000 troops. In a land that was never imagined to become a battlefield, not by late-Tokugawa southward advance protagonists who envisaged the Philippines as a possible war theatre, not by Meiji intellectuals who saw the prize in Malaya and in Indonesia, not even by the General Staff at the outbreak of war.

    It is an irony of Pacific war history that several other islands come to mind immediately when we speak of action in the Pacific, but not New Guinea. The many battles there are little known, except to specialists who study that place and period and to people in Australia, although the war on that island was the most drawn out and frustrating of battles in the Pacific war.
    http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember...ges/NT0000179E
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by leccy View Post
    Actually I will thank a teacher who may or may not have been a veteran, that part does not matter.

    The requirement to humiliate and denigrate a beaten foe has gone back centuries and just leads to further resentment and problems later on. A few thoughtless actions can have far reaching consequences that are often overlooked as catalysts for future conflicts because one side, is so sure they are right and that they can never be wrong.

    The ignorance and consideration of them to foreign local customs and traditions, the natives way of life are nothing to the belief that they are bringing a better way of life (they must be as its their way of life), even though it is backed by a show of force or force itself, is only overshadowed by their total disregard for any consequences that happen to them years down the line.
    Well, in this case that never happened. Japan has become America's most steadfast ally in the Pacific, even relying on us to provide the bulk of their defense. They have redily taken to many things "American". We couldn't have been nicer to a defeated foe.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    Well, in this case that never happened. Japan has become America's most steadfast ally in the Pacific, even relying on us to provide the bulk of their defense. They have redily taken to many things "American". We couldn't have been nicer to a defeated foe.
    If you look at the history you'll find that Japan didn't become 'America's most steadfast ally in the Pacific' but that America protected and exploited the conservative elements in Japan, being largely the same militaristic and anti-communist elements which took Japan to war against America, to bolster America's western front against Soviet and Chinese communism.

    You might like to look at what Japan has in its Self Defence force before claiming that Japan relies upon America to provide the bulk of Japan's defence.

    You're certainly correct that America 'couldn't have been nicer to a defeated foe'. If America had treated Japan as it treated Germany we wouldn't have the remnants of the same elements and attitudes which led to the Pacific War and which still allow significant elements in Japanese government and education, among others, to deny Japan's war guilt, whereas these things are often crimes in modern Germany. Indeed, if America had maintained the contempt for Japan as exemplified by showing Perry's flag at the surrender, Japan would have been left in ashes.

    As for Japan being 'America's most steadfast ally in the Pacific', could you point to the Japanese contributions to, for example, military forces and casualties in the Korean and Vietnam wars compared with, for example, those of other Pacific nations such as Australia and New Zealand? And the same for Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Afghanistan and Iraq? Events like this don't suggest that the Japanese are delighted to have American forces on their soil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTHUl...eature=related
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    They have redily taken to many things "American".
    Such as baseball?

    How does that compare with the continuing belief in the Emperor as a god, despite Hirohito's apparent renunciation of his divine status after the war? Which those disposed to continue their belief in the imperial divinity dismiss, as a god cannot declare himself not to be a god under duress from a victor. Even Nixon at his worst didn't believe he was a god. So how have those Japanese who believe in imperial divinity taken to things American?

    Anyway, why is it necessarily a good thing to take to many things American?

    Is American 'democracy' as practised by electing the candidate with the biggest bankroll and the most populist policies to the Presidency necessarily any better than the corruption inherent in post-war Japanese selection of their leaders?

    Why should Japan adopt anything from America? Japan was a fully functioning society long before a few refugees from Europe colonised America a few hundred years ago.

    Is there some international covenant that says that all nations must follow the American, or European, model in everything?

    Given the butchery engaged in by America (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 etc) and Europe (endless, and as recently as a couple of decades ago in the Balkans along the lines of the worst things the Nazis and Japanese did), and the colonialisation of various lands by them, wasn't Japan's Pacific War no more than an emulation of the aggressive conquests of other peoples' and lands by the Americans and Europeans in China and elsewhere?

    If so, that suggests that the Japanese had readily taken to American ideas to start the war.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Such as baseball?

    How does that compare with the continuing belief in the Emperor as a god, despite Hirohito's apparent renunciation of his divine status after the war? Which those disposed to continue their belief in the imperial divinity dismiss, as a god cannot declare himself not to be a god under duress from a victor. Even Nixon at his worst didn't believe he was a god. So how have those Japanese who believe in imperial divinity taken to things American?

    Anyway, why is it necessarily a good thing to take to many things American?

    Is American 'democracy' as practised by electing the candidate with the biggest bankroll and the most populist policies to the Presidency necessarily any better than the corruption inherent in post-war Japanese selection of their leaders?

    Why should Japan adopt anything from America? Japan was a fully functioning society long before a few refugees from Europe colonised America a few hundred years ago.

    Is there some international covenant that says that all nations must follow the American, or European, model in everything?

    Given the butchery engaged in by America (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 etc) and Europe (endless, and as recently as a couple of decades ago in the Balkans along the lines of the worst things the Nazis and Japanese did), and the colonialisation of various lands by them, wasn't Japan's Pacific War no more than an emulation of the aggressive conquests of other peoples' and lands by the Americans and Europeans in China and elsewhere?

    If so, that suggests that the Japanese had readily taken to American ideas to start the war.
    I never said it was "necessarily a good thing" to take anything American. The relationship between the Japanese and Americans is what it is. I've been to Tokyo and seen the kids all dressed up like 1950's rockabilly. McDonalds or KFC anyone?

    We Americans are just like any other humans here on earth. The pursuit of international power to enrich American business interests is part and parcel of that power. It seems you read into what you want to read of the things I say, or in this case the flying of Perry's flag as an insult to the Japanese butchers of WW2. Oh, those poor Japanese, they were so insulted! I didn't realize what we had done and have been crying rivers of tears since you started this thread.

    Why are you so antagonistic towards us Americans? Are you of Japanese descent with an ax to grind? Or if you are Austrailian of European descent you would have been singing quite a different tune if Austrailia had been included under the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity" sphere.
    Last edited by Laconia; 04-08-2012 at 11:48 AM.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    I never said it was "necessarily a good thing" to take anything American. The relationship between the Japanese and Americans is what it is. I've been to Tokyo and seen the kids all dressed up like 1950's rockabilly. McDonalds or KFC anyone?
    So Japan is just an extension of 1950s America focused on modern American fast food?

    I hadn't realised it was that simple.

    I thought Japan was a somewhat more complex society with rather different traditions and values descended from the original god emperor of the Yamato people as modified by the changes following Perry's forced involvement of Japan with America and the West.


    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    It seems you read into what you want to read of the things I say
    Sorry.

    I thought I was responding to what you said and, as it appeared to me, said very clearly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    or in this case the flying of Perry's flag as an insult to the Japanese butchers of WW2. Oh, those poor Japanese, they were so insulted! I didn't realize what we had done and have been crying rivers of tears since you started this thread.
    My apolgies for upsetting you to the point of tears.

    I was looking at it from the standpoint of diplomacy and international relations on the grand scale which was the background to the Japanese surrender and future relations with America and the West.

    You appear to be looking at from the standpoint of insulting the Japanese butchers.

    So why don't you get upset about the primarily American failure to prosecute the little bastard who presided over the whole lot of butchery, being Hirohito, and the American protection given to the butchers of Harbin and so on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    Why are you so antagonistic towards us Americans?
    I'll leave that to others with a long knowledge of my posts on this forum to judge.

    But it seems to me that you perceive any criticism of American conduct as anti-Americanism.

    I don't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    Or if you are Austrailian of European descent you would have been singing quite a different tune if Austrailia had been included under the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity" sphere.
    It was.

    It's just that Japan failed to complete that part of its program. A lot of our men and women died preventing it at a time when America was never at risk of being part of the Greater East Co-Prosperity Sphere nor, unlike us, of invasion.


    Now that you've had your little dummy spit of irrelevant sarcasm and condescension, would you like to address the original topic in a rational and historically informed fashion? Or, as appears from your posts, are you incapable of doing so because you lack any deep, or any, knowledge of the relevant history and base your opinions on the novel notion of the Japanese as WWII butchers who magically converted themselves into 1950s rockabillys and consumers of KFC and Maccas which made them America's most steadfast ally in the Pacific, which explains everything about Japan from the surrender onwards?
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    So Japan is just an extension of 1950s America focused on modern American fast food?

    I hadn't realised it was that simple.

    I thought Japan was a somewhat more complex society with rather different traditions and values descended from the original god emperor of the Yamato people as modified by the changes following Perry's forced involvement of Japan with America and the West.




    Sorry.

    I thought I was responding to what you said and, as it appeared to me, said very clearly.



    My apolgies for upsetting you to the point of tears.

    I was looking at it from the standpoint of diplomacy and international relations on the grand scale which was the background to the Japanese surrender and future relations with America and the West.

    You appear to be looking at from the standpoint of insulting the Japanese butchers.

    So why don't you get upset about the primarily American failure to prosecute the little bastard who presided over the whole lot of butchery, being Hirohito, and the American protection given to the butchers of Harbin and so on?



    I'll leave that to others with a long knowledge of my posts on this forum to judge.

    But it seems to me that you perceive any criticism of American conduct as anti-Americanism.

    I don't.




    It was.

    It's just that Japan failed to complete that part of its program. A lot of our men and women died preventing it at a time when America was never at risk of being part of the Greater East Co-Prosperity Sphere nor, unlike us, of invasion.


    Now that you've had your little dummy spit of irrelevant sarcasm and condescension, would you like to address the original topic in a rational and historically informed fashion? Or, as appears from your posts, are you incapable of doing so because you lack any deep, or any, knowledge of the relevant history and base your opinions on the novel notion of the Japanese as WWII butchers who magically converted themselves into 1950s rockabillys and consumers of KFC and Maccas which made them America's most steadfast ally in the Pacific, which explains everything about Japan from the surrender onwards?
    That was good, especially your last paragraph. My hat is off to you for that one. (No sarcasm this time).

    You said: "I was looking at it from the standpoint of diplomacy and international relations on the grand scale which was the background to the Japanese surrender and future relations with America and the West." And then said: "So why don't you get upset about the primarily American failure to prosecute the little bastard who presided over the whole lot of butchery, being Hirohito, and the American protection given to the butchers of Harbin and so on?"

    "Little bastard"? "Butchery"? "American protection"? Now now my friend, you seem to be a bit upset at how Hirohito was dealt with, but was concerned about future relations between the US/West and Japan because of the flag. So which is it? Now, I already know your viewpoint on the flag, but should Hirohito have been dealt with severely as you seem to suggest, (thereby raising the potential to cause problems between us and Japan in the future) or not? If you were so concerned about "future" relations than perhaps the policy towards Hirohito was the correct one, as you maintain the policy concerning the flag was not.

    I never liked the accomadation that was made as regards the Emporer. He was the supreme leader and nothing was done by the militarists without his ok. A quick trial and execution would have been my recommendation, but Truman with Mcarthur's advice thought differently. So, I concur with having Perry's flag flown AND would have supported a quick trial and execution of the Emperor. All future relations would have been worked out somehow.
    Last edited by Laconia; 04-09-2012 at 01:45 PM.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Forgive me but isn't this a bit of a tempest in a teapot? Were the Japanese in their dire situation even aware the flag was there? It takes two to make an insult: an insultor and and an insultee. Absent the latter, the question is moot. I didn't read anywhere in here that the flag was flown. I read that the flag was in a glass case and not in the direct line of sight of the Japanese delegation. I didn't read anywhere that the presence of the flag was even pointed out to the Japanese. Nor have I read anything in my history books about a Japanese reaction to the presence of the flag.

    Someone with a sense of history - possibly MacArthur himself - thought the presence of the flag was apt and appropriate. But then it might also have been someone in Washington whose bright idea it was for Perry's flag to have been present both at the time of Perry's incursion and at the end of the Pacific War. It makes an interesting placard in a museum.

    Either way, methinks, it matters but very little in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps there are those who who are a bit too quick to find fault and feel insulted even when the putative targets of that insult were clueless. At the risk of unleashing howls of protests, if it was intended to be an insult, it failed spectacularly.
    Last edited by royal744; 04-16-2012 at 11:00 PM. Reason: Content

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: An unnecessary insult to Japan at its surrender?

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    Forgive me but isn't this a bit of a tempest in a teapot? Were the Japanese in their dire situation even aware the flag was there? It takes two to make an insult: an insultor and and an insultee. Absent the latter, the question is moot. I didn't read anywhere in here that the flag was flown. I read that the flag was in a glass case and not in the direct line of sight of the Japanese delegation. I didn't read anywhere that the presence of the flag was even pointed out to the Japanese. Nor have I read anything in my history books about a Japanese reaction to the presence of the flag.

    Someone with a sense of history - possibly MacArthur himself - thought the presence of the flag was apt and appropriate. But then it might also have been someone in Washington whose bright idea it was for Perry's flag to have been present both at the time of Perry's incursion and at the end of the Pacific War. It makes an interesting placard in a museum.

    Either way, methinks, it matters but very little in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps there are those who who are a bit too quick to find fault and feel insulted even when the putative targets of that insult were clueless. At the risk of unleashing howls of protests, if it was intended to be an insult, it failed spectacularly.
    I agree, you make some valid points here. I wonder what happened to Rising Sun? I'd like to hear his rebuttal.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •