Matrix Games Forums

I don't believe I've empathized with Japan or any other country I brought up as examples of horrible deeds. I have tried to use insight to show what they were thinking and how " venus and mars " the US and Japan were at the time. After my first post  ( besides the asides of NAIs etc. ) I was trying to show that the statement below was in my eyes false. I was on the side of only one country and that was the US in my OPEC embargo scenario. Also in that scenario the US had no bargaining chips as Japan did in 1940. I have no problem with a country who exhausting ALL MEANS of diplomacy etc. to no avail. That is going to be defenseless and whose very fabric is breaking apart to invade one of the embargoing countries for what it needs to defend itself. I used that scenario to show that YES an embargo could under certain circumstances be a hostile act. Japan still had plenty of elbow room in the historical embargo. My one argument was that many other nations have or could have acted as " bad " as the Japanese did in their colonies. What if the US and some other nations got together and put an embargo on Belgium for their horrific crimes in the Congo? Would Belgium just give in of course. Now lets say Belgium had the worlds 3rd largest navy and was also a land power, do we still think that they would have just walked away, because of other nations " feelings ". If you believe that I have some swampland for you.This is the statement that was made.
 
"No Nation Would Have Done What The Japanese Did" In his last post he has said that maybe it was with too wide a brush this was painted, so be it.
 
I do not have the same feeling that horrific acts are worse if they involve more people or are not state sponsored.
 
Now for the NAIs. I believe the estimates for North America to be 4-5 million natives in 1600 or there abouts. Now at there lowest the figure od 100,000 was given in 1900 or there abouts. Even at 4 million that is a loss of I believe 98% of a population. Now it is very true that there was little to none of state sponsored genocide. Also there was horrific losses due to disease. But just like the Russians and their pogroms against the Jews ( which were not state sponsored ) huge losses of life took place because of one populations hatred of another. Also enforced starvation and complete loss of the NAIs civilization meant they could only be just like the white man or die ( farming etc. ). We can see how these terrible acts, separate one by one without the backing of the government still caused a death toll to rival the holocaust. have you also stopped to think what would have had to happen if the NAIs were not victims of such losses to disease? Does anyone truely believe that the same results would have happened with obviously more bloodshed? I have that swampland for sale sign up.
 
 I only brought up the NAIs as one small example of what happened in other colonies. Unfortunately it took up a life of it's own.
 
Back to the real arguments.
 
One of my problems when discussing history is that to me it is one flowing ocean. I do not see rome as ancient but only as last week. I see Napoleon as having lived yesterday. I'm pushing it so you get the idea. I see the 22 years between the utter madness of 1918 and 1940 as being a drop in the bucket. One of my arguments against the above statement is how would the other western powers act if the huge losses of WW1 did not take place. Do you really believe that they would not have acted as petty and criminal and nuts as they did in 1914? A country was handed a piece of paper in August 1914 that resembled the 21 points of 1919 closely. If followed the excepting nation would have lost it's sovreignty, it would have become just an extension of the other country. So guess what happened almost all the " civilized " countries of the world hoped and suggested it be followed for their own selfish reasons. In 1919 most of the same nations forced the aggressor nation to back down. Not, I repeat not for any change of heart or in thinking but because those 21 demands would have impacted their own concessions with China gotten with the barrel of a gun ( or the threat of one ). I have no doubt that had Japan acted only a little differently and also offered all the other powers ( except the US. ) a slice of the 21 points pie they would have dropped their embargos like a flash.
 
Sorry for the run ons. What about France and Algeria up until the 1960s even though Paris and more of France was getting bombed and at a cost of tons of lives on both sides. At the very mention of leaving Algeria the French army plotted a coup to kill the president of France and force the nation to stay in the fight. Doesn't this sound like another nation we've been discussing.
 
None of this is an apology for what Japan did or even more could have done given more time. It is an attempt to show that the US had picked the worst time in it's existence to stick it's head in the sand and believe that other countries could be reasoned with. Only when it is to their advantage by gain fear or the like do governments work with one another. True with the " we are the world " thinking it is happening less and less. But how much of that is not because of brotherly love but the almighty dollar,euro or yen.

Good Lord, is this thing still going on? A thread advocating the various benefits of electing Cthulhu or Nyarlatothep as US president gets clamped, but this garbage rolls on?

Sheesh...

I'd vote for the nameless one. Then again I'm a real fan of Babylonian  gods.

What's boming? 

ORIGINAL: pad152

What's boming?

The "Thread Starter" mispelled the topic.

It should have read:

BONING DEBATE

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

So, 8 pages of banter that turns out to have been a complete waste of time...the discussion should have been about gettin' with the hot ladies. Dammit! [:D]

This is from a letter from FDR to secretary of the interior? Ickes.

" Recent significant developments indicate the need of coordinating existing Federal authority over oil and gas and insuring that the supply of petroleum and its products will be accommodated to the needs of the Nation and the national defense program. Government functions relating to petroleum problems are now divided among numerous officers and agencies of the Federal Government and the principal oil-producing States. The various phases of operation in the petroleum industry itself are numerous and complex. One of the essential requirements of the national defense program, which must be made the basis of our petroleum defense policy in the unlimited national emergency declared on May 27, 1941, is the development and utilization with maximum efficiency of our petroleum resources and our facilities, present and future

In order to provide the desired coordination, I am hereby designating you as Petroleum Coordinator for National Defense. In that capacity it will be your function and responsibility as my representative:
1. To obtain currently from the States and their agencies, from the petroleum and allied industries, from the officers and agencies of your Department, and from other appropriate Federal departments and agencies information as to (a) the military and civilian needs for petroleum and petroleum products, (b) the factors affecting the continuous, ready availability of petroleum and petroleum products for those needs, and (c) any action proposed which will affect such availability of petroleum "

So they must have known in 1940 how vital oil was and also how much of a threat ( not hostile act ) an embargo was to an industrialized nation. They had gone as far as they could with diplomacy with this act nothing more serious could have been done without actual hostilities.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Good Lord, is this thing still going on? A thread advocating the various benefits of electing Cthulhu or Nyarlatothep as US president gets clamped, but this garbage rolls on?

Sheesh...

I was thinking exactly the same thing and shaking my head. And no one even took the time to answer my question. [:(]

You know, it's kind of interesting how culture shapes a country's military and how it's expected to behave.

In the West, a rape committed by a soldier isn't just looked upon as barbarous, it's a sign of bad leadership. The thinking in this regard is that an officer who can't control his men in occupation likely can't control them in battle, either. An officer who has a subordinate charged with a civilian rape has a fairly serious career problem staring him in the face. From that standpoint, he's really best-off if he does everything by the book, if he wants to stay employed that is.

Apparently, to Russians and Japanese this is not the case:

http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/rape.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... beev24.xml

In the militaries associated with these cultures, rape seems to be looked upon as a sort of consecration of one's victory, not just as a "spoil of war," but as a sort of male-bonding activity. These cultural differences are so stark as to suggest that there's gonna be no bridging the ideological gap that exists between Ike and the overwhelming majority of our readers. He believes what he believes, and no matter how twisted we may find his thinking, it's not gonna alter his beliefs in regard to WW2 and his view of Japan as the victim:

-The U.S. forced itself on a peaceful Japan in the middle of the 19th century, initiating a series of slights that were perceived as both threat and insult.

-In response, Japan sought to industrialize in order to protect itself from foreign domination.

-Developing an economic base that would allow Japan to compete with the West necessitated the creation of a European-style empire in East Asia.

-When the U.S. and Great Britain sought to interfere with the acquisition of territory and resources which Japan required, the latter had no choice but to defend itself.

-The bombing of Japanese cities by the military forces of the USA was disprortionate to the violence visited upon it by Japanese forces, and, therefore, criminal in nature.

-These crimes were part of a long pattern of Western behavior, the conquest, removal and relocation of mesolithic peoples from much of North America, for instance, or the lynchings of Southern blacks in the first half of the 20th century, or the Britain's approach to India.

-All the Japanese ever wanted was to be left alone, to be free of foreign influence and domination.

But, there's an elephant in the room...

Ike either doesn't know about Japan's behavior in it's "Empire," or he doesn't care. Rhetorically, he doesn't even acknowledge it. Perhaps he believes that the Chinese and other subject-populations were unworthy of humane handling. Maybe he looks upon their treatment as a necessary evil, given the challenges confronting Japan as it pursued Tojo's policy of expansion and conquest. One thing seems certain in this regard, however, and that's Ike's apparent lack of proportion or scale in regard to all these events, and his failure to recognize that the destruction of so many of Japan's cities can be traced back to Nanking.

You see, Japan didn't fail in WW2 because it lacked all the bells and whistles that outfitted Allied ships and aircraft. It failed because it's military and political leadership lacked the requisite moral and professional fiber to succeed, as was so aptly demonstrated on the streets of Nanking. Likewise, it's doctrine and practices on the battlefield were a smorgasboard of bad ideas run-amock, everything from banzai-charges to it's use of aircraft, throughout the war, as one sort of incendiary, or another. Apart from establishing a firm willingness for self-immolation from it's troops, the military seemed to have little confidence in the abilities of those same fighting men to think on their own or to work together, effectively, beyond the smallest, most tightly-controlled of groups.

And underlying it all, was a lack of professional discipline, throughtout the ranks, a flaw which fatally weakened a great people beyond their shores, the sort which could embrace mass rape and murder as a managment technique in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese unleashed bushido on Asia and Asians, with all it's ghastly implications as a means of cementing a body of men together, not as soldiers to be honored, but as perpetrators, one and all, to the bitter-end, always outnumbered and always outgunned:




PoE (aka ivanmoe)

PoE

I agree with much of what you said, but could you please remove the extremely graphic and disgusting photo. My kids look over my shoulder sometimes when I am on the forum and I can do without them seeing that. We get your Nanjing point.

Thanks

Hartford688

ORIGINAL: Hartford688

PoE

I agree with much of what you said, but could you please remove the extremely graphic and disgusting photo. My kids look over my shoulder sometimes when I am on the forum and I can do without them seeing that. We get your Nanjing point.

Thanks

Hartford688

Yes, I will.

And I apologize.

PoE

Prince, whatever point your trying to make is all good and well but you really should edit out that picture.

Showing a dead naked woman in that pose on this forum is in pretty bad taste here don´t you think?

Thanks [:)]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Prince, whatever point your trying to make is all good and well but you really should edit out that picture.

Showing a dead naked woman in that pose on this forum is in pretty bad taste here don´t you think?

Here you go Ike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqH47MIpuoA

You can watch the movie.

Please feel welcome to share your thoughts on the events as depicted.

PoE

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Prince, whatever point your trying to make is all good and well but you really should edit out that picture.

Showing a dead naked woman in that pose on this forum is in pretty bad taste here don´t you think?

Thank heavens for that. At least you think the photo is in bad taste. If only you thought the people who actually perpetrated that act were appalling as well. Oil embargoes never justified that act....or the tens of thousands of similar acts in Nanjing.

" You see, Japan didn't fail in WW2 because it lacked all the bells and whistles that outfitted Allied ships and aircraft. It failed because it's military and political leadership lacked the requisite moral and professional fiber to succeed, as was so aptly demonstrated on the streets of Nanking. Likewise, it's doctrine and practices on the battlefield were a smorgasboard of bad ideas run-amock, everything from banzai-charges to it's use of aircraft, throughout the war, as one sort of incendiary, or another. Apart from establishing a firm willingness for self-immolation from it's troops, the military seemed to have little confidence in the abilities of those same fighting men to think on their own or to work together, effectively, beyond the smallest, most tightly-controlled of groups.

And underlying it all, was a lack of professional discipline, throughtout the ranks, a flaw which fatally weakened a great people beyond their shores, the sort which could embrace mass rape and murder as a managment technique in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese unleashed bushido on Asia and Asians, with all it's ghastly implications as a means of cementing a body of men together, not as soldiers to be honored, but as perpetrators, one and all, to the bitter-end, always outnumbered and always outgunned: "
 
Only problem with your ideas are that that except for the last statement, they could also refer to the Soviet army in WW2. While you do aknowledge this in the first part of the post, it seems lost in the second part. So with the Soviet army being able to win against long odds, these same problems do not seem to have hindered it.
 
One point that is missing from all the posts that I looked at, and has much relevance to the points you brought up is this. The Japanese not only felt put upon by the west and being treated as second class humans. They felt that they had a mandate from heaven to rule asia, because they were descendant from Gods and it was the divine plan. Whenever a group or nation considers itself superior not by technology or something else but by a divine plan and a belief in their own divinity, we've had big problems. That is why Idon't believe the west had any grasp of the japanese mind contrary to some other opinions. To understand the Japanese mind you would have to grasp that they were just like a Sumerian city state that believed it was their Gods will that they conquer their neighbors. how can you argue or have diplomacy with that kind of thinking.
 
Most of the last few pages were not arguing or even discussing Ike99 and his written in stone views. You cannot have a debate or an exchange of ideas when one side has it's mind made up and just repeats the same notions parrot like again and again. You can find horror and rays of sunshine in almost all instances of WW2 and the entire colonial era. The ideas discussed recently are much more about the morality of nations and their policies. My view being that history shows us that a nation cannot base it's existence or safety by following a strict moral code, or believing that other nations will follow suit. The other views have been to me summed up by this. St. Francis walks in to a dark alley and is surrounded by a group of men all armed and very suspicious of one another and their motives, some have money and others are broke and want some. St. francis is then able to talk the other guys into all being friends. I do not want my nation to be St. Francis unless he walksinto the alley with Teddy Roosevelts big stick on his shoulder in plain sight.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: pad152

What's boming?

The "Thread Starter" mispelled the topic.

It should have read:

BONING DEBATE

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

People shouldn't debate topics they can't spell! [:-]

One point that is missing from all the posts that I looked at, and has much relevance to the points you brought up is this. The Japanese not only felt put upon by the west and being treated as second class humans. They felt that they had a mandate from heaven to rule asia, because they were descendant from Gods and it was the divine plan. Whenever a group or nation considers itself superior not by technology or something else but by a divine plan and a belief in their own divinity, we've had big problems. That is why Idon't believe the west had any grasp of the japanese mind contrary to some other opinions.

The west had a very strong grasp of Japanese mindset and intentions. Yes they felt put-upon, or at least have made that claim as one of several claims in a multitentacled rationalization for their crimes, but they were not justified in that claim.

Very specifically, Prince Konoye in his memoirs on the prelude to Pearl Harbor was informed that Japan could produce enough oil to meet the needs of the domestic economy provided that the Army would acquiesce to the release of funds to build the needed facilies (Morrison, v1. p. 63 footnote 38).

Not only that, Japan knew that the US viewed Japanese conduct as immoral, and viewed Japanese demands to lift US economic sanctions as demands that the US become a co-conspirator (Morrison uses the word "connivance") in the rape of China.

Japan protested against it as an 'unfriendly act' on the ground that ~ she had been the principal buyer of American iron and steel scrap.' When the Japanese ambassador called ~ Mr. Hull remarked 'that it was unheard of for one country engaged in aggression and seizure of another country... to turn to a third peacfully disposed nation and seriously insist it would be guilty of an unfriendly cact if it should not cheerfully provide some of the necessary implements of war~'

(Morrison v1 p.60)

Also:

"Around 10 March 1941, a bare majority of voters ~ were willing to accept the risk fo war to prevent Japan from taking Singapore and the Netherlands East Indies." (p.61). Inasmuch as Gallup posted these polls in the newspapers, it can only be noted that Japanese conduct in China was having a strong negative impact on ordinary Americans views of Japanese conduct.

Finally, since the claim has been made that Americans should have reacted to the likely effects of an oil embargo (war with Japan), it should only be noted that Japan should have reacted to the likely effects of occupying Indochina (a US embargo on oil exports to Japan), because Japan knew that such would be a likely American reaction.

From: Tokyo
To: Washington
July 24, 1941
Purple (CA)
#406
Secret outside the Department.

Re my #397[a].

That the leaders of the United States Government will at this time display a high degree of statesmanship is what I am secretly hoping for the sake of maintaining peace in the Pacific. The Japanese Government would do likewise and would like to reciprocate. However according to information received by us lately, especially according to newspaper reports, there is the possibility of the United State freezing Japanese funds or of instituting a general embargo on petroleum, thus strongly stimulating public opinion in Japan.

See also: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410927c.html

What's interesting about the latter is the comment about "America swallowing" the Japanese "special close relationship" whose terms included:
#2. The US and Britain must freeze force levels in SE Asia even in their own possessions.
#6. Japan will "guarantee the neutrality of" the Phillippines.

If there was any misguided understanding of mindsets here, surely the Japanese mindset that characterized Japanese authority to secure Phillippine neutrality is a 'minimum demand' is a genuine whopper of a misunderstanding.

I would say that the bombing of city's had little or no effect on War production. I think the main goal was to terrorize and demoralize the public. Truly a harsh reality of war. War is the greatest inhumanity towards others.  Total war vs killed or enslaved. I think I would have to say " All's fair in Love and War "  When it comes to survival, there are no rules on the battlefield. I dont think I would call it criminal but highly immoral !!!![:-]

ORIGINAL: Ironfist738

I would say that the bombing of city's had little or no effect on War production. I think the main goal was to terrorize and demoralize the public. Truly a harsh reality of war. War is the greatest inhumanity towards others.  Total war vs killed or enslaved. I think I would have to say " All's fair in Love and War "  When it comes to survival, there are no rules on the battlefield. I dont think I would call it criminal but highly immoral !!!![:-]

Wins my vote for the "Most Triteness Per Inch of Post" award.

People, please. Let this stupid thread die once and for all, willya? Yer embarrassing me (and thst's hard to do with a guy who once dropped trou on a rooftop in Iraklion, Crete).