Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

We should remember that Voltaire advanced the Cartesian postulate "I think therefor I am" to its necessary conclusion "I eat therefor I'm fat".

Hey! I resemble that remark! [:D]

Oh, what a revoltin' development that is.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Oh, what a revoltin' development that is.

Nothing revoltin' about resembling the remark that "I think therefore I am" is there?

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Oh, what a revoltin' development that is.

Nothing revoltin' about resembling the remark that "I think therefore I am" is there?

No, simply that someone of your erudition could have stumbled into this forum. Let the bells ring on St. Crispin's day. Whenever that is.

Since you guys mentioned the no declaration of war thing a few times, in 1939 Poland was attacked without a declaration of war by both Germany on 1st September and by USSR on 17th. So no declaration of war before hostilities began is not that strange really during that time.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

warspite1

Bump. Can anybody assist please?

Many thanks in advance.

Sorry if I seem inconsistent sometimes (a few threads have been locked by people other than me, but most of the time I'm the only one scanning every thread).

One moderator seems low to me on such a active forum and must be time consuming. Fortunately this is a extremely polite and helpful forum.

Maybe someone, preferably from another time zone, should be helping you with scanning the forum.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

warspite1

Bump. Can anybody assist please?

Many thanks in advance.

Did you resort to name calling and then appeal for a sensible debate?

The discussion has included the idea of "what is the right way to end a war". So talking about the ways wars have been ended in the past is relevant for establishing context. You can disagree when Bullwinkle implies that Europeans and Americans can be divided into different groups based on their outlook. But just saying they are different carries no more weight than BW saying there are similarities.

ORIGINAL: Amoral

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

warspite1

Bump. Can anybody assist please?

Many thanks in advance.

Did you resort to name calling and then appeal for a sensible debate?

The discussion has included the idea of "what is the right way to end a war". So talking about the ways wars have been ended in the past is relevant for establishing context. You can disagree when Bullwinkle implies that Europeans and Americans can be divided into different groups based on their outlook. But just saying they are different carries no more weight than BW saying there are similarities.

warspite1

No I did not. My posts were rudely and continually ignored - THEN I resorted to name calling and continued to ask for a sensible debate - such as was being had before that person decided to ignore my posts.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Amoral

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Bump. Can anybody assist please?

Many thanks in advance.

Did you resort to name calling and then appeal for a sensible debate?

The discussion has included the idea of "what is the right way to end a war". So talking about the ways wars have been ended in the past is relevant for establishing context. You can disagree when Bullwinkle implies that Europeans and Americans can be divided into different groups based on their outlook. But just saying they are different carries no more weight than BW saying there are similarities.

warspite1

No I did not. My posts were rudely and continually ignored - THEN I resorted to name calling and continued to ask for a sensible debate - such as was being had before that person decided to ignore my posts.

warspite1

I think the issue I have in terms of understanding the relevance is this:

If the "Europeans" were stopping Truman from making whatever decision he thought best, then yes, I could see the relevance. But the Pacific War was America's war. They (largely) fought it, they (almost single-handedly) brought Japan to its knees and frankly, while other leaders could give advice and opinion, it was no one else's damn business what Truman decided to do. It was US servicemen (almost exclusively) that would be doing the fighting and dying.

This is where the relevance issue comes in - not to mention the faintly absurd notion that "Europeans" cannot understand how the US felt about being stabbed in the back on a Sunday morning not long before Christmas. Not least of course because Malaya was actually attacked before Pearl!

Finally the comment that no other nation has ever been attacked without a declaration of war is plain wrong - and in terms of being "stabbed in the back" I maintain that France's attack on Spain in 1808 ranks pretty highly in that regard.

One example of hundreds.

ORIGINAL: Endy

Since you guys mentioned the no declaration of war thing a few times, in 1939 Poland was attacked without a declaration of war by both Germany on 1st September and by USSR on 17th. So no declaration of war before hostilities began is not that strange really during that time.

No, it was very "strange." The week prior to Sept. 1 Germany went through the façade of the Polish Corridor Ultimatum which also included HM's government reviewing it and finding it "reasonable" but lacking in certain diplomatic niceties. The false-flag operation of the last day of August (the radio station incident) also shows Germany's concern with not just marching in, which they did the next day after the pretext of the radio station incident. Of course the non-aggression pact with the USSR was a secret, but nations made and still make secret agreements all the time.

And Poland had only to look across the border to see the Wehrmacht massing.

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Endy

Since you guys mentioned the no declaration of war thing a few times, in 1939 Poland was attacked without a declaration of war by both Germany on 1st September and by USSR on 17th. So no declaration of war before hostilities began is not that strange really during that time.

No, it was very "strange." The week prior to Sept. 1 Germany went through the façade of the Polish Corridor Ultimatum which also included HM's government reviewing it and finding it "reasonable" but lacking in certain diplomatic niceties. The false-flag operation of the last day of August (the radio station incident) also shows Germany's concern with not just marching in, which they did the next day after the pretext of the radio station incident. Of course the non-aggression pact with the USSR was a secret, but nations made and still make secret agreements all the time.

And Poland had only to look across the border to see the Wehrmacht massing.

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

warspite1

To read these series of posts is quite bizarre....

You make it sound like Japan and the US were bestest buddies, holding hands and skipping through life without a care in the world. Then one day - with no warning whatsoever - the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

For goodness sake. America knew an attack was coming. They did not know where and when (no conspiracy theory here) but they knew war was headed their way imminently.

"Poland had only to look across the border".....

And the US had only to read the signs!! They put Japan (quite understandably) in a position where it was war or they back down in China. Oh quelle surprise - the Japanese chose war.

But you say, that was a surprise whereas the attack on Norway (for example) wasn't?

And you are so predictable - try making a post without some veiled or not so veiled attack on Churchill, Chamberlain, the Royal Navy or the British generally. Its as boring as it is predictable.....

ORIGINAL: Orm

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.

warspite1

Indeed. Maybe his view above is because he is American and the attack is personal to him? I suspect to your average Norwegian the attack on their cities was equally ferocious. Just because they didn't have a battlefleet to lose - just a few coastal defence ships, destroyers and trawlers (but I suppose the loss of life incurred by the Norwegians isn't important to you???).

So in Weserubung there was no double dealing (Quisling)? No loss of civilian life? No ships lost? No aircraft? Good grief.... The loss of Eidsvold and Norge were unimportant yes? Only a handful of survivors from the former - but she wasn't Arizona so it's not worth talking about? You are so arrogant and dismissive of other people....

Believe me Bullwinkle - us Europeans fully understand being shat on by our neighbours thank-you very much - YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES....

Someone somewhere said the US should have demonstrated the atomic bomb's potential in the Bay of Tokyo. Just inform the Emperor that a new weapon will be dropped off Tokyo, and everyone is invited to watch.

U.S. civil and military intelligence had, amongst them, good information suggesting additional Japanese aggression throughout the summer and fall before the attack. At the time, no reports specifically indicated an attack against Pearl Harbor. Public press reports during summer and fall, including Hawaiian newspapers, contained extensive reports on the growing tension in the Pacific. Late in November, all Pacific commands, including both the Navy and Army in Hawaii, were separately and explicitly warned[47] war with Japan was expected in the very near future, and it was preferred that Japan make the first hostile act as they were apparently preparing to do.[48] It was felt that war would most probably start with attacks in the Far East: the Philippines,[49] Indochina, Thailand, or the Russian Far East. The warnings were not specific to any area, noting only that war with Japan was expected in the near future and all commands should act accordingly.

From the wikipedia page.

In terms of damage done PH was hugely significant. And the Soviet Air Force was pretty much completely destroyed in the opening hours of Barbarossa.

And I don't think anyone bemoans the anger Americans feel about PH, or their desire for revenge or their insistence on unconditional surrender. In light of what happened all these things seem reasonable.

What does seem very unreasonable is that Europeans, generally, cannot understand the impact PH had. The same Europeans who have actually had their very own cities attacked/destroyed.

EDIT: And we are seriously in lock territory now.

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

U.S. civil and military intelligence had, amongst them, good information suggesting additional Japanese aggression throughout the summer and fall before the attack. At the time, no reports specifically indicated an attack against Pearl Harbor. Public press reports during summer and fall, including Hawaiian newspapers, contained extensive reports on the growing tension in the Pacific. Late in November, all Pacific commands, including both the Navy and Army in Hawaii, were separately and explicitly warned[47] war with Japan was expected in the very near future, and it was preferred that Japan make the first hostile act as they were apparently preparing to do.[48] It was felt that war would most probably start with attacks in the Far East: the Philippines,[49] Indochina, Thailand, or the Russian Far East. The warnings were not specific to any area, noting only that war with Japan was expected in the near future and all commands should act accordingly.

From the wikipedia page.

In terms of damage done PH was hugely significant. And the Soviet Air Force was pretty much completely destroyed in the opening hours of Barbarossa.

And I don't think anyone bemoans the anger Americans feel about PH, or their desire for revenge or their insistence on unconditional surrender. In light of what happened all these things seem reasonable.

What does seem very unreasonable is that Europeans, generally, cannot understand the impact PH had. The same Europeans who have actually had their very own cities attacked/destroyed.

EDIT: And we are seriously in lock territory now.

warspite1

Who are these Europeans????? I am European and I have defended the US (Truman's decision) and always will.

Who are these Europeans?

That's actually a very good question.

ORIGINAL: Orm

There are examples in history where shots have been fired in advance of the paperwork. But nothing like Pearl Harbor in its ferocity, loss of an entire battle fleet, attacks on civilians, and double-dealing by ambassadors. Nothing even close.

This makes me wonder if the German invasion of USSR 1941 was a picnic. The largest invasion ever.

It began on June 22. The declaration of war was on June 22. There was a difference of a few hours. The USSR had 300 divisions on the border. It was hardly a surprise to them.