ORIGINAL: Leandros
Funny how a (small) Japanese helicopter carrier has aroused (also negatively) attention of the crowd here...[&:]....As with the Germans, the US should be happy to have such a proficient partner as Japan when they're increasingly picking on both China and Russia. The former WW2 enemies were quickly taken into the warmth when the new post-war enemy, the Soviet Union, was created.
Interesting item in that respect: As NATO was established and Scandinavia became an important part of the NATO northern flank, German commanders of the former German occupying forces in Norway, in 1948 were called in for consultations on how to defend Northern Norway against the Soviets. Participating in these consultations were also Swedish and Finnish officers and politicians - all very hush-hush. Conclusion: If there was a Soviet invasion - Finnmark would have to be "burnt down" - as was done by the Germans during their withdrawal in 1944/45. Norwegian Labour Party politicians accepted that conclusion.
The present world situation is not unlike that of 1939/41 except in Asia China and Japan have switched places. Now it is China that threatens US hegemony in the East.
In Europe the situation is rather similar, but worse (for Russia). Like Hitler, NATO has seen to edge up to Russia's border, using Hitler's old partners Hungary, Romania, Finland and Bulgaria. In addition to that the "old" NATO partners Norway, Denmark and Turkey - and some new ones - Poland and the Baltic states. And a Sweden thinly disguised as "neutral".
What is all this for? Did not US/NATO promise not to expand eastwards after the end of the Cold War? How can Putin not react the way he does (if he has...?..).
What would have happened if Stalin had not taken Ribbentrop's bait after he was rejected on his (several) proposals to Britain and France for a coalition to stop Hitler's expansion plans, which gave Stalin an increased buffer zone in Poland? What would have happened if Stalin had not occupied the Baltics before the German attack? What would have happened if the Soviets had not seen to increase the Leningrad buffer zone towards the Finnish border? As a compensation the Finns were offered twice the area along other parts of the common border line. The Finns refused to see the implications of Hitler's aggressive stand (which was open to see for anybody in his testament - the book Mein Kampf). The Finns are on the same route now, howling along with the West's propaganda choir against Russia. They, of all (and Poland), should have learnt - that there is no help to get from the West when the shit hits the fan. And now - Ukraina!
Has this anything to do with "Kaga"..? Of course, it's all part of the same game.
I had hopes for Donald Trump as he was the only (as far as I know) US leader that openly declared that he would normalize relations with Russia. Everything else are minor details compared with this - nuclear war is on the horizon. Unfortunately, President Trump does not seem to be able to stand up against the solid front of US politicians that want the opposite - an open conflict with Russia. Europe is the one that shall suffer.
Fred
See, you don't name big capitol warships with those names, just so, because, accidentally.
Of course the fact brings in itself a very deep meaning.
Think if you want, as a comparison, what would be the reaction if Germany launched a Bismarck big warship, or named Grossdetschland or Lehr a panzergrenadier regiment. (Odin and Grafin, please, keep the calm!)
Stupor, at its least (Putin would have jumped 2 feet on his seat).
If you asked in the street "what do you think about the names of the new Japanes warships, Kaga, Kongo, etc" that probaly would nor arise much of an interest,
but if you asked it in the US Department of the Navy, or in its Chinese counterpart, the question may have had more than a pair of eyebrushues rised.
Self difense can be implemented also by smaller means.
First of all, the issue started not in the straightest of the way, if would concede me, by "bypassing" the peace-surrender terms naming them "helicopter carriers";
more cold be said and written, also regarding China, the Communist Party and their role (positive only, for China and the world; think, history's perspective, what was China before, what it achieved for herself and its people, the stabilty and unity in last 70 years, facts relevant only without ideology bias,
but could it be re stated that "those who don't learn history are condemened to relive it"?
