Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2011, 08:42 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,702,790 times
Reputation: 7630

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrummerBoy View Post
I do!

The Japs started it.
We finished it.
Simple and to the point. Why anyone fails to grasp that is beyond me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:09 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,699,678 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
Which treaty required us to defend our so-called allies, Australia and New Zealand?
no treaty that i know of, but understand that in EVERY war that both the US and australia particiapted in, we were on the SAME side every time. i believe that france is the only other country that can make the same claim. but since japan was going to go after the phillipines first, they would have had to go up against US forces there, and that would have drawn us into the war EVEN IF japan had not bombed pearl harbor. in the end you need to get a real history book, and get a clue about world war two. we did not start it, and while we instituted a material embargo on japan for their actions in china, and that we supported britain, an ally, against germany, had japan not bombed pearl harbor, or invaded the phllipines, chances are good that we would have stayed out of world war two at least long enough that germany would have controlled the entire european continent as well as most of africa, and japan would have controlled most of southeast asia, and threatened india.

we didnt start the war, and we were drawn violently into the war, and we ENDED the war. as i said before you cant look into the past with the eyes of today. we live in a different time, and since you were not alive then, you have NO idea what the country went through, and what they country wanted. you are only looking at history from the aspect of the author of what ever history book/article/blog/whatever wrote.

i wasnt alive in that time either, BUT my grand parents were, and they were my source for what was going on in the country in that time. and i trust them far more than any antiwar liberal/progressive in that regard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:11 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,699,678 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Simple and to the point. Why anyone fails to grasp that is beyond me.
because the people that fail to grasp the times, are antiwar, and think that everyone should have just left japan and germany alone to their own devices regardless of what the outcome would have been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,795,097 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrummerBoy View Post
I do!

The Japs started it.
We finished it.
Wow, this explains everything and nothing at the same time!

The JAPANESE ("Japs" is a derogatory term and is rather antiquated) started it how? Assuming the "we" is yours (and my grandfather's) generation finished it how?

Why did the JAPANESE start the war? What was their big beef with the U.S. anyway?

Why did the U.S. use not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan? Why was it necessary for the U.S. to use two of the most destructive weapons at that time to end the war? Was it a given that using atomic weapons on Japan--was it a given that the Japanese would then surrender?

These are the questions that your simplistic and jingoistic statements ignore--and the above questions are the type of questions that historians and political scientists try to answer in their books.

Maybe you should try reading a book about the bomb. You could start with Hersey's Hiroshima. Then, assuming you can read, rejoin the discussion. Maybe then you can add something substantive, but I won't hold my breath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,445,247 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
no treaty that i know of, but understand that in EVERY war that both the US and australia particiapted in, we were on the SAME side every time.
So what? We were not bound by any treaty obligation. AU and NZ were part of the Commonwealth. In 1927 Winston Churchill stated that war between the U.S. and Britain was "not unthinkable."

Quote:
but since japan was going to go after the phillipines first, they would have had to go up against US forces there, and that would have drawn us into the war EVEN IF japan had not bombed pearl harbor.
We should never have taken the Phillipines, and well before 1941 we were in a process of withdrawal from there, although even if independence was completely established before 1941, Roosevelt probably would've kept our troops there as a tripwire for the war he wanted.

Quote:
and while we instituted a material embargo on japan for their actions in china, and that we supported britain, an ally, against germany,
Britain was not an ally either. FDR privately remarked that if Congress knew all he'd been doing to let the British use America for their own interests, he'd be impeached.

Quote:
had japan not bombed pearl harbor, or invaded the phllipines, chances are good that we would have stayed out of world war two at least long enough that germany would have controlled the entire european continent as well as most of africa, and japan would have controlled most of southeast asia, and threatened india.
Threaten India? Oh, you mean the Raj. I thought you were talking about India. India wanted to be neutral.

Quote:
i wasnt alive in that time either, BUT my grand parents were, and they were my source for what was going on in the country in that time. and i trust them far more than any antiwar liberal/progressive in that regard.
Anti-war conservatives make the same arguments, and they, not liberals or progressives, have been the main influence on my thought. Not that it matters much: the truth is where you find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:49 AM
 
13,675 posts, read 8,962,677 times
Reputation: 10385
Lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on. It was a simple world war to fight: now.

Strangly enough, back when I was studying WWII, one reason cited by several people for the dropping of the second atomic bomb was to convince the Japanese military that we had more than one.

In short, after the first bomb was dropped, we apparently got some information (due, I believe, to having broken their code) that the Japanese military was convinced that we only had the one bomb. Thus, the second one was dropped, which convinced the Japanese military that we had more than the one (indeed, I believe we had one more).

My father had been a private in Europe (Patton's Third Army) and after getting back to the east coast on August 1st or 2nd was quickly placed on a train for the trip to the west coast, where he was going to be part of the invasion force for mainland Japan. He was, if I recall right, in Kansas City when Japan surrendered. My father was always grateful to Truman for his actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:50 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,699,678 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson View Post
Why did the JAPANESE start the war? What was their big beef with the U.S. anyway?
japan started by invading china to expand their empire. as japan expanded they needed more resources, and thus they needed to expand further. in order to try and force the japanese to end their expansion, FDR imposed a material embargo on japan, which meant no oil or steel or other materials that japan desperately needed to expand their empire, since japan has few resources of its own. when the japanese eyes the phillipines, they knew that attacking the phillipines would bring the US into the war against them because the phllipines were under US protection since we had taken them away from spain in the spanish/american war. what the japanese intended was to destroy the US navy at pearl harbor to prevent us from defending the phillipines, and to force us to sue for peace in the pacific so that japan could continue their expansion at will without US interference.

Quote:
Why did the U.S. use not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan? Why was it necessary for the U.S. to use two of the most destructive weapons at that time to end the war? Was it a given that using atomic weapons on Japan--was it a given that the Japanese would then surrender?
first the bombs were less destructive than the firebombing that went on across the country. second after the first bomb was dropped, nothing was heard from japan about surrendering. it was only after the second bomb was dropped that the emperor decided to surrender.

Quote:
These are the questions that your simplistic and jingoistic statements ignore--and the above questions are the type of questions that historians and political scientists try to answer in their books.
the problem is that historians and political scientists tend to look at history through the eyes of today, rather than try to understand the times they are reporting on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,795,097 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
no treaty that i know of, but understand that in EVERY war that both the US and australia particiapted in, we were on the SAME side every time. i believe that france is the only other country that can make the same claim. but since japan was going to go after the phillipines first, they would have had to go up against US forces there, and that would have drawn us into the war EVEN IF japan had not bombed pearl harbor. in the end you need to get a real history book, and get a clue about world war two. we did not start it, and while we instituted a material embargo on japan for their actions in china, and that we supported britain, an ally, against germany, had japan not bombed pearl harbor, or invaded the phllipines, chances are good that we would have stayed out of world war two at least long enough that germany would have controlled the entire european continent as well as most of africa, and japan would have controlled most of southeast asia, and threatened india.

we didnt start the war, and we were drawn violently into the war, and we ENDED the war. as i said before you cant look into the past with the eyes of today. we live in a different time, and since you were not alive then, you have NO idea what the country went through, and what they country wanted. you are only looking at history from the aspect of the author of what ever history book/article/blog/whatever wrote.

i wasnt alive in that time either, BUT my grand parents were, and they were my source for what was going on in the country in that time. and i trust them far more than any antiwar liberal/progressive in that regard.
What if your grandparents get something wrong? What if they don't remember things correctly? What if they assume things about the country as it waged WWII that were not true at the time (aka: anachronistic memories)? Why do you assume that liberals/progressives are anti-war? Wasn't FDR, who asked for the declaration of war against Japan, a liberal/progressive?

You chastise others for considering only the aspects of historians as contained in their books. Well isn't relying on first-hand accounts from one's grandparents an equally poor method of doing history?

My grandfather served in WWII. I ask him all kinds of questions about his experience in the Navy and his time overseas as well as when he returned home in 1944. More often than not he answers my questions with the same remarks "I don't remember..." and "you have to understand, they didn't tell us everything and so I have no way of knowing." So if this is the case for many veterans who survived WWII or, in the case of my grandmother, survived the WWII homefront, then how can we construct accurate histories of the era based solely on those who were alive and well during that time?

I grew up in the 1980s and early 1990s. I don't remember everything about the Cold War. Thus, I'd make a poor first-hand account of the Cold War and for one to base their understanding of the Cold War on my experiences would have very limited knowledge of that time period.

Sounds to me, based on your post quoted above, that your methods for "doing" history are much poorer than the methods relied upon by historians and other scholars who use a mixture of first-hand accounts and primary source documents. You, on the other hand, favor an extremely narrow methodology that it cancels out other sources. In other words, your post says you know it all and only a few others share your historical knowledge of WWII. That is a stupefyingly arrogant viewpoint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,795,097 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post



the problem is that historians and political scientists tend to look at history through the eyes of today, rather than try to understand the times they are reporting on.
So then, based simply on the lasat statement you made on your recent post, how then is your interpretation of the time period any different from those done by historians and political scientists?

Your interpretation is most definitely a reflection of current times and the time period in which you came to age. How are you able to understand a past time period any better than an academician who has trained in their field for years?

Sounds like you're just repackaging your arrogance and not doing it very well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 10:05 AM
 
15,442 posts, read 21,270,642 times
Reputation: 28680
I didn't bother to read all the replies so if this has already been said, please disregard.

Truman knew that one does not take a knife to a gun fight. And too, until everyone loses in a war, it will continue to be supported and fought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:14 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top