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.
Some people think that what the Chinese are doing to the Tibetans and Uighurs isn't all that different from what the Japanese did to the Koreans and Taiwanese. That is of course, if you believe Tibet and East Turkestan/Xinjiang are legitimate nations that are illegal occupied. I don't have any grounds to evaluate China's treatment since it is far too complex and multifaceted to offer a position on their treatment of their ethnic minorities so I won't offer any comment on Tibet or Xinjiang. I will say though that some of the minorities in China are well integrated and virtually assimilated.
China isn't the first nor is it likely to be the last nation-state to annex smaller ethnic populations and force them to stay when they wanted their own countries:
the English annexed Wales, Scotland, and Ireland
the French and Spanish divvied up the Basques homeland
the Russians annexed the Baltic states, the Ukraine, and all the small enclaves like Georgia, Armenia, Chechya, etc plus Siberia and the other Asian territories
'but they are rational (North Koreans, might not be'
Does anyone remember a few years back when NK issued a statement to the UN that any nation that signs the agreement to restrict their imports and exports was an act of war on them and they would immediately destroy that country? So then when the Security Council including China and Russia did sign it, thus representing pretty much every nation on earth, so technically NK had declared war on everyone else on the planet! Gotta love those tinpot regimes! And theyr'e always worker's paradises except the actual structure is a divine monarchy like 17th century France.
Since people are discussing the atomic bombs, I thought this question was something that should be asked since I have seen so few people outside of Pat Buchanan ask this. Pat Buchanan said no it wasn't worth it back in 2001 in this article:
The defeated and occupied Japan turned into a U.S. ally against the communists.
Neither the French nor the Americans could defeat the communists in Vietnam, and I don't believe the Japanese could have beaten them in China either.
And then there is Egypt....so....there's.....that......textbook example of individuals collectively believing in a religious ideal. When one feels close to a God, there's no stopping them. Probably stole the tag line from Air-Tran but, it's accurate.
Hard to negotiate with someone who has convictions. Son of Sam had it. Thought the dog told him to do it. And as crazy as that sounds, there are those that believe there are 21 virgins, vessel or otherwise, awaiting their demise???
You would be hard pressed to find 21 virgins anywhere me thinks. Even in the land of robes. I've seen them without them. My guess is a few young boys in the Middle East have seen them too.
Regardless, it seems that if you have people believe in their very soul that they are 100% right and you are 100% wrong, something bad is probably going to happen. The only difference between some of them and uber devout Christians is that the Christians don't feel compelled to killt the others to prove it.....yet.
Sure, they may have toyed around with the idea in the dark ages but, fortunately, they did not possess the power we have today. They certainly had the conviction but, lacked the tools to do a really good job of knocking off the masses. Diseases did a much better job with that.
So, how to tame the herds? Good question. One usually has to compromise on some points to keep at least a invisible lid on things. We just can't seem to come up with that as of late. No answers here. Wish it were different but, I just don't see it.
With the conviction I saw in the eyes of some in Egypt, one would have to be blind and ignorant to think that those folks won't end up doing something very, very bad that will ultimately affect us. As far as $7/gallon for gas? Not too worried. There is always a Democrat neighbor I can siphon some from. Kind of like getting some of my tax money back for their programs. Satisfying.
It's the gas and germ warfare that has me petrified. One minute I'm enjoying my subway sandwich with Spicolli, the next, I'm a sack of lard decomposing on a colorful chair inside the restaurant...sad. I can only hope we get a fighting chance to strike back or cheer on those that do.
Actually, when responding to Tanaka's apology for what Japan had done during the war, their communist leader chairman Mao answered that there was absolutely no need to apologize. After all, he said, without the Japanese invasion, the Communist revolution would never have succeeded.
Now, communist China demands Japanese apology again, I mean come on...
Mao was actually pretty clever during WWII.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Chaing Kai-shek, the leader of the Nationalist Chinese, had been fighting Mao when the Japanese invaded. After that, Chaing fought both Mao and the invading Japanese.
Mao, however, saw that a major public-relations victory was at hand. He slacked way off on his fighting against Chaing, and did most of his fighting against only the Japanese. Then he went around telling everyone, "Look, here I am fighting China's real enemy Japan. But what is Chaing doing? He's spending a lot of his time fighting Chinese people!"
This raised Mao's stature hugely, and he became very popular, while Chaing lost face even though he (Chaing) was doing more fighting against Japan than Mao was. Mao remains more popular today with the Chinese people than Chaing was, in part because Mao's later massacres and starvation of Chinese people was never reported and is still concealed today within China.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Chaing Kai-shek, the leader of the Nationalist Chinese, had been fighting Mao when the Japanese invaded. After that, Chaing fought both Mao and the invading Japanese.
Mao, however, saw that a major public-relations victory was at hand. He slacked way off on his fighting against Chaing, and did most of his fighting against only the Japanese. Then he went around telling everyone, "Look, here I am fighting China's real enemy Japan. But what is Chaing doing? He's spending a lot of his time fighting Chinese people!"
This raised Mao's stature hugely, and he became very popular, while Chaing lost face even though he (Chaing) was doing more fighting against Japan than Mao was. Mao remains more popular today with the Chinese people than Chaing was, in part because Mao's later massacres and starvation of Chinese people was never reported and is still concealed today within China.
Marxists and Communists in the 20th century have always resisted colonial regimes (France, Britain) or would be colonial regimes (Germany, Japan). Despite their rhetoric about workers banding together, they have always supported nationalistic movements -- except, of course, when said nationalistic movements hit too close to home as in the Baltic states and in Tibet.
Unfortunately, after WW II, the US tended to side with the colonial powers or with the brutal/reactionary thugs who took over from the colonial governments and against the nationalists and/or reformers because the US figured the nationalists and reformers were too tinged with "communism". Vietnam was a nationalist war first, with the Vietnam communists part of the nationalist movement. It then morphed into a war against the corrupt and authoritarian South Vietnamese dictators and generals.
The US's error in the Cold War was seeing everything as either black or white/Communist or "free" when too often the people we championed were at least as bad if not worse than the Communists we opposed. The list of murderers, thieves, butchers, and thugs that the US supported from the 1950s through the 1980s is really embarrassing -- and sad. Start with Chiang kai-shek and end with the Contras, and it's a very shameful history for a country that prided itself on being "the leader of the Free World".
The PRC and NK weren't unintended consequences of the American defeat of Japan in WW II. They're the earliest examples of the failure of American foreign policy in the Cold War.
Actually, while the American people would have preferred to remain neutral, the Roosevelt administration saw Hitler and the Nazis as an imminent threat to the US and did everything possible to help Britain short of actually asking Congress to declare war (which it knew it wouldn't get). There was more or less an undeclared naval war going on in the North Atlantic in 1941. The Roosevelt Administration discounted the threat of the Japanese because they weren't paying as much attention as they should, which is partly why the attack on Pearl Harbor was such a psychological shock.
As for Germany's declaration of war on the US, that has to rate as probably Hitler's stupidest move. Maybe one of the stupidest moves by a leader ever. Instead of leaving Japan to distract the US from its support for Britain and the USSR, the dumbarse declares war on the US and makes Germany as big a US enemy as the Japanese. It was a gross miscalculation that demonstrates the Nazis' hubris and their ignorance of not only the American character but also the magnitude of American resources compared to those of Europe.
The Japanese knew they were in trouble when they discovered that the US carriers weren't destroyed at Pearl Harbor and their hope for a quick victory was gone. The Germans were so clueless that they thought they'd just jump on a gravy train pulled by the Japanese.
Linda,
You are incorrect on several issues. First, regarding Roosevelt ignoring the Japanese threat, Roosevelt knew very well the Japanese threat, but there was nothing he could do because the Republicans in congress and the American public would never approve such a war. Roosevelt practically begged for war, but could not get it politically until Pearl Harbor occurred. In fact, many believe that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, but let it happen so to get American into the war. So the American public and the Congress ignored the Japanese threat, but not Roosevelt.
Regarding the German declaration of war on America, Germany was compelled to declare war on the U.S. by the Axis treaty. Any country who declares war on one Axis member is forced to go to war with all Axis members (sans the Soviet Union). This was a condition of the Axis treaty, not a calculated choice by Germany. To say that the Germans jumped on a "gravy train" is a total misconception of reality.
That aside, I fail to see why Germany declaring war on the U.S. was "Hitler's stupidest move". It was not the decisive factor in Germany losing the war. Germany would have lost the war regardless of U.S. involvement. It just would have taken longer without U.S. involvement. The decisive factor was the Eastern Front where the Soviet Union largely defeated Germany on their own by 1943 without much help from the U.S. The Germans had lost their offensive capability and were in full retreat by the time the first U.S. troop set foot on European soil. The U.S. contribution only sped up Germany's defeat, but was not the primary reason behind it.
Looking back, Hitler's stupidest move you could say was invading the Soviet Union. Germany's window for victory was very short and the Germans knew this in advance. The Germans knew their success relied in quickly defeating the Soviets by Winter 1941. When this failed to materialize, the German hopes for victory were doomed. Why? Because the Germans did not have the vast resources and population of the Soviets. They could not replace their troop and supply losses like the Soviets could over the long haul. So a quick victory was the only way to achieve victory.
You are incorrect on several issues. First, regarding Roosevelt ignoring the Japanese threat, Roosevelt knew very well the Japanese threat, but there was nothing he could do because the Republicans in congress and the American public would never approve such a war. Roosevelt practically begged for war, but could not get it politically until Pearl Harbor occurred. In fact, many believe that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, but let it happen so to get American into the war. So the American public and the Congress ignored the Japanese threat, but not Roosevelt.
Regarding the German declaration of war on America, Germany was compelled to declare war on the U.S. by the Axis treaty. Any country who declares war on one Axis member is forced to go to war with all Axis members (sans the Soviet Union). This was a condition of the Axis treaty, not a calculated choice by Germany. To say that the Germans jumped on a "gravy train" is a total misconception of reality.
That aside, I fail to see why Germany declaring war on the U.S. was "Hitler's stupidest move". It was not the decisive factor in Germany losing the war. Germany would have lost the war regardless of U.S. involvement. It just would have taken longer without U.S. involvement. The decisive factor was the Eastern Front where the Soviet Union largely defeated Germany on their own by 1943 without much help from the U.S. The Germans had lost their offensive capability and were in full retreat by the time the first U.S. troop set foot on European soil. The U.S. contribution only sped up Germany's defeat, but was not the primary reason behind it.
Looking back, Hitler's stupidest move you could say was invading the Soviet Union. Germany's window for victory was very short and the Germans knew this in advance. The Germans knew their success relied in quickly defeating the Soviets by Winter 1941. When this failed to materialize, the German hopes for victory were doomed. Why? Because the Germans did not have the vast resources and population of the Soviets. They could not replace their troop and supply losses like the Soviets could over the long haul. So a quick victory was the only way to achieve victory.
That may be the "standard" version of WW II from years ago, but more recent scholarship shows that the US was already involved in an undeclared naval war in the North Atlantic in 1941. The Roosevelt administration saw war in Europe as inevitable, and they wanted to get into it before Britain was defeated. You are correct that they could not get a declaration of war because of the isolationist sentiment in the US Congress, but they were primarily focused on the Atlantic.
That doesn't mean that they were unaware of the Japanese threat. They just didn't think it was as serious nor as imminent as the Nazi threat. Until the 1930s, the US and Japan had had good relations. There was a Japanese diplomatic mission in Washington, DC apparently attempting to deal with issues between the two countries in early December, 1941. That's what made the Pearl Harbor attack such a surprise.
As for why Hitler's declaration of war on the US was his stupidest move, it's simple: it brought the US into the European war. The US declaration of war on December 8, 1941 was only on Japan. I cannot see anyway that Roosevelt could have persuaded Congress to vote to go to war with Germany as well as Japan, at least not soon enough to save Britain, and Britain was key to going after Hitler because it provided the necessary land base for actions against all Europe. You have to remember that 70 years ago, the Atlantic Ocean was still a formidable barrier to invasion from either side.
The idea that Hitler was "forced" to declare war on the US because of his treaty with the Japanese is nonsense. He signed a treaty with Stalin promising not to attack the USSR, but he attacked anyways. He did what he did because he wanted to, not because he was bound by any rules, and it was stupid because Roosevelt didn't have to beg Congress to go to war with Germany. In fact, the US never did declare war on Germany.
Furthermore, you discount the role that American supplies played in aiding the Soviets against the Nazis beginning in 1942. Not only did the US supply Britain, it also supplied the Soviets through the port of Murmansk. The German declaration of war on the US also enabled the US Navy to hunt down and destroy the German U-boats which terrorized the Atlantic shipping lanes until they were put out of business.
Hitler would have eventually defeated England, if that was the only war that he had been fighting.
Highly doubtful.
Hitler's army was very successful at knocking over small countries with tiny militaries in 1939/40. France being the exception. But then, the French high command was guilty of preparing for WWI all over again. We all know how well that played out for them.
After Dunkirk, the Brits ended up controlling the Mediterranean, the Suez canal, and had Rommel's Afrika Corps on the run, all with very minimal US involvement. The RAF defeated the Luftwaffe's attempt at air superiority. The Royal Navy was immensely more powerful and effective than Germany's puny surface fleet. And the vaunted German u-boat campaign fizzled badly after about 18 months of success.
No, the resources of the British Empire would have worn down Germany eventually with the war ending in a negotiated settlement of some kind, with neither side being truly defeated.
Hitler's army was very successful at knocking over small countries with tiny militaries in 1939/40. France being the exception. But then, the French high command was guilty of preparing for WWI all over again. We all know how well that played out for them.
After Dunkirk, the Brits ended up controlling the Mediterranean, the Suez canal, and had Rommel's Afrika Corps on the run, all with very minimal US involvement. The RAF defeated the Luftwaffe's attempt at air superiority. The Royal Navy was immensely more powerful and effective than Germany's puny surface fleet. And the vaunted German u-boat campaign fizzled badly after about 18 months of success.
No, the resources of the British Empire would have worn down Germany eventually with the war ending in a negotiated settlement of some kind, with neither side being truly defeated.
This is exactly the point that Linda D is making about Hitler being foolish about declaring war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If Germany could not defeat a naval power like Britain that is just off shore the European continent, how could she possibly defeat a even larger version of Britain that is across an ocean?
Basically the British and the Americans could have kept control of the seas and blockaded Germany until she became so exhausted and collapsed (ex. World War 1) or a huge coalition combined to defeat her (WW2).
The same strategy was used by the British to defeat Napoleon & Revolutionary France. The British were able to sustain a war with France for roughly twenty five years. The British would never surrender and would fight on until the job was done. This alone should have given notice to the Germans not to take the British so lightly or certainly not to add more fuel to the fire by attacking the United States!
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.
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.
It was a gross miscalculation that demonstrates the Nazis' hubris and their ignorance of not only the American character but also the magnitude of American resources compared to those of Europe. 
