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.
China:
The bulk of China's materiel and organized uniformed soldiery was in the KMT. Chiang Kai-shek was forced to divert forces away from the fight with the communists in order to fight the invading Japanese. The Sino-Japanese conflict assisted Mao and ultimately helped him gain control of the mainland in 1949.
Vietnam:
At the time U.S. (and British abd Duthc) sanctions were applied to Japan, Ho Chi Minh was being held in custody by none other than Chiang Kai-shek, whose forces were being attacked by the Japanese.
Soviet Union:
The USSR badly mauled Japanese forces at Khalkhin Gol in 1939.
Aside from just making it up, I have no idea where you're getting the ludicrous idea that Japan was 'wiping the floor' with the communists.
Yes, along with the pinko Churchill, who was just as complicit in 'giving half of Europe' to Stalin. Except that isn't what happened. Eastern Europe wasn't given to Stalin - he took it. He was obviously going to take it. And he wasn't going to give it up unless the tired American (and far more tired British) forces decided to continue on after Germany was defeated. And neither the American nor British publics would have stood for turning on our four-year ally, the Soviets.
The mission in Europe was to defeat Hitler. As Churchill himself said: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
Stalin was the devil, and much preferable to Hitler (the point Churchill was making).
The defeat of Hitler was done in large part by letting the Soviets do much of the work. Barbarossa made this rather easy for the U.S. and the UK, when Hitler flung the bulk of his men and materiel into the Russian maw.
The idea that the U.S. and the UK could dissuade Stalin from taking Eastern Europe is laughable. The idea that either nation had the will to launch a new war against the USSR is beyond inane; even the British (who looked into it, as no doubt did the U.S.) considered the notion 'fanciful'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
It is amusing that you berate FDR for not 'letting the Japanese fight the comunists so our boys wouldn't have to do so' (again, conveniently ignoring that the Japanese weren't hindering the communists, but unintentionally helping them by distracting their opponents), while simultaneously taking him to task for 'letting Stalin take half of Europe', which could only have been prevented by the opening of what would have been a very bloody front against the Red Army.
Thanks for your opinion and copy and pasting WIKIPEDIA? yeah real deep research there.
How dare I "berate" FDR and question his policies, FDR could do no wrong.
Now lets read from a real historian.
Why Did Japan Attack Us?
By Patrick J. Buchanan – December 11, 2001
Of all the days that will “live in infamy” in American history, two stand out: Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 7, 1941.
But why did Japan, with a 10th of our industrial power, launch a sneak attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, an act of state terror that must ignite a war to the death it could not win? Were they insane? No, the Japanese were desperate.
To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson rejected Japan’s claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. “They are not bluffing,” warned Wilson, as he capitulated. “We gave them what they should not have.”
In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.
Japan was now isolated, with Stalin’s brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.
When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was “shocked, shocked” that Japan would embark upon a course of “aggression.” Said one Japanese diplomat, “Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge.”
Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior.
When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen.
But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.
Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan’s retreat.
Fearful of a “second Munich,” America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a “modus vivendi.” If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became “hysterical,” and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.
Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.
And so Japan attacked. And so she was crushed and forced out of Vietnam, out of China, out of Manchuria. And so they fell to Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. And so it was that American boys, not Japanese boys, would die fighting Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese to try to block the aggressions of a barbaric Asian communism.
Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?
“For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: ‘It might have been.’” A few thoughts as the War Party pounds the drum for an all-out American war on Iraq and radical Islam.
Thanks for your opinion and copy and pasting WIKIPEDIA? yeah real deep research there.
I referenced what was code-named Operation Unthinkable and linked to it. I cut-and-pasted absolutely nothing (except the link itself, so readers could further read into the British assessment of turning on the USSR).
Quote:
How dare I "berate" FDR and question his policies, FDR could do no wrong.
Strawman. I never suggested that FDR could do no wrong. Indeed, I am very aware that he was disturbingly naive regarding Stalin. Churchill, by contrast, wasn't. But that was irrelevant concerning Eastern Europe. Unless the western Allies wanted to shoulder the disproportionate burden of removing Germany from all the territory it occupied (and, indeed, assuming the Allies could beat the USSR to the punch - and since they couldn't, that would be a nonsensical assumption). Which is why Stalin and Churchill both conceded Eastern Europe to Stalin. For Churchill doing so quite explicitly, see: Percentages agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[See? Another opportunity for you to whine about a cut-and-paste - which isn't what you think it is, but I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself]
Is there any reason, other than fundamental dishonesty, that you choose to counter a claim "that FDR could do no wrong" that no one here has made?
Quote:
Now lets read from a real historian.
[snip the cut-and-pasted paleoconservative nonsense from non-historian Pat Buchanan]
1) Buchanan is not a 'real historian'. He is a journalist/talking head/politician.
2) You complain that I cut-and-paste a link, then you cut-and-paste an entire article. That explains quite a lot about you.
You know, between this thread and the thread regarding when slavery might have ended absent the Civil War, where you (and a few other posters - but mostly you) repeatedly hijack the thread in order to excuse slavery in the U.S., to minimize its horrors, to complain about blacks, etc., it is clear that you aren't remotely interested in history. You have used this thread to complain about FDR and anything else you perceive as vaguely 'left'. You have used the slavery/Civil War thread to complain (ad nauseum, I might ad) about blacks, Hollywood, political correctness, the North while constantly minimizing Slavery in the South and justifying it.
You're an amalgamation of a paleoconservative and a neoconfederate.
And I will no longer waste any time responding to someone who posts such ignorant nonsense.
That's - funny. Buchanan also insisted that Hitler "never wanted war with Poland" and accused Treblinka survivors of lying about killings they've witnessed, because "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
You might as well cite King Herod on how to look after toddlers.
I referenced what was code-named Operation Unthinkable and linked to it. I cut-and-pasted absolutely nothing (except the link itself, so readers could further read into the British assessment of turning on the USSR).
Strawman. I never suggested that FDR could do no wrong. Indeed, I am very aware that he was disturbingly naive regarding Stalin. Churchill, by contrast, wasn't. But that was irrelevant concerning Eastern Europe. Unless the western Allies wanted to shoulder the disproportionate burden of removing Germany from all the territory it occupied (and, indeed, assuming the Allies could beat the USSR to the punch - and since they couldn't, that would be a nonsensical assumption). Which is why Stalin and Churchill both conceded Eastern Europe to Stalin. For Churchill doing so quite explicitly, see: Percentages agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[See? Another opportunity for you to whine about a cut-and-paste - which isn't what you think it is, but I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself]
Is there any reason, other than fundamental dishonesty, that you choose to counter a claim "that FDR could do no wrong" that no one here has made?
[snip the cut-and-pasted paleoconservative nonsense from non-historian Pat Buchanan]
1) Buchanan is not a 'real historian'. He is a journalist/talking head/politician.
2) You complain that I cut-and-paste a link, then you cut-and-paste an entire article. That explains quite a lot about you.
You know, between this thread and the thread regarding when slavery might have ended absent the Civil War, where you (and a few other posters - but mostly you) repeatedly hijack the thread in order to excuse slavery in the U.S., to minimize its horrors, to complain about blacks, etc., it is clear that you aren't remotely interested in history. You have used this thread to complain about FDR and anything else you perceive as vaguely 'left'. You have used the slavery/Civil War thread to complain (ad nauseum, I might ad) about blacks, Hollywood, political correctness, the North while constantly minimizing Slavery in the South and justifying it.
You're an amalgamation of a paleoconservative and a neoconfederate.
And I will no longer waste any time responding to someone who posts such ignorant nonsense.
1) I am an amalgamation of a paleoconservative and a neoconfederate? LMAO!! How do I excuse slavery?....how did I "hijacked" the thread?. STOP SMOKING CRACK!......LMAO! Did I blocked or censored anyone with an opposing point of view or you are like those people that get upset with anyone with an opposing point of view?.....let me know so we can all leave the forum and give you all the space.
2) I haven't attacked you or call you ignorant like you have towards me because of a point of view about history that there are many points of views.....if you don't want to waste your time, then leave. Why come here to complain and biatch about different points of view. Since when you are the authority about the truth about history?
3) It is my opinion and that of some that FDR made a mistake of imposing an embargo that pushed Japan into a war with us. If you think that is ignorant then welcome to a FREE SPEECH FORUM. I don't understand your hostility towards me, sounds like a personal problem.
4) by the way, I never "COMPLAIN" about your copy and pasting from WIKIPEDIA, just making an observation.....why would I complain or get personal for your opinions and views?....that's your perspective.
if you don't want to debate different points of views about history, no need to get personal or hostile....just leave the forum.
That's - funny. Buchanan also insisted that Hitler "never wanted war with Poland" and accused Treblinka survivors of lying about killings they've witnessed, because "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
You might as well cite King Herod on how to look after toddlers.
LMAO!..why don't you give me a list of historians, authors and researchers that YOU approve OF so we can have a debate about anything about history since neither of us where there.
That's - funny. Buchanan also insisted that Hitler "never wanted war with Poland" and accused Treblinka survivors of lying about killings they've witnessed, because "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
You might as well cite King Herod on how to look after toddlers.
Anyone who calls Pat Buchanan a "real historian" should immediately be disregarded as having any type of objective opinion.
Anyone who calls Pat Buchanan a "real historian" should immediately be disregarded as having any type of objective opinion.
or a clue
again, why don't you put the "historians" and researchers that you approve of and make your own rule what is legit or not.......instead of debating the actual substance of Buchanan's view on the topic based on his research, you disregard it because of his politics.
It is my opinion and that of some that FDR made a mistake of imposing an embargo that pushed Japan into a war with us. If you think that is ignorant then welcome to a FREE SPEECH FORUM.
That is a debatable point of view, although mostly irrelevant in a thread supposedly about Axis attacks on the Soviet. But citing Buchanan as your authority -and tooting his credentials as those of a "real historian" - is going to be countered with criticism of Buchanan. Particularly as he seems to have a differing point of view on - well, just about everything having to do with WWII strategy. He's not offering research to a university anywhere, he's writing articles.
In this case, he's assuming that Konoye was negotiating in good faith (he might have been) and that the Japanese Army would let their government negotiate their conquests away (not a chance in Hell). Without backing those points up with some sort of research, he's just playing what-if.
And for the US to blunt the Imperial Japanese military excesses was a highly fortunate outcome for the people in South East Asia.
That is a debatable point of view, although mostly irrelevant in a thread supposedly about Axis attacks on the Soviet. But citing Buchanan as your authority -and tooting his credentials as those of a "real historian" - is going to be countered with criticism of Buchanan. Particularly as he seems to have a differing point of view on - well, just about everything having to do with WWII strategy. He's not offering research to a university anywhere, he's writing articles.
In this case, he's assuming that Konoye was negotiating in good faith (he might have been) and that the Japanese Army would let their government negotiate their conquests away (not a chance in Hell). Without backing those points up with some sort of research, he's just playing what-if.
And for the US to blunt the Imperial Japanese military excesses was a highly fortunate outcome for the people in South East Asia.
History especially wars are debatable points of views, it all depends from which side or angle you are viewing it from.
the title of this thread is: Was it a bad idea for the Axis to attack the USSR and US in WII?............last time I check Japan was part of the Axis and the reasons for Japan to attack the U.S. are very relevant to the topic.
Every historic researcher that is political from the right or left that is not in line with the status quo and is not a parrot of what the government puts out as historic fact will be controversial and counter with criticism but that doesn't mean their perspective is way off or false. Anybody that is not in line in what the government puts out is outcast is labeled as extreme or crazy.
From Noam Chomsky to Howard Zinn to name a few examples especially if they are social activist or a political activist.
The rest of what you wrote is your intelligent opinion that I won't criticize or put down like some have done here because they don't like Pat Buchanan politics who in my opinion is a very intelligent analyst and researcher even though I don't agree with him political on everything.
Isn't that what we are here in this forum, to be analysts of history and give our opinions and angles?
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.
