# American Empire/Colonialism/Imperialism



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

The Repp tie thread in the Trad forum has meandered off into a discussion of the American Empire, American Colonialism, and American Imperialism. Let's use this thread to discuss these issues, hopefully in a fairly rational manner.


Just as a beginning, I'll start with the contention that the so-called "Indian Wars" of the late 18th-early 20th century were "colonial" wars that helped built a continguous "American" (U.S.) land empire that was rationalized under rubrics like "Manifest Destiny," etc. that gave those early American colonizers a religious motivation for conquest. Rather than try to govern the conquered peoples we simply eliminated them through war, disease, etc., or isolated them on miniscule reservations.

It's one of the great public relations/educational coups of the twentieth century that most citizens of the U.S. have "forgotten" that we built our country by invading the territory of others (whether first-nations, Mexican, etc.).


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Card, in my retirement I've been trying to learn some _real _history, and one thread that runs through it is that _everybody _who is in some place now, came from elsewhere and subdued the weaker natives. The basic reason for doing so was that where they ended up was, they thought, better than where they were. I suppose some form of conscience caused the later conquerors to put a gloss on it (civilizing the savages and so forth); the earlier ones just took and said "lump it" to the losers.

In the period you cite, the idea of the superior "race" played a large part, and not just black/white/brown. The "Anglo-Saxon" , "Germanic", "Pan-Slavic" all felt themselves worthiest in the West, and the Chinese with the "Mandate of Heaven" and the Japanese with their divine Emperor jumped right in like champs.

You're right in your take on US expansion, but really no one has the moral high ground. I believe that much of the anti-US feeling abroad today is due to the fact that few other countries can project power, and they're basically jealous. I'll be called simplistic, but then so is human nature. We're none of us as noble as we try to seem.


----------



## Ed Reynolds (Apr 13, 2010)

I think you could argue that the westward expansion and the later quest for imperialism in the Spanish-American War was driven as much by economics than racism. That was surely at play, but the incoming hordes of immigrants (first the Germans and the Irish, later the Chinese, Poles and Italians) in the North, the economic realities of the South after the War and the prospects of Gold and land forced people to move out west. 

Don't forget many of these European immigrats were dumped on by the older-monied-WASPs who were here before them so (I would argue) they dumped on the Natives and Chinese out west.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cardinals5 said:


> The Repp tie thread in the Trad forum has meandered off into a discussion of the American Empire, American Colonialism, and American Imperialism. Let's use this thread to discuss these issues, hopefully in a fairly rational manner.
> 
> Just as a beginning, I'll start with the contention that the so-called "Indian Wars" of the late 18th-early 20th century were "colonial" wars that helped built a continguous "American" (U.S.) land empire that was rationalized under rubrics like "Manifest Destiny," etc. that gave those early American colonizers a religious motivation for conquest. Rather than try to govern the conquered peoples we simply eliminated them through war, disease, etc., or isolated them on miniscule reservations.
> 
> It's one of the great public relations/educational coups of the twentieth century that most citizens of the U.S. have "forgotten" that we built our country by invading the territory of others (whether first-nations, Mexican, etc.).


OK...?

Everything you said is, to the best of my knowledge, a true fact. You said you wanted to discuss something, but I see no questions, opinions, or theories to discuss. Imagine someone comes up to you and says, "Bananas are yellow. Discuss." There's no angle and doesn't really lead to much.

So I'm at a loss on how to proceed, where to go from here...


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> OK...?
> 
> Everything you said is, to the best of my knowledge, a true fact. You said you wanted to discuss something, but I see no questions, opinions, or theories to discuss. Imagine someone comes up to you and says, "Bananas are yellow. Discuss." There's no angle and doesn't really lead to much.
> 
> So I'm at a loss on how to proceed, where to go from here...


I would have no problem discussing whether "bananas" are "yellow", but that's neither here nor there. My first post will either be something you (i.e. all readers of the forum) will accept as a more or less accurate depiction of the U.S. position vis-a-vis first-nations peoples or, as was beginning in the Repp tie thread, reject either as a less significant example in the history of imperialism or will outright reject the interpretation that the U.S. colonized the land mass known today as the U.S.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

phyrpowr said:


> Card, in my retirement I've been trying to learn some "real" history...


Try reading "A Patriot's History of the United States". It's not all about the evil white man raping and pilaging the noble savage, or stealing land from the peaceful and quaint Mexican. It's American History put in perspective of the times they lived in, not OUR times.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> So I'm at a loss on how to proceed, where to go from here...


Well then maybe get ass in hand and slide over to a community college and join the debating team for all formal debates begin with a statement of supposed fact and with the word _resolved_, i.e., resolved: that Cardinal5 is stuck in the 50s. In that hypo Cards would argue the negative; me the positive. What you, Justin, propose is much too wishy-washy for the more organized among us. But you're still a Top 5 poster. Keep it up


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

What's the current parliamentary model in Puerto Rico in relation to the US? Last time I looked I think it was an affiliated state or something like that.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

As a younger man I ranted a lot about genocide of indigenous peoples, including America's, and then I started learning about the histories of other countries. The fact is, every one of them has at least one civil war, genocide etc in their history, usually several and sometimes more. The only difference is, we feel guilty about ours and continue to make accomodations for the losers, centuries after the fact. At least we have some cool casinos as a result.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gosh, some rational comments and posts. Nobody was condemning the US, or taking the moral high ground. It's just that when some Americans start pontificating about their defeat of the evil empire in 1782, whilst ignoring the role of France & Spain, then make assertions about the US war of aggression against the evil empire's possessions in Canada, and then insist that the US saved Europe in WW1 and WW2, they seem to take umbrage when anybody points out the errors in their assertions, or challenges them. The US has an Empire, both contiguous and overseas. The irony is that the US has always denied the existence of an empire and has condemned imperialism, whilst other countries have acknowledged their imperial and colonial past. The former colonial powers, viz empires, have nearly all returned their possessions to the indigeneous peoples. I don't think that the US has.


----------



## rlp271 (Feb 12, 2009)

The European powers didn't just return their colonial holdings. The Indians were able to fight a bloodless war against the British. Gandhi's actions were just as strategic as any general's. He was fighting a war of independence, just not the way we generally view it. He chose to challenge Britain's salt laws, because he knew it was extremely important to the people of India and that the British wouldn't take issue with it. It helped get the movement rolling.

The French in Indochina didn't just hand it back over. It took a number of embarrassing defeats. Then, they asked their allies to step in, which they foolishly did. The US misread the situation as a Communist land grab, when it was really a fight for national independence. Hindsight is 20/20, but you could never say the French just handed Vietnam back to the Vietnamese.

The biggest issue is that you act as if the United States had absolutely nothing to do with Allied victories in World War I or II. The US was definitely less involved on the ground in World War I, but their munitions did help the Allies. The impact the US could have, especially their industrial power, on the outcome of the Great War wasn't lost on Churchill who all but encouraged more incidents like the Lusitania in hopes that the US would enter the war. He wanted to take advantage of Germany's unlimited submarine warfare. This is a good example:

"It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany," First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill wrote. The more neutral "traffic" the better, he insisted, and "If some of it gets into trouble, better still."

World War II is a different matter. The United States put a lot more manpower into it. It is the more studied of the wars in the United States for that very reason. Let's not forget that France and Britain had a huge role in starting World War II with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. Putting those kinds of restrictions and penalties on any country would cause them to be bitter. The treaty also shows how Euro-centric they really were. The non-European colonies of Germany were cherry picked by the Allies, while its European holdings were re-established as their own countries, like Poland.

I outlined my thoughts on World War II in the other forum.

I want to address your assertion that Korea is just a puppet state of the US. Maybe you should try _living_ here for a while. It may be true that the United States helped rebuild the peninsula, at least the southern half, but South Korea is coming into its own. They are politically independent, and the people of the country cringe when their president gives too much deference to the US. The riots about the possibility of contaminated beef coming from the US in 2008 are a prime example of this. The US may hold influence over a number of countries, but they definitely aren't colonies. They don't pay any sort of taxes to the United States, and they don't have to regard the POTUS as their ruler.

As far as the United States using its military in every corner of the globe post-WWII and creating an empire, you should probably do some more reading. The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam would be a good place to start. The devastation wrought on Europe by WWII left the traditional "protectors of Democracy" powerless in the international realm. That space had to be filled by someone. The US and the Soviet Union were the only countries left with the man power to influence power on a global scale.

The United States was extremely new to the international realm. They had an isolationist policy mixed with Manifest Destiny up to World War I. World War I was the first time the United States took a major part in international politics. Less than 30 years later, they became the only democracy left standing after World War II. Western Europe wasn't immune to what they viewed as the Communist threat and the Soviet Union's own evil empire. History has to be read in context.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cardinals5 said:


> I would have no problem discussing whether "bananas" are "yellow", but that's neither here nor there. My first post will either be something you (i.e. all readers of the forum) will accept as a more or less accurate depiction of the U.S. position vis-a-vis first-nations peoples or, as was beginning in the Repp tie thread, reject either as a less significant example in the history of imperialism or will outright reject the interpretation that the U.S. colonized the land mass known today as the U.S.


The bananas reference was an example to illustrate my point, not an invitation to actually discuss that subject. I didn't realize I would have needed to actually label that as an example.

As already stated, I accept your first post as fact. We can add "more or less" to that just for safety. As for who colonized the land mass known today as the USA...lots of countries did that. It's a big land, various countries colonized various parts of it, before it all congealed into a larger whole.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

rlp271 said:


> The biggest issue is that you act as if the United States had absolutely nothing to do with Allied victories in World War I or II. The US was definitely less involved on the ground in World War I, but their munitions did help the Allies. The impact the US could have, especially their industrial power, on the outcome of the Great War wasn't lost on Churchill who all but encouraged more incidents like the Lusitania in hopes that the US would enter the war. He wanted to take advantage of Germany's unlimited submarine warfare. This is a good example:
> 
> "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany," First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill wrote. The more neutral "traffic" the better, he insisted, and "If some of it gets into trouble, better still."
> 
> World War II is a different matter. The United States put a lot more manpower into it. It is the more studied of the wars in the United States for that very reason. Let's not forget that France and Britain had a huge role in starting World War II with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. Putting those kinds of restrictions and penalties on any country would cause them to be bitter. The treaty also shows how Euro-centric they really were. The non-European colonies of Germany were cherry picked by the Allies, while its European holdings were re-established as their own countries, like Poland.


I, at no point, said that "the United States had absolutely nothing to do with Allied victories in World War I or II." I had taken exception to the assertion that the US had "pulled our chestnuts from the fire" in both World Wars. This I interpreted as the writer meaning that the US had somehow saved Britain in both World Wars. I argued that in both cases Britain wasn't "saved" by the US, but by the USSR in WW2, if by anyone, and by nobody in WW1. I argued that Britain may not have been able to defeat Germany Italy & Japan in WW2, but that they wouldn't have been able to beat Britain either. The USSR defeated Germany, not us, not the US. This doesn't say that the US had no influence in the war, just less than Americans might think.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

rlp271 said:


> The Indians were able to fight a bloodless war against the British.


I feel I must correct you on this. The British (Mountbatten) partitioned the country in 1947 into India and Pakistan, and this was felt by many to be better than civil war. There was no war between the British and the Indians, so something that didn't happen can't have been bloodless or otherwise. There was however before 1947 widespread and bloody rioting between Hindus and Muslims with the British-Indian authorities trying to keep order. And plenty of civil disobedience towards British rule, from many quarters, but there was never a war. Following independence, the bloody conflicts continued and there was a war over Kashmir from 1947 to 1949 between India and Pakistan.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

rlp271 said:


> Let's not forget that France and Britain had a huge role in starting World War II with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. Putting those kinds of restrictions and penalties on any country would cause them to be bitter. The treaty also shows how Euro-centric they really were. The non-European colonies of Germany were cherry picked by the Allies, while its European holdings were re-established as their own countries, like Poland.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US, and Italy, also have involvement in the Treaty of Versailles? I rather thought that Woodrow Wilson was in France as part of the allied negotiations of the Treaty. Having been involved in the making of the Treaty of Versailles, the US then turned it's back on the rest of the world and refused to join the League of Nations, which was designed to create a forum that would prevent wars in the future. Blaming Britain and France for Versailles, and thus WW2 is a little disengenuous, I think. The Wall Street Crash destroying Germany's economy had a bit to do with the situation as well.
The US also got some of Germany's overseas empire in the Pacific...... Was that not also cherry-picking?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

rlp271 said:


> The US may hold influence over a number of countries, but they definitely aren't colonies. They don't pay any sort of taxes to the United States, and they don't have to regard the POTUS as their ruler.


Hawaii and Puerto Rico, as well as Guam, Wake, the US Virgin Islands. the Marianas, and American Samoa are all overseas possessions of the United States. As I suggested on the other thread, I'd call that an Empire.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

rlp271 said:


> The European powers didn't just return their colonial holdings. The Indians were able to fight a bloodless war against the British. Gandhi's actions were just as strategic as any general's. He was fighting a war of independence, just not the way we generally view it. He chose to challenge Britain's salt laws, because he knew it was extremely important to the people of India and that the British wouldn't take issue with it. It helped get the movement rolling.
> 
> The French in Indochina didn't just hand it back over. It took a number of embarrassing defeats. Then, they asked their allies to step in, which they foolishly did. The US misread the situation as a Communist land grab, when it was really a fight for national independence. Hindsight is 20/20, but you could never say the French just handed Vietnam back to the Vietnamese.


What I said was that the former colonial empires "have nearly all returned their possessions to the indigeneous peoples". They have, they did. I didn't say "just handed them over".
How they were returned is irrelevant in this context, the fact remains that nearly all colonial territories are now self governed with self-determination. 
As far as your example of India is concerned, you're wrong. The British government began drawing up it's plans for India's self rule before the First World War. The Indian government and Civil Service was becoming increasingly Indianised, as a deliberate policy, called, funnily enough "Indianisation". The plan was to establish India as a self-governing Dominion, rather like Australia and Canada, once sufficient Indians were educated and trained to take over. This was a long term policy, which would probably have been acheived by the early 1950's, if WW2 hadn't interfered with the schedule. Gandhi may have tried to gain Indian independence, but he was seeking to accelerate the process; he didn't start it or cause it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

rlp271 said:


> As far as the United States using its military in every corner of the globe post-WWII and creating an empire, you should probably do some more reading. The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam would be a good place to start. The devastation wrought on Europe by WWII left the traditional "protectors of Democracy" powerless in the international realm. That space had to be filled by someone. The US and the Soviet Union were the only countries left with the man power to influence power on a global scale.
> 
> The United States was extremely new to the international realm. They had an isolationist policy mixed with Manifest Destiny up to World War I. World War I was the first time the United States took a major part in international politics. Less than 30 years later, they became the only democracy left standing after World War II. Western Europe wasn't immune to what they viewed as the Communist threat and the Soviet Union's own evil empire. History has to be read in context.


You're arguing against an assertion that I haven't made. The US colonial empire was created before WW2, although the US satellites, and military colonies, like S.Korea, Okinawa, the Chagos Archipelago were established after WW2. I call S.Korea a satellite because it's foreign policy is, essentially, dictated by the US, and because it is "host" to so much US military personnel. The Phillipines are similar.

_"Less than 30 years later, they became the only democracy left standing after World War II."_ I find this assertion quite breathtaking in it's arrogance. Let's see, which other democracies were in existence in the late 1940's? Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Austria, France, and, what is that other european democracy? Oh yes, the UK. Then there was Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I've left out the Latin American States, as they were only allowed true independence if the government was favourable to the US. Part of the Monroe Doctrine I've been led to understand.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Hawaii and Puerto Rico, as well as Guam, Wake, the US Virgin Islands. the Marianas, and American Samoa are all overseas possessions of the United States. As I suggested on the other thread, I'd call that an Empire.


Hawaii is a state (our 50th). The rest are possessions or protectorates. Each citizen is entitled to the rights & privileges of of an American as outlined in the constitution. The difference is that they don't have "state based rights" such as the ability to vote in presidential elections nor do they have congressional representation. The president is most definitely their "leader" however (above the local governor), though probably not in the same sense as you mean.

America is an Empire, and always has been. A "state" is a "country" except we have governors & presidents instead of Kings & Emperors (or whatever you want to call them). We started with 13 states, and worked our way up from there.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Hawaii is a state (our 50th). The rest are possessions or protectorates. Each citizen is entitled to the rights & privileges of of an American as outlined in the constitution. The difference is that they don't have "state based rights" such as the ability to vote in presidential elections nor do they have congressional representation. The president is most definitely their "leader" however (above the local governor), though probably not in the same sense as you mean.
> 
> America is an Empire, and always has been. A "state" is a "country" except we have governors & presidents instead of Kings & Emperors (or whatever you want to call them). We started with 13 states, and worked our way up from there.


Well put. I would assume from their constitutional position that the inhabitants of US overseas possessions, apart from Hawaii, are subject to taxation without representation. There's a certain irony there.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

rlp271 said:


> Let's not forget that France and Britain had a huge role in starting World War II with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I.


I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such a level of misunderstanding of history. So I'll do neither.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

rlp271 said:


> Let's not forget that France and Britain had a huge role in starting World War II with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I.


It was that dang Marshal Foch. Proof that a great mustache does give one great foresight.

The only thing this thread has proved is that some notable flaws exist in the educational systems of posters homelands, at least with respect to history.

And yes, Canada won the War 1812. Even though we didn't exist.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> America is an Empire, and always has been. A "state" is a "country" except we have governors & presidents instead of Kings & Emperors (or whatever you want to call them). We started with 13 states, and worked our way up from there.


I'm surprised these states have yet to apply for their own UN seats. This would finally give Americans sway over that august institution. On the other hand perhaps even the State Department isn't stupid enough to believe that particular piece of idiocy.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Only here since October, Blairrob (whom I can't help but guess is actually Rob Blair) is contributing mightily to these threads.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> The only difference is, we feel guilty about ours and continue to make accomodations for the losers, centuries after the fact.


I appreciate the sentiment, just be careful how you employ the term "we" in this case.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Like I said before, the U.S. certainly has had it's share of black eyes throughout it's history; but what major power hasn't? That isn't really the point. 

At the end of the day the United States has been the most benevolent, peaceful superpower to ever exist on earth. It's hard to name a superpower in it's day that didn't embark on a quest to conquer neighboring lands. 

For example, if Canada had been given the opportunity to swap the U.S. for the Soviet Union as it's Southern neighbor back in the 50's and 60's, how do you think that vote would have gone? 

Following WWII the U.S. was the only nation on earth with nuclear weapons, and yet rather than use that power for conquest the U.S. began returning conquered lands and paying to rebuild nations. How different would things have been if it had been the Soviet Union with nukes instead of the U.S.? Remember, very few were risking death to escape from West Berlin into East Berlin.

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> Following WWII the U.S. was the only nation on earth with nuclear weapons, and yet rather than use that power for conquest the U.S. began returning conquered lands and paying to rebuild nations.


And how many of the eight states that have nukes have used them for conquest? Would the answer be zero? O wait, I had toy trucks as a kid that were stamped Made In Occupied Japan, does that count?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> And how many of the eight states that have nukes have used them for conquest? Would the answer be zero?


Yes, but that's primarily because the other seven wouldn't allow it without some retaliation from at least one or two of them. How many of those eight states have had nukes when nobody else had them? Would the answer be one?

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Hawaii is a state (our 50th). The rest are possessions or protectorates. Each citizen is entitled to the rights & privileges of of an American as outlined in the constitution. The difference is that they don't have "state based rights" such as the ability to vote in presidential elections nor do they have congressional representation. The president is most definitely their "leader" however (above the local governor), though probably not in the same sense as you mean.
> 
> America is an Empire, and always has been. A "state" is a "country" except we have governors & presidents instead of Kings & Emperors (or whatever you want to call them). We started with 13 states, and worked our way up from there.


A "state" is only a "country" if it is a _sovereign_ state. The 50 that make up the USA aren't sovereign states, they are federated states.

Is the USA an empire? The USA itself (the 50 states that make up the USA proper) are not. The USA, with its 50 states, is a federal union, which is a form of government distinctly different from an empire.

However, in regards to its protected territories, it can be easily argued that the USA is the head of an empire.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:


> Empire
> 
> I.1 Supreme and extensive political dominion; esp. that exercised by an 'emperor' (in the earlier senses: see emperor 1, 2), or by a sovereign state over its dependencies.


Does the USA, as a sovereign state (independent nation), have political dominion over its dependencies, such as the territories mentioned by Chouan (excepting Hawaii, of course, which is one of the 50 federated states of the USA itself)? I think the answer is "yes".


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blairrob said:


> I'm surprised these states have yet to apply for their own UN seats. This would finally give Americans sway over that august institution. On the other hand perhaps even the State Department isn't stupid enough to believe that particular piece of idiocy.


Why, we gave the USSR several seats for years, and still give the "British Empire" or the "Commonwealth States" (or whatever you want to call all those places who have the Queen on their money) their own seats


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> A "state" is only a "country" if it is a _sovereign_ state. The 50 that make up the USA aren't sovereign states, they are federated states.
> 
> Is the USA an empire? The USA itself (the 50 states that make up the USA proper) are not. The USA, with its 50 states, is a federal union, which is a form of government distinctly different from an empire.
> 
> ...


You forget that independent areas can "apply for statehood." These areas can be Countries in their own right, part of the of the USA, or outside of it, or something in between. Texas was a Sovereign State, prior to becoming federated. The southern states (confederated) when the succeeded from the Union could arguably be declared Sovereign, and then conquered (and re-federated)

The various purchases made to acquire land mass, not to mention wars fought also change each of those rules.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> You forget that independent areas can "apply for statehood." These areas can be Countries in their own right, part of the of the USA, or outside of it, or something in between. Texas was a Sovereign State, prior to becoming federated. The southern states (confederated) when the succeeded from the Union could arguably be declared Sovereign, and then conquered (and re-federated)
> 
> The various purchases made to acquire land mass, not to mention wars fought also change each of those rules.


I didn't forget that anymore than I forgot the name of the first man to walk on the Moon. It honestly did not occur to me to mention something completely and utterly irrelevant to the point that I was making, though, which is why I didn't randomly mention the methods via which a geopolitical entity could become a state if it wanted to.

You said, "A 'state' is a 'country', except we have..." Wait, what did you say? You said, "A state *IS* a country..." You were speaking in the present tense. You were saying that right now, the 50 states are also countries. (And just for the record, let's not forget you were talking specifically about the states that make up the USA.) My reply was also in the present tense. The 50 states of the United States of America are _not_ countries, not right now, not in the present. Some of them may have _once_ been sovereign nations. Some of them may have _once_ been part of another sovereign nation. But they are not now. What they used to be, and how that changed, is irrelevant to my rebuttal of your statement that states _are_ (present tense) countries.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> And how many of the eight states that have nukes have used them for conquest? Would the answer be zero? O wait, I had toy trucks as a kid that were stamped Made In Occupied Japan, does that count?


Conquest? We didn't start that war. Japan was given every opportunity to surrender. More Japanese lives were lost in traditional bombings.

Like I said earlier, you have to view history in the context of times; American casualties were projected to be in the millions if we had to invade. Lives were saved and we rebuilt Japan to be better than us. Today they make better cars, electronics, etc.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

*Texas was once an independant nation/country.*



JJR512 said:


> Some of them (states) may have "once" been sovereign nations.....


Only Texas. Sam Houston was the first President. The USA joined Texas in 1845. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> At the end of the day the United States has been the most benevolent, peaceful superpower to ever exist on earth. It's hard to name a superpower in it's day that didn't embark on a quest to conquer neighboring lands.
> 
> Cruiser


Well, I certainly don't see the UK as being any less benevolent or peaceful, yet I wouldn't have the arrogance to assert that Britain was the most benevolent and peaceful. I would suggest that this kind of hubris and hypocrisy is the kind of attitude that has been at least partly responsible for the US, and Americans, being so unpopular in the modern world.
There have been many "powers" who had an essentially benevolent and peaceful world view, but which wouldn't have the arrogance to assert their status in that way.

A second point is that I'm unaware of any land-grabbing, or conquest, that was carried out by the USSR in it's whole existance. Aquiring satellites for security isn't quite the same as taking countries over. The US was in military occupation of Nicaragua for much of the 20th Century, but I'm not classing that as conquest. The USSR's control of the Eastern Block was similar. Yet the USSR is being portrayed as an Empire bent on conquest.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Yes, but that's primarily because the other seven wouldn't allow it without some retaliation from at least one or two of them. How many of those eight states have had nukes when nobody else had them? Would the answer be one?
> 
> Cruiser


And besides, the Russians didn't even need nukes to accomplish the conquest of Eastern Europe following WWII.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> A second point is that I'm unaware of any land-grabbing, or conquest, that was carried out by the USSR in it's whole existance. Aquiring satellites for security isn't quite the same as taking countries over.


I'm reminded of the Ford/Carter debate.

(Ford lost having asserted that there was no Soviet domination of Poland at that time)


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

dks202 said:


> Only Texas. Sam Houston was the first President. The USA joined Texas in 1845. :icon_smile_wink:


Actually (quoted from wikipedia, so pardon the source, but it this is worth noting)...

'Hawaii is one of four states that were independent prior to becoming part of the United States, along with the Vermont Republic (1791), the Republic of Texas (1845), and the California Republic (1846), and one of two (Texas was the other) with formal diplomatic recognition internationally.[30] The Kingdom of Hawaii was sovereign from 1810 until 1893 when the monarchy was overthrown by resident American (and some European) businessmen. It was an independent republic from 1894 until 1898, when it was *annexed* by the United States as a territory, becoming a state in 1959. '


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> I didn't forget that anymore than I forgot the name of the first man to walk on the Moon. It honestly did not occur to me to mention something completely and utterly irrelevant to the point that I was making, though, which is why I didn't randomly mention the methods via which a geopolitical entity could become a state if it wanted to.
> 
> You said, "A 'state' is a 'country', except we have..." Wait, what did you say? You said, "A state *IS* a country..." You were speaking in the present tense. You were saying that right now, the 50 states are also countries. (And just for the record, let's not forget you were talking specifically about the states that make up the USA.) My reply was also in the present tense. The 50 states of the United States of America are _not_ countries, not right now, not in the present. Some of them may have _once_ been sovereign nations. Some of them may have _once_ been part of another sovereign nation. But they are not now. What they used to be, and how that changed, is irrelevant to my rebuttal of your statement that states _are_ (present tense) countries.


They most definitely are countries. They work deals between themselves (essentially treaties) though they require assistance for international deals (one quick example is reciprocity agreements regarding concealed hanguns permits, which are not federally regulated). You're getting caught up in the sematics of independent state, sovereign state, and federated state. Regardless they are states. A state is a country. The United States is made up of States. It implies that that several States have banded together for a common purpose. Just as the United Arab Emirates is made up of several Emirates, or the Estadas Unitos de Mexico are made of States within Mexico. Just tell one of the Emirs that he isn't the ruler of his country just because he is in a federated government.

State Rights are outlined within the Constitution, and were one of the major reasons for the American Civil War.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Well, I certainly don't see the UK as being any less benevolent or peaceful, yet I wouldn't have the arrogance to assert that Britain was the most benevolent and peaceful. I would suggest that this kind of hubris and hypocrisy is the kind of attitude that has been at least partly responsible for the US, and Americans, being so unpopular in the modern world.
> There have been many "powers" who had an essentially benevolent and peaceful world view, but which wouldn't have the arrogance to assert their status in that way.
> 
> A second point is that I'm unaware of any land-grabbing, or conquest, that was carried out by the USSR in it's whole existance. Aquiring satellites for security isn't quite the same as taking countries over. The US was in military occupation of Nicaragua for much of the 20th Century, but I'm not classing that as conquest. The USSR's control of the Eastern Block was similar. Yet the USSR is being portrayed as an Empire bent on conquest.


Well said sir.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Well, I certainly don't see the UK as being any less benevolent or peaceful, yet I wouldn't have the arrogance to assert that Britain was the most benevolent and peaceful.


You speak of the UK of today. While certainly a "superpower," it has only a fraction of the capacity for world dominance today that the U.S. had following WWII when it and it alone had nuclear weapons. If you go back to the time in history when the UK did have that kind of military power and influence around the world, it was not seen as quite the benevolent and peaceful power that it is today.

At one time the UK had put together the largest empire the world has ever seen and fought more than a few wars in attempts to hold on it it, not the least of which was the Revolutionary War in the American colonies. Do they not include that in British history books? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

dks202 said:


> American casualties were projected to be in the millions if we had to invade [Japan]. Lives were saved and we rebuilt Japan to be better than us.


And this is your justification for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

American casualties were never projected to be in the millions unless the invasion was put in the hands of West Point drop outs. But that aside, why is it that you and so many others feel that the only two options to a forcible surrender by the Japanese was either to sear the flesh off of 200,000 of them or to invade them Gallipoli-style?

Get a map. Japan is a cluster of islands. The only thing they grow well is sushi and sake. They were ripe for strangulation. You take all the US Navy ships, all the French, all the British and all of Hitler's left floating and you make a chain link of 40,000 ton-ers with guns facing inward. Not a dollar would have gotten in or a Toshiba out.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> You speak of the UK of today. While certainly a "superpower," it has only a fraction of the capacity for world dominance today that the U.S. had following WWII when it and it alone had nuclear weapons. If you go back to the time in history when the UK did have that kind of military power and influence around the world, it was not seen as quite the benevolent and peaceful power that it is today.
> 
> At one time the UK had put together the largest empire the world has ever seen and fought more than a few wars in attempts to hold on it it, not the least of which was the Revolutionary War in the American colonies. Do they not include that in British history books? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


No. I speak of the UK in modern times, from the mid 18th century when Britain first became recognised as a "power". Britain's Empire *was*, in fact, mostly seen as benevolent and peaceful, hence the "Pax Brittanica". Britain, and the British, weren't especially popular in the rest of the world, especially in Victorian times, when they went round telling the rest of the world how good they were. True or not, in reality, such an attitude certainly smacks of hubris. Other countries were rivals for power and influence, and could, at times be rather more firmly opposed to Britain, but wouldn't deny, then, that Britain saw it's role as benevolent rather than as oppressive and dictatorial.
Interesting that you refer, again, to the one and only war that America won over Britain. A war that, at the time, was sometimes seen as a struggle by the British in America to gain the same political rights as the British in Britain. Or also where a ruling elite in the 13 colonies sought to consolidate their control at the expense of the parent country, and at the expense of the poorer colonists, which had just spent a fortune in freeing the colonies from the fear of French attack. The "freedom" that the colonists demanded was not, of course, extended to the Native Americans, whose rights the British Government had been seeking to protect with the establishment of the "Permanent Indian Frontier", or the Black peoples living in the 13 colonies. Their rights were recognised in British Law, but not under the new Constitution of the colonies. As has been discussed elsewhere, the colonists gained their "freedom" through the assistance of France, an absolute monarchy in which political representation itself didn't exist in any form, and Spain, of course, which was probably more of a tyranny than France. Of course the American War of Independence is taught in Britain. I probably spend about 25 minutes on it in Year 10 whilst we're studying American History.
In any case, fighting to hold on to territory isn't the preserve of Britain, or indeed other European Imperial or Colonial powers. The United States imposed it's will upon the States that seceded from the Union, as they were entitled to, in 1861, by military force. That was a war to hold on to territory, I would argue. As was the war in the Phillipines after 1898. The US seized the Phillipines from Spain after a colonial war, and then resisted the indigenous population's attempts at self-determination with a particularly nasty war. 
Nobody is "clean" in these areas, but at least most countries now acknowledge their faults, and have the maturity not to pretend any more that they are the "most benevolent and peaceful", especially whilst practising, and justifying, the use of torture.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Did Chouan actually write that the Soviet Union did not "land grab"?

Tell that to Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. And its funny how Soviet/Russian apologists always neglect to mention that the Soviets were the second aggressors in the European theatre during World War Two, just ask the Poles, Finns Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> And this is your justification for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> American casualties were never projected to be in the millions unless the invasion was put in the hands of West Point drop outs. But that aside, why is it that you and so many others feel that the only two options to a forcible surrender by the Japanese was either to sear the flesh off of 200,000 of them or to invade them Gallipoli-style?
> 
> Get a map. Japan is a cluster of islands. The only thing they grow well is sushi and sake. They were ripe for strangulation. You take all the US Navy ships, all the French, all the British and all of Hitler's left floating and you make a chain link of 40,000 ton-ers with guns facing inward. Not a dollar would have gotten in or a Toshiba out.


Are you really serious?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Let me check.

I'm looking on my gag list for some oner-liners about the incineration of a quarter-million civilians in roughly fifteen-minutes and I'm not finding anything, so yes, I must be serious.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Did Chouan actually write that the Soviet Union did not "land grab"?


BTW~Reagan stamp coming 02/2011

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/13/reagan-birth-centennial-stamp-debuts/

I'll get mine, but first I have to Monday morning QB WWII!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> And this is your justification for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> American casualties were never projected to be in the millions unless the invasion was put in the hands of West Point drop outs. But that aside, why is it that you and so many others feel that the only two options to a forcible surrender by the Japanese was either to sear the flesh off of 200,000 of them or to invade them Gallipoli-style?
> 
> Get a map. Japan is a cluster of islands. The only thing they grow well is sushi and sake. They were ripe for strangulation. You take all the US Navy ships, all the French, all the British and all of Hitler's left floating and you make a chain link of 40,000 ton-ers with guns facing inward. Not a dollar would have gotten in or a Toshiba out.


If we "invaded" based on an island hopping campaign, casualties were projected in the millions. That is based based on how we were running the war up until that point. Island hopping. The President made the call based on that information. This is recorded history. Whether it was the right decision or not is another story, and one that we can't change 65 later.

You are talking from a hindsight perspective. Sure we could strangle them out. Look how well it's working with Cuba.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> BTW~Reagan stamp coming 02/2011


Zombie Reagan for Pres 2012. No one will ever mess with the US again!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Zombie Reagan for Pres 2012. No one will ever mess with the US again!


I wouldn't go THAT far as the Lebanon barracks bombing attests, but I do miss the Old Gipper!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Did Chouan actually write that the Soviet Union did not "land grab"?
> 
> Tell that to Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. And its funny how Soviet/Russian apologists always neglect to mention that the Soviets were the second aggressors in the European theatre during World War Two, just ask the Poles, Finns Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians.


 Yes. He did. 
Did the USSR rule Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states? Or control them through puppets? I spoke of conquest, not control as satellites. In any case, those countries, with the exception of Romania and Bulgaria had been part of the Russian Empire, along with Finland, so one could argue that the USSR was regaining control of former Russian territory. Imagine that the Mexicans went to war with the US in the later 19th Century and regained the former Mexican territory. Would that be aggression and land grabbing? Or restoring Mexican sovereignty?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Are you really serious?


The US Navy had virtually destroyed the Japanese Navy, and Merchant fleet, and the IJN had no fuel left. That, plus virtually no IJAF meant that Japan would very soon, literally, starve.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The US Navy had virtually destroyed the Japanese Navy, and Merchant fleet, and the IJN had no fuel left. That, plus virtually no IJAF meant that Japan would very soon, literally, starve.


Let's MMQB this further then.

Would more or fewer have starved than the 200K or so vaporized??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Imagine that the Mexicans went to war with the US in the later 19th Century and regained the former Mexican territory. Would that be aggression and land grabbing? Or restoring Mexican sovereignty?


That falls under the Internation dictum of "Losers Weepers!!"

Also refered to as the treaty of "Tough Titty!!"


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Yes. He did.
> Did the USSR rule Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states? Or control them through puppets? I spoke of conquest, not control as satellites. In any case, those countries, with the exception of Romania and Bulgaria had been part of the Russian Empire, along with Finland, so one could argue that the USSR was regaining control of former Russian territory. Imagine that the Mexicans went to war with the US in the later 19th Century and regained the former Mexican territory. Would that be aggression and land grabbing? Or restoring Mexican sovereignty?


The USSR annexed the Baltic states, much of Eastern Poland and Bessarabia (what is now modern day Moldova.) The USSR invaded Poland a few weeks after Germany did, and it is recognized as international fact that the USSR invaded and illegally occuppied and annexed the Baltic states. Romania was threatened with Soviet invasion and was forced to submit to the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia in July of 1940. Now that we have corrected your history let's move on to your Mexican example.

As to your Mexican scenario, one must take into account the legitimacy of the government - it could be argued that Mexico was not really a democracy until the PRI was finally defeated in 2000(by the same token it can be argued that the US was not a democracy until the franchise was extended to women.) In the case of Mexico, the Southwest has fared fare better under US rule then would have been the case then under Mexican rule.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's MMQB this further then.
> 
> Would more or fewer have starved than the 200K or so vaporized??


Exactly. The Japanese had fair warning. And despite the atomic bombs the real reason the Japanese surrendered was the Soviet declaration of war against them on August 8th.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> They most definitely are countries. They work deals between themselves (essentially treaties) though they require assistance for international deals (one quick example is reciprocity agreements regarding concealed hanguns permits, which are not federally regulated). You're getting caught up in the sematics of independent state, sovereign state, and federated state. Regardless they are states. A state is a country. The United States is made up of States. It implies that that several States have banded together for a common purpose. Just as the United Arab Emirates is made up of several Emirates, or the Estadas Unitos de Mexico are made of States within Mexico. Just tell one of the Emirs that he isn't the ruler of his country just because he is in a federated government.
> 
> State Rights are outlined within the Constitution, and were one of the major reasons for the American Civil War.


You are absolutely right. Right about me getting caught up in the semantics, that is. We both are. The only problem is that one of us is wrong, and it isn't me.

"A state is a country." The word "state" and the word "country" are _not_ synonymous. Not all states are countries. Federated states are not countries, not in the sense of "country" meaning a sovereign nation. Nebraska does not have supreme and independent authority over its land. Nebraska does not have diplomatic relations with, for example, Mexico or the UAE, or any of the states of either. Nebraska is not recognized as a country by the United Nations.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> You are absolutely right. Right about me getting caught up in the semantics, that is. We both are. The only problem is that one of us is wrong, and it isn't me.
> 
> "A state is a country." The word "state" and the word "country" are _not_ synonymous. Not all states are countries. Federated states are not countries, not in the sense of "country" meaning a sovereign nation. Nebraska does not have supreme and independent authority over its land. Nebraska does not have diplomatic relations with, for example, Mexico or the UAE, or any of the states of either. Nebraska is not recognized as a country by the United Nations.


Several of the USSR "States" were recognized by the UN (during that era) even though they did not have "supreme and independent authority over their land" either. The Soviets did it to pad their votes in the UN post WWII (moot now with the break up of the regime). Recognition by the UN (which is a figurehead quasi-government like organization BTW) is not some stamp of approval.

Our Governors (those who Govern) have more power than most country leaders last I checked. They lead the local militias (National Guard & Air National Guard are sworn to them). They have State Constitutions & State Governments (Congress, Supreme Courts, Attorney Generals, among other Civil Servants). They execute deals between their states and other states (as heads of states do). They have Sovereign Police authority within their territory, and they manage populaces over a million people (Rhode island) compared to say Bahrain at 800K~.

In what way are these not "countries?"

As any gun-owner will tell you Maryland & Virginia are two completely different countries when it comes to gun laws. And that's just Gun law. Check out Divorce Law. Or heaven help you child support between states.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Several of the USSR "States" were recognized by the UN (during that era) even though they did not have "supreme and independent authority over their land" either. The Soviets did it to pad their votes in the UN post WWII (moot now with the break up of the regime). Recognition by the UN (which is a figurehead quasi-government like organization BTW) is not some stamp of approval.


Good for the USSR. We're talking about the states of the USA, remember?



> Our Governors (those who Govern) have more power than most country leaders last I checked. They lead the local militias (National Guard & Air National Guard are sworn to them). They have State Constitutions & State Governments (Congress, Supreme Courts, Attorney Generals, among other Civil Servants). They execute deals between their states and other states (as heads of states do). They have Sovereign Police authority within their territory, and they manage populaces over a million people (Rhode island) compared to say Bahrain at 800K~.


Nothing you have said here backs up your statement that any governor has "more power than most country leaders". In fact, some of your examples prove they have less. One example is the militia. OK, a governor has his own state's militia. Can the government of North Dakota declare war on Canada? No. Absolutely not. Can the government of the USA, or Mexico, or Russia, or Iraq declare war on Canada? Yes, they can. So there's one of your examples that actually disproves your point. Ready for another one? OK, let's discuss deals. Sure, states (of the USA) can execute deals between other states. But can they execute deals with other nations? To a limited extent, yes, but not to the full extent that actual nations can execute deals between themselves. North Dakota doesn't send a North Dakotan Ambassador to Canada. Florida can't enter into a trade arrangement with Cuba, because the USA forbids it. There's a pretty clear indication of how much power Florida, as a state, has compared to the USA, of which Florida is part of. So that's _two_ examples that actually disprove your point. As for your other examples, none of them indicate any state having more power than any other nation; they indicate, at most, power _equal_ to other nations. And how many people are managed is irrelevant.



> In what way are these not "countries?"


They are not countries in the same way that a brick is not a flower. They just aren't. They aren't according to the definition of a federated state, and they aren't according to their own constitutions.



> As any gun-owner will tell you Maryland & Virginia are two completely different countries when it comes to gun laws. And that's just Gun law. Check out Divorce Law. Or heaven help you child support between states.


Some people may say that one state, compared to another, is so different that it may as well be another country. Some people may even say that they are, but that's just poeticism in my opinion. I have never in my entire life heard anyone claim that Virginia was a _country_, as in its own nation, that just so happens to be part of a larger nation (the USA). And even if someone did, that doesn't make it true. I mean, if saying something makes it true, then let me be the first person to say I'm a billionaire. Let me check my bank account...dammit, it didn't work.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> You are talking from a hindsight perspective. Sure we could strangle them (Japan) out. Look how well it's working with Cuba.


Hindsight existed in 1945 also. It's what told us Japan was not Antietam. But an air tight blockade is foresight. Truman had little. It seems you believe the A-Bombing of Japan was justified and that a blockade wouldn't have worked. And you cite Cuba as an example. Allow me to complete that logic: let's nuke Havana.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Hindsight existed in 1945 also. It's what told us Japan was not Antietam. But an air tight blockade is foresight. Truman had little. It seems you believe the A-Bombing of Japan was justified and that a blockade wouldn't have worked. And you cite Cuba as an example. Allow me to complete that logic: let's nuke Havana.


I understand why Truman did what he did. Do I agree with it? Not sure. Was it effective? Yes. Did it end the war quickly? Yes.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Apatheticviews said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking from a hindsight perspective. Sure we could strangle them (Japan) out. Look how well it's working with Cuba.
> ...


Personally, I think the whole concept of comparing Cuba to Japan, as Apathecviews would like to, is ludicrous. They are two very different situations. For one thing, we're not actively blockading Cuba. We're also not at war with Cuba.

The USA, by itself, is putting very little pressure on Cuba, and it's having very little effect. That simply does not compare to what you, Peak and Pine, described earlier, an active military blockade conducted by several fleets allied for the purpose. It is illogical to believe that Japan could have survived for very long under those circumstances, and comparing the forceful pressure of several nations to the political pressure of one is ridiculous.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> The USSR annexed the Baltic states, much of Eastern Poland and Bessarabia (what is now modern day Moldova.) The USSR invaded Poland a few weeks after Germany did, and it is recognized as international fact that the USSR invaded and illegally occuppied and annexed the Baltic states. Romania was threatened with Soviet invasion and was forced to submit to the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia in July of 1940. Now that we have corrected your history let's move on to your Mexican example.
> 
> As to your Mexican scenario, one must take into account the legitimacy of the government - it could be argued that Mexico was not really a democracy until the PRI was finally defeated in 2000(by the same token it can be argued that the US was not a democracy until the franchise was extended to women.) In the case of Mexico, the Southwest has fared fare better under US rule then would have been the case then under Mexican rule.


You haven't corrected my History at all. Not that it was any way in need of correction. Neither have you understood my post. What I said was that the USSR simply re-gained former Russian territory. The Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Bessarabia and Finland had all been part of the Russian Empire. The USSR took them back. Right or wrong, and I'm not addressing the moral question, the USSR wasn't conquering new territory, but restoring Russian rule over Russian territory.

Whether Mexican or US rule is better is irrelevant, as is whether Mexico was or wasn't democratic. The US seized Mexican territory in an unprovoked war of aggression in 1846, with the sole justification of military might. If Mexico had been able to regain those territories in the 1860's, by invasion, would that have been Empire building and land grabbing? Or restoring Mexican sovereignty to Mexican territory?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's MMQB this further then.
> 
> Would more or fewer have starved than the 200K or so vaporized??


Hard to say. They were already close to surrender. Their main Army was about to be destroyed in Manchuria by the Russians, their army in China was in retreat with no means of return. Their army in SE Asia had been destroyed by the British. Their island garrisons that had been by-passed were already starving, with no means of escape. 
How long could the mainland have held out, with no fuel, little food or other raw materials, low stocks of ammunition, with out the means of manfacturing more, and essentially, no transport left? 
They had, in January, already requested the terms for a peace. Which indicates that they knew that they'd lost, they were just waiting for the allies to offer them reasonable terms. A close blockade would, I suggest, have meant that they would agree to the allies diktat, without further attemps at negotiation.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan,

You wrote that you spoke of control not conquer and then when that assertation is proven incorrect (annexation and invasion is to conquer)you go on to write that the USSR was just restoring the lands that were part of the Russian empire and knowing that there was no moral justification for that you try and take morality out of the equation, which you cannot do if you are going to engage in an intellectually honest debate. 

And again to your belabored Mexican example, I believe that sovereignty must have some moral legitimacy, obviously you don't.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Hard to say. They were already close to surrender. Their main Army was about to be destroyed in Manchuria by the Russians, their army in China was in retreat with no means of return. Their army in SE Asia had been destroyed by the British. Their island garrisons that had been by-passed were already starving, with no means of escape.
> How long could the mainland have held out, with no fuel, little food or other raw materials, low stocks of ammunition, with out the means of manfacturing more, and essentially, no transport left?
> They had, in January, already requested the terms for a peace. Which indicates that they knew that they'd lost, they were just waiting for the allies to offer them reasonable terms. A close blockade would, I suggest, have meant that they would agree to the allies diktat, without further attemps at negotiation.


Idle speculation that bears very little resemblance to actual facts. As late as August 12th (days after the atomic bombs and the the Sovet declaration of war) the Japanese cabinet was divided on whether to surrender. Ony continued US bombing and Soviet advances in China tipped the scales - had the Allies resorted a blockade, millions of Japanese would have died because of starvation and conventional bombing and a conventional invasion still might have been necessary. And Japan probably would have ended up in the Soviet camp.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> And Japan probably would have ended up in the Soviet camp.


Gee, you say that as if it were a bad thing!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> You wrote that you spoke of control not conquer and then when that assertation is proven incorrect (annexation and invasion is to conquer)you go on to write that the USSR was just restoring the lands that were part of the Russian empire and knowing that there was no moral justification for that you try and take morality out of the equation, which you cannot do if you are going to engage in an intellectually honest debate.


The invasions of Hungary and Afghanistan were also mearly reclamation projects.

Justifiable, as all Bolshevik acts benefit the greater good!!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Had the Allies resorted [to] a blockade, millions of Japanese would have died because of starvation...


Since we're talking hypothetical, let's leave out _would _and use _might._ That you think millions would have died of starvation is conjecture. Here's my conject: "Hey, we're really, really hungry so we're coming out". As opposed to the reality of: "Hey, I'm over here but my flesh is over there, what's with that?"


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The political situation in Japan at the time was not quite as straight forward as you depict, Peak and Pine. The population you refer to that might say, "hey, we're really hungry so we're coming out," really didn't have that option. At the time, only one opinion mattered and that was the one held by the twisted, meglomaniacal little sh*t that was the Japanese emperor. He wouldn't listen to the advise of his most senior military advisors/staff, who counseled that it was time to consider throwing in the towel, in at least one instance having the poor fellow beheaded for sharing his thoughts. What makes you think that the feelings and opinions of the general population would have been any greater consideration?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> What makes you think that the feelings and opinions of the general population would have been any greater consideration?


Because the Japanese people are not stupid and would, in time, have seen the errors of their leaders' ways; the key being _in time_, time that was on our side, not theirs, and even if we were blockading to this very day and they each weighed 50 pounds, it would have been better than what we did which to me is the greatest blot on American history next to, or maybe even with, slavery. Nowhere in your post did you mention this, our little version of the Final Solution.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Because the Japanese people are not stupid and would, in time, have seen the errors of their leaders' ways; the key being _in time_,


With a Western power such as Germany I might could agree, but I don't think that approach would have been as successful with the culture in Japan at that time. World War II Japan was not modern day Japan.

Cruiser


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Chouan,
> And again to your belabored Mexican example, I believe that sovereignty must have some moral legitimacy, obviously you don't.


So the US can invade, conquer and annex any country it wants, as long as the US feels that invaded country's regime lacks moral legitimacy, as a lack of moral legitimacy denies sovereignty? You're on to a winner there! 
Let's look at this as a hypothetical scenario. Panama's regime lacks moral legitimacy, thus it's sovereignty is invalid, so the US can invade it and annex Panama's territory. Do I understand you correctly?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Chouan,
> 
> You wrote that you spoke of control not conquer and then when that assertation_(sic)_ is proven incorrect (annexation and invasion is to conquer) you go on to write that the USSR was just restoring the lands that were part of the Russian empire and knowing that there was no moral justification for that you try and take morality out of the equation, which you cannot do if you are going to engage in an intellectually honest debate.
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> So the US can invade, conquer and annex any country it wants, as long as the US feels that invaded country's regime lacks moral legitimacy, as a lack of moral legitimacy denies sovereignty? You're on to a winner there!
> Let's look at this as a hypothetical scenario. Panama's regime lacks moral legitimacy, thus it's sovereignty is invalid, so the US can invade it and annex Panama's territory. Do I understand you correctly?


Pfft.

Mearly aquiring sattalite regimes for defense, comrade!!


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> With a Western power such as Germany I might could agree, but I don't think that approach would have been as successful with the culture in Japan at that time. World War II Japan was not modern day Japan.
> 
> Cruiser


Culture of the times is the key. They were still living in the Bushido code warrior era. To surrender meant disgrace for you and your family. There was no word for surrender in the Japanese language. Even after the war in 1945 the last straggler finally decided ha had had enough in 1974.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Culture of the times means nothing. I am a culture of the times. I was alive in '45, tho barely. And I don't know what the Bushido code is. And I dislike words with Bush in them. No matter, you're overlooking two things. One: Japanese or no, _everybody_ hates to surrender (check out HockeyInsider over in the Bookster thread). Two: the Japanese _did_ surrender, in that disgrace, etc. plays second fiddle to finding your neighbor one hot August day with his head up his ass, literally. When do you latter day apologists for this horror get off this _only option_ thing?


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Culture of the times means nothing. When do you latter day apologists for this horror get off this _only option_ thing?


I'm not apologizing, I think it was appropriate for the time but more civilians died in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo than the two a-bombs. What's the difference? Civilians were targeted as a means to end the war in Germany and Japan, not to mention the Japanese hid factories in heavily populated civilian neighborhoods.

It was just another weapon in the great arsenal of Democracy. ... :devil:

The bombs weren't the only option, they were the best option *at the time*.. We didn't start it, they did..


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Pfft.
> 
> Mearly aquiring sattalite regimes for defense, comrade!!


Indeed. Which they subsequently relinquished. They did withdraw from parts of Germany in 1945, and from all of Austria. Not the actions of a regime intent on landgrabbing. Neither was the withdrawal of USSR troops from Korea in 1948. Indeed, the Red Army stopped at the 38th Parallel in 1945, as they had agreed, even though it took US forces another 3 weeks to get there.

I'm not aware of the US having relinquished control of their satellite regimes, and there is a significant US military presence in their satellites still. Vide S.Korea, the Phillipines, Taiwan, Okinawa, Chagos Archipelago, which is run by the US military, the indigenous population having been deported.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

dks202 said:


> I'm not apologizing, I think it was appropriate for the time but more civilians died in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo than the two a-bombs. What's the difference?


You're right.You're not apologizing. My bad. You're justifying. Your bad.

And you cite two very bad other examples for which we should also be somewhat sorrowful. It's pretty obvious that you have a somewhat more belligerent outlook toward all this than I do and since we are discussing the past we might find the tables turned were we discussing the future and I might be yelling charge while you might be still offering terms. We don't know. So, for my part, let's drop it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

dks202 said:


> We didn't start it, they did...


Every hockey fan knows that it's the retaliator that gets the penalty!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

dks202 said:


> Culture of the times is the key. They were still living in the Bushido code warrior era. To surrender meant disgrace for you and your family. There was no word for surrender in the Japanese language. Even after the war in 1945 the last straggler finally decided ha had had enough in 1974.


They had chosen to revive the Bushido Code, once they'd begun a colonial war of conquest in the 1920's. They treated their Russian prisoners very well in 1904-5. They treated their Austrian and German prisoners very well indeed 1n 1914 and afterwards. They treated Chinese and Korean prisoners, where they took them, appallingly in 1894-5, when they conquered Korea. They treated most Asiatic prisoners, of whatever origin appallingly in their campaigns on the mainland from 1919 onwards, be they Mongols, Manchurians, Chinese, or Russians, whether White or Red. They were particularly harsh to the Chinese that they captured in the conquests in SE Asia in 1941-3. They were also especially harsh to captured French troops in Indo-China after French troops resisted the Japanese take-over in 1945.
They did surrender in some numbers in Burma, before the general surrender in September 1945, once the forces were in a position where they couldn't escape. Japanese forces cooperated fully with General Gracey's command in Indo-China, showing limited, if any, signs of shame at being under the command of their former enemies.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Because the Japanese people are not stupid and would, in time, have seen the errors of their leaders' ways; the key being _in time_, time that was on our side, not theirs, and even if we were blockading to this very day and they each weighed 50 pounds, it would have been better than what we did which to me is the greatest blot on American history next to, or maybe even with, slavery. Nowhere in your post did you mention this, our little version of the Final Solution.


When the Emperor announced surrender publicly, many officers committed suicide rather than surrender. Some were so enraged that they chose to hack prisoners to death instead.

Surrender was not a concept that came easily to the Japanese people. In fact, it wasn't until we dropped two atom bombs and threatened to drop a third (on Tokyo) that it was really considered.

Their culture was completely alien to us during that era.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The entire post war Japanese film industry would have been nothing without The Bomb.



So you're welcome!!


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> When the Emperor announced surrender publicly, many officers committed suicide rather than surrender. Some were so enraged that they chose to hack prisoners to death instead.
> 
> Surrender was not a concept that came easily to the Japanese people. In fact, it wasn't until we dropped two atom bombs and threatened to drop a third (on Tokyo) that it was really considered.
> 
> Their culture was completely alien to us during that era.


Don't forget the Kamikaze...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

No, let's not. And let's examine this. There is a difference in a willingness to die for your country but hoping you won't have to (America) and a willingness to die for your country so let's do it at noon on Tuesday (Japan). With that in mind in would seem that a sloooow strangulation via a massive decade-if-need-be long blockade might have brought them to their senses, brought them into the 50s, Westerned them up a bit because surely you don't think a country that houses a company that is responsible for producing last month's blockbuster The Social Network would now be saying _if this flick doesn't do well, let's all kill ourselves. _Times change. Blockades can hasten it. Through granted, maybe not as quickly as mushroom clouds.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The decades long endless war stradegy is working so well today in the ME, I don't see how it could have possibly failed in Japan 65 years ago.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The decades long endless war stradegy is working so well today in the ME, I don't see how it could have possibly failed in Japan 65 years ago.


I don't recall anyone here talking about an _endless war strategy,_ except you in between posting of cartoons.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> No, let's not. And let's examine this. There is a difference in a willingness to die for your country but hoping you won't have to (America) and a willingness to die for your country so let's do it at noon on Tuesday (Japan). With that in mind in would seem that a sloooow strangulation via a massive decade-if-need-be long blockade might have brought them to their senses, brought them into the 50s, Westerned them up a bit because surely you don't think a country that houses a company that is responsible for producing last month's blockbuster The Social Network would now be saying _if this flick doesn't do well, let's all kill ourselves. _Times change. Blockades can hasten it. Through granted, maybe not as quickly as mushroom clouds.


I don't think it's up to America or anyone else to "Western up a bit" any other country. Or in essence to make any other country conform more to what we feel is the right way to be, think, act, or believe. You know, that kind of arrogance is one of the main reasons why a lot of people don't like us, don't like us enough to want to toss airplanes at our big buildings.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Okay, so parse me to death.

_Western up_, as I use it (and I'm the only one to do so since I made it up), does not mean to invade and force feed the American Way into foreign lands, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan. It means the opposite: let them invade us. With money, tourists and students. Let them get a whiff of free enterprise, press and speech. (But keep them away from Beck.) Then shoo them back home where they retain Buddha, sushi and samourai, but invent Toyota, Sony and Uniqlo. And sell them back to us.

And that's what happened with Japan shortly after war's end. It is _not_ what happened between us and the USSR until 1990 and it's not what's happening even now between us and Cuba. To this day I am surprised why the Japanese have anything to do with us after Hiroshima. Or why we would have anything to do with them after Pearl Harbor, but time heals many things and a stretched out blockade would have given that time without the horror.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

My late father's cousin, Chief Engineer of the "Arabistan", captured by the Germans in 1942 when his ship was sunk by the Raider "Michel" (he was the sole survivor) was handed over to the Japanese by his German captors. When he came home in 1945 he never spoke of his captivity in Japan, but he destroyed everything of Japanese origin in his house and would never entertain anything Japanese for the rest of his life.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

He probably didn't have to destroy much.


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> I don't recall anyone here talking about an _endless war strategy,_ except you in between posting of cartoons.


For the record, I like your cartoons, WouldaShoulda. Your posts are always light-hearted and give me a grin. A stark departure from the tone some other posters take.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> He probably didn't have to destroy much.


Probably not in 1945, but within a couple or three years after that items that were marked "Made in Japan" were quite common all over the U.S.. Most of these items were very cheap and low quality. As a young child in the early 50's it seemed like every toy I got said "Made in Japan" on it.

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

DoghouseReilly said:


> For the record, I like your cartoons, WouldaShoulda.* Your posts are always light-hearted and give me a grin.* A stark departure from the tone some other posters take.


Picture you, grinning from ear to ear at that ol' funster WouldaShoulda. Please don't let our discussion of the nuking of a nation disrupt the merriment.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Picture you, grinning from ear to ear at that ol' funster WouldaShoulda. Please don't let our discussion of the nuking of a nation disrupt the merriment.


This from the genius who suggests that a ten year naval blockade of Japan was a reasonable alternative for the Allies. You really shouldn't bother to have an opinion on these matters.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You have always fascinated me with your Eisenhower era outlook. I think I saw you on exhibit at the Smithsonian once. The guards wouldn't let me touch you though. Silly them, thinking that I would want to.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> You have always fascinated me with your Eisenhower era outlook. I think I saw you on exhibit at the Smithsonian once. The guards wouldn't let me touch you though. Silly them, thinking that I would want to.


Eisenhower was a moderate and actually warned us about the military industrial complex. I doubt I can disuade youfrom your strained attempts at wit but at least try and get your facts right. I would be happy to suggest a reading list for you.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Picture you, grinning from ear to ear at that ol' funster WouldaShoulda. Please don't let our discussion of the nuking of a nation disrupt the merriment.


Have to agree there, DoghouseReilly. WouldaShoulda's posts make me grin as well, not only because of the "merriment," but because of how it SO enrages those who are left with nothing in their arsenal to respond. Many engage in sarcasm in these posts, but nobody does it is well as WouldaShoulda. I'm still waiting for the post where he is wrong!


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> You think maybe you and he could hold off on the grins until after we finish discussing the pros and cons of the actual nuking of once real live people?





Peak and Pine said:


> Picture you, grinning from ear to ear at that ol' funster WouldaShoulda. Please don't let our discussion of the nuking of a nation disrupt the merriment.


The nuclear bombing of Japan happened over 65 years ago. This thread is not the first time it's been discussed, nor will the debate end here. Trying to press the matter to some kind of conclusion is futile.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Bernie Zack said:


> WouldaShoulda's posts make me grin as well, not only because of the "merriment," but because of how it SO enrages those who are left with nothing in their arsenal to respond.


Wow. _Two_ guys who think that WouldaShoulda is a side splitter. Go figure. It must be all those exclamation marks. Or something. Never found him very funny. Or rather I have, but not quite in the way you two guys mean.

Anyway, how do you feel about that Hiroshima thing we've been discussing (if you can keep a straight face)?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> The nuclear bombing of Japan happened over 65 years ago. This thread is not the first time it's been discussed, nor will the debate end here. Trying to press the matter to some kind of conclusion is futile.


Wha? We were having a discussion here, that's all. What's the age of the thing got to do with it? Besides, it's not as old as that Emily post stuff you like to drag out. But you're right really, we've got WouldaShoulda and those other two guys yuking it up and that mummy Karl89 haranguing me. O it's just so damn futile! I think I'll mosey on over to the VFW hall and see how they feel about it, if they're still up, or alive.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wha? We were having a discussion here, that's all. What's the age of the thing got to do with it? Besides, it's not as old as that Emily post stuff you like to drag out. But you're right really, we've got WouldaShoulda and those other two guys yuking it up and that mummy Karl89 haranguing me. O it's just so damn futile! I think I'll mosey on over to the VFW hall and see how they feel about it, if they're still up, or alive.


The discussion on that particular subject seemed to have been over. Anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't ever going to agree with you, nor are you ever going to agree with them. The age is relevant because if people haven't all decided to feel the same way about it by now, they likely never will. Maybe in a few generations, when everyone who was alive in 1945 is long dead, and everyone who remembers people who were alive then and heard first-hand accounts are also long dead, and all it is is a chapter in a history book, maybe then civilization can come to some kind of general enlightened agreement. Maybe. Until then, trying to drag it back up when others clearly want to move on is futile. Just as I said.

And most of that "Emily Post stuff I like to drag out" is from earlier in this decade. Furthermore, the age of the topic of debate compared to the age of something irrelevant to the argument is itself an irrelevant argument.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You, sir, as mentioned recently elsewhere, are among my top five favorite posters. Many reasons for that. Good reasons. One is not so, but it is alluring: you are a chameleon. I seldom know which way you're going to fall. Like here in this thread. You had an interesting comment earlier after I mentioned the idea of a blockade of Japan. You backed that up. Surprised me. As usual. Now you surprise me again. 

This interchange thing is a big dorm room to me. In my real one, years ago, we sat around one night and discussed Napoleon's advance into Russia til about 4 a.m. Nobody thought it was old hat. We were 19 and one of those in the room is now a 2-star general, retired whom I saw five years ago and, liquor induced, we remembered the night and started to start it again until his wife crowded in about something else. One of the nice things about dorms and this forum, no wives.

9-11 is almost ten years old, but you referenced it earlier in this thread and you will all your life. I have been doing likewise with Napoleon, the Red Sox, Gallipoli, Kennedy, James Dean, Gatsby and Hiroshima for 50 years. But since the last seems to irk you, I'll cease. (For the remainder of this thread.)


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I'm not telling you to stop discussing it. It's not my place to do so, and discussing it doesn't really bother or "irk" me. What I don't like is trying beat a dead horse. If you have more comments to make, or more questions to ask that are intended to make provoke others into further thought and perhaps further discussion, by all means, continue. The two comments I recently quoted from you, though, weren't like that.

I guess what I'm saying is if you want to continue it, then continue it, but don't demand that others continue it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wow. _Two_ guys who think that WouldaShoulda is a side splitter. Go figure. It must be all those exclamation marks. Or something. Never found him very funny. Or rather I have, but not quite in the way you two guys mean.
> 
> Anyway, how do you feel about that Hiroshima thing we've been discussing (if you can keep a straight face)?


Just a thought, Peak and Pine, but as odd as this may sound, you do seem to be applying a rather limited perspective to the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Like it or not, use of the "Bombs" did shorten the war (by perhaps two to six months?) and they did save lives, not only by inducing a truncated end to WWII in the Pacific, but also by introducing the world to a new breed of weaponry, so horrific that future conflicts of global scope (calling for the future use of these hellish dogs of war to, once again, be released from their master's leash against our/their enemies, whomever that might be!). While nuclear weapons may soon be coming to the end of their useful lives, for quite some time they have served to limit the scope of conflicts this old world of our's has been willing to consider and in so doing, they have saved uncounted additional lives beyond the scope of WWII! The most accurate description of our employment strategy for thes weapons (in our more recent past) has been Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), and perhaps indeed, it is?


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> You're right.You're not apologizing. My bad. You're justifying. Your bad.
> 
> And you cite two very bad other examples for which we should also be somewhat sorrowful. It's pretty obvious that you have a somewhat more belligerent outlook toward all this than I do and since we are discussing the past we might find the tables turned were we discussing the future and I might be yelling charge while you might be still offering terms. We don't know.
> 
> So, for my part, let's drop it.


I thought you dropped it...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Hey, you know me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Eagle, you make some strong points and of course I want to debunk them. But the exchange above was at 2 a.m.; it's 9ish now and Tiny House really needs a completed tiny roof. So I'm off now to beat the predicted flurries. Later.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Hey, you know me.
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Eagle, you make some strong points and of course I want to debunk them. But the exchange above was at 2 a.m.; it's 9ish now and Tiny House really needs a completed tiny roof. So I'm off now to beat the predicted flurries. Later.


Stay warm friend...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

As I've always understood it, from what I've read, from what I was taught, and from what I've been told, the general consensus of the day was that the 2 bombs would be a more humane way of getting Japan to stop fighting because the alternative, going by the prevailing Japanese attitudes, (and even up to the 70s we saw old armed Jap soldiers coming down out of the hills & asking if the war was over) was that the Jaspanese were ready and seemingly able to fight to the last man and would take thousands of US troops with them in the process! 

Ok, the after-effects of the 2 bombs were & remain tragic. But on the day it seemed like the more humane choice to bomb 2 major cities rather than sending in the fleet and being forced to fight a conventional war for years resulting in even greater
losses on both sides.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> This interchange thing is a big dorm room to me. In my real one, years ago, we sat around one night and discussed Napoleon's advance into Russia til about 4 a.m.


Dang P&P. During my teen years there were many nights that we sat around until 4 a.m., first in a dorm room and later in a barracks; and I honestly don't think we ever discussed Napoleon's advance into Russia, or anything even remotely resembling something like that. Then again we might have because I didn't remember most of it by the next day; however, I suspect we were talking about girls.

Cruiser


----------



## Dennis V. (Apr 20, 2010)

This concensus is still generally accepted today, the Japanese would have fought to almost the last woman and child, the senseless throwing away of lives and equipment during the kamikaze attacks is an indication for this. Something big was needed to break their will. It is however debatable wether or not the atom-bombs were the only thing that made them give up, the other big shock was that Soviet Russia joined the Pacific war. Wether either of these events by themselves had been enough to make the Japanese capitulate we will never know.

The firebombings actually did a lot more damage than the atomic bombs, but of course an atomic bomb has a much bigger psycological impact. Psycological impact is what was needed at the time.

There was a lot of planning for the Japanese invasion (operation Downfall) and the purple heart-medals made for that operation haven't run out to this day.


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wow. _Two_ guys who think that WouldaShoulda is a side splitter. Go figure. It must be all those exclamation marks. Or something. Never found him very funny. Or rather I have, but not quite in the way you two guys mean.
> 
> Anyway, how do you feel about that Hiroshima thing we've been discussing (if you can keep a straight face)?


I wouldn't say he is a side-splitter, but does get a chuckle out of me sometimes and doesn't take himself so seriously. I like that. He also doesn't deserve to get harangued just for attempting to bring a lighter side to a serious discussion.

As how do I feel about the subject at hand? It might be hard for me to remain objective, as my grandfather was an ensign on an LST in the Pacific during the war. An LST was, if you were not aware, a vessel from which Marines embarked in their tanks and Higgins boats. They were referred to, probably not lovingly, as "Large, Slow-moving Targets". I may not be here if they hadn't dropped the bomb. In fact, a lot of people wouldn't be. As other posters have said, estimated casualties from an invasion was around 100k.

I also find the claim that a decade-long, naval blockade would have had any affect on the Japanese other than causing widespread suffering. Keeping in mind "recent" blockades/sanctions and their effects or lack of, like in Cuba, Saddam's Iraq, and Iran, maybe a blockade would have had the opposite affect and steeled their resolve. We knew little of Japanese culture at the time, and despite your earlier claims, culture makes a huge difference. Just look at modern day Korea and tell me culture has nothing to do with the situation.

And how many Japanese citizens would have starved as a result of your blockade? I think the A-bomb, given the other choices, was the most humane. Keep in mind that none of the realistic alternatives were great; try to remember we were fighting a war.

Lastly, I think it is very easy for us to sit back, a great number of years later, and criticize the hard decisions made by our forefathers. After all, we have been the beneficiaries of them.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

DoghouseReilly said:


> *I think the A-bomb, given the other choices, was the most humane.* Keep in mind that none of the realistic alternatives were great; try to remember we were fighting a war.


You and I have a very different take on the meaning of _humane_.

Fat Man and Little Boy did not just target Japanese ass holes; they took out mothers and young children as well. And since I'm assuming we wouldn't be piling American mothers and children into those LSDs you mention, it's not quite the either/or proposition you propose.

As for the ineffectiveness of the Cuban and Iraqi blockades, and they were/are, we went at that half-assed, probably because those two countries have never been true belligerents against the U.S.; we just pretended they were. Japan however was.

As was Charles Manson. But Charlie's crazy and all locked up, so we don't much care if he ever changes his murderous ways. Similarly, we could have locked Japan up, they're islands remember. And once locked in, who cares if they surrendered. They would not have starved. Trust me. Given time, as mentioned prior, they would have answered our dinner bell. Ham sandwich? Sure, we got those. They cost two Toyota each. Freedom? Yes that can also be arranged. We'll meet you on the U.S.S. Missouri in an hour.

To JJR512: Gee, apparently there _are_ some who are still interested in discussing this stuff.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wow. _Two_ guys who think that WouldaShoulda is a side splitter. Go figure. It must be all those exclamation marks. Or something. Never found him very funny. Or rather I have, but not quite in the way you two guys mean.
> 
> Anyway, how do you feel about that Hiroshima thing we've been discussing (if you can keep a straight face)?


No, it wasn't the exclamation marks, it was all the pretty colors he uses in his posts!!! 
The intellectual wit of his posts had nothing to do with it.

Going back to the time when I was a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy, through service, subsequently through grad school, then through the school of real life, I developed very opinionated positions on military history. Studied military history ad nauseum, but when it comes right down to it, on this issue, my position on the "Hiroshima thing" stems mostly from emotion, as does most of my opinions where the central determinant of an operation was the number of American soldiers' lives that would be spared. Having proudly worn the uniform myself, and having known some pretty wonderful guys who gave "the last full measure of devotion," it probably isn't too difficult to figure out my position on that pesky "Hiroshima thing." Many have expressed it well, here, so I won't engage any further on this topic. I think JJR512's "elightened agreement" has already come to pass.

By the way P&P, never stayed up past midnight discussing Napoleon's advance into Russia. Studying for an exam on General Patton's protracted battle for Metz, however, did keep me up all night.


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> You and I have a very different take on the meaning of _humane_.


Of course nuclear weapons aren't humane if your enemy is willing to surrender unconditionally. They were not. Their government was fanatical and leading their citizens down a path to destruction. The perfect scenario would be one where no one died. But that isn't realistic.



Peak and Pine said:


> it's not quite the either/or proposition you propose.


It is, though, when I think that your plan is a total oversimplification of the situation. How can you say with any certainty that no one would have starved? As an island, and like you, I have nothing to back this up with, but I imagine that they imported a lot of their food like they do in the UK. I'm certain that their government would have driven them to fight until the last one starved to death.

If the merits of a plan to end the war with Japan was based on lives lost, we chose the best option. Not the perfect option, mind you, but the best available.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Bernie, when members feel comfy enough to eek out a little personal information, as you just did, it deserves a response so I want you to know I'm in awe of anybody who attended any of the service academies and get miffed when certain bios say Major So and So was only 253 in his class, only? that you get in the door deserves some sort of medal.

You're right about the emotion thing. I think wars are fought with emotions as well as guns. This is mostly a late-night discussion on my part, shame too, that we can't get in a jazzed up DeLorean and go back and tinker with it. I emailed Truman at the time, but since I was only five months old it probably read like a Zach Granstrom post.

Since you and Cruiser have both referenced the Napoleon thing, maybe my memory's foggy on that; maybe we didn't discuss Napoleon; maybe we were eating Napoleons; or dressing like him. Dim, those memories. Aided maybe by the LSD vending machine in one of the rooms.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> maybe we didn't discuss Napoleon; maybe we were eating Napoleons; or dressing like him. Dim, those memories. Aided maybe by the LSD vending machine in one of the rooms.


Now THAT's funny!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

DoghouseReilly said:


> How can you say *with any certainty* that no one would have starved?


I cannot. With certainty. So how come you use the word _certainly_ here...



> *I'm certain* that their government would have driven them to fight until the last one starved to death.


Little is certain in the internet dorm room.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Bernie, when members feel comfy enough to eek out a little personal information, as you just did, it deserves a response so I want you to know I'm in awe of anybody who attended any of the service academies and get miffed when certain bios say Major So and So was only 253 in his class, only? that you get in the door deserves some sort of medal.
> 
> You're right about the emotion thing. I think wars are fought with emotions as well as guns. This is mostly a late-night discussion on my part, shame too, that we can't get in a jazzed up DeLorean and go back and tinker with it.* I emailed Truman at the time, but since I was only five months old it probably read like a Zach Granstrom post.*
> 
> ...


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> To JJR512: Gee, apparently there _are_ some who are still interested in discussing this stuff.


Did I say there weren't? And comments like this, especially phrased like this one started, are not endearing to me.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Bernie Zack said:


> I think JJR512's "elightened agreement" has already come to pass.


I don't see how you could possibly think that, not when there's a debate on it going on around you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

*The topic is: American Empire/Colonialism/Imperialism.*

I've never viewed the US or the old USSR as colonialists - for me the annexing or stratgic securing of territories by the US and USSR has always been politically or militarily motivated. That said pre-1917 Russia was another matter altogether.

Whereas the true colonial imperial powers Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Germany were driven by the financial gain derived from the material and human resources available in their colonies - slaves, manpower, (from Africa and Ireland), minerals, oil, crops, wood, vegetation, rubber, food, drink, material and so on. For example, Germany wasn't in Tanganyika in the 1880s (before Britain took over) to develop the country and its people! I simply used Germany as an example in case anyone was wondering what colonies they had. I don't think I need give British, French or Spanish examples as they are numerous & we all know about them.

My point is, and I might well be wrong, but I can't think of any US "colonies" that were first of all actually colonised and then for the purpose of resource-stripping. Philippines? I'm not 100% sure on this.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak said:


> To JJR512: Gee, apparently there are some who are still interested in discussing this stuff.





JJR512 said:


> Did I say there weren't?


Kinda



JJR512 said:


> ...trying to drag it back up when others clearly want to move on is futile.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My point is, and I might well be wrong, but I can't think of any US "colonies" that were first of all actually colonised and then for the purpose of resource-stripping.


Once the break-away 13 colonies became a single independent country, the remaining 37 states were, at the start, akin to colonies and mostly for the purposes you lastly suggest.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> *The topic is: American Empire/Colonialism/Imperialism.*
> 
> I've never viewed the US or the old USSR as colonialists - for me the annexing or stratgic securing of territories by the US and USSR has always been politically or militarily motivated. That said pre-1917 Russia was another matter altogether.
> 
> ...


It depends upon your definitions of colony, or colonial, or empire. 
Britain's Empire was mostly commercial/economic, but also political/strategic. In any case, not all of youer examples hold true.I would argue that Ireland was no more a colony than Wales, or Northumbria. It was part of the Kingdom, whatever you may call it. Ireland's population were no more exploited than England's population.
Germany seized Tanganyika, and Togo and the Bismarck Archipelago etc etc as symbols of Imperial grandeur, as symbols or having arrived as a great power. Like most of the colonies you identify, they were all a drain on Germany's economy, as were Britain's, France's etc. they were perceived at the time as valuable, but the reality was different.
The imperial/colonial possessions of the US and Russia were, to an extent, different, as you suggest. They were territories seized by those powers as land-grabbing, as permanent dependent parts of the state, but were mostly contiguous. Some were integrated into the homeland, like the States of the US, or the central Asian provinces of Russia, for example. Others, and this only applies to the US, were overseas territories that the US seized, either as the result of victorious wars of aggression against other states, such as Puerto Rico siezed from Spain, or were the rewards of international conflict, such as US Samoa, and Guam, seized from Germany as part of the Treaties of Versailles. The overseas territories seized by the US are still their Colonial Empire, as no state seized by the US has ever been returned to it's prior owner, or to it's indigenous peoples, with the exception of the Phillipines, except that the US has ensured that the Phillipines remains a satellite, partly through continued military occupation, on a scale that a truly independent, sovereign state could never tolerate. I'm unaware of any overseas possessions of the USSR or of the Russian Commonwealth.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chouan said:


> I'm unaware of any overseas possessions of the USSR or of the Russian Commonwealth.


You have a blindspot in regard to Soviet and Russian imperialism, to wit:

Сахалин and Калинингра́д

And I am sure you know little about the atrocities committed by Russia and the expansion of empire in the Caucasus so I will direct you to Oliver Bullough's Let Our Fame Be Great.

https://www.amazon.com/Let-Our-Fame-Be-Great/dp/0465021840/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> You have a blindspot in regard to Soviet and Russian imperialism, to wit:
> 
> Сахалин and Калинингра́д
> 
> ...


Once again, you're arguing with things that I haven't said. I've never denied the existence of a Russian Empire. Also, I'm fully aware of Imperial Russia's conquest of the Caucasus, following Russia's aquisition of Georgia on the death of it's last Czar. Shamyl the Avar was able to slow Russia's conquest until the early 1860's. Kamchatka and the Kuriles were part of the Czarist Russian Empire, so mentioning them here, in Cyrillic characters for some reason best known to yourself, doesn't add anything to your argument about the USSR.
However, you again include moral comments that have no place in the argument about the existence of Empire itself. And, more importantly, you haven't responded to my arguments about the continuation today of the US colonial Empire.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> To JJR512: Gee, apparently there _are_ some who are still interested in discussing this stuff.





JJR512 said:


> Did I say there weren't? And comments like this, especially phrased like this one started, are not endearing to me.


It started with the word _Gee_, how much tamer can I get? Now answer me this: do you honest-to-god think a prime concern of mine, or any poster, is to write stuff that _endears_ ourselves to you?

You are forgiven the ego-centric outburst.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> You have a blindspot in regard to Soviet and Russian imperialism, to wit:
> 
> Сахалин and Калинингра́д
> 
> ...


Sorry, I misread the second. Kaliningrad/Konigsberg, was part of East Prussia, which was claimed by Czarist Russia. So, once again, that it was held by the USSR, and is now held by the Russian Federation/Commonwealth is no evidence of Soviet expansionism.
In any case, pointing at the Russian Empire and saying they are Imperialist/Colonialist, is not an argument that is relevant to whether or not the US has a Colonial Empire.
Many countries had them, including the US. The point is here, that the US seems to be the only country that denies the existence of it's colonial empire, and is the only country that has never given it up.


----------

