World History: Europe, Asia, and NA

[Raesvelg]

Yeah Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch wasn't it? To be honest I think if it had been as harsh as France had wanted there'd of been a war in about 2 years. There was no way Germany could of survived with what the French wanted. The whole country would of starved.

There's some question as to whether Germany would even have accepted the Versailles Treaty the way France wanted it written. They accepted the final version under duress, after all, and it's possible they would have seen the death of Germany as a country as sufficient reason to hold out and prolong hostilities.

 

[Sharpe]

There's some question as to whether Germany would even have accepted the Versailles Treaty the way France wanted it written. They accepted the final version under duress, after all, and it's possible they would have seen the death of Germany as a country as sufficient reason to hold out and prolong hostilities.

They didn't really have a choice but to accept them. Their first President resigned because he wouldn't sign it.

 

[Raesvelg]

They didn't really have a choice but to accept them. Their first President resigned because he wouldn't sign it.

Aye, the blockade was a painful thing in Germany, but Germany, aside from that, wasn't in terrible position to continue the war. Their armies were intact, and Germany itself had not been invaded. It's possible that they could have held out for greater concessions, or at least a voice in the writing of the treaty.

It would have been ugly, but it might have been considered rather than simply accept the destruction of the German national identity.

Edit: On a side note, had the Germans handled their fleet better, it's questionable if the British could even have maintained the blockade in the first place. The German high command forgot the simple rule: Weapons need to be used in order to be effective. Sinking (no pun intended) enormous sums of money into a fleet that spends the majority of the war in harbor was foolish. Risk-free, but foolish.

 

[Sharpe]

Aye, the blockade was a painful thing in Germany, but Germany, aside from that, wasn't in terrible position to continue the war. Their armies were intact, and Germany itself had not been invaded. It's possible that they could have held out for greater concessions, or at least a voice in the writing of the treaty.

It would have been ugly, but it might have been considered rather than simply accept the destruction of the German national identity.

Edit: On a side note, had the Germans handled their fleet better, it's questionable if the British could even have maintained the blockade in the first place. The German high command forgot the simple rule: Weapons need to be used in order to be effective. Sinking (no pun intended) enormous sums of money into a fleet that spends the majority of the war in harbor was foolish. Risk-free, but foolish.

750,000 German civilians died from the blockade. I don't think they wanted that to carry on. Also I find it amusing that we (Britain) were really worried about submarines in WWI but in WWII we didn't (at the beginning) feel like they'd be a big threat.

 

[pchan]

5,000 deaths and 12,000 made homeless.

Dresden: 24,000-40,000 deaths, god knows how many homeless and 13sq miles of the city completely destroyed. Le Havre was nothing compared to Dresden.

Indeed not comparable. Dresden is a city in enemy territory, LH is in allied territory, and LH didn't get the 200 bombs from Gremans but from the english. And exodus was not talking about number of casualties either, but the destruction of the city itself.

 

[Sharpe]

Indeed not comparable. Dresden is a city in enemy territory, LH is in allied territory, and LH didn't get the 200 bombs from Gremans but from the english. And exodus was not talking about number of casualties either, but the destruction of the city itself.

Allied Territory? You must be joking. Le Havre wasn't destroyed anywhere near as bad as Dresden. Seriously just give it up.

France ceased to be allied territory the moment it gave up.

 

[rabidsquirrel]

What about US history classes and Americans making experience on bodies in hiroshima/nagasaki after the bomb, and US systematically napalming japan cities.

Yeah we usualy talk about those after we cover Pearl Harbor, The Rape Of Nanking, The Bataan Death March, Comfort Women, and the 30 million dead dead by Japanese hands.

 

[Nicolette]

Thing is, Japan's oft-cited offers to surrender pre-Potsdam (the actual Japanese response to Potsdam was silence, if I recall correctly) weren't actually coming from the Japanese government. They came from government officials close to the Emperor, yes, but not from the people who were actually running the country and the war, nor were they from the Emperor himself. It'd be something along the lines of, say, the Secretary of the Interior proposing surrender terms while the Pres/VP/JC are all still alive.

And I've already told you the reason the bomb was dropped. Intimidating the Soviets was a side benefit. Keeping the Soviets out of Japan was the primary goal.

This statement shows such a fundamental inability to understand WWII Japanese culture, that I can't even begin to address it. At least you acknowledge the real reason for the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even if you think it was only a "side benefit." The Soviets werent remotely likely to invade or occupy Japan.

 

[Raesvelg]

This statement shows such a fundamental inability to understand WWII Japanese culture, that I can't even begin to address it. At least you acknowledge the real reason for the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even if you think it was only a "side benefit." The Soviets werent remotely likely to invade or occupy Japan.

The Soviets had already declared war on Japan, attacked Japanese holdings in Manchuria, and were quite prepared to invade the Japanese home islands "alongside" the US forces if things had dragged on too long.

And you'd be surprised how well I understand Japanese culture. I also understand that the US had broken the Japanese encryption codes in WWII, and we knew damn well that the supposed tentative offers of conditional surrender were coming from people without the authority to issue them.

The people in charge were preparing fortifications, arming the general populace, and generally intent on dragging as many US soldiers (and Japanese civilians) to hell as possible, all in the name of preserving Japanese "honor".

The Japanese were warned that the bomb would be dropped, they just didn't believe we actually had one. Once we hit Hiroshima, then we got the first valid offer of conditional surrender, which was rejected out of hand, simply because it was conditional. After Nagasaki, the Emperor stepped in personally and ordered the unconditional surrender.

 

[Nicolette]

Which means what to you exactly? The Emperor wasn't a president, monarch or despot he was Divine. The "condition of unconditional" that you mistakenly believe was the purpose of the bombing was the renunciation of their divine ruler. That's like telling the vatican that youll destroy them unless they swear the bible was all lies and promise to become buddhist. They couldn't do it without destroying themselves - and in the end they were forced to how? By an INCREDIBLE atrocity and the promise of more until they delivered.
Your claim seems to be that only the Emperor had the authority to offer surrender, which is patently false - the Emperor himself rarely met with foreigners, and treated through advisors except where absolutely necessary, or that their conditional surrenders were inadequate (when they were bigger concessions than Germany's surrender) or were too late (not true, MacArthur had time to ferry several negotiations, and Truman had meetings that were declassified 5-6 years ago over the use of nuclear weapons as a soviet deterrent.)

BUT THIS?

The people in charge were preparing fortifications, arming the general populace, and generally intent on dragging as many US soldiers (and Japanese civilians) to hell as possible, all in the name of preserving Japanese "honor".

"The people in charge" were preparing fortifications? What fortifications? Did Japan have a forcefield or something in the works or maybe some giant mechas? The allied forces firebombed all major cities to rubble even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was dwindling food supplies. The vast majority of able combatants were dead or dying abroad - not holed up armed and armored with infinite reserves, oh and they were on an ISLAND WITH FEW NATURAL RESERVES. You spent so much time talking about how horrible the attack on Pearl Harbor was... but do you even know WHY that was the target?

The military wasn't hunting (dragging to hell? how would shintoist.. nvm) Japanese civilians for sport, anymore than they expected a bunch of young white Americans to show up with bowie knives to slaughter. Why would these nebulous "people in charge" be arming and also hunting Japanese civilians anyway? Were you seriously taught this crap? They weren't trying to preserve some sort of Eido period 義理 (what you derisively named Japanese "honor.") This wasn't Shogun or whatever you're basing your "surprising" knowledge of Japanese culture on... This was a series of negotiations of surrender, relayed through a trusted (by both sides) American general, that broke down not because Japanese hubris, but because Truman had the foresight to turn Japanese suffering into a way to prevent American loss of life in a direct conflict with Russia. It was immoral, and an atrocity, and it was effective. Pretending that Japan was still a real threat cheapens Truman's choice, and makes meaningless the Japanese lives he sacrificed for American peace. Don't do it. Just don't.

As for that last bit - every bit as false as the first. There were 2 days between the bombings. The final surrender was relayed by radio from the Emperor in a form of Japanese the general populace could only barely understand and even then they didn't realize or comprehend it's meaning till well after the 2nd bomb. Those that were alive and able to hear that is. Those who weren't suffering radiation burns over 90% of their bodies, or who no longer had ears, or whose ears were full of maggots. What do you think the surrender was anyway? The Emperor screaming 'I GIVE UP' into a Navy frequency? Do you understand the treaty difficulties that persisted in american-japanese relations? Diplomats who should have known better than to translate ii, demo chotto... as YES instead of NO (yes but for a little.. meaning no) No.. you don't, because you seem to think WWII Japan was playing Battleship.

 

[pchan]

Allied Territory? You must be joking. Le Havre wasn't destroyed anywhere near as bad as Dresden. Seriously just give it up.

France ceased to be allied territory the moment it gave up.

You are an idiot. You didn't fucking read what I said. And yes France was an ally I'm sorry, want me to pull out a map of germany post defeat ?

 

[Sharpe]

You are an idiot. You didn't fucking read what I said. And yes France was an ally I'm sorry, want me to pull out a map of germany post defeat ?

A map of Post War Germany means nothing. Yes you were an ally, but how the fuck else are we supposed to get rid of the Germans from France without bombing and fighting them. You are a fucking idiot Pchan and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. As soon as France came under the control of Germany and the Vichy regime the bombing and attacking of French towns/ports/airfields was fair game.

Then again I bet your one of the ones who think De Gaulle was amazing and not a complete fool.

 

[Raesvelg]

stuff

I'm not going to reprint what you wrote, largely because you've moved past the boundaries of tasteful debate. I'm pretty sure I know where you learned your history now, but either way, tone it down a notch if you want me to take you seriously.

When I say "drag to hell", I'm referring to the Supreme Council's plans of resisting to the last man. The "honorable death of the 100 million" was a bit of a catchphrase tossed around at the end of the war, in case you missed it. Not something as ridiculous as actively hunting and killing Japanese civilians, which I'm pretty sure you knew before you went and typed that idiocy. Yes, the Supreme Council was directing the fortification of the home islands. That doesn't take much, a little bamboo and a shovel can make you any range of proper military fortifications. They were directing the armament of the general populace, though in such fashion and with such inferior weapons (including such nonsense as bamboo spears) as to make any significant resistance from the civilian populations little more than assisted suicide. Which doesn't mean they weren't ready to do it, and that they wouldn't have taken a fair number of US soldiers with them.

The Supreme Council insisted upon conditions tacked onto the unconditional surrender demanded of them, something they knew was unacceptable. They simply thought that they could make the invasion so costly that the Allies would accept it anyway. Conditions that included the preservation of the Japanese state, including the position of emperor; no occupation of the Japanese home islands; Japanese control over war crimes trials; and placing the responsibility for Japanese disarmament in the hands of the Japanese military.

In short, their conditions with the possible exception of the first, were fucking ridiculous, and were rejected out of hand for a good reason.

I might add that those were the desired conditions after the first atomic bomb was dropped.

As for the Emperor's role in the surrender, I'm not talking about public announcements that were largely meaningless. Nor am I talking about difficulties in the crafting of the surrender document, though Hirohito did play a significant role in forcing the hard-liners to accept the terms, but rather to his role in addressing the Supreme Council after Nagasaki and telling them it was time to "bear the unbearable" and unconditionally surrender, something that had not been done before.

Colorful depictions of bomb victims aside, you do not want to start comparing atrocities between the US and Japan. Trust me, Japan basically comes out looking fairly monstrous compared to the freaking Nazis, much less anyone else.

Finally, regarding Pearl Harbor... I actually never mentioned it, so I have to assume you were talking to someone else there. Regardless of that, yes, I know full well why the Japanese chose to attack Pearl Harbor. I rather wonder if you know their real objectives, or more importantly, the full reasons why the attack was in truth an abysmal failure?

 

[Nicolette]

At work, so making this short...

I attacked your extremely vague statement about the Japanese military targeting their own civilians for death, and your "drag to hell" commentary because it was patently ludicrous warmongering diatribe with no substance whatsoever. Similarly, I could attack this latest paragraph of half or no-truth statements while you try to take a moral high ground with your ability to define the bounds of "tasteful debate" or with your aside attempting to besmirch my education.
Does your argument style always rely on no-substance personal attacks? My point was that your statement not only contradicted itself, but was semantically null. You make the same mistake in this paragraph, noting that the arming of japanese citizenry was so deficient as to make it suicide yet somehow they were still such a threat that nuclear weaponry was the only means of ending the war... When the main focus of attack wasnt some sort of british revolutionary war column with drums but aerial bombardment!! I dont believe you have ever read any of the conditions of surrender offered pre - potsdam. I dont believe you have researched any declassified records of the time, and i'm still positive you dont know anything of Japanese culture.

The meaningless public announcement of the Emperor's fall indeed.

 

[Raesvelg]

So.

You attacked an obvious literary ploy via a deliberate misreading, then subsequently attack it as "ludicrous warmongering" when Japanese statements of the time basically confirm the spirit of the comment if not that specific phrasing. Subsequently, you continue a pattern of personal attacks while hypocritically decrying them.

In short, you're mostly just irritating me.

Now, again, at what point did I say anything regarding that nuclear weapons were the "only means of ending the war"? If you actually read what I wrote, I said nothing of the kind, nor has anyone else involved in this thread. What they, and I, have been saying is that nuclear weapons offered both a lower total casualty count in ending the war vs a conventional invasion, and a reduced secondary cost from other deaths that would have occurred due to blockades, starvation, and continuation of the wide scale bombing missions. Now, in the expanded benefits of the nuclear strikes, it also kept the Soviets out of Japan, and in Truman's belief offered some minor benefits to intimidating them, which was ultimately proven to be meaningless as the Soviet nuclear weapons programme would produce their own fission devices within 4 years.

As for the rest of your statements, they continue the pattern of overblown rhetoric and absurd histrionics.

The "meaningless public announcement" was meaningless because it could have been made by someone other than the Emperor and accomplished roughly the same effect. Again, you're attacking semantics of something I'm writing largely as a source of personal entertainment.

It's fairly easy for you to attack my knowledge of Japanese culture without ever pointing out precisely why you think I'm wrong, incidentally. To say "You know nothing of this" should be followed on by "and this is part of what you don't know," explaining precisely what it is that you think I'm mistaken about. You might note that particular tactic in my own posts here.

You debate like a hippy.

 

[Nicolette]

Sorry, didnt know I was required to debunk your strawman arguments in full detail so that you could respond with statements that you're "writing largely as a source of personal entertainment."

You dont cite or backup any of your ideas. You rely on invented hearsay "Japanese statements of the time" to justify military action, and so naturally, that means anyone with reasoned arguments must be a "hippy." Gotcha. 1970 called, they want their ideology back.

Also, please define your "knowledge of japanese culture," if you would like me to "point out precisely why (you're) wrong." I was assuming you didn't have any - since you write like it.

Please dont debate World War II while still capable of making statements like:
words..."(nuclear weapons) kept the Soviets out of Japan, and in Truman's belief offered some minor benefits to intimidating them, which was ultimately proven to be meaningless ... words.

The cold war was meaningless, and nuclear bombing japan saved it from soviet occupation! Please...

 

[Raesvelg]

Speaking of straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks...

I'm washing my hands of you. You're obviously not capable of debating things in a remotely civil fashion, you're blatantly hypocritical, and you're not even particularly entertaining.

Foreign Minister Togo to the Russians prior to Potsdam: "With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever..."

Prime Minister Suzuki on the Potsdam Ultimatum: "I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all."

Earlier discussions were, as I mentioned, discarded out of hand, due to US knowledge that at least half of the "Big Six" of the Supreme Council vehemently opposed them.

And bear in mind the framing rhetoric of the Potsdam Declaration, which is why it's often referred to as the Ultimatum: "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay."

To imply that the Allies didn't understand the nature of Japanese culture is irrelevant. The onus was, in fact, on the Japanese to understand Western culture, specifically American culture, and to grasp the concept that when we say "We're not negotiating, we're dictating terms", we mean precisely that.

To doubt the resolve of the Japanese military to avoid unconditional surrender at any cost is foolish, given that within days of the announcement of the intent to surrender, a military coup was attempted to prevent it.

And that will be my final reply to you.

 

[pchan]

A map of Post War Germany means nothing.

Nice argument kthxbai. And yes De Gaulle is a great man. As true as Bush is an idiot.

 

[Nicolette]

oh and they were on an ISLAND WITH FEW NATURAL RESERVES. You spent so much time talking about how horrible the attack on Pearl Harbor was... but do you even know WHY that was the target?

I see what I did there... too bad you didnt.


Why do you espouse civility of arguments when you casually and offhandedly dismiss Japanese lives, but persist in upholding american actions despite having no whit of understanding as to their motivations? I'm Japanese american, i'm not likely to take civilly your offhand dismissals of the lives of the japanese, regardless of your patriotic onus to ignore the committed atrocities. You can dismiss my arguments, ignore everything but the Pottsdam conference (which was enacted AFTER the Truman decision to use nuclear weapons in Japan), and generally make an ass of yourself, but you should realize that your arguments:

Consistently ignore any objective understanding of the situation (I dont deny Japanese, german, or american atrocities where you seem capable of only attaching such labels to american enemies)

Persist in a gross failure of understanding how the loss of the Japanese Emperor affected Japanese.

Nearly completely ignore Trumans OWN STATED REASON for using the bombs in Japan to intimidate - and thereby start both the proliferation and mentality that suffused Cold War american and russian policy.

All your posturing entails is childish assertions of allied big-stick methodology, incapable of understanding the psychological and political ramifications that were involved for a position of "we made them surrender, had big bombs boom! haha win!."

P.S. Good luck with the silent treatment. I knew I had you when you needed personal insults in place of argument, and defended ludicrous statements with the argumentative equivalent of "i was only playing around."

P.P.S Withering sarcasm in response to personal attacks do not return insults make.

 

[smalls]

japanese culture and lives aside.

you do not seem to understand, as most people dont, what it takes to win a war. you dont just twist until they say uncle, then let go. you have to break their arm, then you break the other one. you have to crush your enemy.

this was the entire reason for WWII in the first place. hell, you could argue WWI was just a 30 year conflict with a break in the middle while they grew new soldiers.