Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

30,000 at Nanking? More like 300,000.

Sure, these International Military Tribunals can be a bitch, as we have seen in Nuremberg.

You think Theodore Roosevelt encouraged Japan to invade Manchuria?
Teddy won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating PEACE between Russia and Japan in 1905.
Teddy Roosevelt was no longer USA President after 1909.
Teddy Roosevelt died in 1919.
Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931.
I'd like to see how you twist that into Teddy Roosevelt got Japan to invade Manchuria.

After 1905 and the Japanese victory over Russia, Manchuria became a Japanese vasal/client state, delivering coal and minerals for the Japanese industry, with the backing of the US, who indeed brokered a peace between Japan and Russia.

Back to PH.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Except that in 1941 most of the leadership in the USN thought the battleship was the primary weapon of naval warfare. It was the same in the IJN, most still believed the battleship was the primary weapon—why else build superbattleships like the Yamato class? Even Yamamoto himself, for all his enthusiasm for carriers, still sometimes thought in battleship terms.

The matter was far from being closed, even as late as Oct. '42.

http://ibiblio.org/pha/policy/Airplane and battleship.pdf

 

[Corsair 115]

After 1905 and the Japanese victory over Russia...

While the Japanese may have beaten the Russians soundly at sea in 1905, they were thrashed by the Russians in ground battles near Khalkhin Gol in 1939. So much so they dropped all ideas of attacking Russia.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/may/17/pearl-harbor-an-exchange/

Gore Vidal in exchange with Dutch Jew Ian Buruma about PH.
Like most if not all Jews they defend the lie that Japan attacked the US just for fun, while the US was minding it's own business. Jews always cover each other.

Vidal begs to differ and asks the right question:

Question to those in denial about the US as provocateur: Why is it, if we were not on the offensive, that so small and faraway an island as Japan attacked what was so clearly, already, a vast imperial continental power? You have now had over sixty years to come up with a plausible answer. Do tell.

Maybe my opponents will do Vidal the favor?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When you get done quote mining and dodging our posts, do send me a note.

If anybody else needs something cleared up, just get my attention.

 

[MG1962]

In contrast to Anglosphere let alone Russia, Germany has practised Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung to a sickening level. Sickening, because they deplored acts they did not commit!

But hey, I am here to help you with that deficit, Anglosphere!

I can see why mastering the past would upset you so much

 

[MG1962]

While the Japanese may have beaten the Russians soundly at sea in 1905, they were thrashed by the Russians in ground battles near Khalkhin Gol in 1939. So much so they dropped all ideas of attacking Russia.

I would say it was more a bowel motion actually

 

[MG1962]

Except that in 1941 most of the leadership in the USN thought the battleship was the primary weapon of naval warfare. It was the same in the IJN, most still believed the battleship was the primary weapon—why else build superbattleships like the Yamato class? Even Yamamoto himself, for all his enthusiasm for carriers, still sometimes thought in battleship terms.

Well they really only started dicking around with carriers after the Washington and later London treaties. Which by the way the Japanese never abided by, even though they ratified both treaties

 

[Shangrila]

Maybe my opponents will do Vidal the favor?

Were you aware that the internationally recognized territory of the Empire of Japan had a population of 105 million in 1940 compared to 132 million for the U.S.? That when coupled with the puppet state of Manchuria and Japanese occupied China, the Empire of Japan had well over double the population of the USA and all its "Imperial" holdings?

Were you aware that in 1941 the IJN was nearly as large, and a good bit more modern than the USN, as well as concentrated in the Pacific instead of divided between 2 oceans on top of being better practiced, being pioneers in carrier operations, and underway replenishment, as well as the best nightfighers with the best torpedoes in the world? And further that the IJA was many times the size of the US Army, battle-hardened, and better equipped than the chronically underfunded Depression era US Army?

Do you know how much of a joke Vidal and you made of yourselves describing that as a "small and faraway island" attacking a "vast imperial continental power?"

Now in fact, Japanese power was hollow as their industrial capability was already chronically overstressed and there were dozens of papered over weaknesses. And further, the apparent U.S. economic weakness during the Depression hid a truly massive ability to mobilize which was already underway by 1941. A small handful of Japanese leaders, mainly those who had lived and studied in the USA realized this as well as the idiocy of believing Americans soft, but they were distinctly in the minority and overruled. It's not exactly a mystery why the majority of Japanese leaders believed that élan and striking first can overcome industry and wealth, after all, that's exactly what they did in the Russo-Japanese War.  

 

[Rich_C]

?"

Now in fact, Japanese power was hollow as their industrial capability was already chronically overstressed and there were dozens of papered over weaknesses. And further, the apparent U.S. economic weakness during the Depression hid a truly massive ability to mobilize which was already underway by 1941. A small handful of Japanese leaders, mainly those who had lived and studied in the USA realized this as well as the idiocy of believing Americans soft, but they were distinctly in the minority and overruled. It's not exactly a mystery why the majority of Japanese leaders believed that élan and striking first can overcome industry and wealth, after all, that's exactly what they did in the Russo-Japanese War.  

Russia was in a hurry to make peace in 1905 because of the 1905 Revolution. The Japanese were happy to make peace while they were ahead. Their leadership knew they could only win a short war against Russia. They were hoping for the same against the USA in 1941.

 

[Shangrila]

Russia was in a hurry to make peace in 1905 because of the 1905 Revolution. The Japanese were happy to make peace while they were ahead. Their leadership knew they could only win a short war against Russia. They were hoping for the same against the USA in 1941.

The Japanese interpreted the 1905 revolution as caused by their victories on the war. The lesson they took from that is that if they strike first and strike fast, Western powers would suffer internal collapse and have to make peace on Japanese terms.

Of course, in reality, the war was only one thing among many, and only came after events were already coming to a head, but it's no big surprise why the Japanese would have seen it their way.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Were you aware that the internationally recognized territory of the Empire of Japan had a population of 105 million in 1940 compared to 132 million for the U.S.? That when coupled with the puppet state of Manchuria and Japanese occupied China, the Empire of Japan had well over double the population of the USA and all its "Imperial" holdings?

I was surprised about the low number of the US-population, indeed, not about that of Japan, as Japan is a homogeneous nation without any immigration or emigration. I don't want to hurt your noble anti-racialist feelings, but numbers don't mean everything, certainly not that large number of China-1940.

Were you aware that in 1941 the IJN was nearly as large, and a good bit more modern than the USN, as well as concentrated in the Pacific instead of divided between 2 oceans on top of being better practiced, being pioneers in carrier operations, and underway replenishment, as well as the best nightfighers with the best torpedoes in the world? And further that the IJA was many times the size of the US Army, battle-hardened, and better equipped than the chronically underfunded Depression era US Army?

Nor surprise, indeed.

Do you know how much of a joke Vidal and you made of yourselves describing that as a "small and faraway island" attacking a "vast imperial continental power?"

Are you aware that the GBP of the US was 10 times that of Japan.
As far as I can see there never was a moment of lack of respect from the side of the Japanese towards the US. The US always 'negotiated' from a position of superiority. The PH attack was a desperate move, the Japanese were cornered. It was obvious for everyone that the US could have a vast army considering their economic power, the only 'problem' was that the American population had no imperial ambitions. Even today Pat Buchanan calls Americans mockingly 'lousy imperialists'. Thanks to PH, the federal government overcame the internal resistance against imperial ambitions, so Vidal was right.

 

[uke2se]

I don't want to hurt your noble anti-racialist feelings, but numbers don't mean everything, certainly not that large number of China-1940.

So you admit you were wrong (lied) about the Germans being outnumbered 1:7. Good, we're making progress.

 

[Shangrila]

I was surprised about the low number of the US-population, indeed, not about that of Japan, as Japan is a homogeneous nation without any immigration or emigration. I don't want to hurt your noble anti-racialist feelings, but numbers don't mean everything, certainly not that large number of China-1940.

Indeed, Hitler himself called the Japanese Aryans, while so few Americans would qualify. Surely any right minded racialist would see that Japanese victory was thus inevitable.

Are you aware that the GBP of the US was 10 times that of Japan.

Are you aware the GDP (what the hell's GBP?) of the U.S. was over 190 times that of Iraq in 1990? Didn't stop commentators from talking about how the 4th largest army in the world was going to drown the U.S. in blood. In reality, most people do not look beyond the actual numbers on military strength when judging how a war would go. Even with all the historical examples of why that's a bad idea, people continue doing so, and to be fair, exactly what factors beyond military statistics would prove decisive in any particular war are difficult to identify without hindsight.

By all the Japanese saw, they were just as outmatched by Russia in 1905, far more so in population and military strength, and nearly as much in heavy industry, but they won.

It was obvious for everyone that the US could have a vast army considering their economic power

Strange how it was obvious to everyone, yet that great genius Hitler didn't see it. Strange how officers like Yamamoto that did see it were laughed out.

 

[Hans]

Now in fact, Japanese power was hollow as their industrial capability was already chronically overstressed and there were dozens of papered over weaknesses. And further, the apparent U.S. economic weakness during the Depression hid a truly massive ability to mobilize which was already underway by 1941. A small handful of Japanese leaders, mainly those who had lived and studied in the USA realized this as well as the idiocy of believing Americans soft, but they were distinctly in the minority and overruled. It's not exactly a mystery why the majority of Japanese leaders believed that élan and striking first can overcome industry and wealth, after all, that's exactly what they did in the Russo-Japanese War.  

One commonly overlooked aspect of the Pacific war is that (allegedly) the lowest graduates of the Japanese Naval academy were sent to the unpopular anti-submarine forces. Their estimates of what would happen to Japanese mercentile fleet were - since they were not popular or great - was ignored. The destruction of the Japanese merchant fleet was a major factor in the defeat the Japanese. The US (along with her allies subs) did to Japan what German and Italy had hoped to do to the UK.

The Japanese attack against the US was one of the 'oopps' that occurs regularly in history. One has to remember also that Hitler wasn't a trained military or economic man he had to believe what people told him and in many cases he was surrounded by yes men. The same thing happened to those in charge of the Imperial Japan.

Edited to add: Japan is not a 'one' race nation. It appears so to outsiders but has always consisted of different groups within what some would call the 'Japanese', one can easily tell someone who comes from Sendai versus someone from Nagasaki. Not to forget the Ainu and small colonies of resident Koreans and Chinese and few others.

 

[Corsair 115]

The US always 'negotiated' from a position of superiority.

Do tell me, which side has the superiority in force according to the following figures which were the relative strengths in December 1941:

Aircraft carriers: Japan, 12; United States, 8 (only 3 of which were in the Pacific)
Naval aircraft: Japan, 672; United States, 671 (only 280 of which were in the Pacific)
Battleships: Japan, 11; United States, 17 (only 9 of which were in the Pacific)
Heavy cruisers: Japan, 18; United States, 18 (13 of which were in the Pacific)
Light cruisers: Japan, 17; United States, 19 (11 of which were in the Pacific)
Destroyers: Japan, 104; United States, 183 (only 80 of which were in the Pacific)
Submarines: Japan, 67; United States, 112 (73 of which were in the Pacific)
Army and Marine divisions: Japan, 51; United States, 30 (only 4 of which were in the Pacific)

In terms of the force available in the theatre at the outbreak of the war, it's clearly in Japan's favour. Even when comparing to the total U.S. strength Japan is very competitive. What Japan didn't have was the ability to wage a long war. It had built a first-rate naval force, but it was strictly a second-rate power in industrial terms. Hence Yamamoto's insistence on a first strike at Pearl Harbor to put the U.S. Pacific Fleet out of action giving his forces free reign to achieve their objectives. Once gained, it was hoped the Japanese could build and hold a defensive perimeter that the U.S. would not be able to break, or would be too costly to successfully break.

Japan seriously underestimated the economic juggernaut against which they were going to war, just as Germany seriously underestimated the fighting strength of Russia. (It didn't help that Japan's own military doctrine and practices unintentionally aided the Allied war effort. For example, their best naval officers often choose to go down with their ships; they never considered the Allied merchant fleet a worthy military target; and they were slow to recognize that defence is at least as important as offence in terms of fighter aircraft design.)

 

[9/11-investigator]

Indeed, Hitler himself called the Japanese Aryans, while so few Americans would qualify. Surely any right minded racialist would see that Japanese victory was thus inevitable.

Well, let's see what wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan

However, in the case of the Japanese people, to whom Adolf Hitler bestowed the title following the Anti-Comintern Pact on Communism (signed in 1936), it seemed that they were granted the status not simply for economic, military, or political reasons, but more so because of their apparent racial integrity. In The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler, Hitler stated, "Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply contempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

Put's an end to all this "Masterrace" baloney the Anglos so often like to refer to when talking about Nazi-Germany. Hitler admired nations who remained loyal to their own character and identity. There is only one 'nation' that violates against that principle. I leave it to you as an exercise which 'nation' that could be and who is on top in that 'nation'.

BTW, in Mein Kampf we can see who according to Dolfie is Aryan and who is not:

The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, although this characterizes the external features of the country, which features strike the eye of European observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, of Aryan peoples.

Hey, he even counts you as an Aryan, provided you are Euro-American and not Jewish (uhoh).

Are you aware the GDP (what the hell's GBP?) of the U.S. was over 190 times that of Iraq in 1990? Didn't stop commentators from talking about how the 4th largest army in the world was going to drown the U.S. in blood. In reality, most people do not look beyond the actual numbers on military strength when judging how a war would go. Even with all the historical examples of why that's a bad idea, people continue doing so

You are proving my point with refering to Iraq. Numbers don't count, it is the quality of weapons that is decisive if we are to predict the outcome of a batlle between state run armies.

, and to be fair, exactly what factors beyond military statistics would prove decisive in any particular war are difficult to identify without hindsight.

It is not difficult to predict. I refer to the work of Bill Lind regarding fourth generation warfare to predict who wins in a conflict, namely those who win on the moral front. Those people usually win who are most convinced they are fighting for a just cause. That's why Afghanistan is the classical 'graveyard of empire's', either Soviet or American. Where the Taliban believes that they are fighting for the Allmighty himself, American soldiers have no clue why they are in the desert and are anxious to stay indoors in order to avoid road bombs and consume burgers and porn. That's not a winning formula. The American army can defeat a state army that backs up some local tyrant but they cannot defeat insurgencies, fuelled by a religion.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Do tell me, which side has the superiority in force according to the following figures which were the relative strengths in December 1941:

Aircraft carriers: Japan, 12; United States, 8 (only 3 of which were in the Pacific)
Naval aircraft: Japan, 672; United States, 671 (only 280 of which were in the Pacific)
Battleships: Japan, 11; United States, 17 (only 9 of which were in the Pacific)
Heavy cruisers: Japan, 18; United States, 18 (13 of which were in the Pacific)
Light cruisers: Japan, 17; United States, 19 (11 of which were in the Pacific)
Destroyers: Japan, 104; United States, 183 (only 80 of which were in the Pacific)
Submarines: Japan, 67; United States, 112 (73 of which were in the Pacific)
Army and Marine divisions: Japan, 51; United States, 30 (only 4 of which were in the Pacific)

In terms of the force available in the theatre at the outbreak of the war, it's clearly in Japan's favour. Even when comparing to the total U.S. strength Japan is very competitive. What Japan didn't have was the ability to wage a long war. It had built a first-rate naval force, but it was strictly a second-rate power in industrial terms. Hence Yamamoto's insistence on a first strike at Pearl Harbor to put the U.S. Pacific Fleet out of action giving his forces free reign to achieve their objectives. Once gained, it was hoped the Japanese could build and hold a defensive perimeter that the U.S. would not be able to break, or would be too costly to successfully break.

I do not deny these figures, I said merely that the US was hunting Japan on a strategic level, not the other way around.

Japan seriously underestimated the economic juggernaut against which they were going to war, just as Germany seriously underestimated the fighting strength of Russia. (It didn't help that Japan's own military doctrine and practices unintentionally aided the Allied war effort. For example, their best naval officers often choose to go down with their ships; they never considered the Allied merchant fleet a worthy military target; and they were slow to recognize that defence is at least as important as offence in terms of fighter aircraft design.)

Wrong. PH was an act of desperation. The 'mighty Japanese' were with their backs against the wall as a result of the US oil embargo, with the US asking impossible demands from the Japanese. Reason for asking impossible demands: the US (Roosevelt government) wanted the Japanese to strike at PH; the Pacific fleet was presented to the Japanese on a silver plate. The real enemy of the US government was not Japan (that was just a toy to play with and a nuclear testing site). The real enemy was the American population and Congress. The US was a world power waiting in the wings and the loss of these ships was severe, but nothing really in the long term. It was a pawn sacrifice, in chess terms. The Jewish strategists around Roosevelt were thinking long term and wanted to use the US as their tool for world domination. And they succeeded. So far. But they will fail, just like they failed with the USSR, which they wanted to use for the same purpose.

BTW, Germany versus Russia same story. Barbarossa was a preempted attack, as has been illustrated in this thread before. Nothing to do with 'underestimating' Russia. It was a forced move, to stay in the realm of chess.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I refer to the work of Bill Lind regarding fourth generation warfare to predict who wins in a conflict, namely those who win on the moral front. Those people usually win who are most convinced they are fighting for a just cause.

Since Germany lost both World Wars, can we offer some kind of irony award here?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

The 'mighty Japanese' were with their backs against the wall as a result of the US oil embargo, with the US asking impossible demands from the Japanese.

These 'impossible' demands, let me remind everyone (except our resident Dutch Nazi, who doesn't seem to be listening) were for the Japanese to cease their war of aggression in China and wholesale slaughter of Chinese civilians. How the USA could even think to demand anything so unreasonable, I can't even imagine.

Dave