Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78

Thread: Was Japan ever a real threat to the USA in WW2?

  1. Top | #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    600
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post

    Ah, so if one questions war you simply label them Marxist. Well we are so exceptional and all so, ...
    It isn't 'labeling'. It is identifying. It is rather obvious.

    But again your derail has nothing to do with the subject of the thread which is Japan during WWII. So if you want to contribute to the OP then you need to remove that lens and look at a broader picture.
    Sure, endless war is the broader picture and america is traveling down the path of empires in decline. Let's avoid that shall we?

    But another example:

    Nixon and the Cambodian Genocide
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/k...united-states/

    Oh, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how our 2009 coup in Honduras has fueled this migration out of Honduras. It's all quite perplexing.

  2. Top | #62
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,041
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,017
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post

    Ah, so if one questions war you simply label them Marxist. Well we are so exceptional and all so, ...
    It isn't 'labeling'. It is identifying. It is rather obvious.

    But again your derail has nothing to do with the subject of the thread which is Japan during WWII. So if you want to contribute to the OP then you need to remove that lens and look at a broader picture.
    Sure, endless war is the broader picture and america is traveling down the path of empires in decline. Let's avoid that shall we?

    But another example:

    Nixon and the Cambodian Genocide
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/k...united-states/

    Oh, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how our 2009 coup in Honduras has fueled this migration out of Honduras. It's all quite perplexing.
    Dude, you are continuing with your derail.

    If you want to start a thread "The evils of the capitalistic U.S." then start one. Derailing a thread to push one's obsessive passion is frowned on.

    This thread is about Japan and WWII.

  3. Top | #63
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Tharmas View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    is well known history that post WWI the American people were isolationist with no interest in getting drawn into European affairs. Joe Kennedy Sr as ambassador to England thought we should let them fight it out and then deal with whoever won out.

    FDR knew what was coming and within constraints was able to start things in motion. The B17 and B29 I believe were both on the drawing board before Pearl Harbor as were new Naval fighters.

    Carrier development was in full swing.

    Churchill's speeches in the USA are credited with changing political views. He played up his American wife and our common cultural roots. They should be online.
    As an aside, the B-17 “Flying Fortress” bomber was developed by the US Army Air Force in the mid Thirties and was our standard operational heavy bomber at the start of WWII. The name, Flying Fortress, referred not to its defensive armament, as is often thought and reported. Actually the initial models had relatively light defensive armament. Rather, the name came from the fact that the plane was developed to protect our shores from foreign navies. It was thought of as a coastal fortress that could fly. In the early years of its deployment there was much ballyhoo over its ability to intercept ships far out at sea. So actually it was designed to bolster America’s isolationist tendencies.

    The specs for the B-29 “Super Fortress” were released for bidding in December 1939. Whether that was in reaction to the start of WWII, three of four months earlier, I can’t say.
    Always interested in new perspectives. Interesting point on isolationism.

    There was serious prewar interservice rivalry as to who would protect the shores, Army or Navy. Naval aviation could have been curtailed. Doolittle famously demonstrated bombers could be effective against battleships. A hot topic of the day.

    There was a lot of American military politics and infighting, sometimes destructive. One time MacArthur withheld bomber support for a naval operation.

  4. Top | #64
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,490
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,934
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The U.S. took so long to become involved because the people of the U.S. were overwhelmingly pacifists.
    The US at the time were certainly not as bad as the Nazis or Japanese Imperialists, but pacifists? Bullshit. The US has never been pacifist. It is the ONLY nation in the history of the world to have used an atomic bomb on a civilian population.

    The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (demonstrating to the Japanese the power of a new weapon)
    Didn't have to be done twice and didn't have to be one on a large civilian populated area. If they wanted to show what they could do, they could have simply done the same to a remote military base.

    And again, the US was not at risk from Japan and would never have been involved whatsoever if the US didn't interfere in Asia. It wasn't about the US defending itself. It was about the US pushing its global influence.

  5. Top | #65
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,924
    Rep Power
    12
    No one disputes the consequences of nuclear weapons. The question at the time was the consequences of not using them.

    Stalin was waiting to the last minute to see how the war with Japan went before declaring war on Japan.

    There was a communist faction in Japan. Truman needed to end the war quickly to prevent Russia from being part of a negation and a partition like Europe and Germany.

    Truman out maneuvered Stalin who thought Truman was a country bumpkin.

    The two bombs were a bluff to the Japanese,. We had no stockpile. Through the inside spy Klaus Fuchs Stalin knew all the details of the American program and the manufacturing limitations.

  6. Top | #66
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,041
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,017
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    No one disputes the consequences of nuclear weapons. The question at the time was the consequences of not using them.

    Stalin was waiting to the last minute to see how the war with Japan went before declaring war on Japan.

    There was a communist faction in Japan. Truman needed to end the war quickly to prevent Russia from being part of a negation and a partition like Europe and Germany.

    Truman out maneuvered Stalin who thought Truman was a country bumpkin.

    The two bombs were a bluff to the Japanese,. We had no stockpile. Through the inside spy Klaus Fuchs Stalin knew all the details of the American program and the manufacturing limitations.
    It was only a bit of a bluff. We certainly didn't have an unlimited stockpile of nuclear bombs but, since we had developed and tested a plutonium bomb and verified the design, we could continue producing them at a rate of one every three weeks or so. However it would take over a year to produce a second uranium bomb so I think that design had already been tabled.

  7. Top | #67
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,219
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,258
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    No one disputes the consequences of nuclear weapons. The question at the time was the consequences of not using them.

    Stalin was waiting to the last minute to see how the war with Japan went before declaring war on Japan.

    There was a communist faction in Japan. Truman needed to end the war quickly to prevent Russia from being part of a negation and a partition like Europe and Germany.

    Truman out maneuvered Stalin who thought Truman was a country bumpkin.

    The two bombs were a bluff to the Japanese,. We had no stockpile. Through the inside spy Klaus Fuchs Stalin knew all the details of the American program and the manufacturing limitations.
    It was only a bit of a bluff. We certainly didn't have an unlimited stockpile of nuclear bombs but, since we had developed and tested a plutonium bomb and verified the design, we could continue producing them at a rate of one every three weeks or so. However it would take over a year to produce a second uranium bomb so I think that design had already been tabled.
    Quite true. Plutonium was easy and cheap, at least when ignoring long term costs like legacy pollution.

    Japan was most definitely a military threat to the U.S., which is why japanese americans were rounded up into camps.

    Japan was at the time run by the military with the emperor as a figure head. Even after Hiroshima was bombed the rest of Japan did not know. Plus the japanese were onto our tactics, they could see the difference between these atomic practice runs and your standard bombing tactics wrt Tinian. They knew something was up. When Nagasaki got hit the people were talking about whether Hawaii had yet been invaded or New York was being bombed. They didn't know shit about what was really happening because of the military propaganda.

    True, the scientists wanted to demonstrate to the Japanese but the military quashed it because the military was in control at Tinian.

    The basic japanese strategy was to give the US a bloody nose in the belief that the US would then sue for peace like Russia had done. They miscalculated badly and suffered the consequences. End of soap opera.

    It is certainly a good thing to talk about all the what ifs and what have yous and to be informed of what actually happened, but to paint WW2 as a capitalist venture is dopey at best. All of human existence is a capitalist venture when you get right down to it.

  8. Top | #68
    Member couch_sloth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    331
    Archived
    2,732
    Total Posts
    3,063
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    No one disputes the consequences of nuclear weapons. The question at the time was the consequences of not using them.

    Stalin was waiting to the last minute to see how the war with Japan went before declaring war on Japan.

    There was a communist faction in Japan. Truman needed to end the war quickly to prevent Russia from being part of a negation and a partition like Europe and Germany.

    Truman out maneuvered Stalin who thought Truman was a country bumpkin.

    The two bombs were a bluff to the Japanese,. We had no stockpile. Through the inside spy Klaus Fuchs Stalin knew all the details of the American program and the manufacturing limitations.
    I've heard that by the time the second bomb was dropped, Hirohito was probably in favor of surrendering to the Americans before the Soviets were prepared to send troops into Japan. i.e. The Emperor didn't want Russian troops in Japan.
    He may have used the dropping of the A-bombs (neither of which was as bad as the fire-bombing of Tokyo) as an excuse to surrender; while saving face with the hardliners

  9. Top | #69
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,041
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,017
    Rep Power
    63
    ^ ^ ^

    The Soviets had already entered the war against Japan. By the time Japan sued for peace, Soviets had already captured Japan's Kuril islands (Russia still holds them). Hokkaido was the next island in the chain.

  10. Top | #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    600
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post

    Sure, endless war is the broader picture and america is traveling down the path of empires in decline. Let's avoid that shall we?

    But another example:

    Nixon and the Cambodian Genocide
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/k...united-states/

    Oh, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how our 2009 coup in Honduras has fueled this migration out of Honduras. It's all quite perplexing.
    Dude, you are continuing with your derail.

    If you want to start a thread "The evils of the capitalistic U.S." then start one. Derailing a thread to push one's obsessive passion is frowned on.

    This thread is about Japan and WWII.
    Everything is connected my friend, authoritarian power structures always attempt to bury that concept.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •