A Third World War on the cards.

KomradeBishop · 27-05-2015 9:14pm

Reiver wrote: »

Do we know 100% that the invasion of Manchuria was the reason for the Japanese surrender?

That's about as pedantic as asking if Japan would still have surrendered exactly on the 15th, had the bombs not been dropped.

Reiver wrote: »

The war had been unsustainable from the start. It was the reason behind the whole debate between Strike North or Strike South factions of their military command because they only had enough fuel for one.

Didn't have enough time to investigate? One of their cities had been annihilated, what more did they need? And Allied soldiers continued to die over the three intervening days before Fat Man was dropped.

If the Japanese were aware the war was unsustainable from the start, they wouldn't have begun the war - it is the awareness of the leadership that counted, and staying at war once Russia declared war on them, greatly increased the stakes of what they had to lose (something they were trying to avoid for months/years by trying to negotiate non-aggression with Russia, which Russia were giving a positive reception to, in order to mislead while preparing their invasion).

The firebombing of Tokyo, including the single most destructive air raid in history (killing more people in one raid than Hiroshima), Operation Meetinghouse - which occurred a full four months before the atomic bombings - meant that it was far from the first time a Japanese city (their capital no less) had been annihilated.

Again - if the atomic bombs were enough to end the war, why not do a bomb test on an island to demonstrate the capability?

If they were enough to end the war, why not surrender immediately, instead of waiting until a full week after the bombings?

Reiver · 27-05-2015 9:47pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's about as pedantic as asking if Japan would still have surrendered exactly on the 15th, had the bombs not been dropped.

It's not pedantic. You stated it was the reason for the Japanese surrender.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If the Japanese were aware the war was unsustainable from the start, they wouldn't have begun the war - it is the awareness of the leadership that counted, and staying at war once Russia declared war on them, greatly increased the stakes of what they had to lose (something they were trying to avoid for months/years by trying to negotiate non-aggression with Russia, which Russia were giving a positive reception to, in order to mislead while preparing their invasion).

Quite a few of their high command were aware it was unsustainable. They were opposed by Tojo and his nationalists. The architect of Pearl Harbour and the main reason for Japanese success in the first few months of their entry into the war himself stated

"Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices."

Irsoroku Yamamoto the admiral of their fleet said those words. He opposed the invasion of Manchuria and allegiance with Italy and Germany, knowing it would do them no good. Also he warned that

"I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year, but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years."

Officers from Yamamoto down warned about what a war would result in. They were ignored. The Japanese high command chose to ignore what it was getting into.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The firebombing of Tokyo, including the single most destructive air raid in history (killing more people in one raid than Hiroshima), Operation Meetinghouse - which occurred a full four months before the atomic bombings - meant that it was far from the first time a Japanese city (their capital no less) had been annihilated.

Again - if the atomic bombs were enough to end the war, why not do a bomb test on an island to demonstrate the capability?

If they were enough to end the war, why not surrender immediately, instead of waiting until a full week after the bombings?

Why not surrender immediately after the invasion of Manchuria instead of deciding to wait a full week?

I'm not sure a bomb test would have been accepted by them as proof. Okinawans threw themselves off cliffs rather than be taken prisoner by Americans because of the supposed fate that might befall them.

And Hiroshima grimly enough did fulfil the criteria of a 'test' on an island.

27-05-2015 10:23pm

History forum >>>>>

As for WWIII, I believe that it's been going on for the past decade or so, but it is quite unlike WWII in the fact that there are not two clear "sides" but numerous proxy wars fought by others who are supported by the US & the "west", the Islamic states, Russia & to a lessor degree China (arms deals & financial support).

Historically, wars have always been about access to vital resources and most of the current conflicts are no different.

MarkAnthony · 27-05-2015 10:27pm

Streetwalker · 27-05-2015 10:55pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Putin wants to go down in history. He has mythic longings on him. If there is a war, that would be why.

You know him personally then?

BoJack Horseman · 27-05-2015 10:58pm

Streetwalker wrote: »

You know him personally then?

Very few do.....

But everyone can still smell the crazy on him.

Wurzelbert · 28-05-2015 2:54pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

[...]
If the Japanese were aware the war was unsustainable from the start, they wouldn't have begun the war[...]

what else could they have done? japan’s only other option was to fold and submit to american dominance of the pacific and the world economy and all...

hmmm · 28-05-2015 2:57pm

Cool. The West has forced poor Russia to invade Ukraine. How much do people get paid to write this sort of stuff?

Wurzelbert · 28-05-2015 3:06pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Putin wants to go down in history. He has mythic longings on him. If there is a war, that would be why.

there is certainly an element of that in the whole mess...

wretcheddomain · 28-05-2015 3:08pm

AndonHandon wrote: »

France would just surrender.

Word just in that France has already given up. :pac:

Wurzelbert · 28-05-2015 3:17pm

AndonHandon wrote: »

France would just surrender.

they probably would...i think the french lost it in 1815...

zeffabelli · 28-05-2015 3:40pm

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Word just in that France has already given up. :pac:

Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Élysées?

A: because the Germans liked to walk in the shade.

Wurzelbert · 28-05-2015 3:48pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Élysées?

A: because the Germans liked to walk in the shade.

and the most popular rifles amongst military rifle collectors are french ww2 ones...always mint condition, never fired and only dropped once...

KomradeBishop · 28-05-2015 5:33pm

hmmm wrote: »

Cool. The West has forced poor Russia to invade Ukraine. How much do people get paid to write this sort of stuff?

You know full well that you're posting a misrepresentation of what was posted here.

It is a documented fact, that the US was funding some of the protest groups that destabilized Ukraine - and proof of this funding was provided, so it's not really credibly deniable - that does not equal, making the claim you say above.

hmmm · 28-05-2015 7:38pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

that does not equal, making the claim you say above.

Komrade, did the Russian army invade Ukraine, yes or no?

KomradeBishop · 28-05-2015 7:57pm

hmmm wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

that does not equal, making the claim you say above.

Komrade, did the Russian army invade Ukraine, yes or no?

Don't quote-mine me - since you're already misrepresenting me, and now selectively quoting to remove important context from what I said, always quote full sentences from me.

This is the full context of what I said:
"It is a documented fact, that the US was funding some of the protest groups that destabilized Ukraine - and proof of this funding was provided, so it's not really credibly deniable - that does not equal, making the claim you say above."

What is being discussed is not "Did Russia invade Ukraine?", it is "Did the US help destabilize Ukraine?" - which I've provided proof, that the US were indeed actively funding protest groups leading up to the revolution, helping to destabilize the country, prior to the civil war and later Russian invasion.

hmmm · 28-05-2015 8:05pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Don't quote-mine me

Answer the question and stop your dancing around.

KomradeBishop · 28-05-2015 8:15pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

...
What is being discussed is not "Did Russia invade Ukraine?", it is "Did the US help destabilize Ukraine?" - which I've provided proof, that the US were indeed actively funding protest groups leading up to the revolution, helping to destabilize the country, prior to the civil war and later Russian invasion.

Do you see anything above which answers your question? Or - let me guess - your question is for rhetorical effect.

hmmm · 28-05-2015 9:33pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Do you see anything above which answers your question?

Well done. Do you condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

ComfortKid · 28-05-2015 10:17pm

WW3 is going to break out here between KomradeBishop and hmmm in a minute.

US as good as started the unrest in Ukraine. Russia went in to protect it's own interests and people.

These anti Russian boardsie seem to completely forget all the Countrys America is interfering with, in the last few years alone, Egypt,Lybia,Syria,Ukraine.

WakeUp · 01-06-2015 12:38am

Grayson wrote: »

I marched against the Iraq war and I'm a huge fan of Naomi Klein. I'm just saying that so you know what sort of tree hugging hippy I am. America has done some absolutely horrific things over the years, However they've also done some good.

Nearly 100% has been in their own interest.

Still, without them the world might be worse in a lot of places.

Naomi Klein is very good as someone else pointed out Shock doctrine is an excellent read. the Americans have certainly done lots of of good things I would agree with you there when I bounce off them its directed at their policy foreign policy being the empire and all that they are fair game. and its right to do so. I have some American friends I like Americans. This situation in the south China sea has been building for a number of years now its come to the surface big time no pun intended. Both sides have drawn lines Chinese intentions are obvious happening and out there. ball is now in Washingtons court are they prepared to take the Chinese on thats the question to be answered now.

You may not have noticed, as ISIS expands its reach across Iraq and Russia fuels conflict in Ukraine, but the odds of an armed confrontation between the United States and China just dramatically increased.

After years of ignoring China’s growing assertiveness in Asia, the Obama administration has been taken unaware by a major land and power grab by Beijing.
Over the past several years, China has steadily expanded its territorial ambitions, including a claim that the entire South China Sea is under its dominion.
The sea is one of the world’s most strategic bodies of water. It contains crucial sea lanes, such as the Malacca Strait, through which nearly 70,000 ships transit each year.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter last week publicly rebuked Beijing, demanding that it stop its reclamation activities and warning China that is isolating itself in the eyes of the world community. More concretely, Carter and other officials have stated that the US will ignore China’s claims and will fly military planes over the islands’ airspace and will sail within the 12-mile limit claimed by China.

Though no US ships have yet ventured inside that ring, the line has been drawn.

For its part, Beijing is not backing down. Indeed, not only have Chinese officials criticized Washington’s response, a state run newspaper, The Global Times, warned that a “US-China war is inevitable,” if Washington tries to force China to halt its activities. Official Chinese military doctrine is also ominously changing to reflect the new reality, stating that Beijing’s forces will no longer focus solely on territorial defense, but will project power far beyond its borders.

All it would take is one hotheaded action by a Chinese fighter pilot to ignite an armed confrontation between the two sides. Unlike during the Cold War days, when Moscow and Washington established important crisis-management mechanisms, there are almost no working relations of trust between China and the United States. It is not assured that an accident or encounter could be prevented from spiraling out of control.

Yet neither side seems willing to back down. The US is being challenged again as a paper tiger, and if it fails to follow through on its promise to sail through the Spratlys, its Asian allies will wonder how strong America’s security commitments really are.

For Beijing, the stakes are just as high. Failing to assert its control over the waters it now claims will expose it as a geopolitical fraud. This will embolden other nations to similarly challenge China’s claims, and ironically possibly increase the likelihood of some type of military clash in Asia.

East Asia now stands close to a precipice. China figures the US is too distracted or uninterested to care about its expansion. They may be right.

http://www.aei.org/publication/china-is-gambling-obama-doesnt-have-will-to-respond-to-its-massive-land-grab/?

KomradeBishop · 01-06-2015 1:57am

The AEI are warmongers though, who helped with the push for the war in Iraq - I wouldn't trust their analysis on anything:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Enterprise_Institute

WakeUp · 01-06-2015 2:14am

the build up to the Iraq war, I dont think there was a media outlet or think thank something like that who didnt in some way push for war in Iraq. or ask the right questions. and if there was it was a minority. some worse than others but a near complete failure on the collective part. though in this instance I do agree with their analysis of whats going on in the south China sea and what it means for both of them. the Chinese have calculated the Americans are suffering from imperial over strectch sum total of American global interests and obligations is larger than the countries ability to defend all of them simultaneously. this happens all empires at some stage and thats what the Chinese are banking on. wonder how the Americans will respond to the challenge. we shall see.

KomradeBishop · 01-06-2015 2:41am

Ya but the thing is, the AEI were central to the push for the war in Iraq - even Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading 'architects' of the War in Iraq, is a part of it now (from the above link):

AEI emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. AEI has rented office space to the Project for the New American Century, one of the leading voices that pushed the Bush administration's plan for "regime change" through war in Iraq. AEI reps have also aggressively denied that the war has anything to do with oil.

Paul Wolfowitz, who was Secretary of Defense under former President George W. Bush from the beginning of his presidential term until June 2005, is a scholar at AEI (as of July 2014). During his time in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz was a major architect of the United States’ failed Iraq policy.

The AEI are one the worst of the worst, of all the ideologically corrupt think-tanks - they didn't just push for the war and help lead the propaganda, they helped write the policy for the war itself - and remember, the Iraqi war was an illegal war, with the US committing a war crime, by engaging in a 'War of Aggression'.

That's the think tank that helped back the Bush administration in the Iraq war and into committing a war crime - this shatters their credibility, and all of their analysis/writing can be considered as corrupt/propaganda, as they have a proven record of putting out warmongering propaganda, and writing up policy for an illegal war.
You can see the clear bias in the report you link too, as it places China firmly as the 'bad guy' threatening the US - in the 'South China Sea'!

Egginacup · 01-06-2015 2:59am

hmmm wrote: »

Komrade, did the Russian army invade Ukraine, yes or no?

The answer is whatever you want it to be.

Herb Powell · 01-06-2015 4:00pm

WakeUp wrote: »

http://www.aei.org/publication/china-is-gambling-obama-doesnt-have-will-to-respond-to-its-massive-land-grab/?

I read this and all I can think is, surely war is the most retarded of all of humanity's creations. The mind boggles.

Wurzelbert · 01-06-2015 6:21pm

Herb Powell wrote: »

I read this and all I can think is, surely war is the most retarded of all of humanity's creations. The mind boggles.

not sure war is a creation…i think war is actually quite natural, animals basically do it too…

Reiver · 01-06-2015 7:46pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

not sure war is a creation…i think war is actually quite natural, animals basically do it too…

Agreed. We see ants and apes do it. It's one of the more natural parts of the world.

Wurzelbert · 01-06-2015 9:37pm

Reiver wrote: »

Agreed. We see ants and apes do it. It's one of the more natural parts of the world.

yeah, all sorts of animals and even plants in a way…the struggle for territory and space, sunlight, mates, nutrition etc…as old as life itself…humans have just taken it to a more complex and more ****ed-up level and given it a name…

Egginacup · 01-06-2015 10:19pm

Reiver wrote: »

Agreed. We see ants and apes do it. It's one of the more natural parts of the world.

Perhaps....but at least the ones at the top of the ant or ape chain join in the fighting. They don't con saps into fighting so that they can get rich.

ComfortKid · 01-06-2015 10:26pm

Egginacup wrote:

Perhaps....but at least the ones at the top of the ant or ape chain join in the fighting. They don't con saps into fighting so that they can get rich.

Nobody is conned. People know what they're getting into when the join the army.

Herb Powell · 01-06-2015 10:42pm

ComfortKid wrote: »

Nobody is conned. People know what they're getting into when the join the army.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

ComfortKid · 01-06-2015 10:57pm

Herb Powell wrote:

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

What's that? Can't copy an paste it to Google as I'm on my phone.

Reiver · 01-06-2015 10:59pm

ComfortKid wrote: »

What's that? Can't copy an paste it to Google as I'm on my phone.

Sweet and honourable/noble it is to die for one's country.

Reiver · 01-06-2015 11:00pm

Egginacup wrote: »

Perhaps....but at least the ones at the top of the ant or ape chain join in the fighting. They don't con saps into fighting so that they can get rich.

Never see the termite or ant queen do the fighting. Only the average worker.

Wurzelbert · 01-06-2015 11:04pm

Reiver wrote: »

Never see the termite or ant queen do the fighting. Only the average worker.

bee queens kill each other, in the same hive and just after hatching as there can only be one queen…not sure how ant or termite queens handle it, but would imagine similar…

RedemptionZ · 01-06-2015 11:10pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

bee queens kill each other, in the same hive and just after hatching as there can only be one queen…not sure how ant or termite queens handle it, but would imagine similar…

In ants there are two types: the workers and soldiers. These are ruled by the queen. The soldiers primary purpose is to protect the queen. If the soldiers are successful, the queen will never have to come into combat.

What you're talking about isn't the same as soldiers being used as pawns. It's the battle for power. Which takes place in human life everyday. Queen bees fight to the death, but how do people get to the top of the military hierarchy?

Wurzelbert · 01-06-2015 11:14pm

RedemptionZ wrote: »

In ants there are two types: the workers and soldiers. These are ruled by the queen. The soldiers primary purpose is to protect the queen. If the soldiers are successful, the queen will never have to come into combat.

What you're talking about isn't the same as soldiers being used as pawns. It's the battle for power. Which takes place in human life everyday. Queen bees fight to the death, but how do people get to the top of the military hierarchy?

yes of course, same with bees…it’s just killing all the way, be it in actual combat or in some internal power struggle…nothing humans do isn’t done by animals at some level already….

Reiver · 01-06-2015 11:16pm

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes of course, same with bees…it’s just killing all the way, be it in actual combat or in some internal power struggle…nothing humans do isn’t done by animals at some level already….

Termite hives actually use their soldiers to block the entrances to protect the workers and interior from ant raiders. Maybe we're not so different.

Wurzelbert · 01-06-2015 11:28pm

Reiver wrote: »

Termite hives actually use their soldiers to block the entrances to protect the workers and interior from ant raiders. Maybe we're not so different.

yup, a natural „them and us“ attitude there…

Egginacup · 01-06-2015 11:32pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Russia Cannot win a Conventional war with the EU and will not try.

The EU cannot win any kind of war against Russia yet IS trying with Fat Sam prodding them in the arse to go forward and fcuk with the bear.

Reiver · 01-06-2015 11:39pm

Egginacup wrote: »

The EU cannot win any kind of war against Russia yet IS trying with Fat Sam prodding them in the arse to go forward and fcuk with the bear.

Not so sure. Ivan seems to have a corrupt and backward military infrastructure. Cases of soldiers selling their ammo in Chechnya, then being appalled a few days later when muj overran their position.

pueblo · 01-06-2015 11:55pm

and then you have this sort of malarky, which has been going on for ever..

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Dohnjoe · 02-06-2015 12:32am

Egginacup wrote: »

The EU cannot win any kind of war against Russia yet IS trying with Fat Sam prodding them in the arse to go forward and fcuk with the bear.

There won't be any sort of conventional war with Russia. Only another cold war and various proxies. Regardless of military power, a cold war is favorable to larger economic powers and Russia, which has an economy the size of Italy and going into recession, is not really in any long-term shape to benefit over its opponents

Rhys Essien · 02-06-2015 1:25pm

Can anyone tell me what in the name of fcuk are the Yanks doing in the Black Sea?.It is total provocation.It would be akin to the Russians sailing into Lake Michigan.(thats if it was accessible)

Video here of the Russian fighter jet buzzing the American destroyer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/russia-plane-navy-uss-ross/index.html

Wurzelbert · 02-06-2015 2:07pm

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what in the name of fcuk are the Yanks doing in the Black Sea?.It is total provocation.It would be akin to the Russians sailing into Lake Michigan.(thats if it was accessible)

Video here of the Russian fighter jet buzzing the American destroyer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/russia-plane-navy-uss-ross/index.html

american foreign policy is as heavy-handed as ever...

Reiver · 02-06-2015 7:52pm

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what in the name of fcuk are the Yanks doing in the Black Sea?.It is total provocation.It would be akin to the Russians sailing into Lake Michigan.(thats if it was accessible)

Video here of the Russian fighter jet buzzing the American destroyer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/russia-plane-navy-uss-ross/index.html

It's going to be an interesting summer....

Well Turkey is an American ally and is on the Black Sea. Greece too? It's not a Russian lake.

Irelandcool · 03-06-2015 2:26am

A third world war eh, what's the church attitude about this? Should we all be at war now. In the morning I like to have a cup of tea, I'll see if I can make time to this old war business.

WakeUp · 04-06-2015 1:02pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya but the thing is, the AEI were central to the push for the war in Iraq - even Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading 'architects' of the War in Iraq, is a part of it now (from the above link):

The AEI are one the worst of the worst, of all the ideologically corrupt think-tanks - they didn't just push for the war and help lead the propaganda, they helped write the policy for the war itself - and remember, the Iraqi war was an illegal war, with the US committing a war crime, by engaging in a 'War of Aggression'.

That's the think tank that helped back the Bush administration in the Iraq war and into committing a war crime - this shatters their credibility, and all of their analysis/writing can be considered as corrupt/propaganda, as they have a proven record of putting out warmongering propaganda, and writing up policy for an illegal war.
You can see the clear bias in the report you link too, as it places China firmly as the 'bad guy' threatening the US - in the 'South China Sea'!

I didnt look into that think tank as much as you did I wasnt aware of what you are saying here so thanks for that. I came upon the link and read it. but I still agree with their analysis on this particular issue. Ive been following whats happening over there for a couple of years and its just coming to the fore now. the south China sea is not the sole dominion of China just because it includes there name. same way the Irish sea isnt exclusive to us or the English channel to the English. a number of countries have claims to the islands some based on historical sovereignty of the islands ( China ) and some that claim it part of their territory vis a vis law of the sea. the Chinese for example are basing their claims on long since past dynasties actions sightings and such taken by sailors way back in 1900 and splash way before the westphalian concept of sovereignty. they have reinterpreted their history to make it so. whatever those ancient sailors were doing it had nothing to do with asserting or violating sovereignty that concept didnt exist in Asia back then. France, Japan, China and Vietnam have all at one stage seized the islands they always been hotly disputed and still are. its an interstate conflict aside from the potential economic windfall of the ocean surrounding them its a key strategic trade route for north east Asia. 50% of global oil tanker shipments pass through the South China sea. 6 of the worlds top ten shipping ports are located in and around that sea too. and the Chinese appear to be claiming all of it. this doesnt just affect the countries they are in direct dispute with because its such a strategic trade route it potentially affects many more Japan, US, Europe. this dispute isnt going to go away anytime soon and certainly the south China sea is not the exclusive property of the Chinese.

KomradeBishop · 04-06-2015 3:24pm

Ya but the US have no business in the South China sea - certainly no business to be ratcheting up the war propaganda against other nations there, let alone against China.

It's ridiculous that it's being framed as China challenging the US - in their (China's) own sphere of influence.

Open talk of a war between two nuclear powers - as if it is an inevitability - over a handful of islands (and when one of those countries has no business being there), is incredibly reckless and dumb (in much the same way as open talk of war between NATO and Russia over Ukraine, is equally reckless/dumb).

I don't agree with what China is doing, and don't think they should be allowed do it, but I totally reject the US-centric framing of that dispute - which seems to be intended at easing the path towards a war.

A Third World War on the cards.

Comments