Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

[DJQuag]

So I guess you're going to get me started...

The U.S. invited Pearl Harbor when we didn't listen to Mark Twain and let the Philippines be free after we "won" it from Spain and further did the Bruce Lee nose thumb come at me gesture when we colonized Hawaii. So America colonized Hawaii and the Philippines, Britain colonized India, the French are in Vietnam, Russia is trying to instigate civil wars the world over including in Japan, and all Japan ever wanted was to be left alone but were forced to open their borders when "three black ships" started firing off their coast. Part of America's process of persuasion was to inform Japan about the true state of the world with European and American power colonizing vast swaths of it with the implication that they could be next, if not by us than by someone else. Japan took that threat to heart.

There is also an interpretation of history along the lines that Japan didn't really lose the war. Yes, the lost the war for conquest of Asia but they won the greater war because they are one of only two Asian countries that were never colonized and never suffered a commie civil war, either of which would have been worse than what they suffered in the war including the nukes, also noting that some countries experienced the pleasure of suffering both like Vietnam which today enjoys a GDP of 271 billion compared to Japan's 5 trillion.

It's also worth noting that our ships were sailing in Japanese waters trying to provoke an incident that would act as an excuse for war, and if none were forthcoming eventually we would have made one up ala The Gulf of Tonkin incident and Remember the Maine.

Disclaimer: Obviously none of that is any excuse for their evil barbaric behavior.

Jesus Christ dude what is with you and defending Japanese atrocities?

Britain, the US, Pakistan and India and all the other countries in the world, every last one has something in their history that they're not proud of. You know what makes you a leader? The ability to walk out there and say, "My bad."

[cherrypoptart]

This has nothing to do with defending the way they prosecuted the war. I thought we were talking about who started it. That's two totally different issues. Remember we're talking about the time of manifest destiny and the white man's burden. Japan didn't roll over like the rest of the world, and it's no coincidence that colonialism only ended after the hypocrisy of decrying Japan's imperialism while perpetrating our own, coupled with a lot of protests and wars, became too much to bear. And in some cases it never did end, for instance with Hawaii. It's almost amusing how we freak out about imperial Japan attacking a colony and outpost of our own empire, one savagely conquered and stolen from its rightful owners. Japan shouldn't have done things the way they did but they had to do something.

To bring it back around to Russia, there's a lesson in there for them too. No matter what they think their justifications for war are, they and their children and grandchildren will suffer the shame of the way its prosecuted.

Unless of course they win the way the U.S. did in which case our own raping and brutality was swept under the rug.

[DJQuag]

So that's an interesting story and yet you're still trying to defend them.

You do you, brother.

I'll just go ahead and remind you how the Nazi ambassador had to tell them to turn their *censored* off.

[cherrypoptart]

History is clear.

The Native Americans didn't fight like the Japanese. They didn't industrialize, militarize, conquer other nations for resources, and all the rest that the Japanese did. Maybe they tried to be brutal and savage in their own way but not at scale. And look what happened to them.

It's be interesting to see an alternate history in which the Japanese war machine never went on the march. If you look at the rest of the world, it wouldn't have ended as well for the Japanese as what they have now. At least they still have their country. What do the Native Americans have? A reservation and a casino, if they're lucky.

Obviously, Japan shouldn't have done what they did and the way they did it in China and pretty much everywhere else either. I guess they didn't get the memo on how to colonize countries and plunder their resources in the civilized tradition of the West. But I bet if you took a closer look you'd see that the West didn't colonize people with the velvet glove you imagine.

[cherrypoptart]

Now again, that's not to say that what Japan did was right or good. Certainly it was pure evil.

But was it necessary?

Doing some evil was necessary otherwise they'd never have the resources to defend themselves. Surely not as much evil as what they ended up doing though and they'll have to live with that stain on their honor probably forever. It's sad though that we put them in that position, where the only way to be good was to be a victim and the only way to be a survivor was to become evil.

Now if you do look at China and its history, ancient history, you'll find that China did the same thing that Japan was trying to do. China was hundreds of different kingdoms and they were united through means just as terrifying as what Japan was doing, and probably worse. Definitely genocide was committed. Languages and cultures were lost forever in the unification of China. I asked a Chinese lady if she thought it was worth it and she said yes, referring to the period of the warring states and the atrocities committed for unification. This was the theme of the Jet Li movie Hero where he was asked about his motivation for all of the evil he was doing and he wrote in kanji in the dirt, Our Land. Unification. (Looking it up, if that wasn't the point or I'm misremembering something, that's what I took away from it anyway.)

If Japan had succeeded all of Asia would be unified like China is now except instead of speaking Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), they'd all be speaking Japanese and English or maybe German. But the main thing is they'd be safe and free from European imperialists. In a thousand years someone would ask a person if that unification was worth the atrocities and they'd say yes. Our perspective now is that of people assuming that colonialism hardly exists anymore and we incorrectly believe it's collapse was inevitable. Not so. Of course we can't know for sure but it certainly looks like Japan's actions directly resulted in the collapse of Western imperialism. If WWII never happened, or if Japan had never been a part of it, would all the countries like India and Vietnam and the Philippines really be free from their colonial masters? It's easy to say yes of course but connecting the historical dots doesn't lead us to any such conclusion. They could very well all still be colonies along with more of African too. And again, of course, Hawaii. Why was Hawaii colonized? Let's be honest now. The real reason and the only reason is because they didn't have the military power to stop it.

[Grant]

The U.S. invited Pearl Harbor when we didn't listen to Mark Twain and let the Philippines be free after we "won" it from Spain

Yeah.  That's who I listen to on foreign policy.  Mark Twain. 

all Japan ever wanted was to be left alone but were forced to open their borders when "three black ships" started firing off their coast.

Dafuq? 

These are the same people who just wanted to be left alone when they tried to conquer Korea and China in 1592?  Or in 1910?  They were forced to invade Manchuria? 

"All they ever wanted was to be left alone" ::fake tears::  "Leave Brittany alone!"

There were four ships, by the way, the shells from the 73mm guns were blanks, and the ships left after delivering a letter from Fillmore. 

Oh, the Shoguns and Daimyos wanted to be left alone because they wanted to continue basically being tyrannical feudal overlords and didn't like crazy western ideas like revolts and revolutions and peasant armies.  They weren't exactly the Pueblo Indians.  Maybe we should have let the Russians open up Japan.  That would have been interesting. 

Nobody put a gun to the head of the Japanese and forced them to invade Korea and China. 

There is also an interpretation of history along the lines that Japan didn't really lose the war.

How much ganja was involved in the making of this interpretation? 

[DJQuag]

"Maybe we should have let the Russians open up Japan."

Don't go asking for miracles.

[DJQuag]

So you all know how the Polish hate Russia, right? Centuries of warfare and then the whole USSR thing. If you want to find someone willing to blindly kill a Russian, no questions asked, go find a Polish person.its kind of hilarious. They really, really hate the Russians. You don't even have to give them money. They'll just kill them for fun.

[Lloyd Perna]

So I guess you're going to get me started...

The U.S. invited Pearl Harbor when we didn't listen to Mark Twain and let the Philippines be free after we "won" it from Spain and further did the Bruce Lee nose thumb come at me gesture when we colonized Hawaii. So America colonized Hawaii and the Philippines, Britain colonized India, the French are in Vietnam, Russia is trying to instigate civil wars the world over including in Japan, and all Japan ever wanted was to be left alone but were forced to open their borders when "three black ships" started firing off their coast. Part of America's process of persuasion was to inform Japan about the true state of the world with European and American power colonizing vast swaths of it with the implication that they could be next, if not by us than by someone else. Japan took that threat to heart.

There is also an interpretation of history along the lines that Japan didn't really lose the war. Yes, the lost the war for conquest of Asia but they won the greater war because they are one of only two Asian countries that were never colonized and never suffered a commie civil war, either of which would have been worse than what they suffered in the war including the nukes, also noting that some countries experienced the pleasure of suffering both like Vietnam which today enjoys a GDP of 271 billion compared to Japan's 5 trillion.

It's also worth noting that our ships were sailing in Japanese waters trying to provoke an incident that would act as an excuse for war, and if none were forthcoming eventually we would have made one up ala The Gulf of Tonkin incident and Remember the Maine.

Disclaimer: Obviously none of that is any excuse for their evil barbaric behavior.

Right, It had nothing to do with the Japanese war on China and the Embargo the US placed on them as a consequence.

[msquared]

I keep reading about the current thing about suicide drone attacks.  Really?  I mean I guess the drone does not exist any more, but if the drone was designed to be a one use weapon, as compared to one that normally goes back for refueling and does many missions, how is it a suicide drone?

[rightleft22]

This has nothing to do with defending the way they prosecuted the war. I thought we were talking about who started it. That's two totally different issues. Remember we're talking about the time of manifest destiny and the white man's burden. Japan didn't roll over like the rest of the world, and it's no coincidence that colonialism only ended after the hypocrisy of decrying Japan's imperialism while perpetrating our own, coupled with a lot of protests and wars, became too much to bear. And in some cases it never did end, for instance with Hawaii. It's almost amusing how we freak out about imperial Japan attacking a colony and outpost of our own empire, one savagely conquered and stolen from its rightful owners. Japan shouldn't have done things the way they did but they had to do something.

To bring it back around to Russia, there's a lesson in there for them too. No matter what they think their justifications for war are, they and their children and grandchildren will suffer the shame of the way its prosecuted.

Unless of course they win the way the U.S. did in which case our own raping and brutality was swept under the rug.

I'm not sure I follow but I think basically your saying "History is written/justified by the winner"?
 
Although resent events have show that sometimes its written by the losses. Actually the south did a pretty good job of rewriting history after the civil war, certainly changed how Grant is remembered.

[DJQuag]

I keep reading about the current thing about suicide drone attacks.  Really?  I mean I guess the drone does not exist any more, but if the drone was designed to be a one use weapon, as compared to one that normally goes back for refueling and does many missions, how is it a suicide drone?

It's just the evolution of warfare.

How awesome is this? We don't have to fight anymore. My uncle gets to tell some drone to kill an old lady.

[Grant]

Although resent events have show that sometimes its written by the losses. Actually the south did a pretty good job of rewriting history after the civil war, certainly changed how Grant is remembered.

There is history and then there is public perception.  One needs to remember that they are often separate, though public perception is often a shadow of history on the wall of Plato's cave. 

The way US Grant is remembered, for instance, takes much from preconceived conceptions.  Yet his own writings and good biographies abound.

[DJQuag]

First last and final warning, do *not* make me defend Lloyd *censored* Perma.

[rightleft22]

The way US Grant is remembered, for instance, takes much from preconceived conceptions.  Yet his own writings and good biographies abound.

The history of the active attempt to change perceptions and turn them into preconceived notions for the lazy (I was one such lazy person)
I think could be said to have been successful.

I watched a play about CS Lewis the other day. One of the first lessons his tutor taught him was not to talk about things he hadn't studied and or knew nothing about.  Today everyone reads an article or hears something from some one or does a google search and they think they are experts no different then those who have studied for years. No they are different as those that have studied are elites and well "elites..." so dismissed. The only elites we admire today are athletes

[Grant]

Today everyone reads an article or hears something from some one or does a google search and they think they are experts no different then those who have studied for years.

The "Death of Expertise" (Sorry Tom Nichols) is a subject that deserves it's own thread.  We're all guilty, including the people who complain about it most. 

The death is not only the fault of the laypersons, but experts venturing out of their field, overselling their opinions, and the general problems involved in discovery. 

[Fenring]

I watched a play about CS Lewis the other day.

What play?

[rightleft22]

I watched a play about CS Lewis the other day.

What play?

The Most Reluctant Convert - they made a movie of it as well

We're all guilty, including the people who complain about it most.

I have indeed been a offender. I find the topic of data, information, knowledge, wisdom, dualism... problem of opposites interesting but lack the expertise to start a thread and can only comment on my own experiences. 
We are analog beings trapped in a digital world. I digress

[Grant]

Just listened to the funniest intercepted radio conversation between a Russian forward commander and an artillery battery commander.  I'd type up a transcript but it would never pass.  The battery commander basically missed by a half klick. 

"You should have counted correctly a while ago you **** ****!"
"You have a ***** half-kilometer deviation!"
"Or I don't know, you ****ing accountant ****"
Ukrainian radio interceptors are laughing
Insert some choice epithets about the battery commander's sexual orientation from the forward commander
"You ****ing ****head"
"You ****ing mathematician!"
Ukrainians are dying laughing
"I will buy you anal beads, ****!"
"Anal beads!"
"I'll shove them up your ****"
Ukrainian (the buisinesslike one not laughing, trying to get intel):  "Why is he so mad?  The guy only missed by half-kilometer!"
Other Ukrainian can't stop laughing

[Grant]

Ukraine did a media blackout for the area around Kherson north of the Dnipro starting a few days ago.  Usually do this when they are starting a big push.  But no big news since then.  It could all be a bluff/feint.  Before the blackout in the previous week there had been plenty of progress in the northernmost area of Kherson Oblast.  But that was at least a week or more ago.  The terrain was supposed to be bad for defense.  I don't know if the Russians are pouring some of their mobilized recruits in there. 

The Russians have continued to attack around Bakhmut and Donetsk. They keep being repulsed.  I still can't fathom why they are wasting their best Wagner guys on these attacks that have no chance of getting anywhere. But I'm done trying to figure out how the Russians think they are going to win this.  It's apparent they will not do it conventionally. 

Their entire mobilization scheme seems to have been to use their new recruits, as horribly undertrained and underequipped as they are, to stave off disaster on their flanks in Kherson and Luhansk.  They're a day late and a dollar short.  They're in desperation mode.  For months analysists have been predicting the collapse of the Russian Army in Ukraine, and right before it happens, they mobilize.  Instead of taking the time to train and equip their army, they are throwing them into the meat grinder immediately to stave off disaster.  Why?  There is no path to victory now for Russia other than nuclear, and they seem to understand nuclear isn't going to win it for them either.  Meanwhile the Ukrainians are rotating their recruits out of training in the UK, 10,000 in a year.  Russia is using their recruits like cheap tissue paper trying to stop a complete hematochezic disaster of epic proportions. 

The Russian response to losing?  Cruise missile and drone attacks on Keev.  Desperate stuff.  Useless stuff. 

Elon Musk had quite a week.  He's still trying to save the world, though.  Have no fear he will come up with a compromise.  After threatening to turn off Starlink in Ukraine since he said he was losing a cool 100m on the deal, he had to reverse.  He probably deserves his own thread.  Poor man is only trying to save the planet.  If only war were an engineering problem.  What can you expect from a human being whose primary motivation is creating multi-billion dollar companies to save the earth from rogue asteroids and global warming?  Poor bastard.  He's sitting there thinking that he did all this work and the Russians are going to blow up the world anyways.  Must be depressing. 

If the Russians are going to start a nuclear war, they should do it now.  Waiting isn't going to make things better for them.  Already there are stories of Russian Gomer Pyles going nuts in their mobilized units and shooting up officers and instructors.  Russians are fleeing into Finland, Georgia, Khazakstan, Norway.  There are reports of as many as 700,000 men have fled mobilization, though that seems excessive.  Even the low estimate of 200,000 seems high.  Two even fled to Alaska across the Bering Strait and asked for asylum to avoid the draft.  The idea of time being back on Russia's side due to mobilization is being wasted on stupidity.  The abject waste of human life at this point is startling.  If they are not going to use nuclear weapons now, then what are they waiting for?  Some worse disaster to justify it to their people and the Putinverstehen?    Every time they scare the *censored* out of the risk adverse section of the west, some of them morph from sheep into Rough Collies.  You can only scare the *censored* out of people for so long before they just say "*censored* it, if you're going to end the world let's go, bring it".   

Back in April everyone *censored* their pants at the prospect of Russia using nukes.  We couldn't get involved because it would start "World War IIITM".  But here we are anyways, just as I said, at the same point, because Russia was going to lose, and they don't want to.  And the same people who tried to cut the difference by saying supply weapons but no direct involvement are not going to change their minds.  This is the overriding truth of politics.  People are going to make a compromise and then never back down from it because they don't want to admit to anyone, including themselves, if they were wrong. 

NATO needs to start positioning itself for real to deter nuclear war.  The amateurs keep talking about how NATO doesn't need to respond to a nuclear attack with more nukes because NATO can do massive damage conventionally.  Yes.  But you can't do it overnight.  You can't have a single massive conventional strike that is going to do THAT much damage to the Russians that it will offset destroying Kyiv or Lviv.  It would take an entire campaign.  IE entering the war.  That means making NATO the next target of a Russian nuclear attack.  Russia is going to win a war with NATO if they are the only ones using nukes.  Even NATO can't disarm Russia in a single night.  At least not with what we have on the board right now. 

This is the time, man.  This is the time to make it perfectly clear that using tac nukes in Ukraine is going to be a losing proposition. 

[TheDrake]

Sounds like the John Bolton school of international diplomacy. Massive threats, and if that doesn't work, maximum destruction. You have no way of knowing how the Russians would have, or would now, respond to the USAF shooting down their aircraft. Especially when they still thought they might win the entire country. You can't even explain what they are doing now. You act as though the mere possibility of escalating conflicts is a big joke. I can see advocating for a riskier course of action, but you don't even acknowledge that there is a risk. Or have I read it wrong, and you're not belittling everyone who was unwilling to roll those particular dice for the whole farm?

[cherrypoptart]

Grant

"These are the same people who just wanted to be left alone when they tried to conquer Korea and China in 1592?  Or in 1910?..."

So is 1592 going to be our starting point? Objection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan

Mongols leading Chinese and Korean troops invaded Japan first in 1274 and 1281 but were beaten by some old school kamikaze attacks as well as the samurai who really earned their pay during that time.

Lloyd Perna

"Right, It had nothing to do with the Japanese war on China and the Embargo the US placed on them as a consequence."

Well yes all of that was the more immediate cause but this idea that we were out to save China is laughable. If we were looking out for China we would have helped them against the British in the Opium Wars. No, we weren't against China being colonized, we just wanted our slice of the pie along with the other major imperial powers including Japan.

https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/imperialism-cartoon-1898

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

"Unequal treaty is the name given by the Chinese to a series of treaties signed during the 19th and early 20th centuries, between China (mostly referring to the Qing dynasty) and various Western powers (such as the British Empire, France, the German Empire, and the United States), the Russian Empire, and the Empire of Japan. The agreements, often reached after a military defeat or a threat of military invasion, contained one-sided terms, requiring China to cede land, pay reparations, open treaty ports, give up tariff autonomy, legalize opium import, and grant extraterritorial privileges to foreign citizens.

With the rise of Chinese nationalism and anti-imperialism in the 1920s, both the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party used the concept to characterize the Chinese experience of losing sovereignty between roughly 1840 to 1950. The term "unequal treaty" became associated with the concept of China's "century of humiliation", especially the concessions to foreign powers and the loss of tariff autonomy through treaty ports.

Japanese and Koreans also use the term to refer to several treaties that resulted in the loss of their sovereignty, to varying degrees."

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

Many historical versions attribute the failure of the League of Nations to stop Japan's invasion of Manchuria as leading to WWII which is true enough as far as it goes but as usual we have to go back a little further still and see that it all actually started when the Western imperialist powers in the League of Nations rejected Japan's racial equality proposal. If that had been accepted, obviously the Western empires would lose their hold over all the non-white people they had subjugated. Nobody was having it. But if it had been accepted then everything could have turned out much differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Equality_Proposal#:~:text=The%20intention%20of%20the%20Japanese,its%20contentiousness%20at%20the%20conference.

"The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord as soon as possible to all alien nationals of states, members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality.

In a speech, the Japanese diplomat Makino Nobuaki stated that during the war men of different races had fought together on the Allied side, leading to say: "A common bond of sympathy and gratitude has been established to an extent never before experienced." The Japanese delegation had not realized the full ramifications of their proposal since its adoption would have challenged aspects of the established norms of the day's Western-dominated international system, which involved the colonial rule over non-white people. The intention of the Japanese was to secure equality of their nationals and the equality for members of the League of Nations, but a universalist meaning and implication of the proposal became attached to it within the delegation, which drove its contentiousness at the conference."

Although it actually did get a majority vote for approval, President Wilson rejected it anyway, offering Japan land instead, land that wasn't really ours to give but that's how these things worked back then.

"Some historians consider that the rejection of the clause could be listed among the many causes of conflict that led to World War II. They maintain that the rejection of the clause proved to be an important factor in turning Japan away from co-operation with the West and toward militarism."

[Grant]

Grant

"These are the same people who just wanted to be left alone when they tried to conquer Korea and China in 1592?  Or in 1910?..."

So is 1592 going to be our starting point? Objection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan

Mongols leading Chinese and Korean troops invaded Japan first in 1274 and 1281 but were beaten by some old school kamikaze attacks as well as the samurai who really earned their pay during that time.

Lloyd Perna

"Right, It had nothing to do with the Japanese war on China and the Embargo the US placed on them as a consequence."

Well yes all of that was the more immediate cause but this idea that we were out to save China is laughable. If we were looking out for China we would have helped them against the British in the Opium Wars. No, we weren't against China being colonized, we just wanted our slice of the pie along with the other major imperial powers including Japan.

https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/imperialism-cartoon-1898

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

"Unequal treaty is the name given by the Chinese to a series of treaties signed during the 19th and early 20th centuries, between China (mostly referring to the Qing dynasty) and various Western powers (such as the British Empire, France, the German Empire, and the United States), the Russian Empire, and the Empire of Japan. The agreements, often reached after a military defeat or a threat of military invasion, contained one-sided terms, requiring China to cede land, pay reparations, open treaty ports, give up tariff autonomy, legalize opium import, and grant extraterritorial privileges to foreign citizens.

With the rise of Chinese nationalism and anti-imperialism in the 1920s, both the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party used the concept to characterize the Chinese experience of losing sovereignty between roughly 1840 to 1950. The term "unequal treaty" became associated with the concept of China's "century of humiliation", especially the concessions to foreign powers and the loss of tariff autonomy through treaty ports.

Japanese and Koreans also use the term to refer to several treaties that resulted in the loss of their sovereignty, to varying degrees."

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

Many historical versions attribute the failure of the League of Nations to stop Japan's invasion of Manchuria as leading to WWII which is true enough as far as it goes but as usual we have to go back a little further still and see that it all actually started when the Western imperialist powers in the League of Nations rejected Japan's racial equality proposal. If that had been accepted, obviously the Western empires would lose their hold over all the non-white people they had subjugated. Nobody was having it. But if it had been accepted then everything could have turned out much differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Equality_Proposal#:~:text=The%20intention%20of%20the%20Japanese,its%20contentiousness%20at%20the%20conference.

"The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord as soon as possible to all alien nationals of states, members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality.

In a speech, the Japanese diplomat Makino Nobuaki stated that during the war men of different races had fought together on the Allied side, leading to say: "A common bond of sympathy and gratitude has been established to an extent never before experienced." The Japanese delegation had not realized the full ramifications of their proposal since its adoption would have challenged aspects of the established norms of the day's Western-dominated international system, which involved the colonial rule over non-white people. The intention of the Japanese was to secure equality of their nationals and the equality for members of the League of Nations, but a universalist meaning and implication of the proposal became attached to it within the delegation, which drove its contentiousness at the conference."

Although it actually did get a majority vote for approval, President Wilson rejected it anyway, offering Japan land instead, land that wasn't really ours to give but that's how these things worked back then.

"Some historians consider that the rejection of the clause could be listed among the many causes of conflict that led to World War II. They maintain that the rejection of the clause proved to be an important factor in turning Japan away from co-operation with the West and toward militarism."

That's a lot of word salad just to say that the devil made Japan invade China.  Kinda like how Russia JUST HAD to invade Ukraine because of NATO and all that BS.

[cherrypoptart]

Russia in this story is not Japan. Russia in this story is America, Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and a few other imperial powers of the last century. Russia is taking what doesn't belong to them and the reason is because they think they can. Just like the U.S. took the Philippines and Hawaii and the entire U.S. actually. To think that Japan wasn't in any danger of being colonized and taken over way back then just doesn't make any sense, especially when we see countries getting taken over and colonized right now, countries like Ukraine. When we look at present day Russia we're seeing a mirror reflecting what we, meaning America and the major European imperialist powers, looked like a hundred years ago. And Russia still looks like that right now. When Japan looked out at the world this is the kind of stuff they saw going on all the time, everywhere.

[rightleft22]

Its a interesting analyses cherry and I wonder if were still to close to the events to look at such things.
Similar to analyzing Halters physiology which many people feel humanizes him and anything that humanizes him some how makes what he did less wrong. 
Like when the suggesting one might want to learn something and so avoid say... waking into a dark ally where you know many have been mugged is viewed as blaming the victim. the muggers are still criminals and in the wrong, I am still a victim of a crime and have been wronged.
But I Still might want to ask myself why I walked down a dark ally I knew people were getting mugged. Asking such questions does not remove the quilt or punishment of the muggers. Why many people react to any such question as if it does is maddening.

[Grant]

Russia in this story is not Japan. Russia in this story is America, Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and a few other imperial powers of the last century.

No, I get it.  In order to keep from becoming colonized, Japan had to colonize China.  Makes perfect sense. 

[cherrypoptart]

Well they needed resources like oil and rubber that they didn't have in order to field a modern military. And to continue the whataboutism and maybe even take it to the next level, it's not like China turned out to be the good guys anyway. Just ask Tibet. China also invaded Vietnam right after we left. They are saber rattling about invading Taiwan right now. But back to Tibet, people are pointing the finger at Japan for things that happened almost a hundred years ago while giving China a pass for for the evil they are doing, the genocide, right now. Japan hasn't bothered anyone in over 70 years. Sure, it's fine to remember but it'd also be nice to keep things in perspective, part of which is they had their reasons because the people they were fighting including us were also guilty of great evil, and another part of which is let's not use the finger pointing to distract from the atrocities and crimes against humanity being perpetrated right now.

[Wayward Son]

All this may become moot next year, if Republicans win the House and decide to cut aid to Ukraine.

[TheDrake]

And it will be the Democrats fault because they wouldn't drill for oil that would have prevented inflation?

[msquared]

So what happens if Europe does not have an energy problem this winter?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/europe-now-too-much-gas-122601347.html

How does that affect Putin and his calculus on how NATO and Europe responds to his little war in Ukraine?

[TheDrake]

So what happens if Europe does not have an energy problem this winter?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/europe-now-too-much-gas-122601347.html

How does that affect Putin and his calculus on how NATO and Europe responds to his little war in Ukraine?

Good thing the global elites used their weather machine to keep temperature high.

[msquared]

Global warming was Trumps long term 4D Chess move to defeat Putin and Russia in Ukraine.

[Grant]

Good thing the global elites used their weather machine to keep temperature high.

Wait...

What is GLOBAL ELITES code for this week? 

Cause I thought the code word was COSMOPOLITAN.

Or is it SHAREHOLDERS OF CHASE MANHATTAN?

I'm so confused.  I need a dose of Q. 

[Grant]

World Wur Trey(TM)?

Nukluar Wur?!?!



PSYCH!

Speaking at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, a Moscow-based geopolitical think-tank, on Oct. 27, Putin said that Russia “had never talked about using nuclear weapons," and that a nuclear strike on Ukraine will make neither political nor military sense.

https://kyivindependent.com/national/ukraine-war-latest-putin-backs-down-on-nuclear-threats-repeats-unproven-claim-about-ukraines-dirty-bomb

He also accused the West, including former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss, of "engaging in nuclear blackmail" against Moscow.

"I never threatened anybody.  They were threatening me!" said Gregory Anton. 

Well no wonder Elon has been trying to put the pressure on Ukraine and the US to negotiate.  Thank goodness he arrived when he did. 

Meanwhile, at TruNews HQ, at the top of Bank of America Plaza in Dallas, Rick Wiles has called upon all Christians of every country to come to the aid of the Russians.  Poof is that the Russian Patriarch has appointed Pooter as "Chief Exorcist".  I'm not making this up. 

https://www.newsweek.com/putin-chief-exorcist-kremlin-desatanization-ukraine-security-council-1754912

Next Pooter will be appointed Chief Ghostbuster and demand that Venkman, Stanz, and Zedmore pay him franchise fees. 

The mission has gone from "denazification" to "desatanification".  Being that the invasion is turning some people in Ukraine away from the Moscow Patriciate.  Definitely Satan at work when subscriptions begin to fall. 

"*censored* those devil worshippers" - Reed Hastings

Pretty sure at the end of the picture, they will remove Patriarch Kirill's mask, Scooby Doo style, to reveal Helen Boucher. 

Meanwhile, Frankie Petri has accused Kirill Boucher of being Pooter's "altar boy". 

The writing doesn't get better than this people.  This is HotD foot fetish level stuff here. 

Tulsi Gabbard is upset that the Democratic party is now controlled by "war mongers".  I'll admit I'm surprised as *censored* and don't blame Moscow Tulsi for being upset as well.  I havn't seen a war the Democratic party liked since 2002.  People are still lining up to give AOC *censored* at town halls, while she dances while they chant "she's got to go".  I'm this close to liking her.  I'm just as surprised that some of the heirs of the House of Reagan want to support Russia, or limit American weapons supply to Ukraine.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.


Anyways.  Nuclear war averted.  I guess.  I mean it sounds like NATO is about to nuke Moscow at any moment, or the Ukrainians are going to "dirty bomb" somebody because that makes perfect sense. 

[TheDeamon]

Even Canada must have some military. Yes, they'd fall down in front of the US and probably even Mexico, but they *have* to have *something.*. You're not a real country if you don't.

Canada is largely moot in any case. The only other nation it shares a land border with is the United States, and its next closest neighbor is Denmark by way of Greenland. Neither are likely to bother with invading them, and the US will react very forcefully to anyone else who tries to do so.

Canada "does fine without a military" because it quite literally hides in the shadow of the United States.

[TheDeamon]

The Japanese were *so* bad that the literal Nazi ambassador tried to tell them to chill with what they were doing in China. Think on that for a moment. Early 20th century Japan were the bad guys, no ifs ands or buts.

Just seeing a written overview or pictures of the rape of Nanking makes me wish they'd had a third nuke to throw at them.

And those actions were significant contributors in the US decision to cut off the supply of materials helping support Japan's war efforts in China coming from the US. Which made Japan fall into critical shortage and "forced" them to attack the US so they could regain the resources they needed to continue carrying out war crimes? But America was the bad guy in deciding not to help them continue to do so... Right. By all rights, we should have pulled the plug much earlier, except our Navy was in no position to face them down just then.

[TheDeamon]

When did I imply that a country shouldn't be able to defend itself? You don't need a blue water navy for that. You do need a blue water navy to establish the Monroe doctrine and related concepts. You do need a blue water navy if you need to punish and subjugate the country with the temerity to have attacked you.

Apologies for not thinking of a more sophisticated analogy from fiction.

You need a Blue Water Navy when the only people who might attack you would have to transit across "blue water" to get to you. The United States has a lot of coast line, it's a natural maritime power.

[TheDeamon]

There is also an interpretation of history along the lines that Japan didn't really lose the war. Yes, the lost the war for conquest of Asia but they won the greater war because they are one of only two Asian countries that were never colonized and never suffered a commie civil war, either of which would have been worse than what they suffered in the war including the nukes, also noting that some countries experienced the pleasure of suffering both like Vietnam which today enjoys a GDP of 271 billion compared to Japan's 5 trillion.

To turn things on their ears. It could be argued that Western Germany, Western Europe, Japan, and most other (non-Soviet) nations "won WW2" and the United States arguably surrendered to everyone who wasn't aligned with the Soviets based on the outcome.

The primary reason for Germany and Japan going to war was to better secure their frontiers in order to ensure they had a secure and stable supply chain of needed natural resources. Because pre-WW2 the world lived under a Imperial and rather merchantilist system of trade. If you didn't control the resources directly, and couldn't secure the transport routes, you were somebody else's b*tch.

So imagine their surprise when they get defeated by the Allies, and a few years later get invited into the Breton Woods agreement, and are given access to this new fangled "global market" the Americans had created, where the Americans were giving everyone equal protection and access under it--and the Americans paid the lion's share of the bills with no demands of tribute/taxes(aka forming a PAX).

It's funny to see how much many people vilify Breton Woods these days. It was one of the most singularly historically unique events in human history. The United States had everyone by their tender bits, and than using to create a literal empire, they went for a far more abstract one instead. "We're going to give you basically everything you ever wanted to ensure your nation prospers. But in exchange, when we come calling on matters of national/international security, you better answer 'yes.'"

[TheDrake]

Not really. You just need significant coastal defenses. Might have to return Hawaii to the native dwellers. Mexico has got a lot of coast, so does Canada. What's Canada got?

As of 2021, the RCN operates 12 frigates, four attack submarines, 12 coastal defence vessels, eight patrol class training vessels, two offshore patrol vessels, and several auxiliary vessels. Oh

[Fenring]

It's funny to see how much many people vilify Breton Woods these days. It was one of the most singularly historically unique events in human history. The United States had everyone by their tender bits, and than using to create a literal empire, they went for a far more abstract one instead. "We're going to give you basically everything you ever wanted to ensure your nation prospers. But in exchange, when we come calling on matters of national/international security, you better answer 'yes.'"

Heh, you might want to include the little bit about the U.S. dollar being instated as the center of the world economy as part of the deal

[TheDeamon]

This has nothing to do with defending the way they prosecuted the war. I thought we were talking about who started it. That's two totally different issues. Remember we're talking about the time of manifest destiny and the white man's burden. Japan didn't roll over like the rest of the world, and it's no coincidence that colonialism only ended after the hypocrisy of decrying Japan's imperialism while perpetrating our own, coupled with a lot of protests and wars, became too much to bear. And in some cases it never did end, for instance with Hawaii. It's almost amusing how we freak out about imperial Japan attacking a colony and outpost of our own empire, one savagely conquered and stolen from its rightful owners. Japan shouldn't have done things the way they did but they had to do something.

The Phillipines were already on course for independence in 1945 prior to Japan invading it(and causing delays, and other problems, in that process), in fact, the transitional Commonwealth was formed in 1935(and was itself the culmination of work started years earlier). Before Japan started in on another round of conquest in China in 1936.

Hawaii became a state, that matter is moot for them now. And also completely aside from the matter that Hawaiian independence has exactly 0 legs to stand on in Hawaii except for the fringiest of the fringe, even among the natives. Guam and Puerto Rico remain in the US by their own choice.

As to Japan not being colonized? That's because they had something of a mixed blessing. They had nothing particularly unique, or of sufficiently compelling value, for the European powers to consider conquest of Japan to be "worth their time/effort." That was also why Japan turned into an expansionist power as soon as it completed initial industrialization, that expansion was desperately needed in order to secure the resources needed to continue to support industrialization without being at the mercy of other nations/empires.

It's possible that after the Suez Canal opened in 1869, in an alternate timeline where the Americans hadn't turned up and forced them to open their markets at least slightly in 1853. A European power might have bothered with them as they likely wouldn't have been industrialized and established as "valued trading partners" with major powers in that scenario. But even then, chances are their worst case would have been either the UK or Portugal turning up and creating a "trade city" of their own on Japanese soil in line with Hong Kong/Maccau/Singapore, but that they'd otherwise be ignored except for whatever outside trade they bothered to engage in. Because once again, Japan had nothing unique to offer the imperial powers of the time. They could get more/better elsewhere and much closer to their home nations. The only non-Asiatic powers that Japan truly needed to be worried about were Russia and the United States of America, because Japan was in their respective back yards; unlike the rest of Europe.

To bring it back around to Russia, there's a lesson in there for them too. No matter what they think their justifications for war are, they and their children and grandchildren will suffer the shame of the way its prosecuted.

Unless of course they win the way the U.S. did in which case our own raping and brutality was swept under the rug.

The raping and brutality of the US vs the Natives was a mutual thing, and it was in vogue everywhere at the time. "Right of Conquest" was enshrined in International Law right up until the ratification of the UN Charter after WW2 which had its signatories renounce it from then on. But not before they made some retroactive "corrections" on Japan's and Germany's territorial claims. In Germany's case even making some ahistorical "corrections" to my understanding, but given Germany had been the anchor for the losing side in two World Wars in three generations, and the primary instigator for the second one, that's somewhat understandable.

Russia won't find their actions "swept under the rug" unless the entire global order crumbles, because that isn't how everyone agreed things should work 70 years ago.

[TheDeamon]

Not really. You just need significant coastal defenses. Might have to return Hawaii to the native dwellers. Mexico has got a lot of coast, so does Canada. What's Canada got?

As of 2021, the RCN operates 12 frigates, four attack submarines, 12 coastal defence vessels, eight patrol class training vessels, two offshore patrol vessels, and several auxiliary vessels. Oh

...and the United States Navy.

Even Canada must have some military. Yes, they'd fall down in front of the US and probably even Mexico, but they *have* to have *something.*. You're not a real country if you don't.

Canada is largely moot in any case. The only other nation it shares a land border with is the United States, and its next closest neighbor is Denmark by way of Greenland. Neither are likely to bother with invading them, and the US will react very forcefully to anyone else who tries to do so.

Canada "does fine without a military" because it quite literally hides in the shadow of the United States.

[TheDeamon]

The Native Americans didn't fight like the Japanese. They didn't industrialize, militarize, conquer other nations for resources, and all the rest that the Japanese did. Maybe they tried to be brutal and savage in their own way but not at scale. And look what happened to them.

Many of the Native America tribes didn't "militarize" because they were already as militarized as their culture, traditions, and resources allowed them to be. Also, they did "conquer other nations for resources" it just happened that those other nations are "simply other tribes" which white men casually brush off as "no big deal," and not worth spending any time thinking about the mass population displacements tribes were imposing on each other long before the Europeans came along. The Europeans simply didn't "fight fair" because they had material, technological, biological(through germs), and numerical advantages.

It's be interesting to see an alternate history in which the Japanese war machine never went on the march. If you look at the rest of the world, it wouldn't have ended as well for the Japanese as what they have now. At least they still have their country. What do the Native Americans have? A reservation and a casino, if they're lucky.

Arguable. If the US hadn't been paranoid about the Japanese/British Alliance being used to contain the US in the 1920's and thus made the abrogation of that alliance a condition of the Washington Naval Treaty, things might have been different. But probably not by much. It just likely would have translated into the transition from the UK being the global super power to the US being it becoming one of the instances where Thucydides Trap did result in a war rather than a (somewhat) peaceful transition by war of the US and UK allying to defeat Germany and Japan in WW2. However, even that could be questioned, given the US attitudes towards the military in the early 1930's and even late 1930's even with Nazi's and Imperial Japan on the march.

A Japan that was able to freely trade and interact with the British Royal Navy and the USN could have been a very different thing. However, without many of the reforms that MacArthur forced on them during occupation, that probably would have had a communist revolution/revolt of some kind, which says nothing about their possessions in Korea and Northern China that predated their post-ww1 aggressions.

Obviously, Japan shouldn't have done what they did and the way they did it in China and pretty much everywhere else either. I guess they didn't get the memo on how to colonize countries and plunder their resources in the civilized tradition of the West. But I bet if you took a closer look you'd see that the West didn't colonize people with the velvet glove you imagine.

The west did plenty of horrific things, but killing people at an industrial scale wasn't one of them. Especially as colonial powers. Most of Europe's activities predated the ability to bring the industrial age to the Military fully. Basically, the only place that got to fully experience that from the Europeans would be the Chinese... Who then had a second helping of it from the Japanese not even 2 generations later.

It was the advent of "industrial scale warfare" which led to the European's imposing all kinds of rules and restrictions because Europe had been one of the primary proving grounds for exactly how horrific that could get.

[rightleft22]

Aside: The story of Costa Rica with regards to having a standing army (it doesn't have one) is interesting. It made the move in spite of the US and Russia trying really hard to 'infulance' them other wise. Apparently no standing army makes it difficult for coup's. They prefer to spend thier money on health care and education.

[TheDeamon]

If Japan had succeeded all of Asia would be unified like China is now except instead of speaking Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), they'd all be speaking Japanese and English or maybe German. But the main thing is they'd be safe and free from European imperialists. In a thousand years someone would ask a person if that unification was worth the atrocities and they'd say yes.

Not going to disagree. The problem Japan had/has is they were the last ones to do it that is both widely known about and acknowledged at present. Prior to the industrial era, very few people would have called them out on it.

Our perspective now is that of people assuming that colonialism hardly exists anymore and we incorrectly believe it's collapse was inevitable. Not so.

Its collapse was a combination of Industrialization, and American involvement in WW2. Without lend-lease, Britain's government goes bankrupt in 1941 and sues for peace with Nazi Germany, ending WW2 for the British Empire and much of Western Europe. Parts of the British Empire possibly get "gifted" to the Fuhrer, and likewise Vichy France possibly does much the same with some of the French colonies before getting more of the French rump returned to it. And with the Nazi's being the reigning power, nobody's going to bat an eye at brutal suppression of dissidents. So Ghandi likely pursues a path that is not non-violent, as IIRC even he admitted that the non-violence approach he took only worked because the British people had "a better nature" to appeal to.

With Western Europe out of the fight, there is no Breton Woods agreement, so the United States doesn't get to use that lever to force the European powers to let their colonies go over the course of the 1950's and 60's. A whole lot of other things also shift around at that stage as the American approach to everything would have changed by necessity.

Of course we can't know for sure but it certainly looks like Japan's actions directly resulted in the collapse of Western imperialism. If WWII never happened, or if Japan had never been a part of it, would all the countries like India and Vietnam and the Philippines really be free from their colonial masters? It's easy to say yes of course but connecting the historical dots doesn't lead us to any such conclusion. They could very well all still be colonies along with more of African too. And again, of course, Hawaii. Why was Hawaii colonized? Let's be honest now. The real reason and the only reason is because they didn't have the military power to stop it.

Without Japan's involvement in WW2, I'm pretty confident the European Colonies would have still been dismantled by the United States, although it likely would have taken longer. D-Day would have also been "different" to say the least, as that means the D-Day planners don't get the benefit of expertise, experience, and equipment developed over the course of the US fighting the Island Hopping campaign across the Pacific.

Britain would still have likely gone broke in 1941, as Japan didn't even declare war on them until December 7th, 1941(same day as Pearl Harbor).

The fall of the European Colonial Empires lies entirely at the feet of Adolph Hitler bankrupting their treasuries by way of wartime material support provided by the Americans. And as the Americans were not okay with the imperial colonial model, they used that opening to start taking it apart systematically.

This also means that if the Americans remove their thumbs from the scale, if nobody else steps in to take their place, expect colonialism to attempt to make a comeback. Although that's probably not going to work well for those nations, as Russia is seeing now.

The Europeans and Japanese were only able to dominate their colonial possessions like that did because they had a significant technological advantage. As it stands right now, thanks to 70+ years of the American imposed order, everyone is in a rough general technological parity with each other, except the guys with the "top shelf" American/NATO gear. So unless they're willing to feed a proverbial meat grinder, or their neighbor is effectively toothless for some reason...

[TheDeamon]

I keep reading about the current thing about suicide drone attacks.  Really?  I mean I guess the drone does not exist any more, but if the drone was designed to be a one use weapon, as compared to one that normally goes back for refueling and does many missions, how is it a suicide drone?

"Suicide drones" are basically "the poor man's cruise missile," likely with greatly improved ability to maneuver in tight spaces and at very low cost.

Drones as delivery platforms certainly do exist as well, the US certainly loves to give their drones missiles rather than using the drone as a missile. But as seen with the Switchblade Drones, even the US will "suicide" drones in the right circumstances.

Small, highly portable, and cheap enough that their loss is expected and won't be mourned--so long as the supply chain holds up.

[TheDeamon]

Russia in this story is not Japan. Russia in this story is America, Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and a few other imperial powers of the last century. Russia is taking what doesn't belong to them and the reason is because they think they can. Just like the U.S. took the Philippines and Hawaii and the entire U.S. actually.

Uh. You do realize who we took the Philippines from, don't you? You do realize why they're called the Philippine Islands?

The US took the islands from Spain. Who had taken control of (most of) the islands centuries earlier, although it wasn't until the Americans controlled it that a western power had fully pacified all of the islands.

[TheDeamon]

Aside: The story of Costa Rica with regards to having a standing army (it doesn't have one) is interesting. It made the move in spite of the US and Russia trying really hard to 'infulance' them other wise. Apparently no standing army makes it difficult for coup's. They prefer to spend thier money on health care and education.

Located in Central America, protected by the Monroe Doctrine whether they like it or not, whether former President Obama believes it still exists or not.

Also close enough to America that any nation that dares to violate the UN Charter by invading them is going to be getting a very heavy dose of high explosive, precision guided "freedom" in their immediate vicinity not long after.

[rightleft22]

Aside: The story of Costa Rica with regards to having a standing army (it doesn't have one) is interesting. It made the move in spite of the US and Russia trying really hard to 'infulance' them other wise. Apparently no standing army makes it difficult for coup's. They prefer to spend thier money on health care and education.

Located in Central America, protected by the Monroe Doctrine whether they like it or not, whether former President Obama believes it still exists or not.

Also close enough to America that any nation that dares to violate the UN Charter by invading them is going to be getting a very heavy dose of high explosive, precision guided "freedom" in their immediate vicinity not long after.

Still a interesting story. The Reagan Administration what not happy that Costa Rica went down this path and it was only with well executed UN campaign, and the people remaining steadfast to the idea that Costa Rica was able. That and they had their own 'George Washington' that did as he promised and then stepped down. 

I'm not arguing that countries like the US could do this.
Still I would think it obvious now that modern War is absurd if it was not always so, and pretty much pointless other then enriching the few.

[TheDeamon]

The post WW2 order is an anomaly in human history held up by the American security umbrella.

Maybe humanity's better nature will win out at the time that America decides to drop the ball. But I'm more inclined to think there is no shortage of people, and nations, salivating at the idea of that day coming while they're in a position to leverage it.

Some nations will be luckier than others where the ability to act is concerned and how it relates to them. But it'll be a huge mess for those not comparably fortunate.

But at least the world got a 70+ year approximation of the American founding father's vision of what a global community of (near equal) peer nations could do if they set aside the imperial order of their era.