|
Dumb gooney confession: every time I hear news involving Erdogan, I always imagine for a moment that Etrogan (sp?), the demon alter-ego of Adam Warlock, is somehow in control of Turkey.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb gooney confession: every time I hear news involving Erdogan, I always imagine for a moment that Etrogan (sp?), the demon alter-ego of Adam Warlock, is somehow in control of Turkey.   Going on from pacific chat a few days ago: One of the fears of an invasion of Japan proper was that the army wouldn't just have to deal with an expected horrific landing site (and IIRC documents from the time reveal it would've been bloody business getting ashore), but also the idea that everyone in Japan, men, women, children, elderly, would all turn insurgent and join the fight too. How likely was that? I'm aware Japan had done a lot to propagate the idea that if the allies got ashore, they'd be treated horrifically, and that this had caused a wave of suicides in some of the areas that'd been captured already, but would the kind of organic mass-mobilisation that planners were scared of been particularly likely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb gooney confession: every time I hear news involving Erdogan, I always imagine for a moment that Etrogan (sp?), the demon alter-ego of Adam Warlock, is somehow in control of Turkey. my dad posted:Nah, Turkey can be cool. But the neo-Ottoman masturbators over there, starting with Erdogan, can and should go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I'm thinking of the Batman rhyming demon. Is that the same guy? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
spectralent posted:
My late great-aunt lived in Japan during the war and what little she says about the late war is that at that time she was drafted by the government to work as a nurse, even though she was only around 19 and iirc before then she had been making and repairing uniforms for the soldiers and possibly rifles? She rarely spoke about the war, except for horror stories about when she first arrived in Hiroshima the day after the bomb fell. So in a rambly way I guess I'm saying that the population was getting mobilized but to what extent they were willing to fight or were even able to fight, I have no idea, but if you are drafting high schoolers to work as nurses then it isn't out of the question that you could do the kind of mass mobilization the Allied war planners were scared of. I should also say these are half remembered anecdotes because I hadn't ever got my great aunt to directly talk about any of this before she died, except for what an atomic bomb does to a person who is unlucky enough to survive the initial blast. I'm now kind of curious how much of this is true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
I think it's fact that the mobilisation planned was huge, it was more the idea of "even people who weren't drafted would join in the fighting of their own patriotic fervour" that seemed to smell faintly of orientalism to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I think it's fact that the mobilisation planned was huge, it was more the idea of "even people who weren't drafted would join in the fighting of their own patriotic fervour" that seemed to smell faintly of orientalism to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dumb gooney confession: every time I hear news involving Erdogan, I always imagine for a moment that Etrogan (sp?), the demon alter-ego of Adam Warlock, is somehow in control of Turkey. Uh, Etrigan the Demon is the alter-ego of Jason Blood, a DC character. Adam Warlock is a Marvel character who often opposes Thanos. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
IIRC, didn't the internal discussions the Japanese leadership have leading up to the surrender cover how half assed their defense plans were and how unlikely they were to hold up to assault?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
All I know is there should be a FPS about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
I think this is somewhat of a taboo subject here due to what it inevitably leads to. But how likely it was that the civilian populace were going to be attacking with boat oars and pitchforks, I don't know. Perhaps not very. But documents captured after the war and interrogations of senior military types pretty much revealed their whole defensive plan, and it was likely to be a pretty bloody slog. The main problem was, there weren't but a couple of places the US could land on Kyushu, and of course the Japanese knew this. Initial estimates of how many defenders would be there ended up being way low, as US intel was saying by mid-summer that there were two or three times that many troops in the area and more moving down from Honshu all the time. There is a lot more but I'll just give you this. It's a bit of a long read, but worth it: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall3.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
People at the time were probably way more influenced by what happened with people's ideas of the campaign against the Third Reich in the summer/fall of '44 than anything else. "If we portray it as the worst possible thing, we can finally put 'Over By Christmas' to sleep".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Why wasn't the plan just "we've mined all your harbors, cut off all your access to petroleum, and blown up all your railroads; gently caress you, come talk to us whenever you're ready'? Wasn't Japan on the verge of a famine in '46 anyway, even with American assistance in rebuilding?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 06:56
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Why wasn't the plan just "we've mined all your harbors, cut off all your access to petroleum, and blown up all your railroads; gently caress you, come talk to us whenever you're ready'? Wasn't Japan on the verge of a famine in '46 anyway, even with American assistance in rebuilding? That seems like that could involve quite a few more civilian casualties than the nuclear bombs did if the Japanese leadership was at all inclined to be stubborn. A lot more work to recover from, as well - I imagine try to fix a famine after having very deliberately hosed up the local infrastructure is going to take some effort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I'm thinking of the Batman rhyming demon. Is that the same guy? "The British Empire was a force for good and brought civilisation to the world! We should be learning about how great it was in schools!" is one i've heard from multiple people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Ive always found people who say that know very little about the empire, usually "we built trains in india!" Is the extent of their knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:"The British Empire was a force for good and brought civilisation to the world! We should be learning about how great it was in schools!" is one i've heard from multiple people. That's not far off what I was taught. It would have been nice to have a more indepth view of what the colonial process actually involved. Granted, this came right after looking at the Holocaust, so anything looks good after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Why wasn't the plan just "we've mined all your harbors, cut off all your access to petroleum, and blown up all your railroads; gently caress you, come talk to us whenever you're ready'? Wasn't Japan on the verge of a famine in '46 anyway, even with American assistance in rebuilding? This was basically the plan the Navy had envisioned and endorsed as an alternative to the Army's plan for a direct invasion. While it would have almost certainly been less costly in (American) lives, IIRC one of the main objections to the plan was that nobody knew how long it would take, or if it would even work. If the Japanese leadership had held out this long, would a long siege really be the thing to topple their government as opposed to direct action? And even if it was, how long would it take for them to cave? Months? Years? Don't forget, Japan was bloodied but they were still very much a threat-they'd stockpiled thousands of Kamikaze aircraft in anticipation for the invasion, so a siege would effectively be a long war of attrition, with the US Navy under the constant threat of attack for month after month with little appreciable gain until the Japanese leadership eventually caved. For many US commanders, the prospect of an unending war with no peace in sight was even worse than that of an invasion, which is why the Army's plan was preferred. With that being said, absent the bomb and/or a premature Japanese surrender there's no way to know what would have happened in the end-the debate at the Pentagon during the final stages of the war was fierce, and was marked as much by concerns over lives as it was by inter-service rivalry. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:That's not far off what I was taught. It would have been nice to have a more indepth view of what the colonial process actually involved. The only British Empire specific stuff I was taught in a British school in the early 90s was the Amritsar massacre, so there's that. We mostly did Chartists and late 19th century Germany and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The only British Empire specific stuff I was taught in a British school in the early 90s was the Amritsar massacre, so there's that. We mostly did Chartists and late 19th century Germany and Russia. I personally did the Slave trade... but we also did the abolition of slavery, so it basically was "Here's how Britain was evil... then they fixed it". Any that wasn't required to be done: you can easily go through the British education system knowing nothing more about our history than Tudors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:That's not far off what I was taught. It would have been nice to have a more indepth view of what the colonial process actually involved. The British Empire absolutely did build railroads, railroads that went from mines and forests and such to the nearest coast to better extract the resources of a certain place. They weren't in the business of creating transit systems for dirty colonial people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
I've heard people saying that the british empire wasn't that bad because they weren't treating the colonies any worse than the domestic poor, which even if true is kind of  logic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I've heard people saying that the british empire wasn't that bad because they weren't treating the colonies any worse than the domestic poor, which even if true is kind of About the best thing you can say about the British Empire is that it wasn't quite as godawful as e.g. the Belgian one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:About the best thing you can say about the British Empire is that it wasn't quite as godawful as e.g. the Belgian one. "Look mum, no hands!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
my dad posted:"Look mum, no hands!" Now that's the kind of joke my dad would make.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
http://exiledonline.com/when-pigs-fly-and-scold-brits-lecturing-sri-lanka/all/1/ Definitely my favorite War Nerd piece and one of my favorite articles of all time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:About the best thing you can say about the British Empire is that it wasn't quite as godawful as e.g. the Belgian one. Plucky little Belgium gallantly standing up to the Prussian foe
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:About the best thing you can say about the British Empire is that it wasn't quite as godawful as e.g. the Belgian one. I've been thinking that it was the least awful Empire, mainly because the people then we're more recent, so they think more like us. Also, because you can't point to as many atrocities, but they're also not as well documented. Just being the least awful empire does not make it good, but nobody should be expecting any sort of State to be moral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:This was basically the plan the Navy had envisioned and endorsed as an alternative to the Army's plan for a direct invasion. While it would have almost certainly been less costly in (American) lives, IIRC one of the main objections to the plan was that nobody knew how long it would take, or if it would even work. If the Japanese leadership had held out this long, would a long siege really be the thing to topple their government as opposed to direct action? And even if it was, how long would it take for them to cave? Months? Years? Don't forget, Japan was bloodied but they were still very much a threat-they'd stockpiled thousands of Kamikaze aircraft in anticipation for the invasion, so a siege would effectively be a long war of attrition, with the US Navy under the constant threat of attack for month after month with little appreciable gain until the Japanese leadership eventually caved. For many US commanders, the prospect of an unending war with no peace in sight was even worse than that of an invasion, which is why the Army's plan was preferred. With that being said, absent the bomb and/or a premature Japanese surrender there's no way to know what would have happened in the end-the debate at the Pentagon during the final stages of the war was fierce, and was marked as much by concerns over lives as it was by inter-service rivalry. That being said, in hindsight the prospect of the US not invading Japan and making clear this wouldn't happen would've torpedoed the Army's hope for a bloody land battle forcing the US into negotiation. The prospect of an invasion emboldened the hardliners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:I personally did the Slave trade. You monster
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:34
|
|
lenoon posted:Ive always found people who say that know very little about the empire, usually "we built trains in india!" Is the extent of their knowledge. How would they take the fact the local people educated and trained to work in Imperial government were usually the founders and major players of the independent political movements of the early and mid 20th century I wonder? It is also amusing to consider a lot of British politicans with the complete opposite view in the late 19th century. "Oh for gently caress sake, some idiot got held hostage trying to force christianity on some poor people AGAIN? Do we have to help them?"
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:How would they take the fact the local people educated and trained to work in Imperial government were usually the founders and major players of the independent political movements of the early and mid 20th century I wonder? In a roundabout way, they fulfilled the imperial promise of teaching their colonies how to stand up for themselves!  (That WAS the justification, right? "They are benighted savages, we must care for them until they're properly civilized and can take care of themselves?")
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Take care of them, their food and a century+ of economic growth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:13
|
|
xthetenth posted:Take care of them, their food and a century+ of economic growth. East India Company looks the other way and is like 'famine? what famine?'
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:The British Empire absolutely did build railroads, railroads that went from mines and forests and such to the nearest coast to better extract the resources of a certain place. They weren't in the business of creating transit systems for dirty colonial people. Isn't that how all railroads pretty much everywhere have started? At first you had mining companies building narrow gauge tracks, passenger rail came as an afterthought in Europe as well. In the case of colonies as large and rich as the Indian subcontinent, hell yes they were in the business of building more than just railheads from resources to ports. Building a robust transport network was also important for moving troops around the region (just like it was an important factor in continental Europe). India of course was the crown jewel and can't be compared to smaller one port city colonies. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Isn't that how all railroads pretty much everywhere have started? At first you had mining companies building narrow gauge tracks, passenger rail came as an afterthought in Europe as well. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Take care of them, their food and a century+ of economic growth. And a bit earlier very generously gave cruise holidays to the New World for lots of Nigerians, full room and board for free!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
It reminds me of something I heard the owner at work say in complete seriousness. He said that the slaves were actually the lucky ones, because they were brought overseas and thus their descendants could grow up in America instead of being stuck in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Well, they're luckier than the ones that died on the trip over. It depends on who you're comparing them too. In the sense that he seems to have meant it, that's utter tripe. It's like going to the Japanese in Hiroshima "Sure you're about to get hit by the biggest bomb the world was ever seen, but your children will get iPhones."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Hazzard posted:Well, they're luckier than the ones that died on the trip over. It depends on who you're comparing them too. Luckier than some of the people who were enslaved in Africa by Africans, too, which is a line pro-slavery people in the US pushed. 'Over here we take care of them like they're our kids; if they were back in Africa they'd literally be eaten/sacrificed so this is better'. Not totally inaccurately either - check this poo poo out, for instance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_Customs_of_Dahomey Of course that sort of thing was also very handy for pushing colonialism too!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:28
|
|