http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
ouch.
Seems that there was no realy way Japan could win in the long run.

Not to mention Japan wasn't just at war with the US but British Commonwealth countries as well

would love to see something similar for Germany vs USSR as well.

This just proves how freaking awesome the United States is and has been, and how we were and currently are still number 1.

U
S
A
!


U
S
A
!

" Taken in combination, the per capita productivity of the American worker was the highest in the world. Furthermore, the United States was more than willing to utilize American women in the war effort: a tremendous advantage for us, and a concept which the Axis Powers seem not to have grasped until very late in the conflict."


I got to here and realised this is just a bunch of American propaganda bullfluff which is completely ignorant and incorrect. In saying that the basic principle is right, but putting lies like this in just ruins the whole thing...

So....... what part of that is a lie? Or just anti-USA butthurt? I'm curious to know!~

Scode thinks that because his sheep are trained that they work like women. so he probably feels that NZ has more working women. hmm, reminds me that foreign students aren't allowed to hook there anymore. guess the sheep are afraid of competition.

Well why do you think Yamamoto said the now famous quote of "I fear we have only awaken a sleeping giant" or something to that point. He knew what the American industrial world could be and would be like too. Besides the fact that the US provided about half of Japan's stuff before the war. When the US but the embargo in to effect Japan had to go else where to get their stuff and think they would teach the US a lesson at the same time too.

squeaky wheel gets the grease. think Japan is very dependent on getting their resources from outside sources, so they don't really have much choice if you cut them off.

I don't really see how this is propaganda. The US had already become the dominant powerhouse by 1914 when the first world war started. Nations with a dominant economy and the knowledge how to utilise that capital for war tend to win. The US also wasn't faced by destruction on their mainland in either world war.

Then again, had the Germans been the first ones to develop nuclear weapons things would have gone vastly different.

we allowed children to work back then, we didn't make them go to school until 1938.

Although that article also says that the Americans were first to develop nuclear weapons because of economic superiority. The Germans were darn good at science tho! The author does seem to be an American.

But oh well, his basic points in comparing the US to Japan seem valid.

don't kill Jews if you want to rule the world.

japan never had a chance after harbor, and they knew it. this is seventy year old news, if you followed the war even remotely before or after the occurrence.

they were fluffed when america cut off their oil supply, they were fluffed before they dropped bomb one on the harbor, and they were fluffed the moment they did.

i know they had no chance, the [People of Japan, for whom I hold the deepest respect] knew they had no chance. it was go out fighting or surrender in like '41. if they wouldn't surrender in 45, they sure as fluff weren't going to surrender in 41

"also says that the Americans were first to develop nuclear weapons because of economic superiority. The Germans were darn good at science tho!"

jewish scientitsts, or philosophers, were killed or left germany for a reason- hitler didn't want their science, and the allies were happy to take it.

one time in history was the world conquered and then liberated and given back to those whom it belonged to.

Thank you, America. As trife said:

U
S
A
!

U
S
A
!

there might be hope for you yet, weedy ;)

three countries i would fight a war to defend, in this order

canada
america
isreal

canada because i am canadian, america because anybody else policing the world is bad news bears for everybody on the planet, and isreal becuase a) they are surrounded by enemies, and b) my jewish ancestry, (and to a lesser extend c) the old testament is half my bible)

there is a reason why we don't ask spechen sie deutsch when we start conversations :P

don't know about Israel, I'm still trying to figure out why they got kicked out of every other country on the planet. why they were segregated to begin with, because Hitler didn't start that crap, he just found an unpleasant way to deal with it.

arbeit macht frei, dibs?

when billions of people hate them, for no fault of their own, you can't really blame them.

after all, it was their land, and then it was tsolen, and then it was invaded by whomever, and then somebody else, and then finally the nazis and then liberated and given back to those whom it belonged to.

call western border creation all you want, they didn't hold it for themselves unlike any other invading army in history.

i have doubts about it not being their fault. i don't think most people are so full of hate that they'll go out of their way to hate for no reason.

no, i can't do mach 3 in German. in can say eine beir bitter though, or just put my thumb in the air.

talk to the Air Force. i said a base in Georgia, not Germany.

you want to talk army air force? curtis lemay, my second favourite american in all of history (first is john birch)

but no, it isn't their fault. they were hated before even christianity was created.

you want to talk service records? you go first, i have 3 years in the US Air Force. ok, you go second because I drank too much.

btw, it isn't their fault because the Christians didn't invent hating them doesn't count. just means that they were hated before Christ said we should forgive them for being incestuous racial bastages. god made them that way.

i am canadian and have served naught. if given the choice in life, outside of liason with csis and cia, i'd chose liason with canadian navy and usn. but grant me three wishes, i tells ya.

i know you do, dusselforf i want to say? but i might be thinking of frankfurt, i forget which. you told me, i know because i asked.

and it isn't their fault because of christianity or anything else, it is simply not their fault. i dislike both my neighbors, but i katusha rocket neither of them. i think they call this human rights, or basic respect for people?

but i am white and disagree on a whole with immigration, so i'm a racist. i'm sure you know well of what i speak, on that front.

being against immigration doesn't make you racist, it makes you fascist!

don't know what you're talking about, but i have Palestinian relatives, and they seem like pretty nice folk. i don't exactly understand why every country except the US has felt the need to segregate the Jews, or kuck them out entirely, but it needs explanation. are they a bunch of smartass drunk asses like me?

yah, i live in fear everyday that somebody from the Massad is going to figure out that i don't give a dang about Jews and they'll kill me when im sleeping so that i can't yell it out loud in my sleep.

what the heck did they do that God is still punishing them 2,000 years after the birth of Christ anyway?

Japan vs the US, and how jews got involved in the dispute would be a better title for the thread.

you are palestinian by heritage? i figured you for white as white could be- like me, minus the bulgarian and macedonian, at least (but this gives me carte blance with eastern europe?)

they are gods chosen people- god tests you, tempts you; they have come out with the chins up, and to this day hold their own despite being surrounded by people who want them off the planet.

h4: i could never be a fascist, i adore the idea of joining or even better yet starting a resistance. i do enjoy me some history.

Except for the inserted information, this has to be the stupidest discussion thread on the whole site.

The economic/resource realities of the war in the pacific were patently one-sided. Japan did not have the native natural resources to do much of anything, hence their conquest of those parts of asia that did, thus bringing about the embargoes from the U.S.

It's unfortunate that some people will take any opportunity to slam the U.S. for anything they can, but that's just the way it is. I prefer to think that the world would be a much darker place without the U.S. in it.

My biggest concerns are where the U.S. Government is intending to go in the near future with the erosion of the bill of rights, etc. I wonder if our politicians are more akin to dictators of the past than the men who founded the U.S.

but they still had a massive landgrab, and took a great deal of the natural resuorces they would need.

they lost simply because america out fought them, and american out produced them. the former being the more important aspect, as they were rock solid troops (their pilots kind of sucked at the end, heh), but the latter supplied them with the needed resources to fight the war, exact same as japan needed.

lemay burned them to the ground, once he left europe they had no fluffing chance, and even before.

It's a moderately interesting article. I've long been aware that the war was largely determined by America's economic strength, but some of the ways he broke it down were new and interesting.

Large parts of his analysis were frustrating, though.

He goes to great lengths to outline the challenges facing Japan in 1941. He even mentions that the Japanese were aware of this challenge, and developed a plan to overcome it.

Then, he jumps to the conclusion that the Japanese were doomed from the start, without ever bothering to examine why their plan to overcome said challenges failed (or what other plans might have been attempted, and why they might have succeeded or failed).

In other words, he reaches the conclusion that they were doomed without bothering to examine the point where their plans went awry.

As I said... frustrating.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I thought the exact same things, but I'd argue that Japan was largely successful in their objectives. Admiral Yamamoto knew the enemy's economic strength and military potential and told such information to Japan's war leaders/planners. He even told them he could only deliver a brief period of victory (1-2 years) before the weight of the enemy became too much for Japan to take. They were able to accomplish all of their objectives until Midway, which is arguably the last building block in Japan's desired defensive perimeter.

The author also seems to make the argument that Japan was in a total-war situation with America and its goal was to get America on the ropes and capitulate. That would be crazy if it was what they thought. The Japanese goal was to push the US (and other Western powers) out of the region then build a defensive perimeter to make retaking the region so costly in lives and treasure that US public opinion forces US leaders to make peace.

I've always felt that the miscalculation on the Japanese part was more along the lines of predicting American resolve and the pace of technological change. Japan's leaders didn't expect the "total war" mentality to take over as much as it did (i.e., total victory at any cost, unconditional surrender or the war continues) and breaking Japan's naval code was a huge blow to Japanese planning. Once all that happened, there was no way Japan or anyone else could win that war against the US.

Perhaps Japan's military leadership erred in the prognostication that US political leadership was weak minded and would not wish to be involved in a protracted war with them, plus the over-inflated ego's of the adherents of the Bushido Code and their military prowess based on their recent victories in Asia contributed to their error.

" out of the region then build a defensive perimeter to make retaking the region so costly in lives and treasure that US public opinion forces US leaders to make peace."


well, they knew nothing of the us politics at the time, then- they were already overrun by isolationists. if it wasn't for the [Japanese] attack on Pearl, wallace and them socialist commy isolationists would have won, lend lease never would have occured, and the allies in the pacfic and european theaters both tumble to fascists and imperial forces, and we are all shot for disagreeing with tyrannical regimes.

again, thank you america.

Braden, I disagree with your view regarding the course America is most likely to have taken if not for the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think you're wrong in saying that the United States' isolationism would have remained unbroken and wrong in your assertion that the fascist nations would have emerged triumphant even if American had remained aloof from direct fighting.

However, since the fascists did lose, you're welcome to continue espousing your point of view -- but without the racial epithets.

Please do not use racially derogatory language.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Im definitely not anti-USA at all, as I said, I agree with the over all conclusion of the report.

However Poland, Spain, USSR, Germany and China to name a few were already incorporating woman in the war effort well before 1941.

I would also argue the per capita productivity was the highest in America as being an incorrect statement, it would be accurate during say 1939 to 1941 where hardly any of their workforce was in the military compared to the other major powers, during war time yes the total output would be a lot more but per capita i would like to see the actually figures which they never listed. Based on the next paragraph talking about when USA was actually at war then it is only common sense that the previous part of the paragraph referring to per capita production would also be based on when the US was at war.

for hundreds of years it was the name on the map.. in the time of the war we are speaking of, it was the name on the map

it is not racial, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipponese

please, explain to me where i am wrong- i am happy to listen, i assure you nothing but this. i watch wwii footage every single day where this is used without pejorative intent and i actually do very much resent your assertion that i use it as such.

now, are hundreds of years of history wrong, am i wrong, or are you wrong? my choice of specific demonym was incorrect or insensitive? that does not make it derogatory language. I hear far worse things said about christians or conversatives every single day, and nobody has an issue..

fdr was fought at every level of government, outside of the military commanders- he had little sway in the allied effort until pearl, and at the drop of a dime (or a "japanese" cowardly attack) he was ready to jump in, already having won the lend/lease debate

This isn't a lengthy debate I'm going to have with you. Here's what I'll say:

It is a derogatory term, regardless of its historical source. Even if it was used in the past without derogatory overtones, it cannot be used in a manner which wholly escapes those meanings now.

Since you did not mean it in a derogatory fashion, it should be no burden for you to use less ambiguous language which definitely will not lead to confusion.

I also do not understand your stated resentment. I am sure I am not the only person to view your statement as racially derogatory. By pointing it out, I've given you the opportunity to clarify your true intent. Unless you value being mistaken for a bigot, this is something you ought to thank me, not resent me, for.

Now, that's the end of this discussion. As I said, you're welcome to continue to espouse your point of view on the subject matter in this thread -- without the racial epithets.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

but there is no confusion; if you are "taught" "history" it is not offensive. like if you are "taught" what bonie meant, or "limey" or "kraut" meant.

My issue is not to argue with you over rhetoric, but the way you pass it off as if i am intentionally being rude or offensive in an undue course, where i simply use historically accurate terms in historically accurate situations.

will you consider it racist or pejorative if i mention the atrocities perpetrated by the ijn? i'm allowed to suggest they were horrible, horrible fluffing people, but i'm not allowed to use a word on a map?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...r_Purification_Department

these people were fluffing disgusting. the same way, the same fluffing way if you google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich

you would not question for a second me suggesting that man was a fluffing butcher and he deserved nothing but a horrible, horrible death.

you can not, can not defend these people. they were disgusting, and it offends everybody when you defend them.

i might use poor choice of words, but i don't shoot people in the head, burn them to death, or invade their country and do both of those.

you expect me to speak kindly of these people?

tell me everything you adore of nathan bedford forrest? no?

What? Because he said "nip"? That is merely a shortened version of "Nipponese" which the Japanese refer to themselves as. My sixth grade teacher was a Japanese fellow by the name of Mr. Hirata and he explained the use of the term after one of the students called him a nip to his face, we all thought he would freak out, but he didn't. :) He merely explained how the term came about.

So Fooglmog

Would you consider 'hun' 'tommy' or 'ruski' to be a derogatory term?

my boss, the gentleman who pays my living in my life, who pays for me and my mother to eat and live in a fluffing house has a japanese and two half white, half japanise children.

are you *really* going to argue i speak out of hatred and nothing but historical fact?

either you need to learn history, or keep your mouth shut, foog? i have a great deal of respect for what you say, i assure you, but on this you offend pretty much anybody who didn't murder chinese citizens in the thirties.

so, good people to side with?

hun is offensive to nazis everywhere, socde. foog will be along shorrly, i'm sure, to defend the nazis against pejorative terms; kind of like they DIDN'T start a world war and deserve DERISION from the fluffing planet?

this is offensive, holding ill will against world wars is unjust?

good god, we can't be serious?


i mean... in no argument, you can not make an argument, you are defending people who start world wars

hun was not used to just describe the Nazi's braden

it was also used during the 1st world war by the british.

yes, the kaiser wilheim, i know full well scode, many, many, many GOOD canadians died fighting him- and between you and me, {edit} they all deserved to die for their impertinence to freedom for everybody and anybody.

(poor wording, NOT the allies, but the // kaiser indeed)

and to this point, foog, i respectfully disagree with how you see wwii ending minus pearl harbor. i believe you to be wrong, lend lease could NOT defend europe and the pacific on its own, it would eventually crumble to unconquerable forces from both the east and the west, and i guess you have your choice between which one we have this conevrsation in, we speak in sprechin sie deustch or whatver they call the """"japanese""""" language

on that note your wrong, russia would of eventually defeated germany on its own.

not without american lend lease they wouldn't have, or a western front.. proven by them losing and shooting each other and eating half bread half saw dust?-- but now we are rewriting history and this is meaningless, ultimatley, no?

communism has done far worse than anybody i can think of, outside of mongolians and the plague, heh

any logic you apply to russia eventually beating germany, you need to apply to china eventually beating japan.. and we can ALL agree this latter was not happening? don't fool yourself about russia, look at them in the first world war, they walked away. this is why bolsheviks shot their soldiers