Egalitarianism never improved anything, instead of bringing everyone to the highest level, it always brings everyone to the lowest level. This is the failure of communism.

No one had any reason to want to excel. Why should they? They won't get anything more than the next guy even if they can outperform him 3 to 1. He's going to get the same allotment of whatever reward there is, thus no incentive to improve, excel or push harder. Russia would not have been able to defeat Germany on their own. They didn't have what it took industrially, agriculturally, or ideologically.

Nippon is to Japan like Deutschland is to Germany. just figured I'd throw that out there in defense of weedy.

btw, the second sino-japanese war is interesting reading

you're absolutely right, as am i, but i edited anything rude towards him and brought our discussion to a pm, if he decided to respond its his choice, i know i'm right, and i know i have historical fact on my side and i really don't need him at all in my life to agree with me

he's more than welcome to believe what he wants, like i am what i want-- it's only fair, and there is no need to be mean about either side, which is why i went about trying not to be rude where i may have otherwise been

America showed up late to both world wars. We had fresh troops and supplies. We were already producing weapons that we were selling to our allies. US troops were unable to take japan that was why we used the nuclear weapons. In the end we still won the war though but it would have been a much more bloody ending especially with most of the japaneze doing suicide missions they were willing to do whatever it took to win.

How fluffing daft can you actually get? You're actually on here trying to defend calling Germans "Huns" and Japanese "Nips" because the Japanese and Germans fought against the US in WWII? Worse, you casually use the word "Nazis" as if every German during World War II was a Nazi and somehow that justifies your use of the word.

Get off this forum you racist fluff.

but its not a racist term, or is the world getting so PC you cant understand that and any term for another race which is not official is considered racist?

What's so difficult about saying "Japanese" or "Germans?"

seriously, you guys sound like old white men who say "well black people call each other fluffs i dont see why we shouldn't"

Pontius Pirate is a moron, pay him no mind. The guy is just an idiot. In fact, he's so stupid that it's amazing he can remember to breathe, which explains the extreme brain damage he suffers from as evidenced in most of his posts.

Oh hi Cerb! What a surprise to see you chiming in on racism. Please tell us more about how black people are unable to run countries. Oh sorry, I meant tell us how you're definitely not a racist but there has never been a successful black-run nation and that's just an innocent observation with no relevance to anything that you decided to post.

Don't forget, obama is half-black half-white. This country is not run by only one man. It also isn't a black run nation. America is an American run nation..it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is, it matters, which flag you fly under.

does it really matter what you call them if you're required to shoot at them?

how are cheese nips racist?

we should nip this in the bud before it escalates.

"How fluffing daft can you actually get?"

pp there is no limit, my friend. you still raised zero valid argument against the use of either terms- and i know full well the difference between a nazi and a german soldier, racism or not everything i said has been factually accurate, no?


and to this day, pa ruskies are bolsheviks, but thats a political organization, how might you determine that one is racist? (and yes, this was meant as a joke.. i hope it's obvious)

wow, this thread got derailed fast.

The fact that the US had more industrial capacity than Japan (along with more natural resources) is pretty much an accepted fact. That this put Japan at a huge disadvantage is pretty clear too. Pretty much the US could zerg Japan and win. The argument made there is that battles like MIdway were not really that critical for the Americans to win as they could keep going and win based on sheer numbers alone (which is partly how the US navy won in the Pacific). The same argument could probably be made with Russian/Germany although the Russians actually had to build the industrial capacity up so needed time whereas the Americans simply had to restart many of their idled factories (ie the germans actually had a chance, assuming they could capture the USSR up to the caucassus).
The US victory at midway probably shortened the war in the Pacific considerably though.

The atomic weapons also shortened the war considerably, but I'm not sure it's relevant.

Anyway, contextually I suspect it was more an evaluation of how far can you push someone before they respond. A little more than 30 years before, the US was helping to negotiate a truce between Russia and Japan. There were the memories of WWI fresh in many policymaker's minds. And there was the accompanying isoolationist attitude following WWI (and that largerly preceded it as well).

So if you're Japan chasing after natural resources in an empire-building exercise, the question isn't whether you match up to someone economically or militarily because clearly you don't otherwise you wouldn't be on this resource plundering expedition. The question is how much can you get away with before awakening the sleeping giant?

And it's a fair question. Take Pearl Harbor out of the equation and does the U.S. engage Japan? Particularly if they become entangled in Euorpe with the Nazis?

Anyway, just like crime, war is often opportunistic and based on assumptions about the response of the victim and liklihood of being caught.

No one could have expected some of Germany's top scientists to emigrate to the United States and begin research on building an atomic bomb. Had the Germans built one, it would have most likely used on London. Considering, I don't see German bombers being able to make it across the Atlantic without getting shot down, as they couldn't even get most of their naval vessels south of France without getting sunk, the idea that one would have been used on America is fanciful at best.

~Sumire Kotani

As I said in the above post, we literally stole Germany's top scientists who were working on the project out of the country to work on the program in the United States.

According to that site it said "informally 1937" When it was ongoing before even then, Starting in September 1931, it didn't escalate into an all-out war *until* July 1937.

The United States, while still isolationist, put the embargo on Japan in an attempt to starve them of the resources they would need to continue their war against China. What is funny, was that the USA, USSR and Germany were sending economic help to China to fight Japan.

In a purely hypothetical situation, had the world turned a blind eye to China; the world would never know the name Mao Zedong, Tibet would be free, Hong Kong would still be British, Macau would still be Portuguese, both Korean and Vietnam wars wouldn't have happened, and Communism in China, Korea and Southeast Asia may have happened, but with getting beaten down by the Japanese it wouldn't have happened as early as 1949.

~Sumire Kotani

I don't think atomic weapons factored into anyone's thoughts in 1939 or even 1942. Back on point, I think that it was only a matter of time before the US and japan came into conflict over the pacific. The moment the US placed an oil embargo on japan for their invasion of china was the moment that japan would have been forced to back off completely or do something reckless. Of course you can't take any decisions out of context.

As history has taught us, the ones who wage war eventually lose, because we as humans believe in rights and freedom.

Japans original goal was to unite east asia as one, USA at the time was allied with Japan and it was this reason which USA didnt agree with cuz they thought that china should be ruled by their own (Chiang Kai-Shek's). so when japan decided to goto war with china anyways, USA seized all import/export to Japan and broke their alliance.


USA "dont go to war with china, we dont approve it"
Japan "fu, dont tell me who i can go to war with"
USA "ok, then we are going to hault all exports to ur country" (including petroleum which at the time USA was exporting almost 100% of Japans consumed petroleum) without it, u cant produce anything.

Japan "ok, were screwed... we have reserves, but it wont last long, were gonna have to go all in and hope the US will fold

pearl harbor was selected as the primary target to buy japan time so they can gain access to other sources of petroleum in southeast asia.

kamikaze fighter pilots were chosen to fight litterally til their death, crystal meth and opium were provided to the pilots as they crashed into battleships, giving the us a full reason to slaughter japan which they did.

Axis plan :
Japan - rule asia
Germany - rule most of europe
Italy - rule west europe

Allies

Soviet/Britan/Belgium/France/Netherlands - defend from German attacks and try to defeat.

China - Defend from Japanese attacks and try to defeat.

USA provided the allies with unlimited weapons, which eventually led to the allies owing the US billions and trillions of dollars worth of trade that would last forever, making the US so powerful that it would be stupid to not be allied with them.

so all in all, i think the us are and always will be, on top of things due to their unlimited power, but as 911 has taught us, it only takes a small group to devastate. nobody likes to be told what to do :p


-tokyo

What's funny: Had they just taken the Spratly Islands, they'd have had all the petroleum they'd ever need.

Well the American and the British were able to break Japanese and German communication code (respectively) and hence they got all the intel they need.

In 1943 or so, The American and British were inferior to the German in many ways, however they were able to avoid German U-boat patrol in the Atlantic to stop Merchant Ships.

In the Pacific theater, The IJN was far more superior, even after the increase in US naval production. It is true that they wre stretched in regards to controlled area and available forces. However, the breaking of IJN comm code causes huge lost of veterans seamen and pilot (and the incapability to replace them fast enough).

If they were able to keep their veteran pilots and seamen, I am fairly certain the US navy would have a tough time to match the IJN (Zero was far more superior than Hellcat for A-to-A battle). Also, without many of the atolls along the pacific, the US wouldnt have their forward bases and hence their superfortress would be useless.

Not very well versed in how those battles panned out, are ya, flameo?

You should at least take a quick read of the WWII timeline before trying to speak on something.

The German Navy never amounted to much in any event. The Japanese Navy was fairly committed to the battleship and only came late to building and defending against carriers.

Plus, the fact that their resources almost exclusively relied on sea transport, thus being vulnerable to interdiction by US Subs was a serious liability.

don't piss off American farm boys or they will come kick your ass is about the only important thing to remember about WW2.

Did I say anything about German Navy winning any critical or major battle in the Atlantic? No! Because there aren't any huge naval battle there in contrast to the Pacific. I only said that they were superior in (or until sometime in) 1943 because of their U-boats, able to stop many merchant ships and escorts from reaching Europe or Russia, even with the British deciphering the Enigma.

You are right that Japan was heavily reliance on sea export to support their war effort and their lack of capability in antisubmarine warfare surely hurt them a lot.

The initial wins that the allied had (Midday and Coral) were crucial as IJN lost heaps there. And one of the keyof allied victory was code breaking, where they knew the location of the ships at a given time.

Perhaps you can point out which part of my statement was incorrect Cerb??

the part where you suggested that the US didnt win due to the innate superiority of good ol American ingenuity (and freedom) went against his worldview

@flameo:
the IJN was technologically superior initially but lost that advantage as the war progressed. In any case, technological superiority (and better strategically) alone wouldn't have been enough simply because the technological advantage wasn't huge in the grand scheme of things. Look at the soviets: lets be honest their equipment and tactics really sucked compared to the germans for almost the entire war and until kursk arguably only won when the germans did something stupid (although stalingrad is probably an exception). However due to sheer resources and man power they could eventually turn the tide of battle as the germans ran out of men/supplies.
I think that without midway and cracking the intelligence code (or better tech development), the americans would be able to do the same thing vs Japan eventually, especially if they actually tried to invade Alaska. However the US intelligence victories along with midway and corral certainly sped things up considerably and probably reduced the total casualty count on the US side significantly.

In the atlantic there were no major naval battles in the traditional sense because
1) the german strategy was centered around uboats which in the beginning was extremely effective (they actually got submarines all the way to Quebec city and wreaked havoc in the golf of mexico).
2) vs britain they decided that it was too risky to actually try an amphibious invasion until they were sure of air superiority and then they decided to do something else.
The germans were perfectly capable of amphibious assaults (see Norway and I think cyprus).

"No one could have expected some of Germany's top scientists to emigrate to the United States and begin research on building an atomic bomb. Had the Germans built one, it would have most likely used on London. Considering, I don't see German bombers being able to make it across the Atlantic without getting shot down, as they couldn't even get most of their naval vessels south of France without getting sunk, the idea that one would have been used on America is fanciful at best."
Agreed about the London part. I think the idea was to use some form of advanced v2 rockets to get it to US soil but they never quite got far enough to accomplish that and such a thing wasn't possible until the 1950s I think (ICBM'S).

I'm glad the racist rhetoric died down. Japanese people often pronounce the word as 'Nippon', but they never say Nipponese(why would they? that's english), and they certainly never refer to themselves as 'nips'.

That word is just a racist as 'fluff', regardless of whatever historical reference you'd like to pull out of context to justify your use of it.


Also, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5-ijBs8iJA

Are current day museum curators/professors considered racist if they use the term Negroes when discussing slavery in the united states/elsewhere?

/stirsthepot

Also, the language they speak here in Japan is Japanese.

Trife, the way he was using the term is not the same way a curator or professor uses the term 'negro'.

those words are only offensive to the animals, err, people that were trained to be offended by the poor defenseless miserable word sounds.

My word choice was poor, I wasn't trying to say that atomic weapons factored into decisions, just that they shortened the war.

My whole point, which you got, was political context. A lot of folks are still caught up on military superiority. To use a more fun analogy, the swagger of having the biggest fluff doesn't always mean you get to bang the hottest chick.

Countries have different needs and levels of acceptable losses. We had military superiority in Vietnam, but not political superiority. Our people weren't committed to fighting protracted warfare.

So part of any decision has to take into account the willingness of a given country to partake in war. Ergo, it's a balancing act. Japan pushed too far.

well... America didn't lose the Vietnam war because their support back home wasn't strong enough. They lost the war because of geographical ignorance and the feeling of superiority. They were not prepared for that region... a place where superior tech counts for nothing. This is a lesson not learned for the Afg war as well.

Anyways, back to the Manhattan Project. It's not fair to say that German scientists emigrated to America to work on the bomb since the chief catalyst for the theoretical physics behind it all, Einstein, was not invited to the party. So far as I can find, Klaus Fuchs was the only German (there may be more) but ahead of him was Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Niels Bohr... none German. Maybe Einstein wasn't invited because he opposed the theory of quantum mechanics (despite having begun its study).

As for "nip" being as derogatory as "fluff." The comparison is not sound. One is bore out of slavery as a pillar of American early society, one of immense strife and vicious racism. I mean, it has defined the relationship between white and black people ever since in one way or another. "Nip" has none of those things. It's just something American soldiers called the Japanese. It's not much different from calling the German's Jerry or Kraut; in Korea and Vietnam it was Charlie (Victor Charlie). Nip is just short for Nippon. It doesn't have nearly the amount of baggage as "fluff" does... one way I know this is because you don't see anyone talking about it because it's a non-issue.

So the ability to literally level a country several times over doesn't count as superiority? Back to my point about political constraints of war. The American people and America's geopolitical spot in the world really prohibited it from total war. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a reality.

And that's why all of the talk about who had more tanks or jets or better ones is largely irrelevant if people forget the context in which decision-making occurs.

You are correct. But once you enter a point of total war (or close to it) it very much matters which is what WW2 became. I think we can't really view this with modern eyes since in the pre-MAD days countries were much more eager to engage in large scale war stupidity (with exceptions).

To your point, Germany beat France by political and psychological manoeuvrings in WW2. When people run military simulations, it's very hard to make France lose.

Regarding Vietnam, the US had plenty of opportunities and the ability to win a military victory (at least in the short term). One such example is after the Tet offensive the north Vietnamese military and the vietkong were a completely spent military force.

To be fair, post WW2 cold war politics start to matter more since the moment a superpower says: "you invade my friend and I will declare war on you" is quite different from the same statements pre WW2.

My original point should be taken in historical context in that Japan pretty much engaged in a war they had virtually no chance of winning. Of course this decision didn't come out of nowhere and they probably felt it was their best choice out of a set of bad choices at the time (gamble all in or fold).

How is something that becomes widely used because of a war any better than something that becomes widely used because of slavery? Are you ok with calling Vietnamese people "gooks" because of the war as well? Why would you call normal Vietnamese people Charlie when VC refers to a group of guerilla fighters anyway. I understand the feeling stirred up by "nip" or "hun" are not as strong as those of "fluff" but that doesn't mean they're not racist terms. What is acceptable for a soldier to say on the front lines in the heat of a major war is also very different to what normal dialogue should involve.

Issue here is, had the Germans been able to develop such a rocket, they'd still have had to deal with the issue the US & Soviets had with theirs e.g.: propulsion, guidance systems, multi-stage system, number of warheads, correcting CEP (Circular Error Probable) until they were certain the missile/rocket/warhead would fall within a certain margin of error and still destroy it's target. :)

in terms of the word fluff, I feel no one should use it. It's just as racist to say "only this group of people can use this word, and not that group of people" as it is for the original meaning of the word in the first place.
I find it amusing that certain words are considered racist, but others aren't. It's not ok to call someone a nip or hun, but it's ok to use the term pom, limey or tommy. (Jerry is still ok too apparently, given we still use the term jerry rig regularly, one of the origins of which referred to home made booby traps left by german soldiers in the trenches as they fell back.)
For example, here in Aus, I can't call an indigenous australian black, or even aborignal anymore, (in fact I can be charged for it under racism laws), but it's ok for that same indigenous person to call me a quote: "fluffen white dawwwwwwwg cuuuuunt".

I'm not even sure I would call WWII total war, but it was certainly close. And you're right, the world only seemed to know that form of warfare before.

I'm just trying to envision myself in empire-building Japan. I'm not sure I expect engagement from the US until I literally strike them. I see them waiting until nearly the end of WWI to engage, and even then, begrudingly so after the Germans attacked a civilian ship. Those military advisors at the table were taught by the same folks who saw the Americans broker peace with the Russians. And Japan's an island. So my only worry is about naval attack (especially given how relatively new aerial combat was at the time).

So you toss everything onto the scale and make a calculated guess. I see it as a fool's errand to say the person with the fastest car always wins the race because many more factors go into such as how hard will they race the car, how good of a drive are they, how much fuel do they have, how badly do they want to win, etc etc.

And great point on the French with military simulations. I have one friend who is loosely involved in this sort of thing at DoD and utmost respect for him. He always makes the point about factorization and I think it's a good one.

To back up what Martian said, Stalin has been quoted as saying that "quantity has a quality all it's own".

Flameo, you really do need to do a little reading about the battles in the Atlantic before you start drooling on this thread.

"Also, the language they speak here in Japan is Japanese."

yes tella, i had edited so as not to instigate fights with foog, i had gotten a little hot under the collar and upon review decided i could word my responses far better. (some might argue i still failed :P)

not sure if you were joking or not though

here in japan, you are japanese or live there? i want to visit, and eventually move to saporro

(but i want to visit and eventually move to about a dozen places, so grain of salt ;))

The difference I suppose is of the social tradition. Some racial slurs are more offensive than others... there is no denying it. Some racial slurs cut deeper than others and there lies the difference between fluff and nip.

My personal rule is this. If the pejorative terms makes fun of or attacks someone's physical appearance, it's pretty offensive. Less offensive, to me, would be hun, nip, charlie, jerry, etc. It'd be equivalent to calling Canadian's a bunch of maple syrup lumberjacks or whatever. I mean, I get it that SOME people might get offended by those terms... but in this PC world (esp in America right now) I'd be surprised if some people didn't get offended that i called them Americans.

"How is something that becomes widely used because of a war"

PP, it was on the map, american soldiers did not create the term.

"Are you ok with calling Vietnamese people "gooks""

if the name on the map for hundreds of years say Gookinam, then i suppose it would acceptable.

"(Jerry is still ok too apparently, given we still use the term jerry rig regularly, one of the origins of which referred to home made booby traps left by german soldiers in the trenches as they fell back.)"

i was under the impression, lead to believe at least, that it was because their equipment fell apart after much use, and they couldn't replace it with new or even new parts, so they had to "jerry rig" it back to work. i don't know, six of one half dozen of the other, i'd say on that :P

"'s physical appearance, it's pretty offensive. Less offensive, to me, would be hun, nip, charlie, jerry, etc. It'd be equivalent to calling Canadian's a bunch of maple syrup lumberjacks or whatever."

people use the term canuck quite often, that is racist bigotry and they must hate black people and the asiatics, too (is asiatic racist, as i'm grouping many distinct "peoples" into one group?)

" but it's ok for that same indigenous person to call me a quote: "fluffen white dawwwwwwwg cuuuuunt". "

drow, your only recourse is to stop being a fluffing white dog fluff :P

pretty sure "nips" was never on any map

not that it's relevant though because whether something was or wasn't on a map shouldn't have any relevance to whether it's racist or not

it's all about connotations and tone. are "chink" and "jap" not racist to you? by your logic, since both derive from words that are commonly printed on maps, they can't be, right?

you miss out on a lot of racism there (kike, chink, wet-back).

intent and connotations are far more important than anything. if you're playfully making fun of Canadians with a term that isn't widely considered a racist epithet, then it's ok. if there had been an anti-Canadian movement in the US say in the early 20th century that had regularly used "canuck" disparagingly, then it would not be ok to use that either...

my denonym may have been incorrect, pp, but it certainly does exist on the map. if you aren't afraid of google considering you a racist, try entertaining yourself with a little education. (not todays map, or even yesterdays map, mind you.. i hope i don't need to stipulate this, as i believe i already have?)

"it's all about connotations and tone. are "chink" and "jap" not racist to you?"

well, then, you all should be up in arms about my fervent use of the word cowardly. connotation and tone, farr worse than a word i use for a people that i both respect and admire (outside of their cowardice when it comes to starting wars, of course)


as for wet back, i mean, how hard is it to pack a towel when you know you're going swimming? at least they don't have to worry about the half hour rule, as they have no food to eat to begin with! (um, comments on socioeconomics isn't inherently racist, is it?)

is calling people from germany a nazi racist? (actual question, this wasn't used to prove a point or anything, heh)

Nippon is the Japanese word for Japan. Just because the first three letters are there doesn't mean that it's on the map or that Japanese people call themselves "Nips" or "Japs."

What the hell are you talking about? The general use of the word "coward" is ok because it doesn't refer to a race, it refers to people who acted like cowards. If you called the Japanese cowardly and stand by that, then you probably a racist.

Are you trolling or just really stupid? I might need to start using my Cerb treatment of just empty quoting your dumb posts in response to you if you keep this up :O

we have to wait 100 to 200 years before "Canucks" is a derogatory racial slur for Canadians? got any slurs old enough that i can use on them in the meantime?