Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose

[Zinegata]

Every other nation operated under false premises, and only the USSR managed to have a different false premise from Japan, you fucking imbecile. The point is that if Japan is irrational, so were all of the other belligerent nations! If the US or UK or USSR or France were rational, so was Japan! If the Japanese were colonial and imperial because they were religious fanatics, so were the US and UK and France! Jesus!

First of all, your initial statement referred specifically to the actions of Japan during the Second World War. You're talking about the Age of Imperialism - with the US, UK, etc acquiring colonies - which is a largely different time period.

So really, this is just you pointlessly whining because nobody gives a shit about your stupid video-game-plot-level ideas. You're only exposigng how completely meaningless and irrelevant you are.

Are you fucking stupid? Nobody among the Allies was going to give them what they wanted, because what they wanted was incompatible with what the Allies wanted, so they didn't negotiate because it would be pointless!

Conquering China was not one of the war aims of the World War 2 Allies. This is false.

Again, you claim that you do not support Japan's war crimes against the Chinese, but your above statement is full of apologia for Japan. It's okay for them to invade China, because the Allies wanted to invade China too! Sorry, the latter ain't true in the Second World War period.

For the SE Asian colonies, it's more of a mixed bag. The oil-producing colonies were frankly unnecessary as long as the United States kept supplying Japan with oil - and the US was the largest supplier of Japan's oil needs before the embargo. The US had also already slated the Philippines for independence by 1946, so invading the Philippines to "liberate" it in 1941/42 was a joke (which is also why there was a massive anti-Japanese resistance movement in the Philippines).

So despite your claims, it's pretty clear that not only do you know nothing of history, but you do in fact condone Japanese war crimes, because apparently "everyone" does it; even though "everyone" wasn't actually doing what you claimed during this specific time period.

===

HMS Conqueror->

The critical mistake that Japanese leadership made is thinking that it required military force in order to establish economic dominance and military security. It achieved both post-war via peaceful means - the former via the strength of its import-export economy, and the latter by its alliance with the United States. Had they simply discarded their false premise that they needed to own their corner of the world, the whole Pacific War may not have happened.

[Sea Skimmer]

I like, Zinegata, that you ignored that the Tenaru was not a case of Zulu imagery (more insisting on how primitive the Japanese were), and rather a case of a intelligence blunder where the IJA thought they were engaging a much smaller, unfortified force. A later attack by larger units almost succeeded in penetrating American lines at Guadalcanal, meanwhile. I wonder how those primitive Nihonese could possibly have done that?

How exactly is it an intelligence blunder that Colonel Ichiki ignored his own orders to wait for his entire force, which would have been three times larger, before attacking, in favor of throwing his men at the Americans with no or support. This guy was told to sit on his butt and just ignored that.

[HMS Conqueror]

The critical mistake that Japanese leadership made is thinking that it required military force in order to establish economic dominance and military security. It achieved both post-war via peaceful means - the former via the strength of its import-export economy, and the latter by its alliance with the United States. Had they simply discarded their false premise that they needed to own their corner of the world, the whole Pacific War may not have happened.

The irony is that if they had managed to hold on to Korea and Taiwan they would be comparably rich to the US today, and would have retained their military. As it is, Japan is a US satellite and lost all its territorial gains since the Meiji Restoration.

I don't think it would have even taken much. It would be very difficult for the US to have declared war on Japan without Japan making the first move. Their really dangerous rival was the USSR. But like I say I don't think they ever had a very clear understanding of the outside world.

[SirNitram]

Gods forbid I use the term as it is. I might offend a moron's delicate sensibilities. And who in this is saying WW2 is a perfect war between good and evil? Oh right: NO ONE. You're trolling, Bakustra. At least, I hope so. You're dangerously stupid if you aren't.

Now you're bragging about how you're unwilling to admit that "connotation" is a thing that exists! Fuck you, you're actively toxic to the mind of society. Go buy an English Literature textbook and beat yourself to death with it, because that's the only way it'll make an impression on you. You're also unable to get exaggeration for the purpose of mocking the position that WWII was a justified war, which is only a hop, skip, and jump from "WWII was a struggle between the forces of Good and Evil", which is a position that people actually believe. I'm sorry that you're unwilling to accept the existence of an outside world, but at least that keeps you indoors and away from people.

You literally cannot post without shoving words into other people's mouths, can you? Connotation yes, but as I explain, I'm using the definition of it, not the precious 'connotation'. Again, it seems doing so offends a moron's delicate sensibilities, since you immediately flip into the 'YOU'RE BRAGGING! FUCK YOU! GO KILL YOURSELF!'. As for the exaggeration, it only works in the minds of dimwitted retards like you who can't stomach the idea of a war being the only just action, and painting rainbows over atrocities everyone admits being any different. Wah wah wah. Whine some more, gutterslut, because such ranting about connotations and exagerrations only make you look more and more sad as you scream to the heavens how you're right.

[Bakustra]

In real life, people swear for the same reasons they use any words- to express themselves, in this case frustration at your inability to comprehend that the Japanese goal of establishing dominion would necessarily require removing the British, French, and Americans from their backyard, which was realistically only going to happen with the use of force. (Also, the American oil embargo began before any actual invasions of SE Asia took place, and that was the turning point for Pearl Harbor). But going on about how you're so much better than those crude people who use filthy swears is hilarious. I'm envisioning you as some sort of caricatured upper-class twit, posting with his nose up in the air. In real life, though, that is apparently your ambition, which is actually funnier now that I think about it.

Meanwhile, their chosen method was actually the method by which all the other great powers acted, so I don't think you can call it stupid, since anticolonialism only became popular postwar anyhow. Meanwhile, people that have investigated American conduct in the Pacific War have generally concluded that racism was part and parcel of this anyhow, seeing as only a small percentage of Japanese soldiers attacked while pretending to surrender. I wonder how many Allied soldiers did the same thing?

First of all, your statement referred specifically to the Second World War. You're talking about the Age of Imperialism, which is a different time period.

Wait, you think that imperialism is a thing that only lasted for a particular time period? Shut the hell up and never talk again and die of necrotizing fasciitis. You're not even responding to what I'm saying! You're inventing shit outright.

See, what Japan wanted was to establish dominion over its neighboring countries, which it hasn't done so despite your pathetic lies about that happening through peaceful means. In order to do that, it would have to expel the Americans from the Philippines, the Dutch from Indonesia, the French from Indochina, and the English from Singapore and Burma. They also would have to subdue the newly-independent regions and China. Meanwhile, nobody was going to give their colonies up without a fight. So there was literally no points where they could negotiate. This has nothing to do with Japanese war crimes and the question of whether their actions were moral or not, and your posts are becoming more and more desperate. It seems that I am slowly killing what brain cells you do possess. Still, I must continue on, and reduce you from a drooling imbecile to a comatose vegetable through the simple expedient of disagreeing with you. It's more an act of mercy than anything else.

How exactly is it an intelligence blunder that Colonel Ichiki ignored his own orders to wait for his entire force, which would have been three times larger, before attacking, in favor of throwing his men at the Americans with no or support. This guy was told to sit on his butt and just ignored that.

The IJA was convinced that the forces surrounding Henderson Field were a third of the size they actually were and unfortified, which is an actual intelligence blunder that probably led Ichiki to be convinced he could attack successfully.

You literally cannot post without shoving words into other people's mouths, can you? Connotation yes, but as I explain, I'm using the definition of it, not the precious 'connotation'. Again, it seems doing so offends a moron's delicate sensibilities, since you immediately flip into the 'YOU'RE BRAGGING! FUCK YOU! GO KILL YOURSELF!'. As for the exaggeration, it only works in the minds of dimwitted retards like you who can't stomach the idea of a war being the only just action, and painting rainbows over atrocities everyone admits being any different. Wah wah wah. Whine some more, gutterslut, because such ranting about connotations and exagerrations only make you look more and more sad as you scream to the heavens how you're right.

You don't understand what connotation means, idiot. You can't not use the connotation without specifically addressing it. That's how connotations work. Don't bluff, you'd need brain cells instead of oatmeal for that to work.

[Sea Skimmer]

The irony is that if they had managed to hold on to Korea and Taiwan they would be comparably rich to the US today, and would have retained their military. As it is, Japan is a US satellite and lost all its territorial gains since the Meiji Restoration.

That's about the dumbest statement ever. Even if you combined the GDP of all three nations today its still nowhere near the US GDP, and none of those nations would even remotely have as large of economies because two of them would be occupied labor colonies and Japan proper would have kept pouring 20% or more of its GDP into its military until it ended up like the USSR economically, at best.

[Zinegata]

Wait, you think that imperialism is a thing that only lasted for a particular time period?

Bzzzt. Again, I replied to your statement referring specifically to the Second World War. You want to talk about Imperialism in general.

My response? Whatever. You ain't no great thinker, just another idiot who thinks being anti-American makes him cooler or smarter without realizing that his political views are essentially that of a VIDYA GAME.

See, what Japan wanted was to establish dominion over its neighboring countries, which it hasn't done so despite your pathetic lies about that happening through peaceful means. In order to do that, it would have to expel the Americans from the Philippines, the Dutch from Indonesia, the French from Indochina, and the English from Singapore and Burma.

In short, you condone Japan's invasion of these countries and of their war crimes - such as the use of comfort women.

That's really all this statement is about. You claim that peaceful means is impossible (indeed you call them "pathetic") - without specifying why - and then say military action is necessary. You're a condoner of war crimes. It's that simple.

And again, you don't know history, because...

Meanwhile, nobody was going to give their colonies up without a fight

The US had already committed to give up the Philippines by 1946 to the only people who rightfully own the Philippines - the Filipinos themselves. Look up Tydings-McDuffie.

[SirNitram]

You literally cannot post without shoving words into other people's mouths, can you? Connotation yes, but as I explain, I'm using the definition of it, not the precious 'connotation'. Again, it seems doing so offends a moron's delicate sensibilities, since you immediately flip into the 'YOU'RE BRAGGING! FUCK YOU! GO KILL YOURSELF!'. As for the exaggeration, it only works in the minds of dimwitted retards like you who can't stomach the idea of a war being the only just action, and painting rainbows over atrocities everyone admits being any different. Wah wah wah. Whine some more, gutterslut, because such ranting about connotations and exagerrations only make you look more and more sad as you scream to the heavens how you're right.

You don't understand what connotation means, idiot. You can't not use the connotation without specifically addressing it. That's how connotations work. Don't bluff, you'd need brain cells instead of oatmeal for that to work.

'Hur hur hur! I showd him!'

And, as much as you might want to think I said it, I never said they wanted to exterminate the Chinese; but they sure as hell murdered alot of them. The Rape of Nanking(300,000 mass murdered), chemical weapons(375 authorized uses in the Battle Of Wuhan alone), and releasing the bubonic plague into cities to induce outbreaks do rather speak to genocide as modernly described.

I am aware of what connotation means, you imbecile. I specifically addressed your sad attempt to twist my words. I realize you must defend even this sad little molehill you believe matters like it's the grandest mountain, but you could try to take your sad rantings a little less seriously.

[Bakustra]

No, I'm saying that your lies are pathetic, which they are. Japan does not dominate its neighbors today, so you're actually wrong about that. You're also lying about the content of my posts because you have to assume that I'm literally Yukio Mishima in order to feel good about yourself. Well, I'm not, and you shouldn't feel good about yourself, and you should be breaking down and sobbing right now over the wreckage of your life and personality, to be blunt.

And again, you're refusing to address the actual content of my posts in favor of shrieking.

'Hur hur hur! I showd him!'

Please turn off the Dictaphone before you post, Nitram.

Also, you still insisted that you "weren't using the connotation", so I guess you decided to look things up finally. It's great that you do that without admitting you're wrong. Really, very conducive to discussion. But I know that you fucked up, so I guess it's not that important.

[Sea Skimmer]

The IJA was convinced that the forces surrounding Henderson Field were a third of the size they actually were and unfortified, which is an actual intelligence blunder that probably led Ichiki to be convinced he could attack successfully.

1/3rd actual size was still multiple times the size of his own forces; had the rest of his regiment arrived with its artillery he would have had about an equal force to what they projected. Ichiki's superiors had the the same information, told him to wait, he ignored that and ended up massacring his entire command. Its just massive incompetence brought on by a highly aggressive mentality. Ichiki had served in China before, and the Chinese were pretty well known for just running away from determined attacks while being a constant harassment to Japanese forces on the defensive. Like so many Japanese commanders its plain that Ichiki assumed that Americans would fight the exact same way and that attacking quickly was the best option. So, you could call it an intelligence failure but, it wouldn't be the one you are making it out to be. Its a much deeper complete lack of understanding of the enemy.

Interestingly the Japanese were really consistent in just carrying over all the 'lessons' of fighting the Chinese into the Pacific in 1941-42, to the point that they were building stupid above ground wall style fortifications on some islands (which work great for defending against rifle armed Chinese guerrillas) until the US showed how easily those would be blown apart by people who actually owned artillery and machine guns in large numbers.

[Bakustra]

Alright, thanks for the correction/addendum.

[HMS Conqueror]

The irony is that if they had managed to hold on to Korea and Taiwan they would be comparably rich to the US today, and would have retained their military. As it is, Japan is a US satellite and lost all its territorial gains since the Meiji Restoration.

That's about the dumbest statement ever. Even if you combined the GDP of all three nations today its still nowhere near the US GDP, and none of those nations would even remotely have as large of economies because two of them would be occupied labor colonies and Japan proper would have kept pouring 20% or more of its GDP into its military until it ended up like the USSR economically, at best.

It's not surely the dumbest statement ever. There is some stiff competition for that title.

Now Korea and Taiwan have combined approximately 100m population, and Japan another 130m, compared to US 300m. Japan also has a somewhat lower GDPPC than USA. So we're looking at a Japan with probably about 2/3-3/4 the GDP of the US, with the 90s peak probably giving it briefly greater GDP.

Provided Japan survives WWII era, it becomes a nuclear power in the 1950s, and Korea and Taiwan were being quite well integrated. They weren't resource sinks like the European colonies in Africa.

Would it have turned out like that? Well, there are places it could go wrong. USSR could have launched a massive attack in the late 40s, there could have been major rebellions in the colonies, or Japan could have decided not to adopt Western market institutions. But I think this is definitely a plausible outcome.



Bakustra, you really should tone down the insults. It's not that people can't take the, but by filling the space in a vaguely adversarial manner they seem to be letting you trick yourself into thinking you made an argument when you didn't.

[Zinegata]

No, I'm saying that your lies are pathetic, which they are.

I will challenge you to point to the lies, and then let's call a mod to adjudicate. Every statement I have made with regards to Japan's options was factual. In fact, you have not refuted them.

Japan does not dominate its neighbors today, so you're actually wrong about that.

In short, you condone Japan dominating its neighbors. Which again demonstrates how you actually condone Japan's war crimes, despite your attempts to claim the contrary.

As opposed to what I actually said - which is that Japan found a way to achieve prosperity and security (two laudable goals, as opposed to "own a corner of our own") by focusing on its export economy and by securing an alliance with the United States. Both of these are peaceful means that does not require dominating its neighbors.

Also, concession accepted: You did not refute that the Philippines was to be granted independence in 1946, hence your claim that other countries wouldn't give up their colonies is false. You did not refute that Japan could satisfy all of its oil needs by importing from the US without needing to go to war. And finally, the Allies were not plotting to conquer China during the Second World War, hence making your argument that "Everyone wanted to conquer China, so Japan was justified in trying to conquer China!" a total falsehood.

This has been a very good conversation.

[Bakustra]

The critical mistake that Japanese leadership made is thinking that it required military force in order to establish economic dominance and military security. It achieved both post-war via peaceful means - the former via the strength of its import-export economy, and the latter by its alliance with the United States. Had they simply discarded their false premise that they needed to own their corner of the world, the whole Pacific War may not have happened.

This didn't happen, so you're wrong and I'm assuming that you're lying because you live in the Philippines and can see that Japan does not actually economically or politically dominate there. Unless you're honest-to-god demented. Which is it, fucko?

[HMS Conqueror]

He's saying the opposite of what you think: that Japan doesn't need to conquer eg. Philippines in order to have a strong economy and high living standards. At the time they thought they needed to own the entire supply chain and achieve autarky.

[Zinegata]

This didn't happen, so you're wrong and I'm assuming that you're lying because you live in the Philippines and can see that Japan does not actually economically or politically dominate there. Unless you're honest-to-god demented. Which is it, fucko?

LOL. Seriously, you're contesting that?

You are seriously contesting that the world's third largest economy is not worthy of the phrase "economic dominance"?

*points at Bakustra and laughs*

[Bakustra]

So what you're saying is that you don't understand what I said, which is that Japan's goal was to achieve dominance over its neighbors, not wealth or military security. Or, rather, you're shifting to accuse me nonsensically at one time and pretending that Japan didn't really want dominance over its neighbors at another.

[Zinegata]

So what you're saying is...

*points to Bakustra and keeps laughing*

No, I am laughing at you for contesting that the world's third largest economy is not worthy of the phrase "economic dominance".

Because that's seriously what you did!



=====

Also, your admission that Japan wanted to dominate its neighbors was something you already conceded last page. All it demonstrated was that the Japanese were indeed working on a flawed premise for starting World War 2, hence their plans were insane and irrational. Doing something stupid the most rational way possible is still stupid.

Cue Bakustra trying to shift the topic to EVIL WESTERN IMPERIALISM. Again: Who cares?

But for the sake of argument, let's compare Japan to Nazi Germany. Because most people agree that the Nazis are pretty much the craziest of the lot in the European theater. Japan attacked the United States, which had something like ten times Japan's warmaking potential. In comparison, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had about equal warmaking potential.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

So as crazy as Hitler or the Nazis were, he wasn't picking a fight against someone ten times his size. Which again demonstrates how suicidally insane the Japanese government was.

[Simon_Jester]

There were no good guys among the belligerent powers. It is bad guy vs bad guy. When we got involved, it becamse bad guy + bad guy vs bad guy. None of it was just.

Who said anything about just?

I'm not asking if it would be just to walk away from Japan in July 1945, even if that means letting them keep killing Chinese people if that's where they get their jollies.

I'm asking if you think the US should have done it. There's a difference.

Honestly, I'm surprised I'm still taking you seriously, but I am, so I'd really like a straight answer to this question.

[Junghalli]

Re: Japanese killing Chinese.

Isn't the first responsibility of a government to its own citizens, not foreigners? That may not sound exactly noble but I doubt deciding that the Japanese mistreating Chinese was not worth a war would be the first time we decided to let terrible stuff continue in some foreign land because it wasn't worth a war over. I don't remember us going to war with Belgium over the stuff that was happening in the Congo Free State. Should we have?

Humanitarian military intervention, while perhaps noble in theory, strikes me as a doctrine likely to lead a nation into all sorts of unnecessary conflicts. I'd say it also sounds like a doctrine that can really easily be coopted as propaganda cover for far less altruistic motives. "No, the war's not over geopolitical 'realpolitik' considerations, it's because the enemy leader is a really bad guy and we have to liberate them, honest!"

Appropriately enough, I really doubt the Allied reasons for going to war with Japan actually had much of anything to do with humanitarian concerns over the welfare of the Chinese.

Also, RE "one sided pacifism": I think there's something to be said for the phrases "we should be better than them" and "don't sink to their level." I've always been a fan of the idea that, when dealing with an immoral actor, you should as much as feasible try to maintain the moral "high ground". I might defend myself from a murderer, but I will not kill him as casually as he would kill me. I will not "get back" at somebody who cheats me by cheating them. If the enemy tortures POWs from my side I will still treat captured enemy decently. Etc.. Trying to avoid war with the Axis might be an "unfair" situation in that they're much more willing to resort to aggression than you are, but I don't see why pacifism should necessarily be dependent on a "fair" situation where both sides are pacifists. If everyone was a pacifist there wouldn't be any need to try to avoid wars, would there?

And I trust everyone here agrees the Axis were pretty terrible so I don't see why D13 etc. should be obligated to talk about how bad they were. TBH I'd say the Allies seems like the side that people here would be much more likely to make excuses for.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Japanese killing Chinese.

Isn't the first responsibility of a government to its own citizens, not foreigners? That may not sound exactly noble but I doubt deciding that the Japanese mistreating Chinese was not worth a war would be the first time we decided to let terrible stuff continue in some foreign land because it wasn't worth a war over. I don't remember us going to war with Belgium over the stuff that was happening in the Congo Free State. Should we have?

The US didn't start fighting Japan because they were killing people in China. The US started fighting Japan because Japan decided it couldn't take the risk of being attacked by the US and decided to get the jump on the US first, oh and grab some chunks of land the US claimed rights over in the process. Oh and attack a bunch of other countries that the US was kind of hoping would not be distracted and would be free to keep fighting Adolf Hitler, which was kind of dickish of them.

But that's irrelevant.

My point is: OK, it's June 1945. We're the US. The Japanese battle fleet is gone, their island possessions are gone, we can bomb the shit out of Japan whenever we please. Germany is out of the picture.

Secretary of Foo, D-13, says we should just... walk away. That's it, we're done. If the Japanese refuse to formally surrender and agree to some kind of occupation/inspection/whatever, so what? We can just walk away.

Secretary of Blit, Simon_Jester asks "Well, what about China? Japan still has a huge army on the rampage in China, and the Chinese haven't really been able to stop them. Are we just going to... let that keep going?"

How we got here is kind of beside the point. My question to D-13 is:

In this situation, knowing that there is another ongoing war that will keep happening if you walk away, do you still walk away anyway?

Or do you just blather about the root causes of the war, in which case the idea of "just walk away" was never serious and was just a rhetorical thing?

This really bugs me. I understand D-13 not caring about the risk of the other guy rebuilding and coming at him for another go-around. I don't understand the part where he's willing to totally ignore any bad thing happening in the world as long as the US isn't doing it.

Humanitarian military intervention, while perhaps noble in theory, strikes me as a doctrine likely to lead a nation into all sorts of unnecessary conflicts. I'd say it also sounds like a doctrine that can really easily be coopted as propaganda cover for far less altruistic motives. "No, the war's not over geopolitical 'realpolitik' considerations, it's because the enemy leader is a really bad guy and we have to liberate them, honest!"

Appropriately enough, I really doubt the Allied reasons for going to war with Japan actually had much of anything to do with humanitarian concerns over the welfare of the Chinese.

I'm not even talking about humanitarian interventions. I'm talking about a specific reaction to specific people in a specific situation with specific concepts.

If my grand sweeping theory of pacifism in international relations cannot tell us what to do when faced with a real problem, I should be rewriting my theory, not just repeating "peace is better than war" ten thousand times.

Also, RE "one sided pacifism": I think there's something to be said for the phrases "we should be better than them" and "don't sink to their level." I've always been a fan of the idea that, when dealing with an immoral actor, you should as much as feasible try to maintain the moral "high ground". I might defend myself from a murderer, but I will not kill him as casually as he would kill me. I will not "get back" at somebody who cheats me by cheating them. If the enemy tortures POWs from my side I will still treat captured enemy decently. Etc.. Trying to avoid war with the Axis might be an "unfair" situation in that they're much more willing to resort to aggression than you are, but I don't see why pacifism should necessarily be dependent on a "fair" situation where both sides are pacifists. If everyone was a pacifist there wouldn't be any need to try to avoid wars, would there?

And I trust everyone here agrees the Axis were pretty terrible so I don't see why D13 etc. should be obligated to talk about how bad they were. TBH I'd say the Allies seems like the side that people here would be much more likely to make excuses for.

Well yes, it's easy to make excuses for someone when you know damn well the world would have been a lot worse if they lost.

On the other hand, it's also very easy to stand in the total safety and unchallenged peace of your armchair and harp about how evil it was to have done anything at all... while totally ignoring what would have happened if someone else hadn't done something violent and rather nasty in order to make sure your armchair of safety would even exist in the first place.

The tendency of the antiwar left to do this makes it a lot hard to get rid of active, aggressive, militarism. Because if I'm arguing against the Iraq War, I don't want someone who talks like D-13 or Bakustra on my side. They will fail to convince normal people. They will sound like self-righteous twits, because they're so busy establishing their holier-than-thou cred that they totally ignore basic facts and logic about the situations they're talking about.

Having a guy on my side who talks that way makes it harder for me to convince anyone that the war is a bad idea, because it means I'm constantly defending idiotic strawman versions of my own antiwar position that they actually believe.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's not surely the dumbest statement ever. There is some stiff competition for that title.

Now Korea and Taiwan have combined approximately 100m population, and Japan another 130m, compared to US 300m. Japan also has a somewhat lower GDPPC than USA. So we're looking at a Japan with probably about 2/3-3/4 the GDP of the US, with the 90s peak probably giving it briefly greater GDP.

Provided Japan survives WWII era, it becomes a nuclear power in the 1950s, and Korea and Taiwan were being quite well integrated. They weren't resource sinks like the European colonies in Africa.

Would it have turned out like that? Well, there are places it could go wrong. USSR could have launched a massive attack in the late 40s, there could have been major rebellions in the colonies, or Japan could have decided not to adopt Western market institutions. But I think this is definitely a plausible outcome.

No we are looking at Japan being a economic dinosaur in constant crisis with a bloated military. Did you miss how the economic development of Japan was linked into widespread access to US technology, plus all the massive war industries being told to go make civilian products, compounded by almost all government spending being civilian oriented? How far exactly do you think Japan is going to get economically if its completely cutoff from US semi conductor technology like the USSR was? How far does it get when it cannot develop a large civilian export market, because everyone is making warships, and thus faces endless problems with a trade deficit to import raw materials and energy? Your blatantly completely ignoring massive problems like this. Plausible your outcome is not. The obvious unsustainability of Imperial Japan and its colonies is why they went to war in the first place. They had to simple seize the raw materials needed at the source to keep acting so stupidly and eliminate the trade deficit problem completely. If they didn't do that they either had to undergo fundamental change, or become more and more like modern North Korea.

[Sea Skimmer]

Alright, thanks for the correction/addendum.

You know the extra strange thing is, even taking the attack at face value, ignoring superior American forces and whatever, Ichiki still just had a really stupid plan even by the standards of the IJA. Attacking directly along the coastline meant that his force had no room to maneuver on one flank, and it was the opposite of normal Japanese jungle fighting methods. Those were mainly, always attempt to outflank the enemy. Ichiki in fact had simply not expected American forces on the river, nor did he conduct any sort of reconnaissance that might have told him this and allowed him to find a different route for his tanks. He just rushed forward, found Americans, and then rushed directly at them by the shortest, most open route possible across the sandpit. Then Americans outflanked him and obliterated his command. Amazingly incompetent. I'd love to know more about what he did in China; he was assigned to the Midway landing in-between, a direct frontal assault on a heavily fortified position and I can't help but wonder if this was actually a move by his superiors to get him killed in action. The Japanese did underestimate the size of the garrison considerably but not to the point that they would have had any numerical advantage.

[Grumman]

If everyone was a pacifist there wouldn't be any need to try to avoid wars, would there?

True, but you don't need to go all the way to pacifism for that to be true. If everyone only fought in self defence, or if everyone only fought to protect the innocent and did not wage aggressive wars then you'd still have no need to try to avoid wars, because nobody would throw the first punch.

[Junghalli]

The tendency of the antiwar left to do this makes it a lot hard to get rid of active, aggressive, militarism. Because if I'm arguing against the Iraq War, I don't want someone who talks like D-13 or Bakustra on my side. They will fail to convince normal people. They will sound like self-righteous twits, because they're so busy establishing their holier-than-thou cred that they totally ignore basic facts and logic about the situations they're talking about.

On the other hand...

I touched on this earlier in the thread, but I have this niggling suspicion that the WWII popular history, the heroic myth if you would, has a really toxic influence on our culture's discourses about war. It just seems at once so big in our cultural memory and imagination and so convenient to militaristic narratives of saturday morning cartoon morality where you safeguard and make the world better by kicking the asses of villains with force.

If there's any truth to this deconstructing that myth might be rather significant to the project of making the culture less war-friendly.

True, but you don't need to go all the way to pacifism for that to be true. If everyone only fought in self defence, or if everyone only fought to protect the innocent and did not wage aggressive wars then you'd still have no need to try to avoid wars, because nobody would throw the first punch.

True.

I think D13's position is actually closer to the latter (only fight in self-defense), I remember him saying earlier in the thread that he was OK with killing in self-defense and his real problem is with pre-emptive aggression.