Hitler sold his attack on Russia as preemptive.

[Pitt Gorilla]

In fact, he justified most of his attacks by painting Germany as the victim. They had a special on the History Channel about a recently discovered (I think) Hitler recording. It was really interesting. When I get the time, I'd like to learn more about WWII.

[Mr. Kotter]

In fact, he justified most of his attacks by painting Germany as the victim. They had a special on the History Channel about a recently discovered (I think) Hitler recording. It was really interesting. When I get the time, I'd like to learn more about WWII.

You just learned this. By viewing the History Channel.....? :spock:

That explains a lot....:hmmm:

[Pitt Gorilla]

You just learned this. By viewing the History Channel.....? :spock:

That explains a lot....:hmmm:Like I said, I'd love to know more. My knowledge of WWII is very rudimentary. What is that supposed to explain?

[Mr. Kotter]

Like I said, I'd love to know more. My knowledge of WWII is very rudimentary. What is that supposed to explain?
I'm glad you want to learn. As they say, if you don't know history....you are bound to repeat it. Your political postings reinforce that notion....Appeasement Policy, WWII, for instance. ;)

[Pitt Gorilla]

I'm glad you want to learn. As they say, if you don't know history....you are bound to repeat it. Your political postings reinforce that notion....Appeasement Policy, WWII, for instance. ;)How do my political postings reinforce the notion that I am bound to repeat history?

[Mr. Kotter]

How do my political postings reinforce the notion that I am bound to repeat history?Study Chamberlin & Churchill and their positions, respective to the League of Nations....and their actions with regard to Germany, then compare those to your opinion on the Iraqi situation (and the UN)....and get back to me, once you've done the homework. Nite, Gorilla.

[RP_McMurphy]

Hitler didn't have to justify his actions to anyone. If someone didn't like he want he did and said it. They most likely ended up dead within hours of a very painful death. Very few dared to cross Hitler and even fewer lived to tell about. Only Albert Speer in his inner circle could get away with disputing him. Even then Speer knew his limits. Hitler had ultimate power and say over everything in Germany at the time.

[Earthling]

I really think that basically we are bound to repeat history eventually...even knowing about it at some point in advance.

[tiptap]

Study Chamberlin & Churchill and their positions, respective to the League of Nations....and their actions with regard to Germany, then compare those to your opinion on the Iraqi situation (and the UN)....and get back to me, once you've done the homework. Nite, Gorilla.

I understand, appeasement position was the US policy of arming Iraq against Iran. Yeah yeah that's the ticket.

Trying to coax a comparison between the industrialized, scientific Germany of the 30's and the Iraq situation of today is pretty pathetic.
The world did address the Iraq situation. They did so by sanctions. And we now know it worked. The world didn't choose war to handle a 2rd rate dictator. However if you need to jump the 2nd largest oil field in the Middle East then it makes sense to invade. Wait, that was part of the reasoning of invading Russia by Hitler was to obtain the oil fields of southern Russia.

[patteeu]

I get it. Hitler called his war pre-emptive and characterized Germany as the victim so everyone who says their war is pre-emptive and characterizes their country as a victim is like Hitler. Subtle.

[BucEyedPea]

What was his attack on Poland?
Just curious.

[patteeu]

Trying to coax a comparison between the industrialized, scientific Germany of the 30's and the Iraq situation of today is pretty pathetic.

Did you hear that, Pitt?

The world did address the Iraq situation. They did so by sanctions. And we now know it worked.

No they didn't. Sanctions were failing. Our European partners were increasingly inclined to lift the sanctions. The corrupt oil-for-food program was making Saddam rich and giving him the means to buy influence among our allies. Do you think we were going to be able to keep the world together on sanctions forever?

The only way in which sanctions can be said to have worked is that Saddam's weapons programs were not as advanced as everyone believed, but he was still in violation of UN disarmament demands both in terms of failing to destroy and account for his entire stockpile of chemical weapons and in terms of long range missiles. Our post-war survey group concluded that Saddam maintained the intention of reconstituting his WMD weapons programs as soon as he could get out from under sanctions.

The world didn't choose war to handle a 2rd rate dictator. However if you need to jump the 2nd largest oil field in the Middle East then it makes sense to invade. Wait, that was part of the reasoning of invading Russia by Hitler was to obtain the oil fields of southern Russia.

That's funny, let me quote you:

Trying to coax a comparison between the industrialized, scientific Germany of the 30's and the Iraq situation of today is pretty pathetic.

[Mr. Kotter]

Did you hear that, Pitt?

No they didn't. Sanctions were failing. Our European partners were increasingly inclined to lift the sanctions. The corrupt oil-for-food program was making Saddam rich and giving him the means to buy influence among our allies. Do you think we were going to be able to keep the world together on sanctions forever?

The only way in which sanctions can be said to have worked is that Saddam's weapons programs were not as advanced as everyone believed, but he was still in violation of UN disarmament demands both in terms of failing to destroy and account for his entire stockpile of chemical weapons and in terms of long range missiles. Our post-war survey group concluded that Saddam maintained the intention of reconstituting his WMD weapons programs as soon as he could get out from under sanctions.

That's funny, let me quote you:

Thank you sir, for dispensing with tiptap's myopia so clearly and concisely....

[Mr. Kotter]

I understand, appeasement position was the US policy of arming Iraq against Iran. Yeah yeah that's the ticket.


No....the arming of Iraq against Iran, in the 1980s, would be akin to grudging involvement in WWI.

Striking Iraq after 12 years of UN Appeasement in 2002, is akin to standing up to the bully after the "invasion of Poland"...where Saddam's intransigence and shell game with UN "inspectors" was comparable in principle, if not scale, to the invasion of Poland.

[tiptap]

I have never doubted that Saddam had every intent to restart his arming as soon as he could. What is clear is that Iraq did not have the material resources, that is no iron field, no steel producing plants, no aluminun smelters, etc in order to produce his own armament. The sanctions kept him from updating the the arms cache he secured with US help before the 1st Iraq War. We aren't in disagreement. You all just ignore the fact that sanctions were working and run with the big bad wishes of Saddam to gear up his military again. Which he couldn't do.

As far as removing the sanctions, there was a push in that direction BEFORE 9/11. But it would have been child's play to enforce it for all this time after 9/11. That would have left us with a billion dollar a year expense in enforcing the embargo. (I don't care if UN people make money off the oil for food as long as the arms aren't there) That is in contrast to the 10 billion per month cost PLUS the lives lost and the displacement of families and loved ones. It is a DEAR PRICE for so LITTLE GAIN.

And Kotter, I was knocking your reading of history that one could compare Germany/WW2 to Iraq/Gulf2. And Patteeu it was in ridicule of that idea that I made my comment about Germany and Russian oil and America and Iraq oil. However I must have hit a nerve for you to miss that.

[Mr. Kotter]

...

And Kotter, I was knocking your reading of history that one could compare Germany/WW2 to Iraq/Gulf2. And Patteeu it was in ridicule of that idea that I made my comment about Germany and Russian oil and America and Iraq oil. However I must have hit a nerve for you to miss that."The sanctions/inspections were working." ??? Please, don't insult us by revising history retrospectively. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Of course, it isn't a 100% comparison. But nothing is. Like the morons who wish to compare Iraq to Vietnam, eh? :)

[banyon]

No....the arming of Iraq against Iran, in the 1980s, would be akin to grudging involvement in WWI.

Striking Iraq after 12 years of UN Appeasement in 2002, is akin to standing up to the bully after the "invasion of Poland"...where Saddam's intransigence and shell game with UN "inspectors" was comparable in principle, if not scale, to the invasion of Poland.

Not enforcing sanctions (even though we mostly did) ≠ appeasement.

In Gulf War I, like pre-WWII, Saddam did invade and occupy a neighboring country and no, we could not allow that.

Your U.N. "Shell Game" is not analgous to the invasion of Poland. I'm sure if you polled the Poles, you'd get close to 99% agreement on that.

After all, if not disclosing all of you weapon stockpiles (which is still in dispute, since there were virtually none to report and since the U.S. for some reason was allowed to redact the disclosures before anyone else at the Security Council saw them), then there would be "invasions of Poland" all over the world that we were required morally to stamp out. We'd need to be in Darfur, East Timor, the Congo, Nigeria, Chechnya, N. Korea, Iran, etc.

[BucEyedPea]

In Gulf War I, like pre-WWII, Saddam did invade and occupy a neighboring country and no, we could not allow that.

Why not? It was just a typical border dispute that many nations have including America.

[banyon]

Why not? It was just a typical border dispute that many nations have including America.

You were/are against Gulf War I?

[the Talking Can]

Iraq was like Germany...


please keep this thread going, this is awesome...

[tiptap]

"The sanctions/inspections were working." ??? Please, don't insult us by revising history retrospectively. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Of course, it isn't a 100% comparison. But nothing is. Like the morons who wish to compare Iraq to Vietnam, eh? :)

In stating hindsight is 20/20 are you stating that the sanctions did work? Of course you are. And anyone with a true understanding of what it takes to have military weapons knows what raw resources are needed. And while Iraq had plenty of oil they had no industrial capacity to create and manufactor their own weapons. They were dependent upon outside sources for everything from software, steel, aluminum, design, engineering outside Iraq. That is how the sanctions reduced the 5th best army to something behind Portugal. And why the second invasion was a cake walk (as opposed to occupying the country). And this is what the rest of the world and the inspectors were telling this administration. Wait Saddam out and don't waste your money and lives when the evidence is that despite his wishes his military power was on the wane.

We have GAIN in our invading Iraq and toppling of Saddam but at a cost that is going to handcuff us for the next 10 years. It was our infrastructure that needed to be worked on. It was our borders and harbors that needed to updated. It was our own appitites, gluttony, that creates the demand for oil that needs to be addressed.

It is a DEAR price for so little GAIN.

[BucEyedPea]

You were/are against Gulf War I?

At the time, I didn't have an opinion one way or the other.
I didn't pay much attention then....was working my arse off!

In retrospect....yes.
Also Kosovo/Bosnia intervention as well.

I'm not 100% isolationist though...but more than most I am, on conflict interventions I mean. I am for commercial and cultural relations...things like that.
Most wars are unecessary imo, are caused by the few.
I think Civil and WWI were avoidable and many other US interventions—just not all.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Did you hear that, Pitt?What the hell is that for? I learned quite a bit from that show last night, mainly that Hitler didn't just play the power-hungry role; he actually felt the need to justify his attacks as self defense. You may know a lot more about history, but I think you'd still enjoy the show.

Why the need to be a complete tool today?

[Mr. Kotter]

"The sanctions/inspections were working." ??? Please, don't insult us by revising history retrospectively. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

tiptap.....that is not an admission that I think they are working, only acknowledgement that there is reasonable disagreement over that point. "...Of course, it isn't a 100% comparison. But nothing is. Like the morons who wish to compare Iraq to Vietnam, eh? :)

Re-quoted, because Can apparently missed it, the first time....:)

[tiptap]

tiptap.....that is not an admission that I think they are working, only acknowledgement that there is reasonable disagreement over that point.

Re-quoted, because Can apparently missed it, the first time....:)

And as Banyon stated, a fair comparison would note that the world and the US did not use Appeasement for the invasion of Kuwait and that sanctions were placed upon Iraq after the first Gulf War. That is so different than the agreement Britian tried with Hitler brokered by Chamberlain. The analogy is totally useless. This stands in contrast to PittGorilla limited analogy that Hitler used humans faillings and fear to gain initial support for pre-emptive invasion of Poland and then France and Russia. That limited comparison, the justification to a populace, does seem to be valid in the discussion in the run up to the 2nd Gulf War. In addition the dependence upon a military solution seems applicable since one of the tenets of NeoCons was the welding of military capability not just the sabre rattling of Cold War politics. This administration doesn't know how to judge gain except in direct military terms. It is a limited understanding.

So if we are to gain in comparisons with the past it is the details that match up the comparisons. The grand sweeping comparisons should be avoided. I think PittGorilla is better at that than your comparisons which just don't really line up very well.

So don't lecture us generalities without giving us the details of the case in your comparison. Your comparisons don't match up even 10% , we don't have to worry that it isn't 100%.

[patteeu]

I have never doubted that Saddam had every intent to restart his arming as soon as he could. What is clear is that Iraq did not have the material resources, that is no iron field, no steel producing plants, no aluminun smelters, etc in order to produce his own armament. The sanctions kept him from updating the the arms cache he secured with US help before the 1st Iraq War. We aren't in disagreement. You all just ignore the fact that sanctions were working and run with the big bad wishes of Saddam to gear up his military again. Which he couldn't do.

... until the sanctions collapsed.

As far as removing the sanctions, there was a push in that direction BEFORE 9/11. But it would have been child's play to enforce it for all this time after 9/11.

This is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two of us that we aren't likely to get past. I believe the sanctions were failing and I don't think the wake of 9/11 was going to slow that down much. Just look around at all the Americans who insist that Saddam's Iraq is completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks and imagine what Europeans who had economic interests in a sanction-free Iraq would think. I can understand why you might think continuing sanctions would have been a preferable route to take given your understanding (in my view, misunderstanding) of the pre-invasion state of affairs.

That would have left us with a billion dollar a year expense in enforcing the embargo. (I don't care if UN people make money off the oil for food as long as the arms aren't there) That is in contrast to the 10 billion per month cost PLUS the lives lost and the displacement of families and loved ones. It is a DEAR PRICE for so LITTLE GAIN.

While there is no doubt that the cost in blood is very dear to those who have been personally impacted, the reality is that the costs of this war have been quite modest, relatively speaking. The gain has yet to be determined and we will never know how much blood would have been spilled had we not taken this action.

And Kotter, I was knocking your reading of history that one could compare Germany/WW2 to Iraq/Gulf2. And Patteeu it was in ridicule of that idea that I made my comment about Germany and Russian oil and America and Iraq oil. However I must have hit a nerve for you to miss that.

You mean the nerve that's hit everytime someone tries to compare the Bush administration to Nazis? Yes, I guess you did.

[patteeu]

Not enforcing sanctions (even though we mostly did) ≠ appeasement.

In Gulf War I, like pre-WWII, Saddam did invade and occupy a neighboring country and no, we could not allow that.

Your U.N. "Shell Game" is not analgous to the invasion of Poland. I'm sure if you polled the Poles, you'd get close to 99% agreement on that.

After all, if not disclosing all of you weapon stockpiles (which is still in dispute, since there were virtually none to report and since the U.S. for some reason was allowed to redact the disclosures before anyone else at the Security Council saw them), then there would be "invasions of Poland" all over the world that we were required morally to stamp out. We'd need to be in Darfur, East Timor, the Congo, Nigeria, Chechnya, N. Korea, Iran, etc.

The old "we can't invade anyone unless we invade everyone" argument, eh? There are plenty of differences between Darfur, East Timor, the Congo, Nigeria, Chechnya, N. Korea, and Iran on the one hand and Iraq on the other hand to draw distinctions and warrant different treatment. Even if military action was the right approach to all of those situations, we'd still have to set priorities and work the problems one, two, or a few at a time depending on how many resources they'd require.

Besides, who said we were morally obliged to intervene in Iraq anyway. Or for that matter, in Germany as a result of their invasion of Poland.

[patteeu]

What the hell is that for? I learned quite a bit from that show last night, mainly that Hitler didn't just play the power-hungry role; he actually felt the need to justify his attacks as self defense. You may know a lot more about history, but I think you'd still enjoy the show.

Why the need to be a complete tool today?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I'm sure it was an interesting show, but you have to realize that my job is to defend the Bush administration from demogogic comparisons to Nazi Germany even if they are made via innuendo. I take my job seriously. :)

If you didn't mean to make that comparison, then you have my apology. Perhaps the producers of that show were trying to subtly promote that comparison and you didn't realize it.

[tiptap]

... until the sanctions collapsed.



This is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two of us that we aren't likely to get past. I believe the sanctions were failing and I don't think the wake of 9/11 was going to slow that down much. Just look around at all the Americans who insist that Saddam's Iraq is completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks and imagine what Europeans who had economic interests in a sanction-free Iraq would think. I can understand why you might think continuing sanctions would have been a preferable route to take given your understanding (in my view, misunderstanding) of the pre-invasion state of affairs.



While there is no doubt that the cost in blood is very dear to those who have been personally impacted, the reality is that the costs of this war have been quite modest, relatively speaking. The gain has yet to be determined and we will never know how much blood would have been spilled had we not taken this action.



You mean the nerve that's hit everytime someone tries to compare the Bush administration to Nazis? Yes, I guess you did.


Gosh Patteau, 100 billion a year versus 1 billion per year just so we can take down Saddam. In the process we killed what 50,000 Iraqis, that must have endeared us to all those families. We alienated many Moslems with our bellicose answer. Whatever connection in words you might want to tie Saddam to terrorism is lost on the factual findings that Saddam's war machine was falling apart and that is the direct result of sanctions. Saddam was dependent upon the West for armaments. His American stockpile of chemical weapons were not upkept and were becoming useless. That was the measureable result. And it is a idiot of a man that could not have used the good will resonating throughout the world in the wake of the 9/11 attack to insure that sanctions against MILITARY material was kept in place. We had won back inspections. Those inspections would have given us a guage as to whether Saddam was having REAL success in diverting materials to weapons. No you want to discount the 3000+ lives lost in Iraq on our side and 10 billion per month outlay and bemoan the 1% of that cost per year to see Saddam stew in his spiralling down military regime.

Is is a DEAR price for so LITTLE gain. That is the ledger today. I don't know why I have to consider your long term rosy picture of the future on the books about Iraq. It is a limited imagination that sees victories in battlefield and warring terms.

[ck_IN]

I applaud your wish to learn more about WWII Pitt. It's always been my opinion that WWII set the table for just about everything that's happened politically since. Alas our schools do an awful job of teaching that period. True when I was in school and true now.

If you wish to learn more then do read anything you can find written by Churchil. Also go to your library and check out any number of naratives about the time. I'd also recomend Mein Kemph (sp?). It puts Hitlers mindset in stark perspective. The Japanese mindset is more difficult to fathom but worth the work.

[Laz]

Like I said, I'd love to know more. My knowledge of WWII is very rudimentary. What is that supposed to explain?
it means that Mr. Kotter has decided that if you don't know about WWII it means you can't have a valid opinion about anything political.

don't sweat it ....... just more of his BS

[Pitt Gorilla]

Perhaps the producers of that show were trying to subtly promote that comparison and you didn't realize it.Perhaps you should watch the show before making such ignorant comments. I'm not sure how you go from analyzing an eleven-minute tape of Hitler talking with Mannerheim to a comparison with the "Iraq situation" (the US was barely mentioned in the piece, IIRC.

[banyon]

The old "we can't invade anyone unless we invade everyone" argument, eh? There are plenty of differences between Darfur, East Timor, the Congo, Nigeria, Chechnya, N. Korea, and Iran on the one hand and Iraq on the other hand to draw distinctions and warrant different treatment. Even if military action was the right approach to all of those situations, we'd still have to set priorities and work the problems one, two, or a few at a time depending on how many resources they'd require.


Exactly. That has been my position the entire time. This was a misplacement of priorities. We had more important concerns. Afghanistan was not a misplacement of priorites, and in fact,the Iraqi occupation has drawn away our attention from that priority issue.

[patteeu]

Perhaps you should watch the show before making such ignorant comments. I'm not sure how you go from analyzing an eleven-minute tape of Hitler talking with Mannerheim to a comparison with the "Iraq situation" (the US was barely mentioned in the piece, IIRC.

I don't know anything about the show. I was trying to be generous and assume that you were just parroting what you'd heard on the show instead of assuming that you intentionally designed a post that not-so-subtly compares the US policy toward Iraq with Hitler's attack against Russia. I don't really believe you're dumb, Pitt, so please don't try to play the part.

[patteeu]

Exactly. That has been my position the entire time. This was a misplacement of priorities. We had more important concerns. Afghanistan was not a misplacement of priorites, and in fact,the Iraqi occupation has drawn away our attention from that priority issue.

That's a reasonable position to take. Do you at least agree that Iraq belonged somewhere on the priority list?

As a side note, when I worked in the defense industry back around the time the berlin wall came down, we switched from analyzing the effectiveness of our military hardware against threats in central and eastern Europe to analyzing it against threats in two other parts of the world: Iraq and North Korea.

[jspchief]

Perhaps you should watch the show before making such ignorant comments. I'm not sure how you go from analyzing an eleven-minute tape of Hitler talking with Mannerheim to a comparison with the "Iraq situation" (the US was barely mentioned in the piece, IIRC.Considering your stance on Iraq, I don't think it's that unreasonable for some people to see this as a subtle attempt at comparing the two. I'll admit that's the first thing that came to my mind. The thread title alone reeks of it.

[Mr. Kotter]

Considering your stance on Iraq, I don't think it's that unreasonable for some people to see this as a subtle attempt at comparing the two. I'll admit that's the first thing that came to my mind. The thread title alone reeks of it.

:spock:

Pitt.....doing that? No way. I never would have imagined....:hmmm:







ROFL

[Pitt Gorilla]

I don't know anything about the show. I was trying to be generous and assume that you were just parroting what you'd heard on the show instead of assuming that you intentionally designed a post that not-so-subtly compares the US policy toward Iraq with Hitler's attack against Russia. I don't really believe you're dumb, Pitt, so please don't try to play the part.Regardless of what you want to believe, I had NO intention of any comparison to Iraq. None. Please point out the "not-so-subtle comparison" in my post. If you need to use an insult, by all means, go right ahead.

Edit: Forget this thread. Don't post. I gained quite a few new insights into a subject matter that I thought was interesting. I had always thought that Hitler strolled into Russia on a mandate of "domination", so to speak. That wasn't the case. But that doesn't seem to be your focus anyway.

[Mr. Kotter]

Regardless of what you want to believe, I had NO intention of any comparison to Iraq. None. Please point out the "not-so-subtle comparison" in my post. If you need to use an insult, by all means, go right ahead.

Fair enough. We'll take you at your word....at least I will. Honestly.

However, to be indignant that others would read that into your intentions, given your position....seems silly, IMO.

[Laz]

I had NO intention of any comparison to Iraq.i will though ........


leaders of countries have been playing the BS victim card for military actions thoughout history.


that fact that Bush is a lying, sad sack of shit like so many of the others is not a surprise.

[banyon]

That's a reasonable position to take. Do you at least agree that Iraq belonged somewhere on the priority list?

Sure. It always has belonged on that list. But nothing since Gulf War I has warranted an invasion based on those priorities as opposed to other ways of addressing our concerns.

[Amnorix]

Study Chamberlin & Churchill and their positions, respective to the League of Nations....and their actions with regard to Germany, then compare those to your opinion on the Iraqi situation (and the UN)....and get back to me, once you've done the homework. Nite, Gorilla.


Containment of Iraq and heavy, endless sanctions isn't appeasement.

There's a difference between caving in to demands (Anschluss and Czechoslovakia) and what was going on in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

Don't even begin to mess with me on World War II history. ;)

[Amnorix]

No....the arming of Iraq against Iran, in the 1980s, would be akin to grudging involvement in WWI.

These two historical events bear no relationship worthy of the name. We enthusiastically armed Iraq against Iran, who had humiliated the US in the entire hostage fiasco.

[Amnorix]

Not enforcing sanctions (even though we mostly did) ≠ appeasement.

Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make as well.

[Mr. Kotter]

Containment of Iraq and heavy, endless sanctions isn't appeasement.

There's a difference between caving in to demands (Anschluss and Czechoslovakia) and what was going on in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

Don't even begin to mess with me on World War II history. ;)
I simply made an observation: some people DO consider what the UN did in Iraq after Gulf War I, to amount to Appeasement. Not precisely the same as with Germany in 1938....but Appeasment, nonetheless....especially in the face of Saddam's games and non-compliance and skirting the inspectors.

You, of course, are free to reject the comparison....just as I reject the suggestion by anyone, intentional or otherwise, that Bush "sold" the action in Iraq similar to the way Hitler sold his aggression as "pre-emptive."

[FringeNC]

Did you hear that, Pitt?



No they didn't. Sanctions were failing. Our European partners were increasingly inclined to lift the sanctions. The corrupt oil-for-food program was making Saddam rich and giving him the means to buy influence among our allies. Do you think we were going to be able to keep the world together on sanctions forever?

The only way in which sanctions can be said to have worked is that Saddam's weapons programs were not as advanced as everyone believed, but he was still in violation of UN disarmament demands both in terms of failing to destroy and account for his entire stockpile of chemical weapons and in terms of long range missiles. Our post-war survey group concluded that Saddam maintained the intention of reconstituting his WMD weapons programs as soon as he could get out from under sanctions.



That's funny, let me quote you:

Yep. For humanitarian reasons if nothing else, the sanctions had to be lifted. The oil-for-food scam proved Saddam had been able to completely do an end around them. They ended hurting no one other than the Iraqi people.

I really don't get understand the left's histrionics regarding Iraq. From what I understand, public opinion polls indicated Iraqis, while far from pleased with the security situation, find it preferable to living under Saddam Hussein...

And it is the red-state rednecks who the left despise who are doing the dying in Iraq, so the left should be happy about that...

So...Iraqis consider themselves better off....red state voters are getting killed in Iraq...Iraq is a killing field for Al-Q...tens of thousands of Arab malcontents have been taken out of commission...

It seems that there are only two legitimate arguments:
1) expense (but a one-time expense paid over an infinite time horizon is really no big deal....it's not like the transfer payment crisis that will come due at some point)

2) Toppling dictators in the Middle East is counter-productive because Muslims are too stupid to realize that they are better off, and will hate us more because Christians and Jews are "polluting" their lands.

Now this one may be true. I don't know. It is the best argument the left has against the invasion, but it is a rather depressing state of affairs. When I see stuff like the insanity following the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark, I sometimes think this myself.

[Amnorix]

I applaud your wish to learn more about WWII Pitt. It's always been my opinion that WWII set the table for just about everything that's happened politically since. Alas our schools do an awful job of teaching that period. True when I was in school and true now.

Absolutely true and correct on all accounts. No, please, let's spend MORE time on the Teapot Dome scandal and ignore the post-WWII era. That makes sense!

If you wish to learn more then do read anything you can find written by Churchil. Also go to your library and check out any number of naratives about the time. I'd also recomend Mein Kemph (sp?). It puts Hitlers mindset in stark perspective. The Japanese mindset is more difficult to fathom but worth the work.

I've read alot written by Churchill, but wouldn't suggest starting there. Mein Kampf is some painful reading, but recommended for a full view.

If you have a high tolerance for reading, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich remains the standard book for the rise and fall of Nazism. But it is LONG, and doesn't cover Asia much, of course.

Churchill's 6 volume WWII History is global in perspective, but much of it is self-serving, while others of it are misleading (intentionally -- to hide things like the cracking of the Enigma code and the like).

[htismaqe]

Absolutely true and correct on all accounts. No, please, let's spend MORE time on the Teapot Dome scandal and ignore the post-WWII era. That makes sense!



I've read alot written by Churchill, but wouldn't suggest starting there. Mein Kampf is some painful reading, but recommended for a full view.

If you have a high tolerance for reading, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich remains the standard book for the rise and fall of Nazism. But it is LONG, and doesn't cover Asia much, of course.

Churchill's 6 volume WWII History is global in perspective, but much of it is self-serving, while others of it are misleading (intentionally -- to hide things like the cracking of the Enigma code and the like).

Rise and Fall was required reading in college.

[ck_IN]

Rise and Fall is excellent but I fear our friend Pitt would be overwhelmed and retreat from the persuit should he start there. A bit like learning Shakespeare by starting with MacBeth.

I think Churchill would be a good starting point since he's easily digestable from the American point of view. Also anything from Ernie Pyle would give a grunts point of view which could be interesting.

If one chooses to dig deeper then a stroll through Mein Kampf will be required. What's really fascinating is to pair that with Karl Marx. It really brings home the fact that the USSR and the Nazis were two sides of the same coin hence the irony of their mutual hatred.

What's truely missing is anything that really digs into the Japanese mind. As interesting as the European theatre is I've always been drawn to the Pacific one.

[GoChiefs]

THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN RUSSIA!

HITLER LIED, PEOPLE DIED!

[ck_IN]

<i>THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN RUSSIA!

HITLER LIED, PEOPLE DIED!</i>

Sure there were. He was called Stalin. Between he and Mao they killed more people then Hitler ever thought of.

[htismaqe]

I strongly recommend selected World War II writings from historian Stephen Ambrose.

He's probably one of the most decorated US historians, he's undoubtedly an expert on WW2, and he's got his own SECTION on Amazon. :D

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/497640/qid=1152564178/sr=53-1/ref=tr_202861/102-6681753-3049717

[Mr. Kotter]

THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN RUSSIA!

HITLER LIED, PEOPLE DIED!

Sure there were. He was called Stalin. Between he and Mao they killed more people then Hitler ever thought of.

fwiw, they EACH probably killed at least twice as many as Hitler did, but....


Shhh-Shhhhhhhhhh-SHHHHHHHH!!!!



Please, do not disturb the Leftists in the room.....



Nah-nah nah-nah Nah Nah......

[the Talking Can]

Read "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor...an unbelievable blow by blow accounting of Hitler's folly in Russia...his accounts of the environments endured by soldiers on both sides is detailed and gruesome...a huge book, and you can't put it down once you start...I've read few books like it, fiction or non-fiction...

also, for a different angle on the issue of appeasement read "Making Friends with Hitler: Lord Londonderry, the Nazis, and the Road to War" by Ian Kershaw....excellent writing, and follows the ultimately pathetic life of Lord Londonderry, cousin of Churchill, who thought he could befriend Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler's Foreign Minister, and reach an "understanding" between Britain and Germany...

and finally, don't listen to Kotter...his understanding of history is rivaled only by circus clowns...

[Lzen]

In the process we killed what 50,000 Iraqis, that must have endeared us to all those families.

Not sure where you get the number 50,000, but it seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors the people of Iraq endured under the ruthless Saddam Hussein regime. FringeNC did a pretty good job with his rebuttal, but I had to address this comment.
On a related note to the thread starter, I watched a show on the History Channel the other day. It was called The Horrors of Hussein (or something like that). It detailed the atmosphere of constant fear the Iraqis had to live under the Saddam Hussein government. All the torture and killings for which Hussein was responsible. It was a real eye opener. They credit SH for about a million deaths during his reign.

Example: One story was about a man who was suspected of disloyalty (Saddam was a very paranoid dictator). They tortured him to try and get him to admit to the accusations. When that didn't work, they raped his wife in front of him. When that didn't work, they took his baby and slammed him/her against the wall. The baby's skulled was crushed and they all had baby brain matter all over themselves.

[FringeNC]

fwiw, they EACH probably killed at least twice as many as Hitler did, but....


Shhh-Shhhhhhhhhh-SHHHHHHHH!!!!



Please, do not disturb the Leftists in the room.....



Nah-nah nah-nah Nah Nah......

Another highlight of the NY Times....covering up what happened in the Ukraine in order to prop up a Communist mass murderer...

[Mr. Kotter]

Read "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor...an unbelievable blow by blow accounting of Hitler's folly in Russia...his accounts of the environments endured by soldiers on both sides is detailed and gruesome...a huge book, and you can't put it down once you start...I've read few books like it, fiction or non-fiction...

also, for a different angle on the issue of appeasement read "Making Friends with Hitler: Lord Londonderry, the Nazis, and the Road to War" by Ian Kershaw....excellent writing, and follows the ultimately pathetic life of Lord Londonderry, cousin of Churchill, who thought he could befriend Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler's Foreign Minister, and reach an "understanding" between Britain and Germany...

and finally, don't listen to Kotter...his understanding of history is rivaled only by circus clowns...
Can, you are riot....:rolleyes:

Parker's suggestion of Ambrose was better. Your choices and commentary on the books is pretty good. But you gotta do more than read; you need to comprehend...historical and political context. And that's what you seem completely incapable of grasping.

As for my understanding of history? You're the one who's apparently been dropped on your frickin' head.....hard. It's the only reasonable explanation for the cockamamie BS you spew. That or you ate frickin' paint chips as a kid.....regularly and in large quantities. ;)

Now, go back to your 911 "The Government did it!" conspiracies....

[Mr. Kotter]

Another highlight of the NY Times....covering up what happened in the Ukraine in order to prop up a Communist mass murderer...

But....but.....Stalin and Mao and Ho Chi Minh....."redistributed land to the peasants" and crushed that no-good greedy capitalistic business class.

Their INTENTIONS are what really counts, don't you know? What are a 20 or 30 million deaths of "traitors?" Give or take another 10 million....

[Coach]

Germany's attack against Russia was a big mistake. The Germans decided to attack at late summer/early fall was one, since the Russian winter was around the corner. Not to mention, the Germans were poorly equipped to withstand the bitter cold.

[tiptap]

Not sure where you get the number 50,000, but it seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors the people of Iraq endured under the ruthless Saddam Hussein regime. FringeNC did a pretty good job with his rebuttal, but I had to address this comment.
On a related note to the thread starter, I watched a show on the History Channel the other day. It was called The Horrors of Hussein (or something like that). It detailed the atmosphere of constant fear the Iraqis had to live under the Saddam Hussein government. All the torture and killings for which Hussein was responsible. It was a real eye opener. They credit SH for about a million deaths during his reign.

Example: One story was about a man who was suspected of disloyalty (Saddam was a very paranoid dictator). They tortured him to try and get him to admit to the accusations. When that didn't work, they raped his wife in front of him. When that didn't work, they took his baby and slammed him/her against the wall. The baby's skulled was crushed and they all had baby brain matter all over themselves.

I did misspoke. The number of 50,000 is the number violent war dead in Iraq. That number surely includes actual insurgents but is overwhelmingly civilian in character source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathtoll25jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Saddam got his sadistic ruling notions from Stalin. So I am more than aware of the cruelities that Iraqis suffered at his hands. He is an evil man. He deserves to die. He doesn't deserve to die at the cost of 3000+ Americans and at the cost of 100 billion a year. He simply wasn't the clever or that big of threat compared to the indoctrination of fundalmentalism of millions of Moslems and their wish for the death of modernism and liberalism. (yes Moslem fundalmentalists hate liberals just as much as rwnj in this country.)

I state explicitly that we had little gain. It would be the removal of Saddam. It is just too little compared to the formenting of a whole new generation of Moslems who now see the US no different than Great Britian or any other colonial, European, Christian power.

[penchief]

In fact, he justified most of his attacks by painting Germany as the victim. They had a special on the History Channel about a recently discovered (I think) Hitler recording. It was really interesting. When I get the time, I'd like to learn more about WWII.

Which is exactly why I cringed when I first heard the government sponsored phrase, "Shock and Awe."

Anyone up for a game of "Lightening War?"

Or should I say "Blitzkreig?"

[FringeNC]

It is just too little compared to the formenting of a whole new generation of Moslems who now see the US no different than Great Britian or any other colonial, European, Christian power.

If that's the case, and it very well could be, that says a lot more about Islam than it does U.S. policy.

[tiptap]

If that's the case, and it very well could be, that says a lot more about Islam than it does U.S. policy.

Human nature, something we could anticipate. That would be part of a smart US policy instead of the naive one ushered up now.

[penchief]

It is just too little compared to the formenting of a whole new generation of Moslems who now see the US no different than Great Britian or any other colonial, European, Christian power.

Which is why I find bin Laden a more apt comparison to Hitler than I do Saddam.

[Braincase]

Recorded phone conversation transcript...

Hitler: Hello, Josef?

Stalin: Addy, is that you? When will you send me some more of Eva's sauerbraten?

Hitler: Heh, heh, I'll have some dlievered. Did you know that you have a few thousand light bulbs out in Stalingrad?

Stalin: Really? I had no idea?

Hitler: Not to worry, I'll send over some of my boys to help out. You'll know then when they get there... they'll be bringing the sauerbraten!

Stalin: Wonderful! Hope to see you soon!

[Adept Havelock]

I'll leave the comparisons for others to hash out.

I'll just point out that "self-defense" was a pretty standard cover story for Hitler's Third Reich. For example, on Aug. 31 of 1939, Nazi's staged a Polish attack on a German Radio station near the border. The Germans launched "Case White" on September 1, as an act of "self-defense".

Leading up to Barbarossa, Germany claimed many incursions on the German "General Government"/USSR border. In truth, Stalin was so fearful of provoking Hitler he actually ordered his troops not to respond to German overflights, and severly curtailed all reconnisance of the border. He also ordered several commanders of the Western Strategic Direction arrested for trying to mobilize/prepare against an invasion they could clearly see was in the works.

GoChiefs- No WMD's in Russia? Tell that to the Panzer Crews who went up against T-34's in Panzer Mk 2's and 3's. :D

[stevieray]

Which is exactly why I cringed when I first heard the government sponsored phrase, "Shock and Awe."

Anyone up for a game of "Lightening War?"

Or should I say "Blitzkreig?"

You really need to get a phantom of the opera mask with a chiefs logo on it.

:)

[penchief]

You really need to get a phantom of the opera mask with a chiefs logo on it.

:)

I like it. It sounds sinister. Because I'm not really familiar with the story behind the Phantom of the Opera, I'd have to ask what would be it's meaning? I could make logical assumptions but if you tell me then I'd know for sure. My Mom loves the show but my knowledge of it's storyline comes from the 1970's campy "Phantom of the Paradise" starring Paul Williams.

[Adept Havelock]

I like it. It sounds sinister. Because I'm not really familiar with the story behind the Phantom of the Opera, I'd have to ask what would be it's meaning? I could make logical assumptions but if you tell me then I'd know for sure. My Mom loves the show but my knowledge of it's storyline comes from the 1970's campy "Phantom of the Paradise" starring Paul Williams.

ROFL :clap:
That show ended with one of my all time favorite Rock and Roll tunes...

Perhaps the DC forum should dedicate it to "ahem...shut your mouth". ;)

<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=y81o9Te-M4w&search=phantom%20of%20the%20paradise">Video Link</a>
The Hell Of It (From Phantom Of The Paradise) Lyrics


Roll on thunder, shine on lightning
The days are long and the nights are frightenin'
Nothing matters anyway,
And that's the hell of it.

Winter comes and the winds blew colder
While some grew wiser, you just grew older
And you never listened anyway,
And that's the hell of it.

Good for nothing, bad in bed
Nobody likes you and you're better off dead
Goodbye, we've all come to say goodbye (goodbye)
Goodbye (goodbye)
Born defeated, died in vain
Super-destructive, you were hooked on pain
Though your music lingers on
All of us are glad you're gone

If I could live my life half as worthlessly as you
I'm convinced that I'd wind up burning too.

Love yourself as you loved no other
Be no man's fool and be no man's brother
We're all born to die alone, you know, that's the hell of it.

Life's a game where they're bound to beat you
And time's a trick it can turn to cheat you
And we only waste it anyway,
And that's the hell of it.

Good for nothing, bad in bed
Nobody liked you and you're better off dead
Goodbye, we've all come to say goodbye (goodbye)
Goodbye (goodbye)
Born defeated, died in vain
Super-destructive, you were hooked on pain
And though your music lingers on
All of us are glad you're gone

[listopencil]

In fact, he justified most of his attacks by painting Germany as the victim. They had a special on the History Channel about a recently discovered (I think) Hitler recording. It was really interesting. When I get the time, I'd like to learn more about WWII.


If anything, Sodomy Insane when he invaded Kuwait would be the modern day equivalent to Hitler. Good for us that we stopped him at Kuwait instead of sitting on our hands like everyone did leading into WWII.

[Mr. Kotter]

Can, you are riot....:rolleyes:

Parker's suggestion of Ambrose was better. Your choices and commentary on the books is pretty good. But you gotta do more than read; you need to comprehend...historical and political context. And that's what you seem completely incapable of grasping.

As for my understanding of history? You're the one who's apparently been dropped on your frickin' head.....hard. It's the only reasonable explanation for the cockamamie BS you spew. That or you ate frickin' paint chips as a kid.....regularly and in large quantities. ;)

Now, go back to your 911 "The Government did it!" conspiracies....
I just noticed the 911 conspiracy theorists are back at it, again.....in a renewed effort.

I wondered why our conspiracy theorist types have been mostly MIA, of late....must be studying the latest manufactured and doctored stories and videos....and sure enough, they are making a "new round" of the cable programs.....ROFL

[petegz28]

In fact, he justified most of his attacks by painting Germany as the victim. They had a special on the History Channel about a recently discovered (I think) Hitler recording. It was really interesting. When I get the time, I'd like to learn more about WWII.


Oh my God another Bush=Hitler fanatic!

[the Talking Can]

Can, you are riot....:rolleyes:

Parker's suggestion of Ambrose was better. Your choices and commentary on the books is pretty good. But you gotta do more than read; you need to comprehend...historical and political context. And that's what you seem completely incapable of grasping.

As for my understanding of history? You're the one who's apparently been dropped on your frickin' head.....hard. It's the only reasonable explanation for the cockamamie BS you spew. That or you ate frickin' paint chips as a kid.....regularly and in large quantities. ;)

Now, go back to your 911 "The Government did it!" conspiracies....

uh, I've never once - ever - even suggested that our government was behind 9/11....your ignorance is truly unrivaled

as for history, your sad attempt at analogizing WWII and Iraq speaks for itself....I'd like you to explain that with any actual historical specificity in a way that didn't make an educated person laugh till they puke...but you couldn't, and you're just smart enough to not even try...

Ambrose is all right, in a rah rah kind of way...can't hold a candle to Kershaw as a writer, imho...and Stalingrad is a book that almost defies description in its scope and scale...

[Mr. Kotter]

uh, I've never once - ever - even suggested that our government was behind 9/11....your ignorance is truly unrivaled

as for history, your sad attempt at analogizing WWII and Iraq speaks for itself....I'd like you to explain that with any actual historical specificity in a way that didn't make an educated person laugh till they puke...but you couldn't, and you're just smart enough to not even try...

Ambrose is all right, in a rah rah kind of way...can't hold a candle to Kershaw as a writer, imho...and Stalingrad is a book that almost defies description in its scope and scale...


I apologize for associating you with the "conspiracy theorists," then Can..... but I remembered you being one of the clowns who were....so sympathetic and open to TJ's "Loose Change"/BYU professor-loon-moonbat theories. I certainly don't recall you questioning his BS, and given your positions on other issues....it should be an "understandable" association. Less ignorance, than simple mistake....for which I apologize. I'll take you at your word.

I may have to revisit the Kershaw book then, as I only vaguely recall it....it was a while ago for me.

[go bowe]

aw, quit trying to act all reasonable and all...

we know what you're really like... :p :p :p

[Mr. Kotter]

aw, quit trying to act all reasonable and all...

we know what you're really like... :p :p :p

Aw, dad.....why can't I? You're no fun....:harumph:

:p

[Amnorix]

Rise and Fall was required reading in college.

Nice. We didn't have a WWII centered history class where I went, unfortunately.

That's no easy/quick reading. Must've been a pretty challenging course.

[Amnorix]

If one chooses to dig deeper then a stroll through Mein Kampf will be required. What's really fascinating is to pair that with Karl Marx. It really brings home the fact that the USSR and the Nazis were two sides of the same coin hence the irony of their mutual hatred.

Marx and Nazism were opposite sides of the same coin? I'd say Stalinism and Nazism, but not Marx. He wasn't really advocating dictatorship, racial superiority, blah, blah, blah.

I suppose you could equate Marx's class warfare with Hitler's rantings, but I don't see them as THAT close.

What's truely missing is anything that really digs into the Japanese mind. As interesting as the European theatre is I've always been drawn to the Pacific one.

I've studied both, albeit more in Europe. The war with the Japanese was never close to being lost after Midway. There's an argument that it was "unlose-able." Japan didn't have the resources to deal with us, and bit off far more than it could chew.

Germany did too, ultimately, but they came alot closer. Also, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt are more compelling figures than Hirohito, Tojo, Yamamoto and Nogumo, IMHO.

Chiang Kai-shek and Madame Chiang are somewhat interesting, but nearly unlikeable, and not nearly in that megalomanical way that makes the truly evil figures in Europe fascinating to study.

:shrug: Just a matter of preference.

[Amnorix]

fwiw, they EACH probably killed at least twice as many as Hitler did, but....


Shhh-Shhhhhhhhhh-SHHHHHHHH!!!!



Please, do not disturb the Leftists in the room.....



Nah-nah nah-nah Nah Nah......

Mao maybe. The numbers there will never be known.

Stalin is a close call. Depends on how you want to count Hitler's deaths. You put the 20'ish million Russians alongside the 6 million Jews, add a healthy number of other slavic races, the 15 or whatever million Germans that were killed due to his wars, etc., a handful of others (Brits, American, etc.) and you're looking at a pretty damn big number for Stalin to try to double.

But there's no doubt Stalin killed umpteen millions, and that no sane person should ever defend Stalin as being one ounce better than Hitler. No "Leftist" (as you say) who understands history should be supporting him, that's for damn sure.

[Amnorix]

But....but.....Stalin and Mao and Ho Chi Minh....."redistributed land to the peasants" and crushed that no-good greedy capitalistic business class.

Their INTENTIONS are what really counts, don't you know? What are a 20 or 30 million deaths of "traitors?" Give or take another 10 million....

Don't lump Ho Chi Minh in with the other two. He just doesn't fit into the picture in quite that manner.

[Amnorix]

I'll leave the comparisons for others to hash out.

I'll just point out that "self-defense" was a pretty standard cover story for Hitler's Third Reich. For example, on Aug. 31 of 1939, Nazi's staged a Polish attack on a German Radio station near the border. The Germans launched "Case White" on September 1, as an act of "self-defense".

Leading up to Barbarossa, Germany claimed many incursions on the German "General Government"/USSR border. In truth, Stalin was so fearful of provoking Hitler he actually ordered his troops not to respond to German overflights, and severly curtailed all reconnisance of the border. He also ordered several commanders of the Western Strategic Direction arrested for trying to mobilize/prepare against an invasion they could clearly see was in the works.

My only quibble is with the last sentence. The rest is absolutely correct. Nothing I've read suggests that the Russians clearly saw the invasion as being in the works, although I'm aware that a senior Russian (Kiev district?) was relieved for some reason shortly before the Germans attacked. My memory is fuzzy on this and I'll accept correction/clarification.

Another telling point is that Russian wheat trains were rolling into German Poland and Germany even as the attack was going on -- part of Stalin's ongoing effort to appease Hitler.

The rest is correct of course. Allowing overflights, refusing to respond to provocations, etc.

[Mr. Kotter]

Don't lump Ho Chi Minh in with the other two. He just doesn't fit into the picture in quite that manner.

The numbers aren't quite up to the Stalin/Mao standard...but the legacy that was carried on in his name compares....

[ck_IN]

Interesting take Amnorix. I'd agree that the European personalities were more interesting but my fascination with the Pacific is a bit broader.

I've always been interested in exactly what possesed the Japanese to take part in the war. There was no way they could win a war with the US. Yet they tried. Not only that they continued with a fanaticism that defies Western thought well after the cause was clearly lost. Their adherence to Bushido has always fascinated me and IMO draws a corolary to today's Muslims.

On another level the bloodlust in the Pacific fighting pales anything that happened in Europe even on the Eastern front. The Japanese did not surender. Period. Just about every defender died at Iwo Jima and had no apparent compunction in doing so. Remind anyone of the Muslim nutjobs?

Another little known story of the Pacific is Unit 731 and Shiro Ishii. He was a doctor that with the Japanese governments blessing established Unit 731 and conducted massive germ warfare in China. The unit also did bio experiments on POWs of all allied nations. While Nazi's were killed as war criminals, the Japanese were given immunity in exchange for their experiment data. The unit also had close ties with the Black Dragons which begat the Yakuza and led to the rise of Mao.

The European theatre and its after affects is interesting but the Asian web is much more intricate.

[ck_IN]

Are we forgetting the Khmer Rouge? Their line travels directly from Mao and they nearly wiped out Cambodia.

[go bowe]

and the hutu and idi amin, too?

damned communists, anyway...

[Amnorix]

The numbers aren't quite up to the Stalin/Mao standard...but the legacy that was carried on in his name compares....


mmmm....I see Ho in very different terms than Stalin/Mao. I don't really see him as all that much of a Communist. He more used them to further Vietnamese nationalistic ideas of breaking off the shackles of French imperialism. The US then stupidly got involved in the mess.

Vietnam's rabid fervor was more for nationalism than communism, IMHO. It's break with China in the late 70s exemplified that.

I haven't read too extensively on Vietnam, so I won't argue to the death or anything, but that's my take at this point. I realize Ho was a Communist going waaay back, in terms of being trained in Moscow, etc.

[FringeNC]

mmmm....I see Ho in very different terms than Stalin/Mao. I don't really see him as all that much of a Communist. He more used them to further Vietnamese nationalistic ideas of breaking off the shackles of French imperialism. The US then stupidly got involved in the mess.

Vietnam's rabid fervor was more for nationalism than communism, IMHO. It's break with China in the late 70s exemplified that.

I haven't read too extensively on Vietnam, so I won't argue to the death or anything, but that's my take at this point. I realize Ho was a Communist going waaay back, in terms of being trained in Moscow, etc.

In his own words:


Ho Chi Minh (1890-1968) drafted the following program on February 18, 1930, for a conference of Vietnamese Communists who met in the British colony of Hong Kong.

Workerss peasants, soldiers, youth, pupils!

Oppressed and exploited compatriots!

The Communist Party of Indochina is founded. It is the party of the working class. It will help the proletarian class lead the revolution in order to struggle for all the oppressed and exploited people. From now on we must pin the Party, help it and follow it in order to implement the following slogans:

1. To overthrow French imperialism, feudalism, and the reactionary Vietnamese capitalist class.

2.. To make Indochina completely independent.

3. To establish a worker*peasant and soldier government.

4. To confiscate the banks and other enterprises belonging to the imperialists and put them under the control of the worker*peasant and soldier government.

5. To confiscate all of the plantations and property belonging to the imperialists and the Vietnamese reactionary capitalist class and distribute them to poor peasants.

6. To implement the eight*hour working day.

7. To abolish public loans and poll tax. To waive unjust taxes hitting the poor people.

8. To bring back all freedom to the masses.

9. To carry out universal education.

10. To implement equality between man and woman.

Nguyen Ai Quoc (Ho Chi Minh)


....certainly reads like a Commie to me...

[Amnorix]

I've always been interested in exactly what possesed the Japanese to take part in the war. There was no way they could win a war with the US. Yet they tried. Not only that they continued with a fanaticism that defies Western thought well after the cause was clearly lost. Their adherence to Bushido has always fascinated me and IMO draws a corolary to today's Muslims.

You're probably aware of all this, but...

Japan actually kicked off what we know as WWII long before Germany did. In 1905, after the Meiji Restoration of the late 1800s, a rising Nationalism in Japan helped lead to a battle with Czarist Russia over, among other things, Manchuria. As part of its victory, it also got Korea, which is much like a knife aimed at either the heart of Asia or the heart of Japan, giving it a strategic significance beyond its size and economic value.

Then in '33 they effectively invade China, which in my mind is the first shot fired in WWII. They tangle with the USSR in '37 or so in Mongolia, which ends with the battle of Kholkin Gol (or somesuch) where future Marshall Zhukov kicks their ass.

By 1941, they had signed the Axis pact, but more importantly, they viewed themselves as the dominant power in Asia and, by military and racial right, the preeminent nation and force in the entire region. Only one thing threatened them -- the US.

Add to that their lack of oil supplies, the fact that UK/Dutch oil supplies in the East Indies (outside their realm at that point) were abundant, and the US cutting them off from a number of raw materials -- and the military and economic incentive to launch a preemptive strike was very high.

Another factor tying into their ultimately dumb decision was that Japan had never lost a war in their entire history. They believed quite literally that the Emperor was the divine, that their country was divine and superior, blah, blah, blah.

On another level the bloodlust in the Pacific fighting pales anything that happened in Europe even on the Eastern front. The Japanese did not surender. Period. Just about every defender died at Iwo Jima and had no apparent compunction in doing so. Remind anyone of the Muslim nutjobs?

Another little known story of the Pacific is Unit 731 and Shiro Ishii. He was a doctor that with the Japanese governments blessing established Unit 731 and conducted massive germ warfare in China. The unit also did bio experiments on POWs of all allied nations. While Nazi's were killed as war criminals, the Japanese were given immunity in exchange for their experiment data. The unit also had close ties with the Black Dragons which begat the Yakuza and led to the rise of Mao.

The European theatre and its after affects is interesting but the Asian web is much more intricate.

Know nothing about Unit 731. Well aware that Japanese atrocities were extensive. Their refusal to surrender was just a cultural quirk, not all that exciting or interesting to analyze, in my view.

Comparison to Muslim nut jobs. :shrug: Not really. First, ALL Japanese soliders and citizens would likely willingly die to protect their country and emperor, whereas the Muslim nutjobs are a small sliver of Muslim society -- just the fanatically religious, anti-American nut wing group.

Second, many countries and parts of the world view hardship, depriviation and teh loss of human life through a very different lens than Americans.

Look up the most catastrophic natural disasters in history. You think having a couple hundred die in New Orleans flooding or X number in some Oklahoma tornado is bad? Try like 800,000 Chinese in an earthquake, or a couple hundred thousand during flash floods in India, etc.

It's just a cultural difference. Interesting, but not all taht exciting. You're probably more interested in sociology than I am. :)

[Amnorix]

Are we forgetting the Khmer Rouge? Their line travels directly from Mao and they nearly wiped out Cambodia.

I'd put the Khmer Rouge much more in line with standard Communist doctrine than Ho. Also a much more repressive, insane, genocidal regime.

[Amnorix]

In his own words:


Ho Chi Minh (1890-1968) drafted the following program on February 18, 1930, for a conference of Vietnamese Communists who met in the British colony of Hong Kong.

Workerss peasants, soldiers, youth, pupils!

Oppressed and exploited compatriots!

The Communist Party of Indochina is founded. It is the party of the working class. It will help the proletarian class lead the revolution in order to struggle for all the oppressed and exploited people. From now on we must pin the Party, help it and follow it in order to implement the following slogans:

1. To overthrow French imperialism, feudalism, and the reactionary Vietnamese capitalist class.

2.. To make Indochina completely independent.

3. To establish a worker*peasant and soldier government.

4. To confiscate the banks and other enterprises belonging to the imperialists and put them under the control of the worker*peasant and soldier government.

5. To confiscate all of the plantations and property belonging to the imperialists and the Vietnamese reactionary capitalist class and distribute them to poor peasants.

6. To implement the eight*hour working day.

7. To abolish public loans and poll tax. To waive unjust taxes hitting the poor people.

8. To bring back all freedom to the masses.

9. To carry out universal education.

10. To implement equality between man and woman.

Nguyen Ai Quoc (Ho Chi Minh)


....certainly reads like a Commie to me...


Of course it does. And I have no doubt that he was a Communist. But the comparables to Stalin and Mao are very different in many ways. He wasnt', as far as I'm aware, a mass-murderer of his own peoples.

He and Mao started off similarly -- embracing and using Communism to help throw off an unwanted transgressor of their country's soil. In China it was Japan, and in Vietnam it was the French, then the Americans.

Mao ultimately proved himself to be the ultimate Communist, and to be completely insensitive to mass-murder of his own people. Ho died before the Americans left the country, so it's sort of hard to say whether he was ultimately more interested in Communism or in freedom for Vietnam from foreign oppression.

It's fair to say, however, that POST-America's eviction, Vietnam proved to be less than a model Communist country, to say the least.

[tiptap]

Interesting take Amnorix. I'd agree that the European personalities were more interesting but my fascination with the Pacific is a bit broader.

I've always been interested in exactly what possesed the Japanese to take part in the war. There was no way they could win a war with the US. Yet they tried. Not only that they continued with a fanaticism that defies Western thought well after the cause was clearly lost. Their adherence to Bushido has always fascinated me and IMO draws a corolary to today's Muslims.

On another level the bloodlust in the Pacific fighting pales anything that happened in Europe even on the Eastern front. The Japanese did not surender. Period. Just about every defender died at Iwo Jima and had no apparent compunction in doing so. Remind anyone of the Muslim nutjobs?

Another little known story of the Pacific is Unit 731 and Shiro Ishii. He was a doctor that with the Japanese governments blessing established Unit 731 and conducted massive germ warfare in China. The unit also did bio experiments on POWs of all allied nations. While Nazi's were killed as war criminals, the Japanese were given immunity in exchange for their experiment data. The unit also had close ties with the Black Dragons which begat the Yakuza and led to the rise of Mao.

The European theatre and its after affects is interesting but the Asian web is much more intricate.


For an Island Nation of Japan, the navy perspective was more mature. The army of Japan had to deal with the legacy of samuri. They had good success in China and access to raw materials MINUS oil. That meant when the US stopped oil sales then Japan would have to secure a source that would be Indonesia. The Navy was against directly involving the US in this but the Army pervailed with the Emperor. And the Navy's response was to use the same scheme they had used with Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. A overwhelming surprise attack that overwhelmingly cripples the naval presence. This time though the Japanese failed to remove the Air Craft Carriers (they destroyed the Russian Pacific Battleships and won that encounter). To correct this they launced the Midway attack only this time there was no surprise but a well placed American presence with good luck reversed the tide of pacific expansion.

[dirk digler]

Interesting take Amnorix. I'd agree that the European personalities were more interesting but my fascination with the Pacific is a bit broader.

I've always been interested in exactly what possesed the Japanese to take part in the war. There was no way they could win a war with the US. Yet they tried. Not only that they continued with a fanaticism that defies Western thought well after the cause was clearly lost. Their adherence to Bushido has always fascinated me and IMO draws a corolary to today's Muslims.

On another level the bloodlust in the Pacific fighting pales anything that happened in Europe even on the Eastern front. The Japanese did not surender. Period. Just about every defender died at Iwo Jima and had no apparent compunction in doing so. Remind anyone of the Muslim nutjobs?

Another little known story of the Pacific is Unit 731 and Shiro Ishii. He was a doctor that with the Japanese governments blessing established Unit 731 and conducted massive germ warfare in China. The unit also did bio experiments on POWs of all allied nations. While Nazi's were killed as war criminals, the Japanese were given immunity in exchange for their experiment data. The unit also had close ties with the Black Dragons which begat the Yakuza and led to the rise of Mao.

The European theatre and its after affects is interesting but the Asian web is much more intricate.

What is just as interesting is what the Japanese did to the Chinese in 1937. There is a very good book called the Rape of Nanking which described the atrocities that the Japs did to the Chinese. They killed 300,00 -400,000 of people during that time by raping women and children and executing almost any Chinese.

What is bad is that after the war the US didn't do anything to the Emperor of Japan for the atrocities the Japs committed.

To this day Japan denies any and all involvement with what happened in China.

[FringeNC]

Of course it does. And I have no doubt that he was a Communist. But the comparables to Stalin and Mao are very different in many ways. He wasnt', as far as I'm aware, a mass-murderer of his own peoples.

He and Mao started off similarly -- embracing and using Communism to help throw off an unwanted transgressor of their country's soil. In China it was Japan, and in Vietnam it was the French, then the Americans.

Mao ultimately proved himself to be the ultimate Communist, and to be completely insensitive to mass-murder of his own people. Ho died before the Americans left the country, so it's sort of hard to say whether he was ultimately more interested in Communism or in freedom for Vietnam from foreign oppression.

It's fair to say, however, that POST-America's eviction, Vietnam proved to be less than a model Communist country, to say the least.

I mean isn't always the case that the Commies murder just about the entire upper-middle-class on up? Weren't South Vietnamese non-peasants slaughtered en masse after we left....?

What exactly is a model Communist country? NK and Cuba? One reason most states have turned away from Communism is that they are no longer being subisidized by the USSR and China. It is amazing that Kim and Castro have held on. I think Kim is still subsidized by China, though. China likes to taunt the U.S. via it's proxy, NK.

[htismaqe]

Part of the reason that we dealt with Germany and Japan differently was because of the already looming Cold War and rising tensions with the Soviet Union.

At the time Germany was defeated, the USSR had already established a military foothold there and the Allies proper (US/UK) were in a bad political situation.

Japan, however, had gotten very little attention from Moscow and Truman wanted to use them as a bargaining chip during future negotiations with the Soviets.

[ck_IN]

Interesting Parker. I'm not exactly sure how Japan becomes a bargaining chip with the Soviets. They (Soviets) were already sitting on Sakhalan (sp?) island. They ran N. Korea for all intents and purposes. Their Pacific naval base, Vladvistok, is just north of Japan. They basiclly owned Manchuria. If anything Japan parallels Germany from a naval point of view in terms of the USSR.

[ck_IN]

The Rape of Nanking. Another little spoken of episode of WWII. Mass murder at the very least condoned by the Japanese army if not outright encouraged.

Don't forget the Comfort Women, Chinese and Korean women forced into prositution for Japanese soldiers.

Interesting Amnorix. I wasn't aware the Soviets and the Japanese fought in '37. I was aware of the Russo-Japanese war. And yes that was a blueprint for their naval strategy leading up to Pearl Harbor. Although the blueprint was flawed since the Russo navy was a hollow shell by that point.

I guess it's a matter of taste. I do find their adherence to Bushido interesting. Japan, unlike India or China is not a nation of a billion people. I would expect life to be cheaper there because of the abundance of it. Japan, one would think, would not view it so cheaply. Yet 20 odd thousand willingly got wiped out at Iwo among other places. If we'd had to invade the mainland Pentagon estimates were 1million Allied casulties. I find it interesting but that's just me.

If you have some time take a read on unit 731. Japan was very close to launching a Bubonic plague on our West coast. They had perfected the germs in China. They had developed the carrying device. They had a delivery system just not on a large enough scale to implement. They also had a generation of jets that put the German ones to shame. They just hadn't hit production yet due to our B-29 raids.

If the Pacific war had lasted another year history would've had a much more deadly ending.

[ck_IN]

Amnorix I wasn't comparing the Rouge with Ho. I view them as the extreme version of Mao and China. Kind of like the Cultural Revolution on 'roids.

In fact it was communist Viet Nam that finally removed them.

[htismaqe]

Interesting Parker. I'm not exactly sure how Japan becomes a bargaining chip with the Soviets. They (Soviets) were already sitting on Sakhalan (sp?) island. They ran N. Korea for all intents and purposes. Their Pacific naval base, Vladvistok, is just north of Japan. They basiclly owned Manchuria. If anything Japan parallels Germany from a naval point of view in terms of the USSR.

Japan was highly industrialized, as was Germany.

North Korea and Manchuria, for the most part, were not.

Japan was very valuable as a potential ally in the upcoming Cold War. For that matter, Germany was as well, but it had already been split up in late 1945/early 1946 before we could solidify support there.

[Saggysack]

I strongly recommend selected World War II writings from historian Stephen Ambrose.

He's probably one of the most decorated US historians, he's undoubtedly an expert on WW2, and he's got his own SECTION on Amazon. :D

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/497640/qid=1152564178/sr=53-1/ref=tr_202861/102-6681753-3049717

And a repeat offender of plagiarism.

[Amnorix]

What is just as interesting is what the Japanese did to the Chinese in 1937. There is a very good book called the Rape of Nanking which described the atrocities that the Japs did to the Chinese. They killed 300,00 -400,000 of people during that time by raping women and children and executing almost any Chinese.

The Japanese did the same thing to Korea beginning in around 1905. Brutal treatment, sex slavery of Korean women, etc. ad infinitum. It's really quite amazing.

What is bad is that after the war the US didn't do anything to the Emperor of Japan for the atrocities the Japs committed.

To this day Japan denies any and all involvement with what happened in China.

mmmm....sorta. The brouhaha is over whether Japan has ever apologized, not whether they even acknowledge anything happened. But yes, they have failed (unlike Germany) to really accept responsibility and blame for their past conduct, and to try to apologize or atone for it in any meaningful way.

In fact, not that it is difficult to justify America's decision to nuke them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor is an eye for an eye the type of justice I like to see....but let's just say that knowledge of how Japan treated the citizens of the countries they occupied, some for 40 years, makes me pretty sanguine about the matter of the Japanese civilians that were unfortunately killed.

Anyway, here's an article.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9811/26/japan.china.02/

[Amnorix]

I mean isn't always the case that the Commies murder just about the entire upper-middle-class on up? Weren't South Vietnamese non-peasants slaughtered en masse after we left....?

Yes, BUT this is also standard practice in any revolution. Mass murder is taking it a half-step further, but in any revolution, the "enemies of the state" are gotten rid of in some fashion or another. The guillotine owes its invention to more quickly execute the wealthy after the French Revolution, because headsmen with axes took too damn long.

We were quite a bit more civilized about it here in America, but many of the Tories that hadn't already fled for England were stripped of property and wealth, and many fled for the West Indies, Bahamas and Canada.

Also, keep in mind that the American Revolution was different in kind than China, Vietnam, North Korea or France. In those cases, they were toppling a LOCAL government, whereas we were throwing off what was essentially a foreign government.

But the bottom line remains -- if you're going to have an effective revolution, you damn well better have a plan to get rid of the supporters of the old regime.

I'm not condoning this, of course, but it's fundamental history and human philosophy.

What exactly is a model Communist country? NK and Cuba? One reason most states have turned away from Communism is that they are no longer being subisidized by the USSR and China. It is amazing that Kim and Castro have held on. I think Kim is still subsidized by China, though. China likes to taunt the U.S. via it's proxy, NK.

IMHO no country in the history of the world has really practiced "true" Communism, any more than there has been a true, absolute Capitalist society based on Adam Smith. Neither is really possible.

Let me rephrase my statement regarding Ho Chi Minh to the following, which is unlikely to be popular:

"Whereas Stalin and Mao ultimately proved to be brutal dictators of their countries, there is no evidence that Ho Chi Minh was any such thing, or that he wasn't first and foremost concerned with throwing off the shackles of foreign occupation and domination of his country -- first France, then Japan, then France again, then America, rather than adhering to some abstract philosophy regarding a preferred socio-economic structure."

The fact that Ho was just as insensitive to the loss of life as most Asians of that time period is reflected in his statement along the lines of "you can kill 10 men for every one of yours that we kill, but we will still win", which not only shows Vietnam's tolerance for greater loss of life, but also the practical reality that the west was not going to withstand high losses indefinitely.

[Amnorix]

I guess it's a matter of taste. I do find their adherence to Bushido interesting. Japan, unlike India or China is not a nation of a billion people. I would expect life to be cheaper there because of the abundance of it. Japan, one would think, would not view it so cheaply. Yet 20 odd thousand willingly got wiped out at Iwo among other places. If we'd had to invade the mainland Pentagon estimates were 1million Allied casulties. I find it interesting but that's just me.

Agreed that Japan isn't as highly populated, but the cultural impression of the bushido code, etc. was of course very strong. Obviously, you know all this already...

If you have some time take a read on unit 731. Japan was very close to launching a Bubonic plague on our West coast. They had perfected the germs in China. They had developed the carrying device. They had a delivery system just not on a large enough scale to implement. They also had a generation of jets that put the German ones to shame. They just hadn't hit production yet due to our B-29 raids.

Hrmm....I hadn't heard of a Japanese Jet program of any significance. The only thing I found on Wiki was references to jets under license from Germany that never went past prototype in Japan.

Mitsubishi J8M

"The J8M-1 was intended to be a licence-built copy of the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet. Difficulties in shipping an example to Japan meant that the aircraft eventually had to be reverse-engineered from a flight operations manual and other limited documentation. A single prototype was tested before the end of World War II."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_J8M

and

Nakajima Ki-201

"Nakajima attempted to interest the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force in the aircraft, and seems to have succeeded at least far enough to have had an official designation ("Ki-201") applied to it, but at that point, the Air Force had already decided to pursue derivatives of the Mitsubishi J8M as their way of fending off the B-29 Superfortress raids. It seems that the Navy was also approached but displayed no interest whatsoever.

Undaunted, Nakajima continued development, anticipating test flights by December 1945. At the time of the Japanese surrender, most sources agree that work on the prototype had not yet begun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-201

If the Pacific war had lasted another year history would've had a much more deadly ending.

If you remove the atomic bomb from the equation, then I agree, but only as to deaths in mainland Japan. The carpet bombing would've greatly intensified as Army Air Force and England's Bomber Command moved to China and began to pummel Japan. An American invasion would've been very costly to both countries, of that there is no doubt, but much moreso to Japan than to us.

Estimates were as high as 1 million US military casualties (not sure if this is just KIA, but I suspect it's all casualties -- KIA, WIA and MIA). Nobody scoffs at numbers like those, but in relation to Japanese deaths, it would've light, nor does it seem out of whack as compared to the 20 odd million Soviet and Germany dead, nor the 500,000 US dead that were actually suffered in all theaters during the war.

The introduction of the bubonic plague strikes me as fanciful at best. How were they going to deliver it to the US West Coast? By sub? Were they going to release some plagued rats in Random Place, California??

1945 California isn't Europe of the Middle Ages. It's not as if it would spread like wildfire through our country, even if introduced. Bubonic Plague still exists in the world, and every once in a while there is a breakout somewhere.

"On 19 April 2006, CNN News and others reported a case of plague in Los Angeles, California, the first reported case in that city since 1984."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague

[dirk digler]

The Japanese did the same thing to Korea beginning in around 1905. Brutal treatment, sex slavery of Korean women, etc. ad infinitum. It's really quite amazing.



mmmm....sorta. The brouhaha is over whether Japan has ever apologized, not whether they even acknowledge anything happened. But yes, they have failed (unlike Germany) to really accept responsibility and blame for their past conduct, and to try to apologize or atone for it in any meaningful way.

In fact, not that it is difficult to justify America's decision to nuke them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nor is an eye for an eye the type of justice I like to see....but let's just say that knowledge of how Japan treated the citizens of the countries they occupied, some for 40 years, makes me pretty sanguine about the matter of the Japanese civilians that were unfortunately killed.

Anyway, here's an article.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9811/26/japan.china.02/


Thanks Amnorix.

You know maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to sick the Japs on North Korea. :hmmm:

[Lurch]

And a repeat offender of plagiarism.

Given his record of excellence, some would defer to him and characterize it more as sloppy citation.

[Amnorix]

Thanks Amnorix.

You know maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to sick the Japs on North Korea. :hmmm:


Japan's reaction, as a country, to their heinous conduct from 1905-1945 is to become the most pacifistic first world country there is.
Given past conduct, that might not be such a bad thing. :)

[dirk digler]

Japan's reaction, as a country, to their heinous conduct from 1905-1945 is to become the most pacifistic first world country there is.
Given past conduct, that might not be such a bad thing. :)

Maybe they are coming around...

Japan needs to promote debate on whether the Self-Defense Forces should possess capability to attack foreign bases within the scope of the war-renouncing Constitution in the wake of North Korea's test-firing a long-range missile, Defense Agency Director General Fukushiro Nukaga said Sunday.

"As a sovereign nation, it is natural to have an idea to possess minimally essential capability under a certain framework," Nukaga told reporters.

He added that consensus needs to be reached among the governing Liberal Democratic Party as well as among the ruling coalition parties — the LDP and its partner the New Komeito party — to realize the proposal.

Nukaga also said on a Fuji TV program, "I understand that the government can decide on attacking an enemy to defend Japan when the enemy, which is targeting Japan with a means to attack, puts a finger on the trigger of a gun."

North Korea fired last Wednesday seven missiles, including a Taepodong-2 long-range missile, all of which landed in the Sea of Japan.

Nukaga said three of the seven missiles were medium-range Rodongs, including the missile's newest version, and the remaining three were short-range Scuds.

Foreign Minister Taro Aso indicated separately that Japan can exercise the right to self-defense under certain conditions by attacking North Korea's missile bases.

"If a missile with a nuclear warhead is targeted at Japan, we do not have an option of doing nothing until we suffer damage," Aso said in an NHK news program.

In January 2003, then Defense Agency Director General Shigeru Ishiba aroused controversy in connection with a possible preemptive strike against North Korea, saying that Japan can ask the United States to launch a military strike on missile bases in North Korea if Pyongyang shows the intention of a missile attack against Japan and starts preparations to do so.

Then Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi echoed Ishiba and said, "If we see there are no alternatives, striking missile bases is within the legal framework of self-defense and it is possible."

Kawaguchi made the comment by citing remarks made in 1959 by then Defense Agency chief Shigejiro Ino.

[htismaqe]

And a repeat offender of plagiarism.

And?

[Amnorix]

Maybe they are coming around...


Interesting. Hadn't seen that. Can't blame them, and I don't have any problem with them remilitarizing. Obviously, they could easily become a serious nuclear power if they wanted to. For 50 years they have avoided spending much on defense and allowed the US to protect them from their big, bad, communist neighbors.

With a current population of 127 million, Japan is the 11th most populous country, ahead of Germany, England and France,

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

and the fourth largest GDP

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

and her obvious advanced technology, Japan could easily be a world military power... And we might need/want her to remiltiarize to balance off China's growing power.

Germany, of course, pretty much immediately remilitarized after WWII, given the situation in Europe, the Cold War, Berlin Airlift, etc. Nobody had a problem with that...

[htismaqe]

You know, I was gonna let this slide because I didn't want to hijack this thread, but there's something that really irks me when someone pulls out the "he's a plagiarist" card when you mention Ambrose.

First of all, for the record, what he did was WRONG. It is absolutely unethical what he has done.

That being said, I've read hundreds of history books. I can't even begin to enumerate the hundreds of times I've read historian A's words in historian B's book and it's not quoted, but cited. The reason Ambrose is getting called out for it is because he's commercially successful and there are certain people that have a problem with that.

Beyond that, what we have here is someone who is relatively new to the genre and was wanting advice on where to start. Regardless of Ambrose' sloppy notation or plagiarism, however you want to view it, the core of his writing isn't invalidated. His books are a very good place to delve into the topic because they are written to be mass-consumed. There's a reason they're so popular in college classrooms.

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

Why don't you devote a discussion to original work in fields other than contemporary US history? The problem with the Ambrose debacle it seems to me is not plagiarism but the obession of not only the contemporary media but, I fear, the academic historical community as well on short-term perspectives. If there were less at stake, commercially and professionally, in the field of WW2 historiography, then no one really would care.

So rather than feed the frenzy, how about devoting a discussion to what it means, in serious terms, to write popular history? What criteria should we use to evaluate it? How much of a premium should be put on originality of research versus breadth?Aren't those more important questions then whether not Ambrose cribs between appearances on tv?

Gregory S. Brown
Assistant Professor, Department of History
University of Nevada, Las Vegas


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

I do not see much good coming from trashing Stephen Ambrose unless it is as a point of caution to those instructing students on the requisites of meticulous citation of sources and the price one pays for sloppy attribution. Important? Yes. However, the cynics will now make try to mincemeat of all of his work, and the kids will have yet another example of how how all history is really just fiction after all. No wonder the "social sciences" have eclipsed pure history in our secondary schools.

The eggheads have already done their job on Ken Burns and now, Stephen Ambrose. Only David McCullough remains for them, and I expect that he is high on their hit list.

I wish that some of those who are hitting Ambrose so hard would spend a few years at the grassroots of history education in American high schools and see how difficut it is to engage students in the subject. Stephen Ambrose's books,like Ken Burns's films, are absolutely essential tools in the daily fight to bring history alive for the MTV generation.

Doug Collar, Ph.D.

[Amnorix]

I'm with Htismage. IMHO truly NEW history books are relatively few and far between, requiring tremendous research, time, effort and money, and generally are not for mass consumption.

Nearly all historical work is simply taking a pile of books written before on the same topic, rewriting and synthesizing them. There is very little that is truly "orginal" about it.

To me, plagarism needs to be put in context. Writing for a professional journal, such as a law review article, or teh New England Journal of Medicine, requires much, much higher standards of conduct regarding proper citations.

For a mass-consumption history book, as long as it's obviously not just extensive copying of someone else's work, I don't think it really makes a damn bit of difference.

[ck_IN]

I don't want to belabour my Pacific WWII obsession but here's a few links for the curious.

This isn't exactly informative but it sells a DVD that is informative

http://www.ddhe.co.uk/p2_D22851_Secret%20Japanese%20Aircraft%20Of%20WWII.htm

A little info on their germ warfare and one of the delivery systems they'd developed.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=31

A different version of the above.

http://www.peeniewallie.com/2005/03/wwii_japanese_u.html

An interesting site on Japanese X planes. Almost all were German based but in fine Japanese tradition they took a base and expanded on it. Most were just drawing board. Some were prototype and a few actually flew with a few of those conducting missions.

http://j-aircraft.org/xplanes/

[htismaqe]

I'm with Htismage. IMHO truly NEW history books are relatively few and far between, requiring tremendous research, time, effort and money, and generally are not for mass consumption.

Nearly all historical work is simply taking a pile of books written before on the same topic, rewriting and synthesizing them. There is very little that is truly "orginal" about it.

To me, plagarism needs to be put in context. Writing for a professional journal, such as a law review article, or teh New England Journal of Medicine, requires much, much higher standards of conduct regarding proper citations.

For a mass-consumption history book, as long as it's obviously not just extensive copying of someone else's work, I don't think it really makes a damn bit of difference.

I wouldn't call what Ambrose did "plagiarism" anyway. In ALL cases, he cited the original author. In some cases, he even says "I borrowed liberally from [X's] work" in his author notes.

What he's guilty of is being lazy and cutting corners. He did it the wrong way.

But this plagiarism witchhunt is just that. They're deflecting attention from the real problem -- that they're continuing to propagate the idea that history is "fiction". It's just another example of modern media trying to make our kids into mindless zombies.

[Amnorix]

http://www.ddhe.co.uk/p2_D22851_Secret%20Japanese%20Aircraft%20Of%20WWII.htm

A little info on their germ warfare and one of the delivery systems they'd developed.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=31



Not to be argumentative, but it appears that the delivery system didn't work...

"When problems made that plan [to drop disease infested fleas, rats, etc. into New York, Washington etc.] infeasible, the sub was retasked to bomb the Panama canal from the east, but the end of the war arrived before the crew could carry out its mission."

So, not to be difficult, here's what we came up with:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/images/library/media-gallery/image/nagasaki/nagasaki-mushroom.jpg

And here's what they tried, and FAILED to come up with:

http://www.genome.gov/Images/feature_images/rat_image.jpg


:LOL: :p

[Amnorix]

But this plagiarism witchhunt is just that. They're deflecting attention from the real problem -- that they're continuing to propagate the idea that history is "fiction". It's just another example of modern media trying to make our kids into mindless zombies.

Agreed that he did it the wrong way.

Your final paragraph and last sentence especially makes no sense to me, however.

[htismaqe]

Agreed that he did it the wrong way.

Your final paragraph and last sentence especially makes no sense to me, however.

I think there's an underlying "agenda" with many of the people trying to discredit Ambrose.

They're trying to discredit him because by doing so, they believe they're undermining the market for mass-consumed history titles. After all, its pretty much Ambrose and Ambrose alone that made the history book a NY Times bestseller.

By undermining the market for "history books for the common people" they sway public opinion against history and historians in general, further delegitimizing real history as an academic pursuit, replacing it subtly with social science mumbo jumbo.

Have you read some of today's junior high and high school history texts?

[Mr. Kotter]

I think there's an underlying "agenda" with many of the people trying to discredit Ambrose.

They're trying to discredit him because by doing so, they believe they're undermining the market for mass-consumed history titles. After all, its pretty much Ambrose and Ambrose alone that made the history book a NY Times bestseller.

By undermining the market for "history books for the common people" they sway public opinion against history and historians in general, further delegitimizing real history as an academic pursuit, replacing it subtly with social science mumbo jumbo.

Have you read some of today's junior high and high school history texts?
As a high school history teacher, I'd say you are absolutely 100% correct.

[FringeNC]

Yes, BUT this is also standard practice in any revolution. Mass murder is taking it a half-step further, but in any revolution, the "enemies of the state" are gotten rid of in some fashion or another. The guillotine owes its invention to more quickly execute the wealthy after the French Revolution, because headsmen with axes took too damn long.

That's just not right. Communist revolutions are much more than a regime change at the top. Communists want to crush all existing institutions -- political, economic, social, cultural, religious, etc., and want to make state-worship the one and only institution. The "new man" or whatever the hell they call it. Leaders of all competing institutions are slaughtered. This is a unique evil of Communism. (But, yes the French Revolution/Enlightenment is the ideological father of Communist Revolution/Communism whereas we were a child of the Scottish Enlighment. Two completely different Enlightenments. French- statism, Scottish, liberty). In fact, I visited Russia a few years ago, and happened to witness a rather pathetic small little pro-Stalin rally. I recoiled in horror that Stalin could have any fans, and the Russian I was with agreed, and remarked "that not only did Stalin kill over 20 million, but he killed the best and the brightest". Just grotesque.

The really is nothing the rivals a Communist revolution in terms of it's pure evil. Even the Islamic revolution in Iran didn't come close. Most revolutions simply kill a bunch of politicians.

The American Revolution was completely different. We simply wanted a regime change. Hell, we kept almost all the British institutions afterwards.

[htismaqe]

As a high school history teacher, I'd say you are absolutely 100% correct.

There were 22 people in my department at the time I graduated. There were two of us that weren't double-majored in either education or phys-ed.

It's a damn shame, but alot high school history teachers today are only history teachers because the school needed somewhere to put their basketball or football coach.

[ck_IN]

Amnorix I'm not implying the A bomb was inferior to anything they came up with. Clearly it wasn't. What I'm saying is that I personally find it interesting what might've been if the A bomb hadn't been perfected.

The problem with their delivery system wasn't that it didn't work it was that they didn't think they'd get within range before American ships sank their subs. I'd imagine the backup mission would've had the same problem.

[Lzen]

Wow, this actually turned out to be a very interesting and informative thread. Thanks to all the participants. :thumb: I'm going to have to go check out some of the books mentioned.

[Amnorix]

That's just not right. Communist revolutions are much more than a regime change at the top. Communists want to crush all existing institutions -- political, economic, social, cultural, religious, etc., and want to make state-worship the one and only institution. The "new man" or whatever the hell they call it. Leaders of all competing institutions are slaughtered. This is a unique evil of Communism. (But, yes the French Revolution/Enlightenment is the ideological father of Communist Revolution/Communism whereas we were a child of the Scottish Enlighment. Two completely different Enlightenments. French- statism, Scottish, liberty). In fact, I visited Russia a few years ago, and happened to witness a rather pathetic small little pro-Stalin rally. I recoiled in horror that Stalin could have any fans, and the Russian I was with agreed, and remarked "that not only did Stalin kill over 20 million, but he killed the best and the brightest". Just grotesque.

The really is nothing the rivals a Communist revolution in terms of it's pure evil. Even the Islamic revolution in Iran didn't come close. Most revolutions simply kill a bunch of politicians.

The American Revolution was completely different. We simply wanted a regime change. Hell, we kept almost all the British institutions afterwards.

French revolution went beyond politicians.

America was different, I agree, but again, it was a throw-off of a foreign government, really, so there wasn't nearly as much internal upheavel.

Agreed that Communistic revolutions tend to go "hard-over" to destroy nearly all institutions. That's the father Soviets teaching all the little Commies how to play the game.