Crap aside,
I was enjoying the direction of this discussion regarding the Pre-War Japanese Options.
Which raises the question, was it possible that the Japanese would have been able to conquer and occupy China, if that had been thier SOLE FOCUS?
Which raises the question, was it possible that the Japanese would have been able to conquer and occupy China, if that had been thier SOLE FOCUS?
And we are back on topic! FINALLY!! :-D
I would have to say no though Gar, alot of what drove Japan into war with the other powers around them was their inability to finish off China. It was believed by the Japanese high command that one of the reasons that they couldnt finish off China was because of the support (militarily, financial, and political) she was recieving from the outside world. Alot of what Japan did in the post-Wuhan period (around 1938) of the war with China was just to try and isolate her. Now a collapse of 2 of the 3 powers ringed around and supporting China could have done that, maybe, but what Japan did was alienate all 3 and start a war with 2 at the same time.
I really think Japans best bet would have been to start a war with Britian and her commonwealth allies only. Britian was directly supporting China with allowing(and supplying) arm shipments through the Burma road. Britian was stretched thin and needed just about everything she had for the fight in europe, if Japan had focused her full military might against only her (and not the US) then I believe there would have bee a good chance of a british collapse in the far-east and Indian sub-continent. This would have been the important thing, as a British fall back in India (not abandoning the whole region but eastern Indian) would have deprived the Chinese of the last remaining contact to the outside. Cut of from these supplies Chiang’s rotten KMT may have collapsed in to feuding warlordism and Japan could declare a victory there.
The US cut the oil supply to Japan, 6 months later Japan Attacked the US in order to grab oil in the Dutch East Indies.
Seems complicated to me, just go for what you need, the raw materials. If the US goes to war, then its their choice, fight the battle on the US home front like it was in Vietnam. The US probably wouldn’t have entered into a war of choice against Japan until 1943, by then Japan’s attacks should mostly be done and they could concentrate on a proper defense until the US accepts the status quo.
@Red:
Oh, I’ll gladly answer. I’ve not misrepresented anything. Kurt’s posts are disturbing in that they employ political dog whistles and disinformation to promote the same sort of sentiment, and race/ethnicity/religion based view I’ve heard expressed by the the Klan. (And I heard it directly, because some of the imbeciles tried to recruit me when I moved South…they ain’t the sharpest pencils in the box.) Repeating the McCarthyite accusations is unacceptable and brings one’s judgement into question. When I see that sort of crap posted, I will respond.
In response to your claim that you haven’t misrepresented anything: yes you have. I have used the word “brutal” to describe Hitler, and have also stated that his brutality was less than Stalin’s. (Which it was, and which I have demonstrated.) Your “translation” of my position was that Hitler was “a misunderstood teddy bear.”
Another one of your “translations” of my positions was that “commies are everywhere.” I have written nothing which would even remotely justify you in coming up with that interpretation of my words. I have stated the goals and objectives the American communist movement has been attempting to achieve with the power it has, without commenting very much on the extent to which communists have been able to influence the U.S. or other Western nations. If you and I are to have a serious discussion, you must not put words in my mouth.
One way of becoming better-informed about the American communist movement is to read David Horowitz’s book Radical Son. Horowitz was a red diaper baby, and as a young man was an ardent member of the American communist movement. He later left the movement, displeased by its moral failure. He provides a perspective that someone from the outside looking in could not hope to equal.
As for your claim that I have used “political dog whistles and disinformation”–everything I have written is accurate to the best of my knowledge and understanding. If you feel I have committed errors, you are certainly welcome to demonstrate them. Thus far you have not done so. On the contrary: you have made a number of erroneous statements about varying subjects. It’s fine that you don’t know everything. Unfortunately, your ratio of confidence to actual knowledge seems very high, and that is not fine. You need to learn to listen more and speak less, and to research and dig before coming up with grand pronouncements about subjects you understand (or misunderstand) on a surface level only.
Finally, you have accused me of having a Ku Klux Klan-type view of race. My view of race is that the world is better off maintaining the existence of the different races, than it would be by mixing all races together into one globalized race. If this view reminds you of the Ku Klux Klan, so be it. I have not expressed hatred toward anyone, but I don’t expect that minor fact to cause you to hesitate even slightly before lumping me in with those who have.
My view of race is that the world is better off maintaining the existence of the different races, than it would be by mixing all races together into one globalized race.
Why is that? I am all for keeping cultures unique. I don’t want to move to India nor China, nor would I want 3% of their population to enter Canada all at once and duplicate their culture here and overwhelming ours. But I could care less what the average physical features of a Canadian is 100 years from now, as long as they are totally cool and awesome like we are now.
If anything, increasing genetic diversity is good for the species and individual. Maintaining cultural islands is also desirable.
And how any of this relates to pre-war Japan’s military options is……?
My view of race is that the world is better off maintaining the existence of the different races, than it would be by mixing all races together into one globalized race.
Why is that? I am all for keeping cultures unique. I don’t want to move to India nor China, nor would I want 3% of their population to enter Canada all at once and duplicate their culture here and overwhelming ours. But I could care less what the average physical features of a Canadian is 100 years from now, as long as they are totally cool and awesome like we are now.
If anything, increasing genetic diversity is good for the species and individual. Maintaining cultural islands is also desirable.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. One thing I’ll point out is that mixing different races together doesn’t increase genetic diversity. If one were to cause the world’s lions and tigers to interbreed with each other–thereby eliminating lions and tigers as species, and replacing them with ligers–the feline gene pool’s diversity would not be increased. On the contrary.
And how any of this relates to pre-war Japan’s military options is……?
It just does! :P
On a more serious note, I apologize if anything I’ve written in this thread is off-topic. I don’t think I’ve wandered too far off topic, mind you, but I admit I may have drifted just a little bit off topic.
One reason I haven’t written more about Japan’s prewar options is because everything I wanted to say on that subject I’ve already mentioned earlier in this thread. If any new insights or ideas on that subject jump into my head, I’ll be sure to mention them here.
That’s not a good analogy, Kurt.
Lions and Tigers are different species. (Or, literally, different animals)
A Filipino and a German (for example) are not different species.
Kurt, you don’t seem to understand how genetic information is passed. By your analogy, if diversity decreases by inter-racial breeding, then inbreeding would increase diversity? Has that worked for your family?
What were you doing hanging out with KLAN members - so much so that they asked you to join?
You don’t get to pick your coworkers most times, and you learn after awhile which ones to be careful around. Simple opposition to reverse discrimination in education and hiring practices seems to have been what confused them… But hey, a few miles away David Duke (ex Grand Wizard apparently) was running for Governor of Louisianna at about the same time and that seemed to bring out the cockroaches.
Clamping down on FREEDOM OF SPEECH is unacceptable, despite however WRONG KurtGodel may be. � He is entitled to his position and understanding, and we are entitled to agree or disagree, and have our own positions. � With the only exception being, that this forum is regulated by it’s own set of rules to prevent discussions like this from getting out of control.
And WHO ARE YOU to question judgments! � Is your judgment somehow superior to the rest of everyone elses? � Do you have a membership to some kind a priveledged club we’re not allowed to be part of? � :P
You’re right, you haven’t misrepresented anything, especially not bigotism.
You can stand up for his hate speech and McCarthyite fabrications all you want, but I will condemn them. If you want to intentionally play the part of a dumb a**, that is your option.
Finally, you have accused me of having a Ku Klux Klan-type view of race. My view of race is that the world is better off maintaining the existence of the different races, than it would be by mixing all races together into one globalized race.
Speaks for itself.
Kurt, you don’t seem to understand how genetic information is passed. By your analogy, if diversity decreases by inter-racial breeding, then inbreeding would increase diversity? Has that worked for your family?
I suggest that, before making comments about my family, you think about the impression such comments might create. It’s obvious to everyone here you know nothing about my family. Your decision to act as if you do know something makes you look . . . ?
I’m concerned that this crowd may be too heavily indoctrinated to have a calm, rational discussion about certain topics. It’s with a great sense of trepidation that I mention Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Darwin’s original insights were formed in large part as a result of his trip to the Galapagos Islands. Animals on those islands did not interbreed with animals on the mainland, leading to genetic divergence. The Galapagos species Darwin examined were in the process of branching off from mainland species. Geographic barriers which separate breeding populations are essential to new species formation. Without such barriers, humans would never have diverged from apes. (The fact that everything in this paragraph should have been taught in school does not mean that it was.)
Someone commented that my example of lions and tigers interbreeding is not a good metaphor for interracial marriage. This person pointed out that there is a difference between mixing different species and mixing different races. It is true that there is a difference in degree. There is no difference in kind.
If one wants to consider a situation exactly analogous to interracial marriage (with little significant difference in either degree or kind), I would suggest doing a thought experiment about mixing the various subspecies of feline together. All subspecies of tiger would be mixed together, to create a world with just “tigers” instead of Bengal tigers, Siberian tigers, Malayan tigers, etc. All species of panthers would be mixed together to create a world with just “panthers,” with all subspecies eliminated. Would these measures tend to increase or decrease the world’s genetic diversity?
This is relevant to Japan’s prewar options, because Panther and Tiger were the names of German tanks. Had Germany promised to provide Japan with advanced tank designs like these by '43, it would have affected Japan’s prewar options.
Kurt, you do have a long term view I will grant you that. You are thinking of 1000s of generations down the line evolving in isolation, allopatric speciation is the term that should be used. I am rather well versed in the science of genetics and the pseudo-science of eugenics. Hey, if you want to isolate yourself and only interbreed with a small selection of humanity for 1000 of generations in order to create a new species, knock yourself out. Sorry for suggesting that was in any way shape or form like inbreeding on a personal level. That philosophy does sound inbreed however.
Creating a super race might be noble notion, hmmmm, where have I heard that before. Segue into the fact the Japanese thought they were a superior race and therefore other races could and should be treated like animals. Had the Japanese Imperial Forces (and Nazis) treated others as humans with rational human motives then they should have been able to carve out a sphere of influence that could be in existence today.
therefore other races could and should be treated like animals
ANIMALS.
I resemble that remark! Specially when I don’t shave my back for a week!
Kurt, you do have a long term view I will grant you that. You are thinking of 1000s of generations down the line evolving in isolation, allopatric speciation is the term that should be used. I am rather well versed in the science of genetics and the pseudo-science of eugenics. Hey, if you want to isolate yourself and only interbreed with a small selection of humanity for 1000 of generations in order to create a new species, knock yourself out. Sorry for suggesting that was in any way shape or form like inbreeding on a personal level. That philosophy does sound inbreed however.
Creating a super race might be noble notion, hmmmm, where have I heard that before. Segue into the fact the Japanese thought they were a superior race and therefore other races could and should be treated like animals. Had the Japanese Imperial Forces (and Nazis) treated others as humans with rational human motives then they should have been able to carve out a sphere of influence that could be in existence today.
I appreciate the civil and well thought-out tone of your post.
In the past, there had been enough geographic barriers to allow the human species to diverge into differing races or subspecies. I view that genetic divergence as a positive thing. I agree that it’s dangerous when any one group of people decides it’s so superior to the rest that they’re allowed to treat the rest poorly. (As the Japanese had during WWII.)
Feeling slightly superior may be a good thing, at least insofar as it motivates one to live up to one’s own self-image. Some Canadians may believe that Canadians in general tend to be a little more civilized, better-educated, and environmentally conscious than are Americans. Similarly, some Americans may see themselves as superior to Canadians. Obviously when two groups of people think they’re superior to the other, they can’t both be right. But that’s not the point. A little friendly, healthy competition can be a good thing, as long as nobody ends up calling anyone else subhuman, or sending them on death marches, or otherwise taking things to an extreme.
I think it may be part of human nature to draw a circle. The people within the circle get treated well, the people outside the circle get treated like animals. Witness the way Latin America’s ruling elites sometimes treat the common people, or the actions of the drug lords who had taken over Mexico, or the workplace conditions in many Third World countries. These things did not result from theories of racial superiority and inferiority. People were quite capable of creating in groups and out groups in the absence of such theories. Even sports teams can represent an excuse to draw circles; with the fans of one’s own team in the same circle as you, and the fans of rival teams being part of rival circles.
The word eugenics can mean different things to different people. The word can sometimes be used to describe the belief that one race is superior to all others. Normally researchers who have announced that one race is superior began with specific conclusion in mind, and attempt to find ways to justify that conclusion. I’ll agree this is pseudoscience, for the same reason that a “begin with the conclusion” approach would result in pseudoscience if applied to any field of inquiry. One must always be open to hearing the opposite of the preferred conclusion for work to be considered genuine science.
The word eugenics can also be used to describe the concept of applying the principles of genetic science to human beings, in an effort to change the gene pool in some specific way. This is not pseudoscience, any more than selectively breeding better crops, faster horses, or specific breeds of dogs is pseudoscience.
Too many off topic posts. Good job Kurt!
Thread closed-
