Posted on 06/09/2017 12:48:42 PM PDT by LSUfan
Perhaps the most interesting part of the whole Chinese assessment is a few sentences near the end when the issue of war termination from the Japanese perspective is broached. It is noted that the entire goal of the Japanese war effort in spring 1942 was how to get the Americans to engage in “negotiations to end the war.” [停战谈判] Here, there is the ironic observation that the more victories that the Japanese side was able to achieve, the less palatable was the idea in the United States that Washington could negotiate with Tokyo. This point then shows a recognition that once wars are started, even when militarily successful, they may be extremely difficult to end.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
“.... once wars are started, even when militarily successful, they may be extremely difficult to end....”
We should heed this lesson
I increasingly believe we should capitulate in the mideast and come home.
To be followed by capitulation in Dearborn? Because it is a world War after all.
The irony is that they are studying the America of the 1940s. Our Government, electorate, and culture are very different today. We would not have fought WWII the same way. Interpret that as you will.
Also the same problem with the Southern Confederacy (and with McClellan's campaign strategy), which believed successes in Northern Virginia would bring the Union to end the war.
The psychology doesn't work that way unless the damage is thoroughly devastating to the civilian population. Distant failures, even military ones don't affect them that way. It's even problematic for the post war: Germans were convinced that they were "betrayed" by their generals at the end of World War I, a claim which was preposterous in light of Germany's strategic position in the closing weeks of 1918. Hitler used that widespread misconception quite effectively in his own propaganda.
I believe the PRC plays the long socioeconomic game. They think they can achieve world dominance through the social and economic decay of the West. Yes, become militarily strong, but why fight when the enemy destroys itself. Japan got greedy. China has almost limitless patience. Geaux Tigers!
Wow, just wow. So that's what we have left when all the brave guys get killed off in several wars and the 4F's breed.
So you really, honestly think that we should wait until they're strong enough to come here?
“We would not have fought WWII the same way. Interpret that as you will.”
If this America was counted on for a war that long, and that bloody, well, half of this country would be speaking German, the other half would be speaking Japanese.
this isn’t a ball game, it’s war. And we should recognize the harsh truth that we have squandered our blood and treasure to no good end.
throwing good money after bad is simply bullheaded.
And the paranoid delusion that a few ragheads are going to invade us is just plain silly.
Actually, there is a strong American isolationist bent today as in 1941.
That isolationist philosophy is very strong on Free Republic where there is a keen desire to retreat from anything international.
Wow.
The job of keeping our country free and safe rests on the shoulders of those remaining young people we have the guts, the skills and the willpower to fight in nasty, remote places to keep the threats where they are, not here.
If you don't have what it takes, fine - stay back and out of the way and pay your taxes.
To me, while Pearl Harbor and 9/11 had their similarities and differences, they were both seminal attacks on America. Likewise, our reactions were both similar and different.
Some thoughts:
— You did not hear FDR urging Americans to “go shopping” after Pearl Harbor (vs. enlisting).
— After Pearl Harbor, we acknowledged the true nature of the Enemy. We did not say that either Nazism or Imperialism were essentially “peaceful”
— We did not increase immigration from Germany and Japan after Pearl Harbor
— We did not declare war or mobilize as a Society after 9/11
— We did not have the Press cheer for the other side in WWII
— We did not try to fight WWII with a volunteer army
—
Substitute the word "cowardice" for "isolationist" and you get the proper interpretation.
Nothing conservative about cowardice.
What the author seems to be overlooking is that the 6000 kilometer ocean expanse would have made it very difficult for Japan to keep their new bastion supplied. Hawaii would have been hard for Japan to take and even harder to hold.
wrong so much wrong with your thinking
America First means defending our borders not being paranoid that every chicken sh*t dictator is going to invade us.
Arguing heroism versus cowardice is childish, really childish.
We capitulated in 1975. It would have been smarter to have capitulated in 1969. Are you going to argue the blood and treasure loses from 69 to
75 was worth it ?
I’ve been to China and know a fair number of Chinese on a personal basis. While they have a reputation for being very organized, they often are anything but. While they do certain high profile things well, they do many routine things shabbily (especially if no one is looking). They also use pretzel logic that often leaves me scratching my head. In short, while I respect them, they are not 10 feet tall. They are as tall, or even shorter, than they appear.
And we did not elect a US President named Akitoshi Tojo seven years after the attack, either. :)
“realize that similar exertions today would likely lead swiftly to the apocalypse. “
To quote
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Albert Einstein
And we did not elect a US President named Akitoshi Tojo seven years after the attack, either. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.