Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: Thoughts on F.D.R.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Globaltom Wrote:
But how does it strength you ?

Hasegawa never say that Japan was more pro soviet than USA.
He normaly argument that not only the bombs, but
also the Auguststorm break Japan.
He confirms that not one but both points defeat Japan.

Now I remember why I dont debate with you anymore. I cant make head or tail of this. I'm going to guess you are asking me to repeat myself.

Hasewagas book is called racing the enemy. The racing this refers to is US desperation to secure a japanese surrender before the USSR became involved enough for the japanese to surrender to them.

He argues that it was the USSR entry into the war which led to the japanese decision to surrender. Of course, there is always a time delay between such a decision and the actual surrender. The japanese were trying to figure out the best way to surrender - securing the best terms and saving face as best they could.

Obviously the bombs made them surrender immediately, but the japanese had taken the decision to surrender before the bombs were dropped. Had they not been dropped, they would have surrendered within a few months - either to the USSR alone or in a settlement with both the US and USSR. It was to avoid this that the bombs were dropped. This is Hasewagas argument - I have read the book.

BaktoMakhno Wrote:
Obviously the bombs made them surrender immediately, but the japanese had taken the decision to surrender before the bombs were dropped. Had they not been dropped, they would have surrendered within a few months - either to the USSR alone or in a settlement with both the US and USSR. It was to avoid this that the bombs were dropped. This is Hasewagas argument - I have read the book.

Such war goals can be found throught history. If you have two powers fighting a third power, those two powers will compete in acquiring more perks from the defeated, so as to better position oneself toward the competing power.
Globaltom you have to realize that a merky/secretive/classified contingency (context of facts) is no substitute for saying, "we can't know", "we can't say this". In such contexts if reason creates a working hypothesis, one must look at it from the standpoint of "who would benefit from such an outcome or strategy?". Remember that facts are contingent and their opposite is possible, while reason is necessary and it's opposite is impossible. (I believe I mentioned this quote of Leibniz numerous times before).

Helsworth Wrote:
[Globaltom you have to realize that a merky/secretive/classified contingency (context of facts) is no substitute for saying, "we can't know", "we can't say this". In such contexts if reason creates a working hypothesis, one must look at it from the standpoint of "who would benefit from such an outcome or strategy?". Remember that facts are contingent and their opposite is possible, while reason is necessary and it's opposite is impossible. (I believe I mentioned this quote of Leibniz numerous times before).


Hmm im not shure what you mean with in that topic Kopfkratz

I'm saying that facts are contingent. And in dealing with classified policies and government propaganda, we need to formulate truths of reasoning, even though the so called facts support it less, because we cannot be certain that those facts really had the meaning that government propaganda said they did. That's why it's important to see who has something to gain and who has something to lose, not just in geopolitics. but in religious and financial issues as well.
Now see what you mean Smile
The man was the first of the keynesian economic geniuses of the 20th century.

The internment camps are the one place that the man loses political points from my eyes. See the camps weren't made to necessarily kill people, but they had violated the constitution and imprisioned citizens without indictment or trial. Solely based on racial fears. Furthermore, many died in the horrid conditions of the camps.

Now the great American tradition is that we DON'T imprison our politicians for violations of the constitution, it would cause massive de-stabilization and a tradition of revolution rather than stability. It's why although George W. Bush SHOULD be imprisoned for the invasion of Iraq and other acts on behalf of the American government going against international law, he can not be. For the sake of the republic for which it stands.

Basically, just because FDR did things we know are wrong in the greater good they were also necessary. We must know to condemn these things, but also understand them.
I don't see that concentration camps were necessary. The United States could have kept out of the Sino-Japanese war altogether. I don't see that the Japanese would have refused protection against the Soviet Union if there was any real danger of it being invaded. They were profoundly anti-communist.

DRLHyper

Triniteras Wrote:
I don't see that concentration camps were necessary. The United States could have kept out of the Sino-Japanese war altogether. I don't see that the Japanese would have refused protection against the Soviet Union if there was any real danger of it being invaded. They were profoundly anti-communist.

The US were only marginally involved in the Sino-Japanesse war. Mostly, the problem was the Pacific War.

DRLHyper Wrote:
The US were only marginally involved in the Sino-Japanesse war. Mostly, the problem was the Pacific War.

They should have supported the Japanese attack on Hawaii. It would have been radical.

DRLHyper

Triniteras Wrote:

DRLHyper Wrote:
The US were only marginally involved in the Sino-Japanesse war. Mostly, the problem was the Pacific War.

They should have supported the Japanese attack on Hawaii. It would have been radical.

By your logic my country should thank the UK for invading the Malvinas/Falklands. /facepalm

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Reference URL's