Jarvik7 Wrote:There was complete air superiority (godmode) in Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars too.

True, but I wouldn't say that Afghanistan and Iraq was all that messy, not compared to Vietnam.

Considering the Korean situation is, to me, an illustration of how actions from long ago can have profound consequences in the present.

If Commodore Perry had not arrived in 1853 with his black ships to force a trade agreement between the US and Japan, the Shogunate might not have collapsed and the Japanese policy of isolation might have continued. Instead, they embraced western values including imperial aspirations leading to the the annexation of Korea in 1910 and then on to the Pacific War. In the aftermath of this war Korea became divided and the Korean War ensued.

It's like a domino effect. Meddling in the foreign affairs of another nation in 1853 triggered the Meiji restoration and set in motion a series of events leading to situation we are in now. Of course, Japan cannot be excused for her imperialist expansion and war of aggression but if the US hadn't "persuaded" Japan to open its doors to the west, I wonder how different history would have been. And would the modern history of Korea have been happier?

To take it one step further, the Pacific War resulted in the establishment of American military bases on Japanese soil including Futenma in Okinawa. The Futenma issue is currently straining Japan-US relations and has contributed, in no small part, to the fall of Hatoyama "Sorry" Daijin this very day.

Personally, I feel the Japanese should be pleased with the American military presence, especially in the light of the Choenan sinking. Although North Korea would surely quickly lose a war it could still happen with a crackpot running the country.

Jarvik7 Wrote:There was complete air superiority (godmode) in Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars too.

Yea and about Vietnam. South Vietnam didn't lose until the US left and put military sanctions on South Vietnam to the point where they were unable to fly their airforce*. Only then did North Vietnam invade the south and with more tanks and airplanes than Hitler invaded France with.


*not to mention their army ran out of spare parts and ammunition too.

Jarvik7 Wrote:WW2 started as 4 countries vs the world......and so on

Oh man I missed this post. You have a serious misunderstanding of history and I suggest you read some books on the subject. If you want I can recommend some for you.

gavmck Wrote:if the US hadn't "persuaded" Japan to open its doors to the west, I wonder how different history would have been. And would the modern history of Korea have been happier?

I don't know about the happiness of Korea, but if Japan didn't modernise then they would have been invaded and overrun themselves at some point. Any country or people which didn't has suffered the same fate. In hindsight, it was a good thing that Japan did open up.

Speaking of which, there's a famous Japanese historical figure I'm seeing everywhere at the moment (don't know his name). I see him on the TV, in magazines, on posters, on noodle boxes and in student's pencil cases etc etc. He's famous because apparently he stopped infighting, unified Japan and opened its borders allowing it to modernise. The Japanese hail him as a hero because without him some other country would have taken over Japan. Anyway, long story short, the Japanese people I talk to about this are happy Japan did eventually open up to the west.

Random: If I go too long without watching S. Korean films, I feel similar to how I feel if I go too long without studying Japanese. Some kind of withdrawal.

Sakamoto Ryoma is the person you are talking about.

Womacks23 Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:WW2 started as 4 countries vs the world......and so on

Oh man I missed this post. You have a serious misunderstanding of history and I suggest you read some books on the subject. If you want I can recommend some for you.

Perhaps you need to read some books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

My post wasn't meant to describe the entire war, it was to illustrate that it wasn't Germany versus the entire planet. I also never described Russia a part of the Axis. There were in fact a lot more than just 4 countries alligned near the beginning, but they are less signficant in my example to demonstrate the balance.

Jarvik7 Wrote:WW2 started as 4 countries vs the world.

WW2 started as one country (+ a puppet country) vs 3 + the British commonwealth countries and grew from there.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I also never described Russia a part of the Axis.

"Russia started on the Axis side and was a huge power." - That's what you said.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Japan had more advanced military hardware than most of the allied countries, since it was all brand new

Only naval power but was still very, very, far behind the USA and UK in key technologies. Its army was a joke.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Also, many allied powers were on the fence about which side to join (America and UK had major Axis supporters).

LOL WTF are you talking about? Major axis supporters? On the fence on which side to join?

1) Your definition of what WW2 is and when it started is pretty narrow. Also, Japan cannot really be described as a puppet of Germany.

2) On the side of != a member of.
I support Hanshin Tigers but I am not a player.

3) Their airforce was also significantly more modern for the early part of the war. Their land forces might not have been as modern, but they were more than adequate for everything up until their air & naval forces suddenly disappeared.

4) It isn't debatable that there was a lot of public support for the Nazi party in the US and even the UK. There wasn't widespread knowledge of the atrocities yet and most of the Allied powers were just as "evil-ly" imperialist as Germany. There was no moral outrage until Germany started stepping on toes. Same with western views on Japan.

In any case, your tone of "go read a book noob lolz" does not have a place in this forum. If you had a problem with my original post you should have countered the points in question. Even if I had stated that Mars was a member of the Axis, my point stands, North Korea is nothing like Nazi Germany in terms of support or ability to wage a war.

I think the question isn't can we defeat N. Korea, which is an obvious yes. They would get strategically dominated. The question is how much of Seoul would get demolished in the process? While N. Korea's army is woefully out of date, and under funded on a per unit of personnel basis.......it is still one of the largest armies on earth. We could quickly cripple key infrastructure, which would essentially ensure long term victory, but we'd still have a massive ground force to wipe out. 50 year old artillery might be out of date, and easy to hit, but too much of anything can still be a pain in the ass.

I ask this question because I honestly don't know.

A war with Nork would be easy to "win" in the sense of Bush's announcing "mission accomplished". You can eliminate all the major targets and the government, but then you still need to get in there and occupy and rebuild, all the time you'll be harassed with asymmetric warfare from remnants. It'll be an exact repeat of Iraq/Afghanistan, except much worse due to the terrain. People might not be under the control of religious extremists, but they are brought up from birth to be nationalist extremists, so there is really no difference.

If you didn't go in and occupy (leave the country as a smoking crater), there would just be a giant power vacuum and it would destabilize the region even more than invasion+occupation (I'd expect China to come rolling in and take the area in the name of security/anti-terrorism).

It would not quite be the same as an invasion by an external force with a totally different culture, it would be the reunification of a country split in two. Is the majority of people in North Korea really still convinced that the communist dream is the best option after all those years of famine and poverty or are they just pretending because they have no other choice?

activeaero Wrote:50 year old artillery might be out of date, and easy to hit, but too much of anything can still be a pain in the ass.

Let's just hope they didn't evolve adrenal glands.

Jarvik7 Wrote:1) Your definition of what WW2 is and when it started is pretty narrow. Also, Japan cannot really be described as a puppet of Germany.

Slovakia. Read a book.

Jarvik7 Wrote:2) On the side of != a member of.
I support Hanshin Tigers but I am not a player.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Jarvik7 Wrote:4) It isn't debatable that there was a lot of public support for the Nazi party in the US and even the UK. There wasn't widespread knowledge of the atrocities yet and most of the Allied powers were just as "evil-ly" imperialist as Germany. There was no moral outrage until Germany started stepping on toes. Same with western views on Japan.

This is the main reason why I'm getting uppity here. You really need to back up your facts. Who supported the Nazi party in the US and UK at this time? What were the numbers of supporters? How many Nazi supporters were in congress or parliament? Which allied power was on the fence on which side to support when war broke out? Please answer.

Also, there was significant moral outrage in the USA when Japan invaded China.

Jarvik7 Wrote:In any case, your tone of "go read a book noob lolz" does not have a place in this forum.

For future knowledge. When you say ignorant things about history I will tell you to read a book. Get over it.

1)

Quote:Other dates for the beginning of war include the Japanese invasion of Manchuria on 13 September 1931;[6] the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War on 7 July 1937;[7][8] or one of several other events.

WW2 was a series of separate incidents which snowballed, intertwined, and eventually involved most of the world. It was not a single giant event that started at one place and time. Read a book that focuses on the big picture more? (lol noob?)

3) The majority of the US public wanted no involvement in either Europe or Pacific conflicts. It's a well known fact that FDR wanted war but he couldn't get the public behind it until Pearl Harbour and Germany's declaration of war against America. There was also no special love for Jewish people outside of Germany either.

Quote:Public opinion in the 1930s opposed involvement that could lead to war and isolationists used polls to push four neutrality acts through Congress between 1935 and 1939 and to block aggressive aid to China and the use of economic sanctions against Japan after the onset of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937.

It is also well known that a number of powerful/influential Americans and American corporations had nazi connections, (http://libcom.org/library/allied-multina...orld-war-2), groups like America First supported neutrality with a large support base, fascism parties existed in UK and US with significant support that later died down as the war approached and government sanctions increased, etc. Read a book that isn't so revisionist? (lol noob?)

There most certainly was not moral outrage when Japan invaded China, seeing as all of the major western powers were carving out bits of China/IndoChina/Pacific Islands for themselves at the same time. Japan stepped on the toes of those powers which turned the respective government and those profiting from the encroachment against Japan, but that didn't turn into public support. It wasn't until Pearl Harbour that the public really turned. Read a book that isn't so black and white (lol noob?)

I could supply footnotes for everything I ever say, but my forum posts aren't exactly thesis papers and I have better things to do than supply you with a bibliography. (lol noob?)

4) I will make sure to reply to all questions or mistakes on the forum with "read a book noob lol" from now on. That will certainly make this an enjoyable place. Also, for future reference, "differs with your ideas" doesn't mean "ignorant". What you are quibbling over amounts to semantics and doesn't even apply to the point I was making.

You're doing it again Jarvik.

Here is what you said first. "WW2 started as 4 countries vs the world". It is wrong.

WWII started on September 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. At that time Germany's only ally was Slovakia, which was a puppet state created out of the annexation of Czechoslovakia and not exactly recognized by the international community at the time. Germany had no allies in the war until June of the next year when Italy invaded France. They were alone in their war for more than 9 months.

Now even if you count the start of the Sino-Japanese war as the beginning of WWII you are left with just Japan and China fighting it out for more than three years before Japan occupies French Indochina. It was another year after that when Japan attacked the USA, UK, and the Netherlands.

.
.
.
.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say by bringing up US neutrality at the beginning of the war... Is this part of your evidence of Nazi support in the USA?

A few American companies and individuals did business in Germany...from that you get that there was a lot of public support for the Nazis in the USA and UK? Seriously....no historian in the world considers Nazi support in the USA and UK to have been significant.

BTW you didn't say which allied country was on the fence.

.
.
.

And yes there was real outrage in America against the Japanese war in China. And it was strong and fierce. I suggest that you take a look at American newspapers from the time. You will see all kinds of calls to boycott Japan and there was a serious shift in American public opinion to support China.

Overall I think you are confusing moral outrage against Japan's actions with support for war. Further example. Turkey is currently outraged against Israel for killing their citizens trying to deliver aid to Gaza. They are outraged and calling for sanctions, etc, but it is not support for war. See how that works?

Edited for bad typos

History isn't an objective science; many people that wrote the history books or passed on word of mouth have very different ideas about what went on. Very rarely do we know more than what we have been told or have read in books; neither of those sources are 100% reliable, and rarely do they agree.
I think its fine for people to disagree, but i'm not sure sure if its fine to tell someone that that they are wrong, just because you feel your version of the "truth" is any more true.

Yeah, if you're going to argue history, make sure to determine what aspects you're attacking -- the narrative logic, the sources used, etc., before you let it get to the level of outright mockery and dismissal. To me, often historical arguments on forums end up being historiographic and narratological and going nowhere except down a bitter, vague path.

And WW2 started because you're just like Hitler. Point being, NK is not WW2 Germany. I doubt China would support NK if it came to war. I'd also mostly be worried about what NK could do before being stopped. Beautiful SK must not be harmed.

I feel like America is in an odd position.

They are vigorously threatening NK for sinking an SK sub and they want China to provide support, but at the same they are feeling international pressure for allying with Israel for the illegal blockade and the flotilla attack.

Fun times!

kainzero Wrote:I feel like America is in an odd position.

They are vigorously threatening NK for sinking an SK sub and they want China to provide support, but at the same they are feeling international pressure for allying with Israel for the illegal blockade and the flotilla attack.

Fun times!

Its a bit different situation:

NK holds SK hostage and there is no real international support for NK. If Kim does anything stupid he is done and he knows it. Thats why its a Mexican standoff

Israel just protects that which they believe is theirs and US helps them. Only a few countries openly question their "right" for that land but if they tried to resolve their conflict by force it would be a different thing.

Here's a piece on how netizens are listing reasons why they're unconvinced by the SK accusations, re: NK torpedo: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/06/03...n-warship/

"1. The ship’s severed surface had been hidden from the public for ‘security reasons’ but it was released at the start of political campaigning for the upcoming regional elections.
2. The scratch on the hull was magically removed when the campaign started.
3. The investigation team has not been able to make any progress for past two months, and suddenly just before few days before the election campaign began, this report came out and said that [the sinking] was caused by ‘a torpedo’ made in ‘North Korea’.
4. A week before the election, the President made a live broadcast of a national statement on three major TV networks stating that the North Korea caused the incident.
5. The torpedo went from nowhere to be found to suddenly being discovered right at the outset of the campaign. Moreover, it's being said that the torpedo was picked up by a fisherman.
6. When people asked the fisherman where he pulled up a torpedo, he rambled a while and told people to go ask the Navy.
7. The mighty torpedo which managed to break the Cheonan in half by means of shock waves alone, was pulled up intact.
8. While the torpedo is so rusty it looks as though it has been underwater for few decades, the Hangul (Korean character) written on the surface by a marker is as clear as new.
9. The TOD (Thermal Observation Device) video which worked fine up until the incident, failed to shoot the only ‘explosion scene’ for no reason.
10. It is believed that the bubble jet of the torpedo broke the ship in half – purely by using the shock wave, except that nobody on the ship had a concussion or signs of bleeding…. Nearly everyone drowned to death. Do you expect the water plume work like a laser?
11. It has been reported that the torpedo explosion made a huge amount of water to gush 100m high. Then how come the sailors in the deck got only few water droplets gently wetting their face?
12. How can several sailors on the ship’s deck not see the 100 meter high huge water plume, while one guard several kilometers away from the ship was able to detect the water plume, even at night, does he have extraordinary eye sight?
13. There was even the Aegis combat ship near the scene because it was during the US-ROK (South Korea) joint military drill. How could the joint force have never detected the submarine and the torpedo while the torpedo shoot down the Cheonan and the attacker exiting leisurely away from the scene. Even the Cheonan navy vessel was equipped with the anti-submarine and torpedo detection system."