Is the game still in development?

Fireskull said:
I really dont know how invading Japan would be different from invading Germany, and Berlin.

When Berlin was invaded by USSR, they didnt have only real "soldiers" fighting, the germans had children and teenagers fighting too, the "Hitler's youth". Germany was very nationalist, and for propaganda to raise fanatical behavior, they had Goebells, who, when Berlin was about to be invaded, told the populace that any who would raise white flags would have their home, and the whole street thats their home in, set on fire.
Click to expand...

Bandit LOAF said:
You're obfuscating history for the sake of making an argument, and that's never good.

Germans surrendered in droves -- to the Americans and the British. The Russians had made it abundantly clear that they were going to show no mercy. The American experience in Europe is completely distinct from the Russian one... German armies were more than content to surrender in the west after being outclassed militarily.
Click to expand...

I guess in this point both of you are right, more or less. The thing is that in most parts of the country the NS-party had lost its controll over the military. Not so in berlin. And I don't doubt a minute that those bastards would have demanded that every little child should fight also american or british troops. Proof here: The term "scorched earth" (hope the translation is right) was coined by Hitler. BTW: "Iron Curtain" is not from Goebbels. It's from Churchill from 1946 when the Iron Curtain itself already was a fact. No clear picture of the future here...not by this asshole (sorry for swearing, but I wasn't able to find any other fitting expression).
 
Why do that without announcing it?
Click to expand...

You're trying to apply reason to the military government that thought the US would give up the Pacific if they launched a sneak attack. There were reasonable men in Japan -- but the military government that controlled the country through the war years was harsh and cruel.

I guess in this point both of you are right, more or less. The thing is that in most parts of the country the NS-party had lost its controll over the military. Not so in berlin. And I don't doubt a minute that those bastards would have demanded that every little child should fight also american or british troops. Proof here: The term "scorched earth" (hope the translation is right) was coined by Hitler. BTW: "Iron Curtain" is not from Goebbels. It's from Churchill from 1946 when the Iron Curtain itself already was a fact. No clear picture of the future here...not by this asshole (sorry for swearing, but I wasn't able to find any other fitting expression).
Click to expand...

It's completely beyond the American experience, though, which was my point. Yes, there was horrible fighting in Europe... but the people who were making the decisions about the atomic bomb weren't involved, so it's hard to hold them to that standard

(Of course, it's an interesting question - we know the bomb was originally developed to counter a similar Nazi program -- if the Germans had refused to surrender, perhaps it would have been used there. The fact of the matter is, though, that the war in Europe was over when the bomb was ready, and Americans at that time felt that the German conduct towards them was completely different from what they were seeing in Japan.)
 
Sometimes I feel like there is an "Anti-America" class is the public school curriculum of most other countries.

The arguments tend to be laughable and ludicrous, but some people will fight for them as if they've been told it since birth.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
(Of course, it's an interesting question - we know the bomb was originally developed to counter a similar Nazi program -- if the Germans had refused to surrender, perhaps it would have been used there. The fact of the matter is, though, that the war in Europe was over when the bomb was ready, and Americans at that time felt that the German conduct towards them was completely different from what they were seeing in Japan.)
Click to expand...

I guess the machines simply worked different. While the Japaneese fought in fear of their enemies, the germans fought in fear of their own leaders. Plus the germans had to choose, surredner to the westeern allies or be captured by the soviets. I guess in those days and to those people the choice was clear. I guess they didn't see the american troops just as occupying forces, but also as protectors against the russians. this is an element which simply wasn't there in the pacific. The japaneese simply had no worse option to choose.
 
Nomad Terror said:
Sometimes I feel like there is an "Anti-America" class is the public school curriculum of most other countries.

The arguments tend to be laughable and ludicrous, but some people will fight for them as if they've been told it since birth.
Click to expand...

What do you mean...
 
I don't know, my experience is that it's such an internet thing. I've lived abroad and have never run into that sort of thinking in "real life".

My general thought is that it's more of an "if it's on the internet, it must be true!" manner of thinking than it is anything wrong with other countrys education systems. No one is more self-critical and vocal as would be revisionists on the internet... and people from other countries, my guess is, pick up that instead of any of the legitimate research that you'd have to study with some formaility.
 
I guess the machines simply worked different. While the Japaneese fought in fear of their enemies, the germans fought in fear of their own leaders. Plus the germans had to choose, surredner to the westeern allies or be captured by the soviets. I guess in those days and to those people the choice was clear. I guess they didn't see the american troops just as occupying forces, but also as protectors against the russians. this is an element which simply wasn't there in the pacific. The japaneese simply had no worse option to choose.
Click to expand...

That was also how Americans felt at the time - there was nothing 'personal' to the war between the United States and Germany, and they believed Germans felt the same way. Pearl Harbor was one of those epic events that provoked the country's rage... in contrast, Germany had done nothing to America.

I would posit that it's *only* the discovery of the holocaust that makes Germany an 'evil' country in modern representations of the war - without that, the European war would probably be treated, from an American perspective at least, as being much the same as the Great War -- a situation where honorable people fought for both sides.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I would posit that it's *only* the discovery of the holocaust that makes Germany an 'evil' country in modern representations of the war - without that, the European war would probably be treated, from an American perspective at least, as being much the same as the Great War -- a situation where honorable people fought for both sides.
Click to expand...

Most likely.

But I think the problem with Japan at the time, is the same as the problem with Irak: Western people simply don't understand their culture, and that exhacerbates the conflict. And with a power like the US, willing to force its morality upon others, it only gets worse.

And I don't think it's just an Internet thing.
I've seen similar arguments in RL. Only that when they happen in RL, they get quickly moderated by personal interaction - with that missing in Internet, and with lagged communication, it may all contribute to enhance the emotional side of things.
 
banditLOAF:All of my arguments are based on history books and from conversations with history teachers, none of them come off the internet, and if my arguments werent nearly satisfying to your perspective, and childish to a great extent, I cant see even the slightlest sence in yours either, only a great amount patriotism and total failure to consider most of my points.

I sometimes too question myself what kind of bullshit is feed to people in other countries. Oddly enough, most south americans I meet usually agree with me, even north americans from Mexico do. I believe its mostly a matter of perspective, if you are from a country in development ( well, in other words: poor to miserable ) you see things differently than if you were born in a rich country. Our books, anyway, do have all the points that you brought up, and I was aware of many of them before I wrote my post. Not all of course, I am not claiming to be some kind of mr.know it all, I only want to point that we do study both sides of this matter, they are in our books, and the general conclusion is that the USA simply took the path which was more favorable to themselves. We have the facts, but the manner of looking at them is completely different.

I am sorry if my reply is short and I dont adress to all previous points. Just know that I did think about what you said, I only don't reply accordingly because I am extremely busy in real life, and so I dont have enough time to.
 
japans culture at the time was based on a largely bastardized version of bushido. the warrior code deal ( i don't fully understand it...just know it was the basis for their whole way of thinking)

Japan was this tiny island nation who had pretty well kept itself isolated from the world, two major invasions had been thwarted by the 'kaze' or wind storm and they seriously thought of themselves as divine. this coupled with the warrior way thinking that arose, and their rabid nationalism and sense of being scoffed at by the western world despite their beating russia, left them feeling mighty upset and helped develop pretty strongly their sentiments. They were holy bent on following their beloved emperor, and seeing themselves as gods people. As LOAF stated, and i've stated, they were going to fight absolutely to the last man in the name of their emperor and because of what they'd been taught to believe about the west.

whats really crazy is how basic training went for them. routine beatings and the fact that they are not people and all kinds of other craziness. wow, i'm rambling, but the point once again is...america knew only one thing...these people were going to impale themselves on us to beat us. and also, i had forgotten that, but yes...all the american POW's were to be exocuted the instant we set foot on the home island.
 
Gentlemen, it is my honor to present to you a textbook example of an argument falling apart.

banditLOAF:All of my arguments are based on history books and from conversations with history teachers, none of them come off the internet, and if my arguments werent nearly satisfying to your perspective, and childish to a great extent, I cant see even the slightlest sence in yours either, only a great amount patriotism and total failure to consider most of my points.
Click to expand...

* Don't agree with me? It's just because you're a {negative connotation}!

Plus...

* I get my information from sources!... but I can't name them.

(
Actual reply: you don't even know whether or not I'm an American citizen, do you? Your entire reply is based on something you assumed because of my 'Location:' box. That's not clever at all. You didn't respond to a single point -- just threw out a hip blanket term that means nothing to this argument.

It's a term that, even if it aplied to me (and lets argue that it doesn't - I entered into this debate stating that I didn't know and didn't plan to state what my personal opinion was) you probably wouldn't understand in the least, having just claimed you feel money is more important than human life.

Even if I considered myself a patriot - and who in the world *doesn't* love their country (you certainly have the requisite obsession with some banana republic yet unnamed to apply the term to yourself) - how could I possibly relate a historical situation to such patriotism after spending ten replies talking about how we can't assign our present moral values to history? Have you read a word I've written? Are you so stupid as to believe you've fooled anyone here, an unpopular word and no argument will get you nothing in the company of intelligent debaters.

How could being a patriot, even in its most jingoistic sense, ever mean loving everything your country has ever done in history no matter what? Such an argument would fall apart immediately.
)

I sometimes too question myself what kind of bullshit is feed to people in other countries. Oddly enough, most south americans I meet usually agree with me, even north americans from Mexico do. I believe its mostly a matter of perspective, if you are from a country in development ( well, in other words: poor to miserable ) you see things differently than if you were born in a rich country. Our books, anyway, do have all the points that you brought up, and I was aware of many of them before I wrote my post. Not all of course, I am not claiming to be some kind of mr.know it all, I only want to point that we do study both sides of this matter, they are in our books, and the general conclusion is that the USA simply took the path which was more favorable to themselves. We have the facts, but the manner of looking at them is completely different.
Click to expand...

* Oh, yeah? Well... people agree with me!

This is a sad, sad appeal to emotion. You know more because your country sucks? Cry me a river -- you don't know where I was born, you don't know how I grew up, you don't know what my level of education is... all you've done is denegrate yourself.

There's the fallacy -- you assume I'm some rich American because I'm writing in an intelligent manner. That's a terrible insult to everyone from wherever your country is. Don't drag Not Bolivia down with you.

I am sorry if my reply is short and I dont adress to all previous points. Just know that I did think about what you said, I only don't reply accordingly because I am extremely busy in real life, and so I dont have enough time to.
Click to expand...

Manging to reply to one would have been a start.

Most likely.

But I think the problem with Japan at the time, is the same as the problem with Irak: Western people simply don't understand their culture, and that exhacerbates the conflict. And with a power like the US, willing to force its morality upon others, it only gets worse.
Click to expand...

That's pretty far afield from World War II.

Heck, your analogy doesn't even make sense in the popular sense -- the United States did an *amazing* job of running Japan after the war. The American occupation of Japan is the golden pillar that all future military occupations will strive to achieve -- it was non violent, well recieved and ended up turning the country into a global powerhouse.
 
Fireskull said:
and the general conclusion is that the USA simply took the path which was more favorable to themselves.
Click to expand...

Ha, sometimes I read a paper and and think the same. Those bastards only think of themselfs! But to be fair (BTW, I study political science for four years know. So I know (more or less ;) ) what I'm talking about), this is what governments, at least in democracies, get elected for. They have to think of their people first. So nobody can seriously reproach the US with this stuff. I mean it's kind of normal that one experiences one's own country as the kind of just and noble one but to be honest, every country uses every chance it gets. I don't know how much you know about the European Unions domestic affairs. There are strict regulation how the member states have to handle their budgets. Well, France and Germany violate those rules almost every year. Why? because they are Europes biggest economies and they can do it without being punished... Going for your own advantage is, till some not clearly defined limit, a normal thing in foreign relations...

BTW, please let's not talk abou Iraq!!! I'm living here in one building with a lot of left-wing students, two GI's and some US-officers. We are all some kind of a big familly, but on every party, on every BBQ the old discussion starts again... I'm kind of sick of it...;)
 
Master Wooky: Thank you very much for getting my points.

Bradmick: I really have no clue about that side of things. It still seens a bit too crazy to me, so crazy that it may be true actually, in the same manner of foot bounding.

Bandit: Your post was so completely off, and offensive,that I am not going to write a full reply simply to avoid a pointless discussion, where I would end up attacking you in a personal manner. Anyway, I have to point out you managed to twist everything I said in a manner I never thought could be possible and I was totally suprised by your reply. Its a nice lesson in rhetorics one way or another.

My first paragraph actually, I have just read again what I wrote, where I basically say you are a blind patriot, only came out in that tone because of your own manner in replying to mine. Simply assuming I read stuff on the internet and picturing my opinions as "silly" inst the best way to earn a polite reply. I thought then, that you would not be offended if I answered in the same, lets say, "honest" manner. If you want the phone number of the teachers I spoke with I can give you to them, so you can find out where they finished their studies.I thought that placing the biography of the books I have studied wanst necessary either, since this is a informal discussion.
 
Your post was so completely off, and offensive,that I am not going to write a full reply simply to avoid a pointless discussion
Click to expand...

If you can't debate either stop posting or admit you were wrong - everyone sees through this crap. Calling people names and then whining about how offended you are when they reply isn't supporting any kind of argument..

Oh, I'm so offended, I can't possibly express my point!
 
*chuckles*

I will stop posting yes.. but only because you are a complete idiot.

There. Now, why dont you try to see through your own crap?
 
I'm curious as to what you think you're proving at this point.

You're certainly not changing my mind about anything - you lost any kind of intelligent respect on my part when you decided to stop actually replying to the arguments in the thread.

So, what do you think this silly pouting will get you? Certainly not respect from other people reading the thread. The fact that this last post was just a poorly contrived personal attack really costs you any possible sympathy you might have earned complaining that I was being "offensive" and preventing your ability to debate...
 
well....you admitting you don't know about that area is kind of a bad thing, particularly for this debate. clearly you haven't read nor researched enough, not to say that you haven't at all, mind...just not enough.

if you're going to argue about 'well, i think its all bad!' you really need to be sure you have the facts straight, and an understanding of how the cultural mindset was. you can't go off spouting knowledge of history or debate intelligently without understanding the times. its very true, you cannot apply modern morality at all when looking at old history. its the biggest problem i have with modern or revisionist history. "nevermind the facts! our NEW moral vision is correct...they were all sick and twisted and clearly wrong and guilty of insane warcrimes!!" nope. not the case at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top