Japan before Pearl Harbor

[Ringo]

Hitler was an absolute dictator
He didnt need pretexts
No, he just made a mistake that probably cost him the war

Under capitalism, there are no absolute dictators. Even under a fascist dictatorship, there are still true masters of the country and the economy, whose will is carried out by Hitlers and Mussolinis. And since, at that stage of the war, US intervention was already inevitable, Hitler made his real mistake six months earlier. It cost him his life.
German Capital, the true master, meanwhile felt quite comfortable and even profited from the war, increasing its wealth fivefold despite the country's defeat.

 

[martybegan]

In time, yes

But that was something the Brits had very little of

At that point Germany was too busy with Russia. Even a lack of US involvement in 1942 and 1943 might not have saved Hitler from the Red Army.

Of course that might have ended up with Russian Guards Divisions on the coast of Normandy by 1947 or so.

 

[Mac-7]

Under capitalism, there are no absolute dictators. Even under a fascist dictatorship, there are still true masters of the country and the economy, whose will is carried out by Hitlers and Mussolinis. And since, at that stage of the war, US intervention was already inevitable, Hitler made his real mistake six months earlier. It cost him his life.
German Capital, the true master, meanwhile felt quite comfortable and even profited from the war, increasing its wealth fivefold despite the country's defeat.

You sure like to split hairs

Hitler answered to no one

 

[martybegan]

You sure like to split hairs

Hitler answered to no one

The only one who came close to him as far as unilateral power was Stalin.

Even Mao and Pol Pot had to deal with others, hence the whole Cultural Revolution thing Mao enacted to try to maintain power.

 

[AZrailwhale]

At that point Germany was too busy with Russia. Even a lack of US involvement in 1942 and 1943 might not have saved Hitler from the Red Army.

Of course that might have ended up with Russian Guards Divisions on the coast of Normandy by 1947 or so.

Without US involvement, the Eastern Front would have been the Western Desert writ large. Both sides were largely supplied by rail and horse traction. Horses can only move supplies about a hundred miles from a river, sea or rail head before they are eating more fodder than they can carry. The Eastern Front would have been a series of offensives by each side that would go until they outran their logistics tails, then the other side would counterattack. Wash, rinse and repeat for years until one side or the other failed politically and surrendered. The USA's Lend-Lease changed that situation with a flood of supplies of all sorts and tens of thousands of Studebaker deuce and a halves that were far more capable and reliable than any Soviet or German home-built truck.

 

[martybegan]

Without US involvement, the Eastern Front would have been the Western Desert writ large. Both sides were largely supplied by rail and horse traction. Horses can only move supplies about a hundred miles from a river, sea or rail head before they are eating more fodder than they can carry. The Eastern Front would have been a series of offensives by each side that would go until they outran their logistics tails, then the other side would counterattack. Wash, rinse and repeat for years until one side or the other failed politically and surrendered. The USA's Lend-Lease changed that situation with a flood of supplies of all sorts and tens of thousands of Studebaker deuce and a halves that were far more capable and reliable than any Soviet or German home-built truck.

One also has to remember the German home front wouldn't have had the same level of Strategic bombing against it. Even with both the US and England bombing it they still managed to increase wartime production until the last few months, just not enough to stave off defeat.

 

[westwall]

Under capitalism, there are no absolute dictators. Even under a fascist dictatorship, there are still true masters of the country and the economy, whose will is carried out by Hitlers and Mussolinis. And since, at that stage of the war, US intervention was already inevitable, Hitler made his real mistake six months earlier. It cost him his life.
German Capital, the true master, meanwhile felt quite comfortable and even profited from the war, increasing its wealth fivefold despite the country's defeat.

No, they didn't. The NAZIS controlled every aspect of business. And the industrialists were all destitute after the war because everything they owned was blown to bits. So whatever profits they had made, were expended in their rebuilding post war.

 

[Ringo]

And the industrialists were all destitute after the war because everything they owned was blown to bits. So whatever profits they had made, were expended in their rebuilding post war.

That is why they became “only” five times richer during and after the lost war. How many times richer did those who stood aside from the destruction of war become? The victorious United States?
On the subject of wars. The growth of the capitalist economy is not very significant now, is it? And when is this growth simply enormous? After wars!
When you often have to start from scratch. Do you think 300 varieties of yogurt in stores are worth it?
Capitalism cannot exist without wars, it is not profitable for it to live without wars.
Only the existence of deadly nuclear weapons restrains insane capitalists from unleashing a new world war.
But even knowing the consequences, they cannot help but prepare for this war, because preparation brings them huge profits. And at the same time, they are building comfortable nuclear shelters for themselves.
The question is either the destruction of humanity or the destruction of the capitalist system of production.

 

[westwall]

That is why they became “only” five times richer during and after the lost war. How many times richer did those who stood aside from the destruction of war become? The victorious United States?
On the subject of wars. The growth of the capitalist economy is not very significant now, is it? And when is this growth simply enormous? After wars!
When you often have to start from scratch. Do you think 300 varieties of yogurt in stores are worth it?
Capitalism cannot exist without wars, it is not profitable for it to live without wars.
Only the existence of deadly nuclear weapons restrains insane capitalists from unleashing a new world war.
But even knowing the consequences, they cannot help but prepare for this war, because preparation brings them huge profits. And at the same time, they are building comfortable nuclear shelters for themselves.
The question is either the destruction of humanity or the destruction of the capitalist system of production.

No, the rebuilding cost them almost everything. We all understand you hate billionaire oligarchs. So do we, but capitalism isn't the evil system you claim it is.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That is why they became “only” five times richer during and after the lost war. How many times richer did those who stood aside from the destruction of war become? The victorious United States?
On the subject of wars. The growth of the capitalist economy is not very significant now, is it? And when is this growth simply enormous? After wars!
When you often have to start from scratch. Do you think 300 varieties of yogurt in stores are worth it?
Capitalism cannot exist without wars, it is not profitable for it to live without wars.
Only the existence of deadly nuclear weapons restrains insane capitalists from unleashing a new world war.
But even knowing the consequences, they cannot help but prepare for this war, because preparation brings them huge profits. And at the same time, they are building comfortable nuclear shelters for themselves.
The question is either the destruction of humanity or the destruction of the capitalist system of production.

Bullcrap. And having the maximum choice IS worth it. I don't know if you are old enough to have been an adult before the deregulation of the Bell System. On the whole the Bell System was a good thing for the country, but businesses had four phones to pick from that operated on the same equipment, two modern PBX systems (Horizon for small to medium businesses and Dimension for medium to large businesses). Service options and capabilities were determined by the phone company, not the consumer at any level. Business and long-distance rates were kept high to subsidize service for poor and rural customers. That's what you get with governmental control of business. Contrast that to the dizzying universe of choices existing for residential, business and long-distance customers. Capitalism has done more for the average person than any other economic system in history. To paraphrase Winston Spencer Churchill, "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others".

 

[AZrailwhale]

No, the rebuilding cost them almost everything. We all understand you hate billionaire oligarchs. So do we, but capitalism isn't the evil system you claim it is.

Ringo is a communist and hates every other system. I don't use the term "communist" lightly, but he shows all the hallmarks.

 

[Robert W]

Very true about intell. At that time we were raw rookies in the intelligence business. But Adm James Richardson knew Japan very well and opposed FDR's plan to move the fleet from San Diego to Pearl. FDR fired Richardson and replaced him with Kimmel. The rest we know,

Day of Deceit on the part if FDR explains that fact about the fleet put where the Japs had an easier target.

 

[Zincwarrior]

When China occupied IndoChina after France lost to Germany, the US and oil producing western powers enforced a punishing oil embargo. Japan either had to negotiate fully, or go to war before they ran out of oil in a few months. They chose mass murder. They chose poorly.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Day of Deceit on the part if FDR explains that fact about the fleet put where the Japs had an easier target.

View attachment 1190734

That's revisionist history. The fleet was put at Pearl harbor to threaten the Japanese. No one thought the Japanese could push a carrier task force that far from home waters. As it was it IJN had to impress nearly every modern tanker in the civilian merchant fleet to accomplish the goal.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That's revisionist history. The fleet was put at Pearl harbor to threaten the Japanese. No one thought the Japanese could push a carrier task force that far from home waters. As it was it IJN had to impress nearly every modern tanker in the civilian merchant fleet to accomplish the goal.

By pushing them forward to Hawaii it was the effectively the furthest out they could base a battle fleet. The Phillipines was technically separate, but was also vulnerable to attack, didn't have the logistics needed, and left Hawaii/West Coast/Alaska too open.

Both sides had actually been gearing for WarPlan Orange for years.

 

[Robert W]

That's revisionist history. The fleet was put at Pearl harbor to threaten the Japanese. No one thought the Japanese could push a carrier task force that far from home waters. As it was it IJN had to impress nearly every modern tanker in the civilian merchant fleet to accomplish the goal.

Why did FDR yank the ships out of harbors in the USA to have them at
Pearl Harbor? You can't know why but Day of Deceit explains all of it. FDR was eager to be in WW2.

 

[Robert W]

When China occupied IndoChina after France lost to Germany, the US and oil producing western powers enforced a punishing oil embargo. Japan either had to negotiate fully, or go to war before they ran out of oil in a few months. They chose mass murder. They chose poorly.

Japan selected Pearl Harbor. Forget movies you have seen, they were handed the target at Pearl so FDR could excuse being in WW2.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Why did FDR yank the ships out of harbors in the USA to have them at
Pearl Harbor? You can't know why but Day of Deceit explains all of it. FDR was eager to be in WW2.

He just told you. It was forward projection of our battlefleet 2,250 miles closer to our interests than Sand Diego (which is legit beautiful).

 

[Robert W]

He just told you. It was forward projection of our battlefleet 2,250 miles closer to our interests than Sand Diego (which is legit beautiful).

Why does history not mention that FDR wanted war so placed the ships closer to Japan? However, this was investigated and the book Day of Deceit was published. Read it. It is historically accurate.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Japan selected Pearl Harbor.

Yes. And its amazingly lucky they did. Had the battle fleet sortied to the Philippines and lost (which the IJN had been preparing to do for a decade, hence the fleet subs, carriers, and long lances to bleed the fleet first) we would have lost tens of thousands.

Forget movies you have seen, they were handed the target at Pearl so FDR could excuse being in WW2.

A daft and insane statement.
1. FDR wanted to fight Germany not Japan.
2. No one thought they could get that far, and that their torpedoes would work in shallow harbor.
3. Even the Japanese did not think they could do it until they started planning for it.
4. Hawaii had the largest formations of USAAC combat aircraft, well anywhere.
5. If he wanted to "start a war" with Japan they did not need to risk the entire Pacific Fleet.
Its no a coherent argument.