Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

They’d clearly been saving up. 110 “go off radar” … is that a nice way of saying they landed in Ukraine, probably near their targets? 

Posted
1 minute ago, B00M said:

They’d clearly been saving up. 110 “go off radar” … is that a nice way of saying they landed in Ukraine, probably near their targets? 

Some of it is drones going off course because of EW jamming.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You are wasting your time here. Dealing with the same energy and firing synapses that bought hook line and sinker nigerian yellow cake propaganda two decades ago. 

Oh, look! ^Crackhead Bob's here with his hot take!

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
16 hours ago, B00M said:

You mean the largest country on the planet didn’t invade Ukraine PURELY for more territory? They did it for many other reasons, none of which actually justify their actions at all? Fuck RFK

But surely you don't believe them, right? That the Ukrainian territories in question actually want to be part of Russia but the "Neo Nazis" within their government are conspiring with us to prevent it? Ukraine wanting to be a member of NATO is way more believable than what the Russian government is saying publicly. 

Posted
8 hours ago, staboner said:

I can put some value on those arguments ^ and still disagree with Russia's actions on this war. The idea that influence and security threats gives Russia a get out of jail free card is BS. they are acting as the aggressor in this situation, whether they feel justified or not doesn't matter. We take the side of the country at least trying to have a democracy and which is being invaded. well, at least we used to side with the democracies of the world. sigh what a time to be alive. 

At the same time the military industrial complex can still be out of control, can still have a hand in this mess, and can still have too much power in foreign policy decisions. All these things can coexist, yellow cake and all. 

ab0nFk.gif

 

 

 

This is kinda where I am at. As was discussed earlier, the whole loss of life has been very tragic for both sides. I’m very anti-Russian from having nuclear attack drills, in school as a kid. 
 

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

This is kinda where I am at. As was discussed earlier, the whole loss of life has been very tragic for both sides. I’m very anti-Russian from having nuclear attack drills, in school as a kid. 
 

CHIEF

What is interesting is none of those deaths would have happened if Putin did not want to be a dick and rebuild the Czarist empire. he thought it would be a walk in the park. Most agreed. Some who studied Ukraine knew they would never lay down.

I expected Russia to be able to do more. But never win.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I finally learned last night to not discuss anything with him. Just not worth it.

 

I thought it was entertaining. “Bitch I can still hurl a 70mph fastball” was select. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Parliament said:

When you’ve lost Switzerland, you’ve lost everyone.  When’s the last time they sent troops somewhere?

They won't be as smartly attired as these Swiss though.

spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

They won't be as smartly attired as these Swiss though.

spacer.png

Dated a girl in Locarno. First night I crashed at her place her rifle was in the corner. She had drill the next day. Damn she looked good in fatigues.

But the swiss have never projected outside of their valleys. 200 ain't gonna do shit. Plus what will happen to the chocolate/swiss watch/ stacking firewood industries?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, CHIEF said:

This is kinda where I am at. As was discussed earlier, the whole loss of life has been very tragic for both sides. I’m very anti-Russian from having nuclear attack drills, in school as a kid. 
 

CHIEF

There would have been a lot less loss of life had we stayed out of WW2. Do you think that makes a compelling argument that we should have?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

What is interesting is none of those deaths would have happened if Putin did not want to be a dick and rebuild the Czarist empire. he thought it would be a walk in the park. Most agreed. Some who studied Ukraine knew they would never lay down.

I expected Russia to be able to do more. But never win.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with Inka on this.  I thought Russia would create a puppet government who had to contend with years of gorilla attacks and civil disobedience that made Afghanistan look like an easy time and an economic bargain.

The bright light in this darkness is Trump‘s going all in with Putin in such a non-sophisticated way insulting way.  I’m sure it is in Europe’s normal best interest to defer/along with the US.    Had Trump half heartedly pretended to support Ukraine while fucking up every chance to help Ukraine over the long-term, Trump could’ve prevented the Baltic and Nordic states joining with Poland to go their own way and protect their countries from a Russian takeover of Ukraine.

Now that they know they are on their own they will likely wind up being a bigger threat to Russia than if they were agreeing to be on the sidelines letting America take the lead. 

It is terrible for America that we lose our international influence and respect, but it may coalesce Ukraine’s neighbors and the France, Britain Germany triad to fill the power vacuum and help them more over the long run.

Or I could be smoking a bowl of Copium.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I would argue that the loss of life would probably my have been greater

Agree. Japan would have continued its shit across Asia down into Austrailia. India was next.

Germany would have continued across Russia.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

There would have been a lot less loss of life had we stayed out of WW2. Do you think that makes a compelling argument that we should have?

Staying out of WWII was our foreign policy stance until Dec. 7, 1941. Sure, we had a lend/lease deal with Great Britain. But I'm not sure what our stance would have been had we not been attacked by the Japanese. Our Declaration of War on the Japanese meant that Germany and Italy declared war on the US, being their allies. We didn't start it, but we damned sure finished it. Our wartime defense manufacturing complex was the only one left standing, and it pulled the US out of The Great Depression.

Am I glad the US stepped in, absolutely. If the war had dragged on a few years longer, Germany would not have only had the best operational jet fighters, and the V2, it would also have had the atomic bomb, and thus would have been the first and only nuclear super power. If that would have happened, I would argue that there wouldn't have been less loss of life but more. Instead it ended up being the US, as that lone super power, and what we wanted was for the war to end. Luckily, our German engineers were better than the Russian's engineers until 1949.

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CHIEF said:

Staying out of WWII was our foreign policy stance until Dec. 7, 1941. Sure, we had a lend/lease deal with Great Britain. But I'm not sure what our stance would have been had we not been attacked by the Japanese. Our Declaration of War on the Japanese meant that Germany and Italy declared war on the US, being their allies. We didn't start it, but we damned sure finished it. Our wartime defense manufacturing complex was the only one left standing, and it pulled the US out of The Great Depression.

Am I glad the US stepped in, absolutely. If the war had dragged on a few years longer, Germany would not have only had the best operational jet fighters, and the V2, it would also have had the atomic bomb, and thus would have been the first and only nuclear super power. If that would have happened, I would argue that there wouldn't have been less loss of life but more. Instead it ended up being the US, as that lone super power, and what we wanted was for the war to end. Luckily, our German engineers were better than the Russian's engineers until 1949.

 

Your history is pretty different from my reading of history. The US was very much not staying "neutral" while acting as "the arsenal of democracy" prior to the US formally joining the war as a belligerent. The only reason the US was not actively involved in the fighting was the incorrect popular belief that whatever happened in Europe would stay in Europe. German U-boats were sinking merchant marine tonnage starting in the late 1930s.

Further, Germany declared war on America on its own. The tripartite pact did not require or demand mutual defense. 

Your science is way off too. Germany was a LONG way from the Bomb. We know this for a fact. They had a wrong model of the atom and were nowhere close to a self sustaining reaction, much less a prompt supercritical mass required for a nuclear detonation. Ironically, much of their scientific failure was due to rejection of "Jewish" science. 

I do wonder how many advancements we will lose out on as Americans due to cutting off "Woke" sciences.

Edited by Captainant
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Staying out of WWII was our foreign policy stance until Dec. 7, 1941. Sure, we had a lend/lease deal with Great Britain. But I'm not sure what our stance would have been had we not been attacked by the Japanese. Our Declaration of War on the Japanese meant that Germany and Italy declared war on the US, being their allies. We didn't start it, but we damned sure finished it. Our wartime defense manufacturing complex was the only one left standing, and it pulled the US out of The Great Depression.

Am I glad the US stepped in, absolutely. If the war had dragged on a few years longer, Germany would not have only had the best operational jet fighters, and the V2, it would also have had the atomic bomb, and thus would have been the first and only nuclear super power. If that would have happened, I would argue that there wouldn't have been less loss of life but more. Instead it ended up being the US, as that lone super power, and what we wanted was for the war to end. Luckily, our German engineers were better than the Russian's engineers until 1949.

 

I recently saw an interesting documentary about the battle of Britain and the chain home radar network that allowed Britain to barely eke out a win in the battle with Goering.  

It seems that the top German radar scientist flew over Britain’s newly erected radar towers in the Graf Zeppelin right before war started.   Because of the urgency for radar and the lack of prior research, Britain chose some of the simplest tech imaginable, powering the radar system with the countries power grid and synchronizing the radar system.

When the Luftwaffe Zeppelin experts and their then-sophisticated radar detection instruments looked at it, they concluded that the sounds they picked up were sparks from the country’s grid - and far too primitive to be a radar network.  It seems their own work on radar was so far advanced than Britain’s that they worked on entirely different frequencies, giving entirely different sounds to look for.  Germany completely discounted Britain having a working radar detection system that allowed fighter command to stay at their bases instead of flying patrols - allowing them to converge on incoming bombers when they received the hundred miles away warning from radar.  Without winning the Battle of Britain, Germany’s invasion of Britain under operation Sea Lion might have been a thing once Germany’s Luftwaffe gained air superiority over the channel.  Without great Britain as a staging area, there would’ve been no D-Day landings in June 44

Germany left to its own devices and no American intervention would have very likely wound up controlling the world.   Thank God for Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war on us. Both of those assholes being foes made sleepy pacifist America invent the atomic bomb.   

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Germany left to its own devices and no American intervention would have very likely wound up controlling the world.   Thank God for Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war on us. Both of those assholes being fors made sleepy pacifist America invent the atomic bomb.   

Truly - if Germany had not declared war on America it's a high likelihood the Normandy landings or any sort of united front would not have formed against the fascists in Europe and Africa.

They are at their strongest when the powers that be would rather look away and make deals with the bully rather than confront their evil. Once there is no more pretext of ignoring the bully and hoping they'll move on to leave you alone, only then, do they start to lose power.

Edited by Captainant
Forgot a word
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I would argue that the loss of life would probably my have been greater

Less loss of life with everyone speaking German

Posted
3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

There would have been a lot less loss of life had we stayed out of WW2. Do you think that makes a compelling argument that we should have?

Not the guy you replied to but I don't accept the premise of your question. Is it really debated whether or not American involvement in WW2 prevented millions more dying from German and Japanese conquest? 

Posted
3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

It is terrible for America that we lose our international influence and respect, but it may coalesce Ukraine’s neighbors and the France, Britain Germany triad to fill the power vacuum and help them more over the long run.

Or I could be smoking a bowl of Copium.

I wouldn’t leave Poland out of the equation, and we’ve pretty much unified the Baltic and Nordic countries, to the point where some of their air forces are operating as one.  It’s agonizingly slow, but as Europe takes our place as the leaders for the West (and probably ramp up arms production even more), they are going to be a lot more unified than they’ve been in many years.  Even though Congress passed legislation that prevents us from flat-out leaving NATO , I expect we will bring most or all troops home (which will cause us huge problems if shit happens in the Middle East/Israel), but I can’t see Russia trying to invade a NATO country at this point, especially with a powerful Ukraine tying up almost all of their ground forces.  Their fucking Scooby Doo vans and golf carts don’t have the distance either once NATO strikes take out their railways.

Hell, Putin got Finland and Sweden off the fence and joining NATO, which is like UT and OU joining the SEC.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

So, the boy is giving a chunk of change to the fundraiser chosen by his Ukrainian friend (yes, she's attractive, yes I blacked out her personal info because I don't need to be sending people to creep on my kid's friend's account).  
Her message:

An actionable „thank you“ to those who fight for our tomorrow.

Three years of a full-scale invasion. In three years, each of us has found our own reason to thank our defenders—for having a home, for a new day. This gratitude has power when it turns into action.

So, I am joining the team of @_sofiia_claire_ as part of the „Thank
You For...“ campaign by @lotus_fund. We are raising funds to ensure our gratitude is heard on the front lines.

We are raising 1,000,000 UAH for three brigades to provide UAV boards, thermal imaging cameras, electronic warfare systems, and initiation boards.

My goal: 5000 UAH (115€)

The donation link is in the bio. [here it is: https://send.monobank.ua/jar/3912w7UyXf?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZCPIjLWrGK3vlBfs7dEA3TewuTCEsrXajBA2ZImbV8VuK3EbTrupXoVOo_aem_fhtzo8ZfYRKz3JCRR3TUSg]

We show gratitude through action because, without them, there would be no us.

#project_podiaka
Commentary on same:
 
dc0a94edfb672d64a3cbffd9d7207950.jpg
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, CHIEF said:

Staying out of WWII was our foreign policy stance until Dec. 7, 1941. Sure, we had a lend/lease deal with Great Britain. But I'm not sure what our stance would have been had we not been attacked by the Japanese.

We were not staying out though - Japan attacked us precisely because we were interfering in their supply chain with the oil embargo - it was economic warfare.  We put them on a timer of sorts where they were going to run out of fuel for their fleets, leaving them vulnerable to us   We can argue that we wouldn’t have done a first strike against them, but militarily if we bottled up their fleets in their ports through a lack of fuel, the effect would be the same as outright sinking those fleets. They would struggle to consolidate gains and put down guerrilla movements if they couldn’t easily move troops around.

And given how paranoid they were, even if they didn’t hit us at Pearl Harbor, they had to try and take the Philippines from us because those islands stuck right out into the major supply lanes coming out of Japan.  A few dozen PT boats out of the Philippines could have shut down their supply lines. And they had to cut off Australia from us because Britain was struggling with their own defenses, let alone trying to keep Australia free from the Japanese. At some point they had to hit American supply ships going to Australia.

It was inevitable.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Dated a girl in Locarno. First night I crashed at her place her rifle was in the corner. She had drill the next day. Damn she looked good in fatigues.

But the swiss have never projected outside of their valleys. 200 ain't gonna do shit. Plus what will happen to the chocolate/swiss watch/ stacking firewood industries?

stare-staring.gif

  • Haha 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I wouldn’t leave Poland out of the equation, and we’ve pretty much unified the Baltic and Nordic countries, to the point where some of their air forces are operating as one.

Yup.   I guess I always assumed with Poland that the biggest problem would be the other European countries having to talk Poland out of attacking Russia tomorrow.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Not the guy you replied to but I don't accept the premise of your question. Is it really debated whether or not American involvement in WW2 prevented millions more dying from German and Japanese conquest? 

If you accept the premise at hand (not mine but what I was responding to) which I interpret as capitulation rather than fighting a war saves lives, then yes.  Close to 90 million died in WW2 if you include civilian deaths. I think it’s pretty clear only a fraction would have died had the US stayed out of it, especially had we not had an antagonistic foreign policy wrt imperial Japan in the lead up.  

Now, whether the conquering regimes would have ultimately slaughtered more of the conquered than the total dead from WW2 is not really knowable, similar to how the outcome of Ukrainian capitulation is not knowable, but I think we can all guess in both cases what it would look like. If not genocide, then subjugation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

We were not staying out though - Japan attacked us precisely because we were interfering in their supply chain with the oil embargo - it was economic warfare.  

It was inevitable.

Considering that FDR had just won his 94th presidential election bystating he would keep us out of war, he had to find more subtle reasons to ensure we would get into a war.   I think I mentioned before that prior to Pearl Harbor that he would send what he called “pop-up” cruises to Japan’s territorial waters - he did not want for us to “start” a war, but he had no problem if they attacked us and one started.    

We tried like hell to provoke them, and we succeeded. see below this interesting intelligence memo suggesting how we can help Europe in its war.

Spoiler

Memorandum for the Director

Subject: Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States.

1. The United States today finds herself confronted by a hostile Germany and Italy in Europe and by an equally hostile Japan in the Orient. Russia, the great land link between these two groups of hostile powers, is at present neutral, but in all probability favorably inclined towards the Axis powers, and her favorable attitude towards these powers may be expected to increase in direct proportion to increasing success in their prosecution of the war in Europe. Germany and Italy have been successful in war on the continent of Europe and all of Europe is either under their military control or has been forced into subservience. Only the British Empire is actively opposing by war the growing world dominance of Germany and Italy and their satellites.

2. The United States at first remained coolly aloof from the conflict in Europe and there is considerable evidence to support the view that Germany and Italy attempted by every method within their power to foster a continuation of American indifference to the outcome of the struggle in Europe. Paradoxically, every success of German and Italian arms has led to further increases in United States sympathy for and material support of the British Empire, until at the present time the United States government stands committed to a policy of rendering every support short of war with the chances rapidly increasing that the United States will become a full fledged ally of the British Empire in the very near future. The final failure of German and Italian diplomacy to keep the United States in the role of a disinterested spectator has forced them to adopt the policy of developing threats to U.S. security in other spheres of the world, notably by the threat of revolutions in South and Central America by Axis-dominated groups and by the stimulation of Japan to further aggressions and threats in the Far East in the hope that by these mean the United States would become so confused in thought and fearful of her own immediate security as to cause her to become so preoccupied in purely defensive preparations as to virtually preclude U.S. aid to Great Britain in any form. As a result of this policy, Germany and Italy have lately concluded a military alliance with Japan directed against the United States. If the published terms of this treaty and the pointed utterances of German, Italian and Japanese leaders can be believed, and there seems no ground on which to doubt either, the three totalitarian powers agree to make war on the United States, should she come to the assistance of England, or should she attempt to forcibly interfere with Japan's aims in the Orient and,


Page [2]

furthermore, Germany and Italy expressly reserve the right to determine whether American aid to Britain, short of war, is a cause for war or not after they have succeeded in defeating England. In other words, after England has been disposed of her enemies will decide whether or not to immediately proceed with an attack on the United States. Due to geographic conditions, neither Germany nor Italy are in a position to offer any material aid to Japan. Japan, on the contrary, can be of much help to both Germany and Italy by threatening and possibly even attacking British dominions and supply routes from Australia, India and the Dutch East Indies, thus materially weakening Britain's position in opposition to the Axis powers in Europe. In exchange for this service, Japan receives a free hand to seize all of Asia that she can find it possible to grab, with the added promise that Germany and Italy will do all in their power to keep U.S. attention so attracted as to prevent the United States from taking positive aggressive action against Japan. Here again we have another example of the Axis-Japanese diplomacy which is aimed at keeping American power immobilized, and by threats and alarms to so confuse American thought as to preclude prompt decisive action by the United States in either sphere of action. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the last thing desired by either the Axis powers in Europe or by Japan in the Far East is prompt, warlike action by the United States in either theatre of operations.

3. An examination of the situation in Europe leads to the conclusion that there is little that we can do now, immediately to help Britain that is not already being done. We have no trained army to send to the assistance of England, nor will we have for at least a year. We are now trying to increase the flow of materials to England and to bolster the defense of England in every practicable way and this aid will undoubtedly be increased. On the other hand, there is little that Germany or Italy can do against us as long as England continues in the war and her navy maintains control of the Atlantic. The one danger to our position lies in the possible early defeat of the British Empire with the British Fleet falling intact into the hands of the Axis powers. The possibility of such an event occurring would be materially lessened were we actually allied in war with the British or at the very least were taking active measures to relieve the pressure on Britain in other spheres of action. To sum up: the threat to our security in the Atlantic remains small so long as the British Fleet remains dominant in that ocean and friendly to the United States.

4. In the Pacific, Japan by virtue of her alliance with Germany and Italy is a definite threat to the security of the British Empire and once the British Empire is gone the power of Japan-Germany and Italy is to be directed against the United States. A powerful land attack by Germany and Italy through the Balkans and North Africa against the Suez Canal with a Japanese threat or attack on Singapore would have very serious results for the British Empire. Could Japan be diverted or neutralized, the fruits of a successful attack on the Suez Canal could not be as far reaching and beneficial to the Axis powers as if such a success was also accompanied by the virtual elimination of British sea power from the Indian Ocean, thus


Page [3]

opening up a European supply route for Japan and a sea route for Eastern raw materials to reach Germany and Italy, Japan must be diverted if the British and American ( ) blockade of Europe and possibly Japan (?) is to remain even partially in effect.

5. While as pointed out in Paragraph (3) there is little that the United States can do to immediately retrieve the situation in Europe, the United States is able to effectively nullify Japanese aggressive action, and do it without lessening U.S. material assistance to Great Britain.

6. An examination of Japan's present position as opposed to the United States reveals a situation as follows:

Advantages

  • 1. Geographically strong position of Japanese Islands.
  • 2. A highly centralized strong capable government.
  • 3. Rigid control of economy on a war basis.
  • 4. A people inured to hardship and war.
  • 5. A powerful army.
  • 6. A skillful navy about 2/3 the strength of the U.S. Navy.
  • 7. Some stocks of raw materials.

Disadvantages

  • 1. A million and a half men engaged in an exhausting war on the Asiatic Continent.
  • 2. Domestic economy and food supply severely straightened.
  • 3. A serious lack of sources of raw materials for war. Notably oil, iron and cotton.
  • 4. Totally cut off from supplies from Europe.
  • 5. Dependent upon distant overseas routes for essential supplies.
  • 6. Incapable of increasing manufacture and supply of war materials without free access to U.S. or European markets.
  • 7. Major cities and industrial centers extremely vulnerable to air attack.
  • 8. Weather until April rendering direct sea operations in the vicinity of Japan difficult.

7. In the Pacific the United States possesses a very strong defensive position and a navy and naval air force at present in that ocean capable of long distance offensive operation. There are certain other factors which at the present time are strongly in our favor, viz:

  • A. Philippine Islands still held by the United States.
  • B. Friendly and possibly allied government in control of the Dutch East Indies.
  • C. British still hold Hong Kong and Singapore and are favorable to us.
  • D. Important Chinese armies are still in the field in China against Japan.
  • E. A small U.S. Naval Force capable of seriously threatening Japan's southern supply routes

Page [4]

already in the theatre of operations.

  • F. A considerable Dutch naval force is in the Orient that would be of value if allied to U.S.

8. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade. A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike at us effectively. Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely strengthen Britain's position against Germany and Italy and, in addition, such action would increase the confidence and support of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.

9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

  • A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
  • B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
  • C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
  • D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
  • E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
  • F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
  • G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
  • H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.

A. H. McCollum

CC-0p-16
0p-16-F
File 


Page [5]

0p-16-F-2 ONI
7 October 1940

Summary

1. The United States is faced by a hostile combination of powers in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

2. British naval control of the Atlantic prevents hostile action against the United States in this area.

3. Japan's growing hostility presents an attempt to open sea communications between Japan and the Mediterranean by an attack on the British lines of communication in the Indian Ocean.

4. Japan must be diverted if British opposition in Europe is to remain effective.

5. The United States naval forces now in the Pacific are capable of so containing and harassing Japan as to nullify her assistance to Germany and Italy.

6. It is to the interest of the United States to eliminate Japan's threat in the Pacific at the earliest opportunity by taking prompt and aggressive action against Japan.

7. In the absence of United States ability to take the political offensive, additional naval force should be sent to the orient and agreements entered into with Holland and England that would serve as an effective check against Japanese encroachments in South-eastern Asia.


Page [6]

Comment by Captain Knox

It is unquestionably to our general interest that Britain be not licked - just now she has a stalemate and probably cant do better. We ought to make it certain that she at least gets a stalemate. For this she will probably need from us substantial further destroyers and air reinforcements to England. We should not precipitate anything in the Orient that should hamper our ability to do this - so long as probability continues.

If England remains stable, Japan will be cautious in the Orient. Hence our assistance to England in the Atlantic is also protection to her and us in the Orient.

However, I concur in your courses of action we must be ready on both sides and probably strong enough to care for both.
D.W.K.

Re your #6: - no reason for battleships not visiting west coast in bunches.

the money quote from the longcat memo:

Quote

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.

 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

We were not staying out though - Japan attacked us precisely because we were interfering in their supply chain with the oil embargo - it was economic warfare.  We put them on a timer of sorts where they were going to run out of fuel for their fleets, leaving them vulnerable to us   We can argue that we wouldn’t have done a first strike against them, but militarily if we bottled up their fleets in their ports through a lack of fuel, the effect would be the same as outright sinking those fleets. They would struggle to consolidate gains and put down guerrilla movements if they couldn’t easily move troops around.

And given how paranoid they were, even if they didn’t hit us at Pearl Harbor, they had to try and take the Philippines from us because those islands stuck right out into the major supply lanes coming out of Japan.  A few dozen PT boats out of the Philippines could have shut down their supply lines. And they had to cut off Australia from us because Britain was struggling with their own defenses, let alone trying to keep Australia free from the Japanese. At some point they had to hit American supply ships going to Australia.

It was inevitable.


Why were we embargoing them or whatever?  Where they being assholes?  If so, they coulda avoided the embargo by stopping being assholes.  Or is it more complicated than that?

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Parliament said:


Why were we embargoing them or whatever?  Where they being assholes?  If so, they coulda avoided the embargo by stopping being assholes.  Or is it more complicated than that?

Genuinely if you're interested in the "why" this series is an incredible listen

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-Supernova-in-the-East-i/

It's on all the places you'd listen to a podcast

 

But they were doing to China what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now. Rape of Nanjing and all that

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)

The center right seems poised to form a government in Germany. The far right AfD also received a significant boost in support, but fortunately the center right (and pretty much everyone else) refuses to work with AfD. 

The most relevant quote for Ukraine from the Kyiv Independent article referencing Merz, likely the new German chancellor: 

Quote

 

Known for his hardline stance on Russia, Merz has supported sending medium-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine, a move the outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz has firmly opposed.

On Feb. 21, Merz criticized Trump's recent statements on Ukraine, calling them "shocking" and aligned with Russian narratives. "This is the Russian narrative; this is how Putin has presented it for years, and I'm frankly shocked that Donald Trump has now apparently embraced it himself," Merz added.

 

https://kyivindependent.com/cdu-wins-german-election-friedrich-merz-raises-nato-concerns/ 

Edited by KYHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
40 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

 The most relevant quote for Ukraine from the Kyiv Independent article referencing Merz, likely the new German chancellor: 

IMG_1963.gif.23c06a96abe2d3148f973f3e99cd663f.gif

She hates the orange shit stain, and is smarter than the orange shit stain to a very large degree.    Trump hates women generally if there are something other than cum buckets, but he absolutely hates strong, powerful women acting with authority.

I approve. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Parliament said:


Why were we embargoing them or whatever?  Where they being assholes?  If so, they coulda avoided the embargo by stopping being assholes.  Or is it more complicated than that?

They were just more than a tad war criminal-ish, genocide loving, peaceful country invading, forcing women to be sex slaves when they were also killing the children bad neighbors than we felt comfortable with.

IOW, they were current Russia with a better Navy.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

They were just more than a tad war criminal-ish, genocide loving, peaceful country invading, forcing women to be sex slaves when they were also killing the children bad neighbors than we felt comfortable with.

 

Didn't know we gave a shit about that back then.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_1963.gif.23c06a96abe2d3148f973f3e99cd663f.gif

She hates the orange shit stain, and is smarter than the orange shit stain to a very large degree.    Trump hates women generally if there are something other than cum buckets, but he absolutely hates strong, powerful women acting with authority.

I approve. 

ace-ventura.gif

Merkel is Merz!

Edited by KYHorn
  • Haha 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...