Now Here's a real Moron

[callmeslick]

wow, this thread has gotten far afield! However, I 'd like to thank Sigma for his words here. Translation clearly causes a garbling of meaning in some cases, and I certainly don't agree with a lot of his conclusions or assumptions. Still, it is fascinating to get the view of the US and recent history through the lens of a fellow citizen of the world who lives in another culture altogether. Thank you, Sigma.

[woodchip]

Sigma, while slick is being polite and you have posted much to be digested, let us first look at what you said about the Russian people bearing the brunt of Japanese aggression. First off I have to suspect the Chinese would have a large disagreement about that. Secondly I have to wonder where the Russian navy was during the battle of Midway or the battle of the Coral Sea. Were Russian troops fighting alongside our marines on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima or Okinawa? And I never knew we were being paid as mercenaries by the Russian govt. So forgive me as all these year I didn't understand it was really Mother Russia that was bearing the brunt of the fighting and dying against the Japanese during WW2.

[CUDA]

I'd like to see those Russian history books, and see how they portray Russia carrying the weight of the war with Japan, when they only decared war with Japan 2 days before they surrendered. Germany I "might" agree with. They did carry a majority of the fighting. But Japan? Me thinks someone is trying to glorify themselves. It is widely believed that Russia only declared war with Japan to get the kuril islands back from a decades earlier dispute.

I find it interesting how each side tells their history..

[sigma]

The USSR crushed the main military force of Japan - million-strong Kwantung Army. And the USSR was compelled to make it under the Yalta agreement which obliged to enter the USSR in war of the USA with Japan in exchange for support by the United States of the Soviet Union on the western front against Germany. To put it briefly, the USA used the USSR to sacrifice on Japanese war of the Soviet soldiers, instead of hundreds more thousands American soldiers. Despite and without that a difficult situation of the USSR.

[vision]

Eddie Izzard on WWII

[CUDA]

The USSR crushed the main military force of Japan - million-strong Kwantung Army. And the USSR was compelled to make it under the Yalta agreement which obliged to enter the USSR in war of the USA with Japan in exchange for support by the United States of the Soviet Union on the western front against Germany. To put it briefly, the USA used the USSR to sacrifice on Japanese war of the Soviet soldiers, instead of hundreds more thousands American soldiers. Despite and without that a difficult situation of the USSR.

I'm thinking your history is a little bit revisionist. First off the army was barely 600k down from 1.3 million when the soviets faced them. Not to mention they were already short on supplies. But thats neither here nor there. Your implying that we "sacrificed" soviet troops. Is pure and utter B.S. Japan was already in negotiations with the USSR to act as a intermediary for surrender to the allies in early July 45, the Soviets knew that when they launched thier attack only 6 days before wars end in August 45. It was purely a political joining of the conflict. Your history books are incomplete.

[callmeslick]

back on the original topic, gang, let's all have a bit of weekend fun:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ton_chunky



"Carmelo Menace"

[CUDA]

Marcos Verboten

[sigma]

The USSR crushed the main military force of Japan - million-strong Kwantung Army. And the USSR was compelled to make it under the Yalta agreement which obliged to enter the USSR in war of the USA with Japan in exchange for support by the United States of the Soviet Union on the western front against Germany. To put it briefly, the USA used the USSR to sacrifice on Japanese war of the Soviet soldiers, instead of hundreds more thousands American soldiers. Despite and without that a difficult situation of the USSR.

I'm thinking your history is a little bit revisionist. First off the army was barely 600k down from 1.3 million when the soviets faced them. Not to mention they were already short on supplies. But thats neither here nor there. Your implying that we "sacrificed" soviet troops. Is pure and utter B.S. Japan was already in negotiations with the USSR to act as a intermediary for surrender to the allies in early July 45, the Soviets knew that when they launched thier attack only 6 days before wars end in August 45. It was purely a political joining of the conflict. Your history books are incomplete.

U.S. knew that on the borders of Japan and China in 1940, the Soviet Union had formed a strong Far Eastern Front (large Soviet army) to resist any aggression by Japan.
USSR, frazzled largest in the world history of war and large losses of people do not have enough political clout fact the victory over Germany, right? We had to send more men perish to Japan for petty political dividends? When there is a mutual non-aggression treaty? You do not really funny? Sorry for the harshness. I will repeat, exhausted with war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union after all fulfilled the obligations under Yalta agreement not so favorable to the USSR.

P.S. And yes, let's go back as far as possible to the original topic.

[callmeslick]

as little as I feel Drudge contributes to journalism, I love their headline:

"Weiner vows to stick it out"



eeeewwwww.

[Krom]

You should read the history of WWII as written by the Japanese. It tells yet another completely different story.

The point is, don't expect what is down in your history books to be completely accurate (or necessarily even remotely close to reality), regardless of what country you live in.

[callmeslick]

hell, the first US history book I read referred to that unpleasantness in the 1860s as the War of Northern Aggression.

[flip]

I think the most important part of sigma's post was lost. I would also bet that there is a lot more talk in Russia, Europe, China........etc, of them gaining the world reserve currency, than there is anyone here in the USA talking about losing it

[flip]

The loss of the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency would represent a huge hit to American prestige as well as the U.S. economy, which enjoys a strategic advantage from the rest of the globe's reliance on the greenback.

Of course, the dollar’s Achilles heel is largely the same as that of the U.S. economy: the national debt north of $16 trillion that has called into question the ability of the currency to maintain its longevity.

Not so fast sigma The strategic advantage we have is that we are the only ones that can print the dollar, so we can always cover our debts. The Achilles Heel is that we have borrowed too much, and therefore printed to much, and it is causing a lack of confidence around the world. Yet, as of now, there is still no viable alternative. It will probably happen eventually, but it is impossible to give a timeframe, and no time soon. Any scenario I can imagine would have to be catastrophic, making it a moot point in the moment.

Source