So, are you saying the the Americans came up with an arbitrary policy in unconditional surrender?
As I understand it, unconditional surrender was a policy decided in joint planning sessions by the allied leadership, and imposed on both Germany and Japan. Also as I understand it, this was decided to keep negotiations about "I must keep this territory", " I cant live without that territory" ( Japan's reasons for deciding on war with the US in the first place ) from happening.
If the US had just surrendered to the Japanese right after Pearl Harbor, a tremendous number of lives on both side would have been saved. Should that have been policy, then?
The US and GB were Ok with forgiving the debt owed by Germany when the German economy was tanking, but the French would have none of it. Not to mention that the French were the main pushers of the "Germany is completely and without reservation at fault for the war", and the burdensome level of the reparations required.
In that the Americans ( as I understand it anyway ) had authored the debt relief plan, I think you can see that the US was not the vindictive sort.
Next time you are in an aircraft, coming in for a landing in your home town, look out the windows and see if you can really recognize the landmarks. Not quite the same as what the bombardier has to do, but it might give you some perspective.
Then, factor in that the enemy will often try to confuse the landmarks on you, and obscure them to keep you from bombing accurately.
That and mistakes are made. Information is incomplete. Easy to armchair QB it 60+ years later.
There were several meetings of the policial leadership of the allied powers ( mainly Roosevelt, Churchhill and Stalin ), and it was decided at these conferences that both Japan and Germany would be subject to unconditional surrender.
I think you did an excellent job of making the very points I would have liked to have made. I think that unconditional surrender was probably the right idea. No gamesmanship about "can I keep this, can I have that instead"...
I'm not disagreeing that Peral Harbor sucked and was an escalation that the United States wasn't expecting.
Technical note. The US did not expect that the Japanese *could* retaliate. I think they expected full well that the Japanes would not feel well pleased.
I'm not disagreeing that Japan did carry out a sneak attack (though on accident, they did try to deliver notice of the attack).
True, they did try to deliver notice. They tried to time that notice to be given about 30 minutes before the attack was to happen. Its still a sucker punch.
What I am disagreeing with is that it was unprovoked....
Quite. But that oil embargo was due to the US being most unhappy about Japanese actions in China.
Unfortunately for Japan, the 3rd wave of planes never flew from the carrier strike force. Those planes were to target US fuel depots on Peral which housed roughly a years worth of oil for the fleet. Without that oil, US forces would have been forced to return to San Fransisco to refuel, severely curtailing effectiveness in the Pacific.
True enough.
Yommomoto chose not to send the 3rd wave because the resistance on Peral was becoming too severe, particulary from US fighters defending the harbor.
Its "Yamamoto". Except that it wasnt him who made the decision. It was Admiral Nagumo, the strike force commander who decided that. He was rightly worried about an American response. The carriers were not in Pearl, and, therefore, could be anywhere, including launching a strike *right now* against his forces. With most of his force gone. In point of fact, the USS Enterprise ( commanded by William "Bull" Halsey ) was close, and coming closer. Planes from the Enterprise were shot at trying to land at Pearl a short time after the attack.
In may historian's eyes, that decision cost Japan the war.
The aformentioned Yamamoto is down as saying that he did not think that Japan could win a war against the US. The industrial strength of American would, in his opinion, overwhelm Japan. It is my belief that starting the war ended up costing Japan the war. The opinion of the times differed, and many were afraid of a Japanese invasion of the US, but I believe that that was overreaction. Japan had just done what was considered undoable ( the raid on Pearl ). The logistics of getting the carriers in position was thought undoable. The Japanese figured out how to refuel their carriers at sea. Torpedos were thought unusable at Pearl, as the harbor was only 40 feet deep. The Japanese modified their torpedos such that they did not require the usual 75 feet of depth, in order to make this attack. Dive bombing is a futile exersize against battleships ( carriers and cruisers were a different story, but at that time, battleships where the force projection ship ). The Japanese modified naval shells ( the ones used by battleships to penetrate the armour of other battleships ), *and* figured out that by bombing from 11k meters, those shells would have the KE to penetrate the relatively ( relatively ) thin top decks of battleships ( One of those is what took out the Arizona, btw..., not a dive bomber. ). They did the unexpected, and got away with it, for a time.
I think it important to note that it was not a case of "the available documents", but of "some available documents".
Just as there is not a hive mind here at slashdot, the people involved in making the decision were not all of one mind. And the reasons why were not the same for each and every person.
So, in my mind, having studied the issue to some degree, I find it plausible that some thougth that the main objective was to end the war faster and save ( mostly American, but some Japanese ) lives, and some thought that the objective was to scare the Russians. I also think that those that thought that Japan was defeated in all but name were technically correct, but that was only important when either Japan recognized it, or when Japan was so unable to marshall an effort that it would have made the Black Knight in Monty Python's movie seem a credible threat. Neither of which had happened yet. Recall that Japan was still praying for the divine wind to come and save them, and they still seemed to think that their martial spirit would save the day and turn things around.
Also, it was the negotiating and political stupidities *after* the surrender that caused the problems after WWI. The French insisted that Germany bear the full and entire blame for the war, and assume a huge debt for it. Later, when economic conditions were very poor world wide, and worse in Germany, the French would not relax or relieve the debt in any way, adding to the discontent and suffering in Germany.
Also, a point of the unconditinal surrender, I think, was to make it plain that the kinds gamesmanship over borders as in World War I, and the possibility of the beligerents ( Germany and Japan, in the main ) being allowed to keep any occupied territories was not going to happen.
But the surrender was not conditional. They got part of what they wanted by our grace, not by their actions.
There is, I think, another point to unconditional surrender. The Japanese, until recently, had a constitution ( imagine that, would that have happened with a conditional surrender? ) that gave up on the idea of going to war. If the surrender was conditional, would that have happened? I dont think so.
I was actually told ( by the "facilities manager" ) that I had to wear shoes all the time, esp when away from my desk. See, I might step on something sharp "one the plant floor", or I might drop something heavy on my foot. Those programming manuals get awefully heavy, and the corners can be *very* sharp.
With the current system, how would you carry out a recount?
Can you verify everywhere and always that no monkey business happened with the first vote?
Your point that a keeping the record as paper is correct, it does not automatically insure that there will be no trouble. That does not imply that the current electronic system is acceptable. We have had a very long time to create and use processes involving securing paper ballots. We have no such experience with electronic, and the current system does not even pass the laugh test. That is not to say that any and all electronic systems are bad.
Thanks for explaining better. I had always wondered how the little bit of movement done in the chamber induced enough current to cook. I had figured it was the intensity of the field ( we were warned not to cross the ( I think ) 10 gauss line ( painted on the floor ) with credit or atm cards ( not that I let that stop me... ) )
I used to work ( at the corp office ) for a company that did MRI. Story I heard was that a doctor allowed a patient into the chamber with an aluminum pin in the arm. Wasnt steel, so it should be no problem, right? Well, that patient ended up with the flesh around the pin cooked. Aluminum conducts current very well. Move a conductor thru a magnetic field will induce a current ( and a magnetic field ) ( and the resistance will generate heat ).
( Another story, the B-36 I think it was was spec'ed with aluminum wiring since it was lighter than copper and a better conductor. Didnt work out well, due to the mechanical properties of aluminum. )
Slashdot Mirror
So, are you saying the the Americans came up with an arbitrary policy in unconditional surrender?
As I understand it, unconditional surrender was a policy decided in joint planning sessions by the allied leadership, and imposed on both Germany and Japan. Also as I understand it, this was decided to keep negotiations about "I must keep this territory", " I cant live without that territory" ( Japan's reasons for deciding on war with the US in the first place ) from happening.
If the US had just surrendered to the Japanese right after Pearl Harbor, a tremendous number of lives on both side would have been saved. Should that have been policy, then?
Germany after WWI wasnt as much our baby.
The US and GB were Ok with forgiving the debt owed by Germany when the German economy was tanking, but the French would have none of it. Not to mention that the French were the main pushers of the "Germany is completely and without reservation at fault for the war", and the burdensome level of the reparations required.
In that the Americans ( as I understand it anyway ) had authored the debt relief plan, I think you can see that the US was not the vindictive sort.
You ever launched bombs from an aircraft?
Next time you are in an aircraft, coming in for a landing in your home town, look out the windows and see if you can really recognize the landmarks. Not quite the same as what the bombardier has to do, but it might give you some perspective.
Then, factor in that the enemy will often try to confuse the landmarks on you, and obscure them to keep you from bombing accurately.
That and mistakes are made. Information is incomplete. Easy to armchair QB it 60+ years later.
On the decision for unconditional surrender...
There were several meetings of the policial leadership of the allied powers ( mainly Roosevelt, Churchhill and Stalin ), and it was decided at these conferences that both Japan and Germany would be subject to unconditional surrender.
I think you did an excellent job of making the very points I would have liked to have made. I think that unconditional surrender was probably the right idea. No gamesmanship about "can I keep this, can I have that instead"...
Thanks.
... )
I have to confess that that is the half remembered leftover from high school ( Gompers secondary, in San Diego ).
If I recall correctly, program exit was emt 377 then emt 4. I could be wrong ( and would like to know if I am.
What is emt 376? I found a reference that talked about it being a system call, but no real details...
Are you trying to say that Americans are without Grace, or that the Japanese forced the issue? Or just what point are you trying to make?
Technical note. The US did not expect that the Japanese *could* retaliate. I think they expected full well that the Japanes would not feel well pleased.
True, they did try to deliver notice. They tried to time that notice to be given about 30 minutes before the attack was to happen. Its still a sucker punch.
Quite. But that oil embargo was due to the US being most unhappy about Japanese actions in China.
True enough.
Its "Yamamoto". Except that it wasnt him who made the decision. It was Admiral Nagumo, the strike force commander who decided that. He was rightly worried about an American response. The carriers were not in Pearl, and, therefore, could be anywhere, including launching a strike *right now* against his forces. With most of his force gone. In point of fact, the USS Enterprise ( commanded by William "Bull" Halsey ) was close, and coming closer. Planes from the Enterprise were shot at trying to land at Pearl a short time after the attack.
The aformentioned Yamamoto is down as saying that he did not think that Japan could win a war against the US. The industrial strength of American would, in his opinion, overwhelm Japan. It is my belief that starting the war ended up costing Japan the war. The opinion of the times differed, and many were afraid of a Japanese invasion of the US, but I believe that that was overreaction. Japan had just done what was considered undoable ( the raid on Pearl ). The logistics of getting the carriers in position was thought undoable. The Japanese figured out how to refuel their carriers at sea. Torpedos were thought unusable at Pearl, as the harbor was only 40 feet deep. The Japanese modified their torpedos such that they did not require the usual 75 feet of depth, in order to make this attack. Dive bombing is a futile exersize against battleships ( carriers and cruisers were a different story, but at that time, battleships where the force projection ship ). The Japanese modified naval shells ( the ones used by battleships to penetrate the armour of other battleships ), *and* figured out that by bombing from 11k meters, those shells would have the KE to penetrate the relatively ( relatively ) thin top decks of battleships ( One of those is what took out the Arizona, btw..., not a dive bomber. ). They did the unexpected, and got away with it, for a time.
I think it important to note that it was not a case of "the available documents", but of "some available documents".
Just as there is not a hive mind here at slashdot, the people involved in making the decision were not all of one mind. And the reasons why were not the same for each and every person.
So, in my mind, having studied the issue to some degree, I find it plausible that some thougth that the main objective was to end the war faster and save ( mostly American, but some Japanese ) lives, and some thought that the objective was to scare the Russians. I also think that those that thought that Japan was defeated in all but name were technically correct, but that was only important when either Japan recognized it, or when Japan was so unable to marshall an effort that it would have made the Black Knight in Monty Python's movie seem a credible threat. Neither of which had happened yet. Recall that Japan was still praying for the divine wind to come and save them, and they still seemed to think that their martial spirit would save the day and turn things around.
Define "we".
Also, it was the negotiating and political stupidities *after* the surrender that caused the problems after WWI. The French insisted that Germany bear the full and entire blame for the war, and assume a huge debt for it. Later, when economic conditions were very poor world wide, and worse in Germany, the French would not relax or relieve the debt in any way, adding to the discontent and suffering in Germany.
Also, a point of the unconditinal surrender, I think, was to make it plain that the kinds gamesmanship over borders as in World War I, and the possibility of the beligerents ( Germany and Japan, in the main ) being allowed to keep any occupied territories was not going to happen.
But the surrender was not conditional. They got part of what they wanted by our grace, not by their actions.
There is, I think, another point to unconditional surrender. The Japanese, until recently, had a constitution ( imagine that, would that have happened with a conditional surrender? ) that gave up on the idea of going to war. If the surrender was conditional, would that have happened? I dont think so.
Well, the robot thought it was going over the top.
Exterminate!
Exterminate!
Exterminate!
Not ExTerminator.
Gets all the bugs out!
OK, I'll join you.
I will not go in to work, until going in to work becomes a standard. What standards body will we be seeking this standard from, oh leader?
Workers unite! You have nothing to lose but your jobs!
Arent you making an assumption....
I was actually told ( by the "facilities manager" ) that I had to wear shoes all the time, esp when away from my desk. See, I might step on something sharp "one the plant floor", or I might drop something heavy on my foot. Those programming manuals get awefully heavy, and the corners can be *very* sharp.
I'd say that quite a few of the homeless there in IL have been effectively disenfranchized.
How does she have access to the source code to make that allegation?
True.
But if ID is required, then you have a lever to use to exclude those that will not vote as wants them to.
As long as there are no strings on getting some form of acceptable ID, and strings cannot be added later to such, then having an ID can be required.
With the current system, how would you carry out a recount?
Can you verify everywhere and always that no monkey business happened with the first vote?
Your point that a keeping the record as paper is correct, it does not automatically insure that there will be no trouble. That does not imply that the current electronic system is acceptable. We have had a very long time to create and use processes involving securing paper ballots. We have no such experience with electronic, and the current system does not even pass the laugh test. That is not to say that any and all electronic systems are bad.
Boy, what is up with that moderation?
We should always be able to ask questions.
So, I second the motion, such doubts *are* essential. Totaliarians are the ones that dont want questions. Is that were we are?
I had thought my source had stated that, but I was wrong.
XB-36 Article
Very interesting.
Thanks for explaining better. I had always wondered how the little bit of movement done in the chamber induced enough current to cook. I had figured it was the intensity of the field ( we were warned not to cross the ( I think ) 10 gauss line ( painted on the floor ) with credit or atm cards ( not that I let that stop me... ) )
I used to work ( at the corp office ) for a company that did MRI. Story I heard was that a doctor allowed a patient into the chamber with an aluminum pin in the arm. Wasnt steel, so it should be no problem, right? Well, that patient ended up with the flesh around the pin cooked. Aluminum conducts current very well. Move a conductor thru a magnetic field will induce a current ( and a magnetic field ) ( and the resistance will generate heat ).
( Another story, the B-36 I think it was was spec'ed with aluminum wiring since it was lighter than copper and a better conductor. Didnt work out well, due to the mechanical properties of aluminum. )
You have forgotten that companies are better than we mere mortals. They last longer, are harder to punish, can morph and go dormant and still survive.
But not for a steady torrent of bullets.
I recommend armour plate. 16" face hardened steel ought to do the trick very nicely.