No wonder Japan almost conquered all of Asia during World War II...

i am sorry but this theory is untenable. the american plan was to build up strategic bomber bases on the chinese mainland and then burn japan down to a cinder. once germany is defeated, USSR invades japanese manchuria and USA has naval superiority. japanese army in china has no supply line, submits. usa air war destroys all japanese domestic industry, they starve. japan would have lost without atomic bomb, and submitted eventually. no invasion needed.

i support japan but its not workable.

regardless, it was a messy messy war. against subhuman zipperheads

not before many more american lives are lost. tens of thousands of dead americans

your casual racism aside, they employed guerilla warfare in jungles the jarheads were utterly unfamiliar with and still got crushed in every engagement. as I said before, public opinion won the vietnam war, not military might.

I moved here to Japan 10 years ago...like McDonald's

I'm lovin it

Low standard fatty reality sure

cool Chad RP 3/10 basement dwelling swamp thing

crushed in every engagement is a bit of an exaggeration. if this was so, then why didnt the american troops completely overrun the swamp rats? all i said was it was hard fought war with many dead people on both sides. i will always oppose our involvement in that war.

we also had rules and knowing these subhumans, they had none

>why didnt the american troops completely overrun the swamp rats
because it's impossible to crush an insurgency without occupation and because of the negative ramifications of media coverage and celebrity/public backlash the US decided to cut their losses and pull out before anymore money was spent and lives were lost. ultimately it was the right decision made far too late

Exactly

If youre white and you like asians youre retarded

all youre doing is reinforcing my opinions

did you even read what i wrote you dumb nigger

No, I'm introducing information into your opinions that you're either unaware of or purposely ignoring. The Vietcong were not the superior fighting force, they "won" because they got tired of chasing insurgents through the jungle for no meaningful gain. As I said, the Vietcong had 10x more casualties than the US, but just winning engagements doesn't win a war

honestly i didnt

I mean at least you're honest

so youre saying americans did not die? they never lost an engagement? are you stupid? do you not realize what im trying to say? it was stupid war, bad politics, many dead people on both sides. get that through your thick skull

i hate you

Attached: people-3060107_960_720.jpg (960x640, 221.52K)

No, I never said Americans didn't die. I never said it was a good war. I never said it was good politics. I said the U.S. wasn't beaten by Vietnam's military might, which they weren't.

usa was beaten by superior will of north vietnam and by jewish communist media and upper class bolsheviks at home.

ok whatever you say buddy

it's a fact. the war effort was undermined at home and north vietnam didn't care about casualties. usa went home, ergo lost the war.

yup, they lost the war despite winning the majority of battles. glad we could reach an agreement

Attached: 1462954497195.jpg (1250x1080, 261.58K)

i'm not that guy, i dont disagree that usa won the battles. it's just clear that casualties matter more than tactical victories, and north vietnam won the war strategically. shows you how stupid the american general staff is and how worthless the political leadership (both parties) is

damn, more?

There's no need to put "won" in scare quotes like that. North Vietnam won the war fair and square.
The objective of the Vietcong (and the PLA) was to drive Capitalist/Western forces out of Vietnam
The objective of the US and Western allies was to preserve the South Vietnamese government.
US and allied forces withdrew from Vietnam and South Vietnam fell.

North Vietnam and China won the war.
Sure they took lots of casualties.
But they won.

Arguably, the fact that the vietnamese tactics won the war and the US's didn't, means the Vietnamese tactics were strategically superior, regardless of the local tactical situation in any given engagement.

yes to all except

no they failed tactically and won strategically
you can't back out "good tactics" just because someone won the war eventually, thats poor thinking

The North Vietnamese won that war in the US, not in Vietnam. US propaganda, Leftists, and mainstream media turned the US population against the war effort and sabotaged it from the inside. It was, plainly, treason.

One can use tactics that lose individual engagements but serve a strategic purpose beyond that engagement.
It's about perspective and subjective opinion reallly.

Sorry you can't be here and suck at getting good-looking women.

Truly, very sorry.

I feel for you. ノホモ

right, so shitty tactics with a strategic vision
shitty tactics are still shitty
we have to be rigorous or the definitions lose their meaning

You realize that Nixon's treason actually extended the war by several years beyond where it really should have been pulled out of yes?
The US was already planning to withdraw in '67 or '68, and Nixon played games behind the scenes to extend it, ultimately by 5 years.

Winning a war through a greater resilience to attrition is a legitimate (though horrific) strategy. The Russians do it regularly throughout history for example.

Uh, no offense guy, but you're completely off base. Operation Downfall was the American plan for the endgame of WWII in the Pacific. The plan was an invasion scheduled for November. Landings would have been near Tokyo in Honshu and near the southern tip of Kyushu. The Soviets did not formally enter the Pacific theater of war until August 9th of 1945, coinciding with the bombing of Nagasaki. The Soviet decision was largely based on the knowledge of the American bomb and a ploy to grab territory in northern Manchuria. The Japanese surrendered not due to the American bombs but because they knew a land war with the Americans and the Soviets was hopeless.

There was never any plan for American troops in the Chinese mainland. All strategic air power was to come from the Marshall Islands (Saipan, Tinian, Etc) and tactical/recon from Okinawa or from US Navy carrier groups. Setting up bases in mainland China would have taken into 1946 and therefore would delay Operation Downfall. Had the Soviets not declared war, which in turn was caused by the atomic bombs, a land invasion would have been necessary. Had the bombs not been dropped, the invasion would have proceeded as scheduled. Allied casualty estimates were around 1,000,000 US/Allied personell and 10,000,000 Japanese.

You have a point that Japan may have submitted eventually without the bomb, but it was the bomb that prompted the Soviets to act. Without the Soviets in Manchuria (prompted by the bomb) and no Invasion the war would have lasted easily into 1947. Couple this with the secretly received German aircraft and rocket tech that had been taken to Japan via submarine, perhaps the war might have lasted even longer.

End of day, it was atomic bomb or invasion. Thakfully for all parties involved it was the bomb.

>right, so shitty tactics with a strategic vision
As I said, perspective. From a tactical perspective they can be shitty, but from a strategic perspective they can be effective.
I agree with you that in the context of individual, more traditional engagements, Vietcong tactics were much less effective.

Jesus, checked.

Attached: 1507886649674.jpg (1024x768, 94.33K)

Quadsgate scandal up in here.

Attached: 1577761955086.png (500x441, 92.17K)

extremely cancerous and gay history channel court historian wisdom you're peddling there bucko

clearly you havent heard of joint board 355 or anything else of consequence, just repeating some war propaganda you heard from your dad's generation

Straw-man and ad hominem attacks are not an argument.

Attached: 1573421462964.jpg (720x405, 20.98K)

well what do you expect me to say when you write that "the invasion would have gone on as planned" and 1 million americans would have died? how many americans died in the entire war, btw, not just one operation?

the "planned" invasion was propaganda cover to explain why they dropped the bombs on a country desperate to surrender. all the jps wanted was to keep the emperor, i.e. not unconditional surrender, and the usa wouldnt agree. you got the arrows reversed.

you cant even think this through, or dont want to. because you're attached to a gay myth.

go read about joint board 355

Casualties does not mean K.I.A. Casualties mean killed/wounded/missing/or otherwise take out of action. Us war dead in WW was roughly 400,000 for the entire war. However, wounded was over 650,000 and that doesn't include missing. You (again) failed to refute my argument.

Secondly, there was shady and questionable stuff going on on both sides. A preemptive plan to bomb a country that is encroaching on your own nations interests (Philipines, etc.) is entirely justifiable. Also, everyone forgets that landings in the Philippines started the same day at the Pearl Harbor attacks. Looking back, 355 SHOULD HAVE GONE FORWARD. Unfortunately it didn't and we got years of island hopping and punji sticks.

If a country is so desperate to surrender, why employ civilian militias and suicide tactics? The code of Bushido and devotion to the Emperor brainwashed the Japanese people into fighting the Allies with such tenacity as they believed we wouldn't show mercy (as they had shown none in China).

The Emperor himself overruled the ruling military junta in order to surrender. The top brass wanted to keep fighting.

Learn history, from all sources not just slanted conspiracy sites just because you want to seem cool, you simple minded neanderthal.

>A preemptive plan to bomb a country that is encroaching on your own nations interests (Philipines, etc.) is entirely justifiable.

The cretinous american imperialist reveals himself at last. You don't care about deaths or casualties or humanitarianism. You're perpetuating world war 2 myths and propaganda because you're the same kind of scum that brought about the war in the first place, then claimed to be the good guys. "Just here to help."

"Yeah I know we nuked hundreds of thousands of civilians, but didn't the Japanese rape some women? No evidence? Well, let's convinct them anyway. We just did it at Nuremberg."

All nations commit horrendous actions all the time. It's a part of what nations do. Under the doctrine of total war anything and anyone who can be of use to the state is a legitimate target. This has been the case since the dawn of human history. War is a devilish business and there are no good guys, just bad guys and worse guys. The sooner you accept this, the clearer things are.

I'm not about to argue the Holocaust. That's a subject of much nuance and debate that would take essays to address. People died in the camps, period. Did they die as the stories say, debatable, probably more died from starvation. Was Nuremburg justified? Yes. Why? To the victors go the spoils, anything else would have caused a loss of face with the masses and with the tenuous power structure of Europe, Balkanization could have occurred.

You still have yet to provide evidence that Operation Downfall was "a cover" or a "myth made up to justify the bombings" Until you do so my argument stands.

By your own logic, you have revealed yourself as a sympathizer with the Nazis. Counterance to this?

What planet do you live on that there is "no evidence" of atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire? The Rape of Nanjing, the Batan Death March, the acts committed in Manilla, these are all well documented. There is also evidence of horrendous acts committed by the Allies on all fronts. What is your point? That war is bad? It's bad, we get it, sing in a drum circle, that doesn't change that it exists.

In short, I am not arguing morality, I am arguing facts and strategy. If you are so confident, cite your sources.

Truman and Macarthur were staging for an invasion when the bomb became an option.
My great grandfather wrote home that his unit was planning to deploy to iwo jima for the invasion.
>he was mad as hell about it too

yeah you started out arguing that nuking japan was good because it saved lives. now you're saying that there is no morality, and the ragnar redbeard argument is the correct one. so you're either confused or retarded.

then you say more about morality, then say you're not about morality, just facts. very cringy.

your "facts and strategy" are literally the same thing that's found in every television show and every official pronouncement about the war from the side of the winners. it's M Y T H

I argued that the war ended not because of the bomb, but the Soviets entering the war because of the bomb. You argued that the invasion was a myth and implied that the bomb saved lives. The Soviets entering the war as result of the bomb is what ended the war. This saved lives. I never argued about the morality of it, I simply stated statistics. Who's confused or retarded?

Winners get to write history. This is the truth of the matter. If losers got to write history then Oliver Cromwell would be canonized instead of reviled.

Explain how there is any myth to my claims? user directly above you () cites direct evidence from a secondary source that Operation Downfall was gearing up through the summer of 1945. Counterpoint?

You're not impressing anyone when you twist arguments or attack arguments that aren't there. You have still yet to provide evidence of a myth being perpetuated. It's not that hard. Cite a source. How hard can it be to counter what has been backed up with film, photographs, documents, testimonies etc since the 40s. Life isn't always a conspiracy, put away the tinfoil hat.

Think before you talk.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

>life's not always a conspiracy
>laughingwomen.jpg

You said "just bad guys and worse guys." You can't help but bring morality into it. You said a "land invasion would have been necessary." To whom? For what purpose? You've already drunk the kool-aid, and all you can do is re-justify what's already happened.

>The Soviets entering the war as result of the bomb is what ended the war. This saved lives.
As opposed to what? You fully support the nukes, the war, the invasion, all for the colonial empire. You love it. You'd probably support Operation Northwoods too.

Myths are tales that create meaning. You have internalized the tales about the justifications for the war in the pacific without any self-reflection. This is your myth, and the myth of millions and millions of Americans. It's not much connected with facts and it's believed on faith.

Beautiful.

Oh look, it's time for another butthurt amerishart 'akshully we really won the vietnam war if you look closely at it!' thread.

Sage and rice pilled.

Attached: It was a tie 111one11one11.jpg (330x914, 185.1K)

The average Indian and Chinese girls are top tier!