An AH scenario, Japanese avoid WWII

You have been here long enough, to know better, but I will explain that links are used to SUPPORT SPECIFIC arguments (i.e., that someone is a "P.O.S.," is not a specific claim). A bunch of links, requiring your interlocutor to read through 4 articles, just to know what you are contending, does not substitute for your putting forth your own argument. List your allegations, from those articles, and I will decide which ones, if any, I would wish to see, for myself.

 

HIS intention to supply the communists.

 

Extremely knowledgeable.

 

I provided complete and very detailed substantiation.

 

That statement is incredibly uninformed.

 

Which was an ESSENTIAL PART, of ending the war in Europe, particularly without it dragging on much longer, and costing many more lives (if we would have won, at all). Again, you seem to have your time frames confused.

 

In other words, you didn't read them, don't intend to read them, and cannot refute them.

 

Elaboration?

Without some, your claim is meaningless, FYI.

 

Which means, IOW, that you have a very poor understanding of English.


I will shorten the reply, so as to be less likely to over- tax your abilities:

I am, for example, aware of the Tuskegee incident: I do not need to read an article, for that. But I know of no evidence that FDR knew anything about it. If your article offers substantiation of FDR's involvement in this, then I would want to read it. Otherwise, blaming a President for EVERYTHING that happens in a nation, especially the size of ours, is a patently bogus argument, which I need read nothing, in order to refute.

Do the distinctions, in that argument, supercede your powers of discernment?

 

Japan DID attack Russia.at about that time. The Battles of Khalkin Gol pretty much relieved Russia from concerns on their Eastern Front

Japan and Germany did cooperate some, particularly at the end but it is my opinion that the Germans were handicapped by the fact that the Japanese were inferior Asians even tho the Japanese view of themselves as "the Yamato race" was rather similar to the way the Germans saw themselves in the West.

 

It's been my strange opinion that the real post apocalyptic stories are our contemporary history after the Apocalypse not of WWIII but WWI. This views WWI and WWII as really the same war but with a 20 yr interregnum in the middle, not an unknown view among historical hobbyists

 

As to what?

 

I've heard that too, based on the idea that FDR really wanted us against Germany. Boy, that would have been a VICIOUS lie, wouldn't it? And wouldn't it have come out after the War for just that reason?

 

WTF?

 

It is unlikely that anyone here has an understanding of English as deep and extensive as mine.

 

The interwar period between WWI and WWII saw the rise in tyrannical, autocratic leaders. "Leaders" who cared nothing for democracy and everything for power. Many people at that time played the apologist for dictatorial ****** bags who would burn down the world for their own ambitions. Doing the same now doesn't make much sense.

 

Do you think that Stalin just woke up a totalitarian dictator one day? The SOB fdr was expressing support for that other paranoid, murderous SOB in the 1930s, and made it only more and more concrete through the 1940s. The Nazis being evil MFers doesn't mean there weren't lots of other evil MFers at the same time.

 

?? ??

 

And you're so modest too. Who are you, Trump?

 

FDR was doing what everyone else was doing. The West tolerated Hitler because they were afraid of Stalin and vice versa, they spent the 30's hoping that eventually the two would tear each other apart. The only one who said that idea was bollocks was Churchill and he was ridiculed for it but he was right in the end and then he was the one who said that he would ally with the devil himself if it meant Hitler's defeat.

 

Well you're the authority, according to you; so if you say so, I guess there's no other rational option but to put stock in your boast-- to the degree that we trust your opinion to always be right.

In other words: NO PROOF, of your allegations.

Again: NOTHING CONCRETE, only your opinion.
Before I come to an opinion, though, I'd better ask: is it likely that anyone here has an understanding of MFers, as deep and extensive as you (and understanding of history, too)?

 

As I recall that was an ongoing border skirmish, and it was in Mongolia, not the Soviet Union. Mongolia was very friendly with the SU, and the SU was heavily involved in the fighting, but it wasn't in any meaningful way an 'attack on Russia' or the SU. It was an attack on Mongolia that the Mongolians had share some of the blame for instigating. It all started with Mongolian herdsmen refusing to respect the borders of a territory the Japanese had newly awuired influence over. The herdsmen kept crossing to water their animals and after a while the Japanese got so tired of the repeated incursions that they eventually started shooting at the herders, and in typical Mongolian demeanor, they just started crossing more often in greater and greater numbers and shooting back. On a few occasions, full Japanese regular army units were actually wiped out by what amounted to Mongolian ancient cavalry but with uinting rifles instead of bows. It eventually escalated to a full war complete with fortifications and artillery and tanks. Pretty entertaining story actually. But not really representative of a real threat of Japanese invasion of Russia.

In some ways it was technically an attack on the Japanese army by mongolian farmers... sortof.

 

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ussr

 

https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib4/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10599/Interwar Totalitarian Rulers.pdf

 

As I said.

According to the sources I read it was a somewhat substantial mauling for the Japanese but I forget the sources so we will let your version stand. In any case it is recognized that Pearl Harbor was the main reason the Russians did not fear a Japanese invasion from the East