Help support TMP


"Why We Fight: The Battle of China " Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Media Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land
World War Two at Sea
World War Two in the Air

Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Command Decision: Test of Battle


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Cheap Buys: 1/300 Scale Hot Wheels Blimp

You can pick up a toy blimp in the local toy department for less than a dollar.


Featured Workbench Article

Miscmini Paints AIM's 15mm Polikarpov I-16

Somehow, miscmini Fezian finds himself in the Workbench with several 15mm scale Russian WWII fighters...


Featured Profile Article

War at Sea: Task Force Preview

Paul Glasser previews the upcoming expansion set for War at Sea.


794 hits since 26 May 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0126 May 2018 10:40 p.m. PST

""The Battle of China," Chapter VI of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series, explains why the Empire of Japan possessed such a strong interest in ruling the disparate lands of China. In an attempt to break the will of the Chinese people in one massive assault, Japan invades Nanking and massacres forty thousand civilians. The attack results in
an opposite effect, galvanizing the Chinese resistance and unifying the separate lands into a single Chinese identity. While the Japanese take control of all Chinese ports, hoping to cut off all resources from its victim, China's allies effectuate an engineering miracle. They construct the seven hundred mile long Burma Road over the mountains of
Myanmar, and set up a constant caravan of trucks to ship food and materiel to the Chinese armies, keeping them alive. Frustrated by their inability to conquer China, the Japanese turn their attention to the islands of the Pacific, and the United States."

See here

link


Amicalement
Armand

Cerdic27 May 2018 5:37 a.m. PST

"Effectuate"!!!!????

Who wrote this drivel?

Personal logo Stosstruppen Supporting Member of TMP27 May 2018 6:50 a.m. PST

Only 40,000? Try over 6 times that.

StarCruiser27 May 2018 7:28 a.m. PST

It's a word… look it up…

Cerdic27 May 2018 2:47 p.m. PST

Oh, yes. So it is…

link

JayM48127 May 2018 6:12 p.m. PST

It's in the real dictionary.

Cerdic28 May 2018 3:43 a.m. PST

So is eirenicon, but nobody ever uses that either.

So maybe it is just me being ignorant, never having heard the word? Apparently not. I've checked with the missus. She is an English teacher, went to Cambridge, has read thousands of books. She has never come across the word. Which suggests that it is not what you would call 'common usage'.

Now in my book, unless it is a very specific technical term, using a word not in common usage is generally done by pretentious Bleeped texts who wish to appear more intelligent than they actually are….

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP29 May 2018 2:48 p.m. PST

Dear Diary:

Today I learned a new word on TMP. Now if I can just figure out a real-world sentence in which I can use eirenicon, so all around me can be impressed …

JayM48129 May 2018 6:55 p.m. PST

There's another thread here that could probably use it.

Garde de Paris30 May 2018 12:30 p.m. PST

I am 81. I started going to the movies on Saturdays early in 1941, where Dad ran the projector. I turned 5 that August, so saw Rommel and the British fight it out across the north African desert.

I remember that word, but also the Rape of Nanking (I thought it was over 250,000 dead), and newsreels of a group of Japanese soldiers throwing a Chinese baby up into the air, and catching her on their bayonets.

Hollywood helped us learn to hate!

GdeP

hindsTMP Supporting Member of TMP02 Jun 2018 4:08 p.m. PST

Now in my book, unless it is a very specific technical term, using a word not in common usage is generally done by pretentious Bleeped texts who wish to appear more intelligent than they actually are….

Jack Vance wrote a novel entitled "Galactic Effectuator".

That's the only other place I recall seeing it used, but going into hysterics because you don't know what a word means makes you look intellectually insecure, IMHO. Just look it up, or not, and move on.

MH

Cerdic06 Jun 2018 2:18 p.m. PST

Well the meaning is easy enough to infer from the usage.

It's the pretentiousness that's causing the hysterics. I just hate that kind of pseudo-intellectual muppetry….

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.