"At Least They are on our side this time ..." Topic

Japan marks WWII's end … but …

link

Did you expect something else?

Imagine if Germany did the same thing…

Yes, they work very hard to paint themselves as victims rather than as an aggressor.

A mate did some teaching (teaching English and learning their language) in Japan about 20 years ago (so may no longer be the situation). Their history text books taught that Japan was forced into the war by the "colonial powers", mainly the US and UK. The colonial powers fought the war to stop Japan from freeing the various subjugated peoples in the colonies via the South East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. He did say that how that basic history was presented varied from teacher to teacher, however, and Japan wasn't always presented as snow white.

What they never wanted to discuss (but some did know about) and weren't mentioned in the histories, were the atrocities and units like Manshu Detachment 731.

Which makes them the same as us. Australia, the US, the UK and other Allies (eg USSR) like to skip over the dirty details and atrocities committed by our own troops (with some exceptions- people who want to dig stories up and condemn all Allied forces on the basis of the few who committed atrocities).

What matters, just as it did with the USSR in 1941-45, is that we have another ally against a major threat to the status quo- the PRC- and that ally is sitting right on the PRC's door step.

i think Truman once said that he'd apologize for Hiroshima when they did the same for Pearl Harbor (and the Bataan Death March and the medical experiments on POWs and, well I could go on). H

Did you expect something else?

No … I guess not.

Also FWIW – All good posts IMO guys …

As I understand it this has a lot to do with classical Japanese culture and to some extent Shinto – plus some very very long standing rivalries in the Asian space

My wife's nephew married a Japanese woman. She's a lovely person, but until she moved to the US, she'd never even heard of Pearl Harbor.

Well, I don't think South Carolina has apologized for Fort Sumter yet, either.

My galpal at Ft. Campbell, KY a parachute rigger and was 1/2 Japanese … I was really crazy about her. Her Mamasan was from Osaka and daddy was a USAF MAJ.

I will count them as "on our side" when someone other than Japan is invaded, and we get Japanese help. In the meantime, I note that one of their new flattops is named the Kaga. Does the name sound familiar?

As regards South Carolina, one of my old History profs told me that a local museum held a cannonball Sumter had fired by way of counterbattery. It was labelled "The first shot fired in the War of Northern Aggression." Still, I'd trust South Carolinians of that sort to stand with the country.

Yes, I'd think the Japanese would help out in a conflict in the Pacific with other allies, e.g. Korea, Taiwan, Oz, etc.

But yes, the KAGA was one of the IJFs aircraft carrier in WWII. IIRC we sunk it at Midway. Along with 3 others.

FYI – The Germans are developing a new MBT named Panther after the WWII Pz. V. Maybe Panther II would be more accurate. But it looks like a real effective MBT, mounts a 130mm main gun, too.
link

Again they are on our side this time around …

Kaga. Yes, we all know that. And the choice of names--well, if the British name a new tank the Tarleton, we'll know how we rate with them.

Otherwise, Legion 4, are you taking anything for that optimism? Germany has at least a treaty obligation through NATO, and sent troops to Afghanistan, but a country which doesn't raise troops, buy or maintain weapons in any quantity or spend money on training isn't generally the sort of ally I look for--or count on. (We'll see whether they follow through on recent promise.)

And the Pacific alliance structure is different--and worse. The shorthand, if I remember, is "spokes and wheel." They have commitments to the US, but not to each other, so it's legally possible for each nominal US ally to refuse to fight or even to provide us with logistical support if another is attacked, hoping to be eaten last. And, given the US tradition of leaving allies in the lurch, I can't really say I'd blame them.

If they were convinced we'd win, there would be more enthusiasm. What was the bit from Gettysburg? "They'll come in on our side if we win, like some banker wants to loan you money once you're rich and don't need it no more."

A first-rate description of international diplomacy.

Germany counts autobahn upkeep as defence spending.

Germany counts autobahn upkeep as defence spending.

At least you can drive on the autobahn. :) We've wisely spent billions on the Zumwalt class, the LCS, Comanche helicopters, 3 attempts at Bradley replacements, etc.

At least you can drive on the autobahn. :)

LOL! You make a good point! :)

It seems Japan will need to change its constitution to be able to do anything other than self-defence.

The ANZUS treaty has no obligations other than to consult when a member is attacked. This is why Australia always joins in, in the hope that the USA will remember this when needed.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

the British name a new tank the Tarleton, we'll know how we rate with them.

Well some say the French are our best ally & the longest so … I still think the UK is our best ally ?

are you taking anything for that optimism?

The VA has me on some good meds. 💊

Well, when the 💩 hits the fan we'll have to see … hopefully we will never have to find out …

in the hope that the USA will remember this when needed.

Will depend on who is in office at the time in DC.

It's sort of amazing how quickly the Allies' urge to punish the perpetrators of the Second World War spent itself. Germany got the tougher treatment, and a lot of the Allies' vengeance spent itself on Tojo and Yamashita. The complicity with the crimes went very deep in both places- but the Allies didn't force the point, with the Cold War looming, and tried to address the national issue in other ways (NATO, Japanese constitution, etc).

It was instructive hearing about the Japanese from men who fought them, and I will confess that I'm a little irritated when I see groups of them at places like the "Intrepid" museum – for some reason, both times I've been, big groups of Japanese tourists were chattering away on the hangar deck around the exhibit on the kamikaze attacks.

I suppose they don't have any WWII carriers of their own they can visit.

@ 9pdr

After WW2 there was no reliable bulwark country in Asia against communism, so Japan had to fill that role. In Europe it was fine to crush Germany because there were other countries to hold that line.

@ Legion 4: here's a thought experiment. In a war, who would you rather have on your side, the French or the British?

Yeah, I know that. It's just that, at a visceral level, I know they fought an aggressive war in the dirtiest ways possible, and I suppose I expect a degree of societal repentance. I remember being in Germany once and seeing a little kid playing on a playground in a Wehrmacht helmet, and I was surprised how strongly I reacted (internally) to the sight. Yeah, I get that he didn't do it, etc, but that just seems like the kind of thing that should at least be bad manners. I mean, we are all expected to wear sackcloth and ashes over things that happened a century ago, but the Germans are still trying Nazi camp guards.

Personally, I would've advocated dynamiting the Yasukuni Shrine with Hirohito inside it to celebrate VJ Day, but that's why they put MacArthur in charge, rather than someone like me.

I suppose they don't have any WWII carriers of their own they can visit.

Well let there be no doubt, the US and other allies significantly attrited the IJFs.

here's a thought experiment. In a war, who would you rather have on your side, the French or the British?

Well of course both would be good. The FFL and the UK Forces would be a go for me ! 😎 BTW … FWIW … who has the larger military France or the UK ? IIRC France ? But again I'd like both to show up if need be !

IIRC, France opted out of NATO -- or have they since changed their minds?

Germany counts autobahn upkeep as defence spending.

As well they should as portions of the autobahn are emergency and dispersal airfields. For example:

link
link

Don, in 2009 France officially rejoined NATO's integrated military command structure from which they had withdrawn in 1966. They never fully left NATO.

Yes, that is the way I understood it … France is with NATO.

Don, France opted out of being under NATO (ie US) command. France demanded that all non-French NATO forces be removed from France (and they were). However they still maintained forces stationed in Berlin and the French Area of Occupation in Germany. They also stated they would abide by the treaty requirements in case of an attack on another NATO state, they were just exercising their rights to have independent control of their armed forces.

To me it smells of de Gaulle using nationalist sentiment for his own (political?) purposes, but that's just an opinion.

When deGaulle ordered the US out, LBJ sent in the US ambassador to ask whether that included US troops buried in French cemeteries. Never heard what deGaulle's reply was.

No, they were never officially "out." But they weren't very fat "in" either. Except for the Berlin garrison, no French units were anywhere near the border, they weren't part of the military command structure and, while I could visit neutrals without a passport, travelling on NATO orders, I couldn't get into France without a visa. I'm sure diplomats and senior military types on both sides kept in mind the possibility of a war in Germany which didn't involve France.

War crimes. Even in Germany, we let a lot of people skate the German government is now prosecuting. There are limits to how many people you can kill and lock up in an already devastated nation. But we prosecuted those we did for violating German laws and treaty obligations. Japan was less part of such a system. Care to go to New Guinea and prosecute tribes for taking heads? Enough, mostly, to convince them not to do it any more.

Ironically, the truth is almost the exact opposite: most Japanese war criminals were in at least technical violation of a code of laws that pre-dated the 1930s, but the Germans who committed the worst crimes built a defense on the claim that their actions were legal under German law, because the Germans (in their methodical way) had changed the rules to give the blessing of the law to their worst outrages. It forced the Nuremberg tribunal to create norms of international conduct and declare that the Germans, in violating them, had done something uniquely awful. Which, to be fair, is not a judgment most people have disagreed with.

The Japanese didn't so much seek to systematically kill off one designated group of people as they simply ran amok, acknowledging no limits to brutality where their opponents or conquered peoples were concerned.

Both of these approaches to war making were obscene, and both nations deserved (morally speaking) worse punishments than they got, once considerations of realpolitik and logistical feasibility took over.

@ Marc33594

The trouble is, they can't deploy autobahns to Kuwait or Afghanistan.

I am missing your point 4th Cuirassier. A lot of infrastructure is not deployable. I assume you are aware that from 2002 until the recent withdrawal the German military deployed some 150,000 troops to Afghanistan making them second only to the US in number deployed for that period.
link

To me it smells of de Gaulle using nationalist sentiment for his own (political?) purposes, but that's just an opinion.

That was my take on it.

I did not know the particulars, so thanks, guys, for that.

Or course, the U.S. is also usually averse to having our troops under anyone else's command. (But that's because we're Special.)

Nine Pound, can you sent me a reference? I'm not disputing your post, but I'd like to be better informed before I reverse myself. Too long since I did war crimes trials, and never in detail. Thanks.

Except for the Berlin garrison, no French units were anywhere near the border

Are you sure about that? My books are all in storage, so I can't confirm it, but according to online sources (always iffy) and my memory (extremely iffy, especially concerning my car keys and wallet) the French did maintain a brigade minus and some forward depots until at least '85. dG did withdraw most of the French forces, but had to leave some or see US and possibly British forces take over the French Occupation Zone, giving ammo to his domestic political opponents.

in Berlin only 2 regiments and some elements, if not there were 60 to 90 000 French military in the French zone between 1946 and 1990, in the last period one Corps with 3 Armored Divisions, so a war in Germany not envolving the French Army…hum…The French zone would have been annexed to Switzerland by decree maybe…like in the Laces Wars the Reds would have the courtesy to ask the permission to open the fire when they saw a french flag
the nuclear sanctuarized the French territory but not the French Army in Germany

indeed very bizarre those French, awful nationalists of course that is the great explanation, as I assume every country on earth is expecting to be a further US protectorate or colony why not a further State, they had a curious desire of Independence, sacrilege

probably the same politicians doing stupids comments about de Gaulle only animated by primary nationalism and the GI's burried in Normandy in 1966 were the sames who forgot the numerous stabs on the backs and others delicacies of the US policy against France, not remounting from the forgotten betrayal of the Jay Treaty until AUKUS, under de Gaulle, the very well known Roosevelt's heavily hostile anti-french policy until AMGOT and wishing to give Alsace to the Benelux, the US support to Viêt minh and algerian terrorists or communists opponents, 'carte blanche' to the Japs to eliminate the French in Indochina, delivering planes to the Siamese to help that but blocking those bought by France previously, concerning the general himself numerous attempts to eliminate de Gaulle between 1941 and 1968 like in a banana republic etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

let the Brits imagine they are the closest strongest allies of the US with their cherished 'special relationship', if not they will be traumatized until a general stroke and let the naive US public opinion about the generosity and goods intentions of the US policy in international affairs including the relationship quite special towards the oldest ally

De Gaulle the man to beat
the successive American administrations, starting with the the OSS (the ancestor of the CIA) then the CIA, have fired on all cylinders. From the most elaborate media manipulations to the clandestine financing of the General's adversaries, no dirty tricks spared him.

Why this hostility never denied, for three decades, when the founder of the Fifth Republic had been able to show himself to be America's strongest ally when, in the early 1960s, the nuclear apocalypse threatened? Because unlike other Europeans, the French president believed that friendship should never rhyme with vassalage.

Of all the guests of the White House, only one had the foresight to fully share this point of view: the unclassifiable Richard Nixon who, on de Gaulle's advice, did more for world peace than any of his predecessors (agreements on disarmament with Moscow, withdrawal from Vietnam, recognition of China, etc.).

Thanks to declassified archives, but also to unexploited and new testimonies, it is now possible to tell for the first time this "secret war of thirty years" which, from 1940 to 1969, pitted de Gaulle against the will to power of the UNITED STATES. While at the most crucial moments of the Cold War, the General's support always remained certain in Washington, the State Department and the CIA did everything possible to eliminate him from the international scene.

Or course, the U.S. is also usually averse to having our troops under anyone else's command. (But that's because we're Special.)

Well we usually have the lion's share of troops and equipment involved. And many of our allies are on the higher command staff, etc. So yes, we are "special" 😎…

Some very good points Lilain. I even agree with many of them. Regardless, as we see Realpolitik, etc., are the coin of the realm in the shadowy world of international politics, economics, etc.

let the Brits imagine they are the closest strongest allies of the US with their cherished 'special relationship', if not they will be traumatized until a general stroke and let the naive US public opinion about the generosity and goods intentions of the US policy in international affairs including the relationship quite special towards the oldest ally

Along those lines. Does not the French have a bigger military currently than the UK, IIRC ? As yes, they are both in NATO and our allies.

Of course, Lilian you are from France & a "Yank", we may see things differently on somethings. Our POVs are coming from two different places per se. Yet, the French, UK, Germans, and other NATO and non-NATO members were with the USA in A'stan after 9/11. As "an attack on one is an attack on all." …

As a sidebar, the Turks have the second biggest military in NATO. Behind the USA. But they always don't play like they are in NATO at times.

@ Marc

My point is simply that NATO members supposedly commit to a certain level of defence spending. Including into your reckoning of that what you spend on stuff you'd have spent anyway is gerrymandering to evade the commitment. If 99% of the upkeep of the autobahn is money you'd have spent anyway, 1% is all you should count as 'defence' spending.

The best quick read of the German legal position is probably the chapter of Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann In Jerusalem" entitled "Duties of a Law-Abiding Citizen," which summarizes Eichmann's attempt to make the argument in his own defense before an Israeli tribunal.

60 to 90 000 French military in the French zone between 1946 and 1990, in the last period one Corps with 3 Armored Divisions

Thanks for clarifying, Lilian. The "Brigade minus" I was remembering may have been the Franco-German Brigade, but I think that came later, after the fall of the USSR. It's been a long time since I studied "Cold War" Europe and remembering who had what, and where, is beyond me.

As for de Gaulle's motivation, it's easy to see him in that same light as politicians here, in the US and the UK, where so many decisions are taken purely from a perspective of self-interest. I honestly don't think that impression is totally wrong, either.

We are, of course, all talking "what if's" at this stage about any Cold War gone hot scenario. But by the nature of the zonal division, you could drive deep into Germany without encountering French troops, while American and British units were literally within rifle range of the Inter-German Border. A friend of mine used to play a detailed Fulda Gap game and observed that he couldn't find his own (platoon-strength) unit. Eventually he found the "designer's note" that he was sure to be wiped out before start of play on a "first day of the war" game. Exercises posited US, FRG and UK units, and assumed the French would come up later--"after we're all dead" not being spoken aloud.

If the Soviets had done everything the way we would have preferred--weeks of unprovoked diplomatic menace and loud mobilization--I'd have expected French support. If they'd given the French any sort of diplomatic out--"we're not out to conquer western Europe: only to clear out the fascists, of whom there are none in France"--the French were well placed to take advantage of it. Would they have done so? I'm glad I never had to find out.

Nine Pound, I'll read the Arendt piece, but is there anything bearing directly on the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials?

(Should note that I've run into material suggesting that Eichmann's defense was not altogether honest--think of that!--and that Arendt accepted at face value portions not true, but in accordance with her thesis.)

Not so much what-ifs as whether France withdrew completely from their NATO commitments. The French zone wasn't near the internal German border, so you're right about them not being near the border. But the impression, that the French withdrew from NATO completely, is just incorrect.

As for trusting the French to fight if the USSR launched westwards, it's the same question any NATO member could ask about any other- including the US- after elections, domestic unrest or a number of other "distractions".

Arendt's naïveté in accepting Eichman's self-portrayal is the thing she is most generally criticized for.

"Yes, they work very hard to paint themselves as victims rather than as an aggressor." Where have I heard this recently?