(January 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm)Saerules Wrote: War is despicable, and all fighting hurts. I think the (real) reason that the EU hasn't attacked china or the US yet is simply: they couldn't pull it off, even if they all miraculously did come to a decision on that. Not to mention that neither the china or the US have done enough to make such an alliance against them even considered in the vein of justice.

I'm no talking about military punishments, i'am talking about economic punishments

Ashendant Wrote:I'm no talking about military punishments, i'am talking about economic punishments

Somehow, i think that not trading with world's third largest exporter and its largest importer would be a huge mistake for any country not at war with it. The economy of all affected parties would.... really suck. Granted, it's punishing the united states most... but it would also be punishing the EU in terms of hundreds of billions.

The military punishments are bad, but you are right that the economic punishments are hardly a thing to scoff at.

The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

If there were to be World War 3, I wouldn't know who would win, as China is now the current economic super power.

With that considered, who do you think is propping up North Korea? China.

Knocking them away from North Korea enough to let it die most likely would be ridiculously difficult. Also, the North Korea leaders have been dealing with a near mutinous populace for a long time. They dealt with it through indoctrination, starvation, mass murder and careful application of terror. I bet that even if everything to North Korea was blocked, including food, they'd still manage to find a way to keep their populace in check.

What happens to people who stand up to those with guns? Nothing good.

So no, I don't think that pure economic punishments would work, proof being current North Korea. They'd rather starve swathes of their population and blame it on the same foreigners who have queasy stomaches and sooner or later, fold and give food aid.

It's bloody convenient.

---

---

(January 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Japan's civilians were irrelevant to the equation, Sae. On Saipan and Okinawa many killed themselves rather than surrender. They were just as nuts as the soldiers. What had to be broken was the will of the military leadership ( there was no civilian government) to resist and that was easier said than done. Do you know that after the atomic bombings and after the Emperor had decided to surrender there was an attempted military coup on the palace grounds by the Imperial Guards led by a few fanatical officers? They wanted to rescue the emperor from the "evil men" who advised him to surrender. The coup failed and the leaders killed themselves but the fact that it happened at all tells you all you need to know about the Japanese mind-set in 1945. The populace was already blasted by incendiary bombings and a submarine blockade. In July, 1945 American carrier groups danced around the home islands with impunity. The war was lost....but it was not over.

The Germans, in contrast, were far more pragmatic than the Japanese. But surrender in European warfare was accepted.

Too true. Japan was near irreparable - the atomic bomb did however contributed to instability and scared the Emperor shitless. It demoralized him and made clear that continued war was impossible. Though it is impressive how even in the face of annihilation, a group of fanatics nearly doomed the whole nation to fire.

(January 3, 2011 at 1:03 pm)Saerules Wrote:

Germans Wrote:Japan's civilians were irrelevant to the equation, Sae. On Saipan and Okinawa many killed themselves rather than surrender. They were just as nuts as the soldiers. What had to be broken was the will of the military leadership ( there was no civilian government) to resist and that was easier said than done. Do you know that after the atomic bombings and after the Emperor had decided to surrender there was an attempted military coup on the palace grounds by the Imperial Guards led by a few fanatical officers? They wanted to rescue the emperor from the "evil men" who advised him to surrender. The coup failed and the leaders killed themselves but the fact that it happened at all tells you all you need to know about the Japanese mind-set in 1945. The populace was already blasted by incendiary bombings and a submarine blockade. In July, 1945 American carrier groups danced around the home islands with impunity. The war was lost....but it was not over.

I knew about the suicides, but not about the military coup :S Than you for setting me straight on this matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident


This article appears to have been translated (poorly) from Japanese(?) but it gives the gist of the plot.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

Great Britain (UK) with its empire was the world's economic superpower in question back then, not the USA. America supplied resources late into the war, profiteered and emerged in the aftermath as a global power while Europe lay in ruins. The single biggest contributor to the allied war effort was the Soviet Union, non-holy-crap, they practically bore the brunt of the German military, and those battles at Stalingrad were some of the bloodiest ever in mankind's history.

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

Someones been watching too many hollywood films.

(January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

Someones been watching too many hollywood films.

Agreed and wikileaks just proves how unreliable america is

Oh and forcing the pope to accept GM crops trough lobbying, believing it will stop the right in the eu states from fighting it.

(January 3, 2011 at 4:03 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(January 3, 2011 at 2:49 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

Great Britain (UK) with its empire was the world's economic superpower in question back then, not the USA. America supplied resources late into the war, profiteered and emerged in the aftermath as a global power while Europe lay in ruins. The single biggest contributor to the allied war effort was the Soviet Union, non-holy-crap, they practically bore the brunt of the German military, and those battles at Stalingrad were some of the bloodiest ever in mankind's history.

Britain was hardly the only economic superpower after 1900. Both Germany and the US have outstripped the British empire in GDP and such industrial production bench marks as steel production by 1900. By 1919 Britain had lost her position as the center of world finance to the US. By 1923 Britain had also conceeded she could no longer maintain her traditional role as the leading naval power and accepted American naval parity by treaty. By 1938 British internal policy had conceded naval superiority to the US, and also conceded the empire in India would be lost in 10 years and stopped training civil servants and colonial administrators for the raj. So hardly could Britain still claim to be the economic superpower at the beginning of WWII. At that time US industrial capacity was 3 times that of Britain and exceeded the combined industrial capacity of England, France and Germany combined.

Quote:The US singlehandedly turned the tide for World War 2 with it's economic might.

Germany was pretty well beaten by the time we got seriously involved. The Battles of Moscow, Leningrad and the previously mentioned Stalingrad had done them in. By the time we landed in Normandy we were going up against the German 4th string.

We did supply the Russians with a lot of stuff we had little use for...M3 (Grant) tanks and the P-39 interceptor which we ( and the Brits) found was utterly useless in air-to-air combat. The Russians turned them into ground attack planes with some success.


The Japanese were already beaten before they attacked Pearl Harbor.

There is no such thing as already beaten before the war. If there were then we look awfully silly losing half million men beating a dead horse.

Germany is not beaten in dec 1941. She came close enough to winning the Uboat war in 1942 - 1943 inspite of the US that if the us didn't come into the war, she still had a good chance of knocking Britain out by end 1942. Moscow and stalingrad not withstanding, the 1943 campaign on the eastern front was a close enough thing, while threat of western allied invasion sufficient effected Germany strenghth, timing and disposition in the east, that I think it likely the Germans could fight USSR to a stand still if it weren't for Britain and us.