History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Dachs]

I don't know, that can cut both ways. It would also be easier to defend the beachheads after the initial landing. And if the allies landed in several places (which they could controlling the Mediterranean and the air) the germans would have a hell of a time to dislodge them. If they sent large forces to oppose landings in Greece they'd risk having them cut off by new landing on their backs - Greece being a peninsula and all. Also, partisans in the southern balkans were strong enough to hamper their communication lines.

Small beachheads can be sealed off more easily from the land - making them effectively useless for interdicting supply routes or causing distress, while involving a much higher expenditure of supply on the part of the landing force. Air-dropping supplies would be extremely difficult, given the state of the terrain around most any beaches, but especially in the Balkans. From a military point of view, the whole idea would make me extremely uneasy. High-risk, but the potential payoff isn't all that great.

 

[Arakhor]

If you right-clicked on it, you'll easily be able identify it as being from XKCD.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't really think too much

A revelation indeed.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I've heard that representatives from "all catholic countries" were present at the Council of Trent, can anyone tell me if that's true or not, and if there was anyone from the New World were present there?

 

[Dachs]

I've heard that representatives from "all catholic countries" were present at the Council of Trent, can anyone tell me if that's true or not, and if there was anyone from the New World were present there?

Maybe if it counts "representatives" as "guys who stayed for a few months and left" and "guys who were ignored on all the really interesting topics". The whole thing was overwhelmingly managed by Italian and Spanish prelates.

Dunno if any New Worlders were there, and since you could claim that the Spanish empire in the New World was comprised of multiple nations hahahahaha?

 

[privatehudson]

Overkill9:

I have read a lot of books that are either about D-Day or discuss it, everything from famous works by well respected authors to popular history books. I imagine that every single one of them uses the term invasion at some point. I haven't of course checked them all because quite frankly I have better things to do than spend an evening reposting quotes from various books*, but its hard to imagine that they do not. Even a cursory glance through two of them (Beevor's D-Day and Ryan's The Longest Day) supports this.

Are you seriously suggesting that distinguished authors such as Anthony Beevor, Cornelius Ryan, Chester Wilmot and Richard Holmes to name but a few are so blinkered that they would intentionally and repeatedly use biased terms in their book?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that they are completely unaware of the negative connotations of the term and use it in a careless manner? Such a claim is not supported by the general quality of their work.

Most people do not see a negative connotation to the term Invasion. Besides, its not like we have to use invasion exclusively anyway. Most authors will use a variety of words to describe the Allied assault on Europe for example liberation, landing, campaign and invasion. The term is just one way that can and should be used to describe say the D-Day landings, or the landings in Italy.

Is it not just easier to accept that in this case you are in the minority with regards to how you view the term invasion?

*As an aside, that is why people sometimes tend to turn to online sources. Not because they don't have access to and knowledge of a wide range of sources, but rather because its a damn sight easier to point to a link that provides a summary of the evidence than point someone to a series of books that the other person may not even own.

Many of the posters on this forum have shown time and again that they are well read, knowledgeable and able to support their claims. Just because you were directed to wikipedia doesn't mean that the person lacks the knowledge to support their arguments.

 

[privatehudson]

(It probably says something about my reading habits than when I see "PCH", I instinctively trying to figure out which Communist Party it's referring to. )




(I checked, btw- turns out it's Honduras.)

 

[Dachs]

I think there's a bad connotation to the word "invasion", but it's a fairly specific one, namely, it makes people think of D-Day in situations like the French invasion of England during the rebellion against John, or in association with the Hengest and Horsa myth surrounding the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

This leads to ridiculous stuff like the wooden Higgins boats in Robin Hood and the notion of a broad-front centrally controlled military campaign in the freaking fifth century.

 

[privatehudson]

I think there's a bad connotation to the word "invasion", but it's a fairly specific one, namely, it makes people think of D-Day in situations like the French invasion of England during the rebellion against John, or in association with the Hengest and Horsa myth surrounding the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

This leads to ridiculous stuff like the wooden Higgins boats in Robin Hood and the notion of a broad-front centrally controlled military campaign in the freaking fifth century.

Trust you to come up with something like this

 

[overkill9]

A revelation indeed.

Typical. I thought you might jump on that, does it feel good to chew on a bone thrown your way?

Cutlass:

I think the way many people like to think we got 'lucky' or 'only because we had more resources' in terms of pacific war is really feeding that masturbatory excuses of the defeated.

Let me outline this: Japan at the time as we all know had decades of fighting wars and traditions of military power. Many of the veterans Marines faced in pacific were units rerouted to the pacific from sino theatre to counter our advances. In a war, battle experience and determination often trumps equipment and opportunistic advantages to that regard. Japanese had up to that point supposedly were battle hardened soldiers, as their propaganda often trumpeted.

Also, in the beginning America was fighting with inferior equipment, namely the aircraft of naval aviation. Zero could outturn, outrun, and out maneuver our planes, and their numbers were at comparable parity it ours. Not to mention, their pilots were supposedly hard trained and basically 'supposedly' overclassed US as one of if not the most formidable modern navy in the pacific.

In contrast, US had only last fought in WW1, which was primarily a land affair in regards to the fact that U-boat campaign was destroyer and sub's hide and seek game. We didn't have much naval experience, nor jungle fighting. Our men were fresh green troops, and NCOs were the same overall with few exceptions. Most importantly, with 'Europe FIRST' policy, majority of our resources were diverted to european theatre.

Also, if you count in the numbers of reinforcements (also the 30,000 japs versus 60,000 on gudacanal is a bit misleading, US had much more proportion in terms of support and POG units, so in terms of direct combat personele the numbers were at a parity) and the fact that japanese were fighting from one of the most defensible terrains (jungle), then the obvious truth becomes clear:

Japan had all the possible advantages, yet they not only lost but lost decisively in each and every engagement, aside from a few where they managed to achieve victories in either loopsided engagements, or pyrrihic victories while still supposedly fighting with better equipment and better trained and 'superior' personnel. In almost all engagements, we achieved casualty ratio far superior to that of the japanese, which is ridiculous in that defending party in such a defensible position and supposed 'superior' soldiers could not only not repel the attackers but lost without inflicting even same number of permanent losses to the enemy (many of the 'casualties' for US count EVERYTHING, including that one joe who tripped and twisted his ankle for the sake of keeping accurate records - many of the wounded easily recovered and returned to duty). This reality quashes any masturbatory fantasies revisionists have about how we won only because 'we had more things', when they had better training, battle experience, better equipment in vital areas, and of course not even paying their forced laborers from colonized nations who died working in coal mines, while we paid our soldiers, our laborers, and others way more than they ever did, bearing the burden of that in addition to supplying a hugely expensive war.

They had the oil from south east asia, man power from conscripted forces, and every other conceivable advantage. They still lost, not only lost but lost badly. This proves that their fantasies of 'losing because of materials' flies in the face of reality that they do not wish to admit, because doing so would force them to acknowledge their inferiority without any convincing excuse.

You say we got 'lucky', yet I find that what most people call luck is when effort, preparation, and tenacity meets opportunity. Especially in midway, where US troops had less carriers, inferior planes, and were at defense. Even using cryptography as an excuse is pathetic (THEY CHEATEDDDDD) since it could not deliver minute-to-minute tactical situation which was realized not by luck or cryptography, but the tenacity of american airman and willingness to go above and beyond to achieve their objectives in the face more superior number of japanese opposition.

Really, they have no excuse to make themselves feel better. I do recall at one time how a jap was trumpeting that it has been 'scientifically' proven that japanese can use both sides of the brainpower compared to others and is therefore 'superior' to others. When I asked "Then how come your economy aside from the bubble is similar to our population ratio in terms of GDP, and haven't recovered from 1980s?" he sputtered with excuses about 'materials'. Than I asked him, "If you are using both your brains and we are only using half of ours, yet you still can't keep relative success above what is expected of population ratio, what does that tell you about yourself?". He had no more words to tell.

Really, the fantasies of some people.

Edit:

PrivateHudson:

Your response is understandable and valid in some points. However, you missed the vital core of my 'contentions' when pointing these things out: What I am talking about and being opposed to not, in the most essential and fundamental sense, the fact that these words are used by historians (although given the example of what I put out as neutral vs. loaded terms , I think you may be able to see that whether majority as you claim do not hold negative connotations it can still be unfairly used by those trying to pass off biased statement as reality while pointing to a small miss in historian neutrality that they exploit as 'good and credible sources said this too'), but the fundamental mentality behind those using such terms in loaded ways when, if what you say is true, the original authors did not intend it that way - to portray a certain nation or group in a bad light by manipulating and playing word games with loaded meanings.

Your idea is noted however, and I can see where you are coming from is a reasonable one. However, I must caution you that one must distinguish being able to talk about 'correct' facts and actually being able to walk the talk - the same way being able to use something does not mean you suddenly become the embodiment of what you are using itself and gives you a position of being more 'knowledgeable'. That passes over many people's heads, as many have already demonstrated.

 

[Bowsling]

Would you care to point out to me the last major naval war that Japan fought in (the Russo-Japanese War doesn't count)?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Maybe if it counts "representatives" as "guys who stayed for a few months and left" and "guys who were ignored on all the really interesting topics". The whole thing was overwhelmingly managed by Italian and Spanish prelates.

Actually the single line in the documentary I'm transcribing that prompted this said 'bishops arrived from every Catholic nation, but decisions were controlled by the Spanish and Italians.'

 

[LightSpectra]

You heard it here first, folks: in addition to all Japanese-Americans deserving to be 'strung up' for having the audacity to not be white in the United States circa 1943, the 'Japs' as well were clearly inferior to Americans because they had every imaginable advantage against the country that quadrupled their war-time production and population. Good thing we have zealous advocates like overkill to courageously debate against racial neurologists, as recounted in his anecdote about why patriotic white supremacists will always trump the Japanese.

 

[Dachs]

Actually the single line in the documentary I'm transcribing that prompted this said 'bishops arrived from every Catholic nation, but decisions were controlled by the Spanish and Italians.'

Well then! I'm glad I was able to contribute oh so much to your understanding of Tridentine attendance

 

[ParkCungHee]

Eh, you helped pique my interest. I'll add it to the "to read" pile.

 

[overkill9]

Light spectra: Now you can't handle a bit of criticism and still got something on you to mention it back because you are so bitter about it even now? Thank you for letting everyone know

I thought some people might jump in and try to portray the word 'inferior' as a racially motivated term like you just did You are like a moth drawn to a flame sameway you need to stick your nose into this conversation. No where did I say they are racially inferior - they were inferior in terms of fighting abilities, governmental policies, and general fighting a war against an enemy that was not improverished, backwards, or otherwise sleeping. Yet, you so eagerly try to portray the things I say as a racially motivated statement, only by your subjective wish that I really am doing so. Same thing was with the previous arguments, in addition to only treating them mainly because of what is commonly called self-fulfilling prophesy syndrom many so called victims fell into and now try to blame others for actions they themselves would have gladly taken at the smallest of opportunity in far worse measure (look up Kanto Earthquake of 1923), which btw you bailed out of and now is coming back to bark about it some more.

Edit:

The 'quadrupled' production and materials were, bear in mind, being used to supply everyone from europe, USSR, and to lesser extent china although that was minute. I also mentioned the europe first policy and how we were pretty much playing with a hand and leg tied up, while japanese were rerouting their best troops away from china while replacing their army there with conscripts, all the while TAKING the resources from southeast asia, and of course not paying a dime to slave workers who were worked far more than american laborers in mines to their deaths. Your effort at trying to portray japan as undersupplied, and underequipped opponent falls flat in the face of reality. If anything, what you say can only prove at best that they were incompetents who did not use the resources to the best of their abilities, or supply them as well as others. I guess being called an incompetent is better and easier to swallow, although even that is false.

 

[privatehudson]

Overkill9:

I didn't miss your contention, I do not agree that the use of invasion by the original poster (PCH) was an example of a biased or loaded statement by him any more than I believe that say Beevor's frequent use of the term implies the same. It was a throw away remark about a daft British plan, it hardly strikes me as a shining example of anti-British bias, let alone anti-American.

A person can only maniuplate a word and add loaded meaning to it if most people associate that word with such a loaded meaning. For example using the term "concentration camp" in the sense of "The British invented the concentration camps" has loaded meaning since many people can't appreciate the difference between a concentration camp like Bergen Belsen and a death camp like Auschwitz-Birkenau, so might assume the British invented the idea of gassing undesirables with production line efficiency.

I would contend that in the case of "invasion" most people do not automatically associate it with the negative description you gave.

Your point about talking the walk is precisely what I meant in the closing remark of my last post. I have had disagreements with many of the posters on this forum, but I respect the majority of the people here based on the experience of reading their informative and well researched statements in the past.

 

[overkill9]

Overkill9:

I didn't miss your contention, I do not agree that the use of invasion by the original poster (PCH) was an example of a biased or loaded statement by him any more than I believe that say Beevor's frequent use of the term implies the same. It was a throw away remark about a daft British plan, it hardly strikes me as a shining example of anti-British bias, let alone anti-American.

A person can only maniuplate a word and add loaded meaning to it if most people associate that word with such a loaded meaning. For example using the term "concentration camp" in the sense of "The British invented the concentration camps" has loaded meaning since many people can't appreciate the difference between a concentration camp like Bergen Belsen and a death camp like Auschwitz-Birkenau, so might assume the British invented the idea of gassing undesirables with production line efficiency.

I would contend that in the case of "invasion" most people do not automatically associate it with the negative description you gave.

Your point about talking the walk is precisely what I meant in the closing remark of my last post. I have had disagreements with many of the posters on this forum, but I respect the majority of the people here based on the experience of reading their informative and well researched statements in the past.

It is an interesting point. Let's just say the weight I put on one's intentions behind their words is much more different in terms of how a person's careless remarks should be handled than in 'normal' sense of the word. You point is noted, but we can agree to disagree on that.

Bowsling:

You cannot possibly discount the war of 1905 when talking about modern japanese naval history, or say that had no bearing on japanese being more experienced. That is simply false - if anything, japanese expertise (at least at the same level as to switch over to carriers far better informed ones) in that area only serves to highlight the absurdity of their claims about losing a war due to 'lack of materials'. Lack of materials later on made them lose a war faster than it would have - it did not change the essential face of war as many revisionists like to think.

Americans didn't even have that in 1905, and they still won. Tell me just how damning this looks by any unbiased 3rd party observer. This is the fact, and if some people cannot swallow it that does not make it false, no matter how much they wish it so.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It is an interesting point. Let's just say the weight I put on one's intentions behind their words is much more different in terms of how a person's careless remarks should be handled than in 'normal' sense of the word.

So you are now an expert on judging my intentions?

 

[overkill9]

So you are now an expert on judging my intentions?

Feeling a soft spot getting hit? I don't even recall mentioning you. Why are you piping up now?