Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 2897 - 2901 (16-20 February 2015)
Zebediah:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 20 Feb 2015, 06:10 ---Off topic: I've just been over to the Subreddit. There is a long thread criticising Jeph for dissing them on Twitter and they're basically saying saying that he owes them. In fact, some are so angry that they're swearing off of QC because they can't tolerate the artist not liking their opinions. One or two are even trying to work out if a Subreddit-group boycott of QC would ruin Jeph and thus punish him for his disrespect. There was also the usual spiel about the strip having become boring.
Additionally, according to at least two posters, these forums are a moderator-heavy place dominated by sycophants where no seriously discussion of Claireten or the character of Claire is permitted. I actually consider that quite funny.
--- End quote ---
You know, until now I was only passively avoiding the QC subreddit. I wasn't in the habit of reading it, so it didn't require a conscious decision to stay away. But now I'm taking the matter into my own hands and actively, deliberately not ever going there.
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 20 Feb 2015, 21:10 ---You know, considering what I know of American history, I'm stumped as to what our finest hour could possibly have been.
We only get one, by definition. All of the contenders seem to mired in tons of really horrible stuff.
Considering all of this, I suspect our finest hour probably occurred when the majority of us were asleep.
--- End quote ---
A while back, somebody asked me who I thought of as an American hero. The name that immediately popped into my head was Rosa Parks. By that measure, America's finest hour was when Rosa Parks decided that she had put up with enough shit.
And yes, I know, there are megatons of horrible stuff surrounding that moment. It's heroic because of that horrible stuff.
Omega Entity:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 21 Feb 2015, 05:24 ---
--- Quote from: Boomslang on 21 Feb 2015, 02:00 ---I think, short of the capitulation of the US, the course of the war was more or less certain after Pearl Harbor, but the time frame was extremely flexible and could have swerved in either direction depending on events.
--- End quote ---
I don't think that the Imperial Japanese ever had any intention to invade the continental US. From the start, Yammamoto's war plan seems to have been to destroy the Pacific Fleet as an effective fighting force. He hoped that, if Japan made it impossible for the United States to project military force there, it would give up its own territorial claims in the Western Pacific (at least in the short term) and sue for peace.
That plan died with two key strategic failures:
* The failure to destroy the Pacific Fleet's carriers and shore facilities in Hawaii;
* The defeat at Midway.Although the Japanese Navy held its own for a year or so after Midway, the failure to secure control of the Western Pacific meant that they had no choice but to continue to fight a two-front war against the US in the Pacific and British Commonwealth forces in East Asia and Oceania. This was unsustainable and it was only a matter of time before attrition and the US's industrial capacity wore down Japan's earlier strategic, technical and tactical advantages.
--- End quote ---
The atom bombs also heavily factor in. I believe it was directly after the second one that they surrendered.
Dalillama:
--- Quote from: Omega Entity on 21 Feb 2015, 08:51 ---
The atom bombs also heavily factor in. I believe it was directly after the second one that they surrendered.
--- End quote ---
The influence of the bombs is heavily overrated; the Japanese high command was already discussing surrender, but wanted terms. Then the Soviet Army invaded and took one of the smaller islands, and they decided they'd rather surrender unconditionally (or almost; there were some provisions about the Emperor IIRC) to the U.S. than to the Soviets (which was a very good plan, based on what happened to the Eastern Bloc.)
pwhodges:
The second bomb, at least, was certainly unnecessary. My understanding is that it was dropped as an opportunity to test a difference in the technology.
Aziraphale:
There will always be debate over how much the bombs factored into Japan's decision to surrender. I get the feeling, though, that their use was aimed as much at Russia as it was at Japan. That may sound like an odd assertion to make, but if you look at our firebombing campaigns (especially Tokyo, which was every bit as cruelly devastating as what was visited upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki), it was entirely possible to achieve the same ends with conventional weapons (especially given the wooden construction used so much in many Japanese towns and cities, which contributed to the fires and subsequent loss of life). Atomic weapons had the same effect regardless of the city's topography or construction.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version