What do you think of Japan's militarization plans?

[Tuayapeh]

You have gone through the same brainwash. Did you vote for the PAP?

No , I did not . Did you ?

 

[Fook Seng]

Also, do not underestimate the "blood" ties of the Anglo-Saxon world, i.e. English speaking countries, UK, USA, Australia, NZ and Canada. They may see each other as one of themselves in a world conflict. It may well be a Clash of the Civilizations as per Samuel Huntington. So there will be blocs - and the most likely leader of the western world will still be the USA. Possible that it could be Germany but unlikely because of its past. Whatever it is, it won't be a China-dominated unipolar world - China also does not harbor such ambition.

Nobody is talking about GDP per capita here and quality of living. The US will still lead the world here but they will cede their crown as the dominant economic nation. You are right, the Anglo-Saxon world will still be aligned to the USA for some time to come but except for the UK, the rest are small economies. I have some doubt about Australia though as they are very dependent on China's need for their commodities. Germany I think is very likely. They are already having independent thinking. France is the country that is being played as a pawn because of its weakness.

 

[Travellor]

I do believe that the USA economic strength will pick up soon,,if their Gahmen can get things in control,,without all these Congress vs Senate and all the bullshit,,,USA has a huge private sector whereas Singapore has a huge Gahmen sector,,,

its the gahmen and taxes that need to be revamp in the USA for it to grow again,,,but with a paralysed Government, the rent seeking behaviour of the jews and so on,,,the USA is finding it hard to reform and move on,,

that is why the us need to fight wars continually so that they can jump and bounce up from the downturns....if it manages to stir up a war n the korean peninsula, it would be a dream come true...

 

[Fook Seng]

No , I did not . Did you ?

No. So why did you not vote for the PAP?

 

[Tuayapeh]

No. So why did you not vote for the PAP?

because everybody is scared of coming here to look for tuayapeh down here........

 

[Fook Seng]

that is why the us need to fight wars continually so that they can jump and bounce up from the downturns....if it manages to stir up a war n the korean peninsula, it would be a dream come true...

I don't think the South Korean want to start a war. Why would they with their economic ascension? The North Korean are only posturing.

 

[Tuayapeh]

No. So why did you not vote for the PAP?

Obviously , you should know the reason . Whatever needed to explain already been said in other thread . Don't have to repeat so many times .

 

[Fook Seng]

Obviously , you should know the reason . Whatever needed to explain already been said in other thread . Don't have to repeat so many times .

I voted the way I voted not because of any brainwashing but because of the history of this country I see it. Others see the history from another angle, maybe from a different period.

 

[Tuayapeh]

I don't think the South Korean want to start a war. Why would they with their economic ascension? The North Korean are only posturing.

Tuayapeh also agrees with you FS.

But the scheme is not for the koreans to stir it up and fight but for the Japanese to stir up enough shit by havng the war fought on that peninsula.....Good excuse for the americans to try to draw in the chinese and then fuck them nicely by killing their navy

 

[maozedong]

You are absolutely right that the USA most potent weapons are greed and fear. The purpose of Kissinger/Nixon normalization of ties with Communist China was to bring China into the US ambit - into the Petrodollar system so that the powers in USA can have another billion suckers to suck money from. So now we have hundreds of millions of poor factory workers in China toiling for a few USD a day to make profits for US corporations (e.g. Apple, Nike, etc) and corrupt Chinese officials.

It's sad but corruption has already eaten into the core of the Chinese government. Bo Xila, a son of the 8 immortals once destined to be a member of the Central Politburo Standing Committee, had millions stashed overseas. And he sent his son to boarding school in UK - hey don't you have confidence in your own country's schools - hey your country is an aspiring world power - and not any small country. And the coming President Xi Jinping's daughter is doing her Bachelors' in Harvard. Now, this is like sending a princess to your enemy country to study high school. I hope Xi is not doing this because he lacks confidence in China's own educational system - but because he wants his daughter to better understand the enemy. Bachelor's education nowadays is like high school eduction. If you send your princess to study Masters or PHD in some technology field in the USA (your no. 1 enemy country), that's still okay because US is still much more advanced in technology. But to do Bachelor's in USA is another thing. If the top government officials are all corrupt, the generals may not be better off.

Majority of the Philippines Congressmen have dual passports and fortunes stashed in another country - ever ready to jump ship if the going gets tough. Hopefully this will not happen to the Chinese government. But this is exactly what the US wants to see.

Actually, the Korean war was before the Cultural Revolution. But you are absolutely right that Mao was successful in galvanizing the Chinese people into one. He fought the Americans successfully in Korea and later the Indians in Himalayan mountains.

Mao's biggest accomplishment is uniting China and keeping China off foreign influences. China was truly its own country, and Mao was no puppet of any foreign powers. Imagine what would happen if a US-propped Zhiang Kai Shek were to rule mainland China. Will he end up like the other corrupt dictators supported by the USA, e.g. the Shah of Iran, and Marcos of Philippines? Also, will the USA force him to let Xinjiang and Tibet cede? A smaller and weaker China will definitely be in the US' interests - just like a divided Korea is in China's interests.

They have almost succeeded in killing off Chavez and what is the prized venezuelan oil stocks might soon end up in the hands via all their espionage and corruption again. India is inconsequential actually. It does not have the resource that america wants to control the world nor does it pose sufficiently as a threat to american interests especially since the americans can always rely on the Pakis to check. In my own deliberation, i think that the Pakis are more intimately enmeshed with the americans but I could be wrong, america is like making its 2 mistresses in pakistan and India face each other off in their competition for its love.....As for Brazil, we will see. America will bare its teeth as soon as it refuses to cede sovereignty over its oils fields to american/allies companies....


If only the world opens its eyes to the true evil of america and resisting it. however, america have 2 potent weapons in their arsenal, human fear and greed. Their manipulation of these 2 human failings will ensure their longevity. i hope the new leadership in China recognises this. The institutional corruption and their failure to check the gangrenous rot might lead to its ultimate crippling. If China wants to be strong, it must bite that bullet and start to clean its house as thoroughly as possible. otherwise, the greedy and corrupted amongst its ranks will lead to its unravelling if should decide to fight that war with america. Mao strangely managed to do that, he instituted so much fear via the cultural revolution that it galvanised the chinese people into one dedicated fighting machine which was put to the test in the korean war. Mao in his own way needed a war (and a victory) to whitewash all the deaths caused by his bad planning.

 

[The_Hypocrite]

Yes that means it was necessary to drop the bombs on Japan as it was to end the war,,,

Was it necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan?
After more then Sixty years later, many scholars still argue about the decision to use atom bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a way to hasten the end of World War II . So don't draw your own conclusion . Just use it as a reference .

YES :

The atomic bomb was necessary to end the war with Japan at the earliest possible moment. By the early summer of 1945, Japanese leaders knew they could not win. But they fought on in hopes of securing better surrender terms.
President Harry S. Truman considered several ways to convince Japan to quit the war: 1) intensifying the already heavy bombing of Japanese cities; 2) waiting for the Soviet Union, an ally in defeating Germany, to join the war against Japan; 3) allowing Japan's emperor, Hirohito, to remain on his throne; and 4) invading Japan.

The first three options were far from certain to compel a Japanese surrender quickly, however, and each posed serious military, political, and diplomatic risks. More than 55,000 Americans had already died fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. An invasion was certain to be very costly in American lives.

When the atomic bomb became available in July 1945, it appeared to be the most promising way to end the war as soon as possible and without the drawbacks of the alternatives.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki persuaded Emperor Hirohito, who had wavered for weeks, that the war must end immediately. Combined with the Soviet entry into the conflict, the atom bombs brought about Japan's surrender within a few days.

The bomb was necessary to accomplish Truman's primary objectives of forcing a prompt Japanese surrender and saving American lives, perhaps thousands of them.


No :

When General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then the Supreme Allied Commander, was informed by the Secretary of War that the atomic bomb was going to be used, he later recalled saying it was unnecessary because Japan was already largely defeated. Eisenhower said the bomb was "no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." At one point after the war he said bluntly, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Before the bomb was used, U.S. intelligence officials believed the war would likely end when two things happened: When the U.S. let Japan know their Emperor could stay on as a figurehead, and when the Soviet army attacked. The U.S. did tell Japan the Emperor could remain, and the Soviets declared war, as agreed, on August 8.

But U.S. officials chose not to test whether this intelligence was correct. Instead, Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9. Because of logistics, an invasion of Japan could not begin for another three months, so the U.S. could have waited to see if Japan would surrender before dropping the atomic bombs.

Most top World War II military leaders are all on record agreeing with Eisenhower. Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff, later called the bomb a "barbarous weapon" that was unnecessary. Leahy wrote, "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.

 

[Prometheus888]

i stand corrected, what i meant to say was that fighting wars are an effective way of distracting the people from the internal social or economic problems, and that was a precursor to Mao's ultimate triumph against his enemies in the cultural revolution. Fighting wars wipes out distractions and force a focus which can be easily steered then when people are well fed, and well off

 

[Tuayapeh]

Yes that means it was necessary to drop the bombs on Japan as it was to end the war,,,

Different ppl have different view on that . I just show you how ppl debate on that , both groups have their own good reason .

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

The US dropped leaflets before they bombed those cities warning the citizens to leave.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

On 30 June 2007, Japan's defense minister Fumio Kyuma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war. Kyuma said "I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (Shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy." Kyuma, who is from Nagasaki, said the bombing caused great suffering in the city, but he does not resent the U.S. because it prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war with Japan.[28] Kyuma's comments were similar to those made by Emperor Hirohito when, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima, and answered: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (Shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime."[29]

Nagasaki mayor Tomihisa Taue protested against Kyuma, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe apologized over Kyuma's remark to Hiroshima A-bomb survivors.[30] In the wake of the outrage provoked by his statements, Kyuma had to resign on 3 July.[31]

In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.[32]

In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender, the emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating that if they continued to fight it would result in "...an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation..."[33] In his Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors, delivered on 17 August, he focused however on the impact of the Soviet invasion, omitting any reference to the atomic bombings.
[edit] Japan's leaders refused to surrender

Some historians see ancient Japanese warrior traditions as a major factor in the resistance in the Japanese military to the idea of surrender. According to one Air Force account,

"The Japanese code of bushido—"the way of the warrior"—was deeply ingrained. The concept of Yamato-damashii equipped each soldier with a strict code: never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Surrender was dishonorable. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku (called hara kiri in the West). Warriors who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect."[12]

Japanese militarism was aggravated by the Great Depression, and had resulted in countless assassinations of reformers attempting to check military power, among them Takahashi Korekiyo, Saitō Makoto, and Inukai Tsuyoshi. This created an environment in which opposition to war was a much riskier endeavor.[34]

According to historian Richard B. Frank,

"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender."[35]

The U.S. Department of Energy's history of the Manhattan Project lends some credence to these claims, saying that military leaders in Japan

".... also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement."[36]

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to attempt peace negotiation, they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan could legally enter into a peace agreement only with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and in the summer of 1945, the Japanese Supreme War Council, consisting of representatives of the Army, the Navy and the civilian government, could not reach a consensus on how to proceed.[34]

A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan, the military increasingly determined to fight despite all costs and odds and the civilian leadership seeking a way to negotiate an end to the war. Further complicating the decision was the fact that no cabinet could exist without the representative of the Imperial Japanese Army. This meant that the Army and the Navy could veto any decision by having its Minister resign, thus making it the most powerful posts on the SWC. In early August 1945 the cabinet was equally split between those who advocated an end to the war on one condition, the preservation of the Kokutai, and those who insisted on three other conditions:[37]

1. Leave disarmament and demobilization to Imperial General Headquarters
2. No occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa
3. Delegation to the Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals

The "hawks" consisted of General Korechika Anami, General Yoshijiro Umezu and Admiral Soemu Toyoda and were led by Anami. The "doves" consisted of Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Naval Minister Mitsumasa Yonai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Shigenori Togo and were led by Togo.[34] Under special permission of the Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito), the president of the Privy council, Kiichiro Hiranuma, was also a member of the imperial conference. For him, the preservation of the Kokutai implied not only that of the Imperial institution but also the continuation of the emperor's reign.[38]

Japan had an example of unconditional surrender in the German Instrument of Surrender. On 26 July, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. The declaration stated that "The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." It was rejected. The Emperor, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to Japanese peace feelers, made no move to change the government position.[39] In the PBS documentary "Victory in the Pacific" (2005), broadcast in the "American Experience" series, the historian Donald Miller argues that in the days after the declaration, the Emperor seemed more concerned with moving the Imperial Regalia of Japan to a secure location than he was with "the destruction of his country." This comment is based on the declarations made by the Emperor to Koichi Kido on 25 and 31 July 1945, when he ordered the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal of Japan to protect "at all cost" the Imperial Regalia.[40]

It has sometimes been argued that Japan would have surrendered if simply guaranteed that the Emperor would be allowed to continue as formal head of state. However, Japanese diplomatic messages regarding a possible Soviet mediation—intercepted through Magic, and made available to Allied leaders—have been interpreted by some historians to mean that "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled."[35] They also faced potential death sentences in trials for Japanese war crimes if they surrendered.[16] This was also what occurred in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other tribunals.

Professor of history Robert James Maddox wrote that

Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.'

Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?'

The best that can be said about Eisenhower’s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time.

Notes made by one of Stimson’s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower’s part.[41]

Maddox also wrote that "Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions."[41] "That they would have conceded defeat months earlier, before such calamities struck, is far-fetched to say the least."[42]

Another argument by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is that it was the Soviet declaration of war in the days between the bombings that caused the surrender. After the war, Admiral Soemu Toyoda said, "I believe the Russian participation in the war against Japan rather than the atom bombs did more to hasten the surrender."[43] Prime Minister Suzuki also declared that the entry of the USSR into the war made "the continuance of the war impossible."[44] Upon hearing news of the event from Foreign Minister Togo, Suzuki immediately said, "Let us end the war," and agreed to finally convene an emergency meeting of the Supreme Council to end the war. The official British history, The War Against Japan, also writes that the Soviet declaration of war "brought home to all members of the Supreme Council the realization that the last hope of a negotiated peace had gone and there was no alternative but to accept the Allied terms sooner or later."

The "one condition" faction, led by Togo, seized on the bombing as decisive justification of surrender. Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisers, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."[45]

 

[maozedong]

No, from the release of previously classified information, we now know there were many top military and government officers who thought it wasn't necessary. Of course, there were generals who supported the decision. The point is the decision was by no means unanimous. Was it really necessary? In my opinion, no. But as usual, the USA always chose the easy path at the expanse of others. It has always been self interest - and to hell with humanitarianism.

"The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56): Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. "


" General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said: The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. .... my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. "


"The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. "

"the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war."





"Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359): When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. "

" It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” "


"Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441): It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. "


"Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500): I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs"

"Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said: I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. *** In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. "

"Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote: Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb. I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. "

One official who supported to decision wanted the bombs to be dropped on forested areas and not cities.

"Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325): I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center."

From this link:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-14/real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan

Actually the generals was pro dropping the bomb,,when Macarthur planned the invasion,,,he wanted to drop the bombs on japanese positions before the troops went in..thank goodness this did not happen as the US troops would have been exposed to the radiation too,,,

and the Japanese military wanted to fight on,,,,so the bombs had to be dropped

 

[Sideswipe]

Thanks for the read , very interesting . where can I find more information on that ? Thanks in advance .

you might like to read "How The Far East Was Lost" by Anthony Kubek.

Anthony Kubek's book is a well researched, well documented book clearly explaining why the Chinese Communists were able to get power in 1949. This book gives the reader excellent background to the diplomatic background in the Orient from c. 1920 through World War II and thereafter. Readers are also introduced to the geography of Eastern Asia including Siberia which helps understand the diplomatic history of this area. Another useful asset of HOW THE FAR EAST WAS LOST is that Kubek gives a surprisingly good account of the background to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Far-East-Was-Lost/dp/B000KR2XOY

online read - http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3646126;seq=7;view=1up;num=iii

Different ppl have different view on that . I just show you how ppl debate on that , both groups have their own good reason .

apparently. the Japanese leaders wanted to surrender long before August 1945. the Soviet spies advising Roosevelt and Truman prevented US from making peace with Japan. it was a misconception that the Japanese wanted to fight to the very end. according to Imai Takeo memoir. he was given direct orders from Tokyo to bring an end to the war with China in April-May 1945 when Suzuki Kantaro took over as Prime Minister. Imai Takeo was a Japanese WW2 diplomat in China. for eight years, apart from a brief spell in the Philippines, Imai Takeo sought to bring about a peace agreement between China and Japan.

 

[Fook Seng]

And the coming President Xi Jinping's daughter is doing her Bachelors' in Harvard. Now, this is like sending a princess to your enemy country to study high school. I hope Xi is not doing this because he lacks confidence in China's own educational system - but because he wants his daughter to better understand the enemy. Bachelor's education nowadays is like high school eduction. If you send your princess to study Masters or PHD in some technology field in the USA (your no. 1 enemy country), that's still okay because US is still much more advanced in technology. But to do Bachelor's in USA is another thing. If the top government officials are all corrupt, the generals may not be better off.

Corruption aside, where your son's or daughter's education could be funded by a foreign investor, I see nothing wrong with sending your children overseas to study. Today's China still suffers from deficiencies in their key institutions.

The legal system is still rather primitive and lacks the comprehensiveness of the British or the US systems. Their skill in international marketing still need to be horned, although I am already quite impressed by what they are able to do at home. The need to learn the international way is something they need to do fast in order to rise up as a more credible global player. All these, the British and America universities can deliver in spades.

Although the Chinese universities are already quite good at the first degree level, they still lack the broad base discipline that the US universities provide or the comprehensiveness of the British education. And most of all the exposure that these overseas stays provide will be first hand experience for them to emulate when they return home.

We often complain of PRCs' disgusting manners as tourists in foreign lands. This, too, needs to be learnt from more frequent travelling to foreign lands and attending international meetings.

In the past two centuries, from the world's dominant economic and military power to one where even a little Japan had the right to throw its weight around was directly a result of the refusal to take in outside influence and to learn from external newfound knowledge. This is slowly being changed.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

Corruption aside, where your son's or daughter's education could be funded by a foreign investor, I see nothing wrong your children overseas for study. Today's China still suffers from deficiencies in their institutions. The legal system is still rather primitive and lacks the comprehensiveness of the British or the US system. Their skill in international marketing still need to be horned, although I am already quite impressed by what they are already able to do at home. The need to learn the international way is something they need to do fast in order to rise up as a more credible global player. All these, the British and America universities can deliver in spades. Although the Chinese universities are quite good at the first degree level but they still lack the broad base discipline that the US universities provide or the comprehensiveness of the British education. And most of all the exposure that these overseas stays provide will be first hand exp

Also wasn't it the same for the japs before they modernized so quickly they were sending their students abroad to study and learn from the americans and the europeans and that was one of the reasons why their technology improved by leaps and bounds by copying and improving on western inventions and military tatics and technology?

 

[The_Hypocrite]

Another reason for all these Mainlanders studying overseas is they want to stay overseas,,,the rich send their kids overseas so they can stash their wealth somewhere else,,,the middle class and poor want to leave cos the standard of living is higher in the west and they are worried the CCP will come after them as they have no rights,,so China is good now,,but if its soo good,,why do they want to leave?

Corruption aside, where your son's or daughter's education could be funded by a foreign investor, I see nothing wrong with sending your children overseas to study. Today's China still suffers from deficiencies in their key institutions.

The legal system is still rather primitive and lacks the comprehensiveness of the British or the US systems. Their skill in international marketing still need to be horned, although I am already quite impressed by what they are able to do at home. The need to learn the international way is something they need to do fast in order to rise up as a more credible global player. All these, the British and America universities can deliver in spades.

Although the Chinese universities are quite good at the first degree level, they still lack the broad base discipline that the US universities provide or the comprehensiveness of the British education. And most of all the exposure that these overseas stays provide will be first hand experience for them to emulate when they return home. We often complain of PRCs' disgusting manners as tourists in foreign lands. This, too, needs to be
learnt from more frequent travelling to foreign lands and attending international meetings.

In the past two centuries, from the world's dominant economic and military power to one where even a little Japan had the right to throw its weight around was directly a result of the refusal to take in outside influence and to learn from external newfound knowledge. This is slowly being changed.