WWII... why?

According to Mass (the former Japanese historian at Stanford), the
samurai spirit was alive and kicking until the forties. Thus I hope I
am not going off-topic here. Ok, once I am done with my excuse, here is
my question: the Japanese campaign in East Asia and in the Pacific was
clearly a hopeless hyperbole. There was NO WAY the Japanese could
control and man such a vast area. After Guadalcanal, then, it was clear
that the wind had changed, still there was room for diplomacy, either
with the US and perhaps with what was left of China and the Soviets.
But the Japanese kept fighting and dying until August 1945.
Why?
I have my own theories, but before throwing them on the table, I'd love
to hear from some of you.
Thanks
cepo
PS= subquestion; is the "Thin Red Line" a good movie? Worth 3 hours of
my life and the $3,99 at block buster?

Cepo:
Coming from a former Blockbuster employee, in my humble opinion, not
many movies are worth the price to rent them unless it's a whim or you just
HAFTA see them. And there aren't too many in THAT category. (Granted, and
admittedly, I'm not a movie fan, though. For instance, I didn't see A Clockwork
Orange -- I read the book by the late Anthony Burgess. Beyond that, name a
major movie and I probably haven't seen it.) :-)

L8r
Tim


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I feel in terms of diplomacy Japan couldn't back down. It had shown its military capability, both naval and on land, during the Russo-Japanese War, but effectively ganged-up upon by the more mature diploatic powers, Japan received nothing from the War other than, in many poltical and military circles, a revanchist attitude not too dissimilar to the French Right and Left of the Third Republic between 1871-1914. Driven as much by this attitude of pride and a stubborn willingness to ignore the obvious, Japan's leadership willingly blundered into the War, succeeding in antagonizing the USA, the UK, and a host of other colonizers and dominions, aswell China. The same lack of forethought that drove them against the NT of Australia (were they going to march to Adelaide down The Track??) was what kept them going.
And at this stage of tragic proceedings, would the Allies have negotiated a settlement if the Japanese had appeared willing. American attitudes were akin to those of more recent years; an attack on the American nation, state, and way of life. Roosevelt was in little doubt that revenge had to be taken, an attitude willingly shared by Churchill. And the Nationalists or Communists in China?
Perhaps by comparing this to the samurai spirit is degrading the samurai. While samurai armies were composed of a corps of trusted retainers and 'captains', the majority, whether ashigaru were samurai, were agriculturalists. Wars were generally fought around the agricultural calendar. Their loyalty ran to what was at stake; their property. There were few mass suicides or massive 'bloodbath' battles, the daimyo and their troops had more sense; more often than not a daimyo surrendered and in return was confirmed in his estates, upon condition of loyalty. Perhaps in the Japanese High Command in 1943/44 should have done the same to save themselves, rather than pursuing an impossible dream in the remodelled spirit of the samurai.That's just my opinion anyways.
M.Lorimer


Cesare Polenghi <cepo@...> wrote:
According to Mass (the former Japanese historian at Stanford), the
samurai spirit was alive and kicking until the forties. Thus I hope I
am not going off-topic here. Ok, once I am done with my excuse, here is
my question: the Japanese campaign in East Asia and in the Pacific was
clearly a hopeless hyperbole. There was NO WAY the Japanese could
control and man such a vast area. After Guadalcanal, then, it was clear
that the wind had changed, still there was room for diplomacy, either
with the US and perhaps with what was left of China and the Soviets.
But the Japanese kept fighting and dying until August 1945.
Why?
I have my own theories, but before throwing them on the table, I'd love
to hear from some of you.
Thanks
cepo
PS= subquestion; is the "Thin Red Line" a good movie? Worth 3 hours of
my life and the $3,99 at block buster?



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think that the Japanese were doing a good job of controlling their gains in the war up until the turning point of the war at Midway,
which they lost more because of their naval codes being cracked than to any other factor. After Midway I think that they fought on because they still held hope for a major victory. They were far behind in the development of radar and sonar, but they had advantages in torpedoes, biological warfare, and Japanese navy was the best in the world in night warfare. And of course there was the great hope that the kamakaze would bring them a victory. After it was clear that these things had failed I think that most were resolved to die for the emperor rather than surrender, look at what happend on Saipan, Okinawa and Iwojima. Had the home islands themselves been invaded much the same would have happend.
Thanks
Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: Cesare Polenghi
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:28 PM
Subject: [samuraihistory] WWII... why?


According to Mass (the former Japanese historian at Stanford), the
samurai spirit was alive and kicking until the forties. Thus I hope I
am not going off-topic here. Ok, once I am done with my excuse, here is
my question: the Japanese campaign in East Asia and in the Pacific was
clearly a hopeless hyperbole. There was NO WAY the Japanese could
control and man such a vast area. After Guadalcanal, then, it was clear
that the wind had changed, still there was room for diplomacy, either
with the US and perhaps with what was left of China and the Soviets.
But the Japanese kept fighting and dying until August 1945.
Why?
I have my own theories, but before throwing them on the table, I'd love
to hear from some of you.
Thanks
cepo
PS= subquestion; is the "Thin Red Line" a good movie? Worth 3 hours of
my life and the $3,99 at block buster?



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Cesare:
Despite the place I was born, the Pacific campaign
during World War Two was not my interests. I was more
into the European campaign.
Anyway, with my humble opinion, first of all, the
Japanese soldires were cut off from their mainland
once the Americans started to gain the naval and air
superiority. There was no way to transfer their units
back to the main strategical points fast enough. They
also underesmated the American industrial power which
enabled her to replenish what was lost in the Pearl
harbor.

As for the room for the diplomacy, I doubt that
neither Americans nor the British accept any terms
other than the unconditional surrender. One point can
be made with an analogy with Italian surrender,
Howerver there were more military and political values
from securing the Italian surrendor such as the
logistical surplus for the Eastern frontier, the
postwar control of the Eastern Europe, and etc. The
presence of the democratic Chinese government
probabily did not cause any alarm to Americans with
regard to the political composition of the Asian
countries after the war.





Sincerely,





Changsub Lee

> Cesare Polenghi <cepo@...> wrote:
> There was NO WAY the
> Japanese could
> control and man such a vast area. After Guadalcanal,
> then, it was clear
> that the wind had changed, still there was room for
> diplomacy, either
> with the US and perhaps with what was left of China
> and the Soviets.
> But the Japanese kept fighting and dying until
> August 1945.
> Why?
> I have my own theories, but before throwing them on
> the table, I'd love
> to hear from some of you.
> Thanks
> cepo
> PS= subquestion; is the "Thin Red Line" a good
> movie? Worth 3 hours of
> my life and the $3,99 at block buster?
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store:
> http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

>
> But the Japanese kept fighting and dying until August 1945.
> Why?
>

For the same reasons the economy is still stalled in Japan today.
Change in Japan means institutional change and institutional change
comes nowhere slower than in Japan...

The military and political leaders all had the evidence but no one
group and no one person was prepared to go against the grain, and get
crushed under the wheels of a war machine that had taken on a life of
it's own. It took the word of an Emperor to stop it.

> PS= subquestion; is the "Thin Red Line" a good movie? Worth 3 hours of
> my life and the $3,99 at block buster?
>
>

Not if you want to see a movie about the pacific war...

Too bad Tim,
Kubricks adaptation is one of the truest ever done for a book, and
maybe my favorite film outside of Daibosatsu Toge...
-t

On Apr 12, 2004, at 12:10 AM, Eponymous13@... wrote:

> Cepo:
> ������ Coming from a former Blockbuster employee, in my humble
> opinion, not
> many movies are worth the price to rent them unless it's a whim or
> you just
> HAFTA see them.� And there aren't too many in THAT category.�
> (Granted, and
> admittedly, I'm not a movie fan, though.� For instance, I didn't see
> A Clockwork
> Orange -- I read the book by the late Anthony Burgess.� Beyond that,
> name a
> major movie and I probably haven't seen it.)� :-)
>
> L8r
> Tim
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ---
> Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> ---
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> � To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/
> �
> � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> � Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When you belive God is on your side, or rather in this
case, God is your Emperor, then you can't lose, can
you? Minor setbacks like Coral Sea, Midway,
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, New Guinea, Kwajalein, Saipan,
Tinian, Guam, Peleliu, the Phillipines, Iwo Jima, and
Okinawa only make the inevitable Imperial victory
that much more glorious, right?

It was HARDLY clear at the time of Guadalcanal that
Japanese defeat was assured. That's like saying
Germany was defeated when it lost North Africa.
Contributed, but it was step 1 of many.

Speaking as an avid war movie fan and a current
military member, the Thin Red Line was HORRIBLE. I
couldn't finish it. Very whiny.

Nate




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

--- Tom Helm <junkmail@...> wrote:

> Too bad Tim,
> Kubricks adaptation is one of the truest ever done
> for a book, and
> maybe my favorite film outside of Daibosatsu Toge...
> -t

Then that's a book I need to leave off my list...the
movie was awful.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I feel that Japan was forced into war by the US - the invasion of Hawaii and
the trade embargoes all lead to Japan having the choice of:

1. giving into america and doing as they were told
or
2. fighting back with military means

While I do feel they could have prevented the war with diplomatic means (and
should of) I also feel that the US has to bear a good portion of the blame -
you have to remember that the Japanese people's only experience of the US
was being forced to trade at gunpoint, and the US invasion of Hawaii because
they were holding a referendum which would have made Hawaii a Japanese, not
American, state. Plus in nearby Phillipines they had seen the Americans
invade the islands and then keep it as a colony. Are they the actions of a
state that you would trust in their position?? I suppose it is little wonder
that no diplomatic solution was ever reached.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lorimer [mailto:mijalo_jp@...]
Sent: 12 April 2004 12:33
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] WWII... why?


I feel in terms of diplomacy Japan couldn't back down. It had shown its
military capability, both naval and on land, during the Russo-Japanese War,
but effectively ganged-up upon by the more mature diploatic powers, Japan
received nothing from the War other than, in many poltical and military
circles, a revanchist attitude not too dissimilar to the French Right and
Left of the Third Republic between 1871-1914. Driven as much by this
attitude of pride and a stubborn willingness to ignore the obvious, Japan's
leadership willingly blundered into the War, succeeding in antagonizing the
USA, the UK, and a host of other colonizers and dominions, aswell China. The
same lack of forethought that drove them against the NT of Australia (were
they going to march to Adelaide down The Track??) was what kept them going.
And at this stage of tragic proceedings, would the Allies have negotiated
a settlement if the Japanese had appeared willing. American attitudes were
akin to those of more recent years; an attack on the American nation, state,
and way of life. Roosevelt was in little doubt that revenge had to be taken,
an attitude willingly shared by Churchill. And the Nationalists or
Communists in China?
Perhaps by comparing this to the samurai spirit is degrading the samurai.
While samurai armies were composed of a corps of trusted retainers and
'captains', the majority, whether ashigaru were samurai, were
agriculturalists. Wars were generally fought around the agricultural
calendar. Their loyalty ran to what was at stake; their property. There were
few mass suicides or massive 'bloodbath' battles, the daimyo and their
troops had more sense; more often than not a daimyo surrendered and in
return was confirmed in his estates, upon condition of loyalty. Perhaps in
the Japanese High Command in 1943/44 should have done the same to save
themselves, rather than pursuing an impossible dream in the remodelled
spirit of the samurai.That's just my opinion anyways.
M.Lorimer


Cesare Polenghi <cepo@...> wrote:
According to Mass (the former Japanese historian at Stanford), the
samurai spirit was alive and kicking until the forties. Thus I hope I
am not going off-topic here. Ok, once I am done with my excuse, here is
my question: the Japanese campaign in East Asia and in the Pacific was
clearly a hopeless hyperbole. There was NO WAY the Japanese could
control and man such a vast area. After Guadalcanal, then, it was clear
that the wind had changed, still there was room for diplomacy, either
with the US and perhaps with what was left of China and the Soviets.
But the Japanese kept fighting and dying until August 1945.
Why?
I have my own theories, but before throwing them on the table, I'd love
to hear from some of you.
Thanks
cepo
PS= subquestion; is the "Thin Red Line" a good movie? Worth 3 hours of
my life and the $3,99 at block buster?



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today!
Download Messenger Now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

An askew view of how governments work - ie slightly off topic but
hopefully to show there's often currents moving which do not
bear too close an examination - ie the bad guy is not always
necessarily wholly the bad guy, nor is the good entirely
blameless)

It might be of passing interest to note that Defence Departments
always need a boogey-man with which to frighten the
Administration of the day into increasing defence spending.

In the wake of WWI, the US DD was casting round for a 'foreign
power' of sufficient magnitude with 'imperialistic overtones'
sufficient to pose a threat to the 'national interest' and thus
provide the means by which to threaten their administration.

And who should they come up with . . .

Great Britain!

(It seems they were as ill-informed about the parlous state of
Britain's readiness for war as we were about German
preparations - one exasperated GB secret service agent,
operating in Germany, was persistently queried about his claim
regarding the existence of a factory making light machine guns -
in the end in exasperation he tore the page from a phone book
bearing the address of the company!)

On the other hand, US govt. wanted to fund National Socialism in
Germany to get economic stability in European markets - but
didn't want to be associated with the nazi ideal. Many US
companies found interesting ways to get round it - Coca Cola
refused the export or manufacture of Coke in Germany, but they
did brand Fanta as a new drink for the German market (and not
immediately associated with Coke).

History is often a murky business.

Thomas

On Apr 12, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Nate Ledbetter wrote:

> Speaking as an avid war movie fan and a current
> military member, the Thin Red Line was HORRIBLE. I
> couldn't finish it. Very whiny.
>
> Nate

But I've got to watch it for school anyway... phew... three hours of
torture then?
For me it was hard to survive the two hours of 'Windtalker...'

Actually, the only Non-Vietnam 20th c. war movie I REALLY liked was
'Black Hawk Down.'
Any other suggestion?

Thanx,
cepo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Windtalker was hideous. Awful. Insulting.

Black Hawk Down was a great movie, as far as
depictions go. Much better than either of these two.
Of course, I am a huge fan of Saving Private Ryan, and
of course the Band of Brothers series.

How can you not like PATTON?? I mean, it's about GOD
himself?? (Says the former armor officer)

Nate

--- Cesare Polenghi <cepo@...> wrote:

> On Apr 12, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Nate Ledbetter wrote:
>
> > Speaking as an avid war movie fan and a current
> > military member, the Thin Red Line was HORRIBLE.
> I
> > couldn't finish it. Very whiny.
> >
> > Nate
>
> But I've got to watch it for school anyway...
> phew... three hours of
> torture then?
> For me it was hard to survive the two hours of
> 'Windtalker...'
>
> Actually, the only Non-Vietnam 20th c. war movie I
> REALLY liked was
> 'Black Hawk Down.'
> Any other suggestion?
>
> Thanx,
> cepo
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "Tristan Burke" <football1st@...>
>Subject: RE: WWII... why?
>
>I feel that Japan was forced into war by the US - the invasion of Hawaii and
>the trade embargoes all lead to Japan having the choice of:
>
>1. giving into america and doing as they were told
>or
>2. fighting back with military means
>
>

The invasion of Hawaii by the US is 50 years previous to this, I don't
see what bearing this has on anything. By this point Japan has been
mucking about in Korea and China for decades and showing their talent
for colonial administration. I.E. virtually none. Previous to this they
had already attacked Americans, read up on the Panay. These actions and
others lead to the embargoes and other sanctions. Military dictatorships
don't make good neighbors and are generally poor at diplomacy.

>I also feel that the US has to bear a good portion of the blame -
>you have to remember that the Japanese people's only experience of the US
>was being forced to trade at gunpoint, and the US invasion of Hawaii because
>they were holding a referendum which would have made Hawaii a Japanese, not
>American, state.
>

The original treaty also dealt with treating shipwrecked sailors like
humans and other things along those lines, this is close to 90 years
before, I've never heard of the referendum to make Hawaii a Japanese
state, I doubt it would have come close to passing since the number of
anglos, Hawaiians and Chinese far exceeded the number of Japanese on the
island. Even if just the Hawaiians voted, they felt they could stay an
independent country at the time. The US backed coup came as an
unpleasant surprise. P.S. Look up the difference in the US between a
territory and a state, It took about 60 years for Hawaii to become a state.

> Plus in nearby Phillipines they had seen the Americans
>invade the islands and then keep it as a colony. Are they the actions of a
>state that you would trust in their position?? I suppose it is little wonder
>that no diplomatic solution was ever reached.
>
>

We were late to the colonial game, so we got the leftovers that the UK,
France and Germany didn't want. We should have freed them like we did
with Cuba. This still has little bearing on Japan's actions, they were
an aggressive, expansionist, military dictatorship that had set out to
conquer Asia, this would have lead to war no matter what and the US
tried diplomatic means to prevent it including not going to war over
attacking US citizens and soldiers.

In some ways these does show samurai spirit, a bunch of bloody minded
killers who are going to take what they want and only understand force
as an argument. Which makes them no different from their European
counterparts.

Jim

I agree with Nate Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers are great, Two others I liked were Enemy at the Gates as well as Stalingrad.

----- Original Message -----
From: Nate Ledbetter
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: OT? = Re: [samuraihistory] WWII... why?


Windtalker was hideous. Awful. Insulting.

Black Hawk Down was a great movie, as far as
depictions go. Much better than either of these two.
Of course, I am a huge fan of Saving Private Ryan, and
of course the Band of Brothers series.

How can you not like PATTON?? I mean, it's about GOD
himself?? (Says the former armor officer)

Nate

--- Cesare Polenghi <cepo@...> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Nate Ledbetter wrote:
>
> > Speaking as an avid war movie fan and a current
> > military member, the Thin Red Line was HORRIBLE.
> I
> > couldn't finish it. Very whiny.
> >
> > Nate
>
> But I've got to watch it for school anyway...
> phew... three hours of
> torture then?
> For me it was hard to survive the two hours of
> 'Windtalker...'
>
> Actually, the only Non-Vietnam 20th c. war movie I
> REALLY liked was
> 'Black Hawk Down.'
> Any other suggestion?
>
> Thanx,
> cepo
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A little dated perhaps, and lacking the attempted realism of modern war movies, but I'd like to give a thumbs up to 'A Bridge To Far' and 'The Great Escape'.
M.Lorimer

Dave Jackson <nihontonut@...> wrote:
I agree with Nate Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers are great, Two others I liked were Enemy at the Gates as well as Stalingrad.

----- Original Message -----
From: Nate Ledbetter
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: OT? = Re: [samuraihistory] WWII... why?


Windtalker was hideous. Awful. Insulting.

Black Hawk Down was a great movie, as far as
depictions go. Much better than either of these two.
Of course, I am a huge fan of Saving Private Ryan, and
of course the Band of Brothers series.

How can you not like PATTON?? I mean, it's about GOD
himself?? (Says the former armor officer)

Nate

--- Cesare Polenghi <cepo@...> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Nate Ledbetter wrote:
>
> > Speaking as an avid war movie fan and a current
> > military member, the Thin Red Line was HORRIBLE.
> I
> > couldn't finish it. Very whiny.
> >
> > Nate
>
> But I've got to watch it for school anyway...
> phew... three hours of
> torture then?
> For me it was hard to survive the two hours of
> 'Windtalker...'
>
> Actually, the only Non-Vietnam 20th c. war movie I
> REALLY liked was
> 'Black Hawk Down.'
> Any other suggestion?
>
> Thanx,
> cepo
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day...these set the
STANDARD for war movies...they are what all good war
movies are built on!

Nate

--- Michael Lorimer <mijalo_jp@...> wrote:

> A little dated perhaps, and lacking the attempted
> realism of modern war movies, but I'd like to give a
> thumbs up to 'A Bridge To Far' and 'The Great
> Escape'.
> M.Lorimer
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

My two cents...
I haven't seen it, but I've never heard a bad word about Oliver
Stone's(? M I correct on this?) PLATOON. :-)

L8r
Tim


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

How about Das Boot?

And what about All Quiet on the Western Front (the original)?

Thomas

how about we use a samurai history forum to discuss
samurai history and not world war 2 movies about
germans who have nothing to do with samurai

just a thought

paul


--- Thomas Davidson <tom.davidson@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
How about Das Boot?

And what about All Quiet on the Western Front (the
original)?

Thomas



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

"about germans who have nothing to do with samurai"

They both have beards, though.

Except Tokugawa samurai, of course...

... but point taken.

Thomas

Great Idea!!!



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, James Eckman
wrote:

> >I also feel that the US has to bear a good portion of the blame -
> >you have to remember that the Japanese people's only experience of

the US

> >was being forced to trade at gunpoint, and the US invasion of

Hawaii because

> >they were holding a referendum which would have made Hawaii a

Japanese, not

> >American, state.
> >
> The original treaty also dealt with treating shipwrecked sailors

like

> humans and other things along those lines, this is close to 90

years

> before, I've never heard of the referendum to make Hawaii a

Japanese

> state, I doubt it would have come close to passing since the number

of

> anglos, Hawaiians and Chinese far exceeded the number of Japanese

on the

> island. Even if just the Hawaiians voted, they felt they could stay

an

> independent country at the time. The US backed coup came as an
> unpleasant surprise. P.S. Look up the difference in the US between

a

> territory and a state, It took about 60 years for Hawaii to become

a state.

I think Tristan might be right with the annex of Hawaii to Japan.
According to the book "Stolen Kingdom", the Hawaiian monarchy had
asked Japan for the referndum. Several years prior, Hawaii had asked
the US to be a territory (but still a sovreign state) but the US
refused, twice. Primarily because the US didn't see any benefit in
it. Hawaii was being bullied around. Although, Hawaii was its own
country, the Hawaiian military was not strong enough to stand up to
the super powers of that time. Treaties were being forced upon them
that put Hawaiians at a severe disadvantage. Hawaii needed to align
itself with another country in order to retain its sovriegnty. Since
the US had refused and the Monarchy thought a Pacific alliance would
strengthen the dying Hawaiian bloodline, they asked Japan.

I don't think it was a ploy to push Japan's buttons. I don't even
think annexing Hawaii was a US decision. The decision belonged to
one man, Dole (think pineapples). A rich landowner who decided he
needed to protect his property in Hawaii. So he (having the support
of most US Marines on Oahu) decided to storm the Palace. The actions
were illegal and unconstitutional but resulted in the statehood of
Hawaii.

Brandon

Tristan wrote:
Plus in nearby Phillipines they had seen the Americans

>invade the islands and then keep it as a colony. Are they the actions of a
>state that you would trust in their position?? I suppose it is little
>wonder
>that no diplomatic solution was ever reached.

While I certainly DON'T hold the US blameless on many things the gov't has
done over the years, note the Phillipines were a protectorate controlled by
the US AFTER a war with Spain. The embargoes were an attempt to stop Japan's
aggressive expansionist campaign in Asia (Korea, Manchukuo ring any bells?).
The Japanese of today are NOT the japanese on 70 years ago. Japan at that
time was controlled by a ruthless military. A military that controlled the
schools in order to indoctrinate children. A military that was quite willing
to sacrifice EVERYONE (crushing the jewels was the common euphemism), not to
protect the Emperor but to save face. The same commanders who would command
soldiers to fight to the death then flee the battlefield.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

On Apr 15, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Richardson Paul wrote:

> how about we use a samurai history forum to discuss
> samurai history and not world war 2 movies about
> germans who have nothing to do with samurai
>
> just a thought
>
> paul

Paul, when a message is marked OT it means that it might be Off Topic,
thus the purist list member can delete it with a click. It's eventually
up to the moderator to decide what is an ok OT or not, I believe. I
started this post talking about the Japanese in WWII, and it seems to
me pertinent with the main theme of the list. The discussion got a bit
out of hand, but if so many people posted about war movies, it probably
means quite a few of the members of this list are into such topic,
don't you think??
Cepo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cepo,
I saw a Forum that had 2 parts:1.Discussions about Need for Speed(a racing game)
2.Off-topic discussions

I think we should create 2 parts of the Forum and if the members are interested they should sign for it too.

Your friend,
Edy

----- Original Message -----
From: Cesare Polenghi
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: OT? = Re: [samuraihistory] WWII... why?



On Apr 15, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Richardson Paul wrote:

> how about we use a samurai history forum to discuss
> samurai history and not world war 2 movies about
> germans who have nothing to do with samurai
>
> just a thought
>
> paul

Paul, when a message is marked OT it means that it might be Off Topic,
thus the purist list member can delete it with a click. It's eventually
up to the moderator to decide what is an ok OT or not, I believe. I
started this post talking about the Japanese in WWII, and it seems to
me pertinent with the main theme of the list. The discussion got a bit
out of hand, but if so many people posted about war movies, it probably
means quite a few of the members of this list are into such topic,
don't you think??
Cepo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good point,Paul.But the Germans had been allied with the Japanese in WWII.Also Romania(I'm from Romania) was allied with the Germans.Hitler took from Romania about 60% of all the petrol he extracted!!!!!!!!!But the Japanese had very little fuel so they lost many ships because of that(ex.:YAMATO battleship)

Edy

----- Original Message -----
From: Richardson Paul
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: OT? = Re: [samuraihistory] WWII... why?


how about we use a samurai history forum to discuss
samurai history and not world war 2 movies about
germans who have nothing to do with samurai

just a thought

paul


--- Thomas Davidson <tom.davidson@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
How about Das Boot?

And what about All Quiet on the Western Front (the
original)?

Thomas



---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store:
http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


---
Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/samuraihistory/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
samuraihistory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]