Trump and Kim Jong Un summit

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/kim-commits-to-complete-denuclearisation-after-summit

So a joint document was released by Trump and Kim, and while positive in tone, it doesn't really guarantee anything. North Korea commits to 'complete denuclearization of the korean peninsular' meaning that the South also has to denuclearize. While i'm in favour of this option, there is no mention of the US also agreeing to this option. It's reasonable to assume that the US goal is northern rather than complete denuclearization, and this could be potentially dangerous for the outcome of the summit. It's a sttep in the right direction, but so far prisoner exchange seems like the only potentially concrete thing to come out of this. The wording is too general and doesn't fully adress the question as to the extent of denuclearization. We'll have to wait and see if this is followed by somehting more substancial

Thaluikhain:
IIRC, Macarthur favoured a horrific ground invasion, but a lot of other people favoured bombing Japan's agriculture and infrastructure until they were starved into submission.

Japan maybe, but it's worth noting MacArthur proposed dropping dozens of atom bombs on China to end the Korean War.

Agema:

Japan maybe, but it's worth noting MacArthur proposed dropping dozens of atom bombs on China to end the Korean War.

He also pushed for nuclear weapons to be given to the military brass under 'sole discretion' for their usage. Naturally you can seethe problem with this idea of giving the final word on either a tactical or strategic layer to non-elected officials as opposed to people answerable to the body politic (in theory).

And to be fair, pushing for such a motion cost him his job.

I have a question for you Right Wingers. When Obama tried to to have peaceful relations with countries ruled by tyrants, like Cuba for example, people said he was weakening and apologizing for America. But now that Trump is actually seeking peace with a country who has made threatening gestures to the U.S. for years, some of you not only praise him ,but think he should deserve the nobel peace prize.

So when Obama tries to use diplomacy, he's weak, when Trump does it, he deserves the noble peace prize.

Your consistency is astounding/sarcasm.

WolvDragon:
But now that Trump is actually seeking peace

He's not even seeking peace. He's doing it to score political points. And he already got played by North Korea. US basically gave them a lot of concessions without getting anything concrete in return. The NK is lying their asses off. Only a literal fuckin' retard would believe that a country that spent a better part of the last four decades developing nukes is suddenly going to get rid of them because of a temporary aberration in US politics. Aside from giving NK a lot of concessions, Trump has managed to legitimize the most repressive and monstrous regime on the planet and to legitimize Kim Jong-Un and make him look like he's a normal guy and not a maniacal mass murderer. And the worst part is that he did it in the same week that he attacked his closest allies. He attacked Trudeau for fuck sake. You don't get more vanilla than Trudeau.

Attacking your closes allies and damaging your national security and economic interests while cozying up with your enemies is pretty much treason. Republicans would have impeached Obama in a matter of seconds if he had done half of what Trump has done this week and they'd be right to do it. This has been an epic disaster.

WolvDragon:

So when Obama tries to use diplomacy, he's weak, when Trump does it, he deserves the noble peace prize.

Welcome to the amazing world of bipolar partisanship. Hope you're enjoying it, because it's not going away anytime soon.

IF this deal somehow doesn't crumble, i wouldn't oppose parties that are involved getting it. Though, i still think that everyone should wait and see how this turns out, otherwise it might look even more ridiculous than Obama's nobel prize.

MrCalavera:

WolvDragon:

So when Obama tries to use diplomacy, he's weak, when Trump does it, he deserves the noble peace prize.

Welcome to the amazing world of bipolar partisanship. Hope you're enjoying it, because it's not going away anytime soon.

IF this deal somehow doesn't crumble, i wouldn't oppose parties that are involved getting it. Though, i still think that everyone should wait and see how this turns out, otherwise it might look even more ridiculous than Obama's nobel prize.

You act like I'm not familar with the hyper-partisanship both sides go through. It's only gotten much worse since the Obama years.

Honestly why would Kim ever disarm his nukes? He gets to benefit from Mutually Assured Destruction, even in a little way of blowing up a few cities, to prevent the worlds superpowers from ever invading and executing Kim like so many other dictators. What leverage does he have after that? I suppose he still has the artillery pointed at South Korea but what if the rest of the world said 'fuck SK' and still invaded him?

It would have to be a hell of a deal in their favor. And I cant imagine Trump ever giving North Korea something good enough for it because Trump wants to look tough and giving away things to other countries would probably upset his base. Best you're ever gonna get is vague promises to disarm one day, that never actually happen.

The nukes are here to stay, since its the best tool in North Koreas habit of rattling its sabre to get foreign aid and scaring off invaders by being more trouble to fight than its worth.

So... I had no idea Kim was so beloved outside of NK. Has that always been a thing. I know plenty of South Koreans and they only speak of him with derision

When the North and South met at the DMZ a few months ago, there must have been some agreement towards peace then. So is Trump just riding in on their coat tails?

trunkage:
So... I had no idea Kim was so beloved outside of NK. Has that always been a thing. I know plenty of South Koreans and they only speak of him with derision

Is he? Media I see always portrays him as a barmy tinpot dictator and nothing more, certainly not anything to adore. Its why the bait-and-switch gags work ( eg "Today heralds the first meeting of Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump. An historic attempt at peace between an autocratic crackpot driving his country into the ground and Kim Jong Un") because you're expecting the negative qualifier to be Kim

Palindromemordnilap:

trunkage:
So... I had no idea Kim was so beloved outside of NK. Has that always been a thing. I know plenty of South Koreans and they only speak of him with derision

Is he? Media I see always portrays him as a barmy tinpot dictator and nothing more, certainly not anything to adore. Its why the bait-and-switch gags work ( eg "Today heralds the first meeting of Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump. An historic attempt at peace between an autocratic crackpot driving his country into the ground and Kim Jong Un") because you're expecting the negative qualifier to be Kim

I've been seeing lots of Singaporeans wanting to met him and surrounding him. Like he's worthy of praise. But yes, the media is different.

WolvDragon:
So when Obama tries to use diplomacy, he's weak, when Trump does it, he deserves the noble peace prize.

Let's bear in mind that Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize before he had even achieved anything. I mean, hypocritical standards are bad on both sides, sure, but I thought that possibly warranted pointing out.

There's also the fact that you are treating a set of individuals as an amorphous whole, which never leads to rational discussion.

Catnip1024:

WolvDragon:
So when Obama tries to use diplomacy, he's weak, when Trump does it, he deserves the noble peace prize.

Let's bear in mind that Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize before he had even achieved anything. I mean, hypocritical standards are bad on both sides, sure, but I thought that possibly warranted pointing out.

There's also the fact that you are treating a set of individuals as an amorphous whole, which never leads to rational discussion.

I'm not just talking about the noble peace prize here. Your missing the point. Right Wingers, like, Sean Hannity have said that Obama apologizes for America, and that he's sucking up to dictators, aka they view him weak on foreign policy. Hannity compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain, a guy, just like Trump did at the summit, gave alot of concessions without getting anything substantial in return. But with Trump, they're praising him and think he deserves the noble peace price.

Sure, I don't think every registered republican or conservative leaning voter is that partisan, but there's still a big group of right wingers who treat politics as some sort of compact sport, and that they play for a team. Don't be so naive and not think alot of right wingers tend to be partisan hacks.

Catnip1024:
Let's bear in mind that Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize before he had even achieved anything.

True - but did he have to?

In the context of the polarisation of cultures and hostilities in the 2000s, Obama was very explicitly pushing a message of amity, harmony, and international co-operation. He's not the first, and I doubt will be the last, who won it for the message rather than a concrete achievement. That doesn't stop it being a weak decision, mind. Just that in theory it's okay to hand someone an award for effort rather than accomplishment.

bastardofmelbourne:
I would dispute that. Specifically, I would dispute that the DPRK's nuclear program constitutes an full deterrent, as in an existential deterrent, against the United States.

They have some deterrent against the United States with nuclear weapons rather than no deterrent whatsoever.

bastardofmelbourne:

I can trust the US to never use nukes, largely because the US is so powerful in terms of conventional force that it would never need to use the nukes short of going to war with China.

The USA has already used nuclear weapons without establishing whether they needed to do so or not.

Necessity was not their reason then; they did so partially in order to send a message to other countries about their capability and willingness, and partially just to test the weapons. Both detestable and avoidable.

I do not think the US at present is likely to use the weapons. But in a few decades? Who knows; there's precedent.

WolvDragon:
I'm not just talking about the noble peace prize here. Your missing the point. Right Wingers, like, Sean Hannity have said that Obama apologizes for America, and that he's sucking up to dictators, aka they view him weak on foreign policy. Hannity compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain, a guy, just like Trump did at the summit, gave alot of concessions without getting anything substantial in return. But with Trump, they're praising him and think he deserves the noble peace price.

I'm not missing the point, I don't disagree with the point. I'm just getting pinickety about the Nobel peace prize because I disagreed with the decision to give it to Obama at the time when they did, prior to him actually enacting anything.

Agema:
True - but did he have to?

In the context of the polarisation of cultures and hostilities in the 2000s, Obama was very explicitly pushing a message of amity, harmony, and international co-operation. He's not the first, and I doubt will be the last, who won it for the message rather than a concrete achievement. That doesn't stop it being a weak decision, mind. Just that in theory it's okay to hand someone an award for effort rather than accomplishment.

See, in my mind you should have to have achieved something. A message is fine, if there is demonstrable evidence that it is bringing people together or getting somewhere - Martin Luther King, for instance. My problem with the messages of politicians, particularly those running for office when they preach it, is that such messages tend to fall by the wayside afterwards.

Don't get me wrong, there is an argument that Obama could have received it for actions and messages during his time in power, and I would have been far happier with him getting it then. I just disapprove of awards for words before they've had any impact.

Which is why I also think that if a formal peace is ever achieved on the Korean peninsular, all parties involved should share the prize. Regardless of who happens to be in charge at the time, regardless of domestic achievements, regardless of virtually anything else. It's a momentous achievement.

Catnip1024:

WolvDragon:
I'm not just talking about the noble peace prize here. Your missing the point. Right Wingers, like, Sean Hannity have said that Obama apologizes for America, and that he's sucking up to dictators, aka they view him weak on foreign policy. Hannity compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain, a guy, just like Trump did at the summit, gave alot of concessions without getting anything substantial in return. But with Trump, they're praising him and think he deserves the noble peace price.

I'm not missing the point, I don't disagree with the point. I'm just getting pinickety about the Nobel peace prize because I disagreed with the decision to give it to Obama at the time when they did, prior to him actually enacting anything.

Agema:
True - but did he have to?

In the context of the polarisation of cultures and hostilities in the 2000s, Obama was very explicitly pushing a message of amity, harmony, and international co-operation. He's not the first, and I doubt will be the last, who won it for the message rather than a concrete achievement. That doesn't stop it being a weak decision, mind. Just that in theory it's okay to hand someone an award for effort rather than accomplishment.

See, in my mind you should have to have achieved something. A message is fine, if there is demonstrable evidence that it is bringing people together or getting somewhere - Martin Luther King, for instance. My problem with the messages of politicians, particularly those running for office when they preach it, is that such messages tend to fall by the wayside afterwards.

Don't get me wrong, there is an argument that Obama could have received it for actions and messages during his time in power, and I would have been far happier with him getting it then. I just disapprove of awards for words before they've had any impact.

Which is why I also think that if a formal peace is ever achieved on the Korean peninsular, all parties involved should share the prize. Regardless of who happens to be in charge at the time, regardless of domestic achievements, regardless of virtually anything else. It's a momentous achievement.

Trust me, I also disagree with giving Obama the noble peace prize.

Silvanus:
Necessity was not their reason then; they did so partially in order to send a message to other countries about their capability and willingness, and partially just to test the weapons. Both detestable and avoidable.

Japan was not willing to surrender on the terms the Allies wanted until attacked with nuclear devices, though. That the US, of course, had other motives didn't mean that wanting the end the war and occupy Japan to prevent a further one wasn't a legitimate one.

Silvanus:

The USA has already used nuclear weapons without establishing whether they needed to do so or not.

If you are talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they did establish it. The alternative to the nuclear bomb was to invade Japan, which would had ended with a higher loss of human lives in both sides (specially for the japanese side, since they didn't shy from suicide tactics like Kamikaze strikes and traditionally honored death over surrendering). Which option was more detestable?

Thaluikhain:

Japan was not willing to surrender on the terms the Allies wanted until attacked with nuclear devices, though. That the US, of course, had other motives didn't mean that wanting the end the war and occupy Japan to prevent a further one wasn't a legitimate one.

This establishes that a nuclear attack compelled a surrender; it does not establish that a nuclear attack was the only way to do so. Had a nuclear device been dropped on one of the other opponents (who had subsequently surrendered), the US would have argued that the nuclear attack was the only way there, too. We do not know how alternatives would have played out, because even when potentially lifesaving alternatives existed, they were not explored.

Remember: after the first device was dropped, the US did not bother to wait long enough for an informed response from Japan before dropping the second. They also chose to drop two distinct types they had been itching to test. These two elements tell me enough about their priorities, and where human life ranked.

CaitSeith:

If you are talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they did establish it. The alternative to the nuclear bomb was to invade Japan, which would had ended with a higher loss of human lives in both sides (specially for the japanese side, since they didn't shy from suicide tactics like Kamikaze strikes and traditionally honored death over surrendering). Which option was more detestable?

There are numerous possibilities: use of the nuclear device on a non-residential area, for one; or use of one nuclear device, followed by actually waiting for Japan to respond before dropping another.

There has been an incredible tendency to overlook (or excuse) a string of extraordinarily cruel and trigger-happy decisions on the part of the US.

Media coverage of the summit suffers from the same problems as media coverage of virtually anything related to foreign policy.

Seanchaidh:

Media coverage of the summit suffers from the same problems as media coverage of virtually anything related to foreign policy.

What Media Coverage are you talking about? I pretty much watched this live and it just looked like they were just showing what happened. They talked about the pros and cons and it pretty much sounded like everyone was just relieved they didn't blow up at each other.

Trump is a "used car salesman" he always promises things he cant keep and " butters people up". this was no different. It is pretty much what I expected him to do. South Korea worked their arse off to get an agreement ready, they just needed to have both US and NK agree to remove Nukes from the area and start deescalation. All they needed from Trump and Kim Jong Un is to sit down and agree to it. They managed to do so without behaving like imbeciles, and chances are Trump will not even remember what he agreed to in a few days anyhow because that is how he is. It is just about theatrics to him and everyone else handles the details.

Trump continues to praise fascism.

There is no defense of Trump. Supporting Trump is supporting fascism.

This is a rare instance where my tankie friends and my ultra far-right friends are in alignment on something. The only other time I can think of that happening is when the topic of Israel comes up.

Saelune:

There is no defense of Trump. Supporting Trump is supporting fascism.

Schon flattern Trumpfahnen uber allen Straszen.
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit! - The RNC, according to you, probably

Edit: Seriously Escapist? Can't do Eszett or umlaut?

CaitSeith:

Silvanus:

The USA has already used nuclear weapons without establishing whether they needed to do so or not.

If you are talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they did establish it. The alternative to the nuclear bomb was to invade Japan, which would had ended with a higher loss of human lives in both sides (specially for the japanese side, since they didn't shy from suicide tactics like Kamikaze strikes and traditionally honored death over surrendering). Which option was more detestable?

Honestly? I think its terrible but less terrible for soldiers and people fighting to die rather than unarmed civilians dieing like with those nukes.

And people just seem to take it for granted that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise. Whats the difference between realising it was hopeless in the face of an overwhelming army as opposed to overwhelming bombs?

Heck, couldn't have America contacted Japan, told them to look at a particular more empty area, and dropped one nuke there simply to display the power and then proceeded to threaten them with city bombings?

Thaluikhain:
Japan was not willing to surrender on the terms the Allies wanted until attacked with nuclear devices, though. That the US, of course, had other motives didn't mean that wanting the end the war and occupy Japan to prevent a further one wasn't a legitimate one.

The Japanese didn't surrender because of the nukes, however.

The fire attacks over Tokyo killed more people, and arguably the U.S. could have continued such offensives cheaper than manufacturing nuclear weapons to target cities. Prior the nuclear detonations, the total number of direct attacks over Japanese soil claimed far more lives.

If Japan wasn't going to surrender when the U.S. basically barbecued 43 Japanese cities and killed over half a million people through its bombing runs from January 1945 to August, what makes you think nukes being deployed at two largely unimportant sites was going to accomplish anything?

What ultimately sealed the envelope was the Soviet declaration of war against the 'Empire' of Japan in early August and the subsequent invasion of Manchuria. By comparative strength, the U.S.S.R was the most powerful military force on the planet by mid-1945 and whatever fear the Japanese had about the industrial capacity of the U.S., it was utterly astonished by the ridiculous rise to power of the Soviet Union.

It took a matter of days for the Soviets to utterly destroy the Japanese force strength and cohesion... and they were planning an invasion of Hokkaido by mid-August and estimating they could 'pacify it enough' to launch a subsequent invasion of Honshu soon after. And this was a meagre fraction of Soviet strength it would later bfing to bear. If the Japanese didn't surrender, or if you waited until November (rough date for the Western invasion of Japan), you'd be talking a North & South Japan. A North and South Tokyo. And that's assuming Honshu wasn't taken completely, or could only mount limited actions in terms of localized resistance.

Stalin's purges meant that there were no longer any fuddy-duddy beard twisting commanders who knew only of early 20th century warcraft, but a new breed of battlehardened, modern commanders capable of fielding detachments, corps, armies, and army group level leadership by late-ish 1943. By late 1944 and early 1945 Soviet armaments and the sheer experience its soldiers had, as well as the rapid technological sophistication at its disposal, put the entire world on edge.

In two years the Soviets went from a military that couldn't field effective corp-level and army-group level leadership staff officers, to having proven commanders who could. The deficit of decent commanders in suitable hierarchies of command in 1941 meant that a Soviet 'army group' (which didn't exist if you lookat the actual order of battle and the transcripts and communiques between Soviet officers prior Operation Star) was about your average German army in size and sophistication and capacity for detachment grade independent actions. As for Soviet corp-level commanders ... they simply did not exist. There just werent the qualified soldiers necessary to run such organizations.

The myth of Soviet soldiers 'drowning Germans in blood' is just that. In fact the true fighting strength at the front for the Soviets didn't remarkably outnumber the Nazis until after Operation Star. Many soldiers ended up in perpetual reserve because the Soviets just didn't have the command hierarchy to maintain it any other way.

The closest semblance to that mythology was in the north ... and the reasonfor that isbecause Stalin correctly interpreted Hitler's commands to invade the south, but Halder reprioritized the north before Hitler could do anything about it. So the north was the true killing field of Soviet soldiers, precisely because Stalin did not think Halder would be so openly ... let's say rebellious ... with his orders and the requisitioning and allocation of forces for the conflict against the Soviets.

Hell, even in the south the Soviets did not outnumber Germans (and only Germans, not including their allies). The Germans, right until mid 1943, maintain superiority of fighting strength. Personnel, aircraft, tanks, artillery... Battle of Stalingrad, for instance.

By 1944 there were those commanders. And they were pretty fucking brilliant. A combination of battlehardened, blood-soaked, and understanding personal endangerment and the intricacies of tactical and strategic level fighting through firsthand experience.

The fact of the matter is Japan was going to surrender to the U.S. with or without the nukes, as soon as the Soviets turned their full attention to the East. Because sure as shit, where as Western forces were dithering about the merits of a land invasion of Japan (Operation Coronet, etc) ... the Soviets were likely to raze the nation to the ground.

If the Japanese didn't surrender in August, major powers on the Pacific were still planning on landing troops all the way in November...

The travesty of it is while you might be able to justify Hiroshima, you cannot justify Nagasaki ...

Nagasaki was basically the Dresden of the East.

Silvanus:
Remember: after the first device was dropped, the US did not bother to wait long enough for an informed response from Japan before dropping the second. They also chose to drop two distinct types they had been itching to test. These two elements tell me enough about their priorities, and where human life ranked.

That part I agree with.

Fieldy409:
Honestly? I think its terrible but less terrible for soldiers and people fighting to die rather than unarmed civilians dieing like with those nukes.

The estimated casualties for an invasion were more soldiers killed on either side than civilians that died in the bombings. The US made 500,000 Purple Heart medals in preparation for the invasion, it hasn't awarded them all yet despite every war since.

The estimated casualties for civilians were much higher. As an aside, they were going to use mustard gas, and had been tested it on Australian volunteers who weren't told what they were volunteering for.

Fieldy409:
And people just seem to take it for granted that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise. Whats the difference between realising it was hopeless in the face of an overwhelming army as opposed to overwhelming bombs?

Japan was willing to surrender, on it's terms. The allies had won the war, the US public didn't want to keep fighting it. After the invasion, with hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and tens of thousands of dead soldiers, Japan would offer a surrender on its terms again. If that wasn't accepted, next month, after more killing, they'd offer again. Sooner or later (the Japanese hoped, and the US feared), the US public would accept Japan's terms, leave them alone to rebuild, and keep bits of Asia to murder the locals in.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
What ultimately sealed the envelope was the Soviet declaration of war against the 'Empire' of Japan in early August and the subsequent invasion of Manchuria.

That was an important factor, yes, it left the Japanese no options, but the nuclear attacks played a large role as well.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Stalin's purges meant that there were no longer any fuddy-duddy beard twisting commanders who knew only of early 20th century warcraft, but a new breed of battlehardened, modern commanders capable of fielding detachments, corps, armies, and army group level leadership by late-ish 1943. By late 1944 and early 1945 Soviet armaments and the sheer experience its soldiers had, as well as the rapid technological sophistication at its disposal, put the entire world on edge.

The Soviets had some good, experienced commanders, yes, but I don't think you can credit the purges with that. Otherwise everyone should murder their officer core every 20 years or so. Or at least retire officers quickly.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The myth of Soviet soldiers 'drowning Germans in blood' is just that.

The casualty figures would seem to contradict that. Unless you meant the idea that the sole Soviet tactic wasn't to run hordes of untrained conscripts at the enemy, which is an annoying persistent idea.

Thaluikhain:

That was an important factor, yes, it left the Japanese no options, but the nuclear attacks played a large role as well.

It wasn't an 'important factor', it was the deciding factor.

The Soviets were the world superpower by this point. The West only in co-operation, could hope to meet it. And the Soviets were going to break Japan over its steel knee. They were planning an invasion of Honshu before the West could even muster sufficient soldiers for an amphibious landings and occupation.

They had 2 million soldiers and a mammoth array of materiel, tanks, planes, and guns they could mobilize into Hokkaido, and later Honshu, likely by September. And Hokkaido specifically, they were planning to conquer it by mid August.

The Soviets had some good, experienced commanders, yes, but I don't think you can credit the purges with that. Otherwise everyone should murder their officer core every 20 years or so. Or at least retire officers quickly.

I don't... in fact the purge came at the wrong time, but better late than never at least in terms of helping reorganize what was a broken, badly structured military into the premier power of the world.

The casualty figures would seem to contradict that. Unless you meant the idea that the sole Soviet tactic wasn't to run hordes of untrained conscripts at the enemy, which is an annoying persistent idea.

It's easy to murder aged reservists and conscripts.

Even still Operation Barbarossa had a force composition twice that of the Soviets that met them in battle. In terms of aerial assets, machine guns, artillery, and MBTs, many-fold the strength of the Soviet forces. But the narrative you're espousing is mythology when you actually take in set piece battles. Battle of Stalingrad for instance had the Soviets at a numerical disadvantage in all catagories of operational concerns unitil the very end.

The narrative of German superiority in warcraft is fictional.

Which is precisely why it was utterly unsurprising when Soviet commanders, when actually reorganized and their force composition given greater operational capabilities, turned the tide so rapidly.

The Soviets proved that in Manchuria and Manchukuo...

Destroying an 'elite' Japanese army group in 11 days, and liberated the entire Korean peninsula in under 2 weeks.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It wasn't an 'important factor', it was the deciding factor.

The Soviets were the world superpower by this point. The West only in co-operation, could hope to meet it. And the Soviets were going to break Japan over its steel knee. They were planning an invasion of Honshu before the West could even muster sufficient soldiers for an amphibious landings and occupation.

They had 2 million soldiers and a mammoth array of materiel, tanks, planes, and guns they could mobilize into Hokkaido, and later Honshu, likely by September. And Hokkaido specifically, they were planning to conquer it by mid August.

Might have to agree to disagree about that one.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It's easy to murder aged reservists and conscripts.

Well, yes, that's the usual criticism of the Soviets. Take twice as many casualties as your opponents and people start think your military isn't as good. Throw reservists, conscripts, criminals, cadets et al at the enemy in desperation and it doesn't look good.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The narrative of German superiority in warcraft is fictional.

Which is precisely why it was utterly unsurprising when Soviet commanders, when actually reorganized and their force composition given greater operational abilities, turned the tide so rapidly.

Again, yes, but there's a big difference between saying "the Soviets were superior" and "the Soviets were superior after a few years of getting their act together and learning the hard way". They ended the war taking a photo of their flag flying over the Reichstag, but they began the war being driven east by the Germans. Having said that, the same is true of the UK.

Thaluikhain:

Might have to agree to disagree about that one.

Evidence for your opinion would be nice.

Well, yes, that's the usual criticism of the Soviets.

And how well did German conscripts and reservists fare against Soviet forces and how good a fight did they put up? Oh that's right... they largely didn't. They got slaughtered wholesale when the tables had turned and the Soviets were thundering towards Berlin.

Germans had plenty of their own Kharkovs and Stalingrads... the difference is the Soviets won them.

Take twice as many casualties as your opponents and people start think your military isn't as good.

Or the fact that the Germans performed the largest invasion in history and had twice the numbers fielded than Soviet forces...

Again, yes, but there's a big difference between saying "the Soviets were superior" and "the Soviets were superior after a few years of getting their act together and learning the hard way". They ended the war taking a photo of their flag flying over the Reichstag, but they began the war being driven east by the Germans. Having said that, the same is true of the UK.

When you can only field a fraction the effective fighting force than your enemy, and said enemy has taken the initiative to fight where they largely got to choose where to fight over a massive frontier of about 2000 kilometres, even defensive actions are going to costly. And yeah... it's going to require a high level of sacrifice to transform a war of movement into fixed lines from where you can actively launch a meaningful counteroffensive.

Or as Stalin put it best... 'Not a step back' ...

Soviet victories were and still are incredibly impressive. And the way that people pretend otherwise from fallacious argumentation is, at best, wrong... at worst typical of active anti-Slav bias you often find in Western narratives of history.

Fieldy409:
Honestly why would Kim ever disarm his nukes? He gets to benefit from Mutually Assured Destruction, even in a little way of blowing up a few cities, to prevent the worlds superpowers from ever invading and executing Kim like so many other dictators. What leverage does he have after that? I suppose he still has the artillery pointed at South Korea but what if the rest of the world said 'fuck SK' and still invaded him?

It would have to be a hell of a deal in their favor. And I cant imagine Trump ever giving North Korea something good enough for it because Trump wants to look tough and giving away things to other countries would probably upset his base. Best you're ever gonna get is vague promises to disarm one day, that never actually happen.

The nukes are here to stay, since its the best tool in North Koreas habit of rattling its sabre to get foreign aid and scaring off invaders by being more trouble to fight than its worth.

Didn't you hear Trump? He says North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. He would know obviously, he can tell in a split second whether someone is genuine, and Kim has his approval. Now the greatest threat to the US is only the media who question things he does and says. Maybe YOU'RE one of those threats, hey?
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/donald-trump-says-north-korea-no-longer-a-nuclear-threat-20180613-p4zlb3.html
(god I fucking despise this piece of shit, my soul has never known such loathing)

WolvDragon:
Right Wingers, like, Sean Hannity have said that Obama apologizes for America, and that he's sucking up to dictators, aka they view him weak on foreign policy. Hannity compared Obama to Neville Chamberlain, a guy, just like Trump did at the summit, gave alot of concessions without getting anything substantial in return. But with Trump, they're praising him and think he deserves the noble peace price.

Sure, I don't think every registered republican or conservative leaning voter is that partisan, but there's still a big group of right wingers who treat politics as some sort of compact sport, and that they play for a team. Don't be so naive and not think alot of right wingers tend to be partisan hacks.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Evidence for your opinion would be nice.

Well, assuming that the Japanese didn't know about the Soviet's logistical problems with launching an invasion on that scale, and the Yalta treaty which would have caused problems with the allies, I find it hard to believe that the use of atomic bombs on two cities was not seen as a big deal by the Japanese military. Now, certainly, conventional bombing can have similar effects, but now the allies can (and apparently, will) do in moments with a single plane what it took waves of hundreds to do last week.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
And how well did German conscripts and reservists fare against Soviet forces and how good a fight did they put up? Oh that's right... they largely didn't. They got slaughtered wholesale when the tables had turned and the Soviets were thundering towards Berlin.

Certainly. Germany at the end of the war when it was decisively losing was reduced to trying things the Soviets did in the beginning of (their) war. That doesn't mean that using untrained conscripts wasn't a sign of serious military problems when the Soviets were forced to do it. For that matter, once the Soviets rebuilt their forces, they stopped doing that.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
When you can only field a fraction the effective fighting force than your enemy, and said enemy has taken the initiative to fight where they largely chose to fight over a massive frontier of about 2000 kilometres, even defensive actions are going to costly.

Germany taking the initiative proves that the Soviets were superior? In any case, I don't see what that has to do with the changes in the Soviet military during the war.

EDIT: Oh, you added another part

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Soviet victories were and still are incredibly impressive. And the way that people pretend otherwise from fallacious argumentation is, at best, wrong... at worst typical of active anti-Slav bias you often find in Western narratives of history.

Certainly, yes. After all, the US got their pic of raising the flag at Iwo Jima (which nobody had heard of), the Soviets got their pic of raising the flag at Berlin (which everyone has heard of). The Iron Curtain was in Western, not Eastern Europe for a reason.

But that's due to massive improvements in the Soviet military during the war, and things were very different early on.

Thaluikhain:

Well, assuming that the Japanese didn't know about the Soviet's logistical problems with launching an invasion on that scale, and the Yalta treaty which would have caused problems with the allies, I find it hard to believe that the use of atomic bombs on two cities was not seen as a big deal by the Japanese military. Now, certainly, conventional bombing can have similar effects, but now the allies can (and apparently, will) do in moments with a single plane what it took waves of hundreds to do last week.

Moving goalposts. I never said it wasn't a big deal. It was as much as a 'big deal' as in the 40 odd other cities the U.S. blew up or set on fire for half a year beforehand and yet decided to still fight. Whereas we have documented evidence just how much of a shitstorm in Japan caused by Stalin living up to his secret-ish promise to Western leaders he would declare war on Japan and singlehandedly basically ended the war across mainland Asia.

Certainly. Germany at the end of the war when it was decisively losing was reduced to trying things the Soviets did in the beginning of (their) war. That doesn't mean that using untrained conscripts wasn't a sign of serious military problems when the Soviets were forced to do it. For that matter, once the Soviets rebuilt their forces, they stopped doing that.

Uh uh. See, we have evidence the Germans invaded with a far superior force in comparison and had far greater means to effectively field that force. We also have evidence that in many pivotal battles over '41 and '42 wasn't characterized by simply flinging people at Germans, but rather the Soviets were underfielded and characterized by often disintegrating operational cohesion due to substandard communications and reduced capacity for independent actions of armies and army groups due to the lack of corp-level command structures allowing effective detachment level agency.

The difference is the Soviets actually won.

So the mythology of the German soldier somehow fighting against hordes of Soviets is a lie. Because the harshest and most prolonged theatres in contest were often typified by Germans having initial numerical superiority and greater operational resources that weren't afforded to Soviet defenders.

And there's an obvious reason for that. When you're on the offensive with 2000 kilomegres to work with and a piecemeal opposition, you don't attack them where they're strongest. You don't have to (necessarily). This is particularly true when you enjoy superiority of mobility, artillery, and aerial support.

Less Soviets mindlessly tossing themselves at Germans ... more Soviets getting blown up by bombers, artillery, or starved due enemy strength differences. And that's normal. That's to be expected.

Operation Uranus, despite having to assail partly across the Volga banks against an entrenched German, Hungarian and Italian force of comparable numerical strength was a decisive Soviet victory ... the total difference in manpower was only 150 thousand when speaking of actually fielded soldiers.

So the bullshit narrative of drowning Germans in Soviet blood is nonsense ... turns out German flesh was just as yielding as the Soviet's, and Soviet commanders didn't just throw men at machineguns mindlessly. The Soviets, despite crippling logistical problems, and on the counterattack with pre-sited Axis artillery and entrenched positions, inflicted greater casualties on Axis forces than suffered themselves.

You know what was a worse operation by ratio and comparable effect?

The Normandy landings.

Allies outnumbered German defenders 3:1, suffered higher casualties, and didn't achieve anywhere near the same degree of success. But for some strange reason the Western narrative of that isn't drowning Germans in blood.

Germany taking the initiative proves that the Soviets were superior? In any case, I don't see what that has to do with the changes in the Soviet military during the war.

Where do I use this term 'superior' in terms of the Soviets? ... My argument is they (the Soviets) were disadvantaged in every conventional sense of the word and high casualties are the natural aspect of that disadvantage. The fact that they so expediently addressed that gap in operational conditions and capabilities in such a short amount of time is incredible.

We have evidence of this disadvantage, and we have evidence their actions afforded them an incredible victory. The people sacrificed for that victory were either low in total when you consider that initial major imbalance of power, or utterly necessary or to be expected for any other nation facing such conditions in order to achieve that victory.

In terms of warcraft, the Soviets were clearly an enemy for which the Wehrmacht could not match. What they had to do, and what they managed to accomplish, is breathtaking... and an honest assessment of their situation taken in terms of the reality and exemplification in other situations, the merits of such agency become obvious.

Certainly, yes. After all, the US got their pic of raising the flag at Iwo Jima (which nobody had heard of), the Soviets got their pic of raising the flag at Berlin (which everyone has heard of). The Iron Curtain was in Western, not Eastern Europe for a reason.

But that's due to massive improvements in the Soviet military during the war, and things were very different early on.

Things were very different. They won the battles necessary against a formidable opposition for which had for years an enviable superiority of fielded personnel, equipment, and materiel. Nominally that should be recognized in honesty and without prejudice... if only for truth's sake, or to provide useful and accurate baseline hypotheticals in military science.

CM156:

Schon flattern Trumpfahnen uber allen Straszen.
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit! - The RNC, according to you, probably

Edit: Seriously Escapist? Can't do Eszett or umlaut?

Yeah, the number of signs and symbols the forum can display is quite limited, essentially to just those used in English.

Also, some explanation for whoever doesn't know what that German above is all about. They're lines from the Horst-Wessel-Lied, the Nazi Party anthem, except Hitler's name was replaced by Trump's. Translated, it goes something like this:

Trump's banners already fly over all the streets.
The serfdom won't last long anymore now!

Might have made some translation errors. My German is rusty.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here