Poll
Question:
Do you think whom, while grammatically correct, sounds goofy and off?
Option 1: Nips
votes: 22
Option 2: Russkies
votes: 14
Option 3: I wish they would both Jaron each other.
votes: 5
Another one where it's not abundantly clear IMO who the Good Guy and the Bad Guy are.
In hindsight, Russia.
Japan. If only because more of East Asia doesn't need to be under Soviet domination later on.
Neither, instead British North Sea fishing fleet with timmayesque holographic laser fishing nets. :bowler:
President Theodore Roosevelt was no fan of the Russians: “No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant — in short, as untrustworthy in every way — as the Russians,” he wrote in August 1905, near the end of the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese, on the other hand, were “a wonderful and civilized people,” Roosevelt wrote, “entitled to stand on an absolute equality with all the other peoples of the civilized world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06bradley.html
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 22, 2012, 04:42:15 PM
Japan. If only because more of East Asia doesn't need to be under Soviet domination later on.
But it weakened the Tsar and strengthened Japan's imperial aims. Perhaps if Japan had been crushed there'd have been no Pacific War later on.
Russia is never the good guy.
I hate it when the thread question and the poll question are different.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2012, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 22, 2012, 04:42:15 PM
Japan. If only because more of East Asia doesn't need to be under Soviet domination later on.
But it weakened the Tsar and strengthened Japan's imperial aims. Perhaps if Japan had been crushed there'd have been no Pacific War later on.
Arguably, it was already too late for the Tsar. But granted, Japan's victory emboldened them for later on. However, I don't think there was any real chance of Japan being "crushed". At worst, less favorable peace terms (though Japan was already somewhat disappointed wit h the "victorious" terms)...probably leading to a Pacific theater in WWII anyway. Though in this case, a post-WWII Soviet Union would have much more control of the Far East due to their pre-war claims.
As to the poll question, while whom is grammatically correct, leaving the for dangling at the end is not. But who cares?
The Japs. For one, they didn't already control 1/6th of the world's land surface. Secondly, and maybe I'm just speaking in terms of what *did* happen rather than what might have happened, but I think Japan was the society that would be much easier to integrate into a peaceful world system than Russia could ever be.
When did Japanese start committing atrocities? Was it a WWII thing, or just the SOP for them at the time?
Quote from: DGuller on September 22, 2012, 08:32:03 PM
When did Japanese start committing atrocities? Was it a WWII thing, or just the SOP for them at the time?
IIRC, they were committing atrocities since they conquered Korea and Taiwan in 1910 and 1895 respectively. It was perhaps part of their new militant culture.
Quote from: Kleves on September 22, 2012, 05:04:58 PM
Russia is never the good guy.
Goddamn Nazi sympathizer.
Japan. If the Japan had lost that war, it might not have had attacked the US in 1941, and thus wouldn't have been destroyed by the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 09:29:47 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 22, 2012, 05:04:58 PM
Russia is never the good guy.
Goddamn Nazi sympathizer.
Not really. The Nazis kill the Commies, then we get to kill Nazis. It's a beautiful world.
Quote from: citizen k on September 22, 2012, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 09:29:47 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 22, 2012, 05:04:58 PM
Russia is never the good guy.
Goddamn Nazi sympathizer.
Not really. The Nazis kill the Commies, then we get to kill Nazis. It's a beautiful world.
When the Nazis are fighting someone, you root for the other guy.
Japan. They proved their worth with Tsushima.
It's "Who do you root for?", isn't it? Alternatively, it could be "For whom do you root?".
'Whom do you root for?,' and 'For whom do you root?' are both correct. 'Who do you root for?' isn't.
Also, voted Russkies for purely aesthetic reasons -- the big green/red continental blob looks nice on a map.
The only conflict in history where I support the Russians is their battling of the Mongol hordes.
Otto probably would have been a spy for the Germans in WWII.
No, between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia I didn't want either side to "win." The USSR under Stalin was possibly worse of an abuser of human rights than the Nazis (they probably killed more people anyway), and both were injurious to the best interests of the United States.
A better scenario than what actually happened would have been the Germans taking Moscow, as it would have almost certainly resulted in Stalin's fall as leader of the USSR. But it still would have bled Germany dry and left them massively overextended. We would have still pushed in from the West and with support whoever replaced Stalin would still be a threat from the East so U.S. servicemen's death count wouldn't be too much higher. Except we'd end up with American and British forces occupying all of Germany and probably parts of Poland, Hungary etc.
You know what makes the Nazis much worse then the Soviets? The fact they are shooting at us. Every soldier that isn't killed by the Soviets, is one shooting at American soldiers. You know what's better then the Germans winning and becoming overextended from the stand point of say, Americans who have to fight the Germans? The Soviets taking Berlin and killing bunch of goddamn Nazis.
I would have bled the US white to prevent the Cold War.
Be easier just to stay off the continent for a while and then nuke Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo simultaneously.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2012, 05:24:43 PM
Be easier just to stay off the continent for a while and then nuke Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo simultaneously.
Ooh, and while we are at that, we can mine gold off asteroids and every American would be rich!
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2012, 05:33:05 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2012, 05:24:43 PM
Be easier just to stay off the continent for a while and then nuke Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo simultaneously.
Ooh, and while we are at that, we can mine gold off asteroids and every American would be rich!
I never implied asteroid mining would have that result.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2012, 05:33:05 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2012, 05:24:43 PM
Be easier just to stay off the continent for a while and then nuke Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo simultaneously.
Ooh, and while we are at that, we can mine gold off asteroids and every American would be rich!
Maybe the people of the future will say that, but I doubt it. However, with our hindsight of WW2, we know that Americans developed the bomb in 1945 and that it was used just a few months after the Nazis fell.
Funny thing. In 1945, it would be rather difficult to simultaneously nuke Moscow, Berlin and Tokyo from "off the continent".
We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki from offshore. Though you can amend simultaneously to "in short order" if you'd like.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2012, 05:46:17 PM
We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki from offshore. Though you can amend simultaneously to "in short order" if you'd like.
Yeah, from an island in the pacific that had to be captured from the Japanese...
We were already able to bomb Germany from Britain. As for Russia, how hard would it be to land some troops in Scandinavia? Not like the Germans had the manpower to garrison the entire coastline of Europe.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2012, 05:24:43 PM
Be easier just to stay off the continent for a while and then nuke Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo simultaneously.
A while? Remember, it wouldn't take that long for the Soviets to get the atomic bomb on account of the fact that the US was riddled with Democrat Soviet agents.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2012, 06:04:41 PM
We were already able to bomb Germany from Britain. As for Russia, how hard would it be to land some troops in Scandinavia? Not like the Germans had the manpower to garrison the entire coastline of Europe.
Psst. Britain is part of Europe. It probably wouldn't much use to try and bomb Moscow from the coast of Norway. Not to mention the fact, that flying a bomber over hundreds of miles of enemy territory is a tad difficult with out first destroying their air force. Or the fact that if the US had not entered the war it probably wouldn't have built the bomb or the equipment required to deploy it.
I wasn't suggesting not entering the war at all, just hold off on torch and overlord while the Russians and Germans wear each other down.
About the only war where I'd support Russia.
Russia and Germany both lost WW1. A repeat in WW2 would have been nice.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 22, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
The Japs. For one, they didn't already control 1/6th of the world's land surface. Secondly, and maybe I'm just speaking in terms of what *did* happen rather than what might have happened, but I think Japan was the society that would be much easier to integrate into a peaceful world system than Russia could ever be.
Agreed. Shit went crazy in the 30s but before then they were well and truly on course to being the Japan we know and love today...only with added nobility and other coolness.
Russia on the other hand.....yeah. Russia....