U.S. Forces in Japan: time to say good-bye?
- Thread starter thomas
- Start date
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
nurizeko said:
That is a matter of opinion.
Any potential cultural exchanges that might occur as a result of thousands of US citizens being there could be done outside the context of bases being there. And be cheaper too. One downside to using cultural exchange as a good thing from the bases being there is that it is predominantly young US single males that are encountered. This could make it seem like US culture is very macho and militaristic.
--Uh, wait a minute. It kind of is. I grew up on war toys, hollywood movies, video games, and such. Don't ask me how I ended up not believing in war. It just sort of happened.
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
I know that it is very difficult to understand.
It is difficult to explain as well.
It is difficult to explain as well.
So:
VIVE LES DIFFERENCES!!!
:wave: :wave: :wave:
VIVE LES DIFFERENCES!!!
:wave: :wave: :wave:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/4759/130324-1.html
korean case is so funny ...
Japan insisted that Japan also pay amends money directly to Korean's( south and north) people.
however S-koean G refused that
so Japan paid total amount money to the South Korea government.
korean G didnt announced that japan paid money with including N-korean one
S-korean G stole them :wave:
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
Sukotto said:
Those people are wrong. At the rate China is catching up, we'd be able to defeat them in either a limited war, or, in full-scale war, through use of nuclear weapons. And I don't think we have the stomach ever to use them again (thank God), so that rules out that possibility.
Economically, if we begin to collapse (and that is a possibility, since our entire economy hinges on gas), you must admit that China will be one of the sharks looking to bite a piece of meat off of our dying carcass. A small squabble over the PacRim with our economy in the gutter would secure China's future as a military power in that sphere, as well as severely damage American business interests there.
Honestly, the days of the American hegemony are numbered. Now, I know plenty of people worldwide would rejoice to hear that, but I have to ask, who is willing to fill our shoes as global policeman? Someone has got to step up to the task. And so far, in my opinion, we haven't abused that position half as much as we could have. Or half as much as China or any other country would.
Excellent points!Elizabeth van Kampen said:
However...
You don't remember the rapid-fire succession of countries Stalin's tanks rolled into during the late 1940s or 1950s? You don't remember the Berlin Blockade? And you don't remember when Khruschev stuck missiles in Cuba? It's not amazing that we were scared. It's frickin' obvious we were, and we had every reason to be.
It can't. Their very constitution forbids an army larger than the Self-Defense Force.Han-chan said:
I had a great-uncle who remembers the Italians lynching Mussoulini and dragging him through the streets. While he did make the trains run on time, not too many Italians really wanted to get bogged down in Ethiopia, nor did they like the idea of having German "allies" occupy their country in order to "help" fight off the Americans and British.
WHAT? What Americans are you talking to? Half the Americans under the age of 25 think the Cold War was just a story made up by the Republicans. When I think of Soviets I think of the Cold War. When I think of Russians I think of hot women, cold weather, Stolichnaya vodka, and organized crime.Crazy Russian said:
1) Our president is not raping our mind. We are quite divided on politics right now. It is almost as bad as our political divisions on the eve of our Civil War in 1861.
2) The Chinese are pissed off at the West for 200 or 300 years of abuse, political leveraging, manipulation, hegemony, you name it. Queen Victoria of England was the biggest drugdealer in human history, and she pushed her goods on China. We have a reason to be a little fearful of them. Especially since I remember watching Tienammen Square as a young boy on TV.
3) Most of us don't think the Iraqis are our enemy. Some of us think Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are our enemies. There is a difference. I've spoken to plenty of U.S. servicemen who have been in and out of Iraq, and almost unanimously they say that we are doing the right thing. (Note: there are some dissenting soldiers, but I have yet to meet any of them).
4) As for North Korean, Kim Jong Il is building bombs that can reach California. Why? For protection? From whom? South Korea? Why does he need a bomb that can hit San Francisco if he needs to hit Seoul? The guy is a modern-day Viking, making us pay his Danegeld. There's an old English saying, "If you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." They would know.
Who unleashed a war in Chechniya? Why didn't you just let them go? Under that "irrefutable logic", Boris Yeltsin is your enemy, too.
You say this, and then you laud Napoleon later?
No, this logic is far from irrefutable. Besides, if England had "unleashed a war" against Hitler in 1938, it would have avoided a lot of trouble. But it didn't, because it strove for a temporary peace.
Well, there's an old Roman saying, "A bad peace is even worse than war." And a Greek philosopher once said, "If you are too eager to preserve peace, you may find yourself with a master."
So Stalin was championing stability when he invaded Eastern European countries?
Let's run down the gamut of American wars.
War for Independence (1775-1783): Goal was independence from England.
Barbary Pirates' War: Thomas Jefferson's war against the Barbary States of North Africa, who were famous for raiding the coasts of both Europe and America and capturing Christian slaves. After this war, the slave-raiding and extortion stopped forever.
War of 1812 (1812-1815): U.S. fought England over their raiding of American merchant ships and impressment of American sailors into the British navy.
Mexican War: A border-dispute over the Texas border with Mexico, as well as over Santa Anna reneging on his deal to let us buy the rest of the continent. Even though we won, we still paid the Mexican government for the land we conquered, and we paid them the previously agreed-upon amount. Then we bought the "Gatsden Purchase", a small sliver of land, from Mexico for 8 times the amount that we paid for the rest of the territory we got.
U.S. Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression (1861-1865): This war was probably the most noble and honorable war fought in human history, because it was fought for ideals. The North fought to preserve the Union and thereby the Constitution, and to end slavery; the Confederacy fought for the right of individual states to have more power over their destinies. No religion. No money. No greed. No kings telling them to. The war was fought purely for idealism.
Spanish-American War: We were sick of the Spanish interfering in the Americas, and the Carribbeans wanted independence, which we gave most of them. Besides, we thought they blew up one of our ships (it turns out that it was a boiler explosion, not a torpedo, but we didn't find that out until recently).
American-Filippino War: A war fought to maintain our hold on the Philippines as a colony. Although we defeated the rebels, we agreed to give the Philippines limited autonomy with the promise of eventual sovereignty/independence, a promise we made good on in 1946.
Indian Wars: Wars fought against Native American tribes fighting against the United States government. Many times the Native Americans were justified in their fights against the U.S., yes.
World War I (1917-1918): We fought in the last year of a war that was already tearing Europe to shreds.
World War II (1941-1945): We fought this war because the Japanese and Germans declared war on us. By the way, this, again, was already tearing up Europe. And we were isolationist before and didn't want to get involved.
Korean War: We were part of a United Nations army preserving the sovereignty of South Korea.
Vietnam War (1965-1972): We were fighting alongside the South Vietnamese army to keep South Vietnam from becoming Communist, just like in Korea. Unlike Korea, we were largely unsupported in this fight. We were fighting because we were afraid of the Domino Theory, which, ironically, turned out to be true. Khmer Rouge ring a bell?
The Persian Gulf War (1991): We fought a war, alongside the United Nations, to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. We should have removed Hussein then, but namby-pambies didn't want to finish the job.
Afghanistan: The Taliban was an open and proud supporter of Al Qaeda, who had just flown planes into the World Trade Center.
Iraq: Rumors of NBCs (which, it was recently reported, turned out to be true) as well as rumors of Al Qaeda links (which have yet to be proven), as well as the fact that we should have knocked Hussein out back in 1991.
Well, the only wars to foster instability could be the Spanish-American War as well as the current Iraqi war. So, no, not every war has been a war to foster instability.
You are so biased against the United States it is amazing. No wonder you think the Cold War is still on. You seem incapable of anything but insulting Americans and their history. I'd be surprised if there were any Americans who didn't give you a cold reception because of your attitude.
Umm, no. Wellington saved the world from Napolean. And if it wasn't for the war on the Western front dividing the Nazi army, you'd be speaking German right now.
I'd rather die at Gettysburg, 1963, fighting to set men free.
Your hero-worship of Napoleon is hypocritical. The man was a tyrant who manipulated a frightened France that had undergone a decade of chaos during the Reign of Terror. He modeled his ascension to the throne after Augustus, and called himself l'empereur. His greed and ambition knew no boundaries. However, given how much the Russians are Francophiles, I'm not surprised you'd stylize him as a great man while lumping all Americans together as a ragtag bunch of bullies and assholes.
Because the British Empire was so war-weary by that point. The British of the 1880s would have massacred him and his followers.Sukotto said:
- 1 Nov 2005
- 446
- 39
To GodEmperorLeto
You wrote;You don't remember the rapid-fire succession of countries Stalin's tanks rolled into during the late 1940s or 1950s? You don't remember the Berlin Blockade? And you don't remember when Khruschev stuck missiles in Cuba? It's not amazing that we were scared. It's frickin' obvious we were, and we had every reason to be.
Hello,
Russia is much closer to Europe than to the USA,Russia is a part of Europe, and Russia occupied East Europe, not Alaska.
But I was asking about the diffrent way America treated the German war criminals and how they treated the Japanese war criminals, the difference was amazing. I guess that Japan had to serve as a wall against communist China, because it was communism that the USA feared more than anything else on earth. And you know that dangerous communism just fell apart, all by itself, it was the Russian Gorbachov who pushed the iron curtain aside.
Japan was occupied by the USA only directly after the war, but East Germany was ocupied by Russia, many innocent Germans have suffered badly under the Russian yoke, the USA, Great Britain and France occupied the other parts of Germany.
Why couldn't Australia and the British occupy Japan together with the USA
just after the war? Once again; why this difference between Japan and Germany, while they were both the enemies during World War Two?
You wrote;You don't remember the rapid-fire succession of countries Stalin's tanks rolled into during the late 1940s or 1950s? You don't remember the Berlin Blockade? And you don't remember when Khruschev stuck missiles in Cuba? It's not amazing that we were scared. It's frickin' obvious we were, and we had every reason to be.
Hello,
Russia is much closer to Europe than to the USA,Russia is a part of Europe, and Russia occupied East Europe, not Alaska.
But I was asking about the diffrent way America treated the German war criminals and how they treated the Japanese war criminals, the difference was amazing. I guess that Japan had to serve as a wall against communist China, because it was communism that the USA feared more than anything else on earth. And you know that dangerous communism just fell apart, all by itself, it was the Russian Gorbachov who pushed the iron curtain aside.
Japan was occupied by the USA only directly after the war, but East Germany was ocupied by Russia, many innocent Germans have suffered badly under the Russian yoke, the USA, Great Britain and France occupied the other parts of Germany.
Why couldn't Australia and the British occupy Japan together with the USA
just after the war? Once again; why this difference between Japan and Germany, while they were both the enemies during World War Two?
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
GodEmperorLeto said:
Tell that to those who are killed.
BUT,
the ancient Romans were imperialist meanies.
And weren't the Greeks a bunch of militarists too?
I prefer Mark Twain:
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war."
For now that's all the time I have. :bow:
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
Sukotto said:
Spare me your plebian bleeding-heart diatribes.
The Romans lived in a world where war didn't break out, peace did. The Romans of the later Empire were just as soft and afraid of war as modern Americans and Europeans are.
And they were right about a bad peace being worse than war. I know you keep ignoring me when I say this, but look at Chamberlain's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s. That was a bad peace that, thank God, resulted in war before it was too late, otherwise, Nazism would have been victorious.
Besides, although the Romans had slavery (what ancient society didn't?), it wasn't chattel slavery, and in fact, by being a slave you could improve your financial standing through a peculium and eventually buy your freedom.
Romans brought peace and stability to the Mediterranean basin for the first (and last) time in human history. Trade, the arts, science, and mathematics flourished under the pax Romana. "Imperialistic meanies" is not only vastly inaccurate, it is typical of left-wing buzzword emotional rhetoric that is only good for swaying the opinions of intellectually challenged voters, making you no better than the religious right using fabricated Bible verses and rampant misinterpretation to effect people's opinions.
I agree with most of your descriptions of the wars, though one or two were a bit exhagirating of America's goodyness.
The Romans were assholes alright, grade A assholes, but, they were people of their time, and they were highly civilized assholes.
Your quite right on when you say peace broke out instead of war.
Still most of the roman empire was secure from the wars so, war was always, especially in later centuries, somethnig that occured far away, kinda like modern American wars.
America is always involved in a conflict somehwere, but its always far from the "provinces" of the american "empire".
The Romans were assholes alright, grade A assholes, but, they were people of their time, and they were highly civilized assholes.
Your quite right on when you say peace broke out instead of war.
Still most of the roman empire was secure from the wars so, war was always, especially in later centuries, somethnig that occured far away, kinda like modern American wars.
America is always involved in a conflict somehwere, but its always far from the "provinces" of the american "empire".
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
Glad to hear this! (except for 'organised crime')
Thanks for trying to demolish my thoughts about many Americans' having the Cold War mentality. But I insist that most of the American politicians still have such a mentality.If the USA invaded (under any pretence) Russia or the USSR (if it still existed), I should become a 'terrorist' (or rather fighter for freedom and independence) as well. According to your logic, I'm your enemy (at least, potential one).
I hate Yeltsin. He is my enemy.
However, isn't it nice that the West still reproaches Russia with Chechnya? Chechnya is a PART of Russia. In Chechnya in the 1990's we killed the terrorists who, if you don't know, were financed by the USA and Great Britain (in particular, Boris Berezovsky whom Britain granted political asylum and who is the favourite lap-dog of the English government. He's criminal N1 in Russia.). We just have killed terrorists for hire. Moreover, in 2000 there was a referendum in Chechnya. The people were asked whether they wanted to live in Russia. About 80% of them replied: 'Yes. We want to live with the Russians. We want Chechnya to be a part of Russia.'
On the other hand, the Americans and the Jews invade the OTHER countries, kill the Iraqis and the Lebanese. And the West says: 'It's okay. It's fighting against terrorism.' And no one cares about people's dying every day. Isn't it weird?
I respect Napoleon for other merits.
I'm persuaded that sometimes a hot war is much better than a cold war.
So was it okay that the USA made many Western European, and then also some of Eastern, countries join NATO (i.e. made them slaves to the USA and instruments to oppose the USSR and Russia)?
Actually, I also meant cold wars you country's waged.
The USA waged the WWII also with the purpose of grabbing something to itself during the post-war settlement.
Really? I'm not sure.
So do you consider the USA to have been fighter for truth and justice? Very funny...
Afghanistan, Iraq, et cetera... Only lame excuses. Though I understand why you are trying to justify your country...
I knew you would write something like that.
too early...
The United States profit is to continue straining to Asia.
that is to sell the weapons.
In a word, the withdrawal of the United States increases the possibility of the Taiwan invasion of China.
It comes to throw away the United States hegemony in the Pacific Ocean, too.
Japan should do the constitutional revision.
article 9 is meaningless.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
Good for peace. It needs to break out more often.
How do we stop something that seemingly has always been
and/or seemingly always will be? With more of it?
Subjegating others?
You seek to glorify the ancient Roman empire?
Or any empire for that matter?
It is empire in which there is no honor.
none. zero. zilch. not a drop.
It matters not how it was obtained.
Empire quite simply is others subjegated.
And that is a politically correct term for saying slaves.
Slavery, be it chattel or wage or whatever is bunk.
Far from being "left-wing buzzwords".
All empires fall. It is that simple. And we are all in this together
whether we like it or not. One might say that there will always
be empire and figure the only thing to do is defend it to the death
or switch sides when another looks to be winning. Rather than
kill for an idea (that might be a country or a powerful ruler's claim that those
resources over there [that really belong to those that live there] are his/our-really his- 'interests') or a dying regime,
why not do something positive?
For instance,
laugh next time some politicican says something so utterly absurd you'd
think he thinks you are dumb. Such as : America is the greatest force for good in history.
Serously. Whether they are left or right or athiest or jingoist, they are just sucking up. 'you voter are sooooooo good and smart and industrist and kind and cute and strong' yeah yeah yeah...
The politcians didn't read the footnotes in their high school history text book either.
How do we stop something that seemingly has always been
and/or seemingly always will be? With more of it?
Subjegating others?
You seek to glorify the ancient Roman empire?
Or any empire for that matter?
It is empire in which there is no honor.
none. zero. zilch. not a drop.
It matters not how it was obtained.
Empire quite simply is others subjegated.
And that is a politically correct term for saying slaves.
Slavery, be it chattel or wage or whatever is bunk.
Far from being "left-wing buzzwords".
All empires fall. It is that simple. And we are all in this together
whether we like it or not. One might say that there will always
be empire and figure the only thing to do is defend it to the death
or switch sides when another looks to be winning. Rather than
kill for an idea (that might be a country or a powerful ruler's claim that those
resources over there [that really belong to those that live there] are his/our-really his- 'interests') or a dying regime,
why not do something positive?
For instance,
laugh next time some politicican says something so utterly absurd you'd
think he thinks you are dumb. Such as : America is the greatest force for good in history.
Serously. Whether they are left or right or athiest or jingoist, they are just sucking up. 'you voter are sooooooo good and smart and industrist and kind and cute and strong' yeah yeah yeah...
The politcians didn't read the footnotes in their high school history text book either.
moffeltoff
Registered
- 13 Jan 2006
- 21
- 0
Sukotto said:
You have a too one sided view on the military the military is of course yoused to kill in times of war ,or if you decide to invade a country because criminals are hiding out there and kill loads of innocent people as you will have seen very well demonstrated by the isrealy army =)
But the military also provides jobs it in some way is a social net for people to fall into if they lose their job or have a simular problem.
And it can also be very helpdfull to well soften the blow of natural disasters.
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
2 GodEmperorLeto:
I do insist that most of the American and English politicians have both the Cold War mentality and Hitler mentality. I remember watching the documentary about the massacre of the Cossacks in Lienz, Austria. A man having Russian background was interviewed. He had worked in the English government (or smth like that) in the past. He said that many English politicians still had the opinion that the Russians are a primitive nation, i.e. they discoursed like Hitler in 'Mein Kampf'. He said that they thought that the Russians deserved to die and it had been okay that Stalin had killed 40 million Russians and Hitler had killed 20 million Russians. What is the population of Britain, Germany, France? By the way, Maggy Thatcher didn't want the population of Russia to be more than 30 million people.
Amazing! The German Nazism was beat. The American and the English one still exists.
Roosevelt and Churchill were stalwarts of Hitler. Damn it, sometimes I think that Stalin was a British agent who aimed at annihilating the Russians. Paranoia? I don't think so.
Mr Prominent Historian, have you heard about the massacre of the Cossacks that was an excellent example of Russophobia?
I don't want to retell it in my own words, hence I refer to:
http://members.tripod.com/~shtyetz_john/lienz-cossacks.html
'...The Cossack Corps of General Domanov, consisting of about 28,000 persons, including women and children, on leaving Italian territory in early May 1945, crossed over the mountain pass into Austria and set up camp in the valley of the river Drau.
The Staff of the Cossacks and a part of the administrative units were billeted within the city limits of the town of Lienz. The Cossack regiments (disarmed) camped on adjoining territory in tents, while the noncombatants, the aged, the women and children, found quarters in the camp Peggetz, about two miles outside the city.
The attitude of the British authorities towards the Cossacks was quite beyond reproach and even benevolent up to May 26th, and there was nothing to indicate the impending catastrophe. However, on that particular day two events took place which foreshadowed the imminent tragedy. Namely, a British truck pulled up before the Cossacks' Bank, and the soldiers, referring to orders from their superiors, demanded the keys to the strongboxes, locked them up, and, loading them on the truck, drove away to an unknown destination. The protest of the Director of the Bank, and his remonstration that the strongboxes contained but personal savings of the Cossacks, had no effect. According to the declaration of the Bank Director, those strongboxes had contained at that time about 6 million German Marks, and about as much in Italian Lire, all of which had been personal money of the Cossacks.
On the same day, a British officer came to the hotel where General Shkuro and four of his officers had been billeted, and ordered them to pack their belongings so as to move to other billets. When asked, "Which other billets," he answered, "Where your Staff will be."
Later on it became known that General Shkuro and his officers had been moved to Spittal camp and kept there behind barbed wire.
It is important to note that simultaneously a British order had been read, according to which all Cossacks were to receive increased rations and, in fact, were to receive full British rations, which fact had considerably lulled any suspicions there might have been among the Cossacks, and had made it easier for the British to carry out their intentions.
The pleasure of receiving increased rations lasted but a short while. The next day, May 27th, at about 10:00 A.M., the British ordered all officers to turn in their pistols which, so far, they had been permitted to keep. Scarcely anybody guessed the actual purpose of this disarmament. There were but a few who anticipated instinctively, or rather, subconsciously, something mysterious and evil taking place.
On the morning of May 28th all officers, military officials, and medics were ordered to report at 1:00 P.M. to the square before the Staff billets, to be moved in trucks according to directives from the British General.
The Town Commander of Lienz, the British Major Davis, declared that the luggage should not be taken, as everybody was supposed to be back in three or four hours. This declaration was taken at its face value, nearly all had reported and were driven away. But, actually, as soon as the truck convoy, carrying over 2,000 officers and officials, headed by General Krasnov, got under way, it was surrounded by British tanks and escorted to its destination.
Guarded in this manner, everybody was brought into Spittal camp, which was surrounded by several stockades of barbed wire, and was strongly patrolled by the British.
Twenty-four hours later, all these unfortunate prisoners were transported into the Soviet Zone and were handed over to the Soviets. Only five persons were able to escape by a miracle. Numerous camp inmates had committed suicide, numerous others were killed by the guards while attempting an escape, while some had been executed on the way to the Soviet Zone, and it is unknown to this day exactly how many reached the Soviet Union.
In the evening of May 29th, British trucks equipped with loud speakers drove up to the tent camp Peggetz, where the Cossack regiments were camping, and announced that everybody had to get ready to be voluntarily repatriated into the Soviet Union. The British repeated this announcement on May 30th and May 31st.
Everywhere the unanimous reaction of the Cossacks had been to refuse, and to emphasize their protest they declared a hunger strike and hoisted black banners. When British supply trucks rolled up as usual to certain distribution points, there was nobody to accept the rations and, having dumped the food on the ground, they drove away. No Cossack touched that food.
On the morning of June 1st the Cossacks of the Peggetz camp had decided to unite in prayer to God, maybe for the last time. For this purpose an altar was erected on the camp square and a crowd of thousands of aged, of women and children, gathered around. Cadets, as if to protect them, formed an outer ring, holding hands. Black banners were flying from every barrack.
This picture was deeply moving and awesome at the same time. No human nerves could have endured to watch this multitude kneeling, intensely praying, and bitterly weeping.
It was during this Liturgy that the British surrounded the camp area on three sides with tanks and soldiers armed with machine guns. The fourth side remained free: there was the deep and swift Drau river forming a natural barrier. Together with the tanks there appeared trucks and, about 150 to 200 yards away, on the railroad there pulled up a long train of freight cars, waiting for the victims, the Cossacks.
The British waited awhile. Then, seeing that the people did not discontinue their prayers, they fired a volley into the air, charging at the same time into the defenseless people who had sat down on the ground, embracing one another, and refusing to board the trucks.
Now there began a beastly, brutal, and inhuman bloodshed, a massacre of innocent human beings. They hit them with gunbutts, causing an indescribable panic. Soul-piercing screams filled the air. In this inconceivable cataclysm many were trampled to death, mainly children.
Whoever was able to do so put up a desperate defense as long as he had any strength left.
It was only the unconscious, many of them with broken limbs, whom the British were able to grab and dump like logs on their trucks filled with bodies.
When already on the trucks, some Cossacks, regaining consciousness, had jumped off. They were beaten until they fainted and were thrown on the trucks again. The cadets put up the fiercest resistance. They defended not only themselves, but did everything humanly possible to aid the women, the children, and the aged to escape imprisonment, repatriation, and their eventual doom in the USSR.
Numerous Cossacks and their wives committed suicide on that day, preferring death rather then deportation to a barbarous country which had once been Russia, our Fatherland.
Semiconscious, blood-soaked, and heavily wounded - that is how they filled the death train.
For unknown reasons the "Honorable Authority" had decided to give a respite, and the next voluntary transport "home" with respective victims was scheduled to take place on June 3rd. This respite saved the lives of many Cossacks and their wives.
During the night from June 1st to June 2nd there began the second act of the Cossacks' tragedy: the local population began to ransack the possessions of the Cossacks. Like black ravens who gather at the smell of fresh blood, the Austrians now looted the property of the Cossacks by the carload.
During these very days, and with equal procedures, the 15th Cossack Corps, consisting of 18,000 men, had been handed over to the Soviets near the town of Judenburg. Of this multitude there survived only 10 officers and 50 to 60 Cossacks who had broken the guards' cordon by using hand grenades, and who saved themselves by hiding in the nearby woods.
That is how, on May 29th, June 1st, and June 3rd, 1945, 45,000 Russians had been handed over to suffer violent retaliation, by close cooperation on the part of those governments of foreign powers, for whose integrity and interests the Russian Nation had shed its blood and had won victories in World War I.
At present the Peggetz camp is abandoned and has disappeared. Only in one of its comers there are, even now, as a momento of the Cossacks' tragedy, some forgotten graves of victims, with small, weather beaten crosses.
A future historian will pass an unbiased verdict on this bitter tragedy, a verdict on those representatives of "Proud Albion" who have disgraced the ruler of the seas in the past, and who are not worthy to call themselves contemporaries of civilized mankind.
Losses in personnel as great as had been suffered by these two units, namely that of General Domanov and the 15th Cossack Corps, in the course of a couple of days, in conditions of a finished war, have no precedent in Russian military history.
Within these units there had been representatives of the Don Cossacks, and they had formed the main cadres. However, there had been also Cossacks and their wives from other Cossack armies.
Within the 15th Cossack Corps there had been a number of compatriots who were not Cossacks.
Among the slain were heroic warriors of the former Army of the Russian Empire during World War I, and the leaders of the White Cossacks in the years of the Civil War: General Ataman P.N. Krasnov, the Generals Shkuro and Prince Sultan-Girei-Klytch, and others...'
By the way, most of the Cossacks were not the citizens of the USSR. Many of them emigrated from Russia after or during the Revolution. The Cossacks didn't kill any British or American soldier. The English authorities knew that the USSR would kill the survivors. (The USSR killed them indeed.) Nevertheless, the British did what they did...
NECESSARILY READ THIS:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp
Find out more about the incident in Lienz.
So I do insist that the USA victimises the world and is going to enslave it. The American politicians (as well as the English ones) are hypocrites. Mr Historian, admit that Monroe doctrine is a racist doctrine. If you do, I shall think that you are good historian and analyst.
The US forces in any country reveal terroristic plans of the USA. Please, don't trust the American soldiers and politicians. Say them: 'Get out of my country!'
I do insist that most of the American and English politicians have both the Cold War mentality and Hitler mentality. I remember watching the documentary about the massacre of the Cossacks in Lienz, Austria. A man having Russian background was interviewed. He had worked in the English government (or smth like that) in the past. He said that many English politicians still had the opinion that the Russians are a primitive nation, i.e. they discoursed like Hitler in 'Mein Kampf'. He said that they thought that the Russians deserved to die and it had been okay that Stalin had killed 40 million Russians and Hitler had killed 20 million Russians. What is the population of Britain, Germany, France? By the way, Maggy Thatcher didn't want the population of Russia to be more than 30 million people.
Amazing! The German Nazism was beat. The American and the English one still exists.
Roosevelt and Churchill were stalwarts of Hitler. Damn it, sometimes I think that Stalin was a British agent who aimed at annihilating the Russians. Paranoia? I don't think so.
Mr Prominent Historian, have you heard about the massacre of the Cossacks that was an excellent example of Russophobia?
I don't want to retell it in my own words, hence I refer to:
http://members.tripod.com/~shtyetz_john/lienz-cossacks.html
'...The Cossack Corps of General Domanov, consisting of about 28,000 persons, including women and children, on leaving Italian territory in early May 1945, crossed over the mountain pass into Austria and set up camp in the valley of the river Drau.
The Staff of the Cossacks and a part of the administrative units were billeted within the city limits of the town of Lienz. The Cossack regiments (disarmed) camped on adjoining territory in tents, while the noncombatants, the aged, the women and children, found quarters in the camp Peggetz, about two miles outside the city.
The attitude of the British authorities towards the Cossacks was quite beyond reproach and even benevolent up to May 26th, and there was nothing to indicate the impending catastrophe. However, on that particular day two events took place which foreshadowed the imminent tragedy. Namely, a British truck pulled up before the Cossacks' Bank, and the soldiers, referring to orders from their superiors, demanded the keys to the strongboxes, locked them up, and, loading them on the truck, drove away to an unknown destination. The protest of the Director of the Bank, and his remonstration that the strongboxes contained but personal savings of the Cossacks, had no effect. According to the declaration of the Bank Director, those strongboxes had contained at that time about 6 million German Marks, and about as much in Italian Lire, all of which had been personal money of the Cossacks.
On the same day, a British officer came to the hotel where General Shkuro and four of his officers had been billeted, and ordered them to pack their belongings so as to move to other billets. When asked, "Which other billets," he answered, "Where your Staff will be."
Later on it became known that General Shkuro and his officers had been moved to Spittal camp and kept there behind barbed wire.
It is important to note that simultaneously a British order had been read, according to which all Cossacks were to receive increased rations and, in fact, were to receive full British rations, which fact had considerably lulled any suspicions there might have been among the Cossacks, and had made it easier for the British to carry out their intentions.
The pleasure of receiving increased rations lasted but a short while. The next day, May 27th, at about 10:00 A.M., the British ordered all officers to turn in their pistols which, so far, they had been permitted to keep. Scarcely anybody guessed the actual purpose of this disarmament. There were but a few who anticipated instinctively, or rather, subconsciously, something mysterious and evil taking place.
On the morning of May 28th all officers, military officials, and medics were ordered to report at 1:00 P.M. to the square before the Staff billets, to be moved in trucks according to directives from the British General.
The Town Commander of Lienz, the British Major Davis, declared that the luggage should not be taken, as everybody was supposed to be back in three or four hours. This declaration was taken at its face value, nearly all had reported and were driven away. But, actually, as soon as the truck convoy, carrying over 2,000 officers and officials, headed by General Krasnov, got under way, it was surrounded by British tanks and escorted to its destination.
Guarded in this manner, everybody was brought into Spittal camp, which was surrounded by several stockades of barbed wire, and was strongly patrolled by the British.
Twenty-four hours later, all these unfortunate prisoners were transported into the Soviet Zone and were handed over to the Soviets. Only five persons were able to escape by a miracle. Numerous camp inmates had committed suicide, numerous others were killed by the guards while attempting an escape, while some had been executed on the way to the Soviet Zone, and it is unknown to this day exactly how many reached the Soviet Union.
In the evening of May 29th, British trucks equipped with loud speakers drove up to the tent camp Peggetz, where the Cossack regiments were camping, and announced that everybody had to get ready to be voluntarily repatriated into the Soviet Union. The British repeated this announcement on May 30th and May 31st.
Everywhere the unanimous reaction of the Cossacks had been to refuse, and to emphasize their protest they declared a hunger strike and hoisted black banners. When British supply trucks rolled up as usual to certain distribution points, there was nobody to accept the rations and, having dumped the food on the ground, they drove away. No Cossack touched that food.
On the morning of June 1st the Cossacks of the Peggetz camp had decided to unite in prayer to God, maybe for the last time. For this purpose an altar was erected on the camp square and a crowd of thousands of aged, of women and children, gathered around. Cadets, as if to protect them, formed an outer ring, holding hands. Black banners were flying from every barrack.
This picture was deeply moving and awesome at the same time. No human nerves could have endured to watch this multitude kneeling, intensely praying, and bitterly weeping.
It was during this Liturgy that the British surrounded the camp area on three sides with tanks and soldiers armed with machine guns. The fourth side remained free: there was the deep and swift Drau river forming a natural barrier. Together with the tanks there appeared trucks and, about 150 to 200 yards away, on the railroad there pulled up a long train of freight cars, waiting for the victims, the Cossacks.
The British waited awhile. Then, seeing that the people did not discontinue their prayers, they fired a volley into the air, charging at the same time into the defenseless people who had sat down on the ground, embracing one another, and refusing to board the trucks.
Now there began a beastly, brutal, and inhuman bloodshed, a massacre of innocent human beings. They hit them with gunbutts, causing an indescribable panic. Soul-piercing screams filled the air. In this inconceivable cataclysm many were trampled to death, mainly children.
Whoever was able to do so put up a desperate defense as long as he had any strength left.
It was only the unconscious, many of them with broken limbs, whom the British were able to grab and dump like logs on their trucks filled with bodies.
When already on the trucks, some Cossacks, regaining consciousness, had jumped off. They were beaten until they fainted and were thrown on the trucks again. The cadets put up the fiercest resistance. They defended not only themselves, but did everything humanly possible to aid the women, the children, and the aged to escape imprisonment, repatriation, and their eventual doom in the USSR.
Numerous Cossacks and their wives committed suicide on that day, preferring death rather then deportation to a barbarous country which had once been Russia, our Fatherland.
Semiconscious, blood-soaked, and heavily wounded - that is how they filled the death train.
For unknown reasons the "Honorable Authority" had decided to give a respite, and the next voluntary transport "home" with respective victims was scheduled to take place on June 3rd. This respite saved the lives of many Cossacks and their wives.
During the night from June 1st to June 2nd there began the second act of the Cossacks' tragedy: the local population began to ransack the possessions of the Cossacks. Like black ravens who gather at the smell of fresh blood, the Austrians now looted the property of the Cossacks by the carload.
During these very days, and with equal procedures, the 15th Cossack Corps, consisting of 18,000 men, had been handed over to the Soviets near the town of Judenburg. Of this multitude there survived only 10 officers and 50 to 60 Cossacks who had broken the guards' cordon by using hand grenades, and who saved themselves by hiding in the nearby woods.
That is how, on May 29th, June 1st, and June 3rd, 1945, 45,000 Russians had been handed over to suffer violent retaliation, by close cooperation on the part of those governments of foreign powers, for whose integrity and interests the Russian Nation had shed its blood and had won victories in World War I.
At present the Peggetz camp is abandoned and has disappeared. Only in one of its comers there are, even now, as a momento of the Cossacks' tragedy, some forgotten graves of victims, with small, weather beaten crosses.
A future historian will pass an unbiased verdict on this bitter tragedy, a verdict on those representatives of "Proud Albion" who have disgraced the ruler of the seas in the past, and who are not worthy to call themselves contemporaries of civilized mankind.
Losses in personnel as great as had been suffered by these two units, namely that of General Domanov and the 15th Cossack Corps, in the course of a couple of days, in conditions of a finished war, have no precedent in Russian military history.
Within these units there had been representatives of the Don Cossacks, and they had formed the main cadres. However, there had been also Cossacks and their wives from other Cossack armies.
Within the 15th Cossack Corps there had been a number of compatriots who were not Cossacks.
Among the slain were heroic warriors of the former Army of the Russian Empire during World War I, and the leaders of the White Cossacks in the years of the Civil War: General Ataman P.N. Krasnov, the Generals Shkuro and Prince Sultan-Girei-Klytch, and others...'
By the way, most of the Cossacks were not the citizens of the USSR. Many of them emigrated from Russia after or during the Revolution. The Cossacks didn't kill any British or American soldier. The English authorities knew that the USSR would kill the survivors. (The USSR killed them indeed.) Nevertheless, the British did what they did...
NECESSARILY READ THIS:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp
Find out more about the incident in Lienz.
So I do insist that the USA victimises the world and is going to enslave it. The American politicians (as well as the English ones) are hypocrites. Mr Historian, admit that Monroe doctrine is a racist doctrine. If you do, I shall think that you are good historian and analyst.
The US forces in any country reveal terroristic plans of the USA. Please, don't trust the American soldiers and politicians. Say them: 'Get out of my country!'
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
By the way!
By the way, I forgot to ask you commenting on the following articles.
You are a historian. So I wonder to know your opinion. The articles are
about the WWII and Pearl Harbour.
Here they are:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291a.asp
GodEmperorLeto said:
By the way, I forgot to ask you commenting on the following articles.
You are a historian. So I wonder to know your opinion. The articles are
about the WWII and Pearl Harbour.
Here they are:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291a.asp
Because, US didn't allow them to do so. What was most important to US was China just after the war. They didn't think that Japan had become a contry which had such an economical power today Japan has.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
That last sentance, not in the US...
oh, low blow.
That had more to do with politics than anything else.
If a jobs program is the excuse for maintaining a military with over 700 bases in 130 different countries and spening more than the rest of the world combined, then the US truly is bankrupt.
I might have been in the minority, but there were many even in NYCity,
but I did not believe bombing Afghanistan was a good idea.
One analyst put it this way,
would you bomb Massachusetts to get serial killer such as the Boston Strangler?
A jobs program that would involve cultural exchanges and language learning and helping to rebuild communities both in one's home country and abroad would go a far longer way towards ending terrorism & be cheaper too,
than bombing neighborhoods and creating a next generation of terrorist by default.
Seems like some lessons in Realpoltik should be required reading. The US is not going to leave Japan anytime in the forseable future. Bigger and better ships, missiles and aircraft are on the way -- see USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, USS MUSTIN, and new sale of Patriots to GOJ.
Hells Bells -- It's cheap to have forward deployed forces when the host country picks up most of the bill. Why in the world would the US want to leave and risk such valuable sea and air trade lanes? Not gonna happen.
Hells Bells -- It's cheap to have forward deployed forces when the host country picks up most of the bill. Why in the world would the US want to leave and risk such valuable sea and air trade lanes? Not gonna happen.
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
Henry Kissinger was big into this so-called "Realpoltik".
And...not many people like him.
In fact some consider him a war criminal.
The Trial of Henry Kissinger
"Realpoltik" just means those in power don't want it.
Dr. Henry helped defeat the USSR. And your definition of realpoltik is, well, weird. It's simply the advancement of national interest. If you don't believe national interest is "real" then plz pass me some of them drugs....
It's in the national interest of the US to keep sea and air lanes of communication (aka trade) open. Japan and the US are linked at the hip as economies. So instead of asking "should the US military leave Japan," a more appropriate question might be why would the US willing leave a forward deployed location with much of the expense born by the host nation? Don't you think it kinda helps the US deal with the few remaining communists such as N Korea and China?
Also, why would Japan want the US to leave? You don't think they like the status quo?
I'm just trying to think about this from a rational point of view...
It's in the national interest of the US to keep sea and air lanes of communication (aka trade) open. Japan and the US are linked at the hip as economies. So instead of asking "should the US military leave Japan," a more appropriate question might be why would the US willing leave a forward deployed location with much of the expense born by the host nation? Don't you think it kinda helps the US deal with the few remaining communists such as N Korea and China?
Also, why would Japan want the US to leave? You don't think they like the status quo?
I'm just trying to think about this from a rational point of view...
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
A LOT of people regardless of political persuasion don't like the good doctor.
My carreer military uncle at least read the book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger".
To be honest I do not know what he left about it, but I do know he read it.
"national interest"
according to whom?
How can nearly 300 million people have the same interests?
I'm not a Libertarian (or any party member for that matter),
but I happen to agree with Texas Republican congressman Ron Paul,
that "national interest" is always somebody's interests.
It has been noted that governments are the representation of domestic power structures. Who has the power in the US? I would answer the corporations. Those that wish to maintain their legal privaleges that the corporate legal construct allows them. Furthermore, in foreign policy - of the US - corporate interests are favored above all else. US foreign policy is and has been about shoving the corporation down other country's throats.
The corporation is a legal entity, not a force of nature like a regular business, say owned by your mom or dad, sister or brother, neighbor, etc...
When a business or whatever is incorporated, that is granted a license or charter from the state, it operates with various privaleges that are just that - privaleges, not rights. Limited liability is one such privalege. Limited liability is not a right. Slave owners and kings thought they had limited liability granted by god. They were wrong.
Other peoples have the right to make their own laws, including not only not constructing such legal entities, but also not allowing corporations from other countries to operate in their countries at all.
While I can appreciate the concern over any type of rule by the few such as China or North Korea, I do not believe they want to try to 'take over the world, let alone their neighbors. South Koreans ceratinly feel this way about North Korea and were even trying to re-connect with their brethern at the end of the 90s and even up to when the US gov't came up with the phrase 'axis of evil'.
So no I do not believe the US should maitain over 700 known & acknowledged bases in over 130 different countries, including Japan.
