John Glenn speaks truth to power

Jim Davis ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : Eric, I would like to be generous, but it's hard to escape the
: : conclusion that you had no idea whatever that China was a
: : combatant during WWII.
:
: Is combatant the correct term here?

: The Japanese thought so; they had between 40% and 50% of their
: army in China during the war. You're falling into the trap of
: thinking that since fronts weren't moving in China like they were
: in other theaters nothing much was happening there and what was
: happening wasn't important.

Well we didn't occupy any part of Asia like we occupied Germany after
WWII.

: The damn country was split.

: They were not split in their desire or willingness to rid the
: country of the Japanese.

Are you saying that no Chinese were sympathetic to the Japanese?

: Sure we backed Chiang Ki Chek only to have him get tossed a
: short 4 years later.

: Irrelevant, Eric. You might as well claim that Britain wasn't a
: combatant because Churchill was replaced as Prime Minister in 1945.

Britain didn't become communist. China did.

: Then the guy kept stealing from us!

: This is so typical of the way you reason, Eric. Chiang Kai-shek
: stole from the US therefore you claim China must have been neutral
: during WWII. Brilliant logic.

No, I'm question just how much they were allies of ours. They used us like
a cheap hooker and the tossed when they were done.

: China
: and its role in WWII is much like France.

: It took six weeks for the Germans to conquer France, who had a
: major ally in Britain. The Japanese failed to conquer China in 8
: years, even though China fought alone for the first 4 of them.

: Yes there was a Chinese theater of operations but a forgetable
: one at that given history.

: No dictionary I've checked defines "forgettable" as "unknown to
: Eric Chomko".

: Do you think that the nukes played a
: bigger role? I do! Do you think the Normandy invasion and the
: whole of the Europen theater played a bigger role in WWII? I do.
: We have D-Day and the day of infamy defining WWII in two days.
: Sure, both aspects of the war ended in 1945, but China being a
: player was smaller than Europe.

: Listening to your "arguments" makes one despair of human reason,
: Eric. China didn't develop and use an atomic bomb therefore you
: claim they were neutral. China didn't take part in the Normandy
: invasion and the European theater therefore you claim they were
: neutral.

China did develop a bomb, in the 60s I think.

: You have the last word.

I have sense stated that 'neutral' is the wrong word as we did fight along
side them in China against the Japanese in WWII. We were instrumental in
having them kicked out of China.

I'm just wondering what happened between 1945 to 1949 with our ally.

Eric

: Jim Davis
:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 27 Mar 2004 19:16:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a way as to indicate that:


: Listening to your "arguments" makes one despair of human reason,
: Eric.

: Don't let him get you down, Jim--it's not that bad. Despair of Eric's
: reason, but not of humanity's.

Poor Rand...

Eric

Christopher M. Jones ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in message ...
: Christopher M. Jones ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote in message ...
: : I am aware of the Sino-Japanese War.
:
: : No, Eric, you most demonstrably are not. You say you are,
: : but you are not. I can claim I have a workable theory of
: : quantum gravity written on a napkin in my pocket, but that
: : doesn't make it so.
:
: Okay, please provide a good history link on the Sino-Japanese War, please.

: No. You're a grown man, Eric, or at least you make that
: claim. You also claim to be attending a university.

Yes, so. Continuing education.

: Here's a thought, look up courses in your course catalog
: that deal in this subject, such as recent Chinese or
: Asian history or early 20th century World history. Then,
: take those courses. Or, barring that, go to the book
: store and buy the new or used course books for one or
: more of those courses and read them. Or, barring that,
: see if the library has those books and check them out or
: read the appropriate sections in the library. Education
: is not difficult, Eric, it requires only patience,
: effort, and basic reasoning and literacy skills. Or,
: barring that, you could use the internet to find
: reliable histories of the subject matter in question.

Been there done that. Where have you been? You're only about a
week late with this thread.

: As a grown allegedly educated man you should have the
: ability to educate yourself about subjects so easily
: accessible as World War II and recent Chinese history.

Yes, done.

Eric

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
:
: You DID see the film "Patton", right? Didn't old George C. want to invade
: while we were there? Seems pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally, would
: you not agree?

: Actually, no I didn't. But then again, I tend to get my history from
: non-fiction books, rather than fictionalized accounts of peoples lives.

What makes you think that a movie, necessarily, contains fiction and that
a book, necesssarily, contains facts? Is there a sound basis for this on
every single occasion?

All I must do is cite a single case.

: In any case yes, there are some that argued we should have continued
: westward. That stopping the Soviets in '45+ would have been the right thing
: to do, especially while we had nuclear capability and they didn't.

Yes, I am aware of that and THAT was the point about "Patton".

: And these same people somehow wanted to overlook all the successful European
: invasions of the Russian Homeland and the history of American support for
: long wars (note, typically not that long for hot wars).

: And yes, it would have been a pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally. But
: then again, so was forceful partitioning of Berlin and Germany. Somehow all
: the allies but one (guess who) seemed to work that out ok. So, I'd say BOTH
: sides of the equation had issues on the whole "allied" thing.

Germany was spilt into four sectors, one of which was East Germany. What
happened to the other parts: American, British and French?

Eric

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
:
: You DID see the film "Patton", right? Didn't old George C. want to
invade
: while we were there? Seems pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally,
would
: you not agree?

: Actually, no I didn't. But then again, I tend to get my history from
: non-fiction books, rather than fictionalized accounts of peoples lives.

What makes you think that a movie, necessarily, contains fiction and that
a book, necesssarily, contains facts? Is there a sound basis for this on
every single occasion?

Considering Patton was not advertised as a documentary, it's fair to say it
contains fiction.

Hell, Apollo 13 was a great movie, very accurate and still contained momemts
of fiction and no reasonable historian would ever use it as a source
document about the space program.

Compare that to a non-fiction book, which by definition is based on facts.

Every single, no, some non-fiction books are poorly researched, or are
poorly written, but as a general rule, a dramatic movie and a non-fiction
book are going to be very different when it comes to their value as
reference documents.


All I must do is cite a single case.

To do what? To prove that non-fiction books aren't always more accurate
than dramatic movies? I never claimed that was true 100% of the time.



: In any case yes, there are some that argued we should have continued
: westward. That stopping the Soviets in '45+ would have been the right
thing
: to do, especially while we had nuclear capability and they didn't.

Yes, I am aware of that and THAT was the point about "Patton".

: And these same people somehow wanted to overlook all the successful
European
: invasions of the Russian Homeland and the history of American support
for
: long wars (note, typically not that long for hot wars).

: And yes, it would have been a pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally.
But
: then again, so was forceful partitioning of Berlin and Germany. Somehow
all
: the allies but one (guess who) seemed to work that out ok. So, I'd say
BOTH
: sides of the equation had issues on the whole "allied" thing.

Germany was spilt into four sectors, one of which was East Germany. What
happened to the other parts: American, British and French?

I'm not going to do your homework for you Eric. But I'll give you a hint,
the Soviets weren't doing airlifts to these sectors.

And for the most part, people weren't fleeing these sectors for East
Germany.



Eric

(Eric Chomko) wrote in message ...
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:
: Actually, no I didn't. But then again, I tend to get my history from
: non-fiction books, rather than fictionalized accounts of peoples lives.

What makes you think that a movie, necessarily, contains fiction and that
a book, necesssarily, contains facts? Is there a sound basis for this on
every single occasion?

Uhhh, "non-fiction books". Do try to keep up.


: And yes, it would have been a pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally. But
: then again, so was forceful partitioning of Berlin and Germany. Somehow all
: the allies but one (guess who) seemed to work that out ok. So, I'd say BOTH
: sides of the equation had issues on the whole "allied" thing.

Germany was spilt into four sectors, one of which was East Germany. What
happened to the other parts: American, British and French?

They were merged into the free, democratic nation of
West Germany. Is there a point here you're trying, and
failing, to make?

Note that the original agreement called for the
partitioning of Germany just a tad Eastward of where the
Soviet tanks eventually stopped rolling. You seem to
have missed the key word "forceful" concerning the
partition of Germany. At that point it was clear the
Soviets did not mean to abide by the agreement and were
grabbing land they meant to conquer and dominate rather
than occupy, rebuild, and set free.

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:
:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : ...
: :
: : You DID see the film "Patton", right? Didn't old George C. want to
: invade
: : while we were there? Seems pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally,
: would
: : you not agree?
:
: : Actually, no I didn't. But then again, I tend to get my history from
: : non-fiction books, rather than fictionalized accounts of peoples lives.
:
: What makes you think that a movie, necessarily, contains fiction and that
: a book, necesssarily, contains facts? Is there a sound basis for this on
: every single occasion?

: Considering Patton was not advertised as a documentary, it's fair to say it
: contains fiction.

: Hell, Apollo 13 was a great movie, very accurate and still contained momemts
: of fiction and no reasonable historian would ever use it as a source
: document about the space program.

: Compare that to a non-fiction book, which by definition is based on facts.

Think about this. Compare the Zapruder film of JFK assassination fame to
the Warren Report.

Sure a screenplay is embellished to make a story, as was Stones, "JFK".

: Every single, no, some non-fiction books are poorly researched, or are
: poorly written, but as a general rule, a dramatic movie and a non-fiction
: book are going to be very different when it comes to their value as
: reference documents.

No argument there, but I would not discount a film outright.

Surely, someone you know is talking to you about Gibson's, "The Passion of
Christ"?

: All I must do is cite a single case.

: To do what? To prove that non-fiction books aren't always more accurate
: than dramatic movies? I never claimed that was true 100% of the time.

Good. The question remains, did Patton feel we should stay in Europe and
take on the Russians or not?

: : In any case yes, there are some that argued we should have continued
: : westward. That stopping the Soviets in '45+ would have been the right
: thing
: : to do, especially while we had nuclear capability and they didn't.
:
: Yes, I am aware of that and THAT was the point about "Patton".
:
: : And these same people somehow wanted to overlook all the successful
: European
: : invasions of the Russian Homeland and the history of American support
: for
: : long wars (note, typically not that long for hot wars).
:
: : And yes, it would have been a pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally.
: But
: : then again, so was forceful partitioning of Berlin and Germany. Somehow
: all
: : the allies but one (guess who) seemed to work that out ok. So, I'd say
: BOTH
: : sides of the equation had issues on the whole "allied" thing.
:
: Germany was spilt into four sectors, one of which was East Germany. What
: happened to the other parts: American, British and French?

: I'm not going to do your homework for you Eric. But I'll give you a hint,
: the Soviets weren't doing airlifts to these sectors.

: And for the most part, people weren't fleeing these sectors for East
: Germany.

Stealing Germans to populate East Germany? Surely, you jest?

Eric

Christopher M. Jones ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in message ...
: Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:
: : Actually, no I didn't. But then again, I tend to get my history from
: : non-fiction books, rather than fictionalized accounts of peoples lives.
:
: What makes you think that a movie, necessarily, contains fiction and that
: a book, necesssarily, contains facts? Is there a sound basis for this on
: every single occasion?

: Uhhh, "non-fiction books". Do try to keep up.

So is the Warren Report fiction or non-fiction?

: : And yes, it would have been a pretty unfriendly way to treat an ally. But
: : then again, so was forceful partitioning of Berlin and Germany. Somehow all
: : the allies but one (guess who) seemed to work that out ok. So, I'd say BOTH
: : sides of the equation had issues on the whole "allied" thing.
:
: Germany was spilt into four sectors, one of which was East Germany. What
: happened to the other parts: American, British and French?

: They were merged into the free, democratic nation of
: West Germany. Is there a point here you're trying, and
: failing, to make?

: Note that the original agreement called for the
: partitioning of Germany just a tad Eastward of where the
: Soviet tanks eventually stopped rolling. You seem to
: have missed the key word "forceful" concerning the
: partition of Germany. At that point it was clear the
: Soviets did not mean to abide by the agreement and were
: grabbing land they meant to conquer and dominate rather
: than occupy, rebuild, and set free.

No doubt near Fulda, where had actually had a defense.

Eric