Show #76 - Black Lagoon, Part 2

[ninjaconsultant]

Show #076 - Direct Download:

Comments

[brandchan]

I really liked both parts of this episode. It was surprisingly educational. It made a lot of the concepts presented much more relatable apposed to just hearing some pundits yammer on about stuff I have no tangible association with. Maybe you guys will do more stuff like this in the future?

Conquering nations

[anonymous]

Mention was made of how, until Iraq, the world never had the situation of a conquering nation moving in, taking over, and then planning on leaving and handing over power without making the defeated nation a subject/slave/colony. I wonder how you compared the Iraq situation with what happened to Japan after WWII?
--
Sam Crider
crider@lthenia.com

Re: Conquering nations

[froglartbge]

There is enough material in making an accurate comparison for a book, but painting in fairly broad strokes, I'll say this

Re: Conquering nations

[froglartbge]

So, all that said, I don't think there are many similarities at all. To top it off, there was a horrific famine in 1946 that basically made the Japanese totally dependent on US aid. I have heard descriptions of conditions that GIs encountered when first arriving there as part of the reconstruction... and it is as horrifying as anything I've ever heard. I think this aspect of post-war history gets glossed over a little in deference to Japanese complicitness with the occupation. That is to say, history remembers the United States wrote them a constitution, there's no need to rub their noses in the fact that they were reduced to subhuman conditions and forced to rely on their enemies for salvation. Sometimes a little selective memory goes really far in smoothing things over

Re: Conquering nations

[anonymous]

All this is true, but I don't think it answers the original point, which is the idea that before Iraq you never had a country invade with the idea of eventually leaving before. Sure, the specifics of the invasions and occupations were/are different, but the basic idea is the same; we did not intend to occupy Japan indefinitely and we do not (I hope) intend to occupy Iraq indefinitely.

Iraq vs. Japan

[duanewatson]

I haven't studied a whole lot about Japan immediately after World War II, but I think there are a couple of important differences. First, Japan was an actual military aggressor towards the United States. While Iraq was certainly a threat in the area (and to U.S. interests), the case is less clear. Second, the war in the Pacific, while unique in many ways, was still basically two states battering at each other with conventional military forces (whereas we crushed Iraq's conventional military in no time). Third, the devastation of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki really broke the fighting spirit of Japan as a nation and as a state. Fourth, Japan's reasons for fighting in World War II were completely entrenched in nationalism, whereas Iraq has never been a nation. Saddam Hussein tried to create a nationalist spirit centered around himself, but the chaos after his removal shows just how much he failed

End of States guy

[anonymous]

Sounded like a total dink to me. I haven't read the post you're talking about, so maybe he goes over this; but his "simple solution to piracy" involves nations essentially declaring war on Somalia. Actually, it sounds like his idea is that nations are just going to give up on international standards and just go with might makes right again. It'll be pre-United Nations time. Does he think that the major nations of the world are going to look back at that time and conclude that it was better than what we have now?

Generations of War

[anonymous]

What would be some other examples of 3rd Generation warfare? Would the attack on Pearl Harbor count?