churchill was a military man

Yes, no choice. No choice but to rape through China, Southeast Asia, blitz Pearl Harbor and occupy the Aluetians. Manchuria, Taiwan and Korea wasn't enough resources. Hail Mary through the Philippines, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, Malysia, northern Australia, Micronesia, Polynesia and even Papua New Guinea for some reason, right?

Japan was already very committed to extreme expansionist policies by this point with the invasions of China and French Indochina. More than that, Japan had already allied itself with the Axis, though somewhat loosely.

If the US wanted peace, they would have to essentially entirely abandoned Asia.

Isn't Finnish also related to this?

Provoked only in the "how dare you not sell me the supplies I need to commit more atrocities" meaning of the word.

Some people don't realize just how much larger the US navy was in 1945 than the Japanese navy ever was. It was around a 4 to 1 ratio of major combat surface ships (carriers, destroyers, cruisers, etc) in favor of the United States. That's not accounting for the merchant fleet which was closer to a 10 to 1 ratio.

What are some good books about (preferably ancient) India and South Asia?

[removed]

For one thing ,each book covers a different time period "Creation"covers 1776-1787,and "Empire" covers 1787-1815.Also "Empire of Liberty" is apart of the Oxford History of America series where Dr. Wood was selected to write on this period of time. "Creation of the American Republican" was a subject Wood chose himself.Personally I believe "Creation" is one of the best books written about this time , and I would definitely recommend to read first.

The Japanese strategy at the time was built on the idea that they would win a decisive navel battle which would cause the United States to just decide it wasn't worth it and they'd quit. Even after Pearl Harbor they were trying to accomplish this through 1942 - 1943 when it finally dawned on the few reasonable individuals in leadership that they were going to lose.

The Japanese really had no intention of working with the Germans to accomplish much of anything and didn't really concern themselves with what was happening in Europe. The United States didn't use military force in Europe until Germany declared war on them. Some would even wonder if Germany hadn't declared war if the USA would have ever sent troops over. Even before Stalingrad, the Japanese were under the correct assumption that the Germans were not going to find success against the Russians. They were very resistant to offering any military support that might bring the Soviets into the conflict.

The Japanese simply made a wrong assumption about the military dedication of the United States once sovereign territory had been attacked. There were more than a few reasonable individuals in the Japanese government who tried desperately to dissuade Hideki Tōjō's hawkish desire to neutralize American holdings. The reality of the situation is that if the Japanese had not attacked any US holdings in the Pacific, the United States probably wouldn't have been drawn into al-out war and things would have gone better for the Japanese.

And apparently Göbekli Tepe wasn't permanently settled but rather a gathering spot for annual meets and religious festivals for local semi-pastoral communities.

Dont know some people just are incapable when it comes to nuance when it comes to the pacific war… no idea why?

[removed]

Some group seems to really not like your completely correct analysis here.

I notice you have down voted but not replied. Which of my statements were wrong and why?

no, It did not end well and they pretty much knew they were screwed when the carriers were not there. It was a long shot, but they did not feel that they had a choice.

Perfect sense didn't end well over the next 4 years...

[removed]

Who was the greatest general of all time in terms of victories vs defeats, death tolls, etc? I only find different answers for it on Google. I imagine there must’ve been a study as accurately as possible to find out right? PS: I know information from medieval times and such are not very reliable.

They would have to eat it quickly.

[removed]

What you consider as Gurani is Hawrami. Actual Gurani is part of the same tongue as what is ignorantly called "Kurdish proper". Its because some scholar made a mistake and confusion.

Simply because Gurani, Sorani and Kurmanji as well as Farvi-Khuri and Semnan-Biyabanaki have kept some "Avestanisms" which distinguishes them from any other Western Iranic language even from Hawrami (which you unknowingly call "Gurani"). These tongues also all are linguistically very close to the point where Farvi-Xori and Biyabanaki are as much within "Kurdish" as Gurani and Kurmanji" are). Any further linguistic shift came after that. This is not my own bias, this is clearly evident. Furthermore these tongues are called terms derived from "Gathabara" meaning Hymnbearer which are the hymns, the Avesta, that the early people Zoroastrian people brought to Iran. Note that no other linguistic groups calls itself a derivative of Gathabara and has that meaning of "hymnic" as an endonym for theit tongue. Its basically the people that were with the Magi, the priestly tribe/clan, which were the only ones to "bear the Avestan hymns" and which were said by classical Greco-Roman authors to have been taught by Zoroaster. Not only that, the king that supported Zoroaster was said to be "a very ancient king of Medes" by Greco-Romans all while the Medes are the only that have a tribe among them (Arizanti from Arya Zantu "Aryan tribe") that fits to the way the Avestans viewed themselves (which is literally an "Aryan tribe") which alluded to that group of Avestans that came to Media and settled (which the Magi were part of).

Languages change, but the continuity is given. This Avestan origin only is true for Gurani, Sorani, Kurmanji, Farvi-Xori and Biyabanaki. Not for Gilaki, persian or tatic, etc..

There is a tribe among the Guran who do have the origin history of being the people entrusted the Avestan songs by Zoroaster himself and they are called "Zand" which literally means "exegesis" even back in Avestan (Zainti-). They have this story while having been surrounded and in contact by muslims ans muslim dynasties in a muslim world. All others would make up origins from muslim rulers. Not they, for obviously it wasnt made up but perfectly fits to them being called Zand and being Guran (Gathabara) and speaking the tongue that shares most linguistic features with Avestan from any Iranic tongue plus being from the people that the Magi were from (Medes).

You can look at historic accounts and try to find the Avestans in Central Asia, but you wont find them, only Scythian groups. Thats because there was a Climate catastrophy on the steppe and at that very time the Scythian nomads would spread and replace people. Fast forward you have the hereditary priest group and people that Zoroaster taught in a region where the people literally call themselves "Gathabara" and are linguistically the closest exactly from a time onward where Iranic presence in Media and especially Kurdish regions on the Zagrus rises very high (in Assyrian and Babylonian sources) and where they also bear actual Zoroastrian-derived names (Bagafarna) and terms (assara mazash = Ahura Mazda).

Pretty obvious if you ask me.

The long term would have included a collapsed Britain and a German Soviet Union, maybe even a Japanse Australia, at least in the minds of the Japanese.

> but Japan never had any chance of defeating the USA

Correct.

It was all about delaying and holding the Americans in the pacific. If any of my bullet points above would have been achieved it would have made America shift focus from the Atlantic to the pacific in order to secure the homeland.

That would have spelled doom for Britain (), that only held on by a thread due to American Lend lease - and the Soviets (that were supplied 400k jeeps/Trucks, 8k tractors, 13k tanks, 14k planes, 350 locomotives, 1.5mil blakets, 30 mil boots, 4.5mil tons of food via Iran [likely unaffected], Vladivostok [likely affected] and Archangel/Murmansk [likely affected]),

Not being able to control the pacific for a couple of months also would have spelled doom for the chinese that where supplied via the pacific (about 1/10th of what Russia received). And have delayed/scrapped operations in SE Asia, dependant on how far along the Japanase would have made it.

It is quite easy to look at this with hindsight, taking industrial figures into account and forgetting about the phsycological effect of having the enemy in your backyard, claiming your dog as their own.

It is my understanding that Gurani has undergone significant changes over its history as a result of its proximity to Kurdish proper (as well as other languages, Persian, Balochi,...) to the point now that some speakers of the language consider it to be a dialect of Kurdish. Clearly the language has therefore undergone change, based on linguistic analysis. What makes you think that any group of people, a 'tribe', as you call them, has "kept the language...and all core aspects of the culture"? How would you be able to decide for ancient peoples that they would recognise their distant descendants as part of the same culture?
Firstly, it is impossible to know, as so much of culture is, by definition, intangible, we take histories written by a select few in power and artifacts which are subject to massive amounts of guesswork to fully understand by archaeologists, historians and anthropologists. Secondly, to come in from a foreign culture and decide what does and what doesn't qualify as the same culture (case-in-point, the Christianisation of the Greeks) is almost a case study for culturocentricism.