Why did Japan Surrender?

The Japanese surrender in World war two was a sudden shift from their previous war plans, So what if the cause for their surrender was not directly caused by the Atomic bomb?

Could we Perhaps assume that the A Bomb was dropped to warn the Russians, not to end the war. the Japanese would have fought to the last man [there was even an attempted coup after the A Bomb dropped by Japanese generals to ensure their continued fight against Allied aggression.]

Perhaps the reason they surrendered to the US was because the Russians were massing on their Western front from Sakhalin and Vladivostok and the Japanese imperialists realised that under Russian rule their way of life and emperor would be no more. this would be  why several weeks before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they had sought a way of offering a surrender to the US and its allies that protected their way of life.

The US dropped the bomb because they wished to show the Russians they had developed this weapon and to keep them in line, it had very little effect on the Japanese war machine itself, even going so far as to mobilise the Japanese generals I mentioned earlier to stage a coup to continue the fight to the last man.

It is probably worth reading up on history before accepting the US cry of "we won the war". The Russians won the ground war for the Allies in Europe while the US was sitting on the sidelines increasing its economy by ripping off the other allies through the lend lease agreements until they were forced to enter via the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Operation unthinkable.

One of the second world wars most overlooked area is the Eastern front and the uneasy relationship that existed before and after the war.
Before the war France and England both came close to bombing the soviet union in a attempt to dissuade them from supplying the Germans.
After the war Relations were no better. After the Allies and the Union came to hold most of Europe Churchill was not confident of the Unions intentions-And based on this fear "Operation Unthinkable" was formulated.
The Plan would have hostilities begin in July 1 1945, and would involve the Re-arming 100,000 German soldiers. The USA was expected to Bomb the Soviet union and use their Nuclear weapons should Stalin refuse to surrender. The plan was not well received by the Americans, Harry Truman would told Churchill that they would be unable to help drive the Union from Eastern Europe.

Respect is fear.

What is Respect in the Truest sense?
 In my opinion it is nothing fear in the social context.

Why do you respect someone?-
You fear the repercussions should you fail to do so, i.e you fear the influence and sway he has, his status.
You are conditioned to do so- and is conditioning not based on reward and punishment?
Why do you conform with what you are conditioned to do? You fear not receiving the reward or receiving punishment.
What do you do when you respect  someone? You offer him resources,rights,concessions and treat him as a equal or superior- As one would do to some one he feared.
Does one not treat a thing he respects with care and concern, as though harm unto it would cause harm unto it would cause harm unto himself?
And how does society tell you to behave when you meet someone of importance? With respect of course.

Is the only difference the fact that respect is admired while fear is though of poorly?
Fear hinders you, stops you.
Is action also not stopped by ones respect towards existing  barriers?
Fear impediments your interaction with that which you fear.
Does respect not also unnerve?

If such is the nature of respect is it only the fact that society demands one to be,what it deems respectful that make it different from nature?

The influence of popular culture/ideas[regarding politics]

With the elections around the corner in India,it is quite fascinating to observe the general methods used to put forth agenda.However it is not the Propaganda of the political parties that i am focusing on but rather the information and ideas put forth and propagated by the general media.

Anyone with a little bit of knowledge would know that unlike nations like the USA Indian has parliamentary form of elections and more importantly the Prime minister is elected indirectly[I.E the representative elected locally end up selecting the PM].

You might begin to think that this is a restricted and only a locally centered/relevant topic.However there is a very interesting display of social behavior that is very much universal.

The Indian political system is structured in manner in which local issues and not national issues determine elections. I.E a villager looks to his regional concerns rather than national problems,and it is his selection of candidates that contribute to the overall nation,the role of the central leadership is irrelevant. In strict contrast to the American system.

This is not the image one would find in the Media.The Indian media portrays the elections to revolve around National issues rather than local issues which is quite wrong.What the two major national candidates Rahul Gandhi and Modi  say has little impact on the overall picture.

India has always had larger than life politicians,personality cults etc.This is reflected to a great extent. However this is not the only reason.One of the other major reasons is imitation of the general ideas used in the American system.  Some Indians do have a tendency to be over enthusiastic and   admirative of western culture.Also Indians do happen to be slightly behind at time when it come to political knowledge.

The Media has discovered that providing a image akin to the American system provides a more interesting image and it also manages to resonate with viewers.It is foolish to say that the media does not know the image they put forth is inaccurate.Anyone who has a university education in politics would see the flaw in the what has been put forth.

I am not Condemning the media,they are merely reflecting the interests of the populace. But it is quite interesting to observe how interest  and comfort with ideas allows one to over look contradictory facts. 

The first world bubble

We may have all come across or known quite a few people who live in general isolation for most mainstream society even while being a part of it. I do not refer to those who live far away from society or are hermits i speak about those who exist with in cities and normal civilization but in a unique form of isolation.

I feel that i have come up with a relatively new concept and variety of a type of social isolation,or at least i hope i have. One could argue that this has been a feature in my family for some time.
When i speak of the first world bubble I refer to situation where individuals having perfectly normal and active social lives,do so in a circle that has nearly no contact with the other more populated ones. Allow me to elaborate. A child grows up with English as his primary tongue,or is at the least more proficient with it than with his native tongue[I shall  use my country India as the location for this.] He views English shows[made in Hollywood] he likes English movies,songs-culture etc. what makes this situation unique is the fact that he and his social circle do the exact same things and do not dip into the mainstream culture[here Indian movies,culture etc.] Unlike nobility of yore they have a near non existent connect with normal culture,which all nobility had. They usually speak English,are well off mostly and have friends who do the same. I too did fall under the first world bubble, but circumstance lead to exposure with other culture.

You see in my home state of Karnataka there is a strong socio-cultural demand to have residents who speak Kannada. This idea is quite strong with the general population of poor assuming that they are looked down upon for speaking in Kannada [this is in fact quite true but that is a different topic]. With compulsory Kannada language education in schools and a tendency to get harassed/bullied by Auto drivers,Bus drivers [vital to nearly all] you would think that they know a minimal amount of information about the Language/culture, however this is not the case. Not only do they manage to live un-harassed but they also manage to thrive

To put it simply I refer to a situation where culture despite proximity remains alien to one another,more alien to one than another. It is common enough i have encountered at least 3 to 4 examples[minimum] per level of [yearly education] education. They are not concerned or informed about the culture outside the bubble that generally consists of mainly western media/culture. The do not speak native tongues nor do they frequently have to.It is important to note that any ample supply of resources allows this to happen.They are not concerned with national politics,they do not know much about local trends,culture,slang etc.

In entirety their worlds never coincide or over lap,they mange to survive without having a clue about  the majority,which here,is quite vocal and slightly unforgiving to those who are not a part of it.

Apart from wealth and resources and and a well laid out social network,they are also quite confident and do not express fear towards any dangers that may befall them.They are also likely to be very socially active and dominant even with those who exist in the outer bubble.[Mainstream society] This is when contact is unavoidable - being in the same class, apartment etc.

Devaluation of secularism.

Narendra Modi the projected leader and prime ministerial candidate of the BJP has been praised by his supporters for his economic excellence and lambasted by his opponents for his lack of secularism.

With the Indian economy on shaky grounds and the volatile rupee there are quite a few, for whom the economy has become the most important factor in selecting a leader. Modi whether rightly or wrongly is taken as an example of economically competent leader. Manmohan Singh the current Prime minister had two selling points - his secularism and his economic ability. However the recent problems with the economy has lead many to question his economic capability.

The Indian growth story [which a little over hyped] has slowed down and many[economic agencies] do not feel the economy can recover any time soon. There are few real incentives being offered,the FDI [foreign direct investment]regulations are still debated and seem to require more time to take effect. Further more it may be overturned by more socialist minded politicians. Even the promise of a stable government seems distant with collation politics ,becoming necessary for any party to win a majority,proving to be quite unstable. The food security bill promising to feed the many poor in India is raising concerns with the governments ability to perform such an undertaking especially at a time when the economy is doing badly. Further more the bill seems unlikely to be past soon,its timing has lead many to call it a populist policy and bad memories of India's unhappy and unsuccessful  socialist past  has lead many to question it.

Now with this in mind,we should consider the extensive reach of the Modi propaganda machine.With more and more doubts about Manmohans economic skills,and the congress parties attempts to use the nonsecular image associated with the BJP  to win support, those concerned with the economy have begum to take an stand that seems quite harmful to the congress, that is- "What is the use of secularism?" Both of Manmohans selling points are being questioned together.Regardless of weather Modi is secular or not,Hindu votes [of the orthodox variety] are being secured for the BJP without any effort on their part due to congress painting them to be only pro-Hindu. Unfortunately the two qualities of Manmohan  ,which shall undoubtedly get him some votes, due to their association, are being devalued together! You see the voters are more than happy to elect a secular leader but economic problems force them to ignore ideals and vote for some who seems to be better economically. And the BJP with their much touted Gujarat model of development and leader[that are not questioned] seem to have a nice edge and a rhetoric that shall undoubtedly hit quite a few cords. The congress has been more passive in its approch to the elections and most are unsure about who shall be the next candidate at a time when Modi already has a huge number of followers who would like to see him as president. Rahul Ghandi's lack of active involvement in public eyes is going to hurt his prospects and a growing number of people [and media houses]consider Manmohan a weak puppet ,which of course is also gonna hurt the congress.The secular rhetoric may simply fail to get votes

More importantly Modi's supporters have hyped Gujarat's economy to such an extent that it is now taken as a fact that Modi is an economic genius,questioning this is bond to get a lot of criticism even though Modi did not have such a great hand in economic development and the state is not truly doing excellently. .

Along with the strong anti-incumbency factor,the pumped up young voter thirsting for change, the ruling congress seems to have its work cut out for it. 

King John's Plan to Convert England to Islam

By 1213 King John of England had alienated practically everybody it was possible for a medieval English king to alienate: His barons, the guilds, the knights, the peasantry, the Church, the Emperor, the King of France. 
Desperate to hold on to his position and confound his numerous enemies, John decided on a dramatic course of action: He would embrace Islam and turn England into a Moslem country! He thereupon dispatched a delegation to the most powerful Moslem ruler he knew of. This happened to be the Emir of Morocco, who rejoiced in the name Abu Abdullah Mohammed al-Nasir and was the fourth ruler of the fanatically Shi'ite Muwahid dynasty.

Mohammed was not in the best frame of mind to receive John's ambassadors. As well as his dominions in North Africa, he held a swathe of land in southern Spain. However, the Christian Spanish had inflicted a crushing defeat on him the previous year at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, and he was plotting his counterattack. At this difficult point in his fortunes, three Englishmen showed up at his court: the knights Tho monk in a habit, padding into the presemas Hardington and Ralph FitzNicholas, and Master Robert, a London cleric.  The envoys told Mohammed that John "would voluntarily give up to him himself and his kingdom, and if he pleased would hold it as tributary from him; and that he would also abandon the Christian faith, which he considered false, and would faithfully adhere to the law of the prophet Mohammed." Hardington also gave a glowing account of England, of the richness of its soil and the skill and industry of its people.

 After hearing John's petition, he thought briefly on it. Then he delivered his judgment.

Said Mohammed: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all huma beings." Mohammed concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft — and by declaring that John was unworthy of any alliance with a Moslem ruler such as himself. He thereupon dismissed the envoys, warning them never to let him set eyes on them again: "For the infamy of that foolish apostate, your master, breathes forth a most foul stench to my nostrils."

Thus the plan was never put in place.