Thread: German Victimization, WWII

Government makes the decisions, they=government. Honestly I didn't think I would have to spell everything out but with you I guess I do.

So because of a government's actions, the whole population has to suffer?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As he said, a blockade would have been similarly effective. We could have pulled out of the ground war in Japan entirely and blockaded them and they would have had to accept any terms we were willing to give eventually. By the time the bombs were dropped they had no airforce or navy to speak of to stand up to a blockade.

Could you explain the process of the blockade leading to surrender?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Could you explain the process of the blockade leading to surrender?

By the end of the war, Japan was already "running on fumes" so to speak when it came to many of the essentials; oil, rice, minerals, etc. They have never been a country with many natural resources and have always relied on imports. Before the war, many of their resources came from the territories they controlled, Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and northern China. The successful blockade by the Allies stopped all of these resources from flowing into the country, and once their airforce was essentially destroyed, the ally airforces were free to use conventional bombs against their stockpiles and all of their manufacturing facilities.

If this had continued, eventually they would have no other options but to surrender or starve to death. I'm sure at some point, the population of Japan would have risen up against the Imperial government that was refusing to do what was necessary to allow them to survive. Extreme poverty provokes revolution and without surrendering there was absolutely nothing the government of japan could have done to abate the poverty that was being created by the blockades.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that this scenario requires the japanese revolt; I'm just saying that would be a likely outcome.

So the answer was to starve the entire country? Think of how many people would have suffered and died before there was a revolution against the government, which there might have never been in that dangerously oppressive country (at the time). Millions might have starved to death.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Once the European war was over, we had the opportunity to dedicate a lot more resources to the pacific war, so you can't really compare the times it took to take Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. to the amount of time that would have been needed after Hitler was defeated.

Resources had nothing to do with how the Pacific war was fought. You can pour as many tanks and as many people into a battle like that as you want, it would just turn into a cluster fuck. It isn't the size of the force but how you use it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Obviously it is debatable; but "most historians" definitely do not agree with your position. The Chief of Staff during world war 2, admiral Leahy, had this to say,
"It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

As he said, a blockade would have been similarly effective. We could have pulled out of the ground war in Japan entirely and blockaded them and they would have had to accept any terms we were willing to give eventually. By the time the bombs were dropped they had no airforce or navy to speak of to stand up to a blockade.

I could make the case for a war of attrition being equally or even more inhumane than a nuclear attack. Wars of attrition have been some of the nastiest in history. And no, we would not "pull out of the ground war." That would undo everything we fought for. In order for a war of attrition to work, we need to hold our ground, which would involve troops on the ground. Japan had the resources, not to last forever but enough to do a hell of a lot of damage. They would bomb a blockade daily (they did have an airforce,) they would attack any troops on the ground. Do you have any idea how long it would take to completely deplete Japan of its resources? More than a year in my opinion. How many people would needlessly die during that time?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So because of a government's actions, the whole population has to suffer?

Yes, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

By the end of the war, Japan was already "running on fumes" so to speak when it came to many of the essentials; oil, rice, minerals, etc. They have never been a country with many natural resources and have always relied on imports. Before the war, many of their resources came from the territories they controlled, Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and northern China. The successful blockade by the Allies stopped all of these resources from flowing into the country, and once their airforce was essentially destroyed, the ally airforces were free to use conventional bombs against their stockpiles and all of their manufacturing facilities.

If this had continued, eventually they would have no other options but to surrender or starve to death. I'm sure at some point, the population of Japan would have risen up against the Imperial government that was refusing to do what was necessary to allow them to survive. Extreme poverty provokes revolution and without surrendering there was absolutely nothing the government of japan could have done to abate the poverty that was being created by the blockades.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that this scenario requires the japanese revolt; I'm just saying that would be a likely outcome.

The psychology of Japanese culture is one of the most interesting aspects of this war to me. They were fanatical in every sense of the word, and not just the military, the civilians. You had the military embodying their skewed version of bushido and a great deal of the population brainwashed into supporting their endeavours. Civilians would have picked up rocks and sticks before surrendering to Ameicans, especially with the propoganda spreading about how Americans treat POWs. Most would be honored to die for their country. A civilian revolt is very unrealistic.

One of the main problems with your argument is that you act like Japan was ready to roll over and die. They were beaten, meaning they couldn't possibly win, but they still had the means to inflict serious damage upon the Americans. A samurai warrior doesn't surrender so the Japanese would be damned if their government surrendered. The resolve of the Japanese people was remarkably strong, as evidenced by their suicide practices. If they weren't ready to surrender in the face of an atomic attack, they would certainly not surrender because of a blockade. Even if hundreds of people are dieing of starvation everyday, they would make the Americans come in and forcefully take over. That is just their code of honor. There is really no saying exactly how long it would take to completely deplete Japan of its resources, but we can be certain that it would not be quick and it would not be pretty.

Another thing about wars of attrition is that they don't always end a war, they just prolong the inevitable conflict and kill thousands of people in the process. If Japan is not actively fighting the war, they are not useing resources, which means they could stretch the war almost indefinitely while they mobilize troops, stockpile all remaining resources and prepare to break the blockade. You know the propoganda during this time would be to make sacrifices for the good of the emperor. People would be lining up to die for the emperor rather than revolting as you say. There is lot of speculation in this argument. The only things we can know for sure is the number of people actually killed by the atomic bombs and the potential death toll of an invasion and of a war of attrition. Both a war of attrition and an invasion could have easily surpassed the death toll of the atomic bomb, so the question you need to ask is, is the risk worth it? A study of Japanese culture and psychology says no. A study of the previous battles in the Pacific says absolutely no.

I mentioned an unoficial law of industrial war earlier: Prolonging war= more people die. A war of attrition prolongs the war indefinitely.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What countries did we take over in the 1930's and 1940's? What did we do with Western Europe after the war? How many minorities did we execute? What Americans were killed for mere dissent? There is no comparison.

Fascism isn't just about taking nations over. However, if you wish to have an example of the treatment of minorities then I need only point to the Japanese internment camps. For conquering, I need only point out the United Nations which while it is not hegemonic in the sense of US interest, it is hegemonic in the sense of Western interests. For dissent, I need only point out the House UnAmerican Activities Board. They didn't take people out back and shoot them, though they probably would of loved to, but they did destroy their lives and send many to prison simply for their ideas.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We wanted surrender without conditions because we had to change the government of Japan.

And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bare bones of imperialism. Displayed to all in its naked form.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They were a major threat to the rest of the world. Should we have accepted Japan's conditions so that they could turn around and try to take over Asia again?

Well if we are going to engage in counter-factual history then I would say yes. If Japan were allowed to keep its empire then Mao would of never rose in China and over several million people would of been spared.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How do you suggest we should have handled Germany and Japan after they had gotten really far with their conquests?

Like civilized people. It use to be if you received an offending slap then you get your justice and be on your way. Now we are destroying whole cities of unoffending innocents and trying to justify it by claiming humanitarian inclinations.

Originally Posted by shinta66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

EDIT: youtube won't let me embed this for some reason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ygm3e0Gn9U

Japan has their messed up spotlight too.

I'm a scholar of Japanese history from 1920 to 1945. I know about Nanking and how people love to bring that up to justify the killing of Japanese innocents. Don't try to pass off this motif that Japan was the worst warmonger of the war.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You fail to understand the dynamics of an industrial war. You can analyze the lead up to the war until you are blue in the face, Japan is ultimately responsible for their actions. You say the formation of an empire is the only way for a nation to become large and prosperous, I disagree but even so, none of the other empires you mentioned went about expanding their influence in the manner that Japan did.

Firstly, again you assume that a whole people can be affirmed through the actions of a government. Something I think is naive and counter-factual even in today's atmosphere. [ Look at healthcare ] Secondly, I don't personally think that to be a great nation, one needs to have an empire. Frankly, I don't care about being a nation. It's a silly social construct. I was speaking of the mentality of thought in the late 19th century. Britain still had India, Egypt, China. France had Indochina. Spain had been a great empire but was in rapid decline by then. Russia had vast land with abundant resources with a Tsarist head. Germany, which the Japanese copied almost to a T, had providences in China and Africa. The United States had Puerto Rico, the Philippines and a sphere of influence in China. These were the 'great nations' back then and they were and/or still are all empires.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Jesus Laughing Man, are we going to have a repeat of our last discussion? Japan was in no danger of falling before Pearl Harbor, the situation obviously changed after several years of war with America. I have thought well and hard about my statements, Japan was defeated but still had enough force to put up a fight and do some damage, and that is all the continuation of the war would be. Needless death and destruction.

Well we're discussing the end of the war and terms of surrender. Not what Japan was doing before Pearl Harbor. I love the coherency of your statement though, stop needless death and destruction by causing needless death and destruction through the A-Bomb.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What the hell Laughing Man. Don't drink and use the internet.

Does Obama speak for you as an individual? You are postulating that a government actually represents its people in all things. The Japanese deserve what they got because they brought it on themselves through their government. That is a summation of the argument you are giving, so I ask: Does your government official actually represent your thoughts and actions?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

People who value their lives.

Quite so. Some people have values they would die for and if they wish to give their lives for them then so be it. However, what I object to is those who wish to live but are massacred anyways.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Government makes the decisions, they=government. Honestly I didn't think I would have to spell everything out but with you I guess I do.

Who is 'they'? The whole Japanese people? You think 'they' really make choices in a fascistic government?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It never ceases to amaze me how you can so horribly misconstrue my statements. Its like you cut a line out of my paragraph to quote it, then you immediately forget what paragraph it was connected to. A defeated nation does not negotiate, they follow instructions or face more pain. THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS! And that is how it should work.

See I quote the whole paragraph. What a disgusting mentality you project. 'Do what your told or you will be hurt.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

America isn't an empire. But I don't know Laughing Man, where is American going?

It's not an empire but your perfectly content with it tell other nations what to do or 'face more pain.' Certainly this isn't the mentality of an empire.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Would you rather I soften my language? Is reality too harsh for your tender conscious? What do you mean how the government represents the people? If you are suggesting the populace was at odds with the governemnt, that may have been true for some, but they showed no outward signs of it. Even if they did, an Empire will do what it needs to survive, meaning it lends no credence to public opinion.

Well then again I ask 'Who is 'they''? And how did the people bring it upon themselves if you actually allow for the idea that government was acting without popular support? Oh and don't feel the need to soften your language. Far be it from me to not allow you to show your true behavior of world politics. This is the type of mentality I deal with on a near daily basis in my discourse with other individuals but they are all so squeamish about really saying what they want. You at least have the courage to tell the forums that you want those who disobey to be broken into submission and if they should resist then to 'feel more pain.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I'm really glad you decided not to go to Officer Candidate School.

Me too. Otherwise I may have been put into a situation in which I would have to transgress my basic moral principles.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Fascism isn't just about taking nations over. However, if you wish to have an example of the treatment of minorities then I need only point to the Japanese internment camps. For conquering, I need only point out the United Nations which while it is not hegemonic in the sense of US interest, it is hegemonic in the sense of Western interests. For dissent, I need only point out the House UnAmerican Activities Board. They didn't take people out back and shoot them, though they probably would of loved to, but they did destroy their lives and send many to prison simply for their ideas.

Now compare that to executing 15 million people directly and taking over 23 countries through deadly force in the process of trying to make Europe the Third German Empire with a plan of executing all remaining racial minorities, handicapped, sick, and people of any level of opposition (even off the cuff verbal), admittedly knowing that it would cause a world war. Do you maybe sort of see the difference?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bare bones of imperialism. Displayed to all in its naked form.

We stopped Japanese imperialism. They were trying to take over Asia. You seem to not be getting that.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if we are going to engage in counter-factual history then I would say yes. If Japan were allowed to keep its empire then Mao would of never rose in China and over several million people would of been spared.

Oh, "counter-factual history", eh? Back that up with at least something. Tell me about how Japan wasn't in the process of taking over Asia. Make that bold and daring claim. Tell me why they wouldn't have tried it again if we hadn't changed their government.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Like civilized people. It use to be if you received an offending slap then you get your justice and be on your way. Now we are destroying whole cities of unoffending innocents and trying to justify it by claiming humanitarian inclinations.

"Offending slap"... That's a beautiful characterization of mass killing during the conquest of a continent. After popping them on the hands with a ruler, Japan could just be trusted not to keep trying to take over Asia? Are you really this naive?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now compare that to executing 15 million people directly and taking over 23 countries through deadly force in the process of trying to make Europe the Third German Empire with a plan of executing all remaining racial minorities, handicapped, sick, and people of any level of opposition (even off the cuff verbal), admittedly knowing that it would cause a world war. Do you maybe sort of see the difference?

Hence the less explicit nature which I talked about before.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We stopped Japanese imperialism. They were trying to take over Asia. You seem to not be getting that.

No, we were maintaining Western imperialism in Asia. You seem to have not noticed the Unequal treaties with China.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, "counter-factual history", eh? Back that up with at least something. Tell me about how Japan wasn't in the process of taking over Asia. Make that bold and daring claim. Tell me why they wouldn't have tried it again if we hadn't changed their government.

Japan maintained a puppet king in Manchuria which is the economic powerhouse of China at the time because of its resources and factories. If Chaing-Kei Shek didn't have to fight the Japanese then he would of certainly wiped out the Communists who were little better then peasant guerrillas.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Offending slap"... That's a beautiful characterization of mass killing during the conquest of a continent. After popping them on the hands with a ruler, Japan could just be trusted not to keep trying to take over Asia? Are you really this naive?

You seem to think that the West hadn't already taken over Asia. What in Asia wasn't dominated by a Western power?

China?
IndoChina?
India?

Oh, so Western nations had taken over Asian countries in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and that means Japan wasn't trying to take over Asia? They tried so hard to take over China that China kept moving their capital around and ended up with two of them (two governments, one of which was ruled by Mao). Mao's power is partly Japan's fault.

You tried to parallel the United States and Germany during the World War II era. You even said they might have been about equal in terms of fascism. That is an absurd comparison, as I illustrated.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If they weren't ready to surrender in the face of an atomic attack

You said something about the japanese being warned, and then this; there was no warning for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Leaflets were dropped in regards to the bombings after they took place.

I want to continue this debate, but not here. It doesn't have enough to do with the actual topic of the thread to let it keep going.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Actually it was about the sentiment of Germany going blameless for what happened during WWII. Obviously the sentiment is not just confined to Germany itself. Try harder to make me look foolish. What you are doing now isn't working.

um...you just restated what I said. The thread is about that sentiment yes, and sure its not limited there, but that isnt what the op asked, so the point is moot.

but since I see you have succeeded in derailing, you are making yourself look enough like a fool because you keep misconstruing what people say to fit your own needs.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, so Western nations had taken over Asian countries in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and that means Japan wasn't trying to take over Asia? They tried so hard to take over China that China kept moving their capital around and ended up with two of them (two governments, one of which was ruled by Mao). Mao's power is partly Japan's fault.

Well if the Western nations didn't bring imperialism to China then what happened in WWII might of never happened.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You tried to parallel the United States and Germany during the World War II era. You even said they might have been about equal in terms of fascism. That is an absurd comparison, as I illustrated.

And I also stated that fascism isn't just about invading nations. Nor is it simply gas chambers and death camps. Those were just the explicit outgrowths of the fascist mentality. We barred Jews from coming to America, locked up Japanese Americans in camps 'for their own protection.' We had the war fever, the nationalism, the restriction of civil liberties, the trumpeting of fear concerning 'the other' namely the German Nazi or the Japanese militant, we had the statist propaganda. We had it all but the death camps.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

um...you just restated what I said. The thread is about that sentiment yes, and sure its not limited there, but that isnt what the op asked, so the point is moot.

but since I see you have succeeded in derailing, you are making yourself look enough like a fool because you keep misconstruing what people say to fit your own needs.

Originally Posted by spockman

Alright. Every nation has their darkspots. Some have darker spots than others. But has anyone else here noticed the blatant lack of blame put on the country of Germany for WWII?

The way the school system puts it, and the way alot of popular films/literature put it, and the way people talk about the holocaust, you would think that Deutschland was totally victimized. That Hitler seized power from an unwilling populace with a giant revolutionary army of evil skinheads overnight. Then the people were brainwashed into thinking that the Jews/Rom were being sent to nice minority communities with picket fences. And everyone in Germany thought that the Polish were actually glad they had the Nazis to protect them from the Russians. And Nazi soldiers were widely believed to be mostly pleasant guys, really, who were pretty nice to the Dutch and the POWs. And the communists at home just fell over dead in their arm chairs, dying from natural causes.

This is only talking about here in the U.S. public school system, (though I would be interested to know if this is true for other places though I can't speak for anywhere else.) Now I bear the nation no ill will today, but it angers me that those who voted Hitler in and watched the deportation of minority groups and witnessed the stripping of freedoms and the massacre of communists and threw the fuels of racism into the fire and supported the nationalists even after the SA made themselves a househould name aren't presented negatively.

(If you disagree with my view of WWII, please explain why. Or if you have had different experiences in school/talking about it with the general public. But I have gone to high schools all over the country and it seems fairly prevalent.)

How are we supposed to learn from the holocaust when the blame is placed on just a few psychotics?

No, that isn't a question that can facilitate discussion well... Yeah, here's one. Why are we teaching about the holocaust in a way to make the average German look innocent? I am at a total loss.

Reading is fundamental.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if the Western nations didn't bring imperialism to China then what happened in WWII might of never happened.

Bad behavior is justified by somebody else's similar bad behavior? Japan was trying to take over Asia. That is what is relevant, and you are not denying it.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And I also stated that fascism isn't just about invading nations. Nor is it simply gas chambers and death camps. Those were just the explicit outgrowths of the fascist mentality. We barred Jews from coming to America, locked up Japanese Americans in camps 'for their own protection.' We had the war fever, the nationalism, the restriction of civil liberties, the trumpeting of fear concerning 'the other' namely the German Nazi or the Japanese militant, we had the statist propaganda. We had it all but the death camps.

I know about the out of bounds stuff the U.S. did domestically during World War II. What we did does not rise to anything near the level of what Nazi Germany did. The death camps were not all the Nazis were guilty of. As I said, they violently (or with threat of violence) took over 23 countries while working on taking over other countries in an attempt to create a German empire of brutal oppession for all of Europe. Our situation of internment camps and taking away a few civil liberties while supporting a very necessary war effort and putting up posters in favor of it was microscopic compared to the Nazi conquest.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Bad behavior is justified by somebody else's similar bad behavior? Japan was trying to take over Asia. That is what is relevant, and you are not denying it.

Strange coming from you who thinks that we needed to act bad to take over Japan.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know about the out of bounds stuff the U.S. did domestically during World War II. What we did does not rise to anything near the level of what Nazi Germany did. The death camps were not all the Nazis were guilty of. As I said, they violently took over 23 countries (and manipulatively annexed others) while working on taking over other countries in an attempt to create a German empire of brutal oppession for all of Europe. Our situation of internment camps and taking away a few civil liberties while supporting a very necessary war effort and putting up posters in favor of it was microscopic compared to the Nazi conquest.

Again justifying bad behavior for bad behavior. I hope I prevented you from bringing up that justification again. You want to justify American interment camps, statist propaganda and war fever because someone else was doing it on a higher level. That to me is incoherent. If anything America should sustain its freedom, its diversity, its neutrality because that is what made it the envy of the world.

"The Conquest of the United States by Spain"

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Strange coming from you who thinks that we needed to act bad to take over Japan.

Oh, that clears up the issue. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Again justifying bad behavior for bad behavior. I hope I prevented you from bringing up that justification again. You want to justify American interment camps, statist propaganda and war fever because someone else was doing it on a higher level. That to me is incoherent. If anything America should sustain its freedom, its diversity, its neutrality because that is what made it the envy of the world.

"The Conquest of the United States by Spain"

WTF? That is a really bizarre strawman. I didn't justify American internment camps and loss of civil liberties. You made that up. AND YOU DO THAT SHIT ALL THE TIME!!!!! It's ridiculous. Why bother doing that? Nobody buys into it.

You said our fascism and Nazi Germany's fascism were maybe about equal during the World War II era. I said that is very far from the truth and proved my point. Where are you in this conversation?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Firstly, again you assume that a whole people can be affirmed through the actions of a government. Something I think is naive and counter-factual even in today's atmosphere. [ Look at healthcare ] Secondly, I don't personally think that to be a great nation, one needs to have an empire. Frankly, I don't care about being a nation. It's a silly social construct. I was speaking of the mentality of thought in the late 19th century. Britain still had India, Egypt, China. France had Indochina. Spain had been a great empire but was in rapid decline by then. Russia had vast land with abundant resources with a Tsarist head. Germany, which the Japanese copied almost to a T, had providences in China and Africa. The United States had Puerto Rico, the Philippines and a sphere of influence in China. These were the 'great nations' back then and they were and/or still are all empires.

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it is at all relevant to the discussion. Japan just wanted to fit in? Is that what you are saying? That justifies their actions?

And FYI, if I ever say "they," as in "they brought it on themselves," I am talking about the Japanese government. You can't seriously be saying we should consider the civilian opinion when planning a bombing raid? Are you? I can't imagine a situation where anyone would say "yes, please bomb us."

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well we're discussing the end of the war and terms of surrender. Not what Japan was doing before Pearl Harbor. I love the coherency of your statement though, stop needless death and destruction by causing needless death and destruction through the A-Bomb.

Let me break it down for you. Earlier, we were talking about Pearl Harbor, NOW we are talking about the end of the war. You quoted me from when we were talking about Pearl Harbor and took that quote out of context, as usual. I've now wasted probably five minutes trying to explain this to you.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Does Obama speak for you as an individual? You are postulating that a government actually represents its people in all things. The Japanese deserve what they got because they brought it on themselves through their government. That is a summation of the argument you are giving, so I ask: Does your government official actually represent your thoughts and actions?

Public opinion DOES NOT MATTER. When a nation or an empire is in distress and is facing a real threat of destruction, it will do what it needs to survive. I don't know what the hell this has to do with anything. Barrack Obama represents the United States of America, he may do some things I agree with and he may do things that I don't agree with, there isn't a whole lot I can do about that. You can't seriously be suggesting that we shouldn't have bombed Japan because the Japanese people didn't want to be bombed.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Quite so. Some people have values they would die for and if they wish to give their lives for them then so be it. However, what I object to is those who wish to live but are massacred anyways.

So focus your attention on the entity responsible, the Japanese government.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Who is 'they'? The whole Japanese people? You think 'they' really make choices in a fascistic government?

Are you slow Laughing Man? I'll go easy on you if you are. They=government, what's not to understand? The well-being of the people was not a high priority for the Japanese government.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

See I quote the whole paragraph. What a disgusting mentality you project. 'Do what your told or you will be hurt.'

Yet you still manage to misunderstand. Do you think a defeated nation should be calling the shots? That's a little counterintuitive don't you think?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It's not an empire but your perfectly content with it tell other nations what to do or 'face more pain.' Certainly this isn't the mentality of an empire.

No, it is the right of a victorious country. If you get into a fight, and you beat the kid down, would it make sense for him to get up and start barking orders at you? What needs to be done in that situation? Maybe the fight started because he was trying to steal your bike. Even though you just beat the shit out of him, he is defiant and still tries to steal the bike right in front you. You give him an ultimatum, stop trying to steal your bike or you will be forced to inflict more pain. He doesn't listen. What happens next Laughing Man?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well then again I ask 'Who is 'they''? And how did the people bring it upon themselves if you actually allow for the idea that government was acting without popular support? Oh and don't feel the need to soften your language. Far be it from me to not allow you to show your true behavior of world politics. This is the type of mentality I deal with on a near daily basis in my discourse with other individuals but they are all so squeamish about really saying what they want. You at least have the courage to tell the forums that you want those who disobey to be broken into submission and if they should resist then to 'feel more pain.'

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

I feel like I am the victim of a political smear campaign.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Reading is fundamental.

lol

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You said something about the japanese being warned, and then this; there was no warning for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Leaflets were dropped in regards to the bombings after they took place.

I want to continue this debate, but not here. It doesn't have enough to do with the actual topic of the thread to let it keep going.

The government knew what was coming.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Reading is fundamental.

indeed it is, you should probably read it.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I'm a scholar of Japanese history from 1920 to 1945. I know about Nanking and how people love to bring that up to justify the killing of Japanese innocents. Don't try to pass off this motif that Japan was the worst warmonger of the war.

Just one of the random things that popped into my mind. And really could care less about your school education.

Wow! How could I have missed this thread?!!! I have learned sooo much!
I have heard comparisons of Nazis to Americans but I am surprised I never heard Nazis compared to Chinese Communists!!! 1.2 million tibetans, with their army of men on horses with swords defending their own peaceful country on the rooftop of the world! Or the Native Americans. I have heard comparisons with slavery, understandable, but what about the Native Americans? This was their land!

And there was no justification to dropping the nuclear bomb... not once, but TWICE!!! I lived in Japan with my Japanese girlfriend and her family. Her grandmother remembers the bombing and WWII. She told me all about it, from her perspective, in Japanese, which my girlfriend translated. The citizens were innocent. Just a generation before that and Japan was an isolated country living in a timeless era as farmers and samurai. The citizens did not deserve to die. The Emperor was naive, and following what American, English, Portuguese, French, and German diplomats were telling him to do. He was in medieval times being exploited by the beginnings of globalization. Japan was a pawn, until they learned that they were being used. Then they, foolishly, decided to stand up and fight back, when they should have never gotten involved and somehow modernized themselves (which is unrealistic and virtually impossible to expect!) And why they decided to ally themselves with white supremacists bent on world domination, I don't know. It was because they were naive and being manipulated. Hitler must have known that they were fed up with being manipulated by America, Britain, France and Portugal. Truman knew Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed. But he was facing opposition by American citizens to enter the war. So he let Pearl Harbor happed so that America supported the war. And I am glad that Hitler was defeated.

Disclaimer: This is all my opinion arising from what I have observed and experienced and in no ways reflects the opinions and views of www.dreamviews.com and its advertisers. Take what you will and figure it out for yourself.

Yes, Japan had been in a mode of conquest at the time, due to pressure from Europe and America, invading China, Tibet, Manchuria, etc. But for 500 years at least, before that, they were an isolated island country. And what is there to take over in the Pacific for them? They wanted Hawaii. We took Hawaii. It is just as much theirs at it is ours. In fact it is the Hawaiians' land. Now the Hawaiians are illegally being deprived of their own land. Think about it: 80% of Hawaiians are homeless when they didn't sell their land. Instead, they camp out on the beaches of their own islands.
So we nuke the Japanese so they won't take over the Pacific, but Americans and the French can have it? At least Japan is a Pacific Island country and the Japanese language is similar to the Pacific Island languages. The Hawaiians love the Japanese but hate the Haoles (white folks).

The problem was that Hawaii is such a strategic spot for America to control Asia from. But is America justified in global domination when any other nation isn't? We can justify nuking and killing 20% of an ethnic group because they want to dominate their corner of the globe, when we are not satisfied with 30%?



How did George Bush get elected into office? What qualifications did he have? How did Obama get elected into office? What qualifications did he have? At least he is good at diplomacy! I mean, you can blame German citizens as much as you can blame American citizens. Or Chinese citizens, or English citizens. England fucked the Scottish and the Irish and the Welsh.

Yes, people let the trigger-happy fools with inferiority complexes take over and have power, so they can be blamed in retrospect. But when it is happening to you and your country, whichever country you are, you sit back and go with the flow and bitch about it. I have had friends who are Muslim (by birth) American citizens get kicked out of America (They were born and raised here) because their family gave money to a Muslim charity (which is part of Islam). Doesn't that sound a little like the Nazis? At least those two weren't gassed!

I think that you can blame the Germans as much as you can blame yourself. Individuals are made to seem powerless. And the Nazis made it a science, how to make the individuals feel powerless. The CIA learned from the Nazis their secrets and they have used it in America and have continued research. TV helps. FOX news helps. Fear helps. Paranoia helps.

what is next?

I don't think that any civilization in history came close to the ferocity, efficiency and targeted violence of Nazi Germany. What really strikes home was that the events took place in the modern era and in a developed country where you would presume that people are a bit smarter. That's what separates the Nazis from other genocides. They were pretty much the worst group of human beings in history, and I don't know how anybody who collaborated with them can live with themselves.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't think that any civilization in history came close to the ferocity, efficiency and targeted violence of Nazi Germany. What really strikes home was that the events took place in the modern era and in a developed country where you would presume that people are a bit smarter. That's what separates the Nazis from other genocides. They were pretty much the worst group of human beings in history, and I don't know how anybody who collaborated with them can live with themselves.

I don't follow. Nazis are superhuman? Sub-human?

I'm pretty sure they were normal humans. The word Nazi is a mere label, the same as Jew.

Humans killing humans? Sounds like war. So what makes the Nazis different? Their premise for war? Just sounds to me like the Nazis are being glorified in order to make the victors' glorification that much more glorious.

That would mean it is all propaganda. Indeed, a different perspective. You have to remember, the victor writes history.