If I brutally attack someone without justification and he later brutally attacks someone without justification, his later crime doesn’t wipe out my crime.
Yes Rising Sun i knew it.
In the USSR the covering of the Japanes crimes by the West was were widely propoganded and spreaded.
True there was a objective obvious reason for that - the US did want to disgrace its ally in the Cold war.Also it this reason the West cover the some of the Japanes’s sin in China.
However i think we should more attentative study all those crimes.
Thanks for the source , i will try to searce ( but honestly - i doubt i could find this book in my native langvige).
So if yo please - could you describe for us what exactly crimes told the James Macklay’s books.
So this process was forced for the GErmans, righ.
This was resault of full military and political collapse of Nazy , and full capturing of the state - so the GErmans had no any chois ( to the contrast with Japanes).
Was it right- sure.
But at that same time how we could blaimed the Germnan if we own already in the 1950 has bagan the new war in Korea where were killed at least 2 millions?
Then far then bigger - new wars, new bloods.
Were we militarists regimes for the state that we attacked?
Sure.
So from this point i just wish you so notice the Japanes is no more worst than for instance the Soviets who attacked afganistan or US who attacked the Vietnam for their peoples.
Absolutly right.
So from this YOUR point the Japanes atrocities did not justify the US a-bombing;) . Right?
But how we could claim the Japanes militarists/nationalist - if OUR OWN bagan the many of war since the 1945 ( and early).
What were only the Colonian wars for its populatuon.
You say the Japanes militarism is disgusting - but from what poilt you wish to think that our own militarism is better?
If they don’t wake up to themselves and don’t stop pissing off growing China with their denials and provocations, they might find out that it’s (a) best to apologise when you’ve done the wrong thing; (b) it’s best not to keep digging the hole deeper; and (c) having pissed off one nuclear power and got nuked, it’s a really stupid idea to keep pissing off another one that has millions more unresolved reasons than the first nuclear power to still want to balance the ledger for things that, on Asian time scales, happened only a month ago.
I doubt the Japane too sily to provoke the Chinas for the new war .
Newertheless they have right to refuse the Chinas propogandic issue with the tupical communists claims for the Millions of Innocent killed. AT least in domestic.
Cheers
Here’s a summary
http://www.powtaiwan.org/springnews2000/page10.htm
Maybe it’s not such a reliable source. I found the previous and following links by Googling the title because I’m too lazy to write my own summary. Also it’s about ten years since I read it. It happened to be in my mind because I found it while looking for something else last night.
Gregory Hadley and James Oglethorpe, “MacKay’s Betrayal: Solving the Mystery of the ‘Sado Island Prisoner-of-War Massacre,’” The Journal of Military History 71#2 (April 2007): 441-464
Betrayal in High Places, a book written in 1996 by the late James MacKay, has created debate among World War II historians and former prisoners of war (POWs) because it claims to reveal suppressed Allied reports of Japanese war atrocities, such as the massacre of 387 American, Australian, British, and Dutch POWs in a gold mine at Aikawa on Sado Island, Japan, in 1945. Our investigation finds that the Sado Island massacre report is an intentional forgery, and that MacKay’s book is a spurious historical source. We explain why he sought to deceive the public and contrast his fiction with the historical truth about Sado Island.
http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh/volumes/jmh712/abs712.html
See also http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_military_history/v071/71.2hadley.html
It was always clear to me that Mackay wasn’t even a bad amateur historian or a very good writer, but my recollection is that there is enough in his book that is consistent with known events that made it seem plausible.
I don’t have access to the linked full article at but I might be able to get access to it next week. The issue challenged in the quote and links is, from memory a very minor part of the book which is sitting beside me as I write.
Hence my question here http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4755&highlight=nation+crushed
But at that same time how we could blaimed the Germnan if we own already in the 1950 has bagan the new war in Korea where were killed at least 2 millions?
Then far then bigger - new wars, new bloods.
Were we militarists regimes for the state that we attacked?
Sure.
So from this point i just wish you so notice the Japanes is no more worst than for instance the Soviets who attacked afganistan or US who attacked the Vietnam for their peoples.
I don’t think there is any comparison between what Japan did 1931-45 and the other wars you mention, with the possible exception of the Soviets in Afghanistan about which I know too little to comment.
Wrong. 
There is a difference me between brutally attacking A without justification and A brutally attacking B without justification, which doesn’t wipe out my crime against A.
If A brutally attacks me and my mates without justification and I respond by brutally defending myself against A’s attack to defend myself proportionately to his attack upon me and my mates, my response is justified.
Japan doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about reaping what it sowed.
Oh this is entire logical dilemma;)
If the Japanes brotally attacked the China - does it mean then the US has full right brutally attack the Japane;) i.e the reason of the american brutality was a love to the China? Right.
Separate events.
Each one has to be judged individually on the circumstances at the time, not subsequent actions of the parties.
Kennedy getting into Vietnam doesn’t make Pearl Harbor right. Bush the Stupid invading Iraq doesn’t make 9/11 right.
What were only the Colonian wars for its populatuon.
You say the Japanes militarism is disgusting - but from what poilt you wish to think that our own militarism is better?
Even its worst days, the USSR was never a militarist expansionist state, nor were America or Britain, in anything like the same way as Japan 1931-45 (or circa 1900-45). None of them ever engaged in anything like Japan’s wars 1931-45 in that period or since.
I doubt the Japane too sily to provoke the Chinas for the new war .
Newertheless they have right to refuse the Chinas propogandic issue with the tupical communists claims for the Millions of Innocent killed. AT least in domestic.
Japan has already gravely provoked China, 1931-45, and still does it just about every year. The question is whether China is silly enough to go to war over it. Or Taiwan. When China controls the world economy in another ten or twenty years; revalues it currency; demands from the rest of the world the huge resources and shipping needed to supply its raging economy; and has completed the deep water navy it’s currently building; then we’ll see whether China going to war with Japan is silly or just swatting an annoying fly that’s been buzzing around its head for the preceding seventy or eighty years.
It’s irrelevant to America nuking Japan.
Japan got nuked by America because it attacked America.
If Japan hadn’t attacked America, and America had still developed nukes and delivery systems by August 1945, nothing would have happened.
It’s not America’s fault Japan got nuked.
The issue addressed is whether Japan has the moral right too demand an apology for being atom bombed, or firebombed for that matter, while persisting in a political and social state of continual denial regarding her own brutal atrocities and actions in WWII. And it has become a circular argument for the sake of argument, and little more. Well, I think they are not entitled to one because of this very blatant hypocrisy. It’s almost the height of narcissistic folly that the Japanese only weep for their own war dead, while continually obstructing any national self-examination regarding things like oh: systematic raping of kidnapped women for their soldiers ‘entertainment,’ beheading contests, mass starvation of Chinese villages, use of chemical and biological weapons on civilians, mobilizing their civil population for a fight to the bitter end, and an overall sense of a complete disregard for any sort of morality and a sanctity of human life.
I used to have sympathy, as did many Americans, when I read of ceremonies at Nagasaki and Hiroshima marking the anniversary of the attacks. It was soon made known, as most Americans did not know until more recently, that the Japanese still have a complete lack of empathy for the victims of their own war crimes and seem to reside in a state of continual denial regarding them. You can hate the bombing of cities, by atom or fire - but to give the Japanese collective victim-hood over this is really quite silly. For you perpetuate notions - that the Allies were never going to invade Japan or suffer heavy casualties, or that the Japanese would simply have surrendered had the bombs not been dropped that are disingenuous, and this removes any serious context for this argument, all while you are offering no real credible evidence for these assertions.
And actually, yes, there is something to the “American love for China,” as Japanese aggression in China was the prime mover of US diplomacy which saw Japanese Imperial aggression a threat and sought to contain Japan’s murderous rampage in China. The Chinese also had a higher regard for Americans in that era than they did the Europeans (with the possible exception of Germany), as the US had treated China marginally better than most of her European colonial rivals and had worked towards Chinese autonomy. The United States also had and still has a large community of Chinese emigres and Americans of Chinese decent that were actively pressuring the US gov’t to take moral and political opposition against the Japanese as a result of the attacks on Manchuria.
The Japanese actions in China were the beginning of World War II. You can argue that the US goaded Japan into War, but you cannot argue that it did not have everything to do with Japan’s “advances” into China in a grab for raw resources. So, not only did Japan strike the US first militarily (with a surprise attack), they struck the entire world first and set a precedent of fascist neocolonialism that would soon be emulated by her Axis allies. So indeed, they sowed the fucking wind, and then reaped it in spades.
Uh, for stalinist USSR I would rather account it to lack of opportunity than actual goodwill. In the beginning stalin felt to weak, after his predecessor suffered a defeat from the poles and later there was pretty much no way to start a big conquest without risk of nuclear annihilation. He nevertheless gained quite a nice bit of europe into his grasp.
For the USA I would concur to some extend, they only had some border disputes with Mexico, they pretty much started waging aggressive wars only after 1945 when they thought it would be usefull (most of the time economically and one or two times ideologically).
Now Britain, lol, they had their fair share of aggressive wars, you don’t build an empire by sending flowers. The early colonialists (Portugal, Spain, France, Britain, Netherlands) were all very aggressive and expansionist over the centuries. Germany joined that game very late (after unification) and drew the ass card in WW1, so did the japanese even later in WW2. What’s interesting is that while before WW1 it was not so obvious that the age of colonialism was reaching an end it could’ve been forseen by the japanese before WW2.
Ever hear of the Spanish-American war? That was a colonial land-grab if ever I saw one.
True, although describing them as wars isn’t quite the right word. Rather a lot of the British Empire was obtained by private citizens working on their own and handing the territory over eventually to the Crown, usually after some abuses were reported in the UK. Clive in India and Rhodes in southern Africa are good examples of this. Both ended up as British Colonies by accident…
Which wars would you characterize as “aggressive” and why?:
Korea? (Started with a North Korean attack on a sovereign state.)
Vietnam? (Plenty of aggression to go around. Regardless of what one thinks of the war, we were defending a recognized state even if it was a pretty awful one.)
Grenada? (Well, it was aggressive, but the elected gov’t had been overthrown in a coup détat.)
Panama? (I do not approve of some of the US actions there. But Pineapple Face [Noriega] was a complete bastard and his henchmen in the PDF were attacking US troops stationed there.)
The First Gulf War? (Kuwait was invaded by Iraq.)
Afghanistan? (The gov’t there facilitated an attack on US soil.)
The Second Gulf War? (Well you got me. Saddam was an asshole and there had been continual fighting as the US “contained” him, but certainly the war was a “preemptive strike” and hence it was aggression.)
The worst US wars were the ones fought in the 1920s in Central America…
The Man from Del Monte say, I don’t like your government, here, take mine!
Well,
Korea I wouldn’t count as aggression, though it was stupid to divide it in the first place, but afterall it was a UN operation against an aggressor, same with gulf 1. But here comes the ideological / economical card. If burkina faso would attack the chad you could bet your ass that the US government couldn’t care less. But in one case we had the communism in times of the domino theory and in the other a lot of the US most precious foreign interest.
Vietnam and Grenada was basically none of their business, they stuck their nose in nevertheless, in case of Vietnam it was pretty much a civil war which started as an uprising against their colonial masters and went into a second round, but hey, there is our ideological enemy again.
Panama could be called self defence if it wasn’t for the fact that they occupied parts of it and Afghanistan definatly is self defense, though they seem to mess up the grand strategy, as it seems the taliban and el’quaida are now based in pakistan and musharraf can’t really help about it.
Gulf2, well, actually I’m sorry for the US soldiers that are stuck there now, though it’s hard to resist showing the “told you so” card to the government.
I am very curious about the next elections, if the population is willing to let the current clique continue yet another 4 years with only a different head figure.
Now generally when it comes to the US foreign politics in the middle east after WW2 there is one thing that I find particularly disturbing. They don’t seem to learn from their mistakes. They tend to give advanced weapons and training to people who better shouldn’t have that to contain or counter supposed threads. This usually blows in their face about one and a half decades later at the latest. Todays example would be Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both bear a striking resemblance to Iran in the seventies, meaning far away from stable governments, religious fanatics right around the corner.
I doubt the Republicans will win in 2008, but I could be wrong. I thought Bush was terrible and I voted for McCain in the primaries (inter-party candidacy elections), but then again, Gore screwed up in 1999-2000 by alienating the Clinton factions and refusing any support or campaigning by Bill. And this put things just close enough for Florida to give the edge to Bush (even though Gore won the popular vote - the electoral system sucks and should be disbanded)…
In any case, the Republican field is God-awful. And their main candidates are deeply out-of-step with the American people regarding the Iraq War. And the field leader’s daughter (Giuliani) was just caught supporting Barrack Obama on her Myspace page.:D…
Hehe :mrgreen: should be known since 24 season 1 even far abroad the US