Who Won World War II?

[kalian]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/HaCohen0327.htm

Author: Ran HaCohen teaches in the Tel-Aviv University's Department of Comparative Literature, and is currently working on his PhD thesis. He also works as a literary translator (from German, English and Dutch), and as a literary critic for the Israeli daily Yedioth Achronoth. HaCohen’s semi-regular “Letter from Israel” column can be found at AntiWar.com, where this article first appeared. Posted with author’s permission.


World War II plays a major role in our conception of human history, because, unlike the senseless carnage of World War I, it stands for an ideological struggle between Good and Evil. Whereas the Allies – Britain, the USA and even the Soviet Union – stressed, at least formally, their commitment to the humanistic values of the Enlightenment, Hitler's Germany did away with them altogether, worshipping barbarian values like power and race instead, taking pride of its brazen contempt for morality, international conventions and the rule of law.

This radical difference can best be illustrated by two diametrically opposed definitions of the aims of War. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition) comments:

"Civilized warfare, the textbooks tell us, is confined, as far as possible, to the disablement of the armed forces of the enemy; otherwise war would continue till one of the parties was exterminated."

Compare this with Adolph Hitler's words:

"The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically. It is by this means that we shall obtain the vital living space that we need."(*)

Luckily, Nazi Germany lost the War. But almost sixty years after its defeat in the battlefield, Hitler's concept of war – part and parcel of his overall Weltanschauung – celebrates a rising tide in the global ideological arena. Israel's assassination of Hamas' leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin is a milestone in this process of barbarization of the human kind.

...more...

Very interesting editorial. I'm sure that the immediate canned
replies from various posters here on DU will be: 1) he does not
represent the majority of the Jews (he sounds awefully liberal to
me...), 2) fill in the blank here please....

[bluesoul]

1. Being "awefully liberal"

is still much better then supporting the likes of Sharon and the likud gang.

Ran HaCohen, like Uri Avnery has my respect...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

3. Thankyou for the link

Very good article.

[seventhson]

4. My View: The Bushzis won WWII. The Bushes were the $$$ behind Hitler

THEY won. They got away with mass genocide and Treason.

It is THEIR concept of war which was Hitler's and which prevails in the USA.

Thanks for posting this.

[bemildred]

5. Time for Alduous Huxley quote again:

Means determine ends; and must be like the ends proposed.
Means intrinsically different from the ends proposed achieve
ends like themselves, not like those they were meant to
achieve. Violence and war will produce a peace and an social
organization having the potentialities for more violence and
war.
A.H. Eyeless in Gaza


It was no accident that Hitler's Germany got pounded flat.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Could you expand on what you mean by that?

[bemildred]

9. A large subject.

In summary, if you act like a bully, don't be surprised
if the other kids gang up on you and teach you a lesson.

[Jim Sagle]

10. Do you mean America was the bad guy in WWII?

:shrug:

[bemildred]

12. Why would you think that?

Did I say anything like that?
:shrug:

Edit: I thought I mentioned Hitler's Germany.
Where did America creep in?

[Jim Sagle]

17. Sorry - REALLY. I DID misconstrue.

:dunce:

[bemildred]

18. Acknowledged. nt

[Alex88]

7. The US wasn't barbaric in WWII?

Pear Harbor was a military target thousands of miles from the U.S. where between 2 to 3 thousand soldiers were killed. The US wouldn't negotiate anything with Japan in the previous year and threatened Japan. Japan was a country the size of Califonia with no oil or natural resourses whose minimal threat to US forces was defeated at the the Battle of Midway a few months after the Pearl Harbor attack.

The US military fire bombed every city of any size throughout Japan and then dropped two atomic bombs on two major Japanese cities. When you're alive and well and in power you can call anyone you want barbaric, the dead can't talk and the words of the surviving victims don't matter.

[bluesoul]

8. Good point

Alex88! Sad, but true...

[Jim Sagle]

11. So America was the bad guy and Japan and Germany were the good guys?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. WWII was black and white

That much is obvious. Win or have the whole world conquered by fascists who thought nothing of killing wholescale civilian populations -- Jews, Chinese, Russians, Koreans, etc.

The nuking of Japan could have easily been prevented by Japan surrendering sooner than they did. When Japan was nuked, they still had troops in the field and thousands of planes prepared to defend the homeland.

[bpilgrim]

43. to nazi germany and imperial japan

and yes, to us as well... but i think the lesson from that time, that apparently is lost on some, is that we better find a way for peace or our terminal righteousness will do us all in.

the japanese didn't kill every man woman and child in even their worse atrocities ie nanking yet you will be one of the first of the terminally righteous to point at it.

i think you may have your thumb on your scales :shrug:

peace

[bluesoul]

45. He does

doesn't he?

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Japan didn't kill everyone in Nanking, but not through lack of trying

Their atrocities piled on one another like the bodies of civilians they left in their wake.

The nukes ended the war for both sides. Hmmm. No comparison.

[number6]

34. no, America was the lesser bad guy

Japan and Germany were the even more bad guys ....

I'm Glad the U.S. won, however the power went to America's
head.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. The lesser bad guy?

Care to elaborate on that one so we may all skewer it?

[number6]

36. ok, I'll elaborate on that, commence to skewer.

1st. American companies had ties to Nazi's
,did business with German companies..up to and during the war
do some research on Prescott Bush ...

2nd. Some tactic's used in the war, I find criminal.
(although I agree with 95% of what the Allies did)
fire bombing Dresden,and other cities for example
nuking .. Nagasaki and Hiroshima

3rd. hiring former Nazi's for (intelligence) the CIA.
like R. Gehlin, and many others, in other words, if u had
something the U.S. wanted, u got a free pass ...

their's some just for starters ...

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. OK, let's skewer

1) Yep, American companies had some ties to the Nazis who were the legitimate government of Germany. (What a scary thought.) That is inevitible. Any time a nation goes berserk like that, there are companies that have been dealing with them prior to the insanity. It's hard to extricate yourself from that sort of situation. Sometimes it's just hard to even recognize it. Remember, the world wasn't too quick to recognize what the Nazis were.

2) Tactics used in the war compared to tactics used to by enemy. We firebombed, they used rockets and bombers as well. As for the nukes, the war was still on. Based on the Japanese defense of Iwo Jima, hundreds of thousands of American casualties would have resulted from an invasion and the Japanese islands would have been devastated. Of course, Japan could have surrendered, but they did not.

3) We finished WWII and enterred into an entirely new war with millions of Soviet troops poised to invade Europe. It is unsurprising that we were afraid we had defeated one menace only to face a new one. Those actions are entirely understandable.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. So are you lamely attempting to compare Japan with Iraq

Because there is no comparison other than war.

Japan actively started the war. Japan actively prosecuted the war. Japan refused to surrender. Japan continued to attack neighbors and kill civilians and POWs. Japan also continued to develop weapons and pose a threat.

[bpilgrim]

59. just pointing out the horrors of WAR

ALL WAR

you like to brush them away and tidy the ugly facts up to fit your conclusions so i thought i shine some light on them as usual.

i'm arguing to save lives you are arguing to justify TERRORISM when your side commits it

it doesn't matter whos right or whos wrong anymore it all leads to MEGA DEATH :nuke:

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. War is bad, sometimes the alternative is worse

And WWII was such a case. Pick one, war or being conquered by murderers (Japan, Germany and Italy.)

[bpilgrim]

70. that being PEACE

i don't see how that is worse :shrug:

no one doubts they were READY to surrender and ACTIVELY looking.

(btw: no one send anything about us losing just about our own conduct)

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. That kind of peace is worse than death

The peace of surrender to murderers like Japan and Germany would have meant daily terror.

Some PARTS of the Japanese leadership were considering maybe surrendering if they got what they wanted. They didn't. Nor should they. They had two chocies, surrender or not. They chose not.

[bpilgrim]

76. NEWSFLASH: We WON!

accepting their surrender earlier would have saved lives, is what i'm talking about.



do you know what you are talking about?

the japanese WANTED to maintain their SYMBOLIC historic institution of EMPEROR

and they GOT IT, hello.


THINK about it.

if you are unaware of these basic facts about wwII maybe you need to BONE UP :shrug:


peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. The Japanese wanted to negotiate

Who knows what they would have demanded. They were in no position to do so. Losers don't set terms for surrender.

[bpilgrim]

83. as has been the norm for states to end hostilities for ages

and we do know what they demanded, that they be allowed to maintain their symbolic institution of emperor, which we finally agreed to and has stood the test of time to be a WISE decision.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. No, we know what they demanded AFTER being nuked

Had we shown weakness before then, the Japanese might have demanded far more.

Yes, we negotiated a peace AFTER they admitted they were beaten and agreed to surrender.

[Darranar]

90. How is negotiation "showing weakness"? n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. We demanded unconditional surrender

Anything else is then showing weakness.

In war, weakness is exploited.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

101. "We" didn't GET unconditional surrender. n/t

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

124. that's the SAME philosophy imperial japan espoused.

:hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

127. Actually, the philosophy most warring nations espouse

When you win, you demand unconditional surrender of the other. The difference is what you do with it.

They raped, murdered and destroyed. We rebuilt their nation.

[bpilgrim]

130. wrong again muddle

unconditional surrender between warring states is NOT the norm, look it up since you won't accept the fact from me.

japan was doing pretty much the same thing we've been doing abroad before, since and presntly i.e. iraq, the same things most empires have done throughout history.

japan didn't completely level nanking, which is often sited as one of japan's imperial military worst atrocities.

rebuilding the conquered nation is always in the conqueror interest, btw.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. Depending on the circumstances yes it is

When your opponent wages aggressive and merciless war -- giving no quarter -- no quarter is given in return.

No, Japan didn't completely level Nanking. It didn't wish to. Instead it tried to level the population in an orgy or mayhem, butchery, torture and rape.

While rebuilding the conquered nation might be in the conqueror's interest almost no nation does it, especially after being the victim of such monstrous behavior as that displayed by both Japan and its Axis buddies.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Fact straightening exercise...

Some PARTS of the Japanese leadership were considering maybe surrendering if they got what they wanted. They didn't. Nor should they. They had two chocies, surrender or not. They chose not.

At the time the bomb was dropped on Japan, Japan WAS negotiating a surrender. They'd already started attempts at a surrender before the Potsdam Declaration. To claim they chose not to surrender is blatantly false...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

81. A Small Point, Ma'am

The government of Imperial Japan was a strange and bifurcated creature, in which civilian authorities had no real control over military authorities, and the highest ranking military officials could not rely on obedience in questions of peace and war from their executive subordinates. Thus communications from civilian officials had little real weight. To ensure obedience to a line, it was necessary to get the Emperor to commit himself publicly on the question, and without that, few would have taken any peace proposal seriously at the time. This is, therefore, a question subject to endless debate, as it is difficult to weigh the real balance of forces in operation. It seems to me that, on balance, the military chiefs cannot by any means be considered to have been ready to surrender prior to the use of the atomic bombs.

[bpilgrim]

82. larger point

the emperor was the SYMBOLIC 'head of state' he had little real authority, simular to what there is in the uk today.

the fact reamins that japans diplomats were looking to negotiate PEACE and that ALL of our military leaders in theater at the time suggested that we accept japans 1 condition - to maintain their symbolic institution of emperor - to SAVE LIVES.

it is a terrible tradegy that we didn't heed their advice since that was what was finaly agreed to to get the japanese to surender.

and it has stood the test of time...

peace

[The Magistrate]

84. It Is Not That Simple, My Friend

The position of the Emperor is very difficult to sort out: even study of Meiji Constitution is not of great use, as its directives were conditioned by customs that had grown up during the reign of his imbecile successor, and by the person choice of Hirohito. The nut-shell summary is that the Emperor had absolute power, which Emperor Hirohito chose to exercise in an extraordinarily minimalist manner that was by no means required of him.

Actual power during the war, and long before, was wielded by the military chiefs, who had received assent from Hirohito for particular actions in the broadest sense, that they then proceeded to execute in his name. It is true that from about the time of the Okinawa defeat, Hirohito had indicated he wanted a way out of the war found, but faced with the unconditional surrender demand of the Potsdam declaration, the military continued to argue that no honorable way out could be found, and that therefore the fight must be maintained to the point of national suicide. Hirohito did not express himself clearly against this view until after the use of the atomic weapons. Even this did not wholly quiet the military ultras: a palace coup, involving a regiment of soldiers, was attempted in hopes of halting the broadcast of Hirohito's surrender speech. It does not seem likely the generals would have bowed to anything short of Imperial Rescript in this matter, and that was not forthcoming before the second week of August.

That said, it is certainly true that the "cheap and cheerful" version of Japan's surrender in the old textbooks is woefully simplified. The atomic bombs were mere punctuation marks to the firestorm campaign that actually burnt Japan into helplessness; the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, commenced after the Hiroshima bombing, probably had more effect on the military chiefs' attitude than one or two more ruined cities, for it threatened both their last remaining reserve of soldiery, and the chiefest jewel of Japan's colonial aspirations, that had led it into war in the first place.

[bpilgrim]

85. agreed

though many don't understand that japan's emperor is and was a symbolic, traditional institution that has existed for milenium. it is is well documented that the military extremist used it to rubber stamp their plans as has occured many times in many places throughout history. i hope we can agree on this basic fact since it is a very important point in this discussion.

also anyone who knows anything about japan knows that japan would NEVER have surrendered if their 1 condition was not met, the continuation of the emperor tradition.

in fact we were under much more presure to end the war when russia moved in - think of divided europe - then the japanese and the japanese knew it remember they still didn't surrender even after the 2nd NUKE.

It wasn't until we agreed to their 1 condition that they finally surrendered.

My point is that we should have accepted their 1 condition earlier. I will never be able to forget IWO JIMA especially now when I realize that it most likely was not necessary.

semper fi

(good to see you, sir :hi: )

peace

[The Magistrate]

86. And A Pleasure To See You, Sir

We will probably never quite see eye to eye on this matter, but my own largest point in discussing it was simply that it must remain an eminently debateable question, because of the nature of Imperial govenance in modern Japan under the Meiji constitution as wielded by Hirohito. If you would allow me to suggest a good work on the subject, try Mr. Edwin P. Hoyt's Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict. It sorts the thing out well, and shows it in practice not only during the war, but in previous decades.

Be well, my friend!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

(before we have god-emperors ourselves....)

[JohnLocke]

87. Silly Muddle!

Don't you know? Any and all attempts to argue that the US's actions during WWII is anything BUT pure evil will result in your automatic denouncement, where your name is randomly compared to one of the Bush ilk! How about that, Sean Hannity?

And remember, kids -- only I can determine what is liberal*!

* Liberal (TM) My beliefs, and my beliefs only.

</sarcasm>

[Darranar]

88. No one is claiming that US actions in World War II were...

pure evil.

The argument that certain US actions were immoral, unnecessary, or inneffective, or the accusation that the US motive in certain actions before and during the war weren't necessarily pure, is quite different.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

103. you said it

though your post is just as 'silly'

peace

[thebigidea]

46. am I reading this right... are you DEFENDING hiring former Nazis?

NAZIS?

I mean, yeah - I know you've lept to the defense of rather questionable sorts in the past...

but you're defending hiring NAZIS?!

There is simply no excuse for digging through Hitler's file cabinet of resumes.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Survival

The U.S. faced a potential onslaught from millions of Soviet soldiers and make moves to protect itself.

[thebigidea]

96. and we needed Nazis to protect ourselves?

Surely qualified job applicants were available that weren't Nazis.

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. We took scientists and experts

Funny how nations will do that self preservation thing.

[bluesoul]

97. Complete

BS...

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. Good to see your debate skills are honed

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. You need a WWII history lesson it appears

Japan attacked Pearl while, at the same time negotiating peace. In the credibility game, that means they had none.

And it went downhill from there. They butchered POWs, murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians and did their best to emulate the worst nature of their European allies.

The reason why the U.S. had stopped selling war materiels to Japan was in protest of their malignent behavior in the Pacific. They were the architechts of their own disaster.

WWII was fought as a total war, largely because the civilized world was trying to prevent being conquered and thus was forced to use SOME of the tactics its enemies used. Plus, technology was not sufficiently advanced to ensure hitting military targets reliably from the air.

[bluesoul]

19. So you support nuking

civilian areas, killing thousands of civilians, with consequences (cancer) that expand into decades beyond and affecting generations of people? Wow, what can I say Muddle!

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. I support the ending of WWII

Japan was going to fight on just as it did on Iwo Jima. Truman ended that threat and saved tons of lives on both sides.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. They were not indiscriminate, nor did we nuke "entire countries"

Your description of the matter defies historical accuracy.

Again, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by Truman's actions and Japan went from being a militaristic fascist state to a peace-loving democracy.

Not bad.

Too bad your post was so inaccurate. I shouldn't give it attention. It just doesn't deserve it.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

26. Nice, bluesoul.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

28. There is no moderator bias.

You and I both know that.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

41. we NUKED a DEFEATED about to surrender nation's CITIES CIVILIAN POPULATION

TWICE

Hiroshima is the SECOND most HORRID word in the AMERICAN lexicon

succeded only by NAGASAKI

kurt vonnegut

:hi:

A full-scale review of the modern literature concerning the central issues was published in DIPLOMATIC HISTORY in early 1990. Here is its conclusion:

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. IT IS CLEAR THAT ALTERNATIVES TO THE BOMB EXISTED AND THAT TRUMAN AND HIS ADVISERS KNEW IT.

The writer is not a revisionist; he is J. Samuel Walker, Chief Historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Again, one may challenge Walker's reading of the literature as of that date, but the notion that to argue the bomb was not needed and that this was understood at the time is somehow outrageous--as some of the postings angrily suggest--is simply not in keeping with the conclusions of many, many studies.

...

Similarly, ten days after the bombing David Lawrence, the conservative owner and editor of the UNITED STATES NEWS (soon to change its name to U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT) published a strongly worded two-page editorial:

Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children.

Again, William Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW--commenting on a statement by President Truman in 1958--observed:

... the question that must be at the back of the minds of the people of Hiroshima, and that ought to haunt Harry Truman: "Was it REALLY necessary? Might a mere demonstration of the bomb, followed by an ultimatum, have turned the trick?"

If there is a satisfactory answer to that question, the people of Hiroshima AND the people of the United States have a right to hear it.

One could easily go on...

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

he use of this 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. . . .

n being the first to use it, we . . . 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.

and so it goes...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

fyi :hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. They weren't defeated

For the billionth time, Japan was still in the war. In fact, the allies discovered that Japan had an air force of thousands of planes hidden underground awaiting an allied invasion. Even more, they had advanced to the production line with jets which were far faster than anything we had.

[bpilgrim]

52. i'll take the word of the military leaders who were THERE

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. The leaders who were there didn't know the WHOLE picture

And, after Japan surrendered, we found out a lot more how FAR they were from being truly defeated.

[bpilgrim]

62. they were 'OUT OF THE LOOP' eh

where have i heard that before?

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Clearly they didn't know everything Truman did

And NONE OF THEM knew the extent of the Japanese air force buildup until after Japan surrendered.

[bpilgrim]

68. will that be * defense against clarke?

no one knew better than those THERE who badly the japanese were defeated not to mention they were looking to negotiate terms for surrender.

:hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Not hardly

The other poster keeps citing generals in the field. But generals in ONE field of battle lack the total picture.

Given how well the result worked out, it is silly to criticize Truman for his decisions.

Looking to negotiate is a huge rationalization. Surrender is quite easy. You do it or you do not.

They did not.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

30. "Total war" doesn't work...

while Japan and Germany's innocent civilians were being slaughtered on a massive scale, aircraft production went UP, not down.

The Allies should have known this. After all, the same thing happened during the bombing of London.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Funny, we won didn't we?

[Darranar]

32. Eventually, yes...

that does not mean that the tactics used were the most effective.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. 20-20 hindisght

I tend to look at results. We won, the Nazis and their Japanese clones lost. Second guessing is just like Monday morning quarterbacking.

[bpilgrim]

42. like the cost of the OCCUPATION OF IRAQ?

the results don't look too good now, do they?

AND would you trade what was spent at IWO if we could have ended the WAR by letting them keep their symbolic institution of EMPEROR?

as history has demonstrated to be a WISE decision and as all our military leaders in theater at that time recommended.

to SAVE LIVES has been the 'justification' for our TERRORIST actS on a scale NEVER BEFORE witnessed in human history in the blink of an eye by a SOLO plane.

and i have to agree... to SAVE LIVES, on BOTH SIDES, we SHOULD HAVE accepted their offer.



peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Based on how you defend Japan

This is entirely why acted as we did. Some people never give up fighting for a lost cause.

The results of the U.S. war with Japan look great. Truman, Marshall and MacArthur should be commended. The COMBINATION of what they did was a huge success.

In retrospect I wouldn't change anything because you couldn't guarantee a better result. Our top commander was a wise man.

[bpilgrim]

53. i don't defend TERRORIST acts

no matter who does it.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. Good, because the bombings weren't terrorist acts

So neither do I.

[bpilgrim]

61. to NUKE a CIVILIAN POPULATION twice that was defeated, ready to surrender

is a terrorist act on a scale never before seen by man in the blink of an eye.

check out what our military leaders thought about it...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. That's not what happened

The nation wasn't defeated and it wasn't ready to surrender until AFTER being nuked, not once, but twice.

To claim that was terrorism is propaganda, pure and simple.

[bluesoul]

67. Nuking

is the worst kind of terrorism. It kills and affects more people that any terrorism can! That you defend it speaks in VOLUMES about you and your ideology...

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. The worst kind of terrorism

Was the kind practiced by Japan and its Axis buddies who raped, murdered, pillaged and conquered their way across the world till they were stopped.

Defending them is an interesting exercise in propaganda.

[bluesoul]

73. What did Japanese civilians (babies, children)

affected by the atomic bomb (cancer, death, affecting future generations) have to do with the Hitler and the Axis? Oh my :crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. The rules of war at the time

The world was in a total war and the civilized part of the world was fighting for its very survival.

Those deaths can be laid squarely on the leaders in Japan, not Harry S. Truman.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

104. kill'em all and let god sort'em out

:nuke: :nuke:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. Clearly, no

Since we didn't kill them all. Nor did we kill anywhere near the number that would have been required in the event of an invasion. That invasion requirement was ended because we nuked them and they realized they faced overwhelming force.

[bpilgrim]

107. just a few cities

ic

japan was ready to surrender on one condition in the spring of 45, why didn't we take it then instead of wasting so many lives?

history has shown it to be a wise decision, no?

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. History

Actually, history has shown that the combination of actions taken by Truman, Marshall and MacArthur worked quite well. Those actions included dropping two nukes.

"Ready to surrender" is my favorite expression in all this. Never has a more meaningless term been concoted. You don't have to be "ready." You either surrender or not.

[bpilgrim]

111. quotes...

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

he use of this 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. . . .

n being the first to use it, we . . . 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.


...

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . .


...

* Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

...

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . .


...

* The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster . I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . .


more...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. All weapons are barbarous

It's the way they are supposed to be in fact. The more barbarous the better.

Yes, lots of bystanders to the decision made it easy on themselves by questioning Truman. Nevertheless, Truman had ALL THE FACTS, not just some of them. As president, he was the one man with the total picture and the total responsibility.

History shows his action worked perfectly.

[bpilgrim]

116. and some more so then others

like NUKES that keep killing and harming long after their exlosive light fades.

you sound just like chenney saying that clarke was 'out of the loop' :crazy:

history shows that it wasn't necessary and that once we accepted japans one condition the war ended.

the symbolic institution of emperor stands to this very day as a testomite to the wisdom of accepting that 1 condition.

just think how many more lives could have been saved if we had accepted it earlier.

this mentality of might makes right and/or that we can do no wrong no matter how we act will lead us all to destruction.

what have we won if we adopt the same attitudes as our former enimies?

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

117. We know a lot about nukes that they didn't then

Yes, they keep harming people years later. We didn't understand that. Even if we had, we still should have dropped the nukes. In fact, it took not one, but TWO to bring Japan to her knees.

You act like the issue of the emporer is the only thing we did. That ignores history. That ignores reality. You can't take one thing from the house of cards and say this is the only important card. EVERYTHING we did with Japan, from nuking to the Marshall Plan helped bring Japan from its insanely fascist world-conquering evil to a democracy-loving, peaceful nation.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

119. we knew radiation was harmful back then

and even if we didn't it wouldn't excuse our terrorist act.

some will always justify our terrorism no matter how horrible or obvious.

btw: they weren't trying to 'conquering the world' just their region... conquering the world is OUR job.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. You don't need me, you even debate yourself

According to you we knew, but maybe we didn't. Without getting drawn into an epic debate on this micro issue, it is obvious we didn't know the extent of potential harm from radiation.

Even if we did, it was still the smart thing to do.

Your last comment defies explanation.

[bluesoul]

121. How is NUKING

smart? In what world? Progressive, liberal? Or right wing war hawkish extremist world? The latter probably, but DU ain't about this kind of world. I find such views AMAZING.

Now throwing an atomic bomb on a civilian population is SMART? Oh my... :crazy: :thumbsdown:

[Muddleoftheroad]

128. Nuking

I guess I'll continue answering since it seems to annoy you so much.

Nuking was smart because it worked. The combination of everything we did -- nuking, ending the war, working with the emperor and the Marshall Plan -- ALL served to turn Japan from a psycho militarist state to a peaceful democratic one.

You can't beat that.

In this world actually.

Being progressive or liberal does not mean you should be stupid and let imperialists or fascists conquer your nation, put the women in rape camps, kill the men and do medical experiments on the POWs.

War is horrible. Losing war to such monsters is the worst possible result.

At the time of the nukes, the war was still on. Japan not only had troops in the field (you know, killing those expendable brown people over in Asia) and even more was well prepared to fight to defend the home island with thousands of aircraft and brand new jets on the production line.

The nukes ended all that and allowed for peace and gave the militarist Japanese a legitimate reason to surrender, though they didn't want to do so.

[bpilgrim]

123. i am just stating facts

that some, like yourself, admittedly aren't aware of.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. What facts would those be?

The fact that Japan was still fighting?

Or the fact that even with the nukes, the Japanese military tried to coup to stop the surrender?

Or perhaps the fact that the Japanese had thousands of plains in underground hangers ready to fight for the home islands and had jets on the production line that would have devastated our bombers and fighters?

[bpilgrim]

132. we NUKED a DEFEATED about to surrender nation's CITIES CIVILIAN POPULATION

TWICE.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

135. As I have shown, it wasn't defeated

They were still fighting. They still had troops in the field. They still had thousands of planes ready to defend the home island. They had new technology coming into the war -- jet fighters and jet bombers.

And about to surrender can't be true because even with two nukes and the threat of more, the Japanese military tried to coup and stop the surrender.

As for the last, they were cities -- not just centers of civilians. They contained military facilities, manufacturing, port facilities, etc. All the elements used by the enemy.

[bpilgrim]

138. right, but i'm going with the military leaders in theater at the time

assesment, if you don't mind...

" (A) The rather stark truth, however, is that with one very "iffy" exception virtually all the important high-level World War II military leaders who had access to the relevant top secret information are on record as stating that the use of the atomic bomb was not a matter of military necessity. Indeed, many repeatedly, forcefully and consistently stated positions which in today's parlance would be termed strongly "revisionist.""

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. The Commander in Chief

Always has final say in such cases, as it should be. Only the CIC knows all aspects of the issue. Military commanders are isolated and tend to only see the things directly in front of them.

Based on ALL the information, Truman ordered the bomb dropped.

[bpilgrim]

142. isn't infallible

and only 'knows' what his people tell him, hello...

and according to the people who were in a position to KNOW what japans military status was to a man recommended accepting japans one condition many months earlier.

more facts here...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. Not infallible, but the buck does stop there

Not on the desk of those who simply wish to second guess into history.

The CIC knows the reports from ALL branches of government -- State, intelligence services, military, etc. He is the only one with the entire perspective. Everybody else is just Monday-morning quarterbacking.

[The Magistrate]

109. Part Of The Trouble Here, Mr. Muddle

Is that there were not really any rules at the time. The whole supposed structure of international law, the League of Nations, the Kellog-Briand Pact, the Hague and other conventions, had been sytematically defied and set at nought without the least consequence, commencing with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in September of 1931. Law that is not enforced and is violated routinely ceases to act in any way as a check on behavior.

The root defense of the Allies in World War Two is a simple one, echoed on every playground in the land: he started it. It is a defense that is sufficient for most people, and it will generally get you out of a violent scrape to which police are summoned. The sort of action being discussed here, unrestricted bombardment of cities, was certainly begun by the Axis powers; indeed, the first fire raid on an undefended city in this period was carried out by the Japanese, against the Chapei district of Shanghai in February of 1932. It would be tedious to recite the whole litany of air raids to burn Chinese cities during the period of '37 to '39, or the Nazi air assaults of '39 to '42, first against Poland and Holland, then against England, and the Soviet Union: though it is not much remarked on, the battle of Stalingrad opened with an air assault that killed at least 40,000 civilians.

As matters developed, the Axis powers in that war soon enough lost their monopoly on first the means, and then the will, for such frightfulness. They were given their own back, by people not too concerned with whether they were being better than their enemies, but only resolved to beat them down as badly and as quickly and as completely as could be contrived with the means available. That is normal in any prolonged episode of violence; these things have their own internal logic, which tends towards ever increasing levels of ferocity.

In my view, the Allied powers have nothing to apologize for in that war, though they did indeed do some ghastly things, that in most instances would probably not have been done but for the emotional pressures of such a wrenching conflict.

"War is cruelty, and cannot be refined."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bpilgrim]

110. victors justice

is what you are describing.

and it doesn't wash away the TERRORISM we commited by dropping two nukes on a defeated, trying to surrender nation's cities filled with innocent civilians, men, women and children, TWICE.

there is also the matter of japaese concentration camps here that our gov did feel the need to apologize for.

to think that we have nothing to apologize for is the kind of mentality that allows the blood to flow freely.

there is nothing that justifies what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in light of all we now know, especially 'emotional pressure'... even the military leaders in theater at that time were agast.

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

he use of this 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. . . .

n being the first to use it, we . . . 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.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. No, just plain old justice actually

There was no terrorism in dropping the two nukes. They ended the war and saved lives. You should do a little reading on the Japanese military capabilities at the time. They had JETS on the production line and thousands of planes readied in underground bunkers to defend the homeland. An invasion would have made the Battle of Britain look small in scale.

I love how you call the detention camps "concentration camps," deliberately trying to conjure up images of how the Germans treated Jews. But of course we know that wasn't the case. Yes, the detention was wrong, but no it was nowhere near the level of the Axis.

Everything we did justifies what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We were fighting a war against a nation bent on world conquest. We defeated them and turned them into a democratic, peace-loving nation. That is a home run by any measure.

The weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more barbarous than any other weapon. They killed, they maimed, they destroyed. That's what weapons do.

And, for the billionth time, there is no such thing as "ready to surrender." You either surrender or you do not.

[bpilgrim]

115. TERRORISM

as all our military leaders at the time and since have stated very clearly.

there was no need to drop it on a defeated nation already sueing for peace as you can see here in their own words...

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

also the weapons were 'more barbarous than any other weapon' than we have ever used before since it keeps on killing long after it has exploded.

with you and the 'magistrate' trying to defend these terrorist actions you sound no different from TERRORIST who have 0 hesitation about attacking civilians.

we dropped those hideous weapons to SHOCK-N-AWE the world with our AWESOME power.

peace

[The Magistrate]

122. Certainly Victor's Justice, Mr. Pilgrim

To my knowledge, there has never been any other kind in such matters, where first-rate powers are concerned. Only by defeat of a nation's military power, after all, can its leadership be made available to the dock; even in civil life, police must overcome or prevent resistance by a criminal to hale him into court. Who will come and drag the victor out of his capital, if his soldiers are ready and able to resist?

There are several counts where it is impossible to complain the conduct of the Allied powers was even equivalent to that of the Axis. The first and most basic is the charge of waging aggressive war, one of the three main indictments at Nurnberg. There is no doubt whatever the Reich and Imperial Japan violated the existing international law on the subject, codified in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. It is true this had not been previously enforced, but it was acts of Imperial Japan and fascist Italy, in China and Ethiopia, that had evaded the law earlier. It can certainly be argued that Stalin's Soviet Union also violated the law, in Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States, during 1939 and 1940, and worth pointing out that at the time, Stalin was allied with Hitler, not the Western powers.

The second such matter is the treatment of prisoners, occupied populations, and elements of native citizenry, also one of the three main indictments at Nurnberg. Here again, the only possible equivalence that can be argued involves the Soviet Union, which maintained the gulag system intact throughout the war, and systematically mistreated prisoners of war and occuppied populations. There were certainly incidents of excess involving U.S. and English forces personnel mistreating prisoners of war and persons in Germany particularly, but there was nothing similar to the institutional mistreatments engaged in by the Reich and Imperial Japan. The worst German excesses against prisoners of war were against Soviet prisonners, who were in uncountable numbers starved, beaten, and shot or otherwise done to death, as an openly declared matter of government policy. No Allied prison camp, not even the Soviet ones, matched the ferocity of abuse employed in those of Imperial Japan. Nor did anything approach the systematic genocide of the Reich: you speak of the internment of the Japanese in the U.S., which was certainly foolish and wrong, but that was not a campaign of murder, and you will be unable to show that the number of people released at the end of the war was not equivalent to the number arrested at its outbreak, which would be absolutely impossible in the case of the Reich's extermination facilities, or Imperial Japan's civilian internment camps in Indoneasia and China.

Even in the matter of bombarding cities from the air, which was barred by the Hague convention even before there were any aeroplanes capable of dropping a bomb, there remains the precedence of the Axis powers in committing the crime, demonstrated adequately enough above that no reprise is required here. The balance of these factors leaves me no doubt whatever both that the Axis leaders and functionaries deserved their trial and execution or imprisonment, and that the Allied powers had the right to carry out their trial, having defeated them in the field. The only real caveat that might be adduced is a complaint the Soviet leadership was not haled into the dock on charges of waging aggressive war, and crimes against prisoners and citizenry. But that was something it would have required another war to achieve, that no one had the stomach for, or could be expected to have had the stomach for.

"Do not make the perfect the enemy of the good."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bpilgrim]

125. stacking the dead

i am NOT debating wether or not facism was evil, it was.

i am simply pointing out one of our OWN evils committed in that war.

simply stated...

we NUKED a DEFEATED, ready to surrender, nation's cities filled with innocent CIVILIANS, indiscriminately killing men, women and children, old as well as young, friend as well as foe, TWICE.

i happen to agree with kurt vonnegut who said that...

HIROSHIMA is the 2nd most HORRID word in the american lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI.

after ALL the EVIDENCE i posted here i think that should be plain to all.

btw: do you notice the growing simularities between our policiy today in the ME - especially iraq - with imperial japan of wwII in asia (GEACPS). this is something that fills me with grave concerns especially in light of our continued irresponcible behavior with WMD and our continued unwillingness to even deal with past mistakes and is why this topic is important to me.


peace

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

126. Hiroshima is a fair and complex debate. Defence of Nagasaki

is jingoistic rationalization.

Kurt Vonnegut, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn - MORANS (yes, sarcasm off)

yes - 'poor wittle japan'. consistant language as this, regarding any nation that is not the US or Israel leaves no doubt in my mind.

the veil has been off for ages.

B

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. In case you hadn't noticed

Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb. Even more, Japanese military tried to coup and stop the surrender even with two bombs.

Bpilgrim is right on one thing. The bombs didn't have to happen. Japan could have surrendered earlier, but it did not. Thus the bombings and continued death are entirely on their heads.

[bpilgrim]

136. japan didn't surrender till it's 1 condition was met

and The Chrysanthemum throne continues unbroken to this very day as the oldest monarchy in the world and remains japan's symbolic head of state and the unity of the people.

just think how many more lives would have been saved if we had followed the advice of all our military leaders in theater at that time recommended.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

137. Contrary to that claim

Even when Japan had agreed to surrender, the Japanese military tried to coup. They weren't with the program even to the bitter end -- even after two nukes.

It's funny second guessing history. You make one change -- especially a huge one like this -- and the whole house of cards falls down.

[bpilgrim]

139. thats right japan didn't surrender even after the 2nd NUKE

it wasn't until their 1 condition was met that she surrendered.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

141. Even THEN

the military tried to coup to stop it.

Frankly, much of the military didn't want to surrender at all. They only did so after meeting completely overwhelming force.

You endlessly repeat only ONE element of an entire timeline. That might be good marketing but it is historically inaccurate. ALL the elements served to create the peaceful democratic Japan.

[bpilgrim]

146. it was our new 'MASTER CARD'

- Stimson, for his part, regarded the atomic bomb as what he called the "master card" of diplomacy towards Russia. For this reason, he believed that sparring with the Soviet Union in the early spring, before the weapon was demonstrated, would be counter-productive. After a mid-May meeting on Far Eastern issues Stimson observed that "The questions cut very deep and . . . powerfully connected with our success with S-1 ." Two days later Stimson noted that he

. . . tried to point out the difficulties which existed and I thought it premature to ask those questions; at least we were not yet in a position to answer them.

. . . it may be necessary to have it out with Russia on her relations to Manchuria and Port Arthur and various other parts of North China, and also the relations of China to us. Over any such tangled wave of problems the secret would be dominant and yet we will not know until after that time probably . . . whether this is a weapon in our hands or not. We think it will be shortly afterwards, but it seems a terrible thing to gamble with such big stakes in diplomacy without having your master card in your hand. (See pp. 177-178, Chapter 13)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/guide4.htm

first charge... SHOCK-n-AWE

peace

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

144. I know it's always someone else's fualt with some

"Thus the bombings and continued death are entirely on their heads."

sure

'poor wittle Japan' - rich

[Muddleoftheroad]

145. When they try to conquer the world

And rape, destroy and murder their way across the Pacific and Asia.

Yeah, it's their fault.

Poor wittle Japan, bent on historically revisionism to paint itself as a victim of its own evil.

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Even more

It's not just that the Axis started it, though that is essential. It is what they were doing with it. It is the threat that the Axis poses -- evident with every immoral and heinous action commited by them.

Axis nations went out of their way to present the most evil face of man to the world. Japan was entirely competitive with the Deuschland ally in that regard.

I agree that "the Allied powers have nothing to apologize for in that war." Even more, we showed by how we handled the peace that we have nothing to apologize for in the conflict. We fought. We won. And we raised up our former enemies and treated them as human beings.

That last part is something they were never willing to do to others.

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. There's an EXTREMELY large difference...

between bombing valid military targets (such as cities with munitions plants, garrisons and troop transport facilities), and the sort of thing the Japanese did in China or the Germans in Poland. The aim of one was to disrupt as far as possible the ability of the enemy to wage war in an effective manner by disrupting routes of supply and manufacturing plants; the aim of the other was wholesale slaughter. And anyone who can seriously compare the two either has a very tenuous grasp of history or a seriously warped and deluded historical outlook.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Well said

There is a decided push by Japan and its supporters to change the true history of WWII and paint Imperial Japan as somehow victims.

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. So I see...

the post I was responding to read almost like a justification for the actions of the Japaese Empire in choosing to wage war against the United States...

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Oh, there are some more obvious ones than that in the archives

One of the posters here and I have battled endlessly on this. There are some lovely claims that the U.S. forced Japan into the war.

Poor wittle Japan...

[Spider Jerusalem]

71. Haha...

that's funny. So the US forced Japan to invade China, take over Manchuria, sack Nanking, and attack not just Pearl Harbour but also the Phillipines, Midway, Singapore, et cetera? And the US must have forced them to come up with the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and the plan to invade and occupy Indochina, Burma, and the Philippines, too...never mind that they invaded China in 1931 and that the plans for the rest were initially formulated as early as 1937...

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

134. now that's funny

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are." - H.L. Mencken

wrong forum for this idealist leftist trash (sarcasm off)

This is hilarious in regards to the America/Israel can do no wrong culture here.

"without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."

ya, how dare americans here question their own history

[Lithos]

147. Yet, the US's behavior pre-Pearl Harbor

Was in direct reaction to Japan's actions in China and Vietnam.

Don't forget that Japan was then engaged in long-term aggression against China which resulted in many outrages including, but not limited to the Rape of Nanking and the sinking of the USS Panay. The US enacted rather stiff embargos against Japan following their illegal occupation of French Indo-China in 1940.

And while there was some attempt by the US to goad the Japanese to take a Pearl Harbor type action, (see further, USS Lanikai), it was the Imperial Japanese who were the bullies in the Pacific, not the US which was mostly unprepared for war at this time.

[The Magistrate]

148. Indeed, Sir

The idea the person you replied to seems to be laboring under, that the United States, under President Roosevelt, commenced some uncalled for aggressive acts against little Imperial Japan, is an absolute mis-reading of the circumstances prevailing through the two previous decades. The Japanese attempt to conquer Nationalist China, commenced in full earnest in 1937 after many preliminaries, was the most atrocious passage of World War Two, saving only for the formal extermination camps of the Reich; it was far more vicious than the Nazi invasion of Russia, in both design and detail. Among progressive persons at the time, it was considered a matter of international scandal that nothing was done to halt it by the world's powers. It is also true, and much to the discredit of the West, that the final straw which did mobilize the United States, was Imperial Japan's occupation of a European colony in Asia, namely Vichy French Vietnam, and not the murderous and unprovoked predatory assault on China.

"Bring all the world beneath the Emperor's roof."

[Jim Sagle]

14. Ran HaCohen ain't nuthin' but an Uncle Jake.

Without World War II he'd be dead. So would I.

[rdfi-defi]

24. to respond to the title of this thread

the us based form of economics we call capitalism.