# The Nanking Massacre and Iris Chang's Book The Rape of Nanking



## mikegriffith1

The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.

Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.

With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.

* To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.

Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?

* Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,

Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
* The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.

* In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).

Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).

* Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.

* The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:

The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
* At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,

Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.

Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:

Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.

* In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:

According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
* Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:

Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
* Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:

In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
* Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).

* Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).

The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.

For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:

A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.

https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”

https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.

http://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/110/
Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.


----------



## mikegriffith1

We need to keep in mind that Japan’s leaders were shocked when they began getting reports about rapes and murders committed by Japanese troops in Nanking. They never ordered any such conduct and did not condone it. Similarly, senior army officers responsible for the troops in Nanking were angered to hear about the criminal acts committed by some of those troops.

The International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone sent several reports to the Japanese government that gave accounts of violent, immoral conduct by some Japanese troops in Nanking. These reports alarmed Japan’s civilian leaders, and also many senior Japanese officers. Itaro Ishii, the head of the East Asian Bureau of the Foreign Ministry, described the Foreign Ministry’s reaction to these reports in his memoirs. He quoted from his diary entry for January 6, 1938, and then commented on it:

“We received letters from Shanghai detailing unspeakable acts of violence, including looting and rapes, committed in Nanking by our soldiers. The perpetrators of these crimes have disgraced the Imperial Army and betrayed the Japanese people. This is a matter with grave social implications. . . .  How could men fighting in the name of our Emperor behave in such a way?”​
From that time on, I referred to those incidents as the “Nanking atrocities.” (_A Diplomatic Career_, Tokyo: Yomiuri Shimbunsha, 1980, pp. 305-306)​
Senior officers at Tenth Army HQ were likewise disturbed by the reports of serious misconduct by some Japanese troops in Nanking. On December 20, 1937, Tenth Army HQ sent a stern rebuke to the local Tenth Army commanders:

We have told troops numerous times that looting, rape, and arson are forbidden, but judging from the shameful fact that over 100 incidents of rape came to light during the current assault on Nanking, we bring this matter to your attention yet again despite the repetition. (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity 1937-38: Complicating the Picture,_ New York and London: Berghahn Books, 2007, p. 47)​
Tenth Army and Central China Area Army (CCAA) legal documents prove that senior officers were punishing some Japanese soldiers for criminal acts in Nanking. These sources include a Tenth Army legal department daily log from October 12, 1937, to February 23, 1938, and a CCAA battlefield courts martial daily ledger from January 4 to February 6, 1938. 102 men had been convicted as of February 18, 1938, 22 of them for rape, 27 for murder, and two for rape and murder. There were 16 men still awaiting trial as of that date, and two of them were charged with rape and one with murder.

When judging Imperial Japan, one must always be careful not to assume that all Japanese soldiers committed war crimes—many did not. Similarly, one must not project the actions of the military’s bad actors onto Japan’s leaders, much less onto all Japanese citizens. The vast majority of Japan’s leaders were good and decent men, and they were as saddened and embarrassed as anyone by the post-war disclosures of the horrible war crimes committed by some Japanese soldiers. Some of the cruelest army officers were lynched or shot by their own men after the war, and the Japanese public seemed to largely approve of these killings.

Assuming that most Japanese were like the war criminals in the Japanese army would be like assuming that most Americans in the North during the War Between the States were like the war criminals in General Sherman's army.


----------



## mikegriffith1

In chapter 5 of _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-1938, _which contains chapters by scholars from both sides of the debate, David Askew argues that period evidence of Nanking’s population in December 1937 refutes the 300,000 figure and indicates a considerably smaller number. Dr. Sven Salaar of Sophia University summarizes Askew’s argument in his review of the book:

In chapter 5, David Askew scrutinizes the claims for a large massacre, analyzing the population records for Nanjing in December 1937 and the numbers of victims as estimated in contemporary reports by the Australian journalist Harold J. Timperley, American anthropology professor Lewis S. Smythe, German businessman John Rabe, missionary John Magee (who managed to film abuses of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers and later smuggled this footage out of Nanjing), and NSZ administration officials like Miner Bates and John Fitch, another missionary. Although the point is often made in genocide studies that, notwithstanding discussions about the precise numbers of victims, the historical responsibility for an atrocity is not lessened for the perpetrators nor does the event become less traumatic for the victims based on casualty figures, the debate over numbers has been an all-consuming issue in both academic and popular discussions of events in Nanjing in 1937 and 1938.​
Most of the reports consulted by Askew estimate the total population of Nanjing in late 1937 as being no more than 200,000 to 250,000, fostering doubts about estimates of victims that reach a similar figure. On the other hand, the chaotic state of the war zone clearly made it difficult to conduct any kind of dispassionate investigation. Askew concludes that it seems most likely that accounts that speak of around 40,000 victims, including 12,000 POWs, are more or less correct. In arriving at this figure, he refers to the account of Harold Timperley, who in his first report gave a much higher number, but in later reports and publications refers to a figure of around 40,000 (p. 97ff)--a tally confirmed by the records of the Red Swastika Society (RSS), a Chinese charitable organization which claimed to have buried about 40,000 corpses of “unarmed persons” (p. 98ff).​
Furthermore, the RSS claimed that almost all the dead were male, and Askew takes a number of writers to task on this point. For example, he charges Edgar Snow with manipulation in his book _The Battle for Asia_ (1941) and sees this as “the first in a long history of factual distortions.” According to Askew, Snow “inverts Bates’ breakdown, claiming that ‘a large percentage’ of those killed were ‘women and children’” (p. 107). Further, Agnes Smedley’s estimate in_ Battle Hymn of China_ (1943) of a death toll of “200,000 civilians and unarmed soldiers” is “totally unacceptable in that Nanking’s entire civilian population at the time was 200,000 to 250,000 at most” (p. 107). (H-Net Reviews)​
In his article _“_Japanese Crimes in Nanjing, 1937-38: A Reappraisal” (in _China Perspectives, _January-February 2006), even Dr. Jean-Louis Margolin, who is harshly critical of the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, concedes that Iris Chang and other Chinese authors’ attempts to inflate Nanking’s population to support the 300,000 illegal-deaths figure is not supported by the evidence:

It should not be too difficult to estimate the number of civilians [in Nanking when the Japanese arrived]. Everybody agrees that, at the beginning of the war, Nanjing was inhabited by roughly one million people. Everybody (municipality, IC members, reporters...), during the events and in the years following, agreed too on the population remaining in December 1937: a maximum of 250,000, 90% (or more) having taken refuge in the Safety Zone. It is very important to stress that the figure had been given _before _the entry of the Japanese troops: Iris Chang and most Chinese authors agree that a few days later, indeed only a quarter of a million remained, but they claim that on December 13th the population was still 500,000 to 600,000, the balance corresponding to the massacred civilians. But, in Rabe's diary we can find that, as early as November 28th, “Wang Kopang, the chief of police, has repeatedly declared that 200,000 Chinese are still living in the city". Similar figures were given by the _New York Times_ (November 22nd) and _Newsweek _(December 6th)—both then had reporters in Nanjing. (Japanese Crimes in Nanjing, 1937-38 : A Reappraisal)​


----------



## whitehall

I wonder what Iris Chang thought about Chairman Mao's ten year cultural revolution (1966-1976) that killed ten times more than the Japanese did. Maybe Ms. Chang was one of the victims.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> he claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.



Buddy, even the Japanese don't make the kinds of lame-ass excuses you make for their genocidal war.  

I have a great deal of admiration for the Japanese and their culture, but what they did in WWII/the Second Sino-Japanese War was beyond the pale of common decency, as bad as what the Nazis did in Europe. 



whitehall said:


> I wonder what Iris Chang thought about Chairman Mao's ten year cultural revolution (1966-1976) that killed ten times more than the Japanese did. Maybe Ms. Chang was one of the victims.



Considering she was born in 1968 and died in 2004, not likely.  She was born in the United States... 

Do some research before you open your pie-hole. 

Iris Chang - Wikipedia


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> We need to keep in mind that Japan’s leaders were shocked when they began getting reports about rapes and murders committed by Japanese troops in Nanking. They never ordered any such conduct and did not condone it. Similarly, senior army officers responsible for the troops in Nanking were angered to hear about the criminal acts committed by some of those troops.



Right. So immediately after that, they decided this war with China was silly and negotiated a fair and just peace.. 

Um. No? They continued their invasion of China until 1945 and then attacked the United States when they objected to the whole thing?


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, even the Japanese don't make the kinds of lame-ass excuses you make for their genocidal war.
Click to expand...


You don't know what in the world you're talking about. You clearly have not read the research of any of the better Japanese historians who have written about Japan's war in China and WW II, much less the writings of British, Australian, and American scholars who have written objective works on these issues.



> I have a great deal of admiration for the Japanese and their culture, but what they did in WWII/the Second Sino-Japanese War was beyond the pale of common decency, as bad as what the Nazis did in Europe.



The Japanese did not kill as many people as the Nationalists did, and they killed far fewer people than the Communists did after Truman enabled the Communists to take over China.

And neither the Nationalists nor the Japanese killed as many people as the Nazis and the Soviets did. I notice you said nothing about the Soviets and the tens of millions of people they killed, which included about 20 million Russian citizens who didn't like Soviet rule. 

But that's okay: Just keep bashing anti-Communist, pro-free enterprise Japan and never mind the fact that the Soviets and the Chinese Communists killed far more people than the Japanese did. 

By the way, we killed at least five times more people when we took over the Philippines than the Japanese did when they took over Korea and Taiwan. England and France killed a lot more people when obtaining some of their colonies than the Japanese did when they obtained Korea and Taiwan.

You really need to free you mind and do a little reading other than in PC-syrup history sources. Here are some books you could start with:

Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, 2018)

Mark Peattie, Edward Drea, and Hans van de Ven, _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945_ (Stanford University Press, 2013)

James Crowley, _Japan's Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy, 1930-1938 _(Princeton University Press, 1966)

Shigenori Togo, _The Cause of Japan _(Simon and Schuster, first U.S. edition, 1956)


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> You don't know what in the world you're talking about. You clearly have not read the research of any of the better Japanese historians who have written about Japan's war in China and WW II, much less the writings of British, Australian, and American scholars who have written objective works on these issues.



Iris Chang was a respected scholar... you, not so much. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> And neither the Nationalists nor the Japanese killed as many people as the Nazis and the Soviets did. I notice you said nothing about the Soviets and the tens of millions of people they killed, which included about 20 million Russian citizens who didn't like Soviet rule.



Nope, I don't waste my time on bullshit Bircher Propaganda...   To hear you guys tell it, there would be no Russians left at all Because Stalin supposedly killed all of them. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, we killed at least five times more people when we took over the Philippines than the Japanese did when they took over Korea and Taiwan. England and France killed a lot more people when obtaining some of their colonies than the Japanese did when they obtained Korea and Taiwan.



I wasn't talking about Korea or Taiwan... I was talking about the Rape of Nanking, which is documented.  

I'll criticize America when it deserves to be criticized, but the Japanese were real bastards in their wars in Asia, which is why no one really trusts them today, 70 years later.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what in the world you're talking about. You clearly have not read the research of any of the better Japanese historians who have written about Japan's war in China and WW II, much less the writings of British, Australian, and American scholars who have written objective works on these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iris Chang was a respected scholar... you, not so much.
Click to expand...


You . . . uh . . . you didn't bother to read the OP, did you? Are you aware that nearly all of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre?



mikegriffith1 said:


> And neither the Nationalists nor the Japanese killed as many people as the Nazis and the Soviets did. I notice you said nothing about the Soviets and the tens of millions of people they killed, which included about 20 million Russian citizens who didn't like Soviet rule.





> Nope, I don't waste my time on Bircher Propaganda...   To hear you guys tell it, there would be no Russians left at all Because Stalin supposedly killed all of them.



HUH?!!!  "Bircher Propaganda"???!  Oh, wow. Did you just beam into 2019 from the 1960s?  You think that the research on the tens of millions of people whom Stalin killed is "Bircher Propaganda"?!!  This is a cake-taker.



mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, we killed at least five times more people when we took over the Philippines than the Japanese did when they took over Korea and Taiwan. England and France killed a lot more people when obtaining some of their colonies than the Japanese did when they obtained Korea and Taiwan.





> I wasn't talking about Korea or Taiwan... I was talking about the Rape of Nanking, which is documented.



Uh, so you didn't read the OP, did you?  Are you aware that in 1938 the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu when they breached the Yellow River dike? Go read the OP.



> I'll criticize America when it deserves to be criticized, but the Japanese were real bastards in their wars in Asia, which is why no one really trusts them today, 70 years later.



The Japanese were not as bad as the Chinese Communists and the Soviets in the in WW II, and Japan's actions in the Pacific War pale in comparison to those of the Chinese Communists after Truman enabled them to take over China. Not even close. But, keep peddling Communist propaganda about Japan.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> You . . . uh . . . you didn't bother to read the OP, did you? Are you aware that nearly all of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre?



Don't care...  

The Rape of Nanking is a historical event.... I put your shit up there with the Neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust happened.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> HUH?!!! "Bircher Propaganda"???! Oh, wow. Did you just beam into 2019 from the 1960s? You think that the research on the tens of millions of people whom Stalin killed is "Bircher Propaganda"?!! This is a cake-taker.



Again, you are the one who blurts out McCarthyite propaganda and expects me to get upset about it.  Stalin was a bastard. He wasn't a genocidal bastard.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, so you didn't read the OP, did you? Are you aware that in 1938 the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu when they breached the Yellow River dike? Go read the OP.



Again, don't waste my valuable time with horseshit.  There's also a big difference between some people drowing because of flooding and people dying because they were systematically raped and murdered by an occupying army.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The Japanese were not as bad as the Chinese Communists and the Soviets in the in WW II



No, they were worse... much, much, much worse, which is why the Japanese are still hated by the Chinese and Koreans. 

Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia

Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia

First thing Japan needs to do... openly admit they did bad shit with massacres and comfort women and the rest of that shit.  That would be a good start.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> You . . . uh . . . you didn't bother to read the OP, did you? Are you aware that nearly all of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre?





JoeB131 said:


> Don't care...



That's obvious.



JoeB131 said:


> The Rape of Nanking is a historical event....



Ok, partner, how about you try this: How about your crack open your PC-brainwashed mind and first read the OP? Hey? You see, I make it clear in the OP that the rape of Nanking did happen, that atrocities were committed, but that the numbers have been markedly inflated.



JoeB131 said:


> I put your *(%($% up there with the Neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust happened.



Your repetition of this Chinese Communist talking point represents sheer ignorance. Again, if you would bother to read the OP before responding, you would discover that I most certainly do not deny that the Nanking Massacre happened. My main argument is that the number of victims has been markedly exaggerated.



mikegriffith1 said:


> HUH?!!! "Bircher Propaganda"???! Oh, wow. Did you just beam into 2019 from the 1960s? You think that the research on the tens of millions of people whom Stalin killed is "Bircher Propaganda"?!! This is a cake-taker.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, you are the one who blurts out McCarthyite propaganda and expects me to get upset about it.  Stalin was a bastard. He wasn't a genocidal bastard.



Oh, so instead of being "Bircher Propaganda," citing the fact that Stalin killed tens of millions of his own citizens is now "McCarthyite propaganda"?!  And you have the nerve to pose as a "conservative"?  You're the first so-called "conservative" I've ever encountered who denies that Stalin killed tens of millions of Russians, plus millions of non-Russians.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, so you didn't read the OP, did you? Are you aware that in 1938 the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu when they breached the Yellow River dike? Go read the OP.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, don't waste my valuable time with %($%^%.



If you doubt that this occurred, you could start with this source: Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals. Wikipedia even has an article on this: 1938 Yellow River flood - Wikipedia



JoeB131 said:


> There's also a big difference between some people drowing because of flooding and people dying because they were systematically raped and murdered by an occupying army.



Uh, let me try to clarify this for you: The Chinese Nationalists deliberately caused the flood, and they didn't care that hundreds of thousands of their fellow Chinese would die as a result. The Nationalists breached the Yellow River dike to halt an imaginary Japanese advance.

And do you have any idea how painful it is to drown? Google what happens when you drown: it's quite horrific.



mikegriffith1 said:


> The Japanese were not as bad as the Chinese Communists and the Soviets in the in WW II





JoeB131 said:


> No, they were worse... much, much, much worse



No, they were not. Even the higher-end estimates for people killed by the Japanese army are below the numbers of people that the Soviets and the Communist Chinese killed.



JoeB131 said:


> which is why the Japanese are still hated by the Chinese and Koreans.
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia



I'm certain you don't realize that you are repeating a standard, long-standing Chinese Communist talking point.

A number of Korean scholars have been willing to admit that Japanese rule in Korea was relatively mild and enormously beneficial for Korea in terms of economic growth, industrialization, infrastructure, education, sanitation, transportation, etc., etc. You might start with this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Colonial-Legacy-Korea-1910-1945/dp/1937385701&tag=ff0d01-20



JoeB131 said:


> First thing Japan needs to do... openly admit they did bad #(%$%^ with massacres and comfort women and the rest of that (%^$^%$.  That would be a good start.



The first thing you need to do is to stop repeating Chinese Communist and FDR-Truman talking points and do a little serious reading. Why don't you demand that Nationalist China (the Republic of China on Taiwan) admit that it killed more people in China than the Japanese did?  Why don't you demand that Nationalist China apologize for the 1938 Yellow River flood, which has been called the largest use of environmental warfare in history? Why don't you demand that Communist China admit that it killed far, far more Chinese than the Japanese ever even dreamed of killing? (Mao's Communists killed some 20-40 million Chinese to consolidate their power.)

How about the U.S. admit that Truman's nuking of Japan was unnecessary and immoral? How about the U.S. admit that FDR abandoned the Jews and sentenced hundreds of thousands of them to Nazi extermination?

Why don't you read John Dower's award-winning book _War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War _and then tell us if perhaps the Japanese were not the only ones who should have apologized for their soldiers' conduct during the war?

Just a handful of examples: Do you have any idea how many thousands of Japanese civilians our navy killed by sinking Japanese transport ships that were clearly transporting civilians? Do you know that the War Department had to launch a PR campaign and offer substantial incentives to get our soldiers to stop shooting so many Japanese POWs?  And shall we talk about the FDR-Truman decision to firebomb over 60 Japanese cities, after we had screamed over Japan's bombing a fraction of that number of cities in China?

As for the comfort-women issue, I'm guessing you've never read a serious critical study on this issue. The truth about the comfort women, as with so many other issues in history, is not on either extreme but is somewhere in the middle. The comfort women were better off, sometimes far better off, than the millions of women who were raped by Soviet soldiers as Soviet forces moved through Eastern Europe and then into Germany. Do you suppose that the Japanese army was the only army in WW II that used comfort women?

You seem to have zero interest in doing any serious research, but here's one source from a highly respected scholar that gives a balanced, factual presentation on the comfort women:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GRGZCRB/?tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Ok, partner, how about you try this: How about your crack open your PC-brainwashed mind and first read the OP? Hey? You see, I make it clear in the OP that the rape of Nanking did happen, that atrocities were committed, but that the numbers have been markedly inflated.



I really didn't need to go past the first sentence...  before realizing this was another Holocaust Revision thing.  The Holocaust deniers put their words in pretty language, too.. but it's still bullshit. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> A number of Korean scholars have been willing to admit that Japanese rule in Korea was relatively mild and enormously beneficial for Korea in terms of economic growth, industrialization, infrastructure, education, sanitation, transportation, etc., etc. You might start with this book:



You'd find some Uncle Toms in this country who will claim that slavery was kind of awesome...what's your point.  

Most Koreans STILL hate the Japanese.  In fact, it seems the more dealings with Japan a country had, the more they despise them. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> How about the U.S. admit that Truman's nuking of Japan was unnecessary and immoral?



No, no, no, bombing Pearl Harbor was immoral.  Bombing Hiroshima was because the Japanese were too stupid to surrender after they HAD ALREADY LOST.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> As for the comfort-women issue, I'm guessing you've never read a serious critical study on this issue. The truth about the comfort women, as with so many other issues in history, is not on either extreme but is somewhere in the middle. The comfort women were better off, sometimes far better off, than the millions of women who were raped by Soviet soldiers as Soviet forces moved through Eastern Europe and then into Germany. Do you suppose that the Japanese army was the only army in WW II that used comfort women?



No, but they were the only ones to KIDNAP hundreds of thousands of women and systematically rape them.  Most other countries had no problem finding willing prostitutes.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

I am pretty sure that 300,000 figure is inflated. These things tend to be when people are attempting to amplify the 'evils' of their opponent.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> HUH?!!! "Bircher Propaganda"???! Oh, wow. Did you just beam into 2019 from the 1960s? You think that the research on the tens of millions of people whom Stalin killed is "Bircher Propaganda"?!! This is a cake-taker.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, you are the one who blurts out McCarthyite propaganda and expects me to get upset about it.  Stalin was a bastard. He wasn't a genocidal bastard.



Allow me to educate you just a bit on the tens of millions of people who were killed by Stalin and by Mao.

Before we begin, I should note that your use of the term “McCarthyite” implies that you buy the liberal lies about Senator Joseph McCarthy. Yet, you claim to be a conservative. Most conservatives consider Senator McCarthy to have been a hero who has been smeared by left-wing professors and our liberal news media. You might want to read M. Stanton Evans’ definitive book _Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies _(Crown Forum, 2009). This book has been endorsed by a wide range of conservatives, from Glenn Beck to Phyllis Schlafly to William Schulz to Cliff Kincaid to John Earl Haynes to Ann Coulter. Here’s a good online introduction on the facts about Senator McCarthy: Senator Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism: What Are the Facts?

Anyway, here are some sources on the tens of millions of people who were killed under Stalin and Mao:

Stalin’s Genocides

How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill?

USSR--Genocide and Mass Murder

The Communist holocaust and its lessons for the 21st Century - CapX

The human cost of Communism - Taiwan Today

https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Letters-Untold-Story-Martyr/dp/1541644239&tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GGCR76K/?tag=ff0d01-20

Who Killed More: Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?

Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin

The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33

The Butchery of Hitler and Stalin

Ukraine 1933: The Terror Famine — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> I wonder what Iris Chang thought about Chairman Mao's ten year cultural revolution (1966-1976) that killed ten times more than the Japanese did. Maybe Ms. Chang was one of the victims.






She was not. She took her own life.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, partner, how about you try this: How about your crack open your PC-brainwashed mind and first read the OP? Hey? You see, I make it clear in the OP that the rape of Nanking did happen, that atrocities were committed, but that the numbers have been markedly inflated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really didn't need to go past the first sentence...  before realizing this was another Holocaust Revision thing.  The Holocaust deniers put their words in pretty language, too.. but it's still bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of Korean scholars have been willing to admit that Japanese rule in Korea was relatively mild and enormously beneficial for Korea in terms of economic growth, industrialization, infrastructure, education, sanitation, transportation, etc., etc. You might start with this book:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd find some Uncle Toms in this country who will claim that slavery was kind of awesome...what's your point.
> 
> Most Koreans STILL hate the Japanese.  In fact, it seems the more dealings with Japan a country had, the more they despise them.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the U.S. admit that Truman's nuking of Japan was unnecessary and immoral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no, no, bombing Pearl Harbor was immoral.  Bombing Hiroshima was because the Japanese were too stupid to surrender after they HAD ALREADY LOST.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the comfort-women issue, I'm guessing you've never read a serious critical study on this issue. The truth about the comfort women, as with so many other issues in history, is not on either extreme but is somewhere in the middle. The comfort women were better off, sometimes far better off, than the millions of women who were raped by Soviet soldiers as Soviet forces moved through Eastern Europe and then into Germany. Do you suppose that the Japanese army was the only army in WW II that used comfort women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but they were the only ones to KIDNAP hundreds of thousands of women and systematically rape them.  Most other countries had no problem finding willing prostitutes.
Click to expand...



You seem to enjoy wallowing in ignorance.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You . . . uh . . . you didn't bother to read the OP, did you? Are you aware that nearly all of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care...
> 
> The Rape of Nanking is a historical event.... I put your shit up there with the Neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust happened.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?!!! "Bircher Propaganda"???! Oh, wow. Did you just beam into 2019 from the 1960s? You think that the research on the tens of millions of people whom Stalin killed is "Bircher Propaganda"?!! This is a cake-taker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are the one who blurts out McCarthyite propaganda and expects me to get upset about it.  Stalin was a bastard. He wasn't a genocidal bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, so you didn't read the OP, did you? Are you aware that in 1938 the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu when they breached the Yellow River dike? Go read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't waste my valuable time with horseshit.  There's also a big difference between some people drowing because of flooding and people dying because they were systematically raped and murdered by an occupying army.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were not as bad as the Chinese Communists and the Soviets in the in WW II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they were worse... much, much, much worse, which is why the Japanese are still hated by the Chinese and Koreans.
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia
> 
> First thing Japan needs to do... openly admit they did bad shit with massacres and comfort women and the rest of that shit.  That would be a good start.
Click to expand...

You can’t fix stupid. So, I will advise Mike G to stop trying.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Ok, partner, how about you try this: How about your crack open your PC-brainwashed mind and first read the OP? Hey? You see, I make it clear in the OP that the rape of Nanking did happen, that atrocities were committed, but that the numbers have been markedly inflated.





JoeB131 said:


> I really didn't need to go past the first sentence...  before realizing this was another Holocaust Revision thing.  The Holocaust deniers put their words in pretty language, too.. but it's still $(^&%$.



There is ironclad, indisputable evidence that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. There is no such evidence that 300,000-plus Chinese were killed in Nanking. I know you said you "don't care," but I would repeat the fact that nearly all of the photos in Iris Chang's book that supposedly support her case have been proven to be fraudulent, have been proven to have nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. But you don't care.



mikegriffith1 said:


> A number of Korean scholars have been willing to admit that Japanese rule in Korea was relatively mild and enormously beneficial for Korea in terms of economic growth, industrialization, infrastructure, education, sanitation, transportation, etc., etc. You might start with this book:





JoeB131 said:


> You'd find some Uncle Toms in this country who will claim that slavery was kind of awesome...what's your point. Most Koreans STILL hate the Japanese.  In fact, it seems the more dealings with Japan a country had, the more they despise them.



In other words, you'll never bother to read their research or any other research that challenges your PC, Chinese-Communist-Soviet view of Imperial Japan in WW II.



mikegriffith1 said:


> How about the U.S. admit that Truman's nuking of Japan was unnecessary and immoral?





JoeB131 said:


> No, no, no, bombing Pearl Harbor was immoral.  Bombing Hiroshima was because the Japanese were too stupid to surrender after they HAD ALREADY LOST.



Oh, sheesh. Seriously? Wow. Just Wow. FYI, most of Japan's senior leaders were _trying to surrender _when we nuked two of their cities and killed over 200,000 civilians, and we did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion.

Furthermore, as has been shown to you, FDR provoked Japan to attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base, unlike our nuclear attacks on Japan. I again note that you have simply ducked the issue what any other self-respecting nation would do if three other nations did to it what we, the British, and the Dutch were doing to Japan. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> As for the comfort-women issue, I'm guessing you've never read a serious critical study on this issue. The truth about the comfort women, as with so many other issues in history, is not on either extreme but is somewhere in the middle. The comfort women were better off, sometimes far better off, than the millions of women who were raped by Soviet soldiers as Soviet forces moved through Eastern Europe and then into Germany. Do you suppose that the Japanese army was the only army in WW II that used comfort women?





JoeB131 said:


> No, but they were the only ones to KIDNAP hundreds of thousands of women and systematically rape them.  Most other countries had no problem finding willing prostitutes.



Sigh. . . .  Right, of course. I can count on you to mindlessly repeat whatever propaganda the Chinese Communists have put out. So the Japanese kidnapped "hundreds of thousands" of women and forced them into sexual servitude? "Hundreds of thousands"? In that case, there would have been one comfort woman for every one, two, or three Japanese soldiers. No surviving comfort woman has alleged such a ratio but rather that the ratio was something like one comfort woman for every 10 to 20 Japanese soldiers, which is much more believable given the size of the Japanese army and how it was deployed in Asia and in the Pacific.

In any case, Stalin's troops raped MILLIONS of women as they moved across Eastern Europe into Germany. Scholars estimate that in Germany alone the Soviets raped some 2 MILLION women. I agree that what the Japanese army did regarding the comfort women was wrong, but the Soviet army's conduct toward women was far worse.

But you couldn't care less about that, right?  You only care about Japanese war crimes. Okay.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Allow me to educate you just a bit on the tens of millions of people who were killed by Stalin and by Mao.



Oh, please don't.... the 1950's called, they want their hysteria back.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> You can’t fix stupid. So, I will advise Mike G to stop trying.



Deep state still hiding in your closet, buddy?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You seem to enjoy wallowing in ignorance.



The Japanese were cocksuckers in World War 2, as Bad as the Nazis and the Germans at least have the common decency to apologize.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to enjoy wallowing in ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the Germans at least have the common decency to apologize.
Click to expand...



What do you mean, ignorant fool?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> What do you mean, ignorant fool?



That Japan is still largely in denial about the awful stuff they did in World War 2. 

That's what this thread is about... the OP Denying that the Rape of Nanking was a bad thing.  

Nanjing Massacre denial - Wikipedia

Japanese history textbook controversies - Wikipedia

The Japanese not only still revere Hirohito (who should have been hung as a war criminal), but they even have a shrine honoring Tojo and other war criminals. 

On the other hand, the Germans not only denounce their Nazi past, they will throw your ass in jail if you wear a swastika.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to enjoy wallowing in ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were cocksuckers in World War 2, as Bad as the Nazis and the Germans at least have the common decency to apologize.
Click to expand...

Yet you think mass murdering civilians by the USA, was absolutely justified. 

See?  Can’t fix stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, ignorant fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Japan is still largely in denial about the awful stuff they did in World War 2.
> 
> That's what this thread is about... the OP Denying that the Rape of Nanking was a bad thing.
> 
> Nanjing Massacre denial - Wikipedia
> 
> Japanese history textbook controversies - Wikipedia
> 
> The Japanese not only still revere Hirohito (who should have been hung as a war criminal), but they even have a shrine honoring Tojo and other war criminals.
> 
> On the other hand, the Germans not only denounce their Nazi past, they will throw your ass in jail if you wear a swastika.
Click to expand...




A lack of freedom of speech is not contrition, it is oppression. And Japan has issued dozens of apologies since the end of the war.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> That's what this thread is about... the OP Denying that the Rape of Nanking was a bad thing.



I see the problem now: You can't read. How you could read the OP and conclude that it's saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing defies comprehension.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Yet you think mass murdering civilians by the USA, was absolutely justified.
> 
> See? Can’t fix stupid.



Um, yeah, considering they attacked us and were engaged in a genocidal war... um, yeah, totally justified. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I see the problem now: You can't read. How you could read the OP and conclude that it's saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing defies comprehension.



I put it up there with the Neo-Nazis who try to explain the Holocaust wasn't that bad, either.   You are that level of nut. 



Unkotare said:


> A lack of freedom of speech is not contrition, it is oppression. And Japan has issued dozens of apologies since the end of the war.



Sorry, I'd love it if we had a law here where we threw Neo-Nazis in jail...  That would be awesome.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what this thread is about... the OP Denying that the Rape of Nanking was a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the problem now: You can't read. How you could read the OP and conclude that it's saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing defies comprehension.
Click to expand...

He’s slow.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you think mass murdering civilians by the USA, was absolutely justified.
> 
> See? Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, considering they attacked us and were engaged in a genocidal war... um, yeah, totally justified.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the problem now: You can't read. How you could read the OP and conclude that it's saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing defies comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put it up there with the Neo-Nazis who try to explain the Holocaust wasn't that bad, either.   You are that level of nut.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of freedom of speech is not contrition, it is oppression. And Japan has issued dozens of apologies since the end of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'd love it if we had a law here where we threw Neo-Nazis in jail...  That would be awesome.
Click to expand...


Wrong as always. Mass murdering defenseless civilians is NEVER justified. It was a war crime for which Truman and FDR, had he lived, should have hung.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you think mass murdering civilians by the USA, was absolutely justified.
> 
> See? Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, considering they attacked us and were engaged in a genocidal war.........
Click to expand...



"Genocidal"? When you use words for dramatic effect, you should bear in mind that they have actual meanings.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> .....
> 
> Sorry, I'd love it if we had a law here where we threw Neo-Nazis in jail...  That would be awesome.




That statement, and the belief behind it, is part of the voluminous evidence that you are not a real American.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> Most Koreans STILL hate the Japanese.  ....




More ignorance. You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## sparky

mikegriffith1 said:


> What is a “massacre”?



_perspective_ Mike

and as much as you're a wealth of info, it can reach '_overload_' quickly

no skin....

~S~


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> No, but they were the only ones to KIDNAP hundreds of thousands of women and systematically rape them.  Most other countries had no problem finding willing prostitutes.




Another topic about which you rely on book jacket slogans.


----------



## Vandalshandle

mikegriffith1 said:


> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.



Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you think mass murdering civilians by the USA, was absolutely justified.
> 
> See? Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, considering they attacked us and were engaged in a genocidal war... um, yeah, totally justified.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the problem now: You can't read. How you could read the OP and conclude that it's saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing defies comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put it up there with the Neo-Nazis who try to explain the Holocaust wasn't that bad, either.   You are that level of nut.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of freedom of speech is not contrition, it is oppression. And Japan has issued dozens of apologies since the end of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'd love it if we had a law here where we threw Neo-Nazis in jail...  That would be awesome.
Click to expand...

Following your ignorant logic, let’s say Trump starts a war with China or Russia. You think those nations could mass murder Americans on a massive scale, because total war is totally acceptable.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
Click to expand...



"Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
Click to expand...


Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
Click to expand...



You have to be more specific than that.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
Click to expand...

Foolish. From the posts I have seen from him, he cites many experts.


----------



## Weatherman2020

mikegriffith1 said:


> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.


You killed your OP with ‘burial records’.

No such thing in poor nations, let alone one suffering from mass genocide.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Wrong as always. Mass murdering defenseless civilians is NEVER justified. It was a war crime for which Truman and FDR, had he lived, should have hung.



Yes, how dare they have saved millions of lives by defeating fascism, those bastards.  

Whatever, dude.   This is why I don't deal with paranoid libertarian nuts...


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> "Genocidal"? When you use words for dramatic effect, you should bear in mind that they have actual meanings.



The Japanese killed close to 24 million Chinese during World War II.  20 million of those were civilians... Not sure what else you could call it.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> That statement, and the belief behind it, is part of the voluminous evidence that you are not a real American.



More than you are, dripping poop. 



gipper said:


> Following your ignorant logic, let’s say Trump starts a war with China or Russia. You think those nations could mass murder Americans on a massive scale, because total war is totally acceptable.



Would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it?  

The circumstances of WWII was Japan (we'll just limit our discussion to Japan at this point) was engaged in military actions in China, Burma, Vietnam, the Philippines... and while they knew they were defeated, they continued the war with the hope of a more generous peace settlement that would let them keep some of the lands they stole.  



Unkotare said:


> Another topic about which you rely on book jacket slogans.



Well, no, buddy. YOu see, funny thing, I have an actual degree in history, and unlike you and Mike, I wouldn't engage in the kind of revisionism that would get you laughed out of a history department.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Genocidal"? When you use words for dramatic effect, you should bear in mind that they have actual meanings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese killed close to 24 million Chinese during World War II.....t.
Click to expand...



Prove that figure, or that the annihilation of all Chinese was ever a goal. 

You are sorely misinformed.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement, and the belief behind it, is part of the voluminous evidence that you are not a real American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than you are, .....
Click to expand...




You do not hold or support American ideals, therefore you are not a true American in the most important sense.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Prove that figure, or that the annihilation of all Chinese was ever a goal.
> 
> You are sorely misinformed.



World War II casualties - Wikipedia

Now, go away, Dripping Poop.  You are debunking the rumor Japanese people are smart.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...that would get you laughed out of a history department.




When was the last time you were in an actual History Department, big mouth? I was there today. I have been teaching History for 25 years.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that figure, or that the annihilation of all Chinese was ever a goal.
> 
> You are sorely misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia
> 
> Now, go away, Dripping Poop.  You are debunking the rumor Japanese people are smart.
Click to expand...



Wiki-fucking-pedia? Are you kidding? And you claim to be an historian? What a joke.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be more specific than that.
Click to expand...


Why bother? It's mostly drivel.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foolish. From the posts I have seen from him, he cites many experts.
Click to expand...


So do climate change deniers. but such experts always turn out to be employed by the petroleum industry.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be more specific than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? It's mostly drivel.
Click to expand...



= you admit you are just talking out your ass


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you rewrite history enough, you will determine that Japan won the war after all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be more specific than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? It's mostly drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> = you admit you are just talking out your ass
Click to expand...


Nope. I just resist revisionists, because I take history very seriously.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Rewrite"? What do you consider to have been "rewritten" here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be more specific than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? It's mostly drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> = you admit you are just talking out your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I just resist revisionists, because I take history very seriously.
Click to expand...



Evidently not.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything that I have ever read MikeG post is revisionist history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be more specific than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother? It's mostly drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> = you admit you are just talking out your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I just resist revisionists, because I take history very seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently not.
Click to expand...


Look, I know a guy who is absolutely certain that LBJ had JFK killed. There are some things that are just too ridiculous to debate.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be more specific than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother? It's mostly drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> = you admit you are just talking out your ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. I just resist revisionists, because I take history very seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know a guy who is absolutely certain that LBJ had JFK killed. There are some things that are just too ridiculous to debate.
Click to expand...



= you admit you are talking out your ass


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> When was the last time you were in an actual History Department, big mouth? I was there today. I have been teaching History for 25 years.



The University of Phoenix doesn't count, Dripping Poop...


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time you were in an actual History Department, big mouth? I was there today. I have been teaching History for 25 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The University of Phoenix doesn't count, ......
Click to expand...



Wrong again. Have fun getting your foot out of your mouth.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> That's what this thread is about... the OP Denying that the Rape of Nanking was a bad thing.





mikegriffith1 said:


> I see the problem now: You can't read. How you could read the OP and conclude that it's saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing defies comprehension.



To follow up on this, here is the second paragraph of my OP, the OP that you somehow read as saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing:

Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.​
Either you still had not read my OP when you made your mind-boggling claim, or you somehow missed this statement, or you read this statement but chose to ignore it.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> To follow up on this, here is the second paragraph of my OP, the OP that you somehow read as saying that the Nanking Massacre was not a bad thing:
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> Either you still had not read my OP when you made your mind-boggling claim, or you somehow missed this statement, or you read this statement but chose to ignore it.



Then you go on to deny the whole wealth of academic study that shows it was a hell of a lot more than 40K people killed in Nanking...  

I'm not sure why you have a hard on for genocidal regimes... did a Happy Ending go badly for you?


----------



## Vandalshandle

The Japanese military rulers were actually very nice guys. They were just misunderstood.


----------



## JoeB131

Vandalshandle said:


> The Japanese military rulers were actually very nice guys. They were just misunderstood.



And Hitler just needed a hug!  I'm waiting for Revisionist Mikey and Dripping Poop to make that argument.


----------



## mikegriffith1

What if I told you that most—not all, but most—of what our history books say about WW-II Imperial Japan is either false or selectively misleading? Guess who said this:

During the Second World War the Japanese were stereotyped in the European and American imagination as fanatical, cruel, and almost inhuman. This view is unhistorical and simplistic.​
Who would say such a thing? This statement is from the introduction to the book _Japanese Prisoners of War _(Cambridge University Press, 2000), edited by three eminent scholars, including Dr. Philip Towle of Cambridge University, and with chapters authored by scholars from Harvard, the University of the West in England, and Nottingham University, among others, and by several respected Japanese scholars.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> What if I told you that most—not all, but most—of what our history books say about WW-II Imperial Japan is either false or selectively misleading? Guess who said this:
> 
> During the Second World War the Japanese were stereotyped in the European and American imagination as fanatical, cruel, and almost inhuman. This view is unhistorical and simplistic.
> Who would say such a thing? This statement is from the introduction to the book _Japanese Prisoners of War _(Cambridge University Press, 2000), edited by three eminent scholars, including Dr. Philip Towle of Cambridge University, and with chapters authored by scholars from Harvard, the University of the West in England, and Nottingham University, among others, and by several respected Japanese scholars.



Most of what people believe about Japan today is inaccurate...  

But the Japanese in WWII were still fucking evil as shit.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> Most of what people believe about Japan today is inaccurate... ....




"Most people" including you? You've proven yourself as ignorant as hell about WWII.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I told you that most—not all, but most—of what our history books say about WW-II Imperial Japan is either false or selectively misleading? Guess who said this:
> 
> During the Second World War the Japanese were stereotyped in the European and American imagination as fanatical, cruel, and almost inhuman. This view is unhistorical and simplistic.
> Who would say such a thing? This statement is from the introduction to the book _Japanese Prisoners of War _(Cambridge University Press, 2000), edited by three eminent scholars, including Dr. Philip Towle of Cambridge University, and with chapters authored by scholars from Harvard, the University of the West in England, and Nottingham University, among others, and by several respected Japanese scholars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what people believe about Japan today is inaccurate...
> 
> But the Japanese in WWII were still fucking evil as shit.
Click to expand...

Is that justification for Truman’s evil war crime, which was worse than anything the Japanese did.


----------



## Vandalshandle

mikegriffith1 said:


> What if I told you that most—not all, but most—of what our history books say about WW-II Imperial Japan is either false or selectively misleading? Guess who said this:
> 
> During the Second World War the Japanese were stereotyped in the European and American imagination as fanatical, cruel, and almost inhuman. This view is unhistorical and simplistic.​
> Who would say such a thing? This statement is from the introduction to the book _Japanese Prisoners of War _(Cambridge University Press, 2000), edited by three eminent scholars, including Dr. Philip Towle of Cambridge University, and with chapters authored by scholars from Harvard, the University of the West in England, and Nottingham University, among others, and by several respected Japanese scholars.



What would I say if you told me that? I would be shocked if you_ didn't _tell me that!


----------



## mikegriffith1

Vandalshandle said:


> The Japanese military rulers were actually very nice guys. They were just misunderstood.



I sense that you have no interest in fact on this issue, but in actuality, some of the biggest peace advocates in the Japanese government were senior military officers, such as Admiral Yonai, who was one of the Big Six (he was the Navy Minister), and Admiral Suzuki, who played a crucial role in bringing about Japan's surrender.

We blundered badly in assassinating Admiral Yamamoto. The militarists disliked and distrusted Yamamoto. Until it became clear that FDR was determined to strangle Japan's economy and push Japan into war, Yamamoto was one of the leading opponents of war with the U.S. There were several times when his aides feared the militarists were going to assassinate him. The peace advocates could have very much used his clout when they began to push for surrender in early 1945.


----------



## Vandalshandle

mikegriffith1 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military rulers were actually very nice guys. They were just misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sense that you have no interest in fact on this issue, but in actuality, some of the biggest peace advocates in the Japanese government were senior military officers, such as Admiral Yonai, who was one of the Big Six (he was the Navy Minister), and Admiral Suzuki, who played a crucial role in bringing about Japan's surrender.
> 
> We blundered badly in assassinating Admiral Yamamoto. The militarists disliked and distrusted Yamamoto. Until it became clear that FDR was determined to strangle Japan's economy and push Japan into war, Yamamoto was one of the leading opponents of war with the U.S. There were several times when his aides feared the militarists were going to assassinate him. The peace advocates could have very much used his clout when they began to push for surrender in early 1945.
Click to expand...


I think that you will have better luck selling your revisionist history to people who were not alive during WW2 yet.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Is that justification for Truman’s evil war crime, which was worse than anything the Japanese did.



Uh, no, it really wasn't. We dropped a bomb on a country that had attacked us... we actually dropped a lot of bombs, but the atomic bombs would later haunt us..when they probably weren't that big of a deal at the time.  

At that point, 70 million people had already died in the war... people were numb to it on all sides.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> I sense that you have no interest in fact on this issue, but in actuality, some of the biggest peace advocates in the Japanese government were senior military officers, such as Admiral Yonai, who was one of the Big Six (he was the Navy Minister), and Admiral Suzuki, who played a crucial role in bringing about Japan's surrender.
> 
> We blundered badly in assassinating Admiral Yamamoto. The militarists disliked and distrusted Yamamoto. Until it became clear that FDR was determined to strangle Japan's economy and push Japan into war, Yamamoto was one of the leading opponents of war with the U.S. There were several times when his aides feared the militarists were going to assassinate him. The peace advocates could have very much used his clout when they began to push for surrender in early 1945.



they should have surrendered at the Battle of Midway... Instead they dragged the war on for 3 more years of death and destruction, hoping in vain the US would get tired of it and let them keep their ill-gotten gains. 

Then when the USSR got into it, they realized they didn't want a bunch of half-Slavic Babies when the Soviets raped the shit out of all their women. So they surrendered after inflicting untold misery on their people.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that justification for Truman’s evil war crime, which was worse than anything the Japanese did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, it really wasn't. We dropped a bomb on a country that had attacked us... we actually dropped a lot of bombs, but the atomic bombs would later haunt us..when they probably weren't that big of a deal at the time.
> 
> At that point, 70 million people had already died in the war... people were numb to it on all sides.
Click to expand...

You are a total dupe for the ruling class, but don’t know it. 

Just kill. It’s okay.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> The Japanese military rulers were actually very nice guys. They were just misunderstood.


Well then, Dirty Harry Truman was a REALLY nice guy.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military rulers were actually very nice guys. They were just misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, Dirty Harry Truman was a REALLY nice guy.
Click to expand...


Both atomic bombs combined did not kill as many Japanese civilians as LeMay's incendiary bombing did, but unlike those bombs, the atomic bombs ended the war and the killing altogether.


----------



## Unkotare

Read the whole thread.


----------



## JoeB131

Vandalshandle said:


> Both atomic bombs combined did not kill as many Japanese civilians as LeMay's incendiary bombing did, but unlike those bombs, the atomic bombs ended the war and the killing altogether.



I don't think the Atom Bombs had that much of a difference on the outcome of the war.  What forced the Japanese to finally surrender was that the USSR entered the war in the Pacific This opened a whole new front in China, Manchuria and Korea, and opened the possibility that Japan herself might be occupied by the Soviets.  (Stories of how the Soviets were raping the shit out of German women were no doubt already getting back to Japan.)  

The other key element in forcing the surrender is the US Dropped it's demand for "unconditional surrender" agreed to at Yalta and Potsdam, and conceded that the Emperor would be kept in place and not charged with any war crimes (even though Hirohito committed a bunch of them.) 

Now, all that said- the reason why the myth of the Atom Bomb grew was that after the USSR and USA started stockpiling enough of them to create an existential threat to the human race, THEN they became a bigger deal.  Then we started questioning why we dropped them on those nice people who made those transistor radios and Godzilla movies.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ....Now, all that said- the reason why the myth of the Atom Bomb grew was that after the USSR and USA started stockpiling enough of them to create an existential threat to the human race, THEN they became a bigger deal.  Then we started questioning why we dropped them on those nice people who made those transistor radios and Godzilla movies.




Bullcrap.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Now, all that said- the reason why the myth of the Atom Bomb grew was that after the USSR and USA started stockpiling enough of them to create an existential threat to the human race, THEN they became a bigger deal.  Then we started questioning why we dropped them on those nice people who made those transistor radios and Godzilla movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap.
Click to expand...


Reality... our view of history is colored by subsequent events...  

No one at the time thought twice about nuking Japan.

At the time, while our propagandists made a distinction between "Good Germans" and "Nazis", the Japanese were portrayed as sub-human monsters.  In reality, the "Good Germans" never showed up, they fought for Hitler to the last old man and little boy.  

Today, you will find all sorts of movies where the Nazis are the villians, thanks to all the Jewish influence in Hollywood, but it's rare you'll find a movie about the awful stuff Japan did in World War II.  If you find one, it's usually about how white people were inconvenienced.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Now, all that said- the reason why the myth of the Atom Bomb grew was that after the USSR and USA started stockpiling enough of them to create an existential threat to the human race, THEN they became a bigger deal.  Then we started questioning why we dropped them on those nice people who made those transistor radios and Godzilla movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality... our view of history is colored by subsequent events...
> 
> No one at the time thought twice about nuking Japan.
> 
> At the time, while our propagandists made a distinction between "Good Germans" and "Nazis", the Japanese were portrayed as sub-human monsters.  In reality, the "Good Germans" never showed up, they fought for Hitler to the last old man and little boy.
> 
> Today, you will find all sorts of movies where the Nazis are the villians, thanks to all the Jewish influence in Hollywood, but it's rare you'll find a movie about the awful stuff Japan did in World War II.  If you find one, it's usually about how white people were inconvenienced.
Click to expand...




it is astonishing how ignorant you are.

At least read the whole thread before you embarrass yourself further.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> it is astonishing how ignorant you are.
> 
> At least read the whole thread before you embarrass yourself further.



 You and Mikey are pushing revisionist history, Dripping Poop.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> I sense that you have no interest in fact on this issue, but in actuality, some of the biggest peace advocates in the Japanese government were senior military officers, such as Admiral Yonai, who was one of the Big Six (he was the Navy Minister), and Admiral Suzuki, who played a crucial role in bringing about Japan's surrender.
> 
> We blundered badly in assassinating Admiral Yamamoto. The militarists disliked and distrusted Yamamoto. Until it became clear that FDR was determined to strangle Japan's economy and push Japan into war, Yamamoto was one of the leading opponents of war with the U.S. There were several times when his aides feared the militarists were going to assassinate him. The peace advocates could have very much used his clout when they began to push for surrender in early 1945.





JoeB131 said:


> they should have surrendered at the Battle of Midway... Instead they dragged the war on for 3 more years of death and destruction, hoping in vain the US would get tired of it and let them keep their ill-gotten gains.
> 
> Then when the USSR got into it, they realized they didn't want a bunch of half-Slavic Babies when the Soviets raped the *%$^$# out of all their women. So they surrendered after inflicting untold misery on their people.



This is Neanderthal thinking. The last time I checked, Japan did not fire-bomb its own cities and kill over 500,000 of its own citizens--FDR and Truman did that. FDR and Truman's bombing of 67 Japanese cities violated the very rules of war that FDR had trumpeted when the Japanese bombed a fraction of that number of cities in China.

There would have been no war with Japan in the first place if FDR had not followed Soviet policy and cut off Japan's access to the Panama Canal, cut off Philippine exports to Japan, abrogated a long-standing trade treaty with Japan, cut off most of Japan's supply of raw materials, cut off most of Japan's oil supply, frozen Japan's assets, stationed B-17s in the Philippines, inexplicably moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii against the advice of the fleet's commander and against all military logistical and strategic logic, and then rejected every Japanese peace offer to restore good relations.

And why did FDR pick a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan? Because he was desperate to save the Soviet Union and correctly feared that if Japan and the U.S. were not at war, Japan might attack the Soviet Union, or that at the very least the Soviet Union would be required to keep hundreds of thousands of troops on the Manchurian border to guard against a Japanese attack. When FDR, much to Stalin's delight, made sure that Japan would not threaten the Soviet Union, Stalin was able to move hundreds of thousands of troops from Manchuria just in the nick of time to save the Soviet Union from collapse. And here you are, a supposed "conservative," taking the Soviet side on this issue and cheering this treasonous, disastrous act.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is Neanderthal thinking. The last time I checked, Japan did not fire-bomb its own cities and kill over 500,000 of its own citizens--FDR and Truman did that. FDR and Truman's bombing of 67 Japanese cities violated the very rules of war that FDR had trumpeted when the Japanese bombed a fraction of that number of cities in China.



Except- again, Japan started the war with China and then with us when we used peaceful economic means to resolve the issue.  

Please point out where bombing cities violated the rules of war?  



mikegriffith1 said:


> There would have been no war with Japan in the first place if FDR had not followed Soviet policy and cut off Japan's access to the Panama Canal, cut off Philippine exports to Japan, abrogated a long-standing trade treaty with Japan, cut off most of Japan's supply of raw materials, cut off most of Japan's oil supply, frozen Japan's assets, stationed B-17s in the Philippines, inexplicably moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii against the advice of the fleet's commander and against all military logistical and strategic logic, and then rejected every Japanese peace offer to restore good relations.



Yeah... he couldn't have totally appeased the Japanese, because we all saw how well appeasement was working up to that point with the Axis Powers.  Oh. Wait. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> And why did FDR pick a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan? Because he was desperate to save the Soviet Union and correctly feared that if Japan and the U.S. were not at war, Japan might attack the Soviet Union, or that at the very least the Soviet Union would be required to keep hundreds of thousands of troops on the Manchurian border to guard against a Japanese attack. When FDR, much to Stalin's delight, made sure that Japan would not threaten the Soviet Union, Stalin was able to move hundreds of thousands of troops from Manchuria just in the nick of time to save the Soviet Union from collapse. And here you are, a supposed "conservative," taking the Soviet side on this issue and cheering this treasonous, disastrous act.



Um, he picked a fight with Japan because Japan was engaged in a genoncidal war against China... that's why he picked a fight with Japan.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Neanderthal thinking. The last time I checked, Japan did not fire-bomb its own cities and kill over 500,000 of its own citizens--FDR and Truman did that. FDR and Truman's bombing of 67 Japanese cities violated the very rules of war that FDR had trumpeted when the Japanese bombed a fraction of that number of cities in China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- again, Japan started the war with China and then with us when we used peaceful economic means to resolve the issue.
> 
> Please point out where bombing cities violated the rules of war?
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would have been no war with Japan in the first place if FDR had not followed Soviet policy and cut off Japan's access to the Panama Canal, cut off Philippine exports to Japan, abrogated a long-standing trade treaty with Japan, cut off most of Japan's supply of raw materials, cut off most of Japan's oil supply, frozen Japan's assets, stationed B-17s in the Philippines, inexplicably moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii against the advice of the fleet's commander and against all military logistical and strategic logic, and then rejected every Japanese peace offer to restore good relations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... he couldn't have totally appeased the Japanese, because we all saw how well appeasement was working up to that point with the Axis Powers.  Oh. Wait.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why did FDR pick a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan? Because he was desperate to save the Soviet Union and correctly feared that if Japan and the U.S. were not at war, Japan might attack the Soviet Union, or that at the very least the Soviet Union would be required to keep hundreds of thousands of troops on the Manchurian border to guard against a Japanese attack. When FDR, much to Stalin's delight, made sure that Japan would not threaten the Soviet Union, Stalin was able to move hundreds of thousands of troops from Manchuria just in the nick of time to save the Soviet Union from collapse. And here you are, a supposed "conservative," taking the Soviet side on this issue and cheering this treasonous, disastrous act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, he picked a fight with Japan because Japan was engaged in a genoncidal war against China... that's why he picked a fight with Japan.
Click to expand...

LOL. 

FDR made no effort to peacefully restore relations with Japan. It was quite the opposite. 

That blows up everything you stated, because it is entirely wrong. FDR did all he could to antagonize the Japanese. His demands of them were outrageous and he knew it. He refused to even speak with them. 

He also knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming, moved out the carriers, refused to warn commanders, sacrificed those sailors still at Pearl, and then scapegoated the commanders as incompetent. He was a ruthless psychopathic murderer, but not unlike most of our recent presidents.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military rulers were actually very nice guys. They were just misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, Dirty Harry Truman was a REALLY nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both atomic bombs combined did not kill as many Japanese civilians as LeMay's incendiary bombing did, but unlike those bombs, the atomic bombs ended the war and the killing altogether.
Click to expand...

The a-bombs didn’t end the war. That is clear to any intelligent person, statists excluded. 

The ruthless bombings of Japanese cities by our government, was clearly a war crime. Lemay and the rest of the leadership should have been hung.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> LOL.
> 
> FDR made no effort to peacefully restore relations with Japan. It was quite the opposite.
> 
> That blows up everything you stated, because it is entirely wrong. FDR did all he could to antagonize the Japanese. His demands of them were outrageous and he knew it. He refused to even speak with them.



Don't engage in a war of aggression against your neighbor is an outrageous demand?  Really?  

We were speaking with Japan the morning of the Pearl Harbor attack.  





This is Suburo Kurusu, special envoy to the US who was sent to talk to the US.  While he was telling us how much Japan wanted peace, there were six aircraft carriers closing on Pearl Harbor.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Now, all that said- the reason why the myth of the Atom Bomb grew was that after the USSR and USA started stockpiling enough of them to create an existential threat to the human race, THEN they became a bigger deal.  Then we started questioning why we dropped them on those nice people who made those transistor radios and Godzilla movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality... our view of history is colored by subsequent events...
> 
> No one at the time thought twice about nuking Japan.
> 
> At the time, while our propagandists made a distinction between "Good Germans" and "Nazis", the Japanese were portrayed as sub-human monsters.  In reality, the "Good Germans" never showed up, they fought for Hitler to the last old man and little boy.
> 
> Today, you will find all sorts of movies where the Nazis are the villians, thanks to all the Jewish influence in Hollywood, but it's rare you'll find a movie about the awful stuff Japan did in World War II.  If you find one, it's usually about how white people were inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.  Your understanding of the horrific event, is that of a third grader. 

Many opposed the bombings before and after Truman massacred 200,000 defenseless women, children, and old men. Almost immediately after the massacre, many questions arose in the American press. 

Dirty Harry Truman lied about the bombings many times. Why would he lie, if everyone supported it?  First Dirty Harry said Hiroshima was a military base. Then later, claimed it was a industrial center. Then later when these explanations were exposed as lies, the colossal lie was developed that the bombings saved 500,000 American lives. You bought them all. LOL. 

Please read the article at the link, from the great historian Ralph Raico. Get informed before posting or you will be banned for life. 

The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> FDR made no effort to peacefully restore relations with Japan. It was quite the opposite.
> 
> That blows up everything you stated, because it is entirely wrong. FDR did all he could to antagonize the Japanese. His demands of them were outrageous and he knew it. He refused to even speak with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't engage in a war of aggression against your neighbor is an outrageous demand?  Really?
> 
> We were speaking with Japan the morning of the Pearl Harbor attack.
> 
> View attachment 285364
> This is Suburo Kurusu, special envoy to the US who was sent to talk to the US.  While he was telling us how much Japan wanted peace, there were six aircraft carriers closing on Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

Oh please!  

Are you dumber than a third grader?


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Wrong again. Your understanding of the horrific event, is that of a third grader.
> 
> Many opposed the bombings before and after Truman massacred 200,000 defenseless women, children, and old men. Almost immediately after the massacre, many questions arose in the American press.



Actually ,very few questions did... and in one poll, not only did a majority favor nuking Japan, 22% favored bombing all their cities before they had a chance to surrender...  

Again, you really should have talked to some of those WWII era guys and how they felt about Japan.  



gipper said:


> Dirty Harry Truman lied about the bombings many times. Why would he lie, if everyone supported it? First Dirty Harry said Hiroshima was a military base. Then later, claimed it was a industrial center. Then later when these explanations were exposed as lies, the colossal lie was developed that the bombings saved 500,000 American lives. You bought them all. LOL.



Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

*At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[113] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.*[114] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[115] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-cm and 8-cm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city.[116]

Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[117] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[79] It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[118]


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Your understanding of the horrific event, is that of a third grader.
> 
> Many opposed the bombings before and after Truman massacred 200,000 defenseless women, children, and old men. Almost immediately after the massacre, many questions arose in the American press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ,very few questions did... and in one poll, not only did a majority favor nuking Japan, 22% favored bombing all their cities before they had a chance to surrender...
> 
> Again, you really should have talked to some of those WWII era guys and how they felt about Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dirty Harry Truman lied about the bombings many times. Why would he lie, if everyone supported it? First Dirty Harry said Hiroshima was a military base. Then later, claimed it was a industrial center. Then later when these explanations were exposed as lies, the colossal lie was developed that the bombings saved 500,000 American lives. You bought them all. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> *At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[113] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.*[114] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[115] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-cm and 8-cm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city.[116]
> 
> Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[117] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[79] It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[118]
Click to expand...

Lol. Wiki. Are you crazy?  

you will do well in our Orwellian future. You believe whatever Uncle tells you.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Lol. Wiki. Are you crazy?
> 
> you will do well in our Orwellian future. You believe whatever Uncle tells you.



Okay, so you just got proven wrong, and you are trying to backtrack... I get it, man.  

Funny thing is, I have a lot of respect for the Japanese and their culture.  But what they did in WWII was wrong, I think they even realize that now.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Wiki. Are you crazy?
> 
> you will do well in our Orwellian future. You believe whatever Uncle tells you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you just got proven wrong, and you are trying to backtrack... I get it, man.
> 
> Funny thing is, I have a lot of respect for the Japanese and their culture.  But what they did in WWII was wrong, I think they even realize that now.
Click to expand...

Sorry I can’t debate a third grader. It’s not fair to you or me. 

Get informed before posting.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Sorry I can’t debate a third grader. It’s not fair to you or me.
> 
> Get informed before posting.



Funny to hear a child-like Libertarian try to use that route. 

Point is, you made inaccurate statements.  You were corrected on their inaccuracies...  and your response was, "Nuh-uh".  

Japan was the aggressor in WWII. 
The US made peaceful efforts to get them to change their policies, and got attacked for their troubles. 
We used appropriate military force to defeat them. 

The world is better off for it because we did.  Even Japan is better off for it, if you compare the poverty most 1930's Japanese lived under compared to today.


----------



## Unkotare

It is laughable that someone so profoundly ignorant claims to have a degree in History.

What an idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> It is laughable that someone so profoundly ignorant claims to have a degree in History.
> 
> What an idiot.



No, an idiot is someone who tries to do revisionism to make Japan's actions look better.  

Maybe you need to do some reading on this. 

10 Atrocious Experiments Conducted By Unit 731 - Listverse


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is laughable that someone so profoundly ignorant claims to have a degree in History.
> 
> What an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, an idiot is someone who tries to do revisionism to make Japan's actions look better.
> 
> Maybe you need to do some reading on this.
> 
> ...se
Click to expand...



Facts about which YOU are ignorant are “revisionism,” dumbass.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Facts about which YOU are ignorant are “revisionism, dumbass.



So you are denying Unit 731 existed?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts about which YOU are ignorant are “revisionism, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are denying Unit 731 existed?
Click to expand...


I, of course, never said anything like that. Put away your straw man, it’s not working for you. 

Now we know you have never studied History OR Logic.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> I, of course, never said anything like that. Put away your straw man, it’s not working for you.
> 
> Now we know you have never studied History OR Logic.



To be honest, I'm not even sure what your point on this thread is, other than to be a troll.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, of course, never said anything like that. Put away your straw man, it’s not working for you.
> 
> Now we know you have never studied History OR Logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I'm not even sure what your point on this thread is, other than to be a troll.
Click to expand...



Your point now seems to be ducking and avoiding.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Your point now seems to be ducking and avoiding.



I thought I made my points pretty clear. 

The Japanese Empire engaged in a war of Aggression first against China and then the rest of Asia. 

They committed truly horrible atrocities on par with what Nazi Germany did in Europe.  

They really haven't been nearly as apologetic for it as they should be.  

The reason we don't hear more about it is because the Chinese don't run Hollywood and feel the need to remind us every couple of years with a movie like Schindler's List.  

When you do get a movie about what a bunch of bastards the Japanese were in WWII, it's usually told from the perspective of white people being slightly inconvenienced.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point now seems to be ducking and avoiding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made my points pretty clear.
> 
> The Japanese Empire engaged in a war of Aggression first against China and then the rest of Asia.
> 
> They committed truly horrible atrocities on par with what Nazi Germany did in Europe.
> 
> They really haven't been nearly as apologetic for it as they should be.
> 
> The reason we don't hear more about it is because the Chinese don't run Hollywood and feel the need to remind us every couple of years with a movie like Schindler's List.
> 
> When you do get a movie about what a bunch of bastards the Japanese were in WWII, it's usually told from the perspective of white people being slightly inconvenienced.
Click to expand...

When do you think the US government will apologize for it’s many war crimes?  For instance, like massive bombing raids on defenseless innocent Japanese and German civilians during WWII.

Our criminal government continues to mass murder civilians today. Yet you cheer them on but if a white LEO kills one black man, you have a conniption. Third grade logic of the duped statist.

US drone strike intended for Isis hideout kills 30 pine nut workers in Afghanistan


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> When do you think the US government will apologize for it’s many war crimes? For instance, like massive bombing raids on defenseless innocent Japanese and German civilians during WWII.



You mean on industrial centers of fascist states that were engaging in wars of aggression.  We should be proud of that.  They thanked us later.  



gipper said:


> Our criminal government continues to mass murder civilians today.



And here's the crazy coming out.  



gipper said:


> Yet you cheer them on but if a white LEO kills one black man, you have a conniption. Third grade logic of the duped statist.



Um, yeah, I have a real problem when an American Citizen is executed for no good reason.  I have no problem with a cop shooting a Second Amendment enthusiast who waived a gun at him... it's when they shoot unarmed kids I have an issue. 



gipper said:


> US drone strike intended for Isis hideout kills 30 pine nut workers in Afghanistan



Kind of their own fault for harboring ISIS..  You'd think after 40 years of war, they'd be tired of it.  But they'll do this whether we are there or not.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do you think the US government will apologize for it’s many war crimes? For instance, like massive bombing raids on defenseless innocent Japanese and German civilians during WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean on industrial centers of fascist states that were engaging in wars of aggression.  We should be proud of that.  They thanked us later.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our criminal government continues to mass murder civilians today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here's the crazy coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cheer them on but if a white LEO kills one black man, you have a conniption. Third grade logic of the duped statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, I have a real problem when an American Citizen is executed for no good reason.  I have no problem with a cop shooting a Second Amendment enthusiast who waived a gun at him... it's when they shoot unarmed kids I have an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> US drone strike intended for Isis hideout kills 30 pine nut workers in Afghanistan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of their own fault for harboring ISIS..  You'd think after 40 years of war, they'd be tired of it.  But they'll do this whether we are there or not.
Click to expand...

LOL. The bombings of Germany and Japan killed massive numbers of civilians, yet you think all those cities were industrial centers. Can’t fix stupid.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-German-Nanking-Diaries-John/dp/0349111413&tag=

*In 1937, as the invading Japanese Army closed on Nanking, then the capital of China, all foreigners were ordered to evacuate. One man, a mild 55-year-old German named John Rabe who ran the local Siemens factory, refused on the grounds that it would show a bad example to his Chinese workers. Sending his wife and family to safety, he watched in horror as the Japanese began to wipe out the population. Hastily contacting the tiny remaining community of foreigners, and using the flimsy authority of a pact Hitler had made with the Japanese, Rabe spent months safeguarding and providing refuge for thousands of Chinese, often interposing himself physically between the executioners and their victims. It is estimated that he saved between 250,000 and 300,000 lives by his efforts. And every night, he would write up his diary of these extraordinary events.*

This is an excellent eye witness account of the events told from the perspective of a Japanese ally. It shows the complete breakdown of order in Nanking and is quite horrific. It happened, just like the holocaust, and quibbling over the numbers seems to me to be a pointless exercise.

By the way Rabe was a nazi member.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ..They thanked us later.
> 
> ..






You are not only ignorant of history, you are also morally bankrupt.


----------



## Vandalshandle

If FDR pushed Japan into a war with the US, one can not help but wonder what these countries did to force Japan to invade them:
Philippines
China
Mongolia
Indo China
Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Malaysia
Singapore
Hong Kong
East Indies
Timor
Burma
Guinea
Gilbert Islands
Manchuria
Taiwan
Korea
Marshall Islands


----------



## mikegriffith1

Tommy Tainant said:


> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-German-Nanking-Diaries-John/dp/0349111413&tag=
> 
> *In 1937, as the invading Japanese Army closed on Nanking, then the capital of China, all foreigners were ordered to evacuate. One man, a mild 55-year-old German named John Rabe who ran the local Siemens factory, refused on the grounds that it would show a bad example to his Chinese workers. Sending his wife and family to safety, he watched in horror as the Japanese began to wipe out the population. Hastily contacting the tiny remaining community of foreigners, and using the flimsy authority of a pact Hitler had made with the Japanese, Rabe spent months safeguarding and providing refuge for thousands of Chinese, often interposing himself physically between the executioners and their victims. It is estimated that he saved between 250,000 and 300,000 lives by his efforts. And every night, he would write up his diary of these extraordinary events.*
> 
> This is an excellent eye witness account of the events told from the perspective of a Japanese ally. It shows the complete breakdown of order in Nanking and is quite horrific. It happened, just like the holocaust, and quibbling over the numbers seems to me to be a pointless exercise.
> 
> By the way Rabe was a nazi member.



I take it you didn't read the OP. There were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, so they could not have killed 250,000 to 300,000. The burial records don't support anything even close to that number. Etc., etc., etc.

You're quoting from Rabe's later account. In his initial reports to his government, he put the figure at a much lower number.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> LOL. The bombings of Germany and Japan killed massive numbers of civilians, yet you think all those cities were industrial centers. Can’t fix stupid.



Germany and Japan were industrialized states... Um, duh. 



Unkotare said:


> You are not only ignorant of history, you are also morally bankrupt.



Not at all.  We could have done to Japan what Russia did to East Germany, which was rape every woman old enough to bleed and take everything that wasn't nailed down.  

Instead.. we rebuilt their country, sent over specialists to show them how to run their government and industry. (Ironically making theirs more efficient than ours.... ) 

Name another country that would do that for an enemy that - again- snuck attack them, and committed horrible atrocities.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. The bombings of Germany and Japan killed massive numbers of civilians, yet you think all those cities were industrial centers. Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany and Japan were industrialized states... Um, duh.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not only ignorant of history, you are also morally bankrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  We could have done to Japan what Russia did to East Germany, which was rape every woman old enough to bleed and take everything that wasn't nailed down. .....
Click to expand...



I hold America to a higher standard than some morally bankrupt, wannabe communist.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Vandalshandle said:


> If FDR pushed Japan into a war with the US, one can not help but wonder what these countries did to force Japan to invade them:
> Philippines
> China
> Mongolia
> Indo China
> Vietnam
> Cambodia
> Laos
> Malaysia
> Singapore
> Hong Kong
> East Indies
> Timor
> Burma
> Guinea
> Gilbert Islands
> Manchuria
> Taiwan
> Korea
> Marshall Islands



This is just silly. You're mixing apples and oranges and bricks. Korea and Taiwan were ceded to Japan by treaty long before FDR came along. By the way, we killed about 50 times more Filipinos when we consolidated our rule in the Philippines than the Japanese did when they consolidated their rule in Korea and Taiwan (200,000 vs. 4,000), if you care to know. Japan only moved into several of the nations on your list because FDR cut off Japan's supply of oil and raw materials. Before moving into the Dutch East Indies, Japan tried to buy oil from the Dutch, but they were in league with FDR and refused. Japan's move into Vietnam was done with the permission of the French government. "Manchuria"? Gosh, do you have any clue about the history of Japan and Russia in Manchuria and the perfectly valid reasons that Japan moved into Manchuria? "Mongolia"?! Uh, you realize that the Soviets controlled most of Mongolia, and that Japan moved into Manchuria in large part to counter the Soviet move into Mongolia, right? Let me guess: You haven't heard about any of these facts of history.

"China"?! What "China"? You mean the warlord-run and warlord-war-torn area that the Nationalists and Communists each claimed as theirs but which neither controlled? Do you know that Japan had treaty rights in China, that Japanese immigrants were the largest group of foreigners in China, and that it was the Nationalists who broke the truce and began the Sino-Japanese War in 1937? Do you know that Japan repeatedly offered very generous, fair peace terms to the Nationalists but that FDR kept pressuring them not to make peace with Japan?

The fact that FDR provoked Japan to war with the U.S. is beyond dispute. If anything, Japan showed considerable patience in response to FDR's provocations and only resorted to force after months of negotiations had made it clear that FDR was determined to force Japan to either fight or collapse.

A few replies ago, I provided a list of scholarly books that provide a much more complete picture, a much balanced picture, of Japan's moves in Asia. You might break down and read one or two of them.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> [......
> 
> Instead.. we rebuilt their country, sent over specialists to show them how to run their government and industry. (Ironically making theirs more efficient than ours.... )
> 
> Name another country that would do that for an enemy that - again- snuck attack them, and committed horrible atrocities.




We 'helped' them rebuild in order to have a trade partner for OUR OWN INTERESTS in Asia and to have a physical and political barrier to the communist forces fdr had worked so hard to empower engulfing all of Asia and beyond.

As for "how to run," you should study some history some time. Ask someone who knows ANYTHING about World History about the Meiji Restoration and an example of perhaps the fastest and most remarkable development and modernization in any country.


----------



## Vandalshandle

mikegriffith1 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If FDR pushed Japan into a war with the US, one can not help but wonder what these countries did to force Japan to invade them:
> Philippines
> China
> Mongolia
> Indo China
> Vietnam
> Cambodia
> Laos
> Malaysia
> Singapore
> Hong Kong
> East Indies
> Timor
> Burma
> Guinea
> Gilbert Islands
> Manchuria
> Taiwan
> Korea
> Marshall Islands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just silly. You're mixing apples and oranges and bricks. Korea and Taiwan were ceded to Japan by treaty long before FDR came along. By the way, we killed about 50 times more Filipinos when we consolidated our rule in the Philippines than the Japanese did when they consolidated their rule in Korea and Taiwan (200,000 vs. 4,000), if you care to know. Japan only moved into several of the nations on your list because FDR cut off Japan's supply of oil and raw materials. Before moving into the Dutch East Indies, Japan tried to buy oil from the Dutch, but they were in league with FDR and refused. Japan's move into Vietnam was done with the permission of the French government. "Manchuria"? Gosh, do you have any clue about the history of Japan and Russia in Manchuria and the perfectly valid reasons that Japan moved into Manchuria? "Mongolia"?! Uh, you realize that the Soviets controlled most of Mongolia, and that Japan moved into Manchuria in large part to counter the Soviet move into Mongolia, right? Let me guess: You haven't heard about any of these facts of history.
> 
> "China"?! What "China"? You mean the warlord-run and warlord-war-torn area that the Nationalists and Communists each claimed as theirs but which neither controlled? Do you know that Japan had treaty rights in China, that Japanese immigrants were the largest group of foreigners in China, and that it was the Nationalists who broke the truce and began the Sino-Japanese War in 1937? Do you know that Japan repeatedly offered very generous, fair peace terms to the Nationalists but that FDR kept pressuring them not to make peace with Japan?
> 
> The fact that FDR provoked Japan to war with the U.S. is beyond dispute. If anything, Japan showed considerable patience in response to FDR's provocations and only resorted to force after months of negotiations had made it clear that FDR was determined to force Japan to either fight or collapse.
> 
> A few replies ago, I provided a list of scholarly books that provide a much more complete picture, a much balanced picture, of Japan's moves in Asia. You might break down and read one or two of them.
Click to expand...


Once again, the Japanese military government were just a bunch of really nice guys who occupied every Asia country in their efforts to bring the blessings of military dictatorship to their neighbors, but they were misunderstood. For example, the Korean "comfort girls" who were prostitute slaves were really volunteers who just liked sex a lot.


Don't give up your day job to become a historian, Mike.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Vandalshandle said:


> Once again, the Japanese military government were just a bunch of really nice guys who occupied every Asia country in their efforts to bring the blessings of military dictatorship to their neighbors, but they were misunderstood.



You're not even addressing my arguments. You just keep repeating the Chinese-Communist portrayal of WWII-era Japan.

Just FYI, in the unlikely event that you care about facts, Korea was about to get representation in Japan's legislature, the Diet. Koreans living in Japan could vote. There were Koreans who ran for office in Japan. Tens of thousands of Koreans actually volunteered to serve in the Japanese army, and some of them became officers and commanded Japanese troops. Hundreds of Korean soldiers in the Japanese army received citations for bravery, and some of them are honored at Japan's Yasukuni Shrine, which is Japan's version of our Arlington Cemetery.

Just curious: Do you think North Korea and North Vietnam were better off after the anti-Communist, pro-capitalist Japanese were forced to leave and the Communists took over?



> For example, the Korean "comfort girls" who were prostitute slaves were really volunteers who just liked sex a lot.



This subject has already been covered earlier in this thread. Some of the comfort women did in fact volunteer and were in fact paid, but many were not, and that was clearly wrong, as I've already said. Now, if you excoriate Japan over the comfort women, are you equally as hard on the Soviet Union over the fact that Soviet soldiers raped _millions _of women as the Soviet army made its away across Eastern Europe?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> We 'helped' them rebuild in order to have a trade partner for OUR OWN INTERESTS in Asia and to have a physical and political barrier to the communist forces fdr had worked so hard to empower engulfing all of Asia and beyond.
> 
> As for "how to run," you should study some history some time. Ask someone who knows ANYTHING about World History about the Meiji Restoration and an example of perhaps the fastest and most remarkable development and modernization in any country.



The Meiji Restoration led to a dictatorship within decades, it's nothing to be proud of.   

We rebuilt them because we were decent people...  a concept you don't seem to get. It was better than they deserved.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Just FYI, in the unlikely event that you care about facts, Korea was about to get representation in Japan's legislature, the Diet.



So what? The Diet was kind of meaningless, as Japan was a military dictatorship at that point. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Hundreds of Korean soldiers in the Japanese army received citations for bravery, and some of them are honored at Japan's Yasukuni Shrine, which is Japan's version of our Arlington Cemetery.



You know who else is honored?  Tojo and the rest of the war criminals. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> This subject has already been covered earlier in this thread. Some of the comfort women did in fact volunteer and were in fact paid, but many were not, and that was clearly wrong, as I've already said. Now, if you excoriate Japan over the comfort women, are you equally as hard on the Soviet Union over the fact that Soviet soldiers raped _millions _of women as the Soviet army made its away across Eastern Europe?



YOu mean they raped GERMAN women after Germans and their allies had inflicted millions of casualties. 

Should be pointed out that of the countries occuppied by the USSR after WWII, Five of them (Germany, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary) all joined the Axis.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If FDR pushed Japan into a war with the US, one can not help but wonder what these countries did to force Japan to invade them:
> Philippines
> China
> Mongolia
> Indo China
> Vietnam
> Cambodia
> Laos
> Malaysia
> Singapore
> Hong Kong
> East Indies
> Timor
> Burma
> Guinea
> Gilbert Islands
> Manchuria
> Taiwan
> Korea
> Marshall Islands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just silly. You're mixing apples and oranges and bricks. Korea and Taiwan were ceded to Japan by treaty long before FDR came along. By the way, we killed about 50 times more Filipinos when we consolidated our rule in the Philippines than the Japanese did when they consolidated their rule in Korea and Taiwan (200,000 vs. 4,000), if you care to know. Japan only moved into several of the nations on your list because FDR cut off Japan's supply of oil and raw materials. Before moving into the Dutch East Indies, Japan tried to buy oil from the Dutch, but they were in league with FDR and refused. Japan's move into Vietnam was done with the permission of the French government. "Manchuria"? Gosh, do you have any clue about the history of Japan and Russia in Manchuria and the perfectly valid reasons that Japan moved into Manchuria? "Mongolia"?! Uh, you realize that the Soviets controlled most of Mongolia, and that Japan moved into Manchuria in large part to counter the Soviet move into Mongolia, right? Let me guess: You haven't heard about any of these facts of history.
> 
> "China"?! What "China"? You mean the warlord-run and warlord-war-torn area that the Nationalists and Communists each claimed as theirs but which neither controlled? Do you know that Japan had treaty rights in China, that Japanese immigrants were the largest group of foreigners in China, and that it was the Nationalists who broke the truce and began the Sino-Japanese War in 1937? Do you know that Japan repeatedly offered very generous, fair peace terms to the Nationalists but that FDR kept pressuring them not to make peace with Japan?
> 
> The fact that FDR provoked Japan to war with the U.S. is beyond dispute. If anything, Japan showed considerable patience in response to FDR's provocations and only resorted to force after months of negotiations had made it clear that FDR was determined to force Japan to either fight or collapse.
> 
> A few replies ago, I provided a list of scholarly books that provide a much more complete picture, a much balanced picture, of Japan's moves in Asia. You might break down and read one or two of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the Japanese military government were just a bunch of really nice guys who occupied every Asia country in their efforts to bring the blessings of military dictatorship to their neighbors, but they were misunderstood. For example, the Korean "comfort girls" who were prostitute slaves were really volunteers who just liked sex a lot.
> 
> 
> Don't give up your day job to become a historian, Mike.
Click to expand...

So your argument must be since the Japanese military was so awful, the US government was justified in committing acts even more awful. 

Third grade logic.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

mikegriffith1 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-German-Nanking-Diaries-John/dp/0349111413&tag=
> 
> *In 1937, as the invading Japanese Army closed on Nanking, then the capital of China, all foreigners were ordered to evacuate. One man, a mild 55-year-old German named John Rabe who ran the local Siemens factory, refused on the grounds that it would show a bad example to his Chinese workers. Sending his wife and family to safety, he watched in horror as the Japanese began to wipe out the population. Hastily contacting the tiny remaining community of foreigners, and using the flimsy authority of a pact Hitler had made with the Japanese, Rabe spent months safeguarding and providing refuge for thousands of Chinese, often interposing himself physically between the executioners and their victims. It is estimated that he saved between 250,000 and 300,000 lives by his efforts. And every night, he would write up his diary of these extraordinary events.*
> 
> This is an excellent eye witness account of the events told from the perspective of a Japanese ally. It shows the complete breakdown of order in Nanking and is quite horrific. It happened, just like the holocaust, and quibbling over the numbers seems to me to be a pointless exercise.
> 
> By the way Rabe was a nazi member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't read the OP. There were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, so they could not have killed 250,000 to 300,000. The burial records don't support anything even close to that number. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You're quoting from Rabe's later account. In his initial reports to his government, he put the figure at a much lower number.
Click to expand...

Im quoting the publishers promo note. I dont think Rabe makes a claim about numbers in his book. However he does give a first hand account of what happened. To me that clearly shows a war crime was taking place.

Quibbling over the numbers seems to be a pointless exercise.At what point does it stop being an atrocity ?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We 'helped' them rebuild in order to have a trade partner for OUR OWN INTERESTS in Asia and to have a physical and political barrier to the communist forces fdr had worked so hard to empower engulfing all of Asia and beyond.
> 
> As for "how to run," you should study some history some time. Ask someone who knows ANYTHING about World History about the Meiji Restoration and an example of perhaps the fastest and most remarkable development and modernization in any country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Meiji Restoration led to a dictatorship within decades, it's nothing to be proud of.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



You have never studied anything about it. Don’t repeat the lie that you have a degree in History ever again. You clearly have no knowledge or interest in the subject.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We 'helped' them rebuild in order to have a trade partner for OUR OWN INTERESTS in Asia and to have a physical and political barrier to the communist forces fdr had worked so hard to empower engulfing all of Asia and beyond.
> 
> As for "how to run," you should study some history some time. Ask someone who knows ANYTHING about World History about the Meiji Restoration and an example of perhaps the fastest and most remarkable development and modernization in any country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> We rebuilt them because we were decent people...  ....
Click to expand...



Oh sure, that’s why we needlessly incinerated hundreds of thousands of women and children in atomic horror; because we cared so much about them.


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-German-Nanking-Diaries-John/dp/0349111413&tag=
> 
> *In 1937, as the invading Japanese Army closed on Nanking, then the capital of China, all foreigners were ordered to evacuate. One man, a mild 55-year-old German named John Rabe who ran the local Siemens factory, refused on the grounds that it would show a bad example to his Chinese workers. Sending his wife and family to safety, he watched in horror as the Japanese began to wipe out the population. Hastily contacting the tiny remaining community of foreigners, and using the flimsy authority of a pact Hitler had made with the Japanese, Rabe spent months safeguarding and providing refuge for thousands of Chinese, often interposing himself physically between the executioners and their victims. It is estimated that he saved between 250,000 and 300,000 lives by his efforts. And every night, he would write up his diary of these extraordinary events.*
> 
> This is an excellent eye witness account of the events told from the perspective of a Japanese ally. It shows the complete breakdown of order in Nanking and is quite horrific. It happened, just like the holocaust, and quibbling over the numbers seems to me to be a pointless exercise.
> 
> By the way Rabe was a nazi member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't read the OP. There were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, so they could not have killed 250,000 to 300,000. The burial records don't support anything even close to that number. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You're quoting from Rabe's later account. In his initial reports to his government, he put the figure at a much lower number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im quoting the publishers promo note. I dont think Rabe makes a claim about numbers in his book. However he does give a first hand account of what happened. To me that clearly shows a war crime was taking place.
> 
> Quibbling over the numbers seems to be a pointless exercise.At what point does it stop being an atrocity ?
Click to expand...

Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.

Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME? 

Please provide concise logical explanations.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gipper said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-German-Nanking-Diaries-John/dp/0349111413&tag=
> 
> *In 1937, as the invading Japanese Army closed on Nanking, then the capital of China, all foreigners were ordered to evacuate. One man, a mild 55-year-old German named John Rabe who ran the local Siemens factory, refused on the grounds that it would show a bad example to his Chinese workers. Sending his wife and family to safety, he watched in horror as the Japanese began to wipe out the population. Hastily contacting the tiny remaining community of foreigners, and using the flimsy authority of a pact Hitler had made with the Japanese, Rabe spent months safeguarding and providing refuge for thousands of Chinese, often interposing himself physically between the executioners and their victims. It is estimated that he saved between 250,000 and 300,000 lives by his efforts. And every night, he would write up his diary of these extraordinary events.*
> 
> This is an excellent eye witness account of the events told from the perspective of a Japanese ally. It shows the complete breakdown of order in Nanking and is quite horrific. It happened, just like the holocaust, and quibbling over the numbers seems to me to be a pointless exercise.
> 
> By the way Rabe was a nazi member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't read the OP. There were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, so they could not have killed 250,000 to 300,000. The burial records don't support anything even close to that number. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You're quoting from Rabe's later account. In his initial reports to his government, he put the figure at a much lower number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im quoting the publishers promo note. I dont think Rabe makes a claim about numbers in his book. However he does give a first hand account of what happened. To me that clearly shows a war crime was taking place.
> 
> Quibbling over the numbers seems to be a pointless exercise.At what point does it stop being an atrocity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.
> 
> Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME?
> 
> Please provide concise logical explanations.
Click to expand...

You would need to provide actual examples.


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-German-Nanking-Diaries-John/dp/0349111413&tag=
> 
> *In 1937, as the invading Japanese Army closed on Nanking, then the capital of China, all foreigners were ordered to evacuate. One man, a mild 55-year-old German named John Rabe who ran the local Siemens factory, refused on the grounds that it would show a bad example to his Chinese workers. Sending his wife and family to safety, he watched in horror as the Japanese began to wipe out the population. Hastily contacting the tiny remaining community of foreigners, and using the flimsy authority of a pact Hitler had made with the Japanese, Rabe spent months safeguarding and providing refuge for thousands of Chinese, often interposing himself physically between the executioners and their victims. It is estimated that he saved between 250,000 and 300,000 lives by his efforts. And every night, he would write up his diary of these extraordinary events.*
> 
> This is an excellent eye witness account of the events told from the perspective of a Japanese ally. It shows the complete breakdown of order in Nanking and is quite horrific. It happened, just like the holocaust, and quibbling over the numbers seems to me to be a pointless exercise.
> 
> By the way Rabe was a nazi member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't read the OP. There were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, so they could not have killed 250,000 to 300,000. The burial records don't support anything even close to that number. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You're quoting from Rabe's later account. In his initial reports to his government, he put the figure at a much lower number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im quoting the publishers promo note. I dont think Rabe makes a claim about numbers in his book. However he does give a first hand account of what happened. To me that clearly shows a war crime was taking place.
> 
> Quibbling over the numbers seems to be a pointless exercise.At what point does it stop being an atrocity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.
> 
> Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME?
> 
> Please provide concise logical explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would need to provide actual examples.
Click to expand...

LOL. 

Your warmongering asshole leader Churchill demanded that the civilians of Dresden be mass murdered. Was this act a war crime?  

Was Dirty Harry’s incineration of 200,000 innocent defenseless civilians, a war crime?  

Was the ruthless fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, mass murdering thousands of civilians, a war crime?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gipper said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-German-Nanking-Diaries-John/dp/0349111413&tag=
> 
> *In 1937, as the invading Japanese Army closed on Nanking, then the capital of China, all foreigners were ordered to evacuate. One man, a mild 55-year-old German named John Rabe who ran the local Siemens factory, refused on the grounds that it would show a bad example to his Chinese workers. Sending his wife and family to safety, he watched in horror as the Japanese began to wipe out the population. Hastily contacting the tiny remaining community of foreigners, and using the flimsy authority of a pact Hitler had made with the Japanese, Rabe spent months safeguarding and providing refuge for thousands of Chinese, often interposing himself physically between the executioners and their victims. It is estimated that he saved between 250,000 and 300,000 lives by his efforts. And every night, he would write up his diary of these extraordinary events.*
> 
> This is an excellent eye witness account of the events told from the perspective of a Japanese ally. It shows the complete breakdown of order in Nanking and is quite horrific. It happened, just like the holocaust, and quibbling over the numbers seems to me to be a pointless exercise.
> 
> By the way Rabe was a nazi member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't read the OP. There were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, so they could not have killed 250,000 to 300,000. The burial records don't support anything even close to that number. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You're quoting from Rabe's later account. In his initial reports to his government, he put the figure at a much lower number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im quoting the publishers promo note. I dont think Rabe makes a claim about numbers in his book. However he does give a first hand account of what happened. To me that clearly shows a war crime was taking place.
> 
> Quibbling over the numbers seems to be a pointless exercise.At what point does it stop being an atrocity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.
> 
> Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME?
> 
> Please provide concise logical explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would need to provide actual examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Your warmongering asshole leader Churchill demanded that the civilians of Dresden be mass murdered. Was this act a war crime?
> 
> Was Dirty Harry’s incineration of 200,000 innocent defenseless civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Was the ruthless fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, mass murdering thousands of civilians, a war crime?
Click to expand...

You mean like the bombing of London, Coventry and Osborne St in my village ?


----------



## Vandalshandle

mikegriffith1 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the Japanese military government were just a bunch of really nice guys who occupied every Asia country in their efforts to bring the blessings of military dictatorship to their neighbors, but they were misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even addressing my arguments. You just keep repeating the Chinese-Communist portrayal of WWII-era Japan.
> 
> Just FYI, in the unlikely event that you care about facts, Korea was about to get representation in Japan's legislature, the Diet. Koreans living in Japan could vote. There were Koreans who ran for office in Japan. Tens of thousands of Koreans actually volunteered to serve in the Japanese army, and some of them became officers and commanded Japanese troops. Hundreds of Korean soldiers in the Japanese army received citations for bravery, and some of them are honored at Japan's Yasukuni Shrine, which is Japan's version of our Arlington Cemetery.
> 
> Just curious: Do you think North Korea and North Vietnam were better off after the anti-Communist, pro-capitalist Japanese were forced to leave and the Communists took over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the Korean "comfort girls" who were prostitute slaves were really volunteers who just liked sex a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This subject has already been covered earlier in this thread. Some of the comfort women did in fact volunteer and were in fact paid, but many were not, and that was clearly wrong, as I've already said. Now, if you excoriate Japan over the comfort women, are you equally as hard on the Soviet Union over the fact that Soviet soldiers raped _millions _of women as the Soviet army made its away across Eastern Europe?
Click to expand...


I'm out, Mike. I care too much about history to dignify your fantasies.


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't read the OP. There were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, so they could not have killed 250,000 to 300,000. The burial records don't support anything even close to that number. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> You're quoting from Rabe's later account. In his initial reports to his government, he put the figure at a much lower number.
> 
> 
> 
> Im quoting the publishers promo note. I dont think Rabe makes a claim about numbers in his book. However he does give a first hand account of what happened. To me that clearly shows a war crime was taking place.
> 
> Quibbling over the numbers seems to be a pointless exercise.At what point does it stop being an atrocity ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.
> 
> Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME?
> 
> Please provide concise logical explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would need to provide actual examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Your warmongering asshole leader Churchill demanded that the civilians of Dresden be mass murdered. Was this act a war crime?
> 
> Was Dirty Harry’s incineration of 200,000 innocent defenseless civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Was the ruthless fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, mass murdering thousands of civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like the bombing of London, Coventry and Osborne St in my village ?
Click to expand...

So, again, please try to think logically if that is possible. 

The scumbag Churchill bombed Germany cities, prior to Hitler returning the favor. So, you must agree that Churchill was a war criminal who should have been hung.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the Japanese military government were just a bunch of really nice guys who occupied every Asia country in their efforts to bring the blessings of military dictatorship to their neighbors, but they were misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even addressing my arguments. You just keep repeating the Chinese-Communist portrayal of WWII-era Japan.
> 
> Just FYI, in the unlikely event that you care about facts, Korea was about to get representation in Japan's legislature, the Diet. Koreans living in Japan could vote. There were Koreans who ran for office in Japan. Tens of thousands of Koreans actually volunteered to serve in the Japanese army, and some of them became officers and commanded Japanese troops. Hundreds of Korean soldiers in the Japanese army received citations for bravery, and some of them are honored at Japan's Yasukuni Shrine, which is Japan's version of our Arlington Cemetery.
> 
> Just curious: Do you think North Korea and North Vietnam were better off after the anti-Communist, pro-capitalist Japanese were forced to leave and the Communists took over?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, the Korean "comfort girls" who were prostitute slaves were really volunteers who just liked sex a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This subject has already been covered earlier in this thread. Some of the comfort women did in fact volunteer and were in fact paid, but many were not, and that was clearly wrong, as I've already said. Now, if you excoriate Japan over the comfort women, are you equally as hard on the Soviet Union over the fact that Soviet soldiers raped _millions _of women as the Soviet army made its away across Eastern Europe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm out, Mike. I care too much about history to dignify your fantasies.
Click to expand...

Yes facts are often hard to accept, by those who prefer lies.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> So your argument must be since the Japanese military was so awful, the US government was justified in committing acts even more awful.



No, my logic is awful things were required to defeat them and prevent them from committing even more Genocide.  

Japan instigated the war.  Their deaths were 800K military and 2.1MM civilians killed.  

China was the victim.  Their deaths were 3.75 M military and 20 Million civilian.  

Hope you can kind of see the difference here, buddy.  Which side was intentionally targeting civilians and which one wasn't.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.
> 
> Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME?
> 
> Please provide concise logical explanations.



They were legitimate industrial and military centers... and thereby legitimate targets.  

Here's the thing.  There are a lot of countries that have found themselves at the receiving end of American violence without just cause.  Iraq, Vietnam, the Philippines, Mexico multiple times,   They merit sympathy.  

Germany and Japan... Not so much.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You have never studied anything about it. Don’t repeat the lie that you have a degree in History ever again. You clearly have no knowledge or interest in the subject.



Again, I don't take someone seriously when his screen name is a porn fetish genre..  



Unkotare said:


> Oh sure, that’s why we needlessly incinerated hundreds of thousands of women and children in atomic horror; because we cared so much about them.



No we incinerated them because their country attacked us and refused to surrender after they had been defeated...


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument must be since the Japanese military was so awful, the US government was justified in committing acts even more awful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my logic is awful things were required to defeat them and prevent them from committing even more Genocide.
> 
> Japan instigated the war.  Their deaths were 800K military and 2.1MM civilians killed.
> 
> China was the victim.  Their deaths were 3.75 M military and 20 Million civilian.
> 
> Hope you can kind of see the difference here, buddy.  Which side was intentionally targeting civilians and which one wasn't.
Click to expand...

So, committing genocide is justifiable in an effort to stop genocide. This is feeble thinking and something I find abhorrent and ignorant. Sadly, many Americans think as you do. Proof the power of the State to indoctrinate, should not be minimized.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument must be since the Japanese military was so awful, the US government was justified in committing acts even more awful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my logic is awful things were required to defeat them and prevent them from committing even more Genocide.
> 
> Japan instigated the war.  Their deaths were 800K military and 2.1MM civilians killed.
> 
> China was the victim.  Their deaths were 3.75 M military and 20 Million civilian.
> 
> Hope you can kind of see the difference here, buddy.  Which side was intentionally targeting civilians and which one wasn't.
Click to expand...

Wrong. FDR provoked Japan in a desperate attempt to get them to attack. So that he could save his mass murdering buddy Uncle Joe and communism. This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide and decades of tyranny and enslavement for Eastern Europe.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never studied anything about it. Don’t repeat the lie that you have a degree in History ever again. You clearly have no knowledge or interest in the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't take someone seriously when........
Click to expand...



When your abiding ignorance of history prevents you from defending your position. Yeah, we know.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> .....
> 
> No we incinerated them because their country attacked us and refused to surrender after they had been defeated...




So, because a military force attacked a military base of ours (not even on US soil), we dropped atomic bombs on helpless civilians? America is better than that, better than the likes of you.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ....  Which side was intentionally targeting civilians and which one wasn't.




Very deliberately dropping bombs on helpless civilians isn't "intentionally targeting civilians"? Just how stupid are you?


----------



## mikegriffith1

gipper said:


> Wrong. FDR provoked Japan in a desperate attempt to get them to attack. So that he could save his mass murdering buddy Uncle Joe and communism. This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide and decades of tyranny and enslavement for Eastern Europe.



Yes, and it also resulted in the Communist takeover of China, which in turn resulted in the deaths of over 30 million Chinese. It also resulted in the Communist takeover of much of Vietnam and the northern half of Korea, tragedies that never would have occurred if the Japanese had remained. 

The FDR-Truman apologists here seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that the Chinese Nationalists were getting massive aid from the Soviet Union. They also keep acting like Japan started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, but this is simply false--even most historians now admit that the Chinese, not the Japanese, started the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Furthermore, as numerous scholars have documented, it was the Chinese, not the Japanese, who broke the truce (1) by moving four divisions into the area near Shanghai and (2) by attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions. The record is clear that before the Nationalists attacked, the Japanese were urgently trying to reach a peace deal with the Nationalists because even the Army's general staff did not want to prolong the war in China any further.

Moreover, the Nationalists, not to mention the Communists, showed they had little regard for the lives of their fellow Chinese. Remember that the Nationalists were the ones who killed well over 400,000 Chinese by deliberately breaching the Yellow River dike at Huayuankou in June 1938. A post-war Nationalist commission put the number of dead at 800,000, nearly three times the number of people supposedly killed at Nanking.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. FDR provoked Japan in a desperate attempt to get them to attack. So that he could save his mass murdering buddy Uncle Joe and communism. This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide and decades of tyranny and enslavement for Eastern Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it also resulted in the Communist takeover of China, which in turn resulted in the deaths of over 30 million Chinese. It also resulted in the Communist takeover of much of Vietnam and the northern half of Korea, tragedies that never would have occurred if the Japanese had remained.
> 
> The FDR-Truman apologists here seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that the Chinese Nationalists were getting massive aid from the Soviet Union. They also keep acting like Japan started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, but this is simply false--even most historians now admit that the Chinese, not the Japanese, started the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Furthermore, as numerous scholars have documented, it was the Chinese, not the Japanese, who broke the truce (1) by moving four divisions into the area near Shanghai and (2) by attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions. The record is clear that before the Nationalists attacked, the Japanese were urgently trying to reach a peace deal with the Nationalists because even the Army's general staff did not want to prolong the war in China any further.
> 
> Moreover, the Nationalists, not to mention the Communists, showed they had little regard for the lives of their fellow Chinese. Remember that the Nationalists were the ones who killed well over 400,000 Chinese by deliberately breaching the Yellow River dike at Huayuankou in June 1938. A post-war Nationalist commission put the number of dead at 800,000, nearly three times the number of people supposedly killed at Nanking.
Click to expand...

The silly apologists know nothing about you have stated. They stopped learning history after third grade.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gipper said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im quoting the publishers promo note. I dont think Rabe makes a claim about numbers in his book. However he does give a first hand account of what happened. To me that clearly shows a war crime was taking place.
> 
> Quibbling over the numbers seems to be a pointless exercise.At what point does it stop being an atrocity ?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.
> 
> Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME?
> 
> Please provide concise logical explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would need to provide actual examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Your warmongering asshole leader Churchill demanded that the civilians of Dresden be mass murdered. Was this act a war crime?
> 
> Was Dirty Harry’s incineration of 200,000 innocent defenseless civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Was the ruthless fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, mass murdering thousands of civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like the bombing of London, Coventry and Osborne St in my village ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, again, please try to think logically if that is possible.
> 
> The scumbag Churchill bombed Germany cities, prior to Hitler returning the favor. So, you must agree that Churchill was a war criminal who should have been hung.
Click to expand...

Hitler was already a war criminal due to his actions in Poland. What kind of nonsense are you promoting here ?


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Agreed. It was a war crime.
> 
> Now simple question for all you statists. If what the Japanese did at Nanking was a war crime, how is it that the ruthless aerial bombardment of German and Japanese defenseless civilians NOT A WAR CRIME?
> 
> Please provide concise logical explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> You would need to provide actual examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Your warmongering asshole leader Churchill demanded that the civilians of Dresden be mass murdered. Was this act a war crime?
> 
> Was Dirty Harry’s incineration of 200,000 innocent defenseless civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Was the ruthless fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, mass murdering thousands of civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like the bombing of London, Coventry and Osborne St in my village ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, again, please try to think logically if that is possible.
> 
> The scumbag Churchill bombed Germany cities, prior to Hitler returning the favor. So, you must agree that Churchill was a war criminal who should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitler was already a war criminal due to his actions in Poland. What kind of nonsense are you promoting here ?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

So if Hitler is a war criminal how is it your beloved Churchill, is not ALSO a war criminal? 

Or is it your belief that if your enemy mass murders civilians FIRST, your leaders are justified in ALSO mass murdering civilians in even greater numbers? 

Please enlighten me.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> So, committing genocide is justifiable in an effort to stop genocide. This is feeble thinking and something I find abhorrent and ignorant. Sadly, many Americans think as you do. Proof the power of the State to indoctrinate, should not be minimized.



Except last time I checked, there were still Germans and Japanese left after the war. We even kept them from starving to death after they were defeated.  

I mean, I know you've avoided military service... but um, yeah,. War is violent.  It's why you deal with the people who instigate them harshly.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Wrong. FDR provoked Japan in a desperate attempt to get them to attack. So that he could save his mass murdering buddy Uncle Joe and communism. This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide and decades of tyranny and enslavement for Eastern Europe.



Wow... now you are going into full crazy... So using peaceful sanctions to not subsidize Japan's genocidal war effort was "provoking" them?  Really.  

And that black man wanting to ride at the Front of the Bus was provoking the Klan. 

And that girl in the short dress was provoking that rapist.  

Fuck off and Die.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> The FDR-Truman apologists here seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that the Chinese Nationalists were getting massive aid from the Soviet Union. They also keep acting like Japan started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, but this is simply false--even most historians now admit that the Chinese, not the Japanese, started the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Furthermore, as numerous scholars have documented, it was the Chinese, not the Japanese, who broke the truce (1) by moving four divisions into the area near Shanghai and (2) by attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions. The record is clear that before the Nationalists attacked, the Japanese were urgently trying to reach a peace deal with the Nationalists because even the Army's general staff did not want to prolong the war in China any further.



Clarification: I should have said the Japanese army's general staff did not want to expand Japan's involvement in China any further. There was no "war" yet. There had been a few skirmishes in the preceding four years, but no war, and there was a long-standing truce in effect in 1937. The war began when the Chinese Nationalists, in response to Japan's peace offer, moved four divisions into the Shanghai region and then attacked the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two full divisions in 1937.

The Japanese had been trying to defuse the tense situation in Shanghai when the Nationalists attacked a small Japanese garrison because they thought they could easily overrun the garrison before the Japanese could get reinforcements to the area. But, the 2,000-man garrison fought with unbelievable courage and held off the 30,000-man Chinese army that attacked it just long enough for reinforcements to arrive. However, this incident did not lead to an all-out battle for Shanghai. A compromise was reached, and Shanghai returned to some sense of normalcy (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _locs. 732-762).

But, this situation changed when Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, decided to attack the Japanese section of Shanghai with two elite divisions. The Japanese brought in more reinforcements and an enormous battle ensued, ending with the Nationalist forces being expelled from Shanghai and the Japanese taking control of the city (_Storms Clouds Over the Pacific, _locs. 1413-1453).

Chiang Kaishek’s reasons for picking a fight with the Japanese at Shanghai remain a subject of debate. Harmsen:

Chiang may have genuinely thought that by concentrating his best troops in a shock attack on the meager Japanese garrison in Shanghai, he would be able to score a quick, dramatic victory that could rally the nation.​
Japan, on the other hand, only entered the battle reluctantly. The army already felt overstretched in the north of China, and for the wrong reasons. Many Japanese generals considered the Soviet Union to be the main threat and the one that most resources had to be directed towards. The Chinese themselves understood this was the case, and on occasion admitted so in public. “Japan had no wish to fight at Shanghai,” Chinese General Zhang Fakui, one of the top field commanders during the struggle for the city, said in a post-war interview. “It should be simple to see that we took the initiative.” (_Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, _loc. 1453)​
Yet, FDR and his allies in the press, along with the Soviets, blamed the Japanese and cited their capture of Shanghai as another alleged example of Japanese aggression.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, committing genocide is justifiable in an effort to stop genocide. This is feeble thinking and something I find abhorrent and ignorant. Sadly, many Americans think as you do. Proof the power of the State to indoctrinate, should not be minimized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except last time I checked, there were still Germans and Japanese left after the war. We even kept them from starving to death after they were defeated.
> 
> I mean, I know you've avoided military service... but um, yeah,. War is violent.  It's why you deal with the people who instigate them harshly.
> 
> View attachment 285832
Click to expand...

Oh yes!  In your world, our criminal government should have mass murdered ALL Germans and Japanese.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. FDR provoked Japan in a desperate attempt to get them to attack. So that he could save his mass murdering buddy Uncle Joe and communism. This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide and decades of tyranny and enslavement for Eastern Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... now you are going into full crazy... So using peaceful sanctions to not subsidize Japan's genocidal war effort was "provoking" them?  Really.
> 
> And that black man wanting to ride at the Front of the Bus was provoking the Klan.
> 
> And that girl in the short dress was provoking that rapist.
> 
> Fuck off and Die.
Click to expand...

LOL. 

Clearly your third grade education isn’t enough for this thread. Please leave.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Yes, and it also resulted in the Communist takeover of China, which in turn resulted in the deaths of over 30 million Chinese. It also resulted in the Communist takeover of much of Vietnam and the northern half of Korea, tragedies that never would have occurred if the Japanese had remained.



No, what resulted in the takeover of China was that "Cash my Check" was a corrupt, incompetent crook who failed to defend his country from Japanese Aggression.  

Nobody wanted the Japanese to remain, they were bastards. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> The FDR-Truman apologists here seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that the Chinese Nationalists were getting massive aid from the Soviet Union. They also keep acting like Japan started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, but this is simply false--even most historians now admit that the Chinese, not the Japanese, started the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.



Two problems where.  

The first one is that the Nationalists were initially getting aid from Nazi Germany.  In fact, the Kuomintang and the NSDAP were ideologically very similar.  Von Ribbentrop thought that Germany should ally with China, not Japan, but Japan had a navy. 

Second, Japan's Aggression against China didn't start with the Marco Polo Bridge incident, which Japan provoked. The aggression began when they took over Manchuria and put a puppet on a throne.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Moreover, the Nationalists, not to mention the Communists, showed they had little regard for the lives of their fellow Chinese. Remember that the Nationalists were the ones who killed well over 400,000 Chinese by deliberately breaching the Yellow River dike at Huayuankou in June 1938. A post-war Nationalist commission put the number of dead at 800,000, nearly three times the number of people supposedly killed at Nanking.



Blah, blah, blah... nobody cares.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Oh yes! In your world, our criminal government should have mass murdered ALL Germans and Japanese.



No, we should have killed enough of them to render them unable to wage war... which is what we did.  

Don't worry, Libertarian Child, that big mean soldier is protecting your right to be a douche.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it also resulted in the Communist takeover of China, which in turn resulted in the deaths of over 30 million Chinese. It also resulted in the Communist takeover of much of Vietnam and the northern half of Korea, tragedies that never would have occurred if the Japanese had remained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what resulted in the takeover of China was that "Cash my Check" was a corrupt, incompetent crook who failed to defend his country from Japanese Aggression.
> 
> Nobody wanted the Japanese to remain, they were bastards.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FDR-Truman apologists here seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that the Chinese Nationalists were getting massive aid from the Soviet Union. They also keep acting like Japan started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, but this is simply false--even most historians now admit that the Chinese, not the Japanese, started the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two problems where.
> 
> The first one is that the Nationalists were initially getting aid from Nazi Germany.  In fact, the Kuomintang and the NSDAP were ideologically very similar.  Von Ribbentrop thought that Germany should ally with China, not Japan, but Japan had a navy.
> 
> Second, Japan's Aggression against China didn't start with the Marco Polo Bridge incident, which Japan provoked. The aggression began when they took over Manchuria and put a puppet on a throne.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, the Nationalists, not to mention the Communists, showed they had little regard for the lives of their fellow Chinese. Remember that the Nationalists were the ones who killed well over 400,000 Chinese by deliberately breaching the Yellow River dike at Huayuankou in June 1938. A post-war Nationalist commission put the number of dead at 800,000, nearly three times the number of people supposedly killed at Nanking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah... nobody cares.
Click to expand...



More proof you are not an historian in any sense. Wallow in your ignorance.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes! In your world, our criminal government should have mass murdered ALL Germans and Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should have killed enough of them to render them unable to wage war... which is what we did.
> 
> Don't worry, Libertarian Child, that big mean soldier is protecting your right to be a douche.
Click to expand...

Yes!  You want the big mean soldier to mass murder women and children of the enemy of our government. I don’t. 

Yet amazingly you think your blood lust is right. CRAZY!


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Yes! You want the big mean soldier to mass murder women and children of the enemy of our government. I don’t.
> 
> Yet amazingly you think your blood lust is right. CRAZY!



The fact we are not having this discussion in Deutsch or Nihongo today makes me very thankful to that soldier...

Or that we are able to have this discussion at all.  and are not exploring new career opportunities as a lampshade.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. FDR provoked Japan in a desperate attempt to get them to attack. So that he could save his mass murdering buddy Uncle Joe and communism. This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide and decades of tyranny and enslavement for Eastern Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... now you are going into full crazy... So using peaceful sanctions to not subsidize Japan's genocidal war effort was "provoking" them?  Really.
> 
> And that black man wanting to ride at the Front of the Bus was provoking the Klan.
> 
> And that girl in the short dress was provoking that rapist.
> 
> Fuck off and Die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Clearly your third grade education isn’t enough for this thread. Please leave.
Click to expand...


Oh, sweetie, did you not like the slapping down I just gave you.  

It's laughable to say that imposing sanctions on Japan after they engaged in a war of aggression against China was "provoking" them.   

Emmit Till was provoking the Klan. 

That lady who walked into the bar and got raped on the pool table was provoking those rapists...


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Clarification: I should have said the Japanese army's general staff did not want to expand Japan's involvement in China any further. There was no "war" yet. There had been a few skirmishes in the preceding four years, but no war, and there was a long-standing truce in effect in 1937. The war began when the Chinese Nationalists, in response to Japan's peace offer, moved four divisions into the Shanghai region and then attacked the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two full divisions in 1937.



Okay... I realize that geography eludes you. 

Japan didn't belong in Shanghai.  Japan didn't belong in Manchuria. Japan didn't belong in Taiwan.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Yet, FDR and his allies in the press, along with the Soviets, blamed the Japanese and cited their capture of Shanghai as another alleged example of Japanese aggression.



Um, yeah, when you are in someone else's city and attacking them, that's an act of aggression.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. FDR provoked Japan in a desperate attempt to get them to attack. So that he could save his mass murdering buddy Uncle Joe and communism. This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide and decades of tyranny and enslavement for Eastern Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... now you are going into full crazy... So using peaceful sanctions to not subsidize Japan's genocidal war effort was "provoking" them?  Really.
> 
> And that black man wanting to ride at the Front of the Bus was provoking the Klan.
> 
> And that girl in the short dress was provoking that rapist.
> 
> Fuck off and Die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Clearly your third grade education isn’t enough for this thread. Please leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, sweetie, did you not like the slapping down I just gave you.
> 
> It's laughable to say that imposing sanctions on Japan after they engaged in a war of aggression against China was "provoking" them.
> 
> Emmit Till was provoking the Klan.
> 
> That lady who walked into the bar and got raped on the pool table was provoking those rapists...
Click to expand...

Joe you haven’t read the history as I have. You are uninformed.

FDR imposed absurd and draconian sanctions on Japan, entirely in an effort to get them to attack. He WANTED WAR.  He KNEW Japan couldn’t accept his sanctions.  He refused to find a way to peace.

He did this for nefarious reasons. He wanted to save his Uncle Joe and worldwide communism.

Your love of the Klan is inappropriate for this thread.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gipper said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would need to provide actual examples.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Your warmongering asshole leader Churchill demanded that the civilians of Dresden be mass murdered. Was this act a war crime?
> 
> Was Dirty Harry’s incineration of 200,000 innocent defenseless civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Was the ruthless fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, mass murdering thousands of civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like the bombing of London, Coventry and Osborne St in my village ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, again, please try to think logically if that is possible.
> 
> The scumbag Churchill bombed Germany cities, prior to Hitler returning the favor. So, you must agree that Churchill was a war criminal who should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitler was already a war criminal due to his actions in Poland. What kind of nonsense are you promoting here ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So if Hitler is a war criminal how is it your beloved Churchill, is not ALSO a war criminal?
> 
> Or is it your belief that if your enemy mass murders civilians FIRST, your leaders are justified in ALSO mass murdering civilians in even greater numbers?
> 
> Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

I dont think there is an easy answer to this.
I have always viewed Churchill as a war criminal but not particularly for bombing nazis.
The allies did not instigate this .


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Your warmongering asshole leader Churchill demanded that the civilians of Dresden be mass murdered. Was this act a war crime?
> 
> Was Dirty Harry’s incineration of 200,000 innocent defenseless civilians, a war crime?
> 
> Was the ruthless fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, mass murdering thousands of civilians, a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the bombing of London, Coventry and Osborne St in my village ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, again, please try to think logically if that is possible.
> 
> The scumbag Churchill bombed Germany cities, prior to Hitler returning the favor. So, you must agree that Churchill was a war criminal who should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitler was already a war criminal due to his actions in Poland. What kind of nonsense are you promoting here ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So if Hitler is a war criminal how is it your beloved Churchill, is not ALSO a war criminal?
> 
> Or is it your belief that if your enemy mass murders civilians FIRST, your leaders are justified in ALSO mass murdering civilians in even greater numbers?
> 
> Please enlighten me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont think there is an easy answer to this.
> I have always viewed Churchill as a war criminal but not particularly for bombing nazis.
> The allies did not instigate this .
Click to expand...

Oh there is an easy answer. Mass murdering civilians is ALWAYS a war crime. 

Apparently you are unaware the Allies did start the war. UK and France declared war on Germany. Hitler didn’t want war with them. He wanted to take out FDR’s Uncle.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

gipper said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the bombing of London, Coventry and Osborne St in my village ?
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, please try to think logically if that is possible.
> 
> The scumbag Churchill bombed Germany cities, prior to Hitler returning the favor. So, you must agree that Churchill was a war criminal who should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitler was already a war criminal due to his actions in Poland. What kind of nonsense are you promoting here ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So if Hitler is a war criminal how is it your beloved Churchill, is not ALSO a war criminal?
> 
> Or is it your belief that if your enemy mass murders civilians FIRST, your leaders are justified in ALSO mass murdering civilians in even greater numbers?
> 
> Please enlighten me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont think there is an easy answer to this.
> I have always viewed Churchill as a war criminal but not particularly for bombing nazis.
> The allies did not instigate this .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh there is an easy answer. Mass murdering civilians is ALWAYS a war crime.
> 
> Apparently you are unaware the Allies did start the war. UK and France declared war on Germany. Hitler didn’t want war with them. He wanted to take out FDR’s Uncle.
Click to expand...

Poor misunderstood Adolf.


----------



## gipper

Tommy Tainant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, please try to think logically if that is possible.
> 
> The scumbag Churchill bombed Germany cities, prior to Hitler returning the favor. So, you must agree that Churchill was a war criminal who should have been hung.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was already a war criminal due to his actions in Poland. What kind of nonsense are you promoting here ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So if Hitler is a war criminal how is it your beloved Churchill, is not ALSO a war criminal?
> 
> Or is it your belief that if your enemy mass murders civilians FIRST, your leaders are justified in ALSO mass murdering civilians in even greater numbers?
> 
> Please enlighten me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont think there is an easy answer to this.
> I have always viewed Churchill as a war criminal but not particularly for bombing nazis.
> The allies did not instigate this .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh there is an easy answer. Mass murdering civilians is ALWAYS a war crime.
> 
> Apparently you are unaware the Allies did start the war. UK and France declared war on Germany. Hitler didn’t want war with them. He wanted to take out FDR’s Uncle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor misunderstood Adolf.
Click to expand...

Poor misunderstood Winston.


----------



## mikegriffith1

It boils down to this: For decades we have been fed lies. distortions, and half-truths about Japan and the Pacific War by FDR-Truman apologists to try to obscure FDR and Truman's disastrous pro-Soviet handling of WW II. Many of these falsehoods were originally peddled by the Chinese Communists, the Chinese Nationalists, and the Soviets, and they were parroted by FDR and his allies in the American press.

This is why most people have heard of the Nanking Massacre but few people have heard of the Yellow River Massacre carried out by the Nationalists, which killed, at the bare minimum, 400,000 Chinese and probably about twice that number. This is why a massacre that involved 15,000 to 40,000 deaths at Nanking has been transformed into a massacre that involved at least 300,000 deaths, even though a wealth of evidence supports the smaller numbers.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> oe you haven’t read the history as I have. You are uninformed.
> 
> FDR imposed absurd and draconian sanctions on Japan, entirely in an effort to get them to attack. He WANTED WAR. He KNEW Japan couldn’t accept his sanctions. He refused to find a way to peace.



Yes, we realize this is the view in the Crazy Part of the world...  real historians say otherwise. 

Here was the thing. Attacking the US was just plain stupid.  The Japanese let their experience fighting Russia in 1905 pollute their thinking.  



gipper said:


> He did this for nefarious reasons. He wanted to save his Uncle Joe and worldwide communism.
> 
> Your love of the Klan is inappropriate for this thread.



Naw, the kind of asshole who apologize for the Baby Rapists of Imperial Japan are the ones who would support the Klan... obviously. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> t boils down to this: For decades we have been fed lies. distortions, and half-truths about Japan and the Pacific War by FDR-Truman apologists to try to obscure FDR and Truman's disastrous pro-Soviet handling of WW II. Many of these falsehoods were originally peddled by the Chinese Communists, the Chinese Nationalists, and the Soviets, and they were parroted by FDR and his allies in the American press.



Japan had no business being in China- period.   



mikegriffith1 said:


> This is why most people have heard of the Nanking Massacre but few people have heard of the Yellow River Massacre carried out by the Nationalists, which killed, at the bare minimum, 400,000



Naw, we just can't get upset about infrastructure damage as we can about the systematic rape and murder of women and children, which is that the Japanese did at Nanking.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> oe you haven’t read the history as I have. You are uninformed.
> 
> FDR imposed absurd and draconian sanctions on Japan, entirely in an effort to get them to attack. He WANTED WAR. He KNEW Japan couldn’t accept his sanctions. He refused to find a way to peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we realize this is the view in the Crazy Part of the world...  real historians say otherwise.
> 
> Here was the thing. Attacking the US was just plain stupid.  The Japanese let their experience fighting Russia in 1905 pollute their thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did this for nefarious reasons. He wanted to save his Uncle Joe and worldwide communism.
> 
> Your love of the Klan is inappropriate for this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, the kind of asshole who apologize for the Baby Rapists of Imperial Japan are the ones who would support the Klan... obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> t boils down to this: For decades we have been fed lies. distortions, and half-truths about Japan and the Pacific War by FDR-Truman apologists to try to obscure FDR and Truman's disastrous pro-Soviet handling of WW II. Many of these falsehoods were originally peddled by the Chinese Communists, the Chinese Nationalists, and the Soviets, and they were parroted by FDR and his allies in the American press.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan had no business being in China- period.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why most people have heard of the Nanking Massacre but few people have heard of the Yellow River Massacre carried out by the Nationalists, which killed, at the bare minimum, 400,000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, we just can't get upset about infrastructure damage as we can about the systematic rape and murder of women and children, which is that the Japanese did at Nanking.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Real historians agree with me. Fake statist historians known to be liars, agree with you. 

You aren’t informed. Stop believing the lies of a lying government.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Wrong. Real historians agree with me. Fake statist historians known to be liars, agree with you.
> 
> You aren’t informed. Stop believing the lies of a lying government.



Sorry, man, your conspiracy nutter stuff would be laughed out of any real history department...


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Real historians agree with me. Fake statist historians known to be liars, agree with you.
> 
> You aren’t informed. Stop believing the lies of a lying government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man, your conspiracy nutter stuff would be laughed out of any real history department...
Click to expand...



You have absolutely no idea what happens in any real History Department, fraud.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Real historians agree with me. Fake statist historians known to be liars, agree with you.
> 
> You aren’t informed. Stop believing the lies of a lying government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man, your conspiracy nutter stuff would be laughed out of any real history department...
Click to expand...

The truth is hardly conspiracy, except to the ignorant statist. 

Funny that you believe Trump a Russian agent, but FDR who was surrounded by Soviet spies, was just a nice wonderful honest man looking out for the nation’s best interests. 

Think man. Think.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You have absolutely no idea what happens in any real History Department, fraud.



Sure, buddy.  I'm sure that you get paid a retainer from some On-Line university where they don't pay any attention to you.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> The truth is hardly conspiracy, except to the ignorant statist.
> 
> Funny that you believe Trump a Russian agent, but FDR who was surrounded by Soviet spies, was just a nice wonderful honest man looking out for the nation’s best interests.
> 
> Think man. Think.



Um, actually, I'm old enough to remember people who lived during FDR's term.   What they remember is that he got us out of the worst Depression ever, and then went on to defeat Fascism.  

Maybe you need to do some thinking.. but you are a paranoid loon, so probably not.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is hardly conspiracy, except to the ignorant statist.
> 
> Funny that you believe Trump a Russian agent, but FDR who was surrounded by Soviet spies, was just a nice wonderful honest man looking out for the nation’s best interests.
> 
> Think man. Think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, actually, I'm old enough to remember people who lived during FDR's term.   What they remember is that he got us out of the worst Depression ever, and then went on to defeat Fascism.
> 
> Maybe you need to do some thinking.. but you are a paranoid loon, so probably not.
Click to expand...

LOL. Just like Ears got us out of the Great Recession. LMFAO....You believe whatever the establishment tells you.

FDR prolonged the Great Depression with his dumb interventionist policies. Then lied the nation into WWII, to save his murderous Uncle and worldwide communism.

Joe you are much too old to be so naive.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what happens in any real History Department, fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, buddy.  I'm sure that you get paid a retainer from some On-Line university where they don't pay any attention to you.
Click to expand...


Still wrong since the last time you guessed, fraud.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Still wrong since the last time you guessed, fraud.



Oh, Dripping Poop, nobody believes a real university would hire you to sweep the floors... it was all the creepy looks you were giving the Asian Girls.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> LOL. Just like Ears got us out of the Great Recession. LMFAO....You believe whatever the establishment tells you.
> 
> FDR prolonged the Great Depression with his dumb interventionist policies. Then lied the nation into WWII, to save his murderous Uncle and worldwide communism.
> 
> Joe you are much too old to be so naive.



Okay, guy, Joe McCarthy's Ghost called, and he said to tone it down a bit.  

The reality- we were out of the Great Depression by 1936... which is why FDR got re-elected by an overwhelming margin and increased his margin in Congress.   

The Establishment didn't tell me what a great guy FDR was.... People of my parent's generation who lived through his presidency did.  To the point where the only way the GOP was able to weasel their way back into power was Ike promising that he wouldn't undo FDR's policies.  .


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Just like Ears got us out of the Great Recession. LMFAO....You believe whatever the establishment tells you.
> 
> FDR prolonged the Great Depression with his dumb interventionist policies. Then lied the nation into WWII, to save his murderous Uncle and worldwide communism.
> 
> Joe you are much too old to be so naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, Joe McCarthy's Ghost called, and he said to tone it down a bit.
> 
> The reality- we were out of the Great Depression by 1936... which is why FDR got re-elected by an overwhelming margin and increased his margin in Congress.
> 
> The Establishment didn't tell me what a great guy FDR was.... People of my parent's generation who lived through his presidency did.  To the point where the only way the GOP was able to weasel their way back into power was Ike promising that he wouldn't undo FDR's policies.  .
Click to expand...



Commie Joe is clearly on drugs.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still wrong since the last time you guessed, fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Dripping Poop, nobody believes a real university would hire you to sweep the floors... it was all the creepy looks you were giving the Asian Girls.
Click to expand...



You keep mentioning History Depts when you clearly haven’t been near one in decades, fraud.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You keep mentioning History Depts when you clearly haven’t been near one in decades, fraud.



Did History Changed in the last few decades, Dripping Poop.... 

I'm sure they have you sweeping the floors at one. Until you gave those girls that creepy look.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Just like Ears got us out of the Great Recession. LMFAO....You believe whatever the establishment tells you.
> 
> FDR prolonged the Great Depression with his dumb interventionist policies. Then lied the nation into WWII, to save his murderous Uncle and worldwide communism.
> 
> Joe you are much too old to be so naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, Joe McCarthy's Ghost called, and he said to tone it down a bit.
> 
> The reality- we were out of the Great Depression by 1936... which is why FDR got re-elected by an overwhelming margin and increased his margin in Congress.
> 
> The Establishment didn't tell me what a great guy FDR was.... People of my parent's generation who lived through his presidency did.  To the point where the only way the GOP was able to weasel their way back into power was Ike promising that he wouldn't undo FDR's policies.  .
Click to expand...

You clearly know nothing about the Great Depression. Look up the unemployment numbers throughout the 30s. Get informed for once.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> You clearly know nothing about the Great Depression. Look up the unemployment numbers throughout the 30s. Get informed for once.



Guy, tables don't tell the whole story..


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly know nothing about the Great Depression. Look up the unemployment numbers throughout the 30s. Get informed for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, tables don't tell the whole story..
Click to expand...

True, but you ignorantly and erroneously claimed the nation was out of the GD in 1936. LMFAO.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> True, but you ignorantly and erroneously claimed the nation was out of the GD in 1936. LMFAO.



List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

A banking panic and a collapse in the money supply took place in the United States that was exacerbated by international commitment to the gold standard.[48][49][50] Extensive new tariffs and other factors contributed to an extremely deep depression.[51] GDP, industrial production, employment, and prices fell substantially. The economy began to recover in the mid 1930s, with gold inflow expanding the money supply and improving expectations, but double dipped during the Recession of 1937–38. The ultimate recovery has been credited to monetary policy and monetary expansion.[52]

The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered as causes for the recession: the tight fiscal policy resulting from an attempt to balance the budget after New Deal spending; the tight monetary policy of the Federal Reserve; and the declining profits of businesses leading to a reduction in business investment.[54]


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep mentioning History Depts when you clearly haven’t been near one in decades, fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did History Changed in the last few decades, .....
Click to expand...


Finally you admit you’re full of shit.


----------



## mikegriffith1

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Real historians agree with me. Fake statist historians known to be liars, agree with you.
> 
> You aren’t informed. Stop believing the lies of a lying government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man, your conspiracy nutter stuff would be laughed out of any real history department...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is hardly conspiracy, except to the ignorant statist.
> 
> Funny that you believe Trump a Russian agent, but FDR who was surrounded by Soviet spies, was just a nice wonderful honest man looking out for the nation’s best interests.
> 
> Think man. Think.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's curious that he has a conservative signature block but he doggedly defends Roosevelt, downplays Stalin's crimes, excoriates anti-Communist Japan for killing less than a third of the people that the Chinese Communists killed, and doesn't seem to care that Truman handed China, North Korea, and North Vietnam over to the Communists.

It is especially odd to see him pretend that his view enjoys overwhelming support among scholars, when in fact most scholars who specialize in the nuke decision argue that using nukes was unnecessary, when most scholars on the Sino-Japanese War now acknowledge that China initiated the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and that the Chinese started the war by breaking the existing truce and attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Real historians agree with me. Fake statist historians known to be liars, agree with you.
> 
> You aren’t informed. Stop believing the lies of a lying government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man, your conspiracy nutter stuff would be laughed out of any real history department...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is hardly conspiracy, except to the ignorant statist.
> 
> Funny that you believe Trump a Russian agent, but FDR who was surrounded by Soviet spies, was just a nice wonderful honest man looking out for the nation’s best interests.
> 
> Think man. Think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's curious that he has a conservative signature block but he doggedly defends Roosevelt, downplays Stalin's crimes, excoriates anti-Communist Japan for killing less than a third of the people that the Chinese Communists killed, and doesn't seem to care that Truman handed China, North Korea, and North Vietnam over to the Communists.
> 
> It is especially odd to see him pretend that his view enjoys overwhelming support among scholars, when in fact most scholars who specialize in the nuke decision argue that using nukes was unnecessary, when most scholars on the Sino-Japanese War now acknowledge that China initiated the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and that the Chinese started the war by breaking the existing truce and attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two entire divisions.
Click to expand...

There is no understanding the statist. They just believe whatever the State tells them and consider all views that conflict with the State’s, as conspiracy. 

It’s willful ignorance.


----------



## ESay

gipper said:


> Apparently you are unaware the Allies did start the war. UK and France declared war on Germany. Hitler didn’t want war with them. He wanted to take out FDR’s Uncle.


Yeah, but before that he got control of half Europe and began bombing Poland.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Finally you admit you’re full of shit.



Ohhh, no, buddy..  Funny thing. When I got my bachelor's Degree in 1986, the Axis were the bad guys. 

It's 2019.  The Axis were still the bad guys.    

I hate to keep breaking this to you, but all those Japanese leaders who ended up at the end of ropes had it coming.  We didn't hang enough of them. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Yeah, it's curious that he has a conservative signature block but he doggedly defends Roosevelt, downplays Stalin's crimes, excoriates anti-Communist Japan for killing less than a third of the people that the Chinese Communists killed, and doesn't seem to care that Truman handed China, North Korea, and North Vietnam over to the Communists.



Well, because those things are only true in the minds of John Birch Society Propaganda...  

Here's one of the realities of World War II most Americans don't realize. The "Communists" in Russia and China did most of the heavy lifting.  Of course they were going to be in a dominant position after the war was over.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> It is especially odd to see him pretend that his view enjoys overwhelming support among scholars, when in fact most scholars who specialize in the nuke decision argue that using nukes was unnecessary,



You are conflating two different issues.  I would agree the nuking of Japan was probably unnecessary, as they were already defeated.  

That they deserve any sympathy after they got their asses whooped in a war they started is where we have an issue. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> when most scholars on the Sino-Japanese War now acknowledge that China initiated the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and that the Chinese started the war by breaking the existing truce and attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions.



Japan didn't belong near the Marco Polo Bridge NOR in Shanghai.  

This is the point you don't seem to get.  



gipper said:


> There is no understanding the statist. They just believe whatever the State tells them and consider all views that conflict with the State’s, as conspiracy.



Naw, willfull ignorance is embracing crazy conspiracy theories that we "provoked" Japan by refusing to sell them the materials they were using to murder people.


----------



## ESay

mikegriffith1 said:


> that the Chinese started the war by breaking the existing truce and attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions.


It was the Chinese land, wasn't it?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally you admit you’re full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh, no, buddy..  Funny thing. When I got my bachelor's Degree in 1986......
Click to expand...



In Women's Studies? You sure as hell didn't study History.


----------



## JoeB131

ESay said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that the Chinese started the war by breaking the existing truce and attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the Chinese land, wasn't it?
Click to expand...


Shhhh... According to Mikey G., Japan was doing those Chinese a favor by murdering them and taking their land.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> In Women's Studies? You sure as hell didn't study History.



Yeah, but oddly, I bring more to the discussion than you do, Dripping Poop...


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> Japan didn't belong near the Marco Polo Bridge NOR in Shanghai. ....




How about Belgium, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> How about Belgium, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States?



How about them?  I fully agree, western imperialism against China was wrong.  Some were more wrong than others. 

This is why China is so touchy today about Hong Kong and Taiwan.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Women's Studies? You sure as hell didn't study History.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but oddly, I bring more to the discussion than you do........
Click to expand...



No, you don't. You only expose your abiding ignorance of anything relating to the history of the period or any other in this part of the world.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> No, you don't. You only expose your abiding ignorance of anything relating to the history of the period or any other in this part of the world.



Look, Dripping Poop, you can try all the revisionism you want.  It only leads to bad places, just ask the American South who try to pretend to this day that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> that the Chinese started the war by breaking the existing truce and attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions.





ESay said:


> It was the Chinese land, wasn't it?



Oh, really? Was it really? Was there a "China" as one sovereign country at the time? In 1937, there was an area historically called "China" that was governed by the Nationalists in some sectors, by the Communists in some sectors, by war lords in some sectors, by Western nations in some sectors, and by Japan in some sectors. You know that a sizable segment of the people *wanted* Japanese rule because they were sick and tired of the war lords and especially sick and tired of the fighting between the Nationalists and the Communists, right? You know that, right?

And, by the way, even the League of Nations' Lytton Commission recommended that Manchuria be given independence, since for hundreds of years Manchuria had never been considered part of "China." The Nationalists never governed as a sovereign power in Manchuria, nor did the Communists. Manchuria had been governed by war lords for decades before the Japanese took over.



JoeB131 said:


> Shhhh... According to Mikey G., Japan was doing those Chinese a favor by murdering them and taking their land.



Sigh. . . .  Just shaking my head. . . .  After all the evidence I've presented to you about the Sino-Japanese War, you're still peddling this grade-school distortion and falsehood?

For about the fifteenth time, the Japanese repeatedly offered the Nationalists a peace deal that would have given all of traditional China to the Nationalists in exchange for allowing the Japanese to retain Manchuria, which the Nationalists had never controlled anyway. Many of the Nationalist leaders, including Chiang Kaishek, were inclined to accept the offer, but FDR and the Soviets persuaded them to reject it and promised to continue sending substantial military aid to them to get them to keep fighting the Japanese.

For about the fifteenth time, the Chinese, not the Japanese, broke the truce and started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. Even the Japanese army's high command wanted peace and supported the very generous peace terms that the Japanese government offered to the Nationalists in 1937. Those terms included allowing the Nationalists to keep all of traditional China in exchange for Japan's retention of Manchuria. And the Nationalists' response was to move four divisions into the area of Shanghai and then to attack the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with two divisions.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, really? Was it really? Was there a "China" as one sovereign country at the time? In 1937, there was an area historically called "China" that was governed by the Nationalists in some sectors, by the Communists in some sectors, by war lords in some sectors, by Western nations in some sectors, and by Japan in some sectors. You know that a sizable segment of the people *wanted* Japanese rule because they were sick and tired of the war lords and of the fighting between the Nationalists and the Communists, right? You know that, right?



You'll always find Quislings when someone invades.   Sorry, man, you are blaming the Chinese for what other countries did to them from the Opium War all the way up until the end of WWII, then you whine that they put the Commies in charge.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, by the way, even the League of Nations Lytton Commission recommended that Manchuria be given independence, since for thousands of years Manchuria had never been considered part of "China." The Nationalists never governed as a sovereign power in Manchuria, nor did the Communists. Manchuria had been savaged by war-lord rule for decades before the Japanese took over.



They Lytton Commission didn't call for the Japanese to set up a puppet state, which is exactly what they did.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> For about the fifteenth time, the Japanese repeatedly offered the Nationalists a peace deal that would have given all of traditional China to the Nationalists in exchange for allowing the Japanese to retain Manchuria, which the nationalists had never controlled anyway. Many of the Nationalist leaders, including Chiang Kaishek, were inclined to accept the offer, but FDR and the Soviets persuaded them to reject it and promised to continue to sending substantial military aid.



Tell you what. I'll take a baseball bat, whack you over the head, take your wallet, and then I'll give you your credit cards back if you suck my dick.  

that was the kind of "deal" the Japanese were offering.  

You know what, I really like the Japanese.  One of my dearest friends is a Japanese woman.  But no one should make excuses for what Japan did to China in the first half of the 20th century.


----------



## ESay

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, really? Was it really? Was there a "China" as one sovereign country at the time? In 1937, there was an area historically called "China" that was governed by the Nationalists in some sectors, by the Communists in some sectors, by war lords in some sectors, by Western nations in some sectors, and by Japan in some sectors. You know that a sizable segment of the people *wanted* Japanese rule because they were sick and tired of the war lords and especially sick and tired of the fighting between the Nationalists and the Communists, right? You know that, right?
> 
> And, by the way, even the League of Nations' Lytton Commission recommended that Manchuria be given independence, since for hundreds of years Manchuria had never been considered part of "China." The Nationalists never governed as a sovereign power in Manchuria, nor did the Communists. Manchuria had been governed by war lords for decades before the Japanese took over.


Maybe there werent a single China at the time, but there were people which are commonly known as the Chinese now. 

Sizeble segment? How many this? 20%? 40? 70? And how this figures were established at the time? 

We were talking about Shangai. It had never been part of Manchuria.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, really? Was it really? Was there a "China" as one sovereign country at the time? In 1937, there was an area historically called "China" that was governed by the Nationalists in some sectors, by the Communists in some sectors, by war lords in some sectors, by Western nations in some sectors, and by Japan in some sectors. You know that a sizable segment of the people *wanted* Japanese rule because they were sick and tired of the war lords and of the fighting between the Nationalists and the Communists, right? You know that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll always find Quislings when someone invades.   Sorry, man, you are blaming the Chinese for what other countries did to them from the Opium War all the way up until the end of WWII, then you whine that they put the Commies in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, by the way, even the League of Nations Lytton Commission recommended that Manchuria be given independence, since for thousands of years Manchuria had never been considered part of "China." The Nationalists never governed as a sovereign power in Manchuria, nor did the Communists. Manchuria had been savaged by war-lord rule for decades before the Japanese took over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Lytton Commission didn't call for the Japanese to set up a puppet state, which is exactly what they did.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For about the fifteenth time, the Japanese repeatedly offered the Nationalists a peace deal that would have given all of traditional China to the Nationalists in exchange for allowing the Japanese to retain Manchuria, which the nationalists had never controlled anyway. Many of the Nationalist leaders, including Chiang Kaishek, were inclined to accept the offer, but FDR and the Soviets persuaded them to reject it and promised to continue to sending substantial military aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. I'll take a baseball bat, whack you over the head, take your wallet, and then I'll give you your credit cards back if you suck my dick.
> 
> that was the kind of "deal" the Japanese were offering.
Click to expand...


That is just ridiculous. Your arguments are as ignorant as they are vulgar. It is a waste of time trying to reason with you. You are immune to fact and logic. You might have some "dear" Japanese friends, but your version of Japan's involvement in China is based on myths and distortions that originated with the Chinese Communists and Nationalists and the Soviets, and that were parroted by FDR and his pro-Soviet buddies in the American press and academia.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> That is just ridiculous. Your arguments are as ignorant as they are vulgar. It is a waste of time trying to reason with you. You are immune to fact and logic. You might have some "dear" Japanese friends, but your version of Japan's involvement in China is based on myths and distortions that originated with the Chinese Communists and Nationalists and the Soviets, and that were parroted by FDR and his pro-Soviet buddies in the American press and academia.



Yes, yes, everyone was conspiring to make the Japanese look bad when they invaded.. 

China
Korea
the Philippines
Malaysia
Vietnam
Singapore
Laos
Burma
Indonesia

Poor little Japan, it was just a victim of everyone else being mean to it.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just ridiculous. Your arguments are as ignorant as they are vulgar. It is a waste of time trying to reason with you. You are immune to fact and logic. You might have some "dear" Japanese friends, but your version of Japan's involvement in China is based on myths and distortions that originated with the Chinese Communists and Nationalists and the Soviets, and that were parroted by FDR and his pro-Soviet buddies in the American press and academia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, everyone was conspiring to make the Japanese look bad when they invaded..
> 
> China
> Korea
> the Philippines
> Malaysia
> Vietnam
> Singapore
> Laos
> Burma
> Indonesia
> 
> Poor little Japan, it was just a victim of everyone else being mean to it.
Click to expand...

Can’t fix stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Can’t fix stupid.



Nope.. and no one is stupider than the idiots who think the wrong side won World War II.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. and no one is stupider than the idiots who think the wrong side won World War II.
Click to expand...

LOL. No one stated that. LOL. 

Statists have to resort to strawman arguments, because they can’t think logically.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> LOL. No one stated that. LOL.
> 
> Statists have to resort to strawman arguments, because they can’t think logically.



No, you and Mikey G have just spent 20 pages trying to excuse the Rape of Nanking as "no big deal".  

The women who were raped considered it a big deal.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't. You only expose your abiding ignorance of anything relating to the history of the period or any other in this part of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, Dripping Poop, you can try all the revisionism you want.  It only leads to bad places, just ask the American South who try to pretend to this day that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Click to expand...


The fact that you feel compelled to resort to a strawman fallacy like that proves you have run out of anything to attempt to defend your position with. You can certainly stop pretending to ever have been any kind of historian, as a real historian is not afraid to look at history.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> The fact that you feel compelled to resort to a strawman fallacy like that proves you have run out of anything to attempt to defend your position with. You can certainly stop pretending to ever have been any kind of historian, as a real historian is not afraid to look at history.



I have looked at history. 

The Japanese were bastards...  

Done.

This ain't complicated, buddy.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you feel compelled to resort to a strawman fallacy like that proves you have run out of anything to attempt to defend your position with. You can certainly stop pretending to ever have been any kind of historian, as a real historian is not afraid to look at history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at history.
> 
> The Japanese were bastards...
> 
> Done.
> 
> This ain't complicated, buddy.
Click to expand...

Simpleton.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you feel compelled to resort to a strawman fallacy like that proves you have run out of anything to attempt to defend your position with. You can certainly stop pretending to ever have been any kind of historian, as a real historian is not afraid to look at history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at history.
> 
> ...
> 
> Done.
> 
> This ain't complicated, buddy.
Click to expand...



Said no serious historian ever.


----------



## mikegriffith1

gipper said:


> Can’t fix stupid.





JoeB131 said:


> Nope.. and no one is stupider than the idiots who think the wrong side won World War II.



Oh! So just to be clear: You think it was a good thing that, thanks to FDR and Truman's handling of WW II, the Soviet Union gained control of Eastern Europe, raped tens of millions of women in the process, and maintained tyranny over Eastern Europe for decades thereafter?  And you think it was a good thing that, thanks to FDR and Truman's handling of WW II, the Communists gained control over China and proceeded to kill over 30 million Chinese to consolidate their power?  And you think it was a good thing that, thanks to FDR and Truman's handling of WW II, the Communists took over North Korea and North Vietnam?



gipper said:


> LOL. No one stated that. LOL.



True, but then again facts don't seem to matter to him.



JoeB131 said:


> No, you and Mikey G have just spent 20 pages trying to excuse the Rape of Nanking as "no big deal".



This is the kind of dishonest nonsense that you produce when you're blinded by bigotry and refuse to read the other side. No rational person who reads my OP and the rest of this thread could conclude that I or any of those who have tried to educate you believe that the Nanking Massacre was "no big deal." Can you just not read English? Is that the problem?



JoeB131 said:


> The women who were raped considered it a big deal.



And the millions of Eastern European and German women who were raped by Soviet troops would find your bigoted focus on the Japanese army's wrongdoings to be downright immoral. Even one rape is a big deal, but you just do not seem to care that Japanese troops raped far fewer women than Soviet troops did, or that Japanese troops killed a fraction of the Chinese that the Communists killed, or that the Nationalists killed more Chinese than the Japanese did, etc., etc., etc. You just don't seem to care about these facts.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh! So just to be clear: You think it was a good thing that, thanks to FDR and Truman's handling of WW II, the Soviet Union gained control of Eastern Europe, raped tens of millions of women in the process, and maintained tyranny over Eastern Europe for decades thereafter?



Doesn't bother me, since most of Eastern Europe, as you say, were part of the Axis and collaborated with the Germans. 

It's not like any of those countries were hotbeds of Democracy before the Soviets showed up, and a lot of them aren't after they left.



mikegriffith1 said:


> And you think it was a good thing that, thanks to FDR and Truman's handling of WW II, the Communists gained control over China and proceeded to kill over 30 million Chinese to consolidate their power?



1) I don't buy the John Bircher Mythology, and 2) The Communists won because the Nationalists and Warlords were corrupt, and the Japanese were murderous bastards.   As awful as the Communists were, they were the lepers with themost fingers.



mikegriffith1 said:


> And you think it was a good thing that, thanks to FDR and Truman's handling of WW II, the Communists took over North Korea and North Vietnam?



It wasn't like we were in much of a position to stop them.

The Commies won in Vietnam because while we were propping up French and Japanese Quislings, they had a true hero who had fought for Vietnamese independence.  If anything, our mistake was letting the French try to re-establish their empire in Asia and Africa after they had been made the Axis's bitch.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is the kind of dishonest nonsense that you produce when you're blinded by bigotry and refuse to read the other side.



No, I read your stuff, and then I categorize you somewhere between "Holocaust Deniers" and "Alien Conspiracy Theorists" on the scale of laughable crazy.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> No rational person who reads my OP and the rest of this thread could conclude that I or any of those who have tried to educate you believe that the Nanking Massacre was "no big deal." Can you just not read English? Is that the problem?



You get on here and try to claim that someone breaking open some dams was an even worse crime...  Let's see now.. Unforseen Consequences vs. the deliberate slaughter of men, women and children.



mikegriffith1 said:


> And the millions of Eastern European and German women who were raped by Soviet troops would find your bigoted focus on the Japanese army's wrongdoings to be downright immoral.



Again, of the six countries that the USSR occupied after WWII, Five of them (E. Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia) were Axis members and had participated in the invasion of the USSR in 1941.   I just can't work up a lot of sympathy that after 20 million Russians had been killed by the Axis, the Soviets weren't getting them some payback.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Even one rape is a big deal, but you just do not seem to care that Japanese troops raped far fewer women than Soviet troops did, or that Japanese troops killed a fraction of the Chinese that the Communists killed, or that the Nationalists killed more Chinese than the Japanese did, etc., etc., etc. You just don't seem to care about these facts.



1) They aren't "Facts", 2) Japan was the aggressor, not China or the USSR.  

YOu get less sympathy from me if you start a fight.


----------



## gipper

^^^^
Can’t fix stupid. 

The Nazis and Imperial Japan were ruthless killers and deserved annihilation for their heinous actions. The Soviets and Chicoms were nice and wonderful deserving our praise. 

Stupidity reigns supreme.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> The Nazis and Imperial Japan were ruthless killers and deserved annihilation for their heinous actions. The Soviets and Chicoms were nice and wonderful deserving our praise.
> 
> Stupidity reigns supreme.



Not at all. .They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.   

Funny thing...  no government can exist without the tacit approval of most of it's people.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> .....They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.  .......




And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.  .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.
Click to expand...

Those Japs had it coming....you know that!


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.  .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those Japs had it coming....you know that!
Click to expand...


AMERICANS, you asshole. Your liberal hero fdr threw innocent, loyal, brave AMERICANS into his concentration camps.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.  .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those Japs had it coming....you know that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMERICANS, you asshole.
Click to expand...

Those were Japs...that is why they had to be sequestered. Their allegiance was to the emperor...this is why they were detained. Thank God APOLOGISTS like you were not in power then or we would all be making tatami mats in some sweatshop and living on rice balls.


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.  .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those Japs had it coming....you know that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMERICANS, you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were .....
Click to expand...


They were AMERICANS, and you never will be.

Go troll somewhere else.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.  .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those Japs had it coming....you know that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMERICANS, you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were AMERICANS, and you never will be.
> 
> Go troll somewhere else.
Click to expand...

You see troll...I see an anti-American apologist...noted


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> Those Japs had it coming....you know that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AMERICANS, you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were AMERICANS, and you never will be.
> 
> Go troll somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see troll...I see an anti-American apologist...
Click to expand...



Some people are trying to discuss history. YOU are just a little douche bag racist troll.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> And fdr threw innocent Americans into concentration camps.



Yeah, how many of them did he execute?  Oh, wait, none.  in fact, most of them were released within a year after the threat of an invasion of California subsided.  

Wow. Under threat of a possible invasion, we relocated the people most likely to collaborate for a short period. And then we said we were really sorry and paid them a bunch of money.  

And this was probably the worst thing we did. 



Unkotare said:


> AMERICANS, you asshole. Your liberal hero fdr threw innocent, loyal, brave AMERICANS into his concentration camps.



Except they weren't "brave" or "loyal".  Here's the reality.  In every country the Axis invaded, they found people who were happy to collaborate with them.  People believed that, hey, if the war in the Pacific goes the wrong way and the Battleship _Yamato_ showed up off San Francisco, these folks MIGHT collaborate.  Yeah, easy to say they were wrong 80 years later.  At the time, not so much.


----------



## Unkotare

Ever hear of the 442nd, stupid?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Ever hear of the 442nd, stupid?



Sure... That accounts for 1000 guys.  We locked up 110,000 of them because we rightfully didn't trust them NOT to start collaborating when the _Yamato_ showed up.  






Ooops...


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> Ever hear of the 442nd, stupid?


Ever heard of Tokyo Rose? 
Do you think she was the only one? 
Please...you need to stop...your true colors are showing.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> The Nazis and Imperial Japan were ruthless killers and deserved annihilation for their heinous actions. The Soviets and Chicoms were nice and wonderful deserving our praise.
> 
> Stupidity reigns supreme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. .They were bastards, to their own people.  Who put up with it.
> 
> Funny thing...  no government can exist without the tacit approval of most of it's people.
Click to expand...

So again, the Soviets and Chicoms were okay but the Imperial Japanese and Nazi Germans weren’t. 

Damn that’s dumb.


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the 442nd, stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Tokyo Rose?
> Do you think she was the only one?
> .....g.
Click to expand...



Yeah? How many? Over 100,000?

AMERICAN CITIZENS thrown into concentration camps, and you play the nut-sucking apologist to your long-dead leftist hero? You’re a disgrace.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the 442nd, stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure... That accounts for 1000 guys.  We locked up 110,000 of them ...
Click to expand...



Not “them,” scumbag. Over 100,000 mostly AMERICAN CITIZENS thrown into concentration camps because fdr was a stupid, racist son of a bitch, like you.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the 442nd, stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure... That accounts for 1000 guys.  We locked up 110,000 of them ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not “them,” scumbag. Over 100,000 mostly AMERICAN CITIZENS thrown into concentration camps because fdr was a stupid, racist son of a bitch, like you.
Click to expand...

You're just bias toward the dinks. You lack any logic or unbias reason. Like a woman.


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the 442nd, stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure... That accounts for 1000 guys.  We locked up 110,000 of them ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not “them,” scumbag. Over 100,000 mostly AMERICAN CITIZENS thrown into concentration camps because fdr was a stupid, racist son of a bitch, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just bias toward the dinks. You lack any logic or unbias reason. Like a woman.
Click to expand...



Now we see you also hate women, bigot. What an all-around loser.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> So again, the Soviets and Chicoms were okay but the Imperial Japanese and Nazi Germans weren’t.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb.



Soviets and Chi-Coms worked in the confines of their own countries.  



Unkotare said:


> Not “them,” scumbag. Over 100,000 mostly AMERICAN CITIZENS thrown into concentration camps because fdr was a stupid, racist son of a bitch, like you.



Naw, 110K people of Japanese descent were interned because the West Coast was under threat of attack.  

80,000 American and Filipino Troops were made to participate in the Bataan Death March.  18,000 died.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again, the Soviets and Chicoms were okay but the Imperial Japanese and Nazi Germans weren’t.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soviets and Chi-Coms worked in the confines of their own countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not “them,” scumbag. Over 100,000 mostly AMERICAN CITIZENS thrown into concentration camps because fdr was a stupid, racist son of a bitch, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, 110K people of Japanese descent were interned because the West Coast was under threat of attack.
> 
> 80,000 American and Filipino Troops were made to participate in the Bataan Death March.  18,000 died.
Click to expand...

So killing your own people is better. 

WTF.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> So killing your own people is better.
> 
> WTF.



More like- really, none of our business.   

Not that I believe the John Bircher propaganda that Stalin killed everyone in Russia twice, just to show them.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again, the Soviets and Chicoms were okay but the Imperial Japanese and Nazi Germans weren’t.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soviets and Chi-Coms worked in the confines of their own countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not “them,” scumbag. Over 100,000 mostly AMERICAN CITIZENS thrown into concentration camps because fdr was a stupid, racist son of a bitch, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....the West Coast was under threat of attack.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


By Americans? You really are a Dumbass, racist POS.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> By Americans? You really are a Dumbass, racist POS.



One more time. 

The Axis found collaborators in every country they invaded.  They even came up with a new word for it, "Quisling".   

Getting the people most likely to collaborate out of the front line was probably a prudent thing to do.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> By Americans? You really are a Dumbass, racist POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time.
> 
> The Axis found collaborators in every country they invaded.  They even came up with a new word for it, "Quisling".
> 
> Getting the people most likely to collaborate out of the front line was probably a prudent thing to do.
Click to expand...


Proving yet again that you understand nothing about History.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Proving yet again that you understand nothing about History.



Dripping Poop's History. 

The Bataan Death March was a nature hike.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you understand nothing about History.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> The Bataan Death March was a nature hike.
Click to expand...


Commie Joe seems to think American citizens conducted the Bataan Death March.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> And, by the way, even the League of Nations Lytton Commission recommended that Manchuria be given independence, since for thousands of years Manchuria had never been considered part of "China." The Nationalists never governed as a sovereign power in Manchuria, nor did the Communists. Manchuria had been savaged by war-lord rule for decades before the Japanese took over.





JoeB131 said:


> The Lytton Commission didn't call for the Japanese to set up a puppet state, which is exactly what they did.



But the Lytton Commission also said that Japan had a right to keep military forces in Manchuria to protect the interests of the Japanese citizens who were living there. Very few books on the subject mention this fact. They only mention that the commission refused to recognize the Japanese state in Manchuria (Manchukuo).

And as for this Communist-Nationalist-Soviet picture of the poor little ole' innocent Chinese getting picked on by the wicked Japanese, let's review a few facts, especially about the events that led to Japan's military move in Manchuria and then to the Sino-Japanese War in 1937:

* First off, let's remember that the Chinese outnumbered the Japanese by about 7 to 1 and were getting aid from FDR and the Soviets.

* In the early 1930s, the Nationalists adopted the policy embodied in the slogans of "embracing communism" and "allying with Soviet Russia." Indeed, the Nationalists accepted money and military aid from the Soviets. The Nationalists confiscated land, property, and industry, while abroad they sought to carry out a so-called revolutionary diplomacy, giving emphasis to the slogan of "down with imperialism and unequal treaties."

* Over two hundred Korean farmers who had moved to the village of Wanpaoshan in Manchuria were building an irrigation ditch when the war-lord-controlled Public Safety Office ordered a halt to construction. Chinese soldiers--who were aligned with the war lord Zhang Xueliang--arrived and demanded the immediate withdrawal of _the farmers_. The Japanese consulate sought to protect the Korean farmers, since they had been Japanese subjects ever since the treaty-approved annexation of Korea in 1910, by sending in armed police, who faced thousands of Chinese rioters.

* While travelling to Mongolia, Captain Nakamura, an active duty Japanese army officer, and three attendants were massacred by Chinese regulars. The Chinese attempted to cover up the incident, but when the truth became known, it sparked an angry outcry in Japan. This provocation alone was serious enough to have started a war.

* In response to these and other incidents, the Japanese Kwantung Army went into action in 1931 without waiting for approval from Tokyo.

* Warlord Zhang's Northeast Army was a massive force of 250,000 soldiers
equipped with modern weaponry. Nevertheless, in short order the Japanese army occupied key cities in southern Manchuria.

* Soon thereafter, Japan established working control over much of Manchuria, and in 1933 established the state of Manchukuo. In many respects, Manchukuo was a "puppet state," but in key respects it was not. And no one denies that the economy of the Japanese-controlled part of Manchuria grew substantially thanks to substantial Japanese investment.

* Between 1933 and 1937, the Nationalists and some war lords fought against each other in and near Manchuria. The Japanese, understandably, were growing tired of this violent instability. During one prolonged battle between the Nationalists and Zhang's forces, the Japanese got fed up and expanded their area of control to create a buffer zone. This is cited as one of Japan's alleged "provocations" of "China"!

* The Sino-Japanese War began in 1937 because of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident near Shanghai.

* Although for many years the common story was that the Japanese caused the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, most scholars now agree that the evidence shows that the Chinese, not the Japanese, caused it.

* Scholars have documented that the Japanese did not want to fight the Nationalists after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Japan's government offered very reasonable peace terms, because even the army's general staff wanted no further involvement in China because they believed the Japanese army there was over-extended as it was, because they wanted to focus on developing their state in Manchuria, and because they were worried about the threat in their rear from the Soviets.

* In response to Japan's peace offer, the Nationalists moved four divisions into the Shanghai area and then attacked the Japanese quarter of the city with two divisions.

* The Nationalists killed *more* people than the Japanese did, and the Chinese Communists killed far more people than the Japanese did.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Commie Joe seems to think American citizens conducted the Bataan Death March.



Now, I just understand that when people heard about the Bataan Death March, they weren't really inclined to trust their cousins in this country. 

Now, my Grandfather was born in Germany and fought for the Kaiser.  He had a brother who was a minor official in Germany and therefore had to join the NSDAP. The FBI had some questions for him, too. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> But the Lytton Commission also said that Japan had a right to keep military forces in Manchuria to protect the interests of the Japanese citizens who were living there. Very few books on the subject mention this fact. They only mention that the commission refused to recognize the Japanese state in Manchuria (Manchukuo).



Well, so what?  Hey, guy, INVADING MANCHURIA WAS STILL AN ACT OF AGGRESSION.  Japan were a bunch of imperialist bastards.  The had no business being there, period.

The whole rest of your diatribe is blaming China for what imperialist powers had been doing to it since the Opium War.  These same people wondered why the Communists won and threw all the westerners out on their cans. "but, but, but, we helped you beat the Japanese!"  "Yeah, after you enabled them to invade us in the first place and systematically weakened our country for 100 years!"


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB's simplistic polemic that some here believe that "the wrong side won WW II" raises an interesting question: Who really did "win" WW II? Before WW II, all of Europe was free, except for Germany of course. The vast majority of Asia was not under Communist control. Manchuria, thanks to the Japanese, had a growing economy and was attracting workers from all over Asia.

What happened to these areas as a result of WW II? Eastern Europe came under Soviet tyranny. Half of Germany came under Soviet tyranny. The Soviets murdered millions of POWs. China, North Vietnam, and North Korea came under Communist control. The Communists proceeded to kill at least 30 million Chinese and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Koreans to consolidate their power. Truman let France and Holland try to reimpose their colonial rule on South Vietnam and Indonesia. The Dutch were especially brutal and killed tens of thousands of Indonesians while trying to reassert their rule, but the prolonged and bloody fighting eventually persuaded them to give up and leave.

Why did France and England declare war on Germany in the first place? They entered the war in order to free Poland. How'd that work out? Obviously, it didn't. 

More than one side won WW II. We and our European allies defeated the German army in Western Europe and North Africa, but then half of Europe fell to Soviet tyranny. We and our allies in Asia defeated the Japanese army in Asia, but the net result was that hundreds of millions of people fell under Communist rule and tens of millions were killed as a result. 

Furthermore, the Soviet Union, one of the most brutal tyrannies in modern history, not only escaped destruction but consolidate its grip on its prewar "republics" and expanded its control over numerous countries and over hundreds of millions of people, thanks to FDR and Truman's horrendous handling of WW II. 

Freeing Western Europe from Nazi rule and eliminating the power of the Japanese militarists were the two good and noble results from WW II, but by any measurement they were more than offset by the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe and by the Communist takeover of China, North Vietnam, and North Korea. More people lived under brutal tyranny after WW II than before WW II.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> JoeB's simplistic polemic that some here believe that "the wrong side won WW II" raises an interesting question: Who really did "win" WW II? Before WW II, all of Europe was free, except for Germany of course. The vast majority of Asia was not under Communist control. Manchuria, thanks to the Japanese, had a growing economy and was attracting workers from all over Asia.



You see, you are starting out with a faulty premise.  Most of Europe was not "Free" before World War II.  Poland was a military dictatorship, Austria was a Christian Fascist dictatorship before Germany annexed it, all the countries of Eastern Europe were dictatorships and monarchies.  Spain and Italy were fascist dictatorships.  

Most of Asia except for Japan were either European Colonies or in the case of China, under warlords sponsored by the Europeans.  Thailand was a dictatorship that managed to avoid complete domination by Europe, but they couldn't throw in with the Japanese nearly soon enough.  

Manchuria was a colony of Japan, led by a puppet emperor.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> What happened to these areas as a result of WW II? Eastern Europe came under Soviet tyranny. Half of Germany came under Soviet tyranny. The Soviets murdered millions of POWs. China, North Vietnam, and North Korea came under Communist control. The Communists proceeded to kill at least 30 million Chinese and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Koreans to consolidate their power. Truman let France and Holland try to reimpose their colonial rule on South Vietnam and Indonesia. The Dutch were especially brutal and killed tens of thousands of Indonesians while trying to reassert their rule, but the prolonged and bloody fighting eventually persuaded them to give up and leave.



AND here comes the bircher propaganda...  

I agree that the mistake Truman made was to allow the defeated Colonial Powers to reassert themselves, it failed miserably and probably encouraged a lot of the third world to embrace communism.   So did the grinding poverty these countries had because the fucking "Democracies" of Europe stole everything that wasn't nailed down.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Why did France and England declare war on Germany in the first place? They entered the war in order to free Poland. How'd that work out? Obviously, it didn't.



No, it wasn't. but let's look at that.  

France and the UK sold out Czechoslovakia. Probably the right call, because most people who lived there didn't want to be ruled by the Czechs to start with.  They wanted to join Germany or Hungary or have an independent Slovakia.  But when Hitler dismembered the country like a thanksgiving turkey, (even Poland got a slice) the West felt bad and wrote a blank check to the Polish Colonels they had no ability to Cash.  This in turn made the Polish Colonels intransigent, when they probably just should have handed over the Danzig Corridor. That threw Hitler and Stalin into a temporary alliance because the west secretly hoped they would fight.  They did, of course, but not before Hitler conquered most of the west.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> More than one side won WW II. We and our European allies defeated the German army in Western Europe and North Africa, but then half of Europe fell to Soviet tyranny. We and our allies in Asia defeated the Japanese army in Asia, but the net result was that hundreds of millions of people fell under Communist rule and tens of millions were killed as a result.
> 
> Furthermore, the Soviet Union, one of the most brutal tyrannies in modern history, not only escaped destruction but consolidate its grip on its prewar "republics" and expanded its control over numerous countries and over hundreds of millions of people, thanks to FDR and Truman's horrendous handling of WW II.



Boo-fucking-hoo.  The USSR won the war for us, the rest of us just benefited... and we begrudged them that they took the scumbag countries over that attacked it.  

Hey, guess what, ALL THE PLACES THEY TOOK OVER JOINED THE AXIS.  Not working up a lot of sympathy for Romania or Hungary here.  They backed the wrong fucking horse.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Freeing Western Europe from Nazi rule and eliminating the power of the Japanese militarists were the two good and noble results from WW II, but by any measurement they were more than offset by the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe and by the Communist takeover of China, North Vietnam, and North Korea. More people lived under brutal tyranny after WW II than before WW II.



Actually, most people live under Brutal Tyranny today.  But since most of them aren't white, you don't care.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Joe seems to think American citizens conducted the Bataan Death March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I just understand that when people heard about the Bataan Death March, they weren't really inclined to trust their cousins in this country.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



“People” meaning illogical, unamerican, racist pieces of shit like fdr. People like you.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> “People” meaning illogical, unamerican, racist pieces of shit like fdr. People like you.



Uh, guy, interning the Japanese at the time was a massively popular policy.   Probably saved some lives, because people were in a lynching kind of mood after Pearl Harbor and Bataan.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> “People” meaning illogical, unamerican, racist pieces of shit like fdr. People like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, interning the Japanese at the time was a massively popular policy.   Probably saved some lives, because people were in a lynching kind of mood after Pearl Harbor and Bataan.
Click to expand...




That is exactly the same kind of stupid, illogical racist bullshit that democrats like you used to defend slavery. Your ilk never changes. Don’t ever pretend to value or understand the Constitution, or oppose any form of racism or inequality. You have made your true colors very clear.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> That is exactly the same kind of stupid, illogical racist bullshit that democrats like you used to defend slavery. Your ilk never changes. Don’t ever pretend to value or understand the Constitution, or oppose any form of racism or inequality. You have made your true colors very clear.



Guy, I'm sorry you are easily confused.  People don't give a fuck about "the consitution' when they feel threatened.  

You obviously have no idea of the level of terror people felt in World War II, where it really looked like the Axis MIGHT win the war.  

On a list of "The 100 Shittiest things people did during WWII", locking up the Nisii is maybe #99.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ... People don't give a fuck about "the consitution' when they feel threatened.
> 
> ...



That’s exactly when it’s most important, you stupid son of a bitch.

If you were an American, you would understand that.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> That’s exactly when it’s most important, you stupid son of a bitch.
> 
> If you were an American, you would understand that.



I understand human nature.... 

If you got out of the basement and stop whacking off to fetish porn once in a while, so would you.  

Reality- Everyone at the time thought relocating the potential collaborators from the west coast was a good idea.  It wasn't even a Democrat/Republican thing. 

Interesting tidbit... about Republican Governor at the time, Earl Warren. 

The United States entered World War II after the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.[48] Following the attack, Warren organized the state's civilian defense program, warning in January 1942 that, *"the Japanese situation as it exists in this state today may well be the Achilles' heel of the entire civilian defense effort." *He became a driving force behind the internment of over one hundred thousand Japanese Americans without any charges or due process.[49] Though the decision to intern Japanese Americans was made by General John L. DeWitt, and the internment was carried out by federal officials, Warren's advocacy played a major role in providing public justification for the internment.[50] By early 1944, Warren had come to regret his role in the internment of Japanese Americans, and he approved of the federal government's decision to allow Japanese Americans to begin returning to California in December 1944.[51]

The Democatic Governor who preceeded him opposed the internment, but was overruled..


----------



## mikegriffith1

To drive home the point about who really started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, I quote from historian James Crowley’s seminal study _Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930-1938, _published by Princeton University Press in 1966:

Neither the Imperial army nor the Konoe cabinet intended, on July 7, 1937, to separate Hopei province [the richest province in China, the province in which Shanghai was located] from the Nationalist government; but the public pronouncements of the generalissimo [Nationalist leader Chiang Kaishek], as well as his veto of the local settlement, eventually yielded a major crisis. . . .​
The generous terms of the Konoe government, however, failed to elicit an official diplomatic reply from the Nanking government [the Nationalist government]. Instead, on August 14, the Nationalist air force bombed the Japanese naval installation at Shanghai, and that evening, Nanking announced, “China is duty bound to defend her territory and her national experience.” The China war had begun. . . .​
Prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Shanghai, the behavior of Japanese naval and diplomatic officials in this treaty port had been most circumspect [cautious, careful, considerate]. Following the killing of [Japanese] Naval Lt. Oyama, who died while presumably attempting to capture the Hunjao Airport single-handedly on August 9, the Japanese consul general apologized for Oyama’s bizarre activities; and [Japanese] Admiral Hasegawa promptly cancelled all night patrols in the international settlement in order to prevent any untoward incidents. Western officials were impressed with these efforts to avoid a repetition of the circumstances which had caused the Shanghai incident of 1932; and they were visibly distressed by the arrival of Nationalist troops in the Shanghai area, especially in the “demilitarized zone” established in 1932. . . .​
These ominous developments in Shanghai did not modify the prevailing attitudes in Tokyo. The Konoe cabinet believed that the Nationalist government would prefer a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. . . .​
In view of the cluster of decisions which characterized the policy of the Japanese government before the outbreak of the Shanghai fighting—the cabinet’s China policy of August 6, the quarantine of the [Japanese] North China Army in the Peking environs, and the belated reinforcement of the Shanghai garrison—it seems reasonable to conclude that the hostilities in Shanghai were technically provoked by the Nanking government rather than by a willful act of the Japanese army or the Konoe cabinet. . . .​
Until Chinese sources are available, it is difficult precisely to delineate the basic policy of the Nationalist government during this period. There is good reason to believe, however, that it had decided before July 7 to wage an all-out war. . . . It is conceivable that the Nationalist government had sufficient confidence in its new German-trained divisions to rely upon a field of battle in Shanghai. . . .​
If the logic underlying the decision of the Nationalist government to provoke a major military incident in Shanghai eludes precise identification, there is ample evidence that it was based on unwarranted estimates of the diplomacy of the Western powers and of the capabilities of its German-trained divisions. By mobilizing all Nationalist troops north of the Yangtze on July 9, Chiang deliberately conveyed the impression that he was planning to concentrate his forces in the Paoting pass. . . . Consequently, when the Shanghai incident broke out in mid-August, the Nationalist army seemed to command an overwhelming superiority. (pp. 340-346)​
When the Japanese overcame the Nationalists’ “overwhelming superiority” and took Shanghai when they counter-attacked in response to Chiang’s assault, incredibly, the Soviets, the British, the French, FDR, and FDR’s allies in the American press condemned Japan for its supposed “aggression”!

However, as we just read from Crowley above, and as other scholars have documented, the Japanese were not the aggressors in that battle. The Japanese did not want to attack Shanghai. The Japanese had been trying to defuse the tense situation in Shanghai when the Nationalists bombed the Japanese naval facility in Shanghai and then attacked a small Japanese garrison because they thought they could easily overrun the garrison before the Japanese could get reinforcements to the area. But, the 2,000-man garrison fought with unbelievable courage and held off the 30,000-man Chinese army that attacked it just long enough for reinforcements to arrive. However, this incident did not lead to an all-out battle for Shanghai. A compromise was reached, and Shanghai returned to some sense of normalcy.

But, this situation changed when Chiang Kaishek decided to attack the Japanese section of Shanghai with two divisions. The Japanese brought in more reinforcements and an enormous battle ensued, ending with the Nationalist forces being expelled from Shanghai and the Japanese taking control of the city (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Kindle Edition, Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1413-1453; see also Mark Peattie, Edward Drea, and Hans van de Ven’s _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945_, Stanford University Press, 2013).

Chiang Kaishek’s reasons for picking a fight with the Japanese at Shanghai remain a subject of debate. Peter Harmsen:

Chiang may have genuinely thought that by concentrating his best troops in a shock attack on the meager Japanese garrison in Shanghai, he would be able to score a quick, dramatic victory that could rally the nation.​
Japan, on the other hand, only entered the battle reluctantly. The army already felt overstretched in the north of China, and for the wrong reasons. Many Japanese generals considered the Soviet Union to be the main threat and the one that most resources had to be directed towards. The Chinese themselves understood this was the case, and on occasion admitted so in public. “Japan had no wish to fight at Shanghai,” Chinese General Zhang Fakui, one of the top field commanders during the struggle for the city, said in a post-war interview. “It should be simple to see that we took the initiative.” (_Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, _loc. 1453)​
Finally, let’s review a few other facts that bear repeating:

-- For several years prior to mid-1938, the Nationalists, led by Chiang Kaishek, were getting weapons from Nazi Germany and had hired active-duty German officers to train their troops. Nationalists forces often even wore the trademark German helmet (Harmsen, locs. 1050-1066, 1161-1174, 1416-1429). (At the time, relations between Germany and Japan were very strained.)

-- Most of the time that the Japanese were fighting the Nationalists, they were also fighting the Soviet Union, until 1941, and during most of the period from 1931-1941, the Soviets were helping both the Nationalists and the Communists (Harmsen, locs. 1086, 1205, 1586-1602).

-- In the 1920s, the Nationalists agreed to form an alliance with the Communists in order to obtain Soviet support (Harmsen, locs. 480-494).

-- When Chiang assumed the leadership of the Nationalists, he resumed the alliance with the Communists, after having failed to eradicate them, and accepted support from the Soviet Union in the hope of defeating the Japanese. Says Harmsen,

Chiang, however, did not forget his pledge [to the Chinese Communists] to channel all his resources into the battle against Japan. With the backing of the Communists, and perhaps more importantly their Soviet masters, he now felt confident about facing up to the Japanese enemy. (Harmsen, loc. 1205)​
-- In the fall of 1937, the Soviets began providing the Nationalists with military equipment, including military aircraft and pilots (locs. 1586-1602). Observes Harmsen,

At the same time, Soviet military aircraft arrived, flown by Soviet pilots. By the time Shanghai was captured by the Japanese in November, the aviators had taken to the skies over the lower Yangtze and the Soviets had become an . . . important part of the war. (Harmsen, locs. 1586-1602)​
-- Taking off from Nationalist airfields, Soviet bombers carried out bombing raids on Japanese bases in China and Saipan (Harmsen, locs. 1743-1769).

-- After a Soviet air raid on a Japanese base on Saipan, Chiang Kaishek and his wife hosted a banquet to honor the Soviet pilots (Harmsen, locs. 1755-1769).

-- In November 1938, Nationalist soldiers, without warning, began burning the city—the Chinese city—of Changsha, 200 miles southwest of the Nationalist stronghold of Wuhan, as part of Chiang Kaishek’s scorched-earth policy to deny the Japanese any spoils when they took the city. “At least 20,000 were buried in mass graves outside the city,” notes Harmsen (Harmsen, locs. 2196-2210).

The burning of Changsha was the final straw for Wang Jengwai, the vice president of the Nationalist government and a longtime associate of Chiang Kaishek’s. Following the Nationalists’ senseless killing of at least 20,000 fellow Chinese at Changsha, Jengwai defected to the Japanese and later became the leader of one of the pro-Japanese governments set up by the Japanese in China.

-- Finally, when the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they killed at least 400,000 of their fellow Chinese by breaching the Yellow River dyke at Huayuankou in order to flood the Japanese path to Wuhan (Harmsen, locs. 1895-1907). The flood engulfed three entire cities: Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu. 400,000 is the rock-bottom death toll estimate. A post-war Nationalist commission concluded that 800,000 Chinese were killed by the flooding. Some scholars put the death toll at over 1,000,000. Although JoeB argues that the Yellow River Flood Atrocity was “different” because the people “only” died by “drowning,” instead of being shot or bayoneted, we can only imagine what leftists would be saying if the Japanese had committed this atrocity. And, by the way, drowning can be a terrifying and painful way to die (People Describe What It Feels Like to Drown).


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> To drive home the point about who really started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, I quote from historian James Crowley’s seminal study _Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930-1938, _published by Princeton University Press in 1966:



Again,

Your view is that someone smacks you with a baseball bat, takes your wallet, and says he'll let you have your credit cards back if you give him a blow job, then that's a great deal.

This is what Japan offered China. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> The burning of Changsha was the final straw for Wang Jengwai, the vice president of the Nationalist government and a longtime associate of Chiang Kaishek’s. Following the Nationalists’ senseless killing of at least 20,000 fellow Chinese at Changsha, Jengwai defected to the Japanese and later became the leader of one of the pro-Japanese governments set up by the Japanese in China.



Here's a picture that should tell you all you need to know about Wang...







He was right up there with Marshall Petain and Vikund Quisling... 

_In March 1944, Wang left for Japan to undergo medical treatment for the wound left by an assassination attempt in 1939.[23][24][25] He died in Nagoya on 10 November 1944, less than a year before Japan's surrender to the Allies, thus avoiding a trial for treason. Many of his senior followers who lived to see the end of the war were executed. Wang was buried in Nanjing near the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, in an elaborately constructed tomb. Soon after Japan's defeat, the Kuomintang government under Chiang Kai-shek moved its capital back to Nanjing, destroyed Wang's tomb, and burned the body. Today, the site is commemorated with a small pavilion that notes Wang as a traitor.[_


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s exactly when it’s most important, you stupid son of a bitch.
> 
> If you were an American, you would understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand human nature..........
Click to expand...



You mistake your own weakness for "human nature."


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> If you got out of the basement ......




You don't want to pursue that line of (illogical) discussion, fool.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Reality- Everyone at the time thought relocating the potential collaborators from the west coast was a good idea.  It wasn't even a Democrat/Republican thing...



You've never even heard of Ralph Carr have you, 'historian'?  Ignorant dolt.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You mistake your own weakness for "human nature."



Not at all.  I just look at how Earl Warren (Republican) and FDR (Democrat) both assessed the situation in 1942, with the military reality of the moment.  

Vs. some basement dweller with a Porn Fetish name judging 80 years later. 



Unkotare said:


> You don't want to pursue that line of (illogical) discussion, fool.



Dude, your screen name is a type of fetish porn... that's how small you are.  



Unkotare said:


> You've never even heard of Ralph Carr have you, 'historian'? Ignorant dolt.



Don't care.  Really don't. 

We smartly moved potential collaborators out of a war zone.  That's actually a smart move.  The Axis powers would have just shot them where they stood.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake your own weakness for "human nature."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I just look at how Earl Warren (Republican) and FDR (Democrat) both....
Click to expand...



both unamerican, racist douchebags like you.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ....
> 
> Vs. some basement dweller....




Still wrong, racist douchebag.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake your own weakness for "human nature."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never even heard of Ralph Carr have you, 'historian'? Ignorant dolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care.  Really don't......
Click to expand...



Don't ever bothering to try and lie about some degree in History, you ignorant douchebag.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> We smartly moved potential collaborators out of a war zone. .....




No, the racist piece of shit fdr violated every Constitutional right of AMERICANS. Most German and Italian Americans on the East Coast were not thrown into fdr concentration camps, you stupid fucking hypocrite.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> both unamerican, racist douchebags like you.




Let's see... 

FDR- Saved the country from the Great Depression and Fascism
Earl Warren- Gov. of California and Chief Justice
Unkatore- Some loser who watches Scat Porn in his basement

Why, yes, the choice is obvious.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> No, the racist piece of shit fdr violated every Constitutional right of AMERICANS. Most German and Italian Americans on the East Coast were not thrown into fdr concentration camps, you stupid fucking hypocrite.



Actually, 20,000 Germans and 5,000 Italians were also detained during the war.  

Of course, Germany didn't have a Navy that was about to Show up on the East Coast, either.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the racist piece of shit fdr violated every Constitutional right of AMERICANS. Most German and Italian Americans on the East Coast were not thrown into fdr concentration camps, you stupid fucking hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, 20,000 Germans and 5,000 Italians were also detained during the war.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



“Detained,” not thrown into concentration camps. And out of how many German and Italian Americans, you disingenuous douche? 

You’re no American.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> “Detained,” not thrown into concentration camps. And out of how many German and Italian Americans, you disingenuous douche?
> 
> You’re no American.



The Germans and Italians didn't bomb Pearl Harbor or kill thousands of Americans in Bataan.  

Oh, I don't deny race had a lot to so with it.  

So did the fact the West coast was perceived to be under real threat. 
So did the fact the Japanese really, really pissed us off.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ....
> 
> Oh, I don't deny race had a lot to so with it.......




There was nothing else to do with it, you racist piece of fucking shit.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> There was nothing else to do with it, you racist piece of fucking shit.



Oh, you mean THIS had nothing to do with it? 





Don't be stupid.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> To drive home the point about who really started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, I quote from historian James Crowley’s seminal study _Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930-1938, _published by Princeton University Press in 1966:
> 
> Neither the Imperial army nor the Konoe cabinet intended, on July 7, 1937, to separate Hopei province [the richest province in China, the province in which Shanghai was located] from the Nationalist government; but the public pronouncements of the generalissimo [Nationalist leader Chiang Kaishek], as well as his veto of the local settlement, eventually yielded a major crisis. . . .​
> The generous terms of the Konoe government, however, failed to elicit an official diplomatic reply from the Nanking government [the Nationalist government]. Instead, on August 14, the Nationalist air force bombed the Japanese naval installation at Shanghai, and that evening, Nanking announced, “China is duty bound to defend her territory and her national experience.” The China war had begun. . . .​
> Prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Shanghai, the behavior of Japanese naval and diplomatic officials in this treaty port had been most circumspect [cautious, careful, considerate]. Following the killing of [Japanese] Naval Lt. Oyama, who died while presumably attempting to capture the Hunjao Airport single-handedly on August 9, the Japanese consul general apologized for Oyama’s bizarre activities; and [Japanese] Admiral Hasegawa promptly cancelled all night patrols in the international settlement in order to prevent any untoward incidents. Western officials were impressed with these efforts to avoid a repetition of the circumstances which had caused the Shanghai incident of 1932; and they were visibly distressed by the arrival of Nationalist troops in the Shanghai area, especially in the “demilitarized zone” established in 1932. . . .​
> These ominous developments in Shanghai did not modify the prevailing attitudes in Tokyo. The Konoe cabinet believed that the Nationalist government would prefer a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. . . .​
> In view of the cluster of decisions which characterized the policy of the Japanese government before the outbreak of the Shanghai fighting—the cabinet’s China policy of August 6, the quarantine of the [Japanese] North China Army in the Peking environs, and the belated reinforcement of the Shanghai garrison—it seems reasonable to conclude that the hostilities in Shanghai were technically provoked by the Nanking government rather than by a willful act of the Japanese army or the Konoe cabinet. . . .​
> Until Chinese sources are available, it is difficult precisely to delineate the basic policy of the Nationalist government during this period. There is good reason to believe, however, that it had decided before July 7 to wage an all-out war. . . . It is conceivable that the Nationalist government had sufficient confidence in its new German-trained divisions to rely upon a field of battle in Shanghai. . . .​
> If the logic underlying the decision of the Nationalist government to provoke a major military incident in Shanghai eludes precise identification, there is ample evidence that it was based on unwarranted estimates of the diplomacy of the Western powers and of the capabilities of its German-trained divisions. By mobilizing all Nationalist troops north of the Yangtze on July 9, Chiang deliberately conveyed the impression that he was planning to concentrate his forces in the Paoting pass. . . . Consequently, when the Shanghai incident broke out in mid-August, the Nationalist army seemed to command an overwhelming superiority. (pp. 340-346)​
> When the Japanese overcame the Nationalists’ “overwhelming superiority” and took Shanghai when they counter-attacked in response to Chiang’s assault, incredibly, the Soviets, the British, the French, FDR, and FDR’s allies in the American press condemned Japan for its supposed “aggression”!
> 
> However, as we just read from Crowley above, and as other scholars have documented, the Japanese were not the aggressors in that battle. The Japanese did not want to attack Shanghai. The Japanese had been trying to defuse the tense situation in Shanghai when the Nationalists bombed the Japanese naval facility in Shanghai and then attacked a small Japanese garrison because they thought they could easily overrun the garrison before the Japanese could get reinforcements to the area. But, the 2,000-man garrison fought with unbelievable courage and held off the 30,000-man Chinese army that attacked it just long enough for reinforcements to arrive. However, this incident did not lead to an all-out battle for Shanghai. A compromise was reached, and Shanghai returned to some sense of normalcy.
> 
> But, this situation changed when Chiang Kaishek decided to attack the Japanese section of Shanghai with two divisions. The Japanese brought in more reinforcements and an enormous battle ensued, ending with the Nationalist forces being expelled from Shanghai and the Japanese taking control of the city (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Kindle Edition, Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1413-1453; see also Mark Peattie, Edward Drea, and Hans van de Ven’s _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945_, Stanford University Press, 2013).
> 
> Chiang Kaishek’s reasons for picking a fight with the Japanese at Shanghai remain a subject of debate. Peter Harmsen:
> 
> Chiang may have genuinely thought that by concentrating his best troops in a shock attack on the meager Japanese garrison in Shanghai, he would be able to score a quick, dramatic victory that could rally the nation.​
> Japan, on the other hand, only entered the battle reluctantly. The army already felt overstretched in the north of China, and for the wrong reasons. Many Japanese generals considered the Soviet Union to be the main threat and the one that most resources had to be directed towards. The Chinese themselves understood this was the case, and on occasion admitted so in public. “Japan had no wish to fight at Shanghai,” Chinese General Zhang Fakui, one of the top field commanders during the struggle for the city, said in a post-war interview. “It should be simple to see that we took the initiative.” (_Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, _loc. 1453)​
> Finally, let’s review a few other facts that bear repeating:
> 
> -- For several years prior to mid-1938, the Nationalists, led by Chiang Kaishek, were getting weapons from Nazi Germany and had hired active-duty German officers to train their troops. Nationalists forces often even wore the trademark German helmet (Harmsen, locs. 1050-1066, 1161-1174, 1416-1429). (At the time, relations between Germany and Japan were very strained.)
> 
> -- Most of the time that the Japanese were fighting the Nationalists, they were also fighting the Soviet Union, until 1941, and during most of the period from 1931-1941, the Soviets were helping both the Nationalists and the Communists (Harmsen, locs. 1086, 1205, 1586-1602).
> 
> -- In the 1920s, the Nationalists agreed to form an alliance with the Communists in order to obtain Soviet support (Harmsen, locs. 480-494).
> 
> -- When Chiang assumed the leadership of the Nationalists, he resumed the alliance with the Communists, after having failed to eradicate them, and accepted support from the Soviet Union in the hope of defeating the Japanese. Says Harmsen,
> 
> Chiang, however, did not forget his pledge [to the Chinese Communists] to channel all his resources into the battle against Japan. With the backing of the Communists, and perhaps more importantly their Soviet masters, he now felt confident about facing up to the Japanese enemy. (Harmsen, loc. 1205)​
> -- In the fall of 1937, the Soviets began providing the Nationalists with military equipment, including military aircraft and pilots (locs. 1586-1602). Observes Harmsen,
> 
> At the same time, Soviet military aircraft arrived, flown by Soviet pilots. By the time Shanghai was captured by the Japanese in November, the aviators had taken to the skies over the lower Yangtze and the Soviets had become an . . . important part of the war. (Harmsen, locs. 1586-1602)​
> -- Taking off from Nationalist airfields, Soviet bombers carried out bombing raids on Japanese bases in China and Saipan (Harmsen, locs. 1743-1769).
> 
> -- After a Soviet air raid on a Japanese base on Saipan, Chiang Kaishek and his wife hosted a banquet to honor the Soviet pilots (Harmsen, locs. 1755-1769).
> 
> -- In November 1938, Nationalist soldiers, without warning, began burning the city—the Chinese city—of Changsha, 200 miles southwest of the Nationalist stronghold of Wuhan, as part of Chiang Kaishek’s scorched-earth policy to deny the Japanese any spoils when they took the city. “At least 20,000 were buried in mass graves outside the city,” notes Harmsen (Harmsen, locs. 2196-2210).
> 
> The burning of Changsha was the final straw for Wang Jengwai, the vice president of the Nationalist government and a longtime associate of Chiang Kaishek’s. Following the Nationalists’ senseless killing of at least 20,000 fellow Chinese at Changsha, Jengwai defected to the Japanese and later became the leader of one of the pro-Japanese governments set up by the Japanese in China.
> 
> -- Finally, when the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they killed at least 400,000 of their fellow Chinese by breaching the Yellow River dyke at Huayuankou in order to flood the Japanese path to Wuhan (Harmsen, locs. 1895-1907). The flood engulfed three entire cities: Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu. 400,000 is the rock-bottom death toll estimate. A post-war Nationalist commission concluded that 800,000 Chinese were killed by the flooding. Some scholars put the death toll at over 1,000,000. Although JoeB argues that the Yellow River Flood Atrocity was “different” because the people “only” died by “drowning,” instead of being shot or bayoneted, we can only imagine what leftists would be saying if the Japanese had committed this atrocity. And, by the way, drowning can be a terrifying and painful way to die (People Describe What It Feels Like to Drown).


Well, we all know anything argued by Joey is totally illogical. After all, a demented statist mind can’t function logically.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Well, we all know anything argued by Joey is totally illogical. After all, a demented statist mind can’t function logically.



The guy just wrote a long paragraph about why the Chinese were the bad guys for resisting a Japanese invasion.  

What I find amusing is that you think the Chinese should have been totally cool with the Japanese invading their country with tanks and bombs and guns, but man, if some Mexicans show up and want to do menial work, you'll scream about an "invasion".


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we all know anything argued by Joey is totally illogical. After all, a demented statist mind can’t function logically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy just wrote a long paragraph about why the Chinese were the bad guys for resisting a Japanese invasion.
> 
> What I find amusing is that you think the Chinese should have been totally cool with the Japanese invading their country with tanks and bombs and guns, but man, if some Mexicans show up and want to do menial work, you'll scream about an "invasion".
Click to expand...

In your world the state is justified in drowning a million of it’s people, to save the state from a foreign invader. Totally illogical heinous tyrannical and well dumb.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> In your world the state is justified in drowning a million of it’s people, to save the state from a foreign invader. Totally illogical heinous tyrannical and well dumb.



Oh, is it a million now?  I'm wondering how this happens, when you have a disaster like Katrina, which was bad, but only a couple of hundred people drowned, but supposedly millions drowned in this event the apologists make up.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your world the state is justified in drowning a million of it’s people, to save the state from a foreign invader. Totally illogical heinous tyrannical and well dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is it a million now?  I'm wondering how this happens, when you have a disaster like Katrina, which was bad, but only a couple of hundred people drowned, but supposedly millions drowned in this event the apologists make up.
Click to expand...

Why do statist like it when the state mass murders innocent people?


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Why do statist like it when the state mass murders innocent people?



Wouldn't know.. this discussion was about how the Japanese State murdered millions of Chinese people, which you guys are arguing was okay, because the Japanese were benevolent. Or something.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Detained,” not thrown into concentration camps. And out of how many German and Italian Americans, you disingenuous douche?
> 
> You’re no American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans and Italians didn't bomb Pearl Harbor or kill thousands of Americans in Bataan.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...





Neither did the AMERICANS fdr threw into his concentration camps.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing else to do with it, you racist piece of fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean THIS had nothing to do with it?
> 
> View attachment 287937
> 
> Don't be stupid.
Click to expand...



Not ONE person in fdr’s concentration camps had anything to do with that, stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Neither did the AMERICANS fdr threw into his concentration camps.



No, but their relatives did, and they had no assurances they wouldn't collaborate if there was an invasion.  

So we relocated a suspect population from a war zone and let them return after the danger had passed.   

Um... just not seeing how this was that bad compared to what everyone else did in that war.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did the AMERICANS fdr threw into his concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their relatives did, and they had no assurances they wouldn't collaborate if there was an invasion.
> 
> So we relocated a suspect population from a war zone and let them return after the danger had passed.
> 
> Um... just not seeing how this was that bad compared to what everyone else did in that war.
Click to expand...


You’ve got nothing but illogical, unamerican, racist bullshit to try and defend the indefensible.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You’ve got nothing but illogical, unamerican, racist bullshit to try and defend the indefensible.



Um, I gave you very good reasons... you just don't want to hear them.. 

Sometimes, you have to make hard decisions and feel bad about them later.

Some day, you'll grow up and learn this.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did the AMERICANS fdr threw into his concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their relatives did.....
Click to expand...



So, if your second cousin steals a car, we should throw your ass in jail? You ok with that, dumbass?


JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did the AMERICANS fdr threw into his concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...they had no assurances they wouldn't collaborate if there was an invasion.
> ...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, we did.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve got nothing but illogical, unamerican, racist bullshit to try and defend the indefensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I gave you very good reasons...
Click to expand...



You “gave” illogic, ignorance and racism.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> So, if your second cousin steals a car, we should throw your ass in jail? You ok with that, dumbass?



I think it's a matter of degree, don't you?   Pearl Harbor and Bataan and Nanjing were a lot worse than jacking a car.  



Unkotare said:


> Yes, we did.



Did they pinkie swear?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if your second cousin steals a car, we should throw your ass in jail? You ok with that, dumbass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a matter of degree, don't you?   ....
Click to expand...



NO. It's a matter of principle, you stupid shit. Since you have no principles, it might be hard for your pea brain to grasp.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ....
> 
> Did they pinkie swear?




Ever hear of the Ringle Report, 'historian'? Why do you bother commenting on a topic you know nothing about? History is not for you. Go play in the Rubber Room.


----------



## mikegriffith1

It should be noted that some Western journalists did provide accurate reporting on who started the fighting in Shanghai that began the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. The following report _New York Times _correspondent Hallett Abend was published on August 31, 1937:

Foreigners Support Japan - Official foreign observers and officials of various foreign governments who participated in various conferences here in seeking to avoid the outbreak of local hostilities, agree that the Japanese exhibited the utmost restraint under provocation, even for several days keeping all of the Japanese landed force off the streets and strictly within their own barracks, although the move somewhat endangered Japanese lives and properties. 'Opinions may differ regarding the responsibility for the opening of hostilities in the vicinity of Peiping early in July,' said one foreign official who was a participant in the conferences held here before Aug. 13, 'but concerning the Shanghai hostilities the records will justify only one decision. The Japanese did not want a repetition of the fighting here and exhibited forbearance and patience and did everything possible to avoid aggravating the situation. But they were literally pushed into the clash by the Chinese, who seemed intent on involving the foreign area and foreign interests in this clash.' (http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Second-Sino-Japanese-War-Part-2.pdf)​
To show what a joke the League of Nations was, the Nationalists got the league to pass a resolution that condemned Japan's response to the Nationalists' attack as "disproportionate"! So the Nationalists bombed the Japanese naval facility in Shanghai, tried to wipe out a tiny Japanese garrison in Shanghai, rejected Japan's peace proposal, sent four divisions into Hopei Province, and then launched an attack on the Japanese quarter in Shanghai with two divisions, but the League of Nations decided that the Japanese response was "disproportionate." The Japanese were sick and tired of the Nationalists' provocations and attacks and decided that this time there would be no ceasefires, no deals, no nothing, until they had driven the Nationalists out of Shanghai and Nanking.

Getting back to the Lytton Commission's report, I know that some people here will not even read this, but here is a good article from a November 1932 Australian newspaper that summarizes Japan's reply to the report:

JAPANS REPLY. To Lytton Commission's Report. - FLAT REJECTION OF PROPOSALS. LONDON, Nov. 21. - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) - 22 Nov 1932

And here is a Japanese businessman's evaluation of the Lytton Commission's report published in December 1932 that contains a number of valid points and observations_:
_
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5ea4/3afe37c7c2221cce8338dea671129db5d0fc.pdf


----------



## Flash




----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> NO. It's a matter of principle, you stupid shit. Since you have no principles, it might be hard for your pea brain to grasp.



The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.   

When you have guys with Battleships sporting 18 inch guns out there, you don't want someone who might help them standing behind you...  

Just a bit of common sense.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Ever hear of the Ringle Report, 'historian'? Why do you bother commenting on a topic you know nothing about? History is not for you. Go play in the Rubber Room.



Sorry, buddy....  you can invoke all the nonsense you want... but they made the right call in 1942, given the level of threat. 

But if you want to feel bad as you wank off to Japanese Porn, have at it. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> To show what a joke the League of Nations was, the Nationalists got the league to pass a resolution that condemned Japan's response to the Nationalists' attack as "disproportionate"! So the Nationalists bombed the Japanese naval facility in Shanghai, tried to wipe out a tiny Japanese garrison in Shanghai, rejected Japan's peace proposal, sent four divisions into Hopei Province, and then launched an attack on the Japanese quarter in Shanghai with two divisions, but the League of Nations decided that the Japanese response was "disproportionate." The Japanese were sick and tired of the Nationalists' provocations and attacks and decided that this time there would be no ceasefires, no deals, no nothing, until they had driven the Nationalists out of Shanghai and Nanking.



Japan shouldn't have been in Shanghai, Nanking, Manchuria or anywhere else in CHINA.  That's the whole point here.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO. It's a matter of principle, you stupid shit. Since you have no principles, it might be hard for your pea brain to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> When you have guys with Battleships sporting 18 inch guns out there, you don't want someone who might help them standing behind you...
> 
> Just a bit of common sense.
Click to expand...



Just a red herring. That has nothing to do with fdr's crimes.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO. It's a matter of principle, you stupid shit. Since you have no principles, it might be hard for your pea brain to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> When you have guys with Battleships sporting 18 inch guns out there, you don't want someone who might help them standing behind you...
> 
> Just a bit of common sense.
Click to expand...



None of the AMERICANS fdr threw into concentration camps ever fired a gun from a battleship at the US Navy. Another false argument from you.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Just a red herring. That has nothing to do with fdr's crimes.



You mean saving the world from Fascism?  

Oh, no, wait.  You and MikeyG think the wrong side won WWII. 



Unkotare said:


> None of the AMERICANS fdr threw into concentration camps ever fired a gun from a battleship at the US Navy. Another false argument from you.



You don't know what they were going to do.  SHit, I will even go so far to say that pre-1941, Japanese Immigrants were treated like shit... so they probably had no particular loyalty to the US... Shame on us, I guess.  

Then again, my Dad was born in Germany, and they made him a medic because they didn't entirely trust him with a gun.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO. It's a matter of principle, you stupid shit. Since you have no principles, it might be hard for your pea brain to grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Completely false analogy.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a red herring. That has nothing to do with fdr's crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean saving the world from Fascism?
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


That POS fdr throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps didn’t do a damn thing to save the world from fascism, fool.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a red herring. That has nothing to do with fdr's crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean saving the world from Fascism?
> 
> Oh, no, wait.  You and MikeyG think the wrong side won WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the AMERICANS fdr threw into concentration camps ever fired a gun from a battleship at the US Navy. Another false argument from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they probably had no particular loyalty to the US... Shame on us, I guess.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



fdr’s own naval intelligence reported that “they” were loyal to America and not a threat, you ignorant douche. Americans so loyal that despite having their constitutional rights trampled by a would-be dictator, they volunteered to serve and comprised the most decorated unit in US military history. If you had ever studied History or cared about the United States I wouldn’t have to keep teaching you about this.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> That POS fdr throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps didn’t do a damn thing to save the world from fascism, fool.



Yup... nothing to do with FDR.








"Are we surrendering?"
"No, Nine of us Captured the USS Missouri!"


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> fdr’s own naval intelligence reported that “they” were loyal to America and not a threat, you ignorant douche. Americans so loyal that despite having their constitutional rights trampled by a would-be dictator, they volunteered to serve and comprised the most decorated unit in US military history. If you had ever studied History or cared about the United States I wouldn’t have to keep teaching you about this.



Again, I'm sure that people thought that Marshal Petain and Vidkun Quisling and Wang were "Loyal", too.  

Most countries would have just executed them and been done with it.    

Bataan Death March... those guys would have loved to have been in an nice comfy relocation camp.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That POS fdr throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps didn’t do a damn thing to save the world from fascism, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup... nothing to do with FDR.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



That’s not going to work, you dishonest douche. fdr throwing innocent Americans into his concentration camps did nothing to win the war. You are trying to be dishonest because you know you can’t defend your position and you lack the character to just admit it.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> That’s not going to work, you dishonest douche. fdr throwing innocent Americans into his concentration camps did nothing to win the war. You are trying to be dishonest because you know you can’t defend your position and you lack the character to just admit it.



You said FDR had nothing to do with winning the war.  

Quite the contrary, he did a lot of things before and during the war to assure that the US was on the winning side. 

He also gave in to massive public pressure to get Japanese immigrants out of the war zone, which may or may not have been necessary.  Again, easy to second guess these things 80 years later.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr’s own naval intelligence reported that “they” were loyal to America and not a threat, you ignorant douche. Americans so loyal that despite having their constitutional rights trampled by a would-be dictator, they volunteered to serve and comprised the most decorated unit in US military history. If you had ever studied History or cared about the United States I wouldn’t have to keep teaching you about this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Most countries would have just executed them and been done with it.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



You would have a happy little nazi, but you’re no American.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You would have a happy little nazi, but you’re no American.



You are the one who has spent the last 29 pages ripping the guy who saved the world from Fascism. 

"Oh, noes, some Japanese Americans were slightly inconvenienced for a year!"


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not going to work, you dishonest douche. fdr throwing innocent Americans into his concentration camps did nothing to win the war. You are trying to be dishonest because you know you can’t defend your position and you lack the character to just admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said FDR had nothing to do with winning the war.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



No I didn’t, you lying sack of shit.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> No I didn’t, you lying sack of shit.



Yeah, you kind of did.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have a happy little nazi, but you’re no American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who has spent the last 29 pages ripping the guy who saved the world from Fascism.
> 
> ...!"
Click to expand...



You have been claiming the Soviets did that. In any case, that was never even fdr’s goal. He acted as if he intended to give the world to communism. He was clearly willing to sacrifice America to do so.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn’t, you lying sack of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you kind of did.
Click to expand...



Stop lying, troll.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You have been claiming the Soviets did that. In any case, that was never even fdr’s goal. He acted as if he intended to give the world to communism. He was clearly willing to sacrifice America to do so.



I was wondering how long it would take you to get to the crazy.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been claiming the Soviets did that. In any case, that was never even fdr’s goal. He acted as if he intended to give the world to communism. He was clearly willing to sacrifice America to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering how long it would take you to get to the crazy.
Click to expand...



He didn't bend American resources and production to supporting communism? He didn't trample the Constitution? He didn't sacrifice American lives to further his aims?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> He didn't bend American resources and production to supporting communism? He didn't trample the Constitution? He didn't sacrifice American lives to further his aims?



Again, buddy, you are going full on crazy.   The 1950s called, they want their crazy back.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't bend American resources and production to supporting communism? He didn't trample the Constitution? He didn't sacrifice American lives to further his aims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, buddy, you are going full on crazy.   The 1950s called, they want their crazy back.
Click to expand...


Since you know nothing about history, you can’t even try to disagree.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Since you know nothing about history, you can’t even try to disagree.



Yeah, most history departments would reject this kind of McCarthyism claims. 

Nobody looks back at Joe McCarthy and says he was right.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about history, you can’t even try to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, most history departments would reject this kind of McCarthyism claims.
> 
> ...t.
Click to expand...



You wouldn’t know.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You wouldn’t know.



yeah, I know that[s probably not what they teach at "Printer Diploma U".


----------



## Unkotare

Commie Joe has proven over and over that he knows nothing about this topic.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Commie Joe has proven over and over that he knows nothing about this topic.



Yeah, Dripping Poop... all you have is emotion, not an argument.  

True story... no one complained about locking up the Japanese Americans... except them.  Everyone else thought it was a dandy idea at the time.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Joe has proven over and over that he knows nothing about this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> True story... no one complained about locking up the Japanese Americans... except them.  Everyone else thought it was a dandy idea at the time.
Click to expand...



You’ve never heard of Ralph Carr, you’ve never read the Ringle Report...

Why do you bother trying to talk about something you know nothing about?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You’ve never heard of Ralph Carr, you’ve never read the Ringle Report...
> 
> Why do you bother trying to talk about something you know nothing about?



Because they aren't important...


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve never heard of Ralph Carr, you’ve never read the Ringle Report...
> 
> Why do you bother trying to talk about something you know nothing about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they aren't important...
Click to expand...



Ignorant troll. You know nothing about History, and you have no interest in learning. Go troll somewhere else.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Ignorant troll. You know nothing about History, and you have no interest in learning. Go troll somewhere else.



Pearl Harbor. Bataan Death March.  That's why those people got sent away to camps.  

Nobody at the time objected.  

Part of studying history is actually understanding what people at the time thought. My Dad was a WWII vet, guys of his generation STILL hated the Japanese 40 years later.


----------



## justoffal

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You . . . uh . . . you didn't bother to read the OP, did you? Are you aware that nearly all of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care...
> 
> The Rape of Nanking is a historical event.... I put your shit up there with the Neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust happened.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?!!! "Bircher Propaganda"???! Oh, wow. Did you just beam into 2019 from the 1960s? You think that the research on the tens of millions of people whom Stalin killed is "Bircher Propaganda"?!! This is a cake-taker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are the one who blurts out McCarthyite propaganda and expects me to get upset about it.  Stalin was a bastard. He wasn't a genocidal bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, so you didn't read the OP, did you? Are you aware that in 1938 the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu when they breached the Yellow River dike? Go read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, don't waste my valuable time with horseshit.  There's also a big difference between some people drowing because of flooding and people dying because they were systematically raped and murdered by an occupying army.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were not as bad as the Chinese Communists and the Soviets in the in WW II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they were worse... much, much, much worse, which is why the Japanese are still hated by the Chinese and Koreans.
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia
> 
> First thing Japan needs to do... openly admit they did bad shit with massacres and comfort women and the rest of that shit.  That would be a good start.
Click to expand...


I think what the op needs to come to terms with is the fact that war.... any kind of war is ugly. It probably makes me sound like an asshole but in my opinion once war has been declared it becomes almost impossible to identify the nebulous term war crime.

Jo


----------



## JoeB131

justoffal said:


> I think what the op needs to come to terms with is the fact that war.... any kind of war is ugly. It probably makes me sound like an asshole but in my opinion once war has been declared it becomes almost impossible to identify the nebulous term war crime.



You might have a point to an extent. War Crime Trials are the winners punishing the losers.   

So the idea is to not do things you can be punished for if your side loses.  The Geneva Conventions were a good place to start, but Japan never signed them and Germany routinely violated them.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant troll. You know nothing about History, and you have no interest in learning. Go troll somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor. Bataan Death March.  That's why those people got sent away to camps.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



Not one person in fdr’s concentration camps had anything to do with those things, you unamerican, illogical racist piece of shit.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant troll. You know nothing about History, and you have no interest in learning. Go troll somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Nobody at the time objected.
> 
> ....r.
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Not one person in fdr’s concentration camps had anything to do with those things, you unamerican, illogical racist piece of shit.



Do you think people in 1942 were making that distinction between people who just got here and their cousins back home? 

Nope. 

Hey, it's been 18 years since 9/11, we STILL haven't shut down Gitmo.   It's just kind of still there....  

Manzanar was shut down by 1945.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant troll. You know nothing about History, and you have no interest in learning. Go troll somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....My Dad was a WWII vet, guys of his generation STILL hated the Japanese ....
Click to expand...



Not all of them. You sure as shit didn’t fight in WWII, and you are racist TODAY just because you are of poor character.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Not all of them. You sure as shit didn’t fight in WWII, and you are racist TODAY just because you are of poor character.



I love Japanese people. I even dated a Japanese girl once.  

But they were really bastards during World War II.  

I'm of German ancestry.  The Germans did awful stuff in WWII, too.  

It's easy to look at the precautions that people took after Pearl Harbor and say, "Wow, that was harsh".  

People are going to look back at Gitmo and taking our shoes off at the airport and wonder what the fuck we were so panicky about.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in fdr’s concentration camps had anything to do with those things, you unamerican, illogical racist piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think people in 1942 were making that distinction between people who just got here and their cousins back home?
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



How about American citizens born and raised in the US, you traitorous fuck?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in fdr’s concentration camps had anything to do with those things, you unamerican, illogical racist piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Hey, it's been 18 years since 9/11, we STILL haven't shut down Gitmo.   It's just kind of still there....
> 
> ....
Click to expand...




Red herring


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in fdr’s concentration camps had anything to do with those things, you unamerican, illogical racist piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think people in 1942 were making that distinction between people who just got here and their cousins back home?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



Once again, you ignorant dope, go read about Ralph Carr. It’s painfully clear by now that you know nothing about History, but even a moron like you can google.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of them. You sure as shit didn’t fight in WWII, and you are racist TODAY just because you are of poor character.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love Japanese people. ..
Click to expand...



Here we go...” some of my best friends are...”

You’re a fucking cliche.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> How about American citizens born and raised in the US, you traitorous fuck?



How about them?  

Hey, did you hear about the Hero of World War I France, whose strategy was largely credited for defeating Germany? 

In World War II, he became a collaborator....  His name was Marshall Philip Petain..  

So you are facing an invasion, and you have a large population that might very well collaborate...  What do you do with them? 

Well, most countries would have just killed their asses outright.... and been done with it.  

We just got them out of the war zone for a couple of years.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Once again, you ignorant dope, go read about Ralph Carr. It’s painfully clear by now that you know nothing about History, but even a moron like you can google.



Funny thing. I got a degree before there was a Google, and every moron could cut and paste and pretend they are smart.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you ignorant dope, go read about Ralph Carr. It’s painfully clear by now that you know nothing about History, but even a moron like you can google.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing. I got a degree before there was a Google, and every moron could cut and paste and pretend they are smart.
Click to expand...



And yet, you still don’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> And yet, you still don’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about.



Nobody knows or cares what you are talking about, Dripping Poop.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you still don’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows or cares what you are talking about....
Click to expand...



Why do you come to the History forum when you clearly don't know anything about History and are uninterested in learning anything about it? Go troll somewhere else. Take your racist, un-American ass to the FZ, troll.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about American citizens born and raised in the US, you traitorous fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about them? ......
Click to expand...



How about that's what the Constitution of MY country is for, jackass?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Why do you come to the History forum when you clearly don't know anything about History and are uninterested in learning anything about it? Go troll somewhere else. Take your racist, un-American ass to the FZ, troll.



Again, I have a degree.

You and Mikey G have a lot of Fascist Revisionism 

The good news.. This is what we did to Tojo. 






My only regret. Hirohito wasn't standing right next to him.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> How about that's what the Constitution of MY country is for, jackass?



Well, if you are relying on a piece of paper, that's your own damned fault.  

the thing was, most of the country  - and a country is it's people, not a piece of paper - were DEMANDING that something be done with these people they didn't trust.  

Yeah, later everyone felt really bad about the whole thing...


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you come to the History forum when you clearly don't know anything about History and are uninterested in learning anything about it? Go troll somewhere else. Take your racist, un-American ass to the FZ, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have a degree.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



All evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Camp

America has a history of treating blocks of immigrants and minorities unfairly. We still do in many cases. Japanese Americans took the brunt of American fear and anger after Pearl Harbor coupled with commercial and businesses desires for confiscating and neuralizing Japanese American properties and holdings.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> All evidence to the contrary.



Says the guy who names himself after a Japanese Fetish Porn. 

Urban Dictionary: Unkotare

Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre commonly known as Scat.
"Hey Bro checkout this sweet unkotare video I found... it is super kawaii-desu"
#scat#unko#poop#unkotare#coprophilia


----------



## JoeB131

Camp said:


> America has a history of treating blocks of immigrants and minorities unfairly. We still do in many cases. Japanese Americans took the brunt of American fear and anger after Pearl Harbor coupled with commercial and businesses desires for confiscating and neuralizing Japanese American properties and holdings.



I agree, there was a lot of bad behavior on all sides.  

And there was a lot of legitimate concern that if the war got to the Pacific Coast, these people might collaborate.  

So we got them out of the war zone, and released them after the danger had passed.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that's what the Constitution of MY country is for, jackass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you are relying on a piece of paper, that's your own damned fault...
Click to expand...




That may be the most ignorant, idiotic, un-American statement imaginable.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> Again, I have a degree. You and Mikey G have a lot of Fascist Revisionism.



"Fascist revisionism"??!!  Is that how you're rationalizing your parroting of Soviet, Maoist, and FDR-Truman propaganda?  Well, I guarantee you that none of the scholars I have cited are "fascists." Scholars such as Harmsen, Crowley, F.C. Jones, Toland, R. Wilson, Brea, Hata, Towle, Akita, Palmer, etc., etc.--do you think they're "fascists"?

You have done little else but defend the Soviet Union's WW II and post-WW II policy goals for China and the Pacific. Stalin wanted the U.S. and Japan to get into a war. So did FDR. Stalin was thrilled when FDR began imposing harsh sanctions on Japan. Stalin didn't want FDR to accept Japan's peace offer. FDR rejected it. And you applaud and defend these things. 

Stalin didn't want the Nationalists to accept Japan's peace offers. Nor did FDR. And you applaud and defend this. Stalin didn't want Truman to modify unconditional surrender to allow for the retention of the emperor. Truman followed Stalin's policy. You applaud and defend this. Truman cut off aid to the Nationalists at a crucial point and swung the momentum in the Communists' favor, which resulted in the Communist takeover of China and the subsequent murder of at least 30 million Chinese. You have implied that this outcome was preferable to a peace deal between the Nationalists and Japan that would have allowed the Japanese to retain their state in Manchuria and would have given all of China to the Nationalists. 

Stalin wanted Japan kicked out of Korea and Vietnam. So did FDR and Truman. Consequently, North Korea and North Vietnam fell to Communist rule very soon after the war, and 30 years later all of Vietnam was Communist. You don't seem to have a big problem with these results.



JoeB131 said:


> The good news.... This is what we did to Tojo. My only regret. Hirohito wasn't standing right next to him.



What incredible ignorance. Hirohito was one of the best good guys in the Japanese government. He did all he could to prevent war with the U.S. And, as soon as circumstances allowed, he intervened to bring about Japan's surrender. He could have done it weeks earlier if Truman had not been following Soviet policy. If you can ever crack open your mind just an inch or two, you might read about the very helpful role that Hirohito played in transforming Japan into a democratic state. You might also read about the many times that Hirohito struggled to contain the militarists.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has a history of treating blocks of immigrants and minorities unfairly. We still do in many cases. Japanese Americans took the brunt of American fear and anger after Pearl Harbor coupled with commercial and businesses desires for confiscating and neuralizing Japanese American properties and holdings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... there was a lot of legitimate concern that if the war got to the Pacific Coast, these people might collaborate.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



No, there was not.  fdr knew there was not.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Regarding the issue of comfort women that JoeB131 keeps raising, I wonder if JoeB131 has read, or even heard of, the Interagency Working Group's (IWG's) exhaustive report on the subject, which, among other findings, concluded that they could find no evidence that Japan committed war crimes in its comfort women operation. The IWG report was published in 2007 after several years of research that involved sifting through 142,000 pages of Japanese-related classified documents at the U.S. National Archives that came from  the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA, the FBI, and the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps (CIC). Significantly, the IWG also found no evidence to support the claim that the Japanese army murdered thousands of comfort women at the war's end in an attempt to cover up the operation.

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Challenging-the1.pdf

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/rebuttal-long.pdf


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> "Fascist revisionism"??!! Is that how you're rationalizing your parroting of Soviet, Maoist, and FDR-Truman propaganda? Well, I guarantee you that none of the scholars I have cited are "fascists." Scholars such as Harmsen, Crowley, F.C. Jones, Toland, R. Wilson, Brea, Hata, Towle, Akita, Palmer, etc., etc.--do you think they're "fascists"?


 
They aren't scholars, you Nazi-loving fuck. 

Interesting that all the guys who are sooo sad the Axis didn't win WWII are the same ones who support Trump.  


mikegriffith1 said:


> You have done little else but defend the Soviet Union's WW II and post-WW II policy goals for China and the Pacific. Stalin wanted the U.S. and Japan to get into a war. So did FDR. Stalin was thrilled when FDR began imposing harsh sanctions on Japan. Stalin didn't want FDR to accept Japan's peace offer. FDR rejected it. And you applaud and defend these things.



That FDR put sanctions on a genocidal regime?  Um, yeah, I'm glad he did that.  Too bad the Japs were too stupid to realize they couldn't beat the USA, and decided to commit mass suicide.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Stalin wanted Japan kicked out of Korea and Vietnam. So did FDR and Truman. Consequently, North Korea and North Vietnam fell to Communist rule very soon after the war, and 30 years later all of Vietnam was Communist. You don't seem to have a big problem with these results.



Again, the 1950's called, they want their paranoia back.   North Vietnam fell to "Communism" because the "Communists" were anti-colonial heroes, and all the people WE tried to prop up were miserable fucking quislings.  What this country never got from the Cold War was its inability to distinguish between "Communists" and people who just didn't want to live under Colonial Rule.  Vietnam was a worst case scenario, where we knew from the get go we couldn't win, but spent 8 years and 56,000 lives anyway.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> What incredible ignorance. Hirohito was one of the best good guys in the Japanese government. He did all he could to prevent war with the U.S. And, as soon as circumstances allowed, he intervened to bring about Japan's surrender. He could have done it weeks earlier if Truman had not been following Soviet policy. If you can ever crack open your mind just an inch or two, you might read about the very helpful role that Hirohito played in transforming Japan into a democratic state. You might also read about the many times that Hirohito struggled to contain the militarists.



Next you'll be telling me what a swell guy Hitler was... oh, wait, you probably have. 

Hirohito signed off on the attack on Pearl Harbor. He signed off on the invasion of China.  That he wanted to save himself after Japan had been clearly defeated.... doesn't make him a 'hero', it makes him a snake trying to save his own skin.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> "Fascist revisionism"??!! Is that how you're rationalizing your parroting of Soviet, Maoist, and FDR-Truman propaganda? Well, I guarantee you that none of the scholars I have cited are "fascists." Scholars such as Harmsen, Crowley, F.C. Jones, Toland, R. Wilson, Brea, Hata, Towle, Akita, Palmer, etc., etc.--do you think they're "fascists"?


 


JoeB131 said:


> They aren't scholars, you Nazi-loving $(%*$%.



Yes, they are most certainly scholars, and you are a disgusting liar. Not even a lunatic could read my comments in this and other threads and come away believing that I have any sympathy for the Nazis. You might wanna check out my website. You'll discover that I was raised Jewish for many years in my childhood, that I've lived in Israel, that I speak Hebrew, and that I am ardently pro-Israeli. So I find your ludicrous accusation revolting.

Moderators, doesn't this kind of scurrilous slander qualify for some kind of penalty?



JoeB131 said:


> Interesting that all the guys who are sooo sad the Axis didn't win WWII are the same ones who support Trump.



More bald-faced lies and idiocy. Who in the world herein has said they are sad that the Axis didn't win WW II? Who? You're just making up filthy lies now.



mikegriffith1 said:


> You have done little else but defend the Soviet Union's WW II and post-WW II policy goals for China and the Pacific. Stalin wanted the U.S. and Japan to get into a war. So did FDR. Stalin was thrilled when FDR began imposing harsh sanctions on Japan. Stalin didn't want FDR to accept Japan's peace offer. FDR rejected it. And you applaud and defend these things.





JoeB131 said:


> That FDR put sanctions on a genocidal regime?  Um, yeah, I'm glad he did that.  Too bad the Japs were too stupid to realize they couldn't beat the USA, and decided to commit mass suicide.



LOL! So Japan was a "genocidal regime" when FDR imposed sanctions?!  In what parallel universe?

I think you have Japan confused with the Soviet Union and Communist China. For about the 20th time, all kinds of sources can confirm to you that the Japanese killed fewer people than the Soviets and the Chinese Communists killed. But you just don't care about facts or honesty.   



mikegriffith1 said:


> Stalin wanted Japan kicked out of Korea and Vietnam. So did FDR and Truman. Consequently, North Korea and North Vietnam fell to Communist rule very soon after the war, and 30 years later all of Vietnam was Communist. You don't seem to have a big problem with these results.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, the 1950's called, they want their paranoia back.   North Vietnam fell to "Communism" because the "Communists" were anti-colonial heroes, and all the people WE tried to prop up were miserable fucking quislings.  What this country never got from the Cold War was its inability to distinguish between "Communists" and people who just didn't want to live under Colonial Rule.  Vietnam was a worst case scenario, where we knew from the get go we couldn't win, but spent 8 years and 56,000 lives anyway.



This is further proof that you are no "conservative." Every one of your arguments above is standard liberal propaganda.   



mikegriffith1 said:


> What incredible ignorance. Hirohito was one of the best good guys in the Japanese government. He did all he could to prevent war with the U.S. And, as soon as circumstances allowed, he intervened to bring about Japan's surrender. He could have done it weeks earlier if Truman had not been following Soviet policy. If you can ever crack open your mind just an inch or two, you might read about the very helpful role that Hirohito played in transforming Japan into a democratic state. You might also read about the many times that Hirohito struggled to contain the militarists.





JoeB131 said:


> Next you'll be telling me what a swell guy Hitler was... oh, wait, you probably have.



I am reporting this ugly slander to the moderators. You have crossed the line. You are a sick liar. Not to mention the fact that you are simply uninterested in studying any research that would debunk your bigoted view of the Japanese and Hirohito. You find me one syllable that I have ever uttered in this forum that would lead any rational person to think that I feel even the slightest bit of sympathy for or support of Hitler. Find it for me, you sick liar.



JoeB131 said:


> Hirohito signed off on the attack on Pearl Harbor. He signed off on the invasion of China.  That he wanted to save himself after Japan had been clearly defeated.... doesn't make him a 'hero', it makes him a snake trying to save his own skin.



Blah, blah, blah, right out of the Soviet and Chinese Communist and FDR-Truman-inspired histories of WW II. I know you have no interest in fact, but in point of fact numerous scholars have documented that Hirohito tried mightily to avoid war with the U.S., to the point of risking assassination by militant hardliners in the army.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Yes, they are most certainly scholars, and you are a disgusting liar. Not even a lunatic could read my comments in this and other threads and come away believing that I have any sympathy for the Nazis. You might wanna check out my website. You'll discover that I was raised Jewish for many years in my childhood, that I've lived in Israel, that I speak Hebrew, and that I am ardently pro-Israeli. So I find your ludicrous accusation revolting.



No, you just come on here and try to excuse Hitler's Japanese buddies.  


mikegriffith1 said:


> Blah, blah, blah, right out of the Soviet and Chinese Communist and FDR-Truman-inspired histories of WW II. I know you have no interest in fact, but in point of fact numerous scholars have documented that Hirohito tried mightily to avoid war with the U.S., to the point of risking assassination by militant hardliners in the army.



He signed off on the Invasion of China. 
He signed off on the Puppet State of Manchuko
He signed off on the attack on Pearl Harbor... 

He could have just said "No". War avoided.  His people thought he was a fucking God.  He didn't.  Not until his country was facing annihilation, did he suddenly grow a conscience, but only when it looked like the Americans wouldn't hang his ass. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> More bald-faced lies and idiocy. Who in the world herein has said they are sad that the Axis didn't win WW II? Who? You're just making up filthy lies now.



Apparently you are, because you are upset that the Commies took over parts of Europe and Asia... 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I am reporting this ugly slander to the moderators. You have crossed the line. You are a sick liar. Not to mention the fact that you are simply uninterested in studying any research that would debunk your bigoted view of the Japanese and Hirohito. You find me one syllable that I have ever uttered in this forum that would lead any rational person to think that I feel even the slightest bit of sympathy for or support of Hitler. Find it for me, you sick liar.



Report away, you fascist fuck...   Hirohito was a war criminal.  We should have put that bastard at the end of a rope.


----------



## Unkotare

Commie Joe is just trolling in the wrong forum. Go be a troll in the fz. You clearly don’t know or care about history.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Commie Joe is just trolling in the wrong forum. Go be a troll in the fz. You clearly don’t know or care about history.



Sure I care about history.. enough to save it from Fascist revisionists...  

Bad enough we are living with a Fascist president now because people forgot why Fascism was a bad thing.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is further proof that you are no "conservative." Every one of your arguments above is standard liberal propaganda.



Buddy, are you trying to argue Vietnam was a good idea now.. Because no one really thinks it was.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commie Joe is just trolling in the wrong forum. Go be a troll in the fz. You clearly don’t know or care about history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I care about history.. ...
Click to expand...



You have proven that you don’t.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You have proven that you don’t.



No, I just kind of proven that Pro-Axis asshats are fun to ridicule... 

The Axis Lost. The world is better off for it..


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven that you don’t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just kind of proven that Pro-Axis asshats are fun to ridicule...
> 
> The Axis Lost. The world is better off for it..
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven that you don’t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just kind of proven that ......
Click to expand...



You've proven that you know nothing about the topic of this thread, troll. You've proven that you are uninterested in learning about history. You've proven that you are an illogical, un-American dimwit.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You've proven that you know nothing about the topic of this thread, troll. You've proven that you are uninterested in learning about history. You've proven that you are an illogical, un-American dimwit.



I'm uninterested in hearing Neo-Fascist apologia..

I can't get worked up that some folks got treated badly at a time period where we treated LOTS of people badly. 

Native Americans on reservations probably LAUGH at Nisii whining about two years at Mazanar


----------



## Unkotare

" the entire "Japanese Problem" has been magnified out of its true proportion, largely because of the physical characteristics of the people; that it is no more serious that the problems of the German, Italian, and Communistic portions of the United States population, and, finally that it should be handled on the basis of the individual, regardless of citizenship, and not on a racial basis.”

-US Office of Naval Intelligence 
December, 1941


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven that you know nothing about the topic of this thread, troll. You've proven that you are uninterested in learning about history. You've proven that you are an illogical, un-American dimwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..Native Americans on reservations probably LAUGH at Nisii whining about two years at Mazanar
Click to expand...



Red herring


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven that you know nothing about the topic of this thread, troll. You've proven that you are uninterested in learning about history. You've proven that you are an illogical, un-American dimwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm uninterested in hearing Neo-Fascist apologia..
> 
> I can't get worked up that some folks got treated badly at a time period where we treated LOTS of people badly....
Click to expand...



Illogical


----------



## Unkotare

From the Ringle Report:

"The action taken by the Japanese American Citizens League in convention in Santa Ana, California, on January 11, 1942. This convention voted to require the following oath to be taken, signed, and notarized by every member of that organization as a prerequisite for membership for the year 1942, and for all members taken into the organization in the future "I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I hereby renounce any other allegiances which I may have knowingly or unknowingly held in the past; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God." ... That a very great many of the Nisei have taken legal steps through the Japanese Consulate and the Government of Japan to officially divest themselves of Japanese citizenship (dual citizenship) , even though by so doing they become legally dead in the eye of the Japanese law, and are no longer eligible to inherit any property which they or their family may have held in Japan. ... The last Issei who legally entered the United States did so in 1924. Most of them arrived before that time; therefore, these people have been in the United States at least eighteen years, or most of their adult life. They have their businesses and livelihoods here. Most of them are aliens only because the laws of the United States do not permit them to become naturalized. They have raised their children, the Nisei mentioned in paragraph (1) above, in the United States; many of them have some in the United States army. Exact figures are not available, but the local Military Intelligence office estimates that approximately five thousand Nisei in the State of California have entered the United States army as a result of the Selective Service Act. It does not seem reasonable that these aliens under the above conditions would form an organized group for armed insurrection or organized sabotage.... The United States recognizes these American-born Orientals as citizens, extends the franchise to them, drafts them for military service, forces them to pay taxes, perform jury duty, etc., and extends to them the complete protection afforded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and yet at the same time has viewed them with considerable suspicion and distrust, and so far as it is known to the write, has made no particular effort to develop their loyalty to the United States, other than to permit them to attend public schools. They are segregated as to where they may live by zoning laws, discriminated against in employment and wages, and rebuffed in nearly all their efforts to prove their loyalty to the United States, yet at the same time those of them who grow to about the age of 16 years in the United States and then go to Japan for a few years of education find themselves viewed with more suspicion and distrust in that country than they ever were in the United States, and the majority of them return after a short time thoroughly disillusioned with Japan and more than ever loyal to the United States."


Ringle Report on Japanese Internment


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> " the entire "Japanese Problem" has been magnified out of its true proportion, largely because of the physical characteristics of the people; that it is no more serious that the problems of the German, Italian, and Communistic portions of the United States population, and, finally that it should be handled on the basis of the individual, regardless of citizenship, and not on a racial basis.”



Okay- so what.   This was the same Naval Intelligence that was absolutely convinced our battleships would be safe in Pearl Harbor.   





Unkotare said:


> "The action taken by the Japanese American Citizens League in convention in Santa Ana, California, on January 11, 1942. This convention voted to require the following oath to be taken, signed, and notarized by every member of that organization as a prerequisite for membership for the year 1942, and for all members taken into the organization in the future



Yeah, one more time... so what?   A few divisions of Japanese landed in SF or LA, you think someone would say to a collaborator.... "But, but, but you promised!!!!"   

By your own admission our laws didn't let them become naturalized after 1924.... you think they were that loyal?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " the entire "Japanese Problem" has been magnified out of its true proportion, largely because of the physical characteristics of the people; that it is no more serious that the problems of the German, Italian, and Communistic portions of the United States population, and, finally that it should be handled on the basis of the individual, regardless of citizenship, and not on a racial basis.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- so what.   This was the same Naval Intelligence that was absolutely convinced our battleships would be safe in Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The action taken by the Japanese American Citizens League in convention in Santa Ana, California, on January 11, 1942. This convention voted to require the following oath to be taken, signed, and notarized by every member of that organization as a prerequisite for membership for the year 1942, and for all members taken into the organization in the future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, one more time... so what?   A few divisions of Japanese landed in SF or LA, you think someone would say to a collaborator.... "But, but, but you promised!!!!"
> 
> By your own admission our laws didn't let them become naturalized after 1924.... you think they were that loyal?
Click to expand...



“They” were mostly US citizens, you traitorous asshole. You ignore the facts of history so you can cling to your racism and your hero worship. US naval intelligence knew these AMERICANS were loyal. Fucking scumbag fdr knew these AMERICANS were loyal, and he threw them into his concentration camps anyway. You now know a tiny fraction of what a true History Major would know about this topic, but you refuse to leave the womb of your ignorant racist narrative.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> “They” were mostly US citizens, you traitorous asshole. You ignore the facts of history so you can cling to your racism and your hero worship. US naval intelligence knew these AMERICANS were loyal.



Naval Intelligence was absolutely positive the Japanese couldn't attack our ships at Pearl Harbor, because it was too far from Japan, the water was too shallow for torpedoes to work, etc.   

The thing was, it wasn't FDR that was demanding they do something about the potential collaborators on the West Coast.   It was the population at large.  The GOP screamed to "do something" as loudly as the Democrats. 



Unkotare said:


> Fucking scumbag fdr knew these AMERICANS were loyal, and he threw them into his concentration camps anyway. You now know a tiny fraction of what a true History Major would know about this topic, but you refuse to leave the womb of your ignorant racist narrative.



Ho-hum...  the biggest problem with studying history is that we often apply modern sensibilities to people in the past. A true historian understands the social mores of the period.  

Of course, we all think this was bad because we think it's bad today.  We've even largely forgotten our absolute terror after 9/11, when anyone named Mohammed in 2002 was strip searched on site before he could get onto a plane.  

Now, imagine our terror after 9/11 and magnify that by 1000, and you get exactly what people were feeling in 1942, when it really looked like the Axis might win the war.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...after 9/11, when anyone named Mohammed in 2002 was strip searched on site before he could get onto a plane.
> 
> ..,.



A lie and a red herring.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> A lie and a red herring.



Yeah, funny how you "forgot" all about that.

Then again, I doubt you fly all that much... that takes more money than you make sweeping floors.


----------



## JoeB131

I notice Dripping Poop keeps skipping over that Naval Intelligence got Pearl Harbor so fucking wrong, but wonders why no one really trusted them when they said the Nisii could be trusted to not betray us.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> “They” were mostly US citizens, you traitorous asshole. You ignore the facts of history so you can cling to your racism and your hero worship. US naval intelligence knew these AMERICANS were loyal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval Intelligence was absolutely positive the Japanese couldn't attack our ships at Pearl Harbor, because it was too far from Japan, the water was too shallow for torpedoes to work, etc.
> 
> The thing was, it wasn't FDR that was demanding they do something about the potential collaborators on the West Coast.   It was the population at large.  The GOP screamed to "do something" as loudly as the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking scumbag fdr knew these AMERICANS were loyal, and he threw them into his concentration camps anyway. You now know a tiny fraction of what a true History Major would know about this topic, but you refuse to leave the womb of your ignorant racist narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ho-hum...  the biggest problem with studying history is that we often apply modern sensibilities to people in the past. A true historian understands the social mores of the period....
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Ignorant buffoon. There were rational Americans of good conscience in the 1940s as well, asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " the entire "Japanese Problem" has been magnified out of its true proportion, largely because of the physical characteristics of the people; that it is no more serious that the problems of the German, Italian, and Communistic portions of the United States population, and, finally that it should be handled on the basis of the individual, regardless of citizenship, and not on a racial basis.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay- so what.   This was the same Naval Intelligence that was absolutely convinced our battleships would be safe in Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The action taken by the Japanese American Citizens League in convention in Santa Ana, California, on January 11, 1942. This convention voted to require the following oath to be taken, signed, and notarized by every member of that organization as a prerequisite for membership for the year 1942, and for all members taken into the organization in the future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, one more time... so what?   ...?
Click to expand...



If you don’t know “so what,” you’re not an American.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> I notice Dripping Poop keeps skipping over that Naval Intelligence got Pearl Harbor so fucking wrong, but wonders why no one really trusted them when they said the Nisii could be trusted to not betray us.




AMERICANS.


The president’s wife believed Naval Intelligence. So did the Governor of Colorado. They both lived “in those days,” you stupid shit.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> “They” were mostly US citizens, you traitorous asshole. You ignore the facts of history so you can cling to your racism and your hero worship. US naval intelligence knew these AMERICANS were loyal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naval Intelligence was absolutely positive the Japanese couldn't attack our ships at Pearl Harbor, because it was too far from Japan, the water was too shallow for torpedoes to work, etc.
> 
> The thing was, it wasn't FDR that was demanding they do something about the potential collaborators on the West Coast.   It was the population at large.  The GOP screamed to "do something" as loudly as the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking scumbag fdr knew these AMERICANS were loyal, and he threw them into his concentration camps anyway. You now know a tiny fraction of what a true History Major would know about this topic, but you refuse to leave the womb of your ignorant racist narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ho-hum...  the biggest problem with studying history is that we often apply modern sensibilities to people in the past. A true historian understands the social mores of the period....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant buffoon. There were rational Americans of good conscience in the 1940s as well, asshole.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lie and a red herring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, funny how you "forgot" all about that.
> 
> Then again, I doubt you fly all that much... that takes more money than you make sweeping floors.
Click to expand...


Oh look, something else you’re wrong about.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> The president’s wife believed Naval Intelligence. So did the Governor of Colorado. They both lived “in those days,” you stupid shit.



Good thing we don't let first ladies make policy, then.  



Unkotare said:


> Oh look, something else you’re wrong about.



Guy, your name is a japanese porn fetish...   I doubt they even let you on a plane.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> The president’s wife believed Naval Intelligence. So did the Governor of Colorado. They both lived “in those days,” you stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we don't let first ladies make policy, then. .....
Click to expand...



What happened to "everybody wanted it!" and "no one cared!"? 

You still haven't figured out how to use Google to find out who Ralph Carr was?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ....  I doubt they even let you on a plane.





Keep making an ass of yourself, ignorant racist.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> What happened to "everybody wanted it!" and "no one cared!"?
> 
> You still haven't figured out how to use Google to find out who Ralph Carr was?



No, because I don't care. He wasn't important. 

What was important.  2335 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor.  650 American and 18,000 Filipinos died on the Bataan Death March.  

That was important. We were at war with vicious savages, and Gosh Darn, no one trusted their cousins to not collaborate if shit got real.  

Hey, speaking of the Philippines, maybe you should look up "Second Philippine Republic", and see how some Filipinos were happy to collaborate with the Japanese.  

The reality.  People had a valid fear that this population might collaborate or act as a fifth column.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to "everybody wanted it!" and "no one cared!"?
> 
> You still haven't figured out how to use Google to find out who Ralph Carr was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The reality.  People had a valid fear that this population might collaborate or act as a fifth column.
Click to expand...


No, they did not. It was not a “valid” fear, and the racist, un-American scumbag fdr knew it, just as racist scumbag YOU know it.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> No, they did not. It was not a “valid” fear, and the racist, un-American scumbag fdr knew it, just as racist scumbag YOU know it.



What I know is that our country was attacked without a declaration of war, by a bunch of savages who murdered tens of millions of people across Asia.  

That's what I know.  

It was in all the history books.  

And someone had to make a hard decision about whether a population that worshiped their Emperor as a God could really, really be trusted if shit got real.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to "everybody wanted it!" and "no one cared!"?
> 
> You still haven't figured out how to use Google to find out who Ralph Carr was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because I don't care. He wasn't important.
> ....
Click to expand...


Because you’re an intellectual coward. You are comfortable with your ignorant racism, and you’re afraid of learning anything that might threaten it. You’re a childish dimwit.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Because you’re an intellectual coward. You are comfortable with your ignorant racism, and you’re afraid of learning anything that might threaten it. You’re a childish dimwit.



Naw, you see, if I were a "go with the flow" kind of guy, I'd be engaging in the kind of "Politically Correct", "internment was bad" simple thinking you are engaging in... 

instead of understanding the REAL THREAT people in 1942 were dealing with. 

Funny thing, at the time, people were a lot more Angry with Japan than they were with Germany.  FDR had to do real work to convince Americans that Germany was the more immediate threat.   Propagandists at the time distinguished between "Nazis" and "Good Germans" (Not because there were all these "Good Germans" ready to oppose Hitler, but because there were so many German-Americans who had to be cajoled into supporting the war effort and signing up their kids to die at Normandy). 

They had no problem painting the Japanese as sub-human monsters...  because of the way the Imperial Japanese Military was acting across Asia.  Was racism part of that?  Yup.  So was genuine anger about various atrocities.  

Now, since then, 80 years of the Jews in Hollywood making movies about how the Nazis were the bad guys, but almost no films about the evil things Japan did, we kind of lose track that they were both equally bad.  

Given the pure horrors of that war, I just can't get worked up with, "We got relocated out of a potential war zone for a couple of years"


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to "everybody wanted it!" and "no one cared!"?
> 
> You still haven't figured out how to use Google to find out who Ralph Carr was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> What was important.  2335 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor.  650 American and 18,000 Filipinos died on the Bataan Death March.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



And none of the AMERICANS in fdr’s concentration camps were responsible for any of that.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> And none of the AMERICANS in fdr’s concentration camps were responsible for any of that.



Um, yeah, good thing they were locked up where they couldn't cause any trouble.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of the AMERICANS in fdr’s concentration camps were responsible for any of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, good thing they were locked up where they couldn't cause any trouble.
Click to expand...



AGAIN illogical, you brainless traitor.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> Now, since then, 80 years of the Jews in Hollywood making movies about how the Nazis were the bad guys...




Nice of you to add your anti-semitism to the mix.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> Given the pure horrors of that war, I just can't get worked up with, "We got relocated out of a potential war zone for a couple of years"




AGAIN illogical, you anti-American simpleton.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they did not. It was not a “valid” fear, and the racist, un-American scumbag fdr knew it, just as racist scumbag YOU know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I know is that our country was attacked without a declaration of war, by a bunch of savages who murdered tens of millions of people across Asia.
> 
> That's what I know. .......
Click to expand...



That's all you know? Is that why you don't seem capable of accepting the fact that none of the AMERICANS thrown into fdr's concentration camps attacked America or murdered even one of those people, you racist idiot?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> And someone had to make a hard decision about whether a population that worshiped their Emperor as a God .....




Wrong again, idiot. No "their" about it. You really can't see past your racism.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to "everybody wanted it!" and "no one cared!"?
> 
> You still haven't figured out how to use Google to find out who Ralph Carr was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because I don't care. He wasn't important........
Click to expand...



Ignorant coward, hiding from the facts of history. Don't ever pretend you have a degree in History, fraud.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> AGAIN illogical, you brainless traitor.



Not at all.  The Axis found collaborators in every country they invaded.   We just got some of them out of the way where they couldn't do any harm. 



Unkotare said:


> That's all you know? Is that why you don't seem capable of accepting the fact that none of the AMERICANS thrown into fdr's concentration camps attacked America or murdered even one of those people, you racist idiot?



I can't worked up about it.  Everyone else in that war was killing millions of civilians, especially the Japanese...

"Oh, boo, hoo, I had to spend a year at a camp where I was well-fed and housed!"  

So did 16 million other guys who were drafted, and a lot of them got shot at by their cousins.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN illogical, you brainless traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  ...
Click to expand...


You’re as ignorant of logic as you are of History.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN illogical, you brainless traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  The Axis found collaborators in every country they invaded.   We just got some of them out of the way where they couldn't do any harm.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all you know? Is that why you don't seem capable of accepting the fact that none of the AMERICANS thrown into fdr's concentration camps attacked America or murdered even one of those people, you racist idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't worked up about it.
Click to expand...


Because you’re not an American.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Because you’re not an American.



This would be the same America founded on slavery and the genocide of Native Americans?  

Let's get real.  We have some real horror shows in our history... This wasn't one of them.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> You've [JoeB131] proven that you know nothing about the topic of this thread, troll. You've proven that you are uninterested in learning about history. You've proven that you are an illogical, un-American dimwit.



That sums up the guy nicely. I wonder if someone else wrote his signature block for him. When he makes claims such as his claim that the scholars I've cited aren't scholars and implies they are fascists, you know he's a clown who has done no serious study on the subject. He makes these absurd straw-man either/or arguments and then pretends that anyone who won't accept his sophomoric pro-Soviet/pro-Chinese/pro-FDR spin is a Hitler-loving fascist. 

Anyway, one of the recognized premier studies on the Sino-Japanese War, if not the premier study, is Dr. Francis C. Jones' exhaustive book _Japan's New Order in East Asia: Its Rise and Fall, 1937-45_, published by Oxford University Press in 1954. Any serious book on the Sino-Japanese War will include references to Jones' book. Jones wrote several highly acclaimed works on the Far East. In the very near future, I'll post numerous quotes from Jones' book, but suffice to say for now that Jones' debunks the Soviet-Chinese-FDR version of Japan's involvement in China.

For instance, Jones points out that when the Chinese Nationalists first began to try to provoke Japan to fight in Shanghai, Nationalist forces in the area outnumbered Japanese forces by 10 to 1. Yes, 10 to 1. Why? Because the Japanese had delayed sending large reinforcements to the area because they hoped to reach a diplomatic settlement, due to the fact that they wanted to (1) focus on developing Manchuria, (2) limit their presence in China to a small buffer zone between China and Manchuria, and (3) be better prepared to resist Soviet efforts to control Mongolia and to destabilize Manchuria.

In painstaking detail, Jones reviews all of the Japanese attempts to negotiate a reasonable deal with the Nationalists. He also points out that the Nationalists signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets before the war began, and that the Soviets did all they could to turn the rest of the world against Japan.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> That sums up the guy nicely. I wonder if someone else wrote his signature block for him. When he makes claims such as his claim that the scholars I've cited aren't scholars and implies they are fascists, you know he's a clown who has done no serious study on the subject. He makes these absurd straw-man either/or arguments and then pretends that anyone who won't accept his sophomoric pro-Soviet/pro-Chinese/pro-FDR spin is a Hitler-loving fascist.



Yup,,,, When you try to claim the Axis were the "Good Guys" in World War II,  you are a Hitler loving fascist.  

Then again, you support Trump. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> For instance, Jones points out that when the Chinese Nationalists first began to try to provoke Japan to fight in Shanghai, Nationalist forces in the area outnumbered Japanese forces by 10 to 1. Yes, 10 to 1. Why? Because the Japanese had delayed sending large reinforcements to the area because they hoped to reach a diplomatic settlement, due to the fact that they wanted to (1) focus on developing Manchuria, (2) limit their presence in China to a small buffer zone between China and Manchuria, and (3) be better prepared to resist Soviet efforts to control Mongolia and to destabilize Manchuria.



One more time. 

Japan did not belong in Shanghai
Japan did not belong in Manchuria. 

This was a genocidal imperialist invasion.  The Chinese had EVERY RIGHT to try to expel invaders from their country.  

Tell you what, let's take whatever Red State Shithole you live in and let the Chinese "Develop" it the way the Japanese were developing Manchuria.   

Yeah, Japan's diplomatic Settlement.  

It would be like if I bashed you over the head with a baseball bat, took your wallet, and then promised to give you back your credit cards if you gave me a blow job.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you’re not an American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be the same America founded on slavery and the genocide of Native Americans?
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



Your obvious disdain for America and the principles upon which my nation was founded does not excuse your constant affronts to logic.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Your obvious disdain for America and the principles upon which my nation was founded does not excuse your constant affronts to logic.



What principles.  

A bunch of rich slave rapists didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes for a war they started.  They were willing to conspire with autocratic regimes to get their way.  

They saved us from the horror of being - CANADIANS!!!!  OH MY GOD!!!!  

Compared to slavery and the treatment of Native Americans, I just can't get worked up that some Japanese went camping for a year.  I'd take a year in Mazanar over a year in one of the Prison Camps the Japanese were running in the Philippines for US and Filipino prisoners. 

https://www.realclearhistory.com/ar...nese_prison_camps_in_the_philippines_293.html

I'll just select a couple...

*8. Puerto Princesa and the Palawan Massacre.* Puerto Princesa was a relatively small internment camp, with only hundreds of prisoners, but it is also the prison that led to the infamous Palawan Massacre of 1944. As the Allies bore down on the labor camp, Japanese forces marched the prisoners back to their own camp, where they proceeded to force the prisoners into a trench, light them on fire, and gun down all those who tried to flee. The massacre sparked a new campaign to rescue prisoners of war throughout the archipelago.

*1. Cabanatuan Prison Camp.* The most notorious of Japan’s prison camps, Cabanatuan was known as the “Zero Ward” because there was zero chance of getting out of there alive. Slave labor was utilized, starvation and malnutrition ran amok, torture and beatings were standard fare, and disease spread like Texas bluebonnets along the highways in April. The healthier prisoners were often transported in a “hell ship” to Japan for harder labor, and the sick ones simply died from a horrific tropical disease, a beating, or starvation. Filipino guerrillas and American special forces rescued the POWs on the same day the the Allies recaptured Camp O’Donnell. The prisoners were flown to the United States and hailed as heroes.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obvious disdain for America and the principles upon which my nation was founded does not excuse your constant affronts to logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What principles.
> 
> A bunch of rich slave rapists didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes for a war they started.  They were willing to conspire with autocratic regimes to get their way.
> 
> They saved us from the horror of being - CANADIANS!!!!  OH MY GOD!!!!
> 
> Compared to slavery and the treatment of Native Americans, I just can't get worked up that some Japanese went camping for a year.  I'd take a year in Mazanar over a year in one of the Prison Camps the Japanese were running in the Philippines for US and Filipino prisoners.
Click to expand...




Thanks for finally admitting your real motive in defending the inexcusable trampling of Americans’ rights is your abiding hatred of the United States.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Thanks for finally admitting your real motive in defending the inexcusable trampling of Americans’ rights is your abiding hatred of the United States.



Explain this to you one more time. 

There are no "rights".  There are privileges that the rest of society agrees you should have, as long as you aren't obnoxious about it...  

At the time, no one cared, they were more worried the _Yamato_ was going to show up and start shelling LA.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your real motive in defending the inexcusable trampling of Americans’ rights is your abiding hatred of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain this to you one more time.
> 
> There are no "rights".  There are privileges that the rest of society agrees you should have, as long as you aren't obnoxious about it...
> 
> .....
Click to expand...


You are working hard to prove yourself a greater idiot than even bobo or jitler. It is now established beyond a doubt that you know nothing about History or Political Philosophy.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for finally admitting your real motive in defending the inexcusable trampling of Americans’ rights is your abiding hatred of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> At the time, no one cared...
Click to expand...


That is a lie you keep repeating because you know your position is untenable.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> That is a lie you keep repeating because you know your position is untenable.



Korematsu vs. US.  Check it out.  The courts ruled that the internment was perfectly constitutional.  

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie you keep repeating because you know your position is untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Korematsu vs. US.  Check it out.  The courts ruled that the internment was perfectly constitutional.
> 
> Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


You finally learned how to google! (Wikipedia? really? how bush league can you get, ‘historian’?)Too bad you didn’t read the whole page.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You finally learned how to google! (Wikipedia? really? how bush league can you get, ‘historian’?)Too bad you didn’t read the whole page.



Didn't need to.  

Point was, the issue was brought to the Court AT THAT TIME, and they voted 6-3 that it was justified by the circumstances. 

That a bunch of politically correct wusses later said it was bad..  meh, don't care much about that.  

They weren't facing the threat of imminent invasion.  

And Since we both know you and Mikey Heil G aren't going out there and protesting Trump's prison camps, which really are an attrocity... your mewling about what happened 80 years ago isn't impressive.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You finally learned how to google! (Wikipedia? really? how bush league can you get, ‘historian’?)Too bad you didn’t read the whole page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't need to.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



Again, wallowing in your own ignorance. You’re too willfully stupid for any serious discussion.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You finally learned how to google! (Wikipedia? really? how bush league can you get, ‘historian’?)Too bad you didn’t read the whole page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...They weren't facing the threat of imminent invasion.
> 
> ....e.
Click to expand...



There was never a real threat of imminent invasion. Even an idiot like you could see that if you knew how to count.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Again, wallowing in your own ignorance. You’re too willfully stupid for any serious discussion.



Dripping Poop, SCOTUS ruled on this issue... and found the relocation to be constitutional.  



Unkotare said:


> There was never a real threat of imminent invasion. Even an idiot like you could see that if you knew how to count.



There wasn't?   If the Battle of Midway had gone the other way, and our aircraft carriers ended up in Davey Jones Locker instead of theirs, what was going to stop them from invading the west coast?   

Japan had 12 operational Carriers and 11 battleships compared to our four carriers and maybe six batttleships.  (After the four sunk at Pearl Harbor that's all we had left in the Pacific.) 

Our biggest problem before WWII was how woefully unprepared for it we were in 1941.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...SCOTUS ruled on this issue... and found the relocation to be constitutional. .....




Willful idiot. You couldn't even be bothered to read the entire wiki-page you shamelessly offered up as a source, let alone actually understand the circumstances you are playing at understanding. You are utterly brain dead.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, wallowing in your own ignorance. You’re too willfully stupid for any serious discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dripping Poop, SCOTUS ruled on this issue... and found the relocation to be constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a real threat of imminent invasion. Even an idiot like you could see that if you knew how to count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There wasn't?  ....
Click to expand...


No idiot, there wasn't. The state of California alone is larger than the entire nation of Japan. Start doing some math, you fucking idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Willful idiot. You couldn't even be bothered to read the entire wiki-page you shamelessly offered up as a source, let alone actually understand the circumstances you are playing at understanding. You are utterly brain dead.



Not at all.. 

AT THE TIME, it was ruled constitutional.   What some simpering PC person said 80 years later, really, really doesn't matter. 

People at the time considered it a legitimate threat and acted accordingly.  



Unkotare said:


> No idiot, there wasn't. The state of California alone is larger than the entire nation of Japan. Start doing some math, you fucking idiot.



YOu realize the Axis Powers took over areas many times the size of their countries, right?  










Whoops...


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Willful idiot. You couldn't even be bothered to read the entire wiki-page you shamelessly offered up as a source, let alone actually understand the circumstances you are playing at understanding. You are utterly brain dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all..
> 
> AT THE TIME, it was ruled constitutional.   What some simpering PC person said 80 years later, really, really doesn't matter.
> 
> People at the time considered it a legitimate threat and acted accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idiot, there wasn't. The state of California alone is larger than the entire nation of Japan. Start doing some math, you fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu realize the Axis Powers took over areas many times the size of their countries, right?
> 
> View attachment 290414
> 
> View attachment 290415
> 
> Whoops...
Click to expand...


Which one of those was The United States of America, idiot?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Which one of those was The United States of America, idiot?



Let's see now. 

The Philippines
Wake Island
Guam
The Aluetians...

All American territory occupied by Japan.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> You have proven that you don’t.





JoeB131 said:


> No, I just kind of proven that Pro-Axis asshats are fun to ridicule...



No, you've just proven that you're an ignorant, lying jerk who makes false accusations based on your caveman understanding of history.



JoeB131 said:


> The Axis Lost. The world is better off for it..



Well, Caveman, there's a little more to it than your third-grade, silly oversimplification. Just as not all Allied countries were the same, not all Axis countries were the same. Italy and Japan were nothing like Nazi Germany. The U.S. and England were nothing like the Soviet Union. The world was definitely not better off that Eastern Europe, China, North Vietnam, and North Korea fell under Communist tyranny as a result of FDR and Truman's monstrous mishandling of WW II. The world was definitely not better off that 30 million Chinese were murdered at the hands of the Maoist Communists after Mao took control. China, Korea, and Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese rule than under Communist rule.

And, no, under the Japanese constitution, the emperor could not have stopped the Pearl Harbor attack. He did all he could to prevent it, as many scholars have documented, e.g., Dr. Noriko Kawamura in her book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War_, to name one of several scholarly works that document this fact_. _Under the Japanese constitution, if the cabinet was unanimous in support of an action, the emperor could not veto it. He was able to intervene to compel surrender precisely because the cabinet was not unanimous on the subject. If you'd just crack open your bigoted, ignorant mind and do a little serious reading, you might just ween yourself from your Soviet-Chinese Communist-FDR-Truman version of WW II.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, Caveman, there's a little more to it than your third-grade, silly oversimplification. Just as not all Allied countries were the same, not all Axis countries were the same. Italy and Japan were nothing like Nazi Germany.



actually, they were just as bad... Mussolini was a murdering buffoon...  just less competent.  

The Japanese murdered tens of millions of people, engaged in war crimes and even fucking CANNIBALISM.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The world was definitely not better off that Eastern Europe, China, North Vietnam, and North Korea fell under Communist tyranny as a result of FDR and Truman's monstrous mishandling of WW II.



This is where you get into the delusion...  China and Vietnam WANTED the Communists. As for Eastern Europe... most of them threw in with Hitler, so FUCK THEM.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The world was definitely not better off that 30 million Chinese were murdered at the hands of the Maoist Communists after Mao took control.



Hey, the John Birch Society Called, they want their bullshit talking points back. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, no, under the Japanese constitution, the emperor could not have stopped the Pearl Harbor attack.



Again, Hirohito was worshiped as a God.  He could have easily prevented the war.  He just chose not to, because his Generals convinced him that Japan could knock the US out of the War before they got a chance to gear up. 

Japan's military thinking was distorted by how easy (not really) their victory against Russia was in 1905.  They thought they could beat America the same way.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> If you'd just crack open your bigoted, ignorant mind and do a little serious reading, you might just ween yourself from your Soviet-Chinese Communist-FDR-Truman version of WW II.



My Dad was a world war II vet..  that's the version of WWII I had to live in, the one where those vets would have slapped your Neo-Nazi face.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Somewhat surprisingly, a rich source of objective information about Japan's involvement in China, the conditions in China before the Sino-Japanese War, and the Soviet role in China is
Dr. Jonathan Fenby's highly acclaimed and "definitive" 2005 biography of Chiang Kaishek titled _Chiang Kai Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost._ Among other things, Fenby documents the following:

* The Soviet Union's deep involvement with and extensive support of the Chinese Nationalists. On a side note along this line, Chiang sent his son to Moscow for training, and the Soviets helped Chiang set up the Nationalists' first military training school.

* Chiang relied heavily on two Soviet advisers named Borodin and Galen. Most of Chiang's combat operational decisions were made by Galen.

* The areas in China with a substantial Japanese presence were among the most economically prosperous in China because the Japanese invested large sums of money in infrastructure and finance in those areas, whereas most of the areas controlled by the Nationalists and the Communists were poor and backward.

* For many years, the Nationalists only controlled a part of southern China; the rest of the country was controlled by rival warlords.

* At no time did the Nationalists control Manchuria. For a time, the Manchurian warlord allied himself with Chiang, but the "alliance" became so bad that Chiang found it necessary to go to war against the warlord.

* The Nationalists committed numerous massacres and mass executions, although they were not as vicious as the Communists. As I've noted before, the Nationalists actually killed more people than did the Japanese army.

* Chiang had several opportunities to reach an entirely fair, if not downright generous, peace deal with the Japanese, a deal that would have spared China from Communist takeover, that would have granted the Nationalists control over all of China, and that would not have required the Nationalists to formally recognize Japan's state in Manchuria but just to agree to leave it alone.

* After Japan's surrender, Truman and Marshall imposed an arms embargo against the Nationalists, which gave the Communists crucial time to rearm and titled the war against the Nationalists. Truman and Marshall cut off weapons to Chiang because he refused to halt a major offensive against the Communists, and because he rejected their idiotic, treasonous demand that he form a coalition government with the Communists and that he agree to another truce with the Communists.

* Chiang actually had the Communists on the ropes and was about to launch a major offensive against them in Manchuria that could have proved decisive, but Truman and Marshall were so opposed to this that they imposed the arms embargo in order to prevent the offensive (pp. 468-469)! As mentioned, the embargo gave the Communists crucial time to recover and to rearm, and it swung the momentum of the war in the Communists' favor.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Chiang had several opportunities to reach an entirely fair, if not downright generous, peace deal with the Japanese, a deal that would have spared China from Communist takeover, that would have granted the Nationalists control over all of China, and that would not have required the Nationalists to formally recognize Japan's state in Manchuria but just to agree to leave it alone.



Again.  I beat you over the head with a baseball bat, take your wallet, and promise to give you your credit cards back if you give me a blow job.  

That by you is a generous offer.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * After Japan's surrender, Truman and Marshall imposed an arms embargo against the Nationalists, which gave the Communists crucial time to rearm and titled the war against the Nationalists. Truman and Marshall cut off weapons to Chiang because he refused to halt a major offensive against the Communists, and because he rejected their idiotic, treasonous demand that he form a coalition government with the Communists and that he agree to another truce with the Communists.



Given the Communists were just as instrumental in defeating the Japanese as he was... maybe more so... that wasn't an unreasonable request.  Wow, trying to avoid a prolonged civil war through negotiations... what a bastard Truman was.  Clearly, after 70 million dead in WWII, we just didn't have enough war.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Chiang had several opportunities to reach an entirely fair, if not downright generous, peace deal with the Japanese, a deal that would have spared China from Communist takeover, that would have granted the Nationalists control over all of China, and that would not have required the Nationalists to formally recognize Japan's state in Manchuria but just to agree to leave it alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  I beat you over the head with a baseball bat, take your wallet, and promise to give you your credit cards back if you give me a blow job.
> 
> That by you is a generous offer.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> * After Japan's surrender, Truman and Marshall imposed an arms embargo against the Nationalists, which gave the Communists crucial time to rearm and titled the war against the Nationalists. Truman and Marshall cut off weapons to Chiang because he refused to halt a major offensive against the Communists, and because he rejected their idiotic, treasonous demand that he form a coalition government with the Communists and that he agree to another truce with the Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the Communists were just as instrumental in defeating the Japanese as he was... maybe more so... that wasn't an unreasonable request.  Wow, trying to avoid a prolonged civil war through negotiations... what a bastard Truman was.  Clearly, after 70 million dead in WWII, we just didn't have enough war.
Click to expand...




You idiot. Do you have any idea how many Chinese people died (and are still dying) because your idol insisted the communists win?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You idiot. Do you have any idea how many Chinese people died (and are still dying) because your idol insisted the communists win?



The Communists were going to win, regardless.  The fact that Chiang needed constant inflows of cash to stay afloat was part of the problem.   

American diplomats referred to him as "Cash My Check" and "Peanut"...  This is not what you call an allied leader you respect. 

The only reason why he didn't get that firing squad he rightly deserved was that we found it useful to set him up in Taiwan and keep China's UN vote out of Beijing's hands for a few decades.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Chiang had several opportunities to reach an entirely fair, if not downright generous, peace deal with the Japanese, a deal that would have spared China from Communist takeover, that would have granted the Nationalists control over all of China, and that would not have required the Nationalists to formally recognize Japan's state in Manchuria but just to agree to leave it alone.





JoeB131 said:


> Again.  I beat you over the head with a baseball bat, take your wallet, and promise to give you your credit cards back if you give me a $*%&$.



Again, this is an idiotic, erroneous analogy that bears no resemblance to the subject. The Japanese did not even start the war, were badly outnumbered when the Nationalists attacked, waited to send reinforcements precisely because they did not want war, etc., etc., etc. I've documented these facts, but you just keep ignoring them.

In 1935, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William C. Bullitt sent a dispatch to Secretary of State Cordell Hull:

It is … the heartiest hope of the Soviet Government that the United States will become involved in war with Japan.... To think of the Soviet Union as a possible ally of the United States in case of war with Japan is to allow the wish to be father to the thought. The Soviet Union would certainly attempt to avoid becoming an ally until Japan had been thoroughly defeated and would then merely use the opportunity to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China.​
James Perloff notes:

In the 1930s Japan moved troops into Manchuria (northern China). U.S. history books routinely call this an imperialistic invasion. While there is certainly truth in this interpretation, the books rarely mention that Japan was largely reacting, in its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Soviets’ incursions into Asia — namely their seizure of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia. Anthony Kubek, Chairman of Political Science at the University of Dallas, wrote in _How the Far East Was Lost_:​
It was apparent to Japanese statesmen that unless bastions of defense were built in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, Communism would spread through all of North China and seriously threaten the security of Japan. To the Japanese, expansion in Manchuria was a national imperative.... But the Department of State seemed not to regard Japan as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in North China. As a matter of fact, not one word of protest was sent by the Department of State to the Soviet Union, despite her absorption of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia, while at the same time Japan was censured for stationing troops in China.​


JoeB131 said:


> That by you is a generous offer.



Again, you're an idiot. Numerous historians from all across the spectrum have acknowledged that the Japanese offer was fair and even generous. Your answer? All those historians are "fascists!" You're an ignorant caveman.



mikegriffith1 said:


> * After Japan's surrender, Truman and Marshall imposed an arms embargo against the Nationalists, which gave the Communists crucial time to rearm and titled the war against the Nationalists. Truman and Marshall cut off weapons to Chiang because he refused to halt a major offensive against the Communists, and because he rejected their idiotic, treasonous demand that he form a coalition government with the Communists and that he agree to another truce with the Communists.





JoeB131 said:


> Given the Communists were just as instrumental in defeating the Japanese as he was... maybe more so... that wasn't an unreasonable request.



Holy freaking cow!  Where do you get this fiction? The Communists were just as instrumental in beating the Japanese as the Nationalists were???!!! Again, you're an idiot. You have no clue what you're talking about, and you won't read anything to educate yourself.

But, just for the sake of others, can you cite one book, other than Communist Chinese books, that says that the Communists played just as much of a role, if not a bigger role, as the Nationalists did in beating the Japanese? Just one. Name just one.



> Wow, trying to avoid a prolonged civil war through negotiations... what a bastard Truman was.  Clearly, after 70 million dead in WWII, we just didn't have enough war.



Wow!!!  Just when I thought you had reached the limits of ignorance and mythology, and contradiction, you peddle this howler. Your argument here displays an unbelievable level of ignorance, not to mention that it markedly contradicts your earlier vehement rejection of negotiation to end the Pacific War.

The Nationalist-Communist civil war had only resumed in August-September 1945, and Truman and Marshall cut off arms to Chiang just as he was about to deliver a crushing blow to the Communists. When Chiang was about to strike, he had already forced the Communists to abandon the key areas of Jiangsu, Shandong, Henan, and Shanxi, and was about to take Ralgan, which was the Red Army's major center near Peiping. It was at precisely this crucial point, this golden opportunity to end the war and establish a free China, that Truman and Marshall saved the Communists by cutting off arms to the Nationalists.

Chiang Kai-shek wrote: “Stilwell [the American general assigned by FDR to "help" the Nationalists] was in a conspiracy with the Communists to overthrow the Government” — an opinion shared by General Hurley, who stated: “The record of General Stilwell in China is irrevocably coupled in history with the conspiracy to overthrow the Nationalist Government of China, and to set up in its place a Communist regime — and all this movement was part of, and cannot be separated from, the Communist cell or apparatus that existed at the time in the Government in Washington.”

Perloff:

What “cell” did Ambassador Hurley refer to? In China, he was surrounded by a State Department clique favoring a Chinese communist takeover. Dean Acheson, who as a young attorney had represented Soviet interests in America, became Assistant Secretary of State in 1941. As such, he ensured the State Department’s Far Eastern Division was dominated by communists and pro-communists, including Alger Hiss (subsequently proven a Soviet spy); John Carter Vincent, director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, later identified by Daily Worker editor Louis Budenz as a communist; John Stewart Service, Foreign Service Officer in China who turned State Department information over to the Chinese communists, and was arrested by the FBI in the Amerasia spy case (about which more later); Foreign Service Officer John P. Davies, who consistently lobbied for the communists; Owen Lattimore, appointed U.S. adviser to Chiang Kai-shek but identified as a communist by ex-communists Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley; and several others. . . .

Before leaving for China, Marshall revealed he already accepted the communist propaganda line. Five-star Fleet Admiral William Leahy reported: “I was present when Marshall was going to China. He said he was going to tell Chiang that he had to get on with the Communists or without help from us. He said the same thing when he got back.” And when told Mao Tse-tung and his followers were communists, Marshall remarked: “Don’t be ridiculous. These fellows are just old-fashioned agrarian reformers.”
When Marshall first arrived in China, the Nationalists outnumbered the communists 5-1 in both troops and rifles, and were successfully driving them back. Marshall, however, imposed a total of three truces — which the communists violated, allowing them to regroup, bring up Soviet supplies, and further train their guerillas. This expanded their control from 57 Chinese counties to 310. General Claire Chennault recounted the impact of Marshall’s truces:

North of Hankow some 200,000 government troops had surrounded 70,000 Communist troops and were beginning a methodical job of extermination. The Communists appealed to Marshall on the basis of his truce proposal, and arrangements were made for fighting to cease while the Communists marched out of the trap and on to Shantung Province, where a large Communist offensive began about a year later. On the East River near Canton some 100,000 Communist troops were trapped by government forces. The truce teams effected their release and allowed the Communists to march unmolested to Bias Bay where they boarded junks and sailed to Shantung.​
Marshall’s disastrous 15-month China mission ended in January 1947. Upon his return to the United States, President Truman rewarded his failures with appointment as Secretary of State. Marshall imposed a weapons embargo on the Nationalists, while the communists continued receiving a steady weapons supply from the USSR. Marshall boasted that he disarmed 39 anti-communist divisions “with a stroke of the pen.” This doomed Chinese freedom.​
What kind of a "conservative" are you to defend this horrendous treason, treason that enabled the Communists to take over China and to then kill at least 30 million people to consolidate their bloody rule?

I am not usually so blunt with people in this forum, but you are the biggest jerk I have ever encountered in this forum or in any other forum.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Again, this is an idiotic, erroneous analogy that bears no resemblance to the subject. The Japanese did not even start the war, were badly outnumbered when the Nationalists attacked, waited to send reinforcements precisely because they did not want war, etc., etc., etc. I've documented these facts, but you just keep ignoring them.



Because it's bullshit.. Look at a map. There's a whole fucking sea separating Japan from China...  The Japs had to CROSS a sea to go invade China's territory.  China didn't have a Navy, so there was no way they could fuck with the Japanese unless the Japanese crossed an ocean to go fuck with them.  

But the Japanese were the nice guys, and the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Burmese who all found themselves being attacked by Japan, they just misunderstood Hirohito's "Peaceful" intentions... 

Seriously, dude, FOAD.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The Nationalist-Communist civil war had only resumed in August-September 1945, and Truman and Marshall cut off arms to Chiang just as he was about to deliver a crushing blow to the Communists. When Chiang was about to strike, he had already forced the Communists to abandon the key areas of Jiangsu, Shandong, Henan, and Shanxi, and was about to take Ralgan, which was the Red Army's major center near Peiping. It was at precisely this crucial point, this golden opportunity to end the war and establish a free China, that Truman and Marshall saved the Communists by cutting off arms to the Nationalists.



again- if "Cash My Check" couldn't win the war without us propping him up, maybe he shouldn't have been in power. 

China under Chiang wasn't going to be "Free".  It was going to be a fascist dictatorship run by a boob.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> What kind of a "conservative" are you to defend this horrendous treason, treason that enabled the Communists to take over China and to then kill at least 30 million people to consolidate their bloody rule?



Uh, guy, why is the INTERNAL problems of China, our problem.  "Peanut" wasn't able to rally the Chinese people behind him, no matter how much money we pumped into his corrupt and incompetent regime....

You do realize when your allies call you "Peanut" and "Cash My Check", they have no respect for you, so why should your own people?  

Here was the thing... Peanut was a fucking Nazi.  In fact, a lot of people in Nazi Germany wanted to ally with him instead of Japan, but then they realized the guy could pretty much fuck up a wet dream.  The the US Spent years trying to prop up his sad as, fucked up regime. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> What kind of a "conservative" are you to defend this horrendous treason, treason that enabled the Communists to take over China and to then kill at least 30 million people to consolidate their bloody rule?
> 
> I am not usually so blunt with people in this forum, but you are the biggest jerk I have ever encountered in this forum or in any other forum.



I'm going to blunt with you...  you are a Nazi/Axis loving piece of shit...  History turned out pretty much okay because the Allies won WWII.  Your horseshit revisionism deserves the mocking I give it.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is an idiotic, erroneous analogy that bears no resemblance to the subject. The Japanese did not even start the war, were badly outnumbered when the Nationalists attacked, waited to send reinforcements precisely because they did not want war, etc., etc., etc. I've documented these facts, but you just keep ignoring them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's bullshit.. Look at a map. There's a whole fucking sea separating Japan from China...  The Japs had to CROSS a sea to go invade China's territory.  China didn't have a Navy, so there was no way they could fuck with the Japanese unless the Japanese crossed an ocean to go fuck with them.
> 
> But the Japanese were the nice guys, and the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Burmese who all found themselves being attacked by Japan, they just misunderstood Hirohito's "Peaceful" intentions...
> 
> Seriously, dude, FOAD.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nationalist-Communist civil war had only resumed in August-September 1945, and Truman and Marshall cut off arms to Chiang just as he was about to deliver a crushing blow to the Communists. When Chiang was about to strike, he had already forced the Communists to abandon the key areas of Jiangsu, Shandong, Henan, and Shanxi, and was about to take Ralgan, which was the Red Army's major center near Peiping. It was at precisely this crucial point, this golden opportunity to end the war and establish a free China, that Truman and Marshall saved the Communists by cutting off arms to the Nationalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again- if "Cash My Check" couldn't win the war without us propping him up, maybe he shouldn't have been in power.
> 
> China under Chiang wasn't going to be "Free".  It was going to be a fascist dictatorship run by a boob.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of a "conservative" are you to defend this horrendous treason, treason that enabled the Communists to take over China and to then kill at least 30 million people to consolidate their bloody rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, why is the INTERNAL problems of China, our problem.  "Peanut" wasn't able to rally the Chinese people behind him, no matter how much money we pumped into his corrupt and incompetent regime....
> 
> You do realize when your allies call you "Peanut" and "Cash My Check", they have no respect for you, so why should your own people?
> 
> Here was the thing... Peanut was a fucking Nazi.  In fact, a lot of people in Nazi Germany wanted to ally with him instead of Japan, but then they realized the guy could pretty much fuck up a wet dream.  The the US Spent years trying to prop up his sad as, fucked up regime.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of a "conservative" are you to defend this horrendous treason, treason that enabled the Communists to take over China and to then kill at least 30 million people to consolidate their bloody rule?
> 
> I am not usually so blunt with people in this forum, but you are the biggest jerk I have ever encountered in this forum or in any other forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to blunt with you...  you are a Nazi/Axis loving piece of shit...  History turned out pretty much okay because the Allies won WWII.  Your horseshit revisionism deserves the mocking I give it.
Click to expand...


Good grief, what an idiot and jerk you are. You keep ignoring facts that refute your Stalinist-Maoist-FDR-Truman version of history. You ignored every fact in my previous reply and just resorted to your usual ignorant name-calling and PC syrup talking points.

I think about 90% of the planet would agree that China would have been better off under the Nationalists than under the Communists, but you seem to be in the 10% who think otherwise.

When the Nationalists fled to Taiwan and set up a government there, they established a free country and created one of the greatest economic success stories of the 20th century. The Communists had to establish massive patrols on the coast facing Taiwan to keep people from going to Taiwan in boats and rafts. The last time I checked, no one has ever accused the Nationalists of having killed 30 million people to consolidate their rule, as the Communists did on the mainland.

And I didn't see you cite any books to support your fantastic claim that the Communists did as much as, or more than, the Nationalists to defeat the Japanese. Again, books written by Chinese Communists do not count. I'll be reminding you periodically of your failure to find a single non-Communist book that supports your claim. 

I've already answered your caveman posturing about the Axis losing vs. the Allies winning. Personally, I think it was tragic that FDR and Truman so mishandled the war that the Soviets were able to not only stay in power but to impose their rule on Eastern Europe. I also think it's tragic that the Communists took over China and proceeded to murder 30 million people to consolidate their rule. Your caveman brain can't seem to understand the idea of lesser of evils. Yes, the Nationalists were corrupt, but they were not nearly as bad as the Communists.

One of the best books on Truman’s handing over of China to the Communists and his betrayal of the Nationalists is Dr. Anthony Kubek’s classic work _How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 _(Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963). Dr. Kubek was the chairman of the political science department at the University of Dallas. Kirkus Reviews noted that historians who disagree with Kubek’s conclusions “will have their work cut out for them refuting all the damning detail in Dr. Kubek's charges.” Here are some excerpts from Dr. Kubek’s book (pp. 285-296):


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Good grief, what an idiot and jerk you are. You keep ignoring facts that refute your Stalinist-Maoist-FDR-Truman version of history.



You mean the version of history that ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 

History doesn't have "Versions".  History just happens... and you can debate why things happened, but you really can't debate what happened. 

What happened was- wait for it - the National Government of Peanut was inept in stopping the Japanese from invading, and when the Japanese lost, people looked to the Communists for answers...  

That's history.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> I think about 90% of the planet would agree that China would have been better off under the Nationalists than under the Communists, but you seem to be in the 10% who think otherwise.



Why would anyone think that.  Under the Nationalists, the country was invaded by Japan and splintered into dozens of warlord states.  

Heck, Taiwan couldn't wait to vote the Kuomintang out when they were allowed to finally vote.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> When the Nationalists fled to Taiwan and set up a government there, they established a free country and created one of the greatest economic success stories of the 20th century. The Communists had to establish massive patrols on the coast facing Taiwan to keep people from going to Taiwan in boats and rafts. The last time I checked, no one has ever accused the Nationalists of having killed 30 million people to consolidate their rule, as the Communists did on the mainland.



ONly because they didn't have 30 million people to kill...   

And, yeah, when the US Props your Island up for decades to keep your UN vote...  I guess you'll have a good time.  

I'm actually more impressed with what the Communists did.  They took a fractured, war torn nation and turned it into the world's largest economy..  



mikegriffith1 said:


> One of the best books on Truman’s handing over of China to the Communists and his betrayal of the Nationalists is Dr. Anthony Kubek’s classic work



Wow, another White Person telling Asian people their business...   They should be so happy to have White People telling them how they should live their lives...


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Good grief, what an idiot and jerk you are. You keep ignoring facts that refute your Stalinist-Maoist-FDR-Truman version of history.





JoeB131 said:


> You mean the version of history that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
> 
> History doesn't have "Versions".  History just happens... and you can debate why things happened, but you really can't debate what happened.



This is just comical. 

In your version of history, the Communists did just as much to defeat the Japanese as did the Nationalists, if not more. That's utter fiction. Again, find me one book, other than a Chinese Communist book, that supports this myth.



JoeB131 said:


> What happened was- wait for it - the National Government of Peanut was inept in stopping the Japanese from invading, and when the Japanese lost, people looked to the Communists for answers...  That's history.



LOL! That's the Chinese Communist and Soviet version of the war!

Did you read the quote from Dr. Kubek's book? The Nationalists had the Communists on the ropes and were getting ready to deliver a crushing blow when Truman and Marshall, implementing Soviet policy goals, cut off arms to Chiang's army.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> I think about 90% of the planet would agree that China would have been better off under the Nationalists than under the Communists, but you seem to be in the 10% who think otherwise.





JoeB131 said:


> Why would anyone think that.



Uh, my heavens, why wouldn't they? When the Pacific War ended, the Nationalists cut their ties to the Soviets and focused on defeating the Communists. The Nationalists were not Jeffersonians, but they were not nearly as bad as the Communists. No one in their right mind would deny that Taiwan under Chiang's rule was far, far more tolerant, moderate, and capitalist than was Communist rule in China.



JoeB131 said:


> Under the Nationalists, the country was invaded by Japan and splintered into dozens of warlord states.



Not on this planet. The war lords controlled most of China long before the Japanese established any kind of control in Manchuria and long before the Sino-Japanese War began. Chiang spent his first several years in power taking most of northern China away from the warlords at a huge cost in blood and treasure.

Chiang's big mistake was bowing to FDR and Stalin's pressure not to make peace with the Japanese. Stalin was desperate to avoid a Sino-Japanese peace because he knew this would free up dozens of divisions of the Japanese army to threaten his eastern flank. 



JoeB131 said:


> Heck, Taiwan couldn't wait to vote the Kuomintang out when they were allowed to finally vote.



You don't know what in the world you're talking about. Where are you getting this nonsense? From Chinese Communist sources? Just FYI, the Kuomintang voluntarily began allowing general elections in 1986 and had already been allowing local elections since the early 1970s. A Kuomintang candidate has won the presidency twice in the last 20 years alone. The Kuomintang is still a major party on Taiwan. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> When the Nationalists fled to Taiwan and set up a government there, they established a free country and created one of the greatest economic success stories of the 20th century. The Communists had to establish massive patrols on the coast facing Taiwan to keep people from going to Taiwan in boats and rafts. The last time I checked, no one has ever accused the Nationalists of having killed 30 million people to consolidate their rule, as the Communists did on the mainland.





JoeB131 said:


> Only because they didn't have 30 million people to kill...



What's your basis for making this absurd claim? Are you from mainland China? Is your family? Is that why you keep repeating Chinese Communist propaganda about the Nationalists, Japan, and Taiwan? 

Red China had to maintain massive naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait for decades because so many Chinese were trying to flee Communist tyranny and get to Taiwan by boat or raft, since they knew that on Taiwan they would have far more freedom than they did in China and would not have to worry about bloody purges, summary executions, and starvation.



JoeB131 said:


> And, yeah, when the US Props your Island up for decades to keep your UN vote...  I guess you'll have a good time.



Another Chinese Communist talking point. Again, I ask you seriously: Are you from China? Is your family from China? 

FYI, Taiwan prospered mainly because Chiang adopted a free enterprise system and opened his nation to international trade. 

Under Kuomintang rule, there was freedom of religion, substantial freedom of the press (unless you were pro-Communist), freedom of association, and a viable judicial system with checks and balances. My church was able to establish missions on Taiwan, as were many other churches, during Chiang's rule, while Red China banned Christian churches and began rounding up Christians and either jailing them or executing them. 



JoeB131 said:


> I'm actually more impressed with what the Communists did.  They took a fractured, war torn nation and turned it into the world's largest economy.



What incredible idiocy and mythology. Do you just not know that the Communists proceeded to kill at least 30 million people over the next two decades to consolidate their rule? Go talk to Hong Kong about Chinese Communist rule. Go talk to the families of the students who were murdered in Tiananmen Square in 1989--tell them how impressed you are with Red China. 

Under Mao, China suffered from famine that killed millions and mass murders that killed at least 30 million. Only in the last 20 years or so, when Chinese leaders adopted free market principles in key economic sectors, did China finally began to make substantial economic progress, but that progress was not accompanied by any substantive democratic reforms. China remains a brutal totalitarian regime. There is no freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> One of the best books on Truman’s handing over of China to the Communists and his betrayal of the Nationalists is Dr. Anthony Kubek’s classic work





JoeB131 said:


> Wow, another White Person telling Asian people their business...   They should be so happy to have White People telling them how they should live their lives...



LOL! Huh? Just Huh? This is just hilarious. That's your only comment about Dr. Kubek's documentation of Truman's betrayal of China to the Communists? Oh, wait: I forget: You think the Communists did a great job in China--never mind the 30 million-plus people they murdered to consolidate their power.


----------



## jasonlee3071

I remember reading this book. It was a short one for a historical book. I don't think I could sit through and read it again as the details are really nauseating or stomach churning. The one remarkable thing I remember from reading this story is that the main hero was actually a Nazi. A German businessman who ran a company in Nanking where this happened. He would actually go out of his way to save people being killed or raped by these Japanese bastards by flashing his swastika arm band in front of their faces.
Because the Japanese soldiers wouldn't dare to attack or do anything to a foriegner especially a European (being German and a member of an allied nation with Japan may have helped also). Also he opened his property up to use as a refuge for these same people who were injured by the maurading Japs.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is just comical.
> 
> In your version of history, the Communists did just as much to defeat the Japanese as did the Nationalists, if not more. That's utter fiction. Again, find me one book, other than a Chinese Communist book, that supports this myth.



Actually, that was the opinion of the OSS at the time, that the Communists were doing more to defeat Japan than Peanut was. 

Seriously, guy, what John Birch Society Hole did you crawl out of.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> What's your basis for making this absurd claim? Are you from mainland China? Is your family? Is that why you keep repeating Chinese Communist propaganda about the Nationalists, Japan, and Taiwan?



Weren't you the one who argued earlier in this thread that the KMT was just as bad as Japan because they flooded some land and some people died?  Please try to keep your story straight if Peanut was a hero or a villian. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> What incredible idiocy and mythology. Do you just not know that the Communists proceeded to kill at least 30 million people over the next two decades to consolidate their rule? .



First, you only get to that 30 million number if you count famines and shit.   Second, um, civil wars in China always kind of tend to suck.  The Taiping Rebellion (Led by some nut who thought he was Jesus Brother) killed 20 million people. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Go talk to Hong Kong about Chinese Communist rule. Go talk to the families of the students who were murdered in Tiananmen Square in 1989--tell them how impressed you are with Red China.



You mean the British Colony they just liberated, or the spoiled kids who thought they could take on tanks?  

Why is any of this MY problem?  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Under Mao, China suffered from famine that killed millions and mass murders that killed at least 30 million. Only in the last 20 years or so, when Chinese leaders adopted free market principles in key economic sectors, did China finally began to make substantial economic progress, but that progress was not accompanied by any substantive democratic reforms. China remains a brutal totalitarian regime. There is no freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.



I thought you wingnuts said you can't have free markets without democracy!   Come one, once more, GET YOUR FUCKING STORY STRAIGHT.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Huh? Just Huh? This is just hilarious. That's your only comment about Dr. Kubek's documentation of Truman's betrayal of China to the Communists? Oh, wait: I forget: You think the Communists did a great job in China--never mind the 30 million-plus people they murdered to consolidate their power.



I would be more interested in what Chinese people think about their history than some white guy from the John Birch Society.  

Then again, the only movie I ever saw about the Nanking Massacre was largely told from the perspective of white people who were inconvenienced... 

White People... CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!!!!


----------



## Unkotare

jasonlee3071 said:


> ....
> Because the Japanese soldiers wouldn't dare to attack or do anything to a foriegner [sic] especially a European......



Want to think about that statement again?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> You idiot. Do you have any idea how many Chinese people died (and are still dying) because your idol insisted the communists win?





JoeB131 said:


> The Communists were going to win, regardless.



Actually, that's just not true. The Nationalists had the war well in hand and were poised to strike a crushing blow against the Communists when Truman and Marshall intervened to save the Communists. Dr. Kubek:
















JoeB131 said:


> The fact that Chiang needed constant inflows of cash to stay afloat was part of the problem.



Umm, actually, that Chinese Communist talking point isn't true either. Chiang was able to finance a large part of his operations from tax revenues collected in the areas he controlled, which by 1946 consisted of most of China proper. 

The Communists, on the other hand, were getting massive amounts of weapons and supplies from the Soviets.    



JoeB131 said:


> American diplomats referred to him as "Cash My Check" and "Peanut"...  This is not what you call an allied leader you respect.



Only scum like Stillwell attacked Chiang in this manner. Others, such as Hurley and Leahy, ardently supported Chiang and vehemently objected to Truman and Marshall's sellout to the Communists. Read Kubek's book.



JoeB131 said:


> The only reason why he didn't get that firing squad he rightly deserved was that we found it useful to set him up in Taiwan and keep China's UN vote out of Beijing's hands for a few decades.



"Firing squad"???!!! Either you or some close relatives are from China, right? If Chiang deserved a firing squad for doing FDR and Truman's bidding against the Japanese and for trying to destroy the Communists once and for all, what did Mao Tsetung deserve? 

Your selective morality is disgusting and seems to always come down on the side of the Communists, whether it be the Soviet Union or Communist China. 

Oh, yes, Chiang had issues with corruption, and the Nationalists killed slightly more people than did the Japanese, but the Communists were far worse than the Nationalists or the Japanese. The Nationalists and the Japanese believed in free enterprise and were far more moderate in their policies on civil liberties than were the Communists. 

When it came to the numbers of people killed, the Nationalists were slightly worse than the Japanese. But when it came to civil liberties, the Nationalists were somewhat better than the Japanese. When it came to economic development, the Japanese were somewhat better than the Nationalists, but both were infinitely better than the Communists. The Communists caused millions of deaths just by their disastrous Marxist agricultural policies alone after they came to power. Under Mao's rule, China suffered from economic stagnation, not to mention from bloody purges that killed tens of millions of people.

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years'


----------



## JoeB131

Axis Silly strikes again. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Actually, that's just not true. The Nationalists had the war well in hand and were poised to strike a crushing blow against the Communists when Truman and Marshall intervened to save the Communists. Dr. Kubek:



This is where you are a little delusional... A negotiated peace was desired because if the Communists looked liked they were about to be crushed, the USSR would have intervened to save them.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Only scum like Stillwell attacked Chiang in this manner. Others, such as Hurley and Leahy, ardently supported Chiang and vehemently objected to Truman and Marshall's sellout to the Communists. Read Kubek's book.



Stillwell was the guy who understood how absolutely worthless Chiang was...  

_Stilwell was infuriated also by the rampant corruption of the Chiang regime. In his diary, which he faithfully kept, Stilwell began to note the corruption and the amount of money ($380,584,000 in 1944 dollars) being wasted upon the procrastinating Chiang and his government. T*he Cambridge History of China, for instance, estimates that some 60%–70% of Chiang's Kuomintang conscripts did not make it through their basic training, with some 40% deserting and the remaining 20% dying of starvation before full induction into the military.* Eventually, Stilwell's belief that the generalissimo and his generals were incompetent and corrupt reached such proportions that Stilwell sought to cut off Lend-Lease aid to China.[34] Stilwell even ordered Office of Strategic Services (OSS) officers to draw up contingency plans to assassinate Chiang Kai-shek after he heard Roosevelt's casual remarks regarding the possible defeat of Chiang by either internal or external enemies, and if this happened to replace Chiang with someone else to continue the Chinese resistance against Japan.[35]_

And then you have this Gem from Axis Silly



mikegriffith1 said:


> When it came to the numbers of people killed, the Nationalists were slightly worse than the Japanese. But when it came to civil liberties, the Nationalists were somewhat better than the Japanese. When it came to economic development, the Japanese were somewhat better than the Nationalists, but both were infinitely better than the Communists. The Communists caused millions of deaths just by their disastrous Marxist agricultural policies alone after they came to power. Under Mao's rule, China suffered from economic stagnation, not to mention from bloody purges that killed tens of millions of people.



Actually, under Mao, China went from a fractured nation torn by decades of war and factionalism to being a world-class power. The most brilliant moment in our diplomatic history was when Nixon went to China... because he was the only one who could. 

But I can see your confusion, Axis Silly, about whether your love the Japanese Fascists or the Chinese Fascists more... it's a tough choice if you think Fascism is nifty.


----------



## mikegriffith1

For those who might be interested, I have uploaded most of chapter 14 from Dr. Anthony Kubek's book_ How the Far East Was Lost:
_
http://miketgriffith.com/files/kubekchapter14.pdf

I see JoeB131 is doubling down on his shocking defense of mass murderer Mao Tsetung and Communist China. I have never seen anyone but Chinese Communists defend Mao and Red China the way JoeB131 is defending them. Even most radical American leftists will not deny Mao's brutality and mass murders. But JoeB131 is doing exactly that.

Here are a few of the hundreds of sources on the brutal tyranny that Mao and his fellow Communists imposed on China after Truman and Marshall handed the country to them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ving-historys-greatest-mass-murderer-his-due/

The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years'

The Worst Mass Murder of All Time

Mao Zedong - Conservapedia

NoCookies | The Australian

Mao, the mass murderer, and his supporters | Eamonn Fitzgerald: Rainy Day

Hitler to Stalin: The most murderous regimes in the world | Daily Mail Online

MAO AND TERROR

China Should Spurn Mass Murderer Mao

And here are some articles on the stark contrast between Mao's brutal tyranny and Chiang's Republic of China on Taiwan:

Why Taiwan Grew Rich While the Mainland Starved | José Niño

https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-75-2-Carolan.pdf

Judgment of history - Taiwan Today


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> For those who might be interested, I have uploaded most of chapter 14 from Dr. Anthony Kubek's book_ How the Far East Was Lost:_



Bunch of white guys talking down to Asians...  



mikegriffith1 said:


> I see JoeB131 is doubling down on his shocking defense of mass murderer Mao Tsetung and Communist China. I have never seen anyone but Chinese Communists defend Mao and Red China the way JoeB131 is defending them. Even most radical American leftists will not deny Mao's brutality and mass murders. But JoeB131 is doing exactly that.
> 
> Here are a few of the hundreds of sources on the brutal tyranny that Mao and his fellow Communists imposed on China after Truman and Marshall handed the country to them:



Mao Zedong inherited a broken country and made it a world power.  He was a bastard in the way Stalin was a bastard.  But e can thank Stalin for Hitler not winning the war. 

(Oh, wait, Axis Silly, you probably think that's a bad thing.)  

As for your sources, most of them are crazy right wing sources like the heritage foundation and Epoch Times.. Seems if his "Brutality" was so self-evident, you'd find liberal or neutral sources... 

The reality- Chinese see him as the father of Modern China...


----------



## jasonlee3071

.[/QUOTE]Want to think about that statement again?[/QUOTE]

Don't really have to. Read the book by Iris Chang. She tells the whole story about him and the other foriegners who were in China at the time. There were even American missionaries there while this incident was occuring. None of them were attacked or raped by the Japanese soldiers.
For diplomatic/political reasons Americans(civilians) and Europeans were not harmed or attacked by the Japanese military.


----------



## Unkotare

jasonlee3071 said:


> .


Want to think about that statement again?[/QUOTE]

Don't really have to. Read the book by Iris Chang. ...[/QUOTE]


That book has long since been discredited. Try reading this entire thread.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who might be interested, I have uploaded most of chapter 14 from Dr. Anthony Kubek's book_ How the Far East Was Lost:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bunch of white guys talking down to Asians...
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see JoeB131 is doubling down on his shocking defense of mass murderer Mao Tsetung and Communist China. I have never seen anyone but Chinese Communists defend Mao and Red China the way JoeB131 is defending them. Even most radical American leftists will not deny Mao's brutality and mass murders. But JoeB131 is doing exactly that.
> 
> Here are a few of the hundreds of sources on the brutal tyranny that Mao and his fellow Communists imposed on China after Truman and Marshall handed the country to them:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mao Zedong inherited a broken country and made it a world power.  ...
Click to expand...



No he didn’t, you Ignorant commie idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> No he didn’t, you Ignorant commie idiot.



Okay... I guess if you are completely ignorant of Chinese history from the Opium War until 1949, you could make this statement. 

This is what China looked like before the Japanese invaded Manchuria...






Shit. That doesn't look good.  

Here it is in 1946 when Axis Mikey claims Peanut was doing such a great job running the country until he was foiled by those darned Americans.






That's kind of messed up... No wonder the Commies won.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who might be interested, I have uploaded most of chapter 14 from Dr. Anthony Kubek's book_ How the Far East Was Lost:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bunch of white guys talking down to Asians...
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see JoeB131 is doubling down on his shocking defense of mass murderer Mao Tsetung and Communist China. I have never seen anyone but Chinese Communists defend Mao and Red China the way JoeB131 is defending them. Even most radical American leftists will not deny Mao's brutality and mass murders. But JoeB131 is doing exactly that.
> 
> Here are a few of the hundreds of sources on the brutal tyranny that Mao and his fellow Communists imposed on China after Truman and Marshall handed the country to them:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mao Zedong inherited a broken country and made it a world power.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn’t, you Ignorant commie idiot.
Click to expand...



China was never anything like a world power under mao. All he managed to do was destroy much of the country’s culture and history while overseeing the deaths of tens of millions through murder and famine. Of course such a monster would be a favorite of yours. It wasn’t until Deng that China started down a path to prosperity.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> China was never anything like a world power under mao. All he managed to do was destroy much of the country’s culture and history while overseeing the deaths of tens of millions through murder and famine. Of course such a monster would be a favorite of yours. It wasn’t until Deng that China started down a path to prosperity.



Let's see. 

Under Mao..

China became a nuclear power.
It had one of the worlds' largest armies.
the President of the United States felt the need to travel there on bended knee to make good relations with them. 

So this is kind of where you are confused...


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who might be interested, I have uploaded most of chapter 14 from Dr. Anthony Kubek's book_ How the Far East Was Lost:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bunch of white guys talking down to Asians...
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see JoeB131 is doubling down on his shocking defense of mass murderer Mao Tsetung and Communist China. I have never seen anyone but Chinese Communists defend Mao and Red China the way JoeB131 is defending them. Even most radical American leftists will not deny Mao's brutality and mass murders. But JoeB131 is doing exactly that.
> 
> Here are a few of the hundreds of sources on the brutal tyranny that Mao and his fellow Communists imposed on China after Truman and Marshall handed the country to them:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mao Zedong inherited a broken country and made it a world power.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn’t, you Ignorant commie idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> China was never anything like a world power under mao. All he managed to do was destroy much of the country’s culture and history while overseeing the deaths of tens of millions through murder and famine. Of course such a monster would be a favorite of yours. It wasn’t until Deng that China started down a path to prosperity.
Click to expand...


The guy is just comical. In an earlier reply he said Japan's "invasion" led to the widespread rule of warlords, but in a reply today he shows a map that proves that China was already largely governed by warlords before the Japanese established a state in Manchuria.

He does seem to be a Communist. He talks like some Chinese Communists I've encountered online. A favorite tactic of Communists is to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being fascists, and JoeB131, as we've seen, has been brazen about this for the last week or so.

The guy's just a lying jerk. He keeps pretending that all the Axis nations were like Nazi Germany, and he's resorted to making the sick and bizarre claim that I'm pro-Hitler/pro-Nazi because I contend that we should have made Japan our ally, that we should not have rescued the Soviet Union, and that we should not have expelled Japan from Korea, Vietnam, and Manchuria. 

You know he's very far left when he claims that the highly respected and scholarly Heritage Foundation is a far-right, fringe organization. I guess he didn't notice that some of my sources on Mao's tyranny were liberal sources, including the Washington Post. I get the impression that he doesn't read many replies but skims over them before he answers them--most of the time he simply ignores evidence that's been presented to him. 

Anyway, for those who prefer videos to articles, here are some online videos on Mao and Communist China:






China’s Great Leap Backward

Mao's "Stinking 9" Hatred

Socialism kills: cannibalism & torture in Mao Zedong’s China


----------



## JoeB131

Axis Silly and Tokyo Pose strike again...  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The guy is just comical. In an earlier reply he said Japan's "invasion" led to the widespread rule of warlords, but in a reply today he shows a map that proves that China was already largely governed by warlords before the Japanese established a state in Manchuria.



You do realize the Japanese (and others) were fucking with China's internal politics before the Puppet State of Manchuko was established, right?  Do I have to go over the Opium Wars and the Unequal Treaties and the Boxer Rebellion all over again? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> He does seem to be a Communist. He talks like some Chinese Communists I've encountered online. A favorite tactic of Communists is to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being fascists, and JoeB131, as we've seen, has been brazen about this for the last week or so.



Well, I call you a fascist because you keep apologizing for them. I mean, according to you, FDR and Harry Truman were "Communists".  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The guy's just a lying jerk. He keeps pretending that all the Axis nations were like Nazi Germany, and he's resorted to making the sick and bizarre claim that I'm pro-Hitler/pro-Nazi because I contend that we should have made Japan our ally, that we should not have rescued the Soviet Union, and that we should not have expelled Japan from Korea, Vietnam, and Manchuria.



Um, yeah... you keep apologizing for their genocidal rampage across Asia...  but the Japanese were cool and all those other people they brutalized, including the Filipinos, were just wrong.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> You know he's very far left when he claims that the highly respected and scholarly Heritage Foundation



Nobody respects the Heritage Foundation... not even Republicans.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Let's revisit some facts to refute the stream of nonsense that JoeB131 keeps posting:

* No, the Communists were not going to defeat the Nationalists anyway, i.e., if Truman and Marshall had not back-stabbed the Nationalists. Quite the opposite. The claim that the Nationalists were doomed to lose to the Communists has long been a Communist talking point, and it is baseless.

When Truman and Marshall cut off aid to Chiang and imposed a ceasefire, Chiang had already forced the Communists to abandon the key areas of Jiangsu, Shandong, Henan, and Shanxi, and was about to take Ralgan, the Red Army's major center near Peiping. This is a matter of history that one can find in hundreds of history books (except, of course, in Chinese Communists history books, which seem to be JoeB131's main source of information). As historian Anne Carroll points out,

There is no question that Chiang was winning the majority of battles fought before the arms embargo, that he continued to win in the fall of 1946 before the full effects of the arms cut- off would have been felt, and that he won almost no battles after that. (Who Lost China? | EWTN)​
See also:

RESISTANCE WARS -- Political, Social, Cultural, Historical Analysis Of China
CIVIL WARS-- Political, Social, Cultural, Historical Analysis Of China
CIVIL WARS-- Political, Social, Cultural, Historical Analysis Of China​
I might add that not only did Truman and Marshall cut off aid to the Nationalists at a crucial time, but Truman's secretary of the treasury, Harry Dexter White, who we now know was a Communist agent, devalued Chinese Nationalist currency and delayed a crucial congressionally approved loan to the Nationalists.

Archive | April 17, 2000 | Founder of IMF/World Bank/WTO - Traitor
https://fee.org/media/16500/1953-12.pdf
The Communist Agent Who Caused Pearl Harbor — and Global Economic Havoc
Did Soviet Agents Help Plan Pearl Harbor?

* No, the Communists did not do as much as the Nationalists did to defeat the Japanese. (Actually, in terms of the China theater, the Nationalists never "defeated" the Japanese. When the Japanese surrendered to the U.S., they still held most of the Chinese territory they had taken from the Nationalists before Pearl Harbor.)

I'm still waiting for JoeB131 to find me one non-Communist book that says that the Communists did as much as the Nationalists in fighting the Japanese in China. Indeed, JoeB131 said that the Communists might have done even more than the Nationalists. Yeah, let's see him find one non-Communist book that supports such fiction.

*  Apparently JoeB131 has never heard of the Long March. Before Chiang decided to start the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, he had forced the Communists to flee to northwestern China. The massive Communist retreat is known as the Long March. It was not just one march, but several, but it has come to be known as the Long March. The Communists had to retreat because they recognized that Chiang was about to annihilate them.

* Before Chiang began attacking Japanese positions in Shanghai in 1937, Japan had substantial legal, treaty-recognized holdings in China, just as did the British, the Americans, the Germans, and the French. The Japanese citizens living in China constituted the largest group of foreigners in China, even more than the British.

* The Japanese moved into Manchuria to counter Soviet attempts to gain control of the region. The Soviets had already gained control of Mongolia, which bordered Manchuria, and anti-Communist Japan had every reason in the world to view this as a threat.

Even some major Western newspapers were willing to admit that Japanese rule in Manchuria was an improvement over Chinese warlord rule. In October 1931, the _London Times_ stated that in Manchuria the Japanese “had created a flourishing oasis in a howling desert of Chinese misrule” (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, Kindle Edition, loc. 793).

The Japanese invested substantial sums of money to develop Manchuria. While most of the Nationalist- and Communist-controlled areas in China suffered from poor or no economic growth, Manchuria became one of the most prosperous areas on the continent, thanks to the capitalist, pro-private property Japanese.

The Japanese did a good enough job improving the conditions in Manchuria that even FDR's secretary of state, Cordell Hull, was willing to let Japan keep Manchuria.

* One would think that this would go without saying, but since JoeB131 has actually made the astonishing, bizarre claim that China was better off under the Communists than under the Nationalists, we need to point out that history clearly shows that China would have been far, far better off under the Nationalists than under the Communists.

While Red China suffered from Marxist-induced famines and Mao's horrific purges, which combined to kill at least 30 million people, Nationalist China on Taiwan became one of the greatest economic success stories of the 20th century. While Red China suffered from Mao's brutal totalitarian government, Taiwan enjoyed freedom of religion, freedom to travel, freedom of the press (as long as you didn't promote Communism), freedom of speech (again, as long as you didn't promote Communism), freedom of association, a valid judiciary system, and economic prosperity.

Chiang was no angel, but he was not nearly as bad as Mao, not even close.

Why Taiwan Grew Rich While the Mainland Starved | José Niño

https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-75-2-Carolan.pdf

Judgment of history - Taiwan Today


----------



## JoeB131

Axis Silly Strikes again!  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Let's revisit some facts to refute the stream of nonsense that JoeB131 keeps posting:
> 
> * No, the Communists were not going to defeat the Nationalists anyway, i.e., if Truman and Marshall had not back-stabbed the Nationalists. Quite the opposite. The claim that the Nationalists were doomed to lose to the Communists has long been a Communist talking point, and it is baseless.



Um, except they DID lose...  They lost badly.  Mostly because Peanut was more interested in enriching himself than actually running his army properly.  

How much of the American taxpayers hard earned dollars - we had already maxed out the national debt and raised taxes to pay for world war II - should we have dumped into a corrupt regime?  

The real tragedy of China was after the REpublicans and the Birchers spent the 50's screaming "Who Lost China", it became the policy of both parties to prop up any asshole in the world who wasn't a communist.  The Communists are mostly gone now, but everyone remembers the assholes America propped up, which is why we are hated in so much of the world now.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * Before Chiang began attacking Japanese positions in Shanghai in 1937, Japan had substantial legal, treaty-recognized holdings in China, just as did the British, the Americans, the Germans, and the French. The Japanese citizens living in China constituted the largest group of foreigners in China, even more than the British.



Holy fucking shit... DO YOU NOT GET WHY THIS IS WHY PEOPLE SUPPORTED THE COMMUNISTS.  Going back to my wallet analogy, the fact was, Peanut was still sucking the dicks the the Qing agreed to suck, even though this was why people supported Sun Yat Sen overthrowing the Qing to start with.  

Your whole thread is to claim the KMT was corrupt and incompetent when rationalizing what the Japanese did to China, but then to totally praise the KMT corruption and incompetence when the resisted Communism... Seriously, what Bircher Hole did you crawl out of? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * One would think that this would go without saying, but since JoeB131 has actually made the astonishing, bizarre claim that China was better off under the Communists than under the Nationalists, we need to point out that history clearly shows that China would have been far, far better off under the Nationalists than under the Communists.
> 
> While Red China suffered from Marxist-induced famines and Mao's horrific purges, which combined to kill at least 30 million people,



There were a billion people they didn't kill, and their standard of living improved under the Communists.   And they didn't have to suck any foreign dick.  But at least you are being honest enough to admit most of the 30 million were do to famines and not purges.  There were famines all over the world during that time period. There was a famine in the 1940's in India that killed 10 million people, which probably further inflamed Indian desires to be rid of the British.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Nationalist China on Taiwan became one of the greatest economic success stories of the 20th century.



You mean after the US Taxpayer poured billions of dollars into it trying to keep Peanut's UN vote? Yes, we did a very good job "saving" Asia from Communism by pouring shitloads of money into Japan, Taiwan and South Korea... and they promptly thanked us by stealing millions of American manufacturing jobs.  So, um, yah, us?  

Something to contemplate while driving past the shuttered factories while wearing your MAGA hat.


----------



## Unkotare

Did some stupid son of a bitch actually claim that standard of living in China improved under communist rule? How fucking absurdly ignorant can you get? Starving to death by the millions, and if not dead living in brutally enforced poverty is nobodies idea of an improved standard of living. It wasn’t until that idiot mao was out of the way that China embarked on economic reform according to Deng’s plan and the country began to claw its way out of crushing and near universal poverty. Some people are just too fucking stupid to be believed.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> Your whole thread is to claim the KMT was corrupt and incompetent when rationalizing what the Japanese did to China, but then to totally praise the KMT corruption and incompetence when the resisted Communism....



No, it's just that you are either incapable of thinking beyond a grade-school level or you simply refuse to deal honestly with the subject, or both. I've already answered your idiotic posturing on this matter several times, but you keep ignoring my explanations and repeating your drivel.

Mostly for the sake of others reading the thread, below are excerpts on Truman and Marshall’s China betrayal from John T. Flynn’s famous book _While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It. _As some may know, Flynn began his career as a liberal journalist for the _New Republic. _In fact, he strongly supported FDR in the 1932 election. However, as he saw the bitter fruits of liberalism, the huge expansion of the welfare state, and the liberal sellout to Communism, he changed his mind and became a traditional conservative along the Robert Taft and Dwight Eisenhower mold. Here is some of what Flynn wrote about Truman and Marshall’s betrayal of China to the Communists:

When the Japanese were defeated, there was no longer a "common enemy" visible to the American people. All talk about "unity in China" to fight that enemy was meaningless. But there was another enemy—Russia. Unity in China after 1945 meant that the Chinese government would unite with the agents of the enemy. It meant China must stop fighting her enemy, surrender to him and share with his Chinese satellite agents the control of China.

It was not a case of two political parties uniting. The party of Mao Tse-tung was not a political party. Chiang was not unwilling for unity against the Japanese. He made offer after offer to the Communists to unite. But he insisted that they must come into his government not as a separate government but as loyal Chinese until the war was won. They insisted that they would come in only as a separate government and would march into Chiang's government with their own revolutionary armies intact. When Chiang effected a coalition in 1937, this is exactly what they did. When the Japanese invaded in 1937, the Communist armies utilized the Japanese invasion to infiltrate whatever parts of China were most exposed.

The plan was simplicity itself. If Russia could put over the fraudulent "unity" plan, what would happen when Japan was driven from China? Then Manchuria would be cleared and Russian Siberia would be on the Chinese borders with swift access to Manchuria and other parts of China. At this point, the Communists would have little trouble. They would have a foothold inside the government which they would be interested in disrupting and paralyzing and they would have an army intact, with Russia just across the border capable of reinforcing them with leadership and ammunition. They could then do in China what they did in Yugoslavia, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and other places.

As of 1943, the government's position was difficult. Japan occupied Manchuria at the extreme North and the entire coast line from there down as far as Canton. The most productive parts of China were held by the enemy. The Chinese Communists held a small group of provinces in the north. The government occupied the rest of China. Russia could send in no help from the north because she was completely occupied with her own war against Germany. . . .

In China at Chungking was a little junta of State Department officials and correspondents—almost all passionately committed to the cause of the Communists, though these officials and correspondents were not all Communists. Some were; most of the others were just shallow scribblers and bureaucrats captivated by the vision of that vague thing— the Brave New World. The feud between Stilwell and Chiang, centering on the Burma enterprise, raged with shocking violence on Stilwell's part, and his headquarters became the meeting place of all the disruptive State Department and journalistic elements. Stillwell's disgraceful behavior led ultimately to his withdrawal in October 1944. . . .

Unlike our correspondents and State Department strategists, Chiang took the view that he was fighting two wars—that the Communists were not and could not be made into allies. . . .

All during the war the Communists were using whatever energy and power they had to infiltrate into whatever areas of China were most weakly held by the Japanese. They did much of this because while the Japanese armies held the whole coastline of China—a vast stretch of territory—the most the Japanese could police were the railroad lines together with the big towns and cities. In between the railroad lines the Communists were able to penetrate a little at a time, settling in the villages and farm lands. Chiang, after Wedemeyer's arrival, used what military resources he possessed to deal with both his enemies—the Japanese and the Communists. In the case of the Japanese, he was struggling to retake territory. In the case of the Communists he sought to bottle them up where they were—a perfectly logical course, provided you recognize what these Communists were. They were enemies of the government of China. . . .

It is sufficient to note that when the Japanese withdrew from China, Chiang Kaishek's army was far more numerous and occupied a far larger part of China than the Communists. Yet, by December 1949, after four years of war upon Chiang by the Communists, supported by Russia and our State Department, Chiang and his government were driven out of the Chinese mainland into Formosa, and communism swallowed the whole mainland of China and half of Korea. At the root of so many of the worst blunders in China was the decision of our government to force what it called "unity in China." We have already seen that this slogan was invented by the Soviet leaders in 1943 when they saw that German defeat was inevitable and they turned their attention to their suspended plans in Asia.

The Japanese occupied Manchuria and the entire Chinese coast. Chiang Kai-shek had a very large army, though poorly equipped. The Chinese Communists occupied just a few provinces in the north. Russia was then interested in checking further Japanese seizures in China. She was also interested in inserting her Communist leaders and armies into the Nationalist government.

Those who are familiar with the history of Communist strategy and tactics know that the Communists have developed a highly effective method by which small, compact minorities can disrupt majority action. Chiang Kai-shek had been in this struggle against the Communists for years. He knew what we in America now know. We suffered a brief period of unity with a very small number of Communists in this country during the war. There is no one now—apparently not even Henry Wallace, their prize dupe—who has any illusions on that score any more. We who wanted Chiang Kai-shek to put the Communists in his government are now putting our American Communists in jail.

In spite of all this, Chiang Kai-shek was at all times willing, under the pressure we applied, to permit the Chinese Communists to come into the government as a political party, enjoying such influence as their numbers entitled them to have. But the Chinese Communists were never willing to come in as a political party, standing on their numerical strength. They wanted to march in intact and with their army intact. They did not want to unite with the government. They wanted to invade it. . . .

As a part of the whole Red program the most unrestrained abuse was hurled at Chiang Kai-shek in our newspapers, in our magazines, in those books and radio programs to which we referred in an earlier part of this book. Of course the Nationalist government had its defects. China is an old country, with no experience in representative government. It was painfully and disastrously emerging from its old feudal ways. There were selfish interests and extreme reactionary interests as well as extremely radical and visionary interests. Chiang sat at the center of all these contending elements seeking with an almost incredible patience to establish order in a republican government while all the time he was being opposed by a military force.

This was civil war, of course. General Marshall and our State Department demanded that Chiang end the civil war by surrendering to the rebels and bringing their army intact into his government. As we look at it now, that was the most monstrously crazy idea that ever entered the mind of a sane statesman. How does a government end a civil war? It can be done only by abdicating or by crushing the rebels. But Chiang was forbidden to attempt to crush the rebels by force on pain of being disarmed. General Marshall insisted that Chiang could trust the Communists. He now says he knew all along they were Communists. But he stated more than once to Americans in China that the charge was ridiculous— they were only "agrarian reformers." But Chiang knew, as everyone knows who was familiar with the strange, twisted morals of Communist associations, that they could not be trusted. . . .

Yet, during the struggle we found our Communist sympathizers— writers, journalists, and some statesmen and State Department officials—regaling us with stories of the wonderful things the Communists were doing while calling on Chiang to do the same and, above all, to lower taxes, while we threatened that if the government dared to oppose the rebels with arms we would cut off their aid. After the Chinese Republican government had been defeated— thanks to the State Department and General Marshall— and driven out of China, our State Department began to see some light. The so-called "agrarian reformers" had now become real Communists and, according to Secretary Acheson, "the Soviet government's largest and most important satellite." (pp. 152-156, 158-161)

​


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Did some stupid son of a bitch actually claim that standard of living in China improved under communist rule? How fucking absurdly ignorant can you get? Starving to death by the millions, and if not dead living in brutally enforced poverty is nobodies idea of an improved standard of living. It wasn’t until that idiot mao was out of the way that China embarked on economic reform according to Deng’s plan and the country began to claw its way out of crushing and near universal poverty. Some people are just too fucking stupid to be believed.



People were starving to death under Peanut
People were starving to death under the Qing.

They're starving now...  which is why so many of them are trying to sneak into this country to work at the Happy Ending Massage Parlor.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> No, it's just that you are either incapable of thinking beyond a grade-school level or you simply refuse to deal honestly with the subject, or both. I've already answered your idiotic posturing on this matter several times, but you keep ignoring my explanations and repeating your drivel.



Naw, I keep mocking your fascist apologizing. 

The Japanese were a bunch of genocidal rat bastards in WWII, and more of them should have found themselves at the business ends of ropes at the end of the war. 

Peanut was an incompetent boob.... that's why he lost.  People looked at the corrupt KMT Bureaucrat living large on American Aid while they slaved away in the rice paddies and they said "Yeah, give me some of that sweet, sweet communism." 





mikegriffith1 said:


> Mostly for the sake of others reading the thread, below are excerpts on Truman and Marshall’s China betrayal from John T. Flynn’s famous book _While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It._



OOOOH, look another white person telling Asians their business.   How patronizing. 

Here's a great start for understanding history. It isn't all about 'us".  



mikegriffith1 said:


> We who wanted Chiang Kai-shek to put the Communists in his government are now putting our American Communists in jail.



Um, yeah.  You do realize that putting Communists in jail in the 1950's was a bad thing, right?  Funny you guys are just horrified that we temporarily relocated some Japanese Americans out of a war zone for a year, but man, you are totally down with locking someone up or ruining their career because they attended a Commie Poetry Reading in College.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Below are excerpts from a report on the Chinese Communists prepared by the War Department’s Military Intelligence Division in August 1945 and published in 1952 by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in its report on the loss of China: “The Chinese Communist Movement, 5 July 1945,” _Hearings Before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee_, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1952, Appendix II.

Hey, JoeB131, were the Military Intelligence Division and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee “fascists” too?

The Communists Fought the Japanese “Far Less” Than Did the Nationalists

Contrary to the widely advertised reports of their sympathizers, the Chinese Communists have, however, fought the Japanese _far less_ than have the National Government troops. (p. 2307)

The Communists Were Less Democratic Than the Nationalists. In Fact, the Communists Suppressed All Opposition Groups, While Chiang Compromised with Opposition Groups. The Chinese Communists’ Version of “Democracy” Was Patterned after “Soviet Democracy”

While the Chinese Communists call their present political system “democracy,” the “democracy which they sponsor is in fact “Soviet democracy” on the pattern of the U.S.S.R rather than democracy in the Anglo-American sense. It is a “democracy” more rigidly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party than is the so-called “one-party dictatorship” of the Chunking Government controlled by the Kuomintang. This is indicated by the fact that Chiang Kaishek rules by maintaining a measure of balance between the various factions within the Kuomintang and by making concessions to the non-Communist opposition groups outside the Kuomintang in Chunking-controlled China. . . . On the other hand, while minority parties which wholeheartedly accept Communist leadership are tolerated in Communist-controlled China, real opposition parties and groups are summarily suppressed as “traitors.” If the Communists’ charge of Kuomintang intolerance is true, it is also true that the Communists will be still more intolerant if they ever obtain supreme power in China. (pp. 2306-2307)

The Chinese Communists Followed Soviet Policy and Were Part of the International Communist Movement

The Chinese Communist movement is part of the international Communist movement. Its military strategy, diplomatic orientation, and propaganda polices follow those of the Soviet Union. They are adapted to fit the Chinese environment, but all high policy is derived from international Communist policy which in turn depends on Soviet Russia. Throughout their history the Chinese Communists have loyally supported and followed the policies of Soviet Russia and have accepted the whole content of “Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism.” (p. 2306) 

The Nationalists Waged War Against the Communists When They Realized that the Communists Were Trying to Take Over China at the Behest of the Soviets. The Nationalists Were About to Defeat the Communists in 1936 But the Communists Were Saved by the “United Front” Arrangement. The Communists Did Not Honor the United Front Agreement. As a Result, the Nationalists Ended Up Having to Fight Both the Communists and the Japanese to Protect Their Bases During the Pacific War 

During the period of the Soviet-Russian-Kuomintang entente cordiale, 1923-1927, the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communists cooperated. The Chinese Communists promised to support the revolutionary, national democratic program of the Kuomintang. They broke this promise. It soon became evident to the Kuomintang leaders that the Chinese Communists, urged on by Soviet Russia, were aspiring to turn the revolution into a class war in order to gain supreme control over China. In 1927 the Kuomintang therefore turned against the Chinese Communists and Soviet Russia.

The ensuing civil war, 1927-1937, between the armies of the two Chinese parties was accompanied by the bloody excesses characteristic of all class wars. By 1936 the Kuomintang had almost defeated the Chinese Red Army. The latter was saved by the Kuomintang’s acceptance of the idea of a “united front” with the Communists in defense of China against Japan. The united front idea had been developed in Moscow. . . .

Under the terms of the united front understanding in China, the Chinese Communists pledged themselves, as of 1937, to cease subversive activities against the Government, to abolish their separate government and administration, and to integrate the Chinese Red Army with the Government’s Central Army. 

The Chinese Communists did not fulfill this promise. Soon after the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war, the Government assigned to the Communists certain defense zones. The Communists, however, refused to stay within their assigned zones. While the Kuomintang armies, in obedience to the Chinese High Command, kept within their assigned defense zones, the Communist armies insisted on being granted entry into any Kuomintang zone that they desired to enter. Whenever the Kuomintang troops refused to admit the Communist troops into their defense sectors and to share with them their exceedingly limited resources, they were called “traitors” by the Communists. When the National Government refused to grant the Communists permission to establish in Kuomintang areas their own separate civil administrations, called “united front governments,” which flouted the national authority of Chungking and accepted orders only from the Communist capital (Yenan), the Communists accused the Kuomintang of being “anti-democratic” and the Kuomintang troops of being “experts in dissension.” Such tactics inevitably led to clashes with Kuomintang troops. The latter fought in self-defense against both the Communists and the Japanese for the protection of their bases. (pp. 2306-2307) 

NOTE: Perhaps understandably, given who was in the White House when the report was written, the report does not mention that FDR pressured Chiang to accept the “united front” arrangement under the guise of achieving unity to defeat Japan. Given the treacherous conduct of the Communists during the “united front” arrangement during the war, one can readily understand why Chiang was aghast when Truman and Marshall insisted that he form a coalition government with the Communists after Japan surrendered.

A Coalition Government with the Communists Would Only “Serve the Interests of the Communists”

Chiang Kaishek has proposed a National Assembly, which is to convene on 12 November 1945, as the only possible means for a peaceful solution of the Kuomintang-Communist problem and for the re-establishment of unity in China. He insists, however, that no unity can be achieved so long as there are several independent partisan armies in China. He therefore demands that the Communists fulfill their pledge of 1937 to subordinate their army to the National Government.

The Communists refuse to comply with this demand. They have boycotted the National Assembly and insist that the “coalition government” is the only solution of the inter-party problem in China. The plan for a coalition government might be workable if the Communists would accept a clear demarcation of Kuomintang and Communist areas. But throughout the war, the Kuomintang has vainly tried to obtain an agreement with the Communists for a demarcation of defense areas, and there is no indication that the Communists would accept any demarcation of Kuomintang and Communist areas if a coalition government were to be established.

In view of this, the coalition government, were it to be established without the Communists being committed to a specific demarcation of their areas, would only serve the interests of the Communists in that their present areas would obtain legal status by consent of the Kuomintang and other parties, while leaving the Kuomintang part of the country open to further Communist infiltration through legal or illegal means. (pp. 2307-2308)

NOTE: Wow! We can see why this report was suppressed for several years! The Truman White House did not want America to learn that they were warned that their demand that Chiang form a coalition government with the Communists would only help the Communists.

The Soviet Union Waged a Propaganda War Against the Nationalists and Pushed the Idea of a Coalition Government in China

Present relations between Chungking [the Nationalist government] and Moscow are cool. The Soviet press is strongly denouncing the “reactionaries” in the Kuomintang and is openly sponsoring the plan of the Chinese Communists for a coalition government. (p. 2308)


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Below are excerpts from a report on the Chinese Communists prepared by the War Department’s Military Intelligence Division in August 1945 and published in 1952 by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in its report on the loss of China:



Hmmmm... 1952.  You mean when we were at the Height of McCarthyism Crazy and all seeing Communists under our beds? 

When people were all trying to save their careers by screaming , "We didn't fuck this up?"  

One more time, when your biggest ally refers to you as "Cash my Check" and "Peanut", they really don't respect you. 

Vinegar Joe and the Generalissimo

By late 1942, Chiang was still hesitant to ask Roosevelt to replace Stilwell. Meanwhile, Stilwell criticized Chiang and his commanders for sending their best troops to the northwest provinces to contain communist military expansion instead of fighting the Japanese. He repeatedly asked that Chiang supply more young men for the Chinese Expeditionary Army (CEA) being trained to liberate Burma.

But the issue that brought Stilwell and Chiang’s relationship to an impasse was Stilwell’s lobbying U.S. officials to block Chiang’s efforts to expand General Claire Lee Chennault’s air force to fight the Japanese. In late 1942 Chiang had agreed with Chennault that greater airpower could disrupt Japanese supply routes and depots in Burma and protect the CEA’s advance into upper Burma. But Stilwell criticized this strategy, arguing that “Chiang Kai-shek’s army was not able to safeguard the airports [in China].”

In early 1943 Stilwell was supplying Chiang with more U.S. lend-lease aid in exchange for more Chinese troops to help liberate Burma. Meanwhile, Stilwell kept demanding that Chiang replace his incompetent generals. Chiang, however, did not share Stilwell’s enthusiasm for liberating only upper Burma; he wanted the Japanese driven out of Burma entirely so that more military and economic aid could flow into China. Chiang also wanted more U.S. airpower to help his Chinese ground troops counterattack the Japanese in eastern China. Meanwhile, Chiang—worried about Stilwell’s military strategy for recovering Burma—conceded to President Roosevelt that an advance into Burma, even if limited to upper Burma, “would be a major blow” to the Japanese but also expressed his hope that all of Burma could be recovered by combined land and sea operations. Even if the British could not muster naval support, Chiang told Roosevelt, it would be better to “wait a few months longer, or even until the monsoon season ends next autumn before launching a large offensive.” Chiang worried that “another failure in Burma would be a disaster for China so grave that the results cannot be predicted.”

But the crisis continued. Between July and October 1944 Stilwell repeatedly informed General Marshall of Chiang’s intransigence about cooperating with the Communists in the fight against Japan. Marshall finally sought President Roosevelt’s approval to ask Chiang to give Stilwell the authority to control Chiang’s military forces. On learning this, Chiang finally asked Roosevelt to recall Stilwell.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> Did some stupid son of a bitch actually claim that standard of living in China improved under communist rule? How absurdly ignorant can you get? Starving to death by the millions, and if not dead living in brutally enforced poverty is nobodies idea of an improved standard of living. It wasn’t until that idiot mao was out of the way that China embarked on economic reform according to Deng’s plan and the country began to claw its way out of crushing and near universal poverty. Some people are just too stupid to be believed.



Yes, it is amazing how he has revealed his pro-Communist leanings in his last several replies. As I've said, I've never seen any modern radical liberal defend Mao and the Chinese Communists the way JoeB131 is defending them. His attacks on the Nationalists are carbon copies of the attacks on them made by Chinese Communists and American Communists.

I wonder if understands that his signature gives the impression that he's some kind of conservative. When he began to reply to me, I baffled by his rhetoric and arguments because I assumed, based on his signature, that he was a conservative.

He uses the standard Communist tactic of labeling his opponents as fascists, pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler, etc.

I think he knows better, but he doesn't care. No one can really believe that all the scholars who argue that the Japanese case regarding China has merit are fascists, pro-Hitler/pro-Nazi. That's sort of like arguing that if you approve of the American bombing of Japanese cities, you are pro-Soviet/pro-Stalin and approve of the Soviet brutalization of Eastern Europe, the Soviet gulags, the Soviet anti-Semitic pogroms, and the Soviets' murder of hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese POWs.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> Did some stupid son of a bitch actually claim that standard of living in China improved under communist rule? How absurdly ignorant can you get? Starving to death by the millions, and if not dead living in brutally enforced poverty is nobodies idea of an improved standard of living. It wasn’t until that idiot Mao was out of the way that China embarked on economic reform according to Deng’s plan and the country began to claw its way out of crushing and near universal poverty. Some people are just too stupid to be believed.



Yes, it is remarkable how he has revealed his pro-Communist colors in his last several replies. As I've said, I have never seen modern non-Communist ultra-liberals willing to defend Mao and the Chinese Communists the way JoeB131 has done. His attacks on the Nationalists, including his defense of Stilwell, repeat the attacks on the Nationalists found in Chinese Communist and American Communist propaganda.

I wonder if he understands that his signature gives people the impression that he's a conservative. When he began replying to me, I was baffled by his rhetoric because I assumed, based on his signature, that he was a conservative. But now I can see he is not just liberal but radically liberal and pro-Communist.

Like other radical liberals, if you cite facts that contradict his arguments, he immediately resorts to calling you a fascist and a Hiter/Nazi supporter. I guess he didn't notice that some of the sources I cited on Mao's mass murder were liberal sources.

I think he knows better, but he doesn't care. No one can be so ignorant as to really believe that all the scholars who have argued that there is merit to the Japanese case regarding China are pro-Nazi/pro-Hitler. That's sort of like saying if you approve of the American bombing of Japanese cities, you are therefore pro-Soviet/pro-Stalin and approve of the Soviets' rape and brutalization of Eastern Europe, the Soviet gulags, and the Soviets' murder of hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese POWs.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Yes, it is amazing how he has revealed his pro-Communist leanings in his last several replies. As I've said, I've never seen any modern radical liberal defend Mao and the Chinese Communists the way JoeB131 is defending them. His attacks on the Nationalists are carbon copies of the attacks on them made by Chinese Communists and American Communists.



That they were corrupt fascists?  They were corrupt fascists... 

Sorry to break this to you. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I wonder if understands that his signature gives the impression that he's some kind of conservative. When he began to reply to me, I baffled by his rhetoric and arguments because I assumed, based on his signature, that he was a conservative.



How would you get that?  How is "Impeach Trump" a conservative view?  What kind of bizarre thinking to you go through to get there.  

I'm not liberal or conservative. I'm a pragmatist. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> think he knows better, but he doesn't care. No one can really believe that all the scholars who argue that the Japanese case regarding China has merit are fascists, pro-Hitler/pro-Nazi.



Uh, no, guy, I really think that the Japanese Apologists are fascists.  THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT JAPAN DID IN WWII.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> hat's sort of like arguing that if you approve of the American bombing of Japanese cities, you are pro-Soviet/pro-Stalin and approve of the Soviet brutalization of Eastern Europe, the Soviet gulags, the Soviet anti-Semitic pogroms, and the Soviets' murder of hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese POWs.



Guy, the John Birch Society Called.  They want their propaganda back.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Below is a small excerpt on the FDR-Truman China betrayal from President Herbert Hoover's book_ Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath_ (Stanford University: Hoover Institution Press, 2011, edited by historian George Nash). I trust not even JoeB131 will claim that Herbert Hoover was a right-wing extremist.


----------



## JoeB131

Axis Silly Strikes again, with his new fascist Pinup boy, Chiang Kai Shek.... A fascist so fucking incompetent the Axis didn't want him as a member.  Let that sink in.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Below is a small excerpt on the FDR-Truman China betrayal from President Herbert Hoover's book_ Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath_ (Stanford University: Hoover Institution Press, 2011, edited by historian George Nash). I trust not even JoeB131 will claim that Herbert Hoover was a right-wing extremist.



Herbert Hoover who brought us the Worst Depression in human history, THAT Herbert Hoover.  

Herbert Hoover who was part of the Republican Cabal of the 1920's that advocated disarmament and isolationism, leaving us woefully unprepared for World War II? 

THAT Herbert Hoover?  

Okay, one more time...  Chiang Kai-Shek was incompetent, corrupt and inept.  That's why the Communists won... not because we didn't pump enough money into his corrupt, incompetent regime, which we did plenty of and a lot of it got stolen. 

The people just got fed up with his shit, which is why millions of them flocked to the red banner.  

You are like one of those people who look at the Little Big Horn and ask, "Why did Custer Lose" without thinking of the most obvious answer, "The Indians won!"


----------



## Unkotare

Commie Joe’s complete ignorance about History, and shameless fangirl attitude toward every communist dictator in History (including the wannabe fdr) is painfully obvious.


----------



## mikegriffith1

If you want to know what a snake Stilwell was, read General Claire Chennault’s book _The Way of a Fighter: The Memoirs of Claire Lee Chennault_ (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1949). Chennault served in China with Stilwell and saw firsthand the disastrous results of Stilwell’s treachery and military incompetence. Chennault spends many pages in his book detailing how Stilwell sought to sabotage the Nationalist cause and how Stilwell’s military blundering costs thousands of lives. But, for now, I’d like to quote part of Chennault’s account of how Truman and Marshall saved the Communists from defeat and enabled them to ultimately take over China:

Stripped to its essentials, here is what the Marshall mission did to China. It forced a truce to the Chinese civil war at a time when the Central Government forces were winning. When the Generalissimo naturally balked at endorsing a policy that meant military disaster for his forces, Marshall applied pressure in the Stilwell manner by shutting off the flow of all American military aid to China including war surplus bought and paid for by the Chinese. This aims embargo lasted for nearly a year. He also summarily scuttled a Sino-American agreement made in September 1945 whereby the United States agreed to supply China with planes and equipment for an eight and one-third group air force including four-engine bombers. Marshall also extracted a promise from the Generalissimo not to use the Chinese Air Force already in China against the Communists on the grounds that this would constitute “offensive action.” Restricting the Chinese Air Force deprived the Generalissimo of his most potent weapon. It was also implied that discussions regarding a $500,000,000 loan to China could not be resumed until a truce was effected in the civil war. Marshall did not know then that the most effective Washington opposition to the Chinese loan was coming from Henry Wallace, a man whose position on Russia has since become quite clear.​
The truce sponsored and pushed by Marshall, with all the diplomatic resources of the United States at his disposal, forced the Generalissimo to halt his anti-Communist offensive at a time when it was on the verge of wiping out large bodies of Chinese Communist troops. Some fifty truce teams each were dispatched to trouble spots all over China. Each was headed by an elderly American colonel specially picked for his white hair to impress the Chinese. Here are some specific examples of what they accomplished.​
North of Hankow some 200,000 government troops had surrounded 70,000 Communist troops and were beginning a methodical job of extermination. The Communists appealed to Marshall on the basis of his truce proposal, and arrangements were made for the fighting to cease while the Communists marched out of the trap and on to Shantung Province, where a large Communist offensive began about a year later. On the East River near Canton some 100,000 Communist troops were trapped by government forces. The truce teams effected their release and allowed the Communists to march unmolested to Bias Bay where they boarded junks and sailed to Shantung.​
The worst fiasco was at Kalgan Pass. This gap in the North China Mountains is a historic gateway between China and Manchuria. At the end of the war there were no organized Communists in Manchuria.​
Chinese Communists flocked from their base in northwest China through die Kalgan Pass to join the Russian troops in Manchuria. When the Chinese government troops occupied Manchuria they found the great industrial centers stripped bare of machinery and the tremendous arsenals of the famed Japanese Kwantung Army empty. There was no trace of either the Kwantung Army or its equipment.​
Early in 1946 a government offensive captured Kalgan and sealed off the pass, trapping nearly a million Chinese Communists in northwest China who were moving toward Manchuria. The Communists complained that they were merely returning to their prewar homes in Manchuria. Marshall made strenuous efforts to get die Generalissimo to open the Kalgan Pass for these Communists. Eventually the Generalissimo yielded, withdrew his troops in June 1946, and the Communist horde poured into Manchuria. The Communists then broke the truce by fortifying Kalgan Pass. A year later Chinese government armies had to fight a bloody campaign to recapture the pass they voluntarily evacuated under the truce.​
In January 1947 the mystery of what happened to the Japanese Kwantung Army equipment was solved. The poorly armed Chinese Communists who marched north the year before now swarmed south from Manchuria armed with Japanese rifles, machine guns, mortars, tanks, and artillery. They even had Japanese aircraft but no gas or pilots to operate them. The Russians had simply turned over the Japanese equipment to the Chinese Communists and thus endowed them with a rich military legacy.​
Conservative estimates of the Japanese military stockpile in Manchuria seized by the Russians appraise it as sufficient materiel to supply a million men for ten years of fitting. By using Japanese munitions the Russians avoided the necessity of investing their own resources and are able to claim that no Russian arms were sent to China. . . .​
It was these troops who marched under a safe-conduct of the American-sponsored truce through Kalgan Pass and returned with Japanese arms that won the decisive battles in Manchuria in the summer of 1947. They were opposed by the government’s American-trained divisions. While the Communists were being rearmed by the Russians, the government divisions had their supplies cut off by what Marshall freely admits was a ten-month embargo on American military supplies to China. Since these Chinese divisions had been equipped in the spring and summer of 1945 their arms, ammunition, and trucks badly needed replacement. Two years of hard campaigning had worn their rifle barrels smooth, exhausted their ammunition, and battered the trucks they relied on for transport and supply. All of their equipment was American and without American replacements, spare parts, and ammunition, it was virtually useless.​
It did not take long for the well-armed Communists to chew up the government divisions armed only with the worn remnants of two-year-old American equipment and minus an effective air force. The Chinese armies that Stilwell and Wedemeyer trained in India and West China perished early in 1947 on the frozen Manchurian plains. The stage was set for the final mop up of Manchuria in the summer of 1948 and the Communist offensive into North China. . . .​
Marshall also sought, as part of his orders, to force the Generalissimo into a variety of political changes including formation of a coalition government with Communists in the cabinet.​
At the time of the Marshall mission the Chinese Communists terms for entering the Chinese National government were one third of the cabinet members including the War Minister, retention of a Communist army of forty-eight divisions, and the governorships of all provinces where the Communist troops then claimed occupation of a majority of the area. The fate of Czechoslovakia has since proved how fatal this would have been to the existing government of China. Inclusion of Communists in a coalition front is a standard preliminary tactical maneuver in a Communist seizure of power. It is a technique that may well be attempted again in China if the Communists feel that an attempt to gain complete military victory may cost more than they can afford.​
The Generalissimo had been dealing with Communists inside and outside the Chinese government for more than twenty years. He spent part of his education in Moscow's Communist academies. He thoroughly understood the Communist motives and techniques and knew that a Communist minority in a coalition government would actually result in complete Communist domination of China. (pp. xiii-xv)​
Incidentally, Chennault, as have many other authors, debunks the idea that Stalin would have intervened to keep the Communists from losing. Stalin was afraid that openly helping the Maoists would provoke a military confrontation with United States. He knew that the virulently anti-Soviet Douglas MacArthur was in Japan, and, of course, he knew that the U.S. had nukes. In fact, Stalin was so afraid of provoking an American military response that he actually tried to get Mao to stop at the Yangtze River after Mao had smashed Nationalists forces in Manchuria and was routing Nationalist forces that were north of the Yangtze (see also Jonathan Fenby, _Chiang Kai Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost, _New York: Carroll & Graf, 2004, pp. 453-458, 481-491)_._


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Commie Joe’s complete ignorance about History, and shameless fangirl attitude toward every communist dictator in History (including the wannabe fdr) is painfully obvious.



Oh, Tokyo Pose... you miss the point entirely.  I'm glad we didn't start World War III to save Peanut from his own incompetence. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> If you want to know what a snake Stilwell was, read General Claire Chennault’s book _The Way of a Fighter: The Memoirs of Claire Lee Chennault_ (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1949). Chennault served in China with Stilwell and saw firsthand the disastrous results of Stilwell’s treachery and military incompetence.



Wasn't this the same guy whose Chinese Wife that got us into Vietnam?  


Okay, here's some fun facts...

A year before the U.S. officially entered the war, Chennault developed an ambitious plan for a sneak attack on Japanese bases. His Flying Tigers would use American bombers and American pilots, all with Chinese markings. *He made the fantastic claim that a handful of fliers and planes could win the war single handed. The U.S. Army was opposed to this scheme and raised obstacles, noting that being able to reach Japan depended on Chiang Kai-shek's troops being able to build and protect airfields and bases close enough to Japan, which they doubted he could do. They also had little confidence in Chennault.[19]*

Despite the military advice, American civilian leaders were captivated by the idea of China winning the war with Japan swiftly with only a few American men and planes. It was adopted by top civilian officials including Treasury Secretary Morgenthau and President Roosevelt himself.[Note 2] However, the American attack never took place: *The Nationalist Chinese had not built and secured any runways or bases close enough to reach Japan, just as the military had warned. The bombers and crews arrived after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and were used for the war in Burma, as they lacked the range to reach Japan from secure bases in China*.[20][21][22]


Chennault believed that the Fourteenth Air Force, operating out of bases in China, could attack Japanese forces in concert with Nationalist troops. For his part, Stilwell wanted air assets diverted to his command to support the opening of a ground supply route through northern Burma to China. This route would provide supplies and new equipment for a greatly expanded Nationalist force of twenty to thirty modernized divisions.

Chiang Kai-shek favored Chennault's plans, since he was suspicious of British colonial interests in Burma, and he was unprepared – and unwilling – to begin major offensive operations against the Japanese, preferring to save his troops for the eventual civil war.[28] He was also concerned about alliances with semi-independent generals supporting the Nationalist government, and was concerned that a major loss of military forces would enable his Communist Chinese adversaries to gain the upper hand.[_citation needed_]

*The sharply differing assessments held by Stillwell and Chennault came out in a meeting in 1943 with President Roosevelt, who asked both commanders for their opinion of Chiang.[29] Stillwell stated: "He's a vacillating, tricky, undependable old scoundrel who never keeps his word".[29]* Chennault by contrast told Roosevelt: "Sir, I think the Generalissimo is one of the two or three greatest military and political leaders in the world today. He has never broken a commitment or promise to me".[29] Chennault was supported in his disputes by Soong Mei-ling, Chiang's politically powerful wife, who was one of the richest women in 1930s China,[30] and unlike her husband, was fluent in English.[31]


----------



## JoeB131

Here's more about Peanut's Pimp, Claire Chennault...

For an example, Chennault opened up a brothel in Guilin for his pilots, recruiting English-speaking prostitutes from Hong Kong who fled to the inland of China to escape the Japanese, arguing that his men needed sex and it was better to have his "boys" visit a brothel that was regularly inspected to reduce venereal diseases.[31] Chennault felt his men were going to visit brothels, regardless of what the rules said, and it was better to have them visit a brothel whose women were inspected for venereal diseases than one that was not, under the grounds that a man in the hospital for a venereal disease was one less man who could participate in the war. *Stilwell was enraged when he heard about Chennault's brothel and promptly had it shut down, saying it was disgraceful that an officer of the United States Army Air Force would open such an establishment.*[31] 

Keep in mind, the main reason why the Communists won... Chinese were sick and tired of - literally - sucking western dick.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Below are some excerpts from _The Amerasia Papers: A Clue to the Catastrophe of China, Volume I_,  a report prepared in 1970 by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate (U.S. Government Printing Office, January 26, 1970).

Before the Sino-Japanese War, the Nationalists Routed the Communists and Forced Them to Flee Northward in the Long March; the United Front Arrangement Saved the Communists

Chiang Kai-shek's program of anti-Communism reached a climax in October, 1933, with the opening of the Generalissimo's fifth campaign of suppression and extermination. A rebellion in Fukien held up the march briefly, 'but by the end of the year some 300,000 Nationalist troops were converging upon the principal Communist strongholds in Kiangsi and causing panic among Chairman Mao's generals and aides. This time the guerilla tactics which the Communists had used to such effect in the previous campaigns were insufficient; the gradual tightening of the Kuomintang ring around their little capital could not be averted. In January, 1934, the Second All-China Congress of the Soviets convened nervously at Juichin, and evacuation to a new base was discussed. Then, as good supplies ran low and the Nationalist pincers began to close, Mao and Chou Enlai turned in desperation to their Soviet masters for advice. Late in the summer the instruction came from Moscow: pull out of Kiangsi province and seek safety somewhere, as far away as Outer Mongolia if necessary. Accordingly, the "Long March" of the Red army began in October, 1934 — exactly a year after the beginning of Chiang's fifth campaign. . . .

The "Long March," which lasted a full year and took the Red army 6,000 miles from South China to the Great Wall in the extreme north west, is epic in the annals of Communism. On many days the distance traveled was forty miles; some days it was even more. Nationalist forces were usually in hot pursuit, often using planes as was the case during the spectacular escape of the Reds on the old iron bridge over the Tatu River. Casualties in action, and deaths by starvation or exhaustion or disease, cost the Chinese Communists more than three-fourths of their effective strength; by October of 1935 Mao's fighters were reduced to less than 25,000. The one best way to rebuild in numbers, of course, was to reiterate the concept of a "united front" of the Chinese proletariat against Japan — and this is precisely what was done in the summer of 1935 while Mao's decimated columns were resting in western Szechuan. . . .

For the eight years that it lasted, the Pacific war was a pleasing spectacle to the Marxist masters of Moscow. What side happened to 'be winning at a given moment was never so significant as a central, an integral, and a most important fact — the sample fact that the war was going on. The cause of international Communism was beautifully served by the very existence of a struggle which, by forcing coexistence in China under the banner of a United Front against external aggression, gave Mao Tse-tung's followers the opportunity to sow their seed in China's ravaged soil. The first phase of Communist-Kuomintang cooperation, ending with the purge of 1927, had been all too brief to suit Soviet Russia: serious trouble in the Pacific at that time might have averted the disastrous "extermination" campaigns of the following decade. Now that a second phase of coexistence had begun, the war which brought it about should be extended as far as possible. By perpetuating the Pacific War, the Kremlin would be providing precious time for Communism to grow and spread on the mainland of Asia. . . .

The Communist Claim that the Chinese Communists Fought the Japanese as Much as the Nationalists Did Is Recognized as the “Sheerest Nonsense”

The departure of Communist leaders for Yenan late in 1938, scarcely a year after the creation of the United Front, sharply illustrated an important fact. It revealed their policy to be indeed more a "front," i.e., a cover, for their subversive activities than a sincere, single-minded effort to resist the Japanese penetration. In later years Mao Tse-tung often fondly reminisced on the valiant exertions of his followers in the face of the Japanese onslaught. His idyllic interpretation of the Communists in the front lines of defense is recognized today as the sheerest nonsense. In the early stages of the war the Communists not only avoided direct confrontation but were so invisible, as a matter of fact, that Japanese generals did not take them seriously. The result was that Chiang Kai-shek's armies, not the Communist armies, were the target and received the punishment. Even so sympathetic a writer as Theodore H. White, in his _Thunder Out of China_, has admitted that Mao Tse-tung's troops fought only "when they had an opportunity to surprise a very small group of the enemy," and that "during the significant campaigns it was the weary soldiers of the Central Government who took the shock, gnawed at the enemy, and died”. . . .

Starting in 1939, Far from Sharing the Burden Against the Japanese, Communist Troops Began to Attack Nationalist Troops

The myth of the United Front could not be sustained indefinitely under such conditions. As the Communist forces grew, the areas under Communist control became larger. Soon the Communists began to abandon the pretense of cooperation with the National Government and to engage in active harassment of its troops. They now adopted the tactic of attacking and absorbing government units which were fighting desperately against the Japanese or had been isolated in the rear of the enemy. From the spring of 1939 to the end of 1940, many Nationalist troops were treacherously ambushed by the Communists at the same time that they were contesting the Japanese. Such conduct could hardly be tolerated in time of peace; it was intolerable when the whole nation was supposed to be fighting against foreign aggression. . . .

The American Communist Party and Its Allies Waged a Large-Scale Smear Campaign Against the Nationalists

ln the United States the American Communist Party and its fellow-travelers began vociferously to denounce the Kuomintang while at the same time singing the praises of Mao Tse-tung's "agrarian reformers" in muted tones. It was far easier to paint a black picture of the Chinese Nationalists as inefficient and corrupt than to peddle the Chinese brand of Communism outright to the people of the United States; hence the greater effort was made to downgrade Generalissimo Chiang than to upgrade Chairman Mao. A barrage of anti-Chiang books, pamphlets, and magazine articles from the pens of the "old China hands" was soon conditioning the American people and their elected leaders for the coming of Communism to China. Many Americans — and, tragically, most of the leaders of the party in power — fell victim to the Sovietized but carefully disguised propaganda produced by these "experts" under the auspices of such research organizations as the Institute of Pacific Relations. No hoax in recent history has been more complete and convincing than that which deluded the American people at large into a belief that Mao's followers were fighting the Japanese valiantly and almost alone, that they had been abandoned by a selfish and deceitful Chiang, and that they could abandoned by a selfish and deceitful Chiang, and that they could "easily be enlightened by American concepts of democracy and representative government."

General Marshall’s Arms Embargo and Truces Saved the Communists and Turned the Tide Against the Nationalists

General Marshall brought his peace-branch to China at a tune when Chiang Kai-shek's forces were pushing hard to extend the sovereignty of the National Government into Manchuria. When he went home, Chiang's armies were going the other way. He had placed a year's embargo on American military supplies to the Nationalist government while Mao Tse-tung's forces were receiving from Soviet Russia tons of captured Japanese equipment and unlimited quantities of American material which the Russians were supposed to use against Japan; and he had arranged a series of truces in the contested areas, particularly the northern provinces, while urging Chiang to agree to » coalition government with the Communists. In so doing, the American President's representative was simply providing Mao Tse-tung with the precious time to mount an offensive. Professor Vinacke has summarized the situation in these words:

The truce itself, as far as it was actually enforced, proved to have been of advantage to the Communists rather than to the Kuomintang when full-scale civil war broke out in the first half of 1947, following recognition of the failure of American mediation efforts. When the truce began, the National Government armies had the initiative and were on the offensive. The activity of the truce terms in applying the terms of the agreement prevented the Nationalist armies from attaining their objectives and from wiping out large bodies of Communist troops. The period of the truce gave the Communists the necessary time to recover, and in their turn to assume the offensive. ​
General Claire L. Chennault, by far the most experienced "China hand" in the United States Army, is more direct in his criticism of the Marshall mission. Its net result, according to General Chennault, is summarized in this sober epitaph: "The trend of a gradually stronger central government was reversed, and the military balance shifted again in favor of the Chinese Communists." (pp. 9-10, 13, 17, 18-19, 21, 31-32)


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> General Claire L. Chennault, by far the most experienced "China hand" in the United States Army, is more direct in his criticism of the Marshall mission. Its net result, according to General Chennault, is summarized in this sober epitaph: "The trend of a gradually stronger central government was reversed, and the military balance shifted again in favor of the Chinese Communists."



Again, this would be the same guy who opened a whorehouse of Chinese women for his white pilots... 

More white people telling Asian people their business.  

End of the day, how much material both sides were getting was kind of irrelevant...  it was their willingness to fight.  Mao's guys were willing to fight to liberate China from foreigners...  Peanut's forces... they pretty much dropped their guns and ran.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I found another “right-wing, pro-Nazi, paranoid reactionary” who severely attacked Truman’s catastrophic handling of China: then-Congressman John F. Kennedy from Massachusetts, who later became the 35th president of the United States, in a speech he gave in 1949 on the loss of China. Here are some excerpts from his great speech:

Over these past few days we have learned the extent of the disasters befalling China and the United States. Our relationship with China since the end of the Second World War has been a tragic one, and it is of the utmost importance that we search out and spotlight those who must bear the responsibility for our present predicament. . . .​
At the Yalta Conference in 1945 a sick Roosevelt, with the advice of General Marshall and other Chiefs of Staff, gave the Kurile Islands as well as the control of various strategic Chinese ports, such as Port Arthur and Darien, to the Soviet Union.​
According to Former Ambassador Bullitt, in Life Magazine in 1948, “Whatever share of the responsibility was Roosevelt’s and whatever share was Marshall’s the vital interest of the United States in the independent integrity of China was sacrificed, and the foundation was laid for the present tragic situation in the Far East”.​
When the armies of Soviet Russia withdrew from Manchuria they left Chinese Communists in control of this area and in possession of great masses of Japanese war material.​
During this period began the great split of the minds of our diplomats over whether to support the Government of Chiang Kai-shek, or force Chiang Kai-shek as the price of our assistance to bring Chinese Communists into his government to form a coalition.​
When Ambassador Patrick Hurley resigned in 1945 he stated, “Professional diplomats continuously advised the Chinese Communists that my efforts in preventing the collapse of the National Government did not represent the policy of the United States. The chief opposition to the accomplishment of our mission came from American career diplomats, the Embassy at Chungking and the Chinese Far Eastern divisions of the State Department.”​
With the troubled situation in China beginning to loom large in the United States, General Marshall was sent at the request of President Truman as Special Emissary to China to effect a compromise and to bring about a coalition government.​
In Ambassador Bullitt’s article in Life, he states and I quote: “In early summer of 1946 in order to force Chiang Kai-shek to take Communists into the Chinese government, General Marshall had the Department of State refuse to give licenses for export of ammunition to China. Thus from the summer of 1946 to February 1948 not a single shell or a single cartridge was delivered to China for use in its American armament. And in the aviation field Marshall likewise blundered, and as a result of his breaking the American government’s contract to deliver to China planes to maintain 8 and 1/3 air groups, for three years no combat or bombing planes were delivered to China – from September 1946 to March 1948. As Marshall himself confessed in February 1948 to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, this “was in effect an embargo on military supplies”.​
In 1948 we appropriated $468,000,000 for China, only a fraction of what we were sending to Europe, and out of this $468,000,000 only $125,000,000 was for military purposes. The end was drawing near; the assistance was too little and too late; and the Nationalist Government was engaged in a death struggle with the on-rushing communist armies. . . .​
Our policy in China has reaped the whirlwind. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming unless a coalition government with the Communists was formed was a crippling blow to the National Government. So concerned were our diplomats and their advisors, the Lattimores and the Fairbanks, with the imperfections of the diplomatic system in China after twenty years of war, and the tales of corruption in high places, that they lost sight of our tremendous stake in a non-communist China.​
There were those who claimed, and still claim, that Chinese communism was not really communism at all but merely an advanced agrarian movement which did not take directions from Moscow.​
Listen to the words of the Bolton report: “Its doctrines follow those of Lenin and Stalin. Its leaders are Moscow-trained (of 35 leading Chinese communist political leaders listed in the report, over half either spent some time or studied in Moscow.) Its policies and actions, its strategy and tactics are communist. The Chinese Communists have followed faithfully every zig zag of the Kremlin’s line for a generation.”​
This is the tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away. (Remarks of Representative John F. Kennedy at the Philip J. Durkin Testimonial Dinner, Salem, Massachusetts, January 30, 1949 | JFK Library)​
Wow!  Bullseye!


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> I found another “right-wing, pro-Nazi, paranoid reactionary” who severely attacked Truman’s catastrophic handling of China: then-Congressman John F. Kennedy from Massachusetts, who later became the 35th president of the United States, in a speech he gave in 1949 on the loss of China. Here are some excerpts from his great speech:



Another white guy telling Asian people their business.    Whatever would they do without us White folks.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> At the Yalta Conference in 1945 a sick Roosevelt, with the advice of General Marshall and other Chiefs of Staff, gave the Kurile Islands as well as the control of various strategic Chinese ports, such as Port Arthur and Darien, to the Soviet Union.



Wow... like you really think they had a choice?  The USSR was in a position to take pretty much whatever they wanted at that point.  One of those Bircher myths...  that a shattered British Empire and an only -half committed USA were going to stop Stalin from taking anything he wanted.   

The reality- We needed the USSR in the Pacific War because it took us nearly 4 years to get within spitting distance of Japan and your Boy Peanut wasn't doing all that much good, either.  The Japanese were still kicking his ass in 1944.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> In 1948 we appropriated $468,000,000 for China, only a fraction of what we were sending to Europe, and out of this $468,000,000 only $125,000,000 was for military purposes. The end was drawing near; the assistance was too little and too late; and the Nationalist Government was engaged in a death struggle with the on-rushing communist armies. .



Yes, we didn't want to give Peanut more opportunities to steal.  

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17535654.2017.1391006

_During the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression from 1937 to 1945, corruption among all ranks of Guomindang officials intensified and spread widely. The Nationalist Party and its leader, Jiang Jieshi, recognized the importance of political reform, social control, and winning popular support during the war and attempted to establish strong governance. Corruption, however, severely harmed the Nationalist Party and derailed its original plan to “build the nation through the war.” As a result of the Guomindang’s ineffective control, corruption harmed the Party’s capacity to govern and was a key factor in its loss of mainland China soon after World War II. The Guomindang won the war but lost out politically._



mikegriffith1 said:


> Listen to the words of the Bolton report: “Its doctrines follow those of Lenin and Stalin. Its leaders are Moscow-trained (of 35 leading Chinese communist political leaders listed in the report, over half either spent some time or studied in Moscow.) Its policies and actions, its strategy and tactics are communist. The Chinese Communists have followed faithfully every zig zag of the Kremlin’s line for a generation.”
> This is the tragic story of China whose freedom we once fought to preserve. What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.



Wow... it kind of shows that we haven't learned a fucking thing.. like when we decided to "Liberate" the Middle East and then were all surprised when the Jihadists came to power after we toppled various thug dictators.  

Here's what we should have learned in China that we hadn't learned in Vietnam or Iraq... you can't win their hearts and minds, if the people you are propping up wouldn't last a day if you left.  Unlike Germany and Japan, which were great post-war success stories, we tried to find people who were compliant and more interested in us than their own people.  

And that is why they failed.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> Another white guy telling Asian people their business.    ...




You can stop repeating that fallacy anytime now.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You can stop repeating that fallacy anytime now.



It's still true.  

The reality is, who won the Chinese civil war is the business of Chinese, not Americans...  

the biggest lie of the 20th century is "Who lost China".  It was never ours to win or lose.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can stop repeating that fallacy anytime now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's still true. .......
Click to expand...



No, it's a transparent attempt at changing the focus of the discussion because you know that you are too ignorant of History to craft a well-reasoned position.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> No, it's a transparent attempt at changing the focus of the discussion because you know that you are too ignorant of History to craft a well-reasoned position.



I've crafted a very well-reasoned position... it's just not one that you like... 

The Commies won because- wait for it - the Nationalists were incompetent western stooges.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Below are excerpts from a report on the Chinese Communists prepared by the War Department’s Military Intelligence Division in August 1945 and published in 1952 by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in its report on the loss of China:





JoeB131 said:


> Hmmmm... 1952.  You mean when we were at the Height of McCarthyism Crazy and all seeing Communists under our beds? When people were all trying to save their careers by screaming, "We didn't screw this up?"



Hmm, I guess you didn't notice that the Military Intelligence Division's report was written in_ August 1945_. Truman's cronies had the report suppressed. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published it as part of the committee's report on the loss of China. Do you only read every fourth or fifth word of replies?

So your response to all the massive evidence that government committees documented about the role of Communist agents and sympathizers in the loss of China--your response is just going to be to fall back on the liberal talking point about "McCarthyism" and the "paranoid 1950s"? Hmm, interesting. Are you ever going to address the evidence that was presented, which included the Venona decrypts and former Communists who defected and identified such FDR-Truman officials as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, John Stewart Service, Owen Lattimore as Soviet agents or sympathizers, etc., etc.? 

As I've documented, the Chinese Communists won because Truman and Marshall repeatedly sabotaged the Nationalists and saved the Communists from defeat when they were facing annihilation by the Nationalists. For all of their corruption and incompetence, the Nationalists were better than the Communists. China would have been far better off under Nationalist rule or under split Nationalist-Japanese rule than under Communist rule. 

Anyway, mainly for the sake of others, let's deal with your repeated nonsense about Japan's presence and intervention in Manchuria and China. Let's take a look at what the League of Nations' Lytton Commission had to say about Japan's involvement in China and Manchuria as of 1931.

After describing the dominance of war lords in a large area of China, the Lytton Commission discussed the Communist state that existed in China as of 1931, the fact that Japan had suffered more than any other foreign nation from the lawless conditions that prevailed over most of China, and the fact that Japan was not the only nation that was not prepared to relinquish her treaty-granted special powers and privileges until law and order and stability had been established in China:

Communism in China not only means, as in most countries other than the U.S.S.R., either a political doctrine held by certain members of existing parties, or the organization of a special party to compete for power with other political parties. It has become an actual rival of the National Government. It possesses its own law, army, and government, and its own territorial sphere of action. For this state of affairs there is no parallel in any other country. . . . 

So far as Japan is China’s nearest neighbor and largest customer, she has suffered more than any other Power from the lawless conditions described in this chapter. Over two-thirds of the foreign residents in China are Japanese, and the number of Koreans in Manchuria is estimated at about 800,000. She has more nationals, therefore, than any other Power, who would suffer if they were made amenable to Chinese law, justice, and taxation under present conditions. 

Japan felt it impossible to satisfy Chinese aspirations so long as satisfactory safeguards to take the place of her Treaty rights could not be hoped for. Her interests in China, and more especially in Manchuria, began to be more prominently asserted as those of the other major Powers receded into the background. Japan’s anxiety to safeguard the life and property of her subjects in China caused her to intervene repeatedly in times of civil war or of local disturbances. . . .

This issue, however, though affecting Japan to a greater extent than other Powers, is not a Sino-Japanese issue alone. China demands immediately the surrender of certain exceptional powers and privileges because they are felt to be derogatory to her national dignity and sovereignty. The foreign Powers have hesitated to meet these wishes as long as conditions in China did not ensure adequate protection of their nationals, whose interests depend on the security afforded by the enjoyment of special Treaty rights. (pp. 22-23)

The Lytton Commission also provided a useful review of the history of Manchuria and the involvement of foreign powers there, including the relations between China and Manchuria and the wars between the Nationalists and Manchuria’s war lord. The commission’s review is sanitized and incomplete, but it contains enough factual information to be useful. Here is an excerpt from it:

Manchuria, so largely dependent on cooperation, was destined, for reasons already indicated, to become a region of conflict: at first between Russian and Japan, later between China and her two powerful neighbors. . . . Exceptional treaty rights were acquired in the first instance by Russia at the expense of China. Those which concerned South Manchuria were transferred to Japan. The use of these privileges so acquired became more and more instrumental in furthering the economic development of South Manchuria. (p. 24)

Although Marshal Chang Tso-lin and the Kuomintang had been allies in the wars against Win Pei-fu, the former himself did not accept the doctrines of the Kuomintang. He did not approve of the constitution as desired by Dr. Sun [the first Nationalist leader]. . . . 

In 1928, he [Chang Tso-lin] suffered defeat at the hands of the Kuomintang Army in their Northern Expedition referred to in Chapter I, and was advised by Japan to withdraw his armies into Manchuria before it was too late. The declared object of Japan was to save Manchuria from the evils of civil war which would have resulted from the entry of a defeated army pursued by its victors. . . .

After the death of Marshal Chang Tso-lin, his son, Chang Hsueh-liang, became the ruler of Manchuria. He shared many of the national aspirations of the younger generation, and desired to stop civil warfare and assist the Kuomintang in its policy of unification. As Japan had already experience with the policy and tendencies of the Kuomintang, she did not welcome the prospect of such influence penetrating into Manchuria. The young Marshal was advised accordingly. (p. 29)

But the Young Marshal decided to become an ally of the Nationalists (the Kuomintang) in 1928. The Lytton Commission, to its credit, noted that his union with the Kuomintang was only partial and purely voluntary, and that the Manchurian government routinely ignored any Nationalist law or policy that it didn’t like. (Indeed, later on, the Young Marshal betrayed Chiang to the Communists and allowed them to capture him.) Said the commission,

As regards domestic affairs, the Manchurian authorities had retained all the power they wanted, and they had no objection to following administrative rules and methods adopted by the Central Government so long as the essentials of power were not affected. (p. 31)

But after the Young Marshal entered into his tenuous, nominal union with the Kuomintang in 1928, Nationalist operatives flooded Manchuria with anti-Japanese propaganda and began various measures to persecute Japanese citizens and subjects (Koreans) living in Manchuria, such as pressuring Chinese landlords in Manchuria to raise rents on Japanese tenants and even to refuse to renew their rental contracts. Said the commission,

However, after the union, Manchuria was opened to well-organized and systematic Kuomintang propaganda. In its official party publications and numerous affiliated organs, it never ceased to insist on the primary importance of the recovery of lost sovereign rights, the abolition of unequal treaties, and the wickedness of imperialism. . . .  They [the Nationalists] stimulated and intensified the nationalist sentiment and carried on anti-Japanese agitation. Pressure was brought to bear on Chinese house-owners and landlords to raise the rents of Japanese and Korean tenants, or to refuse renewal of rent contracts. . . .  Korean settlers were subjected to systematic persecution. Various orders and instructions of an anti-Japanese nature were issued. Cases of friction accumulated and dangerous tension developed. (p. 30)

Keep in mind that at the time, Korea was part of Japan. With the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1910, and with the consent of England and America, Korea became a territory of Japan. So “Koreans” were Japanese subjects, many of whom considered themselves Japanese and aspired to attain full Japanese citizenship.

Also, note that this Nationalist persecution of Japanese citizens and subjects in Manchuria occurred years before a single Japanese soldier entered China without treaty authorization. The only Japanese soldiers in China at this time were there by internationally recognized treaty right to protect Japanese holdings, citizens, and subjects living in China, especially in Shanghai. America, England, Germany, and France likewise had contingents of troops in China to protect their interests and citizens there. 

The Lytton Commission, again to its credit, provided a fairly decent explanation of Japan’s fear of Russian Communist (Soviet) intervention in Manchuria and China and of why Manchuria was historically and strategically important to Japan:

The Russian Revolution of 1917, followed by the declarations of the Soviet Government of July 25th, 1919, and of October 27th, 1920. regarding its policy towards the Chinese people and, later, by the Sino-Soviet Agreements of May 31st, 1924, and September 20, 1924, shattered the basis of Russo-Japanese understanding and co-operation in Manchuria. This fundamental reversal of policy radically changed the relations of the three Powers in the Far East. Moreover, the Allied intervention (1918–1920). with its aftermath of friction between the Japanese and Soviet forces in Siberia (1920–1922), had accentuated the change in the relations between Japan and Russia. The attitude of the Soviet Government gave a strong impetus to China's nationalistic aspirations. As the Soviet Government and the Third international had adopted a policy opposed to all imperialist Powers which maintained relations with China on the basis of the existing treaties, it seemed probable that they would support China in the struggle for the recovery of sovereign rights. This development revived all the old anxieties and suspicions of Japan towards her Russian neighbor. 

This country. with which she had once been at war, had, during the years which followed that war. become. a friend and ally. Now this relationship was changed. and the possibility of a danger from across the North-Manchurian border again became a matter of concern to Japan. The likelihood of an alliance between the Communist doctrines in the North and the anti-Japanese propaganda of the Kuomintang in the South made the desire to impose between the two a Manchuria which should be free from both increasingly felt in Japan. Japanese misgivings have been still further increased in the last few years by the predominant influence acquired by the U.S.S.R. in Outer Mongolia and the growth of Communism in China. (pp. 36-37)

Japanese interests in Manchuria differ both in character and degree from those of any other foreign country. Deep in the mind of every Japanese is the memory of their country's great struggle with Russia in 1901–05, fought on the plains of Manchuria, at Mukden and Liaoyang, along the line of the South Manchuria Railway, at the Yalu River, and in the Liaotung Peninsula. To the Japanese the war with Russia will ever be remembered as a life-and-death struggle fought in self-defense against the menace of Russian encroachments. The facts that a hundred thousand Japanese soldiers died in this war and that two billon gold yen were expended have created in Japanese minds a determination that these sacrifices shall not have been made in vain.

Japanese interest in Manchuria, however, began ten years before that war. The war with China, in 1894–95, principally over Korea, was largely fought at Port Arthur and on the plains of Manchuria; and the Treaty of Peace signed at Shimonoseki ceded to Japan in full sovereignty the Liaotung Peninsula. To the Japanese, the fact that Russia. France and Germany forced them to renounce this cession does not affect their conviction that Japan obtained this part of Manchuria as the result of a successful war and thereby acquired a moral right to it which still exists.

Manchuria has been frequently referred to as the "life-line" of Japan. Manchuria adjoins Korea, now Japanese territory. The vision of a China, united, strong and hostile, a nation of four hundred millions, dominant in Manchuria and in Eastern Asia, is disturbing to many Japanese. But to the greater number, when they speak of menace to their national existence and of the necessity for self-defense, they have in mind Russia rather than China. Fundamental, therefore, among the interests of Japan in Manchuria is the strategic importance of this territory.

There are those in Japan who think that she should entrench herself firmly in Manchuria against the possibility of attack from the U.S.S.R. They have an ever-present anxiety lest Korean malcontents in league with Russian Communists in the nearby Maritime Province might in future invite, or co-operate with, some new military advance from the North. They regard Manchuria as a buffer region against both the U.S.S.R, and the rest of China. Especially in the minds of Japanese military men, the right claimed, under agreements with Russia and China, to station a few thousand railway guards along the South Manchuria Railway is small recompense for the enormous sacrifices of their country in the Russo-Japanese War, and a meagre security against the possibility of attack from that direction. (p. 39)

Until the events of September 1931, the various Japanese Cabinets, since 1905, appeared to have the same general aims in Manchuria, but they differed as to the policies best suited to achieve these aims. They also differed somewhat as to the extent of the responsibility which Japan should assume for the maintenance of peace and order.

The general aims for which they worked in Manchuria were to maintain and develop Japan's vested interests, to foster the expansion of Japanese enterprise, and to obtain adequate protection for Japanese lives and property. In the policies adopted for realizing these aims there was one cardinal feature which may be said to have been common to them all. This feature has been the tendency to regard Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia as distinct from the rest of China. It resulted naturally from the Japanese conception of their country's "special position" in Manchuria. Whatever differences may have been observable between the specific policies advocated by the various Cabinets in Japan—as, for example, between the so-called "friendship policy" of Baron Shidehara and the so-called "positive policy" of the late General Baron Tanaka—they have always had this feature in common. (p. 40)

The Lytton Commission acknowledged that Japan was concerned that the fighting between the Nationalists and Manchuria’s war lord would spill over into Manchuria and that the Japanese, understandably enough, wanted to avoid this:

In the spring of 1928, when the Nationalist armies of China were marching on Peking in an effort to drive out the forces of [Manchuria’s war lord] Chang Tso-lin, the Japanese Government, under the premiership of Baron Tanaka, issued a declaration that, on account of her "special position" in Manchuria, Japan would maintain peace and order in that region. When it seemed possible that the Nationalist armies might carry the civil war north of the Great Wall, the Japanese Government, on May 28th, sent to the leading Chinese generals a communication which said: 

"The Japanese Government attaches the utmost importance to the maintenance of peace and order in Manchuria, and is prepared to do all it can to prevent the occurrence of any such state of affairs as may disturb that peace and order, or constitute the probable cause of such a disturbance.

"In these circumstances, should disturbances develop further in the direction of Peking and Tientsin, and the situation become so menacing as to threaten the peace and order of Manchuria, Japan may possibly be constrained to take appropriate effective steps for the maintenance of peace and order in Manchuria."

At the same time, Baron Tanaka issued a more definite statement, that the Japanese Government would prevent "defeated troops or those in pursuit of them" from entering Manchuria. (pp. 41-42)

These frequent clashes between the Nationalists and the Manchurians and the instability and tensions caused by Nationalist anti-Japanese activities in Manchuria were the reason that the Japanese decided that they needed to establish a state in Manchuria and that they needed a buffer zone between Manchuria and China.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Hmm, I guess you didn't notice that the Military Intelligence Division's report was written in_ August 1945_. Truman's cronies had the report suppressed. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published it as part of the committee's report on the loss of China. Do you only read every fourth or fifth word of replies?
> 
> So your response to all the massive evidence that government committees documented about the role of Communist agents and sympathizers in the loss of China--your response is just going to be to fall back on the liberal talking point about "McCarthyism" and the "paranoid 1950s"? Hmm, interesting. Are you ever going to address the evidence that was presented, which included the Venona decrypts and former Communists who defected and identified such FDR-Truman officials as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, John Stewart Service, Owen Lattimore as Soviet agents or sympathizers, etc., etc.?



Yawn...  so what?   Here's the delusion we had after WWII.... We had (and still have) an inflated opinion of our role in winning it.   In reality, we were the last major power in, and we took the least casualties.   We were just the only country that had an intact infrastructure when it was over.  

So imagine our surprise when those nasty Communists in Russia and China who did MOST OF THE HEAVY LIFTING in the war started insisting on enjoying the fruits of victory, those dirty little commies...  Then we all went into this McCarthy Paranoia of asking "Who Lost China?" (It was never ours to lose, the Chinese people CHOSE the Communists.)  

Imagine our surprise when all those people of color who were sick and tried of living under the thumbs of Europeans decided they had enough of that shit, and if the Communists would help them, they were all buddy-buddy with the communists...



mikegriffith1 said:


> As I've documented, the Chinese Communists won because Truman and Marshall repeatedly sabotaged the Nationalists and saved the Communists from defeat when they were facing annihilation by the Nationalists. For all of their corruption and incompetence, the Nationalists were better than the Communists. China would have been far better off under Nationalist rule or under split Nationalist-Japanese rule than under Communist rule.



No, the Communist won because the Nationalists were just as corrupt and incompetent as they were in keeping the Japanese from invading the country.  The difference was that most of the people who weren't thrilled with the Japanese abusing them weren't going to get behind Peanut and his gang of crooks.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Also, note that this Nationalist persecution of Japanese citizens and subjects in Manchuria occurred years before a single Japanese soldier entered China without treaty authorization. The only Japanese soldiers in China at this time were there by internationally recognized treaty right to protect Japanese holdings, citizens, and subjects living in China, especially in Shanghai. America, England, Germany, and France likewise had contingents of troops in China to protect their interests and citizens there.
> 
> The Lytton Commission, again to its credit, provided a fairly decent explanation of Japan’s fear of Russian Communist (Soviet) intervention in Manchuria and China and of why Manchuria was historically and strategically important to Japan:



Here's what you do when another country oppresses your people when they visit. 

YOU DON'T GO THERE!!!  

Like, as an American, it would really suck for me to go to Iran. True, I personally had nothing to do with all the shit the USA did in Iran that they are still pissed about 40 years later... But here's my solution.  

I won't go to Iran.  

If Manchuria and Shanghai sucked for Japanese people, STAY THE FUCK IN JAPAN!!!


----------



## whitehall

James Bradley's remarkable book "Flyboys" gives a good overview about the political chaos in Japan prior to WW2. The Japanese victory over the Russians early in the 20th century gave the Japanese a false sense of confidence in their religious superiority. The emperor was a puppet for the insanity of the militaristic Bushido thugs who rose in power and the stage was set for Japanese expansion into China and the Korean peninsula.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> 
> Like, as an American, it would really suck for me to go to Iran.....




You should.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You should.



Naw, man, I think you and every other right wing thug who wants to "free" Iran's oil... I mean People should go over there. You should form your own little liberation brigade.  

You know, instead of sending some poor kid looking for a college education.


----------



## mikegriffith1

In his widely acclaimed and classic book _How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 _(Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963), Dr. Anthony Kubek discussed Japan’s entirely valid and reasonable concerns about Soviet influence and subversion in China and Manchuria. Dr. Kubek’s book received praise from many quarters, including Dr. David Rowe of Yale University, former Ambassador to China Patrick Hurley, and Robert Morris, a former chief counsel for the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Below are excerpts from Dr. Kubek’s discussion on Japan’s justified fear of Soviet subversion in Asia—they are from chapter 1, which is titled “War in the Pacific: A Major Soviet Objective”:



















Dr. Kubek also noted that FDR and Hull's demand that Japan immediately pull her troops out of China would have left the door open for further Russian intervention and subversion. He also noted that although FDR screamed against Japan for sending troops into China, he said nothing against the Soviet Union for annexing Sinkiang and a chunk of Outer Mongolia:


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his widely acclaimed and classic book _How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 _(Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963), Dr. Anthony Kubek discussed Japan’s entirely valid and reasonable concerns about Soviet influence and subversion in China and Manchuria.



Yup,more White people rationalizing imperialism.   What a big surprise. 

Uh, to the point.  Our "Danger zone" in the Carribean was just an attempt for us to impose imperialismon the region. We were in the wrong- it's why we are hated in so much of the region today.... Japan was in the wrong for what it did in China, which is why THEY are still hated today. 

The whine by this White Person was that those dirty stinking commies were distributing literature telling them that, hey, maybe not sucking western dick was the way to go.  HOW DARE THEY!!!!!  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Kubek also noted that FDR and Hull's demand that Japan immediately pull her troops out of China would have left the door open for further Russian intervention and subversion. He also noted that although FDR screamed against Japan for sending troops into China, he said nothing against the Soviet Union for annexing Sinkiang and a chunk of Outer Mongolia:



Uh, guy, Outer Mongolia established her independence from the rotting corpse of Qing China in 1911.  They established the Mongolian People's Republic in 1928.  What was FDR supposed to do, scream, "I'm very upset about this thing that happened in the middle of a desert 10 years before I got here!"   

So were the Japs looking for Commies in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Burma, and all the other countries they pillaged and raped?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here is part of Dr. Kubek's discussion on the role that Soviet/Communist agents and sympathizers played in getting the American government to reject Japan's peace offer. These excerpts come from Chapter 1: War in the Pacific: A Major Soviet Objective:


----------



## JoeB131

Axis Silly strikes again.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is part of Dr. Kubek's discussion on the role that Soviet/Communist agents and sympathizers played in getting the American government to reject Japan's peace offer. These excerpts come from Chapter 1: War in the Pacific: A Major Soviet Objective:



Oh, no, not the notorious, "FDR knew Pearl Harbor Was Going to Happen" bullshit.  I put it up there with the kind of nuts who think 9/11 was an inside job.  


One more time. 

Japan had no business being in China.  Japan was the aggressor. Japan was engaging in a campaign of genocide.  

FDR had every right to demand they knock it the fuck off.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Axis Silly strikes again.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is part of Dr. Kubek's discussion on the role that Soviet/Communist agents and sympathizers played in getting the American government to reject Japan's peace offer. These excerpts come from Chapter 1: War in the Pacific: A Major Soviet Objective:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no, not the notorious, "FDR knew Pearl Harbor Was Going to Happen" bullshit.  I put it up there with the kind of nuts who think 9/11 was an inside job.
> 
> 
> One more time.
> 
> Japan had no business being in China.  Japan was the aggressor. Japan was engaging in a campaign of genocide.
> 
> FDR had every right to demand they knock it the fuck off.
Click to expand...

Would it be okay if Trump lied us into war?  Was it okay when W did it?  

Telling them to knock it off, is not even close to what FDR did to the Japanese. You lack an education.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, no, not the notorious, "FDR knew Pearl Harbor Was Going to Happen" bullcrap.  I put it up there with the kind of nuts who think 9/11 was an inside job.



As others have told you, you lack education. The evidence that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked has been documented by scholars from all across the spectrum, from John Toland and Victor George to George Morgenstern and Kevin O'Connell. I take it you haven't heard about the Hoover-Ladd memos?



> One more time. Japan had no business being in China.  Japan was the aggressor. Japan was engaging in a campaign of genocide.



One more time: I've debunked these myths with quotations and citations from recognized scholars, but you just keep repeating them. I've documented that the Nationalists attacked first, and that they did so after the Japanese had made another peace offer. I've documented that the Japanese holdings in China before the war started were internationally recognized as legal. I've documented that the Japanese offered to withdraw from the vast majority of China in exchange for a small buffer zone between China and their state in Manchuria. You just keep ignoring these facts and repeating your Chinese Communist-FDR myths.



> FDR had every right to demand they knock it off.



Phew! First of all, he did a lot more than just "demand" that they "knock it off." He imposed draconian sanctions that every nation in the world would regard as tantamount to a declaration of war and a clear threat to national survival.

And what "right" did he have to demand that Japan leave China? Why didn't he demand that the Soviets withdraw from Mongolia and Sinkiang? Why did he offer to end the sanctions if Japan would withdraw from China and Indochina and then present Japan with ultimatums that he knew they would reject after they had agreed to the very withdrawal that he said would be enough to end the sanctions?

By the way, historian David M. Kennedy, whom no one would accuse of "revisionism," in his 1998 review of Chang's book, tacitly admitted that China started the war:

For his part, Chiang, under pressure from his generals and the Communists, ravened for the chance to come to grips with the Japanese aggressor in a decisive showdown. Soon foiled, however, in his attempt to engage the main body of Japanese troops near Beijing, Chiang sought to shift the arena of combat to the south by replaying the scenario of 1932. His minions menaced the 30,000 Japanese residents of Shanghai, hoping to draw Japanese forces out of the north and into the great valley of the Yangtze, Chiang's main political base and supposedly most secure military stronghold.

The lure worked. Tokyo turned its eyes southward, and the Japanese commander Matsui Iwane began the investment of Shanghai on August 23. (The Horror)​
As I've documented from some of the recognized best books on the war, Chiang Kaishek picked a fight with the Japanese because he believed his Nazi-trained armies could easily defeat them, but it turned out that he bit off more than he could chew and ended up losing to the Japanese most of the territory he controlled before the war.

Dr. Kennedy wrote his review before anyone knew that most of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Yet, even so, he rejected her claim that the massacre compared to the Holocaust, and he pointed out problems with the book that other reviewers have since magnified.

Finally, I am still waiting on you to provide a single reputable, non-Chinese Communist source that supports your laughable claim that the Chinese Communists fought the Japanese as much as or more than the Nationalists did. This Chinese Communist propaganda was debunked decades ago, including by two Senate subcommittees.

I'm also still waiting for you to provide a single reputable, non-Communist source that supports your obscene claim that Mao brought economic prosperity to China after he took over. That's not just absurd; it's obscene. Mao killed millions with his bungling agricultural policies, and he killed tens of millions in cruel mass murders to consolidate his power.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Would it be okay if Trump lied us into war? Was it okay when W did it?
> 
> Telling them to knock it off, is not even close to what FDR did to the Japanese. You lack an education.



Again, I have a degree in history from an actual university, what do you have?  

He imposed sanctions - AFTER the League of Nations condemned Japan's invasion of Manchuria.  This is exactly what you are supposed to do when a country breaks international norms.  Japan decided to invade and take everyone's holdings in the region.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> s others have told you, you lack education. The evidence that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked has been documented by scholars from all across the spectrum, from John Toland and Victor George to George Morgenstern and Kevin O'Connell. I take it you haven't heard about the Hoover-Ladd memos?



More Pro-Axis nuts...  Toland wrote a glowing biography of Hitler...  Only a fucking nut thinks it was an inside job. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> One more time: I've debunked these myths with quotations and citations from recognized scholars, but you just keep repeating them. I've documented that the Nationalists attacked first, and that they did so after the Japanese had made another peace offer.



Look, you miserable little Nazi fascist fuckwad,   If China had attacked JAPAN, then Japan would be justified. China attacked Japanese squatters in their territory.  They didn't belong there.  They were invaders.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Phew! First of all, he did a lot more than just "demand" that they "knock it off." He imposed draconian sanctions that every nation in the world would regard as tantamount to a declaration of war and a clear threat to national survival.
> 
> And what "right" did he have to demand that Japan leave China?



That their actions had been condemned in the League of Nations.... and violated international norms. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> As I've documented from some of the recognized best books on the war, Chiang Kaishek picked a fight with the Japanese because he believed his Nazi-trained armies could easily defeat them, but it turned out that he bit off more than he could chew and ended up losing to the Japanese most of the territory he controlled before the war.



Yes, Peanut was a real piece of shit, but he still had a legitimate point about not wanting the Japanese to pillage and rape their country.  And when the war was over, the people said, "Fuck this twat, we're going with the Communists".  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Kennedy wrote his review before anyone knew that most of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Yet, even so, he rejected her claim that the massacre compared to the Holocaust, and he pointed out problems with the book that other reviewers have since magnified.



Yeah. 

"Silly little Asian Girl... how dare you compare your suffering to the suffering of white people." 

22 million Chinese died in World War II.  Most of them civilians.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be okay if Trump lied us into war? Was it okay when W did it?
> 
> Telling them to knock it off, is not even close to what FDR did to the Japanese. You lack an education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have a degree in history from an actual university, what do you have?
> 
> He imposed sanctions - AFTER the League of Nations condemned Japan's invasion of Manchuria.  This is exactly what you are supposed to do when a country breaks international norms.  Japan decided to invade and take everyone's holdings in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> s others have told you, you lack education. The evidence that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked has been documented by scholars from all across the spectrum, from John Toland and Victor George to George Morgenstern and Kevin O'Connell. I take it you haven't heard about the Hoover-Ladd memos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More Pro-Axis nuts...  Toland wrote a glowing biography of Hitler...  Only a fucking nut thinks it was an inside job.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time: I've debunked these myths with quotations and citations from recognized scholars, but you just keep repeating them. I've documented that the Nationalists attacked first, and that they did so after the Japanese had made another peace offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you miserable little Nazi fascist fuckwad,   If China had attacked JAPAN, then Japan would be justified. China attacked Japanese squatters in their territory.  They didn't belong there.  They were invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phew! First of all, he did a lot more than just "demand" that they "knock it off." He imposed draconian sanctions that every nation in the world would regard as tantamount to a declaration of war and a clear threat to national survival.
> 
> And what "right" did he have to demand that Japan leave China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That their actions had been condemned in the League of Nations.... and violated international norms.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've documented from some of the recognized best books on the war, Chiang Kaishek picked a fight with the Japanese because he believed his Nazi-trained armies could easily defeat them, but it turned out that he bit off more than he could chew and ended up losing to the Japanese most of the territory he controlled before the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Peanut was a real piece of shit, but he still had a legitimate point about not wanting the Japanese to pillage and rape their country.  And when the war was over, the people said, "Fuck this twat, we're going with the Communists".
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Kennedy wrote his review before anyone knew that most of the photos in Chang's book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Yet, even so, he rejected her claim that the massacre compared to the Holocaust, and he pointed out problems with the book that other reviewers have since magnified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> "Silly little Asian Girl... how dare you compare your suffering to the suffering of white people."
> 
> 22 million Chinese died in World War II.  Most of them civilians.
Click to expand...

FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.



Everything he did was within the law and within international norms.  

Again- I have a degree in history, what do you have... Besides Dementia.? 

Heck, by your logic, Iran would be totally justified in Nuking us.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything he did was within the law and within international norms.
> 
> Again- I have a degree in history, what do you have... Besides Dementia.?
> 
> Heck, by your logic, Iran would be totally justified in Nuking us.
Click to expand...

Yeah if you like war, which apparently you do. 

FDR lied to the American people repeatedly in the 1940 campaign, when he told us no America boys were going to war. All the while, he was desperately trying to maneuver and incite the Germans and Japanese to attack. 

Who is the bigger liar? Donnie or Stalin’s Stooge?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> Again- I have a degree in history, ....
Click to expand...




No one reading your ignorant nonsense believes that.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Yeah if you like war, which apparently you do.
> 
> FDR lied to the American people repeatedly in the 1940 campaign, when he told us no America boys were going to war. All the while, he was desperately trying to maneuver and incite the Germans and Japanese to attack.
> 
> Who is the bigger liar? Donnie or Stalin’s Stooge?



I see war as occasionally necessary.  Most of our wars have not been necessary. World War II was.  

Do you blame women in short dresses for rape as well?  



Unkotare said:


> No one reading your ignorant nonsense believes that.



Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> [QUOTE="gipper, post: 23686454, member: 274Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.




Still wrong, ignorant communist.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="gipper, post: 23686454, member: 274Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still wrong, ignorant communist.
Click to expand...


Um, Guy, your screen name is a fucking weird ass Asian fetish...  I can imagine you are pretty creepy in real life.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="gipper, post: 23686454, member: 274Says the guy whose academic career is giving Asian Girls on campus creepy looks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still wrong, ignorant communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, Guy, your screen name is a fucking weird ass Asian fetish...  I can imagine you are pretty creepy in real life.
Click to expand...



You imagine lots of things, I’m sure, because you are so ignorant that you know nothing.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You imagine lots of things, I’m sure, because you are so ignorant that you know nothing.



Again, you are the one who picked a porn genre about people shitting on each other as a screen name... that's just... weird.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You imagine lots of things, I’m sure, because you are so ignorant that you know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are the one who picked a porn genre about people shitting on each other as a screen name... that's just... weird.
Click to expand...


You’re ignorance and perverted imagination are your issues, dumbass.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I’d like to steer the discussion back to the subject of the OP: the Nanking Massacre. Authors who argue that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking by the Japanese have always had to dismiss the survey and resulting report done by Dr. Lewis Smythe in 1938, just weeks after the Japanese occupied the city. Why? Because Smythe, a sociology professor at Jinling University and a member of the Nanking International Relief Committee, found that the Japanese had killed and abducted a total of 10,950 people—6,750 killed, 4,200 abducted (pp. 6-8). Interestingly, Smythe’s report, titled _War Damage in the Nanking Area, _agrees with several journals of European residents of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, during and just after the period of violence, recorded that it was believed that “as many as 10,000 people” had been killed by the Japanese, the majority of whom were soldiers who had discarded their uniforms and were trying to hide among the civilian population.

Smythe also determined that the population of Nanking when the Japanese arrived was no more than 250,000: “between 200,000 and 250,000” (p. 4). This, of course, would mean that the Japanese could not have killed 300,000 people in Nanking. Another troubling part of Dr. Smythe’s report—i.e., troubling to the Iris Chang camp—is that Smythe noted that people steadily began to return to Nanking after the Japanese occupied the city, which of course you would not expect to be the case if the Japanese had been engaged in a massive and prolonged killing spree that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

To help him conduct his survey, Smythe hired _Chinese _students. As students of the Nanking Massacre know, Smythe was one of the city officials who authored many official complaints to the Japanese Embassy in Nanking about the savage conduct of some Japanese soldiers, so no one can sanely suggest that he was some kind of Japanese apologist. Indeed, he conducted his survey to determine just how much damage the Japanese had done and how many people the Japanese had killed.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Smythe did not confine his survey to the Nanking city limits but also surveyed Xiaguan and other areas outside the city boundaries. The field work was done between March 9 and April 2, 1938. The survey of buildings was conducted between March 15 and June 15. Smythe also conducted an agricultural survey in six counties adjacent to Nanking, from March 8-23, covering damage to crops, seed, farming equipment, as well as human casualties.

Japanese author Masaaki Tanaka provides additional information about Smythe’s survey and report:

One of the most trustworthy primary sources relating to the Nanking Incident is Lewis S.C. Smythe’s _War Damage in the Nanking Area, A Sociological Survey_. The scientific and rational methods used in its preparation raise it to a status unparalleled by any other reference. Smythe, a professor of sociology at Jinling University, had conducted similar surveys in the past.​
With the assistance of Professor Bates, Smythe hired a large number of Chinese students and, over a period of approximately two months, proceeded to conduct a survey on war damage sustained by the residents of Nanking. For the survey, Smythe used the random sampling method. He did everything he could to ensure that it would be meticulous, accurate, rational, and fair.​
For the portion of the survey that focused on households, the students, working in teams of two, visited one out of every 50 occupied homes. They interviewed the residents and multiplied the figures obtained from those interviews by 50. For the portion relating to damage to houses, the teams inspected one house in 10. A certain amount of bias was inevitable, since the interviews were conducted by Chinese students, but the scientific methods used cannot be faulted. (_What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth, _p. 40)​
If anyone doubts Tanaka’s description of the survey, they can read Smythe’s report and see that it is accurate.

Chang’s defenders have thought it necessary to reject and denounce Smythe’s analysis even though Smythe made it clear that he believed there was “reason to expect under-reporting of deaths and violence at the hands of the Japanese soldiers, because of the fear of retaliation from the army of occupation” (p. 7). The problem is that even if you assume that Smythe’s survey findings were low by 300%, that gets you nowhere near 300,000 deaths. Sampling is a recognized survey method. That is why American public opinion polls that survey 1,500 to 2,000 voters are considered reliable indicators of the views of American voters as a whole. The standard margin of error for such polls is 3-5%.

So you see the problem for Chang defenders regarding Smythe’s survey. It is just not reasonable or credible to assume a massive margin of error, given Smythe’s sampling size. Again, even you if posit a margin of error of 300%, that gets nowhere near 300,000 deaths. If Smythe’s finding of 6,750 deaths was off by 300%, that gets you 20,250 deaths. To get to 300,000 deaths, you would have to assume a staggering margin of error of 4,400%.

Jinling University Professor Miner Searle Bates, an American, also assisted Dr. Smythe. He testified at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMFTE), i.e., the Tokyo Tribunal, that based on his and Dr. Smythe’s survey and their checking of burials, he and Dr. Smythe concluded that 12,000 people were killed in Nanking:

Professor Smythe and I concluded, as a result of our investigations and observations and checking of burials, that twelve thousand civilians, men, women and children, were killed inside the walls within our own sure knowledge. (IMTFE transcript, July 29, 1946, No. 36.)

Such information, even though it came from an American who had no sympathy for the Japanese army, was very unwelcomed at the Tokyo Tribunal, and Dr. Bates’ testimony has been rejected by those who claim that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking.

In his foreword to Dr. Smythe’s report, Dr. Bates made some interesting comments, among them being that the Chinese did some of the burning in Nanking and that Chinese bandits committed as many acts of robbery and violence as did Japanese soldiers, if not more:

The International Committee is aware, however, that statements have been published by Chinese, putting upon the Japanese an exclusive and exaggerated blame for the injuries to the people of the Nanking area; likewise that statements have been published by Japanese, charging the Chinese with burning and looting which they themselves benevolently checked.​
In order to guard against controversial misuse of the present report, we feel it necessary to make a brief factual statement as to the causation of the injuries listed.​
The burning in the municipal areas immediately adjoining the walled city of Nanking, and in some of the towns and villages along the southeasterly approaches to Nanking, was done by the Chinese armies as a military measure - whether proper or improper, is not for us to determine.​
A very small amount of damage to civilian life and property was done by military operations along the roads from the south-east, and in the four days of moderately severe attack upon the city.​
Practically all of the burning within the city walls, and a good deal of that in rural areas, was done gradually by the Japanese forces (in Nanking, from December 19, one week after entry, to the beginning of February). For the period covered in the surveys, most of the looting in the entire area, and practically all of the violence against civilians, was also done by the Japanese forces -- whether justifiably or unjustifiably in terms of policy, is not for us to decide.​
Beginning early in January, there gradually developed looting and robbery by Chinese civilians; and later, particularly after March, the struggle for fuel brought serious structural damage to unoccupied buildings.​
Also, there has latterly grown up in the rural areas a serious banditry which currently rivals and sometimes surpasses the robbery and violence by Japanese soldiers. (pp. i-ii)​
Given the circumstances, I could see a margin of error as high as 300% to 500%, but to posit an error rate beyond that would be pushing the limits of credulity, survey experience, and logic.

The late Maeda Yuji, former correspondent for Domei Tsushin and former director of the Japan Press Center, described his recollections of his assignment in Nanking in _Japan and the World_:

Those who claim that a massacre took place in Nanking, leaving aside their accusations that 200,000-300,000 persons were murdered for the moment, assert that most victims were women and children. However, these supposed victims were, without exception, in the Safety Zone, protected by the Japanese Security Headquarters. The Nanking Bureau of my former employer, Domei Tsushin, was situated inside the Safety Zone. Four days after the occupation, all of us moved to the Bureau, which served both as our lodgings and workplace. Shops had already reopened, and life had returned to normal. We were privy to anything and everything that happened in the Safety Zone. No massacre claiming tens of thousands, or thousands, or even hundreds of victims could have taken place there without our knowing about it, so I can state with certitude that none occurred.​
Prisoners of war were executed, some perhaps cruelly, but those executions were acts of war and must be judged from that perspective. There were no mass murders of noncombatants. I cannot remain silent when an event that never occurred is recognized as fact, and is described as such in our textbooks. Why was historical fact so horribly distorted? I believe that the answer to this question can be found in the postwar historical view, for which the Tokyo Trials are responsible. (p. 413)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> I’d like to steer the discussion back to the subject of the OP: the Nanking Massacre. Authors who argue that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking by the Japanese have always had to dismiss the survey and resulting report done by Dr. Lewis Smythe in 1938, just weeks after the Japanese occupied the city. Why? Because Smythe, a sociology professor at Jinling University and a member of the Nanking International Relief Committee, found that the Japanese had killed and abducted a total of 10,950 people—6,750 killed, 4,200 abducted (pp. 6-8). Interestingly, Smythe’s report, titled _War Damage in the Nanking Area, _agrees with several journals of European residents of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, during and just after the period of violence, recorded that it was believed that “as many as 10,000 people” had been killed by the Japanese, the majority of whom were soldiers who had discarded their uniforms and were trying to hide among the civilian population.



What, another white person telling those darkies not to be so upset about something, color me SHOCKED. 

Hey, Axis Silly, how about you find something from a CHINESE Scholar about the issue?  



mikegriffith1 said:


> So you see the problem for Chang defenders regarding Smythe’s survey. It is just not reasonable or credible to assume a massive margin of error, given Smythe’s sampling size. Again, even you if posit a margin of error of 300%, that gets nowhere near 300,000 deaths. If Smythe’s finding of 6,750 deaths was off by 300%, that gets you 20,250 deaths. To get to 300,000 deaths, you would have to assume a staggering margin of error of 4,400%.



Or he was a white guy who didn't give a fuck about getting it right.  

https://www.history.com/topics/japan/nanjing-massacre

The problem is, Iris Chang (who spent her much too short a life studying this issue) isn't the only one who came up with the 300K figure. 

Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia

The Nanking Massacre was reported internationally within a week of occurring[11] and the first estimate of the full death toll was published on January 24, 1938, in the _New China Daily_.[12] Here Australian journalist Harold Timperley was quoted as stating that 300,000 civilians had been killed.[12] However, Timperley's source for this number was the French humanitarian Father Jacquinot, who was in Shanghai at the time of the massacre,[1] and it might also have included civilian casualties of the Battle of Shanghai.[13] Timperley included a second estimate in his book published later the same year, _Japanese Terror In China_, which quoted "a foreign member of the University faculty" as stating that "close to 40,000 unarmed persons were killed within and near the walls of Nanking".[14] The source of this information was Miner Searle Bates, an American resident in Nanking who had used the burial records of the Red Swastika Society in his calculations.[15]

Between then and the late 1940s these two estimates were commonly cited by reporters and the media. For example, Edgar Snow stated in his 1941 book, _The Battle for Asia_, that 42,000 were massacred in Nanking and 300,000 in total between Nanking and Shanghai, figures which were apparently based on these estimates.[16][17] The 1944 film, _The Battle of China_, stated that 40,000 were killed in the Nanking Massacre.[18]

Another early estimate was that of China's state-run Central News Agency, which reported in February 1938 that the Japanese had slaughtered 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking.[19] The same month a representative of the Nationalist Government of China claimed that the Japanese had killed 20,000 civilians during the Nanking Massacre.[18] However, in a 1942 speech Chiang Kai-shek raised that figure to "over 200,000 civilians".[20] In 1938 the Red Army of the Communist Party of China reported the total death toll at 42,000 massacred.[18] John Rabe, the German head of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, estimated that between 50,000 and 60,000 Chinese were killed in Nanking, though this estimate included both military casualties and massacred civilians.[21]

After the end of the war between China and Japan in 1945, these estimates were in turn supplanted by the findings of two war crime trials, the International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal. In one estimate the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put the death toll at more than 300,000, though the Tribunal also recorded other estimates including one of 430,000.[3] The International Military Tribunal of the Far East tallied up 155,000 victims of the massacre, though in their verdict against General Iwane Matsui this figure was modified somewhat to "upwards of 100,000 people".[18][22] However, the prosecution at these trials made little effort to verify the accuracy of their death toll estimates and a considerable amount of dubious and now discredited data was accepted by both tribunals.[1][22][23]

The first historian to make an academic estimate of the death toll of the Nanking Massacre was Tomio Hora in his 1967 book _Kindai Senshi no Nazo_ ("Riddles of Modern War History"), who argued in favor of 200,000.[24] Since then the death toll of the massacre has been a major topic of discussion among historians across the world.[25][26] However, emotional arguments and political interference in the debate have tended to hinder the construction of an academic consensus on the number of people killed in the atrocity.[27]


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> I’d like to steer the discussion back to the subject of the OP: the Nanking Massacre. Authors who argue that 300,000 people were killed in Nanking by the Japanese have always had to dismiss the survey and resulting report done by Dr. Lewis Smythe in 1938, just weeks after the Japanese occupied the city. Why? Because Smythe, a sociology professor at Jinling University and a member of the Nanking International Relief Committee, found that the Japanese had killed and abducted a total of 10,950 people—6,750 killed, 4,200 abducted (pp. 6-8). Interestingly, Smythe’s report, titled _War Damage in the Nanking Area, _agrees with several journals of European residents of the Nanking Safety Zone, who, during and just after the period of violence, recorded that it was believed that “as many as 10,000 people” had been killed by the Japanese, the majority of whom were soldiers who had discarded their uniforms and were trying to hide among the civilian population.





JoeB131 said:


> What, another white person telling those darkies not to be so upset about something, color me SHOCKED.



No, color you IGNORANT. What utter, amazing ignorance. I again wonder if you merely skimmed over the response. Be that as it may, you again show you have done no serious study on this issue by suggesting that Smythe was trying to tell the Chinese "not to be so upset."

Good grief, do you know who Smythe was? Do you know what he was doing during the Japanese assault? He was busy writing scorching complaints to the Japanese Embassy about the murders, rapes, and other crimes being committed by some of the Japanese troops in the city. He was also busy trying to shelter and feed Chinese citizens.



> Hey, Axis Silly, how about you find something from a CHINESE Scholar about the issue?



Do you have any idea how stupid, not to mention dishonest, you look making this "Axis Silly" charge? People who have read my posts on issues relating to the Nazis, to the Jews, and to Israel know that no one disdains Hitler and the Nazis more than I do. I've tried to explain to your Neanderthal brain that there were enormous differences between the Axis nations, just as there were between the Allied nations, but facts seem to go in one of your ears and out the other. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> So you see the problem for Chang defenders regarding Smythe’s survey. It is just not reasonable or credible to assume a massive margin of error, given Smythe’s sampling size. Again, even you if posit a margin of error of 300%, that gets nowhere near 300,000 deaths. If Smythe’s finding of 6,750 deaths was off by 300%, that gets you 20,250 deaths. To get to 300,000 deaths, you would have to assume a staggering margin of error of 4,400%.





JoeB131 said:


> Or he was a white guy who didn't give a *%&$% about getting it right.



Or you are an ignorant jerk who has no idea who Lewis Smythe was and what he did during and after the massacre.

https://www.history.com/topics/japan/nanjing-massacre



JoeB131 said:


> The problem is, Iris Chang (who spent her much too short a life studying this issue) isn't the only one who came up with the 300K figure.



Chang was a communist and a slipshod scholar who used a bunch of photos that had nothing to do with the actions of Japanese soldiers in Nanking in late 1937-early 1938 (the period of the massacre).

Are you ever going to explain how the Japanese could have killed 300,000 people when there were no more than 250,00 people in the city when they arrived? Are you aware that numerous sources from Westerners in the city at the time put the city's population at 200,000 when the Japanese arrived, a figure that Smythe confirmed with his survey?



JoeB131 said:


> Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
> [SNIP]



So THIS is your answer to the research I presented: to quote from a Wikipedia article?! THAT's your answer?! Not to mention that the segment you quoted did not establish your claim of 300,000 dead.

Are you going to address the points I raised in my response? Or, are you going to pull your usual stunt of just ignoring evidence that you can't explain?


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> No, color you IGNORANT. What utter, amazing ignorance. I again wonder if you merely skimmed over the response. Be that as it may, you again show you have done no serious study on this issue by suggesting that Smythe was trying to tell the Chinese "not to be so upset."



There's only so much of your Fascist Dick Sucking I can stand to read... that's why I skim over it.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Chang was a communist and a slipshod scholar who used a bunch of photos that had nothing to do with the actions of Japanese soldiers in Nanking in late 1937-early 1938 (the period of the massacre).
> 
> Are you ever going to explain how the Japanese could have killed 300,000 people when there were no more than 250,00 people in the city when they arrived? Are you aware that numerous sources from Westerners in the city at the time put the city's population at 200,000 when the Japanese arrived, a figure that Smythe confirmed with his survey



Thousands of people flooded the city from the surrounding countryside thinking that Peanut wouldn't abandon his own capital.  That's why there were so many people available to murder.  

Your Fascist Cocksucking Logic- "It's okay that we raped and murdered her, she was in the Suburbs!"



mikegriffith1 said:


> Are you going to address the points I raised in my response? Or, are you going to pull your usual stunt of just ignoring evidence that you can't explain?



You are a fascist apologist cocksucker, and a truly awful human being.  That's all the explanation needed.  

You kind of lost all credibility when you called Iris Chang a "Communist".  Really?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Dr. Akira Nakamura of Dokkyo University, in his introduction to an edition of Justice Radhabinod Pal’s dissent to the Tokyo Tribunals verdicts, made several good points about the Nanking Massacre, one of them being that there is not a single panoramic photo that shows piles of dead bodies:

A jealous lover of truth, Justice Pal had nothing but truth to guide him in trying the accused at the Tribunal, and yet the spirit of the court as a whole was not generous enough to listen to the reason and justice of the defeated. Seeing how much is made of, say, Iris Chang’s “The Rape of Nanking” in some parts of the world today, I cannot but question how far the world has progressed over the last half century in the search for truth as well as knowledge and reason. 

All the Japanese, including newspaper reporters and news cameramen, who were then in Nanking, admit that a large number of plain-clothes Chinese soldiers (unlawful belligerents) were executed by the Japanese troops, but unanimously assert that there were no large-scale or systematic atrocities committed against civilians. The strange thing is that, despite the world-famous tale of the holocaust of hundreds of thousands of Chinese or of knee-deep pools of blood in the city of Nanking, not a single panoramic photograph of heaps of corpses in Nanking is known to us nor is there even a single person who witnessed the scene of the holocaust. 

It may be safe, after all, to conclude that the repeated story of the slaughter of more than 300,000 Chinese civilians in Nanking is one of the biggest lies ever told in history. The same shameless lie that once deceived the military court at Tokyo and elsewhere, thereby sending a number of innocent Japanese to the scaffold, are still being blatantly repeated, producing a perverted sense of pleasure in some corners of the world. (Dissentient Judgement of Justice R.B. Pal, Tokyo Tribunal, Full Text)​
The supposed photographic evidence of the Nanking Massacre, such as the photos in Iris Chang’s book, has been shredded and exposed as false or irrelevant:

"Analyzing the 'Photographic Evidence' of the Nanking Massacre"
http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/26_S4.pdf

A False Memory: Nominating the “Nanjing Massacre” to the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme


----------



## JoeB131

Axis Silly, Cock-sucking Fascist apologist, doubles down on the silly.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Akira Nakamura of Dokkyo University, in his introduction to an edition of Justice Radhabinod Pal’s dissent to the Tokyo Tribunals verdicts, made several good points about the Nanking Massacre, one of them being that there is not a single panoramic photo that shows piles of dead bodies:



Wow... this is your argument, that when committing a horrible crime against humanity, nobody took pictures.  I mean, I know Japanese and their cameras have become kind of a racist trope... but Jesus fucking Christ, man, this isn't the kind of thing you take pictures of yourself doing.  It's not like the Chinese were going to whip out their I-phones and catch them in the act. 

The only reason why we have such horrible pictures of the Holocaust in Europe was that the Allies caught the Nazis red-handed doing it and documented it.


----------



## mikegriffith1

This would be a good time to discuss the fact that the infamous 100-man killing contest never happened. But first, a word about Iris Chang. Chang was not technically a Communist, at least as far as anybody knows, but she certainly seemed to be pro-Communist, judging from her writings.

Now, as for the 100-man killing contest, supposedly, two young Japanese officers had a contest to see who could be the first to kill 100 men with his sword. The contest allegedly began during the march to Nanking and concluded when the city was captured. This contest has been included in every book on the Nanking Massacre. 

The story began to be debunked in the late 1990s after Iris Chang’s book was published. Subsequent research has raised serious doubts that the contest occurred, including evidence that one of the officers (Mukai) was not even in the area when Asami’s newspaper story said the killings occurred because he had been injured and was receiving medical treatment at the time. Yet, virtually all of Chang’s defenders continue to accept and repeat the story (Chang uncritically accepted the story and ignored all the evidence from the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, or NMT, that exonerated the officers).

Here is an online refutation of the killing-contest story—the chapter on the contest starts on page 77 of the PDF:

Chapter 32: Did the Contest to Kill 100 Enemies Using a Sword” Really Take Place? A Tragedy Born Out of a Fictitious Tale of Valiance

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/112_S4.pdf

A thorough analysis and refutation of the killing-contest story appears in chapter 6 of the book _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-1938: Complicating the Picture _(2007), edited by Dr. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, a moderate Japanese historian who teaches history at York University in Toronto, Canada.

In chapter 12 of _The Nanking Atrocity, _historian Joshua Fogel says that no balanced historian can accept the killing-contest story as accurate:

Fourth Generation Chinese argue that racism—by which they mean the Japanese troops’ dehumanization of the Chinese people—was indeed an essential part of the assault on China. The piece of evidence usually cited is the infamous 100-man killing contest, in which two Japanese soldiers allegedly vied to see who could first slay 100 Chinese en route to Nanking. Many have questioned the veracity of this story, and not only arch right-wingers in Japan. See Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi’s chapter 6 in the present volume. But the Japanese press in November-December 1937 did give the story considerable play, and the soldiers did receive death sentences at the postwar Nanking War Crimes Tribunal; so, as a result, anti-Japanese Chinese believe the story today. But despite the guilty verdict, to accept this story as true and accurate requires a leap of faith that no balanced historian can make. (pp. 279-280; p. 172 in some editions)​
Another good source on the 100-man killing contest is Bob Wakabayashi’s article “The Nanking 100-Man Killing Contest Debate: War Guilt amid Fabricated Illusions, 1971-75” in _The Journal of Japanese Studies_, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), pp. 307-340. Here’s an excerpt from that article:

Moreover, the NMT records continue, one defendant (Noda) protested that the contest never took place. Instead, reporters for _Tokyo nichinichi shin bun_--which ran the original articles later digested in the _Japan Advertiser_--fabricated the story after the other defendant (Mukai) had bragged about these imaginary feats. For his part, Mukai insisted he never really killed anyone but boasted that he had, hoping the publicity would attract a better wife after he returned to Japan. . . .​
Suzuki discovered that the IMTFE in Tokyo chose not to prosecute Mukai and Noda, but the Chinese nationalists insisted on their extradition for B- and C-class war crimes. The NMT then found both guilty whereas it acquitted other defendants because these two submitted no "persuasive counter-evidence to refute the charges." Suzuki cited NMT records left by Mukai and Noda. These instructed their kin to bear the Chinese people no ill will and declared that they hoped their deaths would lay the bases for Sino-Japanese friendship. Chieko supplied a copy of a defense statement that Toshiaki filed at the NMT to protest his innocence. It said that (1) the IMTFE subpoenaed Mukai but took no legal action against him, (2) he belonged to an artillery platoon normally not engaged in front-line combat, (3) he saw action only in artillery shellings at Wuhsi and Tanyang on the road to Nanking, (4) he had met with and talked to Asami only at Wuhsi; (5) the _Tokyo nichinichi_ reporters testified that none of them had seen any killings, and (6) Mukai and Noda parted ways at Tanyang on 1 December and did not meet again until 16 December. Thus Mukai's statement contradicted all of the crucial events as reported by Asami.​
Suzuki also discovered that just before Toshiaki's execution, his brother Takeshi had tracked down other men who had served in Mukai's unit, plus Asami Kazuo himself. Mukai's former comrades gave oral statements and written testimonies to support his defense. Toyama Takeo, his former commanding officer, certified that Mukai was injured on 2 December 1937 at Tanyang and received medical treatment behind the lines from then until he rejoined his unit on 15 December at T'angshui (T'angshan). Thus Mukai could not have killed anyone on the days stated in Asami's story. Suzuki cited another statement, this one written by a Chinese defense counsel at the Nanking Tribunal, that Noda's mother provided. It corroborated all points found in Mukai's statement. Suzuki also cited Asami's signed testimony dated 10 December 1946 as obtained by Mukai Takeshi. Asami swore that (1) he never actually saw any killings, (2) he based his articles on interviews conducted with Mukai, (3) Mukai and Noda committed no atrocities against helpless POWs or other noncombatants. . . . (pp. 311, 323-326)​
It says volumes that even the shamefully biased and blood-thirsty Tokyo Tribunal declined to prosecute Mukai and Noda, but that didn’t stop the even blood-thirstier Chinese authorities from prosecuting them at the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> This would be a good time to discuss the fact that the infamous 100-man killing contest never happened. But first, a word about Iris Chang. Chang was not technically a Communist, at least as far as anybody knows, but she certainly seemed to be pro-Communist, judging from her writings.



Wait, before you said she was a communist.  Now she's not a communist... but judging from her writings she had a poor opinion of the Japanese and the Nationalists... um.  Right.  Based on the Rape of Nanking, you can't NOT have a poor opinion of them. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Now, as for the 100-man killing contest, supposedly, two young Japanese officers had a contest to see who could be the first to kill 100 men with his sword. The contest allegedly began during the march to Nanking and concluded when the city was captured. This contest has been included in every book on the Nanking Massacre.
> 
> The story began to be debunked in the late 1990s after Iris Chang’s book was published. Subsequent research has raised serious doubts that the contest occurred, including evidence that one of the officers (Mukai) was not even in the area when Asami’s newspaper story said the killings occurred because he had been injured and was receiving medical treatment at the time. Yet, virtually all of Chang’s defenders continue to accept and repeat the story (Chang uncritically accepted the story and ignored all the evidence from the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, or NMT, that exonerated the officers).



Um.. the officers weren't "exonerated" they were "executed".  

Contest to kill 100 people using a sword - Wikipedia

*Trial and execution[edit]*
_After the war, a written record of the contest found its way into the documents of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Soon after, the two soldiers were extradited to China, tried by the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, convicted of atrocities committed during the Battle of Nanking, and the subsequent massacre. On January 28th, 1948, both soldiers were executed at the Yuhuatai execution chamber by the Chinese government._

Hey, buddy, I think that you need to expand your bullshit repetorie... The Holocaust Deniers need someone to deny the Holocaust ever happened.  They'll even give you a fucking lampshade to wear on your head.  






Just don't ask where it came from.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> This would be a good time to discuss the fact that the infamous 100-man killing contest never happened. But first, a word about Iris Chang. Chang was not technically a Communist, at least as far as anybody knows, but she certainly seemed to be pro-Communist, judging from her writings.





JoeB131 said:


> Wait, before you said she was a communist.  Now she's not a communist... but judging from her writings she had a poor opinion of the Japanese and the Nationalists... um.  Right.  Based on the Rape of Nanking, you can't NOT have a poor opinion of them.



Your poor reading skills are showing again. Do you not understand that other people can easily see that you have once again distorted what I said?

And, gee, isn't it interesting that Chang never had a critical word to say about Red China's brutal, murderous regime? When she wasn't spreading her myths about the Nanking Massacre, she was busy claiming that there were few if any communists in the American government in the 1940s and 1950s, which was an inexcusable lie by the time she began writing--she simply ignored all the evidence to the contrary and repeated the Communist/Far Left version of the 1940s and 1950s.

At one point, Chang, after she had had a "strange" experience in Louisville, said that she believed the CIA might have been trying to recruit her. She was clearly a whack job.


mikegriffith1 said:


> Now, as for the 100-man killing contest, supposedly, two young Japanese officers had a contest to see who could be the first to kill 100 men with his sword. The contest allegedly began during the march to Nanking and concluded when the city was captured. This contest has been included in every book on the Nanking Massacre.
> 
> The story began to be debunked in the late 1990s after Iris Chang’s book was published. Subsequent research has raised serious doubts that the contest occurred, including evidence that one of the officers (Mukai) was not even in the area when Asami’s newspaper story said the killings occurred because he had been injured and was receiving medical treatment at the time. Yet, virtually all of Chang’s defenders continue to accept and repeat the story (Chang uncritically accepted the story and ignored all the evidence from the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, or NMT, that exonerated the officers).





JoeB131 said:


> Um.. the officers weren't "exonerated" they were "executed".


.

LOL! Uhhh, ummm, I didn't say that the NMT exonerated the two officers. I said that Chang ignored the exculpatory evidence that was presented at the NMT, and, a few paragraphs later, I noted that the NMT shamefully executed the two officers. Can you read? Seriously, can you read? Or, do you just skim over replies, wipe the foam from your mouth, and then start typing?

I notice you said nothing about the exculpatory evidence that I presented, as usual.



JoeB131 said:


> Hey, buddy, I think that you need to expand your BS repetorie... The Holocaust Deniers need someone to deny the Holocaust ever happened.  They'll even give you a lampshade to wear on your head. Just don't ask where it came from.



Oh, my, here we go with the standard Communist/Far Left line that to question the 300,000 figure for the Nanking Massacre is as bad as denying the Holocaust.

I get that you are rather brainless; that you probably can't spell "critical thinking," much less engage in it; and that you have done very little research on these issues. So it's not surprising that you would make such a gutter, ignorant, and bizarre argument. I'm just a bit surprised that you keep doing it in a public forum.

Let me explain to you the difference between the Holocaust and the 300,000 Nanking Massacre myth:

* There are hundreds of photos that show massive piles of dead bodies at the Nazi death camps. However, there is not a single photo, not even one, that shows any large number of dead bodies in Nanking. In fact, there are photos and film footage that clearly seem to completely contradict the notion that there was a large-scale and prolonged massacre in Nanking.

* There are zero contemporaneous/period accounts from anti-Nazi sources in Europe that even remotely suggest that only relatively few Jews were exterminated--none, zilch, nada. But, there are numerous contemporaneous/period accounts from anti-Japanese/Western sources in Nanking that put the death toll at a small fraction of the later figures of 200,000 and 300,000.

* There is no evidence that there were fewer than 6 million Jews in Europe, which of course would mean that the Nazis could not have killed 6 million Jews. That's simple math. If there had been only 4 million Jews in Europe when WWII started, it would be very hard to claim that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews. Right? But of course nobody, not even whack job Holocaust deniers, claims that there were not 6 million Jews in Europe at the time. But, there is compelling evidence that when the Japanese arrived in Nanking, there were no more than 250,000 people living in the city. Several contemporaneous accounts put the city's population at 200,000 just before the massacre began. When Lewis Smythe did his survey, just weeks after the massacre and using only Chinese assistants, he determined that Nanking's population was between 200,000 and 250,000 when the Japanese arrived--and remember that Smythe also surveyed the areas outside Nanking. When the defense at the IMTFE tried to introduce the population evidence in response to the prosecution's case-in-chief presentation, the chief judge would not allow it.

* In the case of the Holocaust, there is no evidence, and no one claims, that the Jewish population *increased* after the Nazis took control in Europe--on the contrary, the Jewish population dropped dramatically, from extermination and from flight. Yet, it is an indisputable fact that the Chinese population in Nanking began to steadily *increase* almost as soon as the Japanese took control of the city, which of course would make no sense if Chang's version of events were true. If Chang's version were true, the flight of people from the city should have continued, if not accelerated, after the Japanese took control, since no one in their right mind would return to a place where a massacre was going on or where a massacre had just occurred. Perhaps people began to come back to Nanking after the Japanese took over because they heard that the Japanese were handing out large amounts of food, that life was returning to normal in the city, that electricity and running water were being fully restored, etc., etc.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Your poor reading skills are showing again. Do you not understand that other people can easily see that you have once again distorted what I said?
> 
> And, gee, isn't it interesting that Chang never had a critical word to say about Red China's brutal, murderous regime? When she wasn't spreading her myths about the Nanking Massacre, she was busy claiming that there were few if any communists in the American government in the 1940s and 1950s, which was an inexcusable lie by the time she began writing--she simply ignored all the evidence to the contrary and repeated the Communist/Far Left version of the 1940s and 1950s.



Uh, guy, are you really trying to ressurrect the Zombie of Joe McCarthy. McCarthy died a disgraced drunk.  She was writing about the Nanking massacre, not the Communists.  It wasn't her job to repeat John Bircher talking points. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Uhhh, ummm, I didn't say that the NMT exonerated the two officers. I said that Chang ignored the exculpatory evidence that was presented at the NMT, and, a few paragraphs later, I noted that the NMT shamefully executed the two officers. Can you read? Seriously, can you read? Or, do you just skim over replies, wipe the foam from your mouth, and then start typing?



Again, I don't waste a lot of time reading much of your fascist cocksucking.  I just point out the silly points, like you said the two Jap officers who murdered those people were 'exonerated'.  Nope. They were found guilty and EXECUTED. As they should have been. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Let me explain to you the difference between the Holocaust and the 300,000 Nanking Massacre myth:



The Holocaust was white people...  That's the difference. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * There are hundreds of photos that show massive piles of dead bodies at the Nazi death camps.



Yeah, but who took those pictures. HINT.  The pictures were taken by ALLIED soldiers who liberated those camps at the end of World War II.  The Nanking Massacre was in 1938, and Nanking wasn't liberated from the Japanese until 1945, when there was plenty of time to get rid of the bodies.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * There are zero contemporaneous/period accounts from anti-Nazi sources in Europe that even remotely suggest that only relatively few Jews were exterminated--none, zilch, nada.



Actually, quite the contrary... nobody really cared all that much about the Jews in the Concentration camps at the end of the war... in fact, General Patton, before he was sacked, left the Jews in Concentration camps for nearly a year after the war ended.  It just didn't become a big deal until well after the war, and people started screaming about victim status.  

Again, the Tokyo Trials were as damning as the Nuremburg Trials... they just don't get remembered as much.  Incidentally, the Japs at that trial tried to pull the same shit you did... that the poor Japanese HAD to go to war because the meanies in the US were oppressing them.  Didn't save them from the Rope.. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * In the case of the Holocaust, there is no evidence, and no one claims, that the Jewish population *increased* after the Nazis took control in Europe--on the contrary, the Jewish population dropped dramatically, from extermination and from flight. Yet, it is an indisputable fact that the Chinese population in Nanking began to steadily *increase* almost as soon as the Japanese took control of the city, which of course would make no sense if Chang's version of events were true. If Chang's version were true, the flight of people from the city should have continued, if not accelerated, after the Japanese took control, since no one in their right mind would return to a place where a massacre was going on or where a massacre had just occurred. Perhaps people began to come back to Nanking after the Japanese took over because they heard that the Japanese were handing out large amounts of food, that life was returning to normal in the city, that electricity and running water were being fully restored, etc., etc.



Yes, the Japs did set up a Puppet Regime that was slightly less miserable than the rest of the Hell on Earth they were inflicting on China.  The fact people went to this new puppet regime's capital doesn't really prove anything, though. 

Did I mention you were a fascist cocksucker... yes.  Yes, I did.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his widely acclaimed and classic book _How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 _(Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963), Dr. Anthony Kubek discussed Japan’s entirely valid and reasonable concerns about Soviet influence and subversion in China and Manchuria.





JoeB131 said:


> Yup,more White people rationalizing imperialism.   What a big surprise.



Oh my goodness. That is downright nutty.  



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, to the point.  Our "Danger zone" in the Carribean was just an attempt for us to impose imperialismon the region. We were in the wrong- it's why we are hated in so much of the region today....



Oh, so our policy to keep hostile powers and ideologies from taking root in the Caribbean was wrong?! Uh, wow, that's just what the Communists say. What a coincidence. 



JoeB131 said:


> Japan was in the wrong for what it did in China, which is why THEY are still hated today.



Blah, blah, blah says your brainwashed, illiterate mind. Japan intervened in Manchuria to establish order from warlord chaos and to protect its citizens and subjects there. And, as I've documented for you from several sources, Japan did not start the war in China--the Nationalists started the war by attacking the Japanese just after the Japanese had submitted another peace proposal. Even Chinese generals admitted that their side started the war and that the Japanese did not want war in China. 



JoeB131 said:


> The whine by this White Person was that those dirty stinking commies were distributing literature telling them that, hey, maybe not [gutter vulgarity deleted] was the way to go.  HOW DARE THEY!!!!!



Uh-huh. Crawl back into the sewer and drink more Communist koolaid.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Kubek also noted that FDR and Hull's demand that Japan immediately pull her troops out of China would have left the door open for further Russian intervention and subversion. He also noted that although FDR screamed against Japan for sending troops into China, he said nothing against the Soviet Union for annexing Sinkiang and a chunk of Outer Mongolia:





JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, Outer Mongolia established her independence from the rotting corpse of Qing China in 1911.  They established the Mongolian People's Republic in 1928.  What was FDR supposed to do, scream, "I'm very upset about this thing that happened in the middle of a desert 10 years before I got here!"



LOL! Ohhhhh! So it was okay for the Soviets to take over part of Mongolia, but not okay for the Japanese to take over part of Manchuria or to want a small buffer zone between Manchuria and China. Got it. Thanks for sharing, Comrade.  



JoeB131 said:


> So were the Japs looking for Commies in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Burma, and all the other countries they pillaged and raped?



What unbelievably stupid polemic. The Japanese would not have gone into any of those countries if FDR had not imposed draconian sanctions that threatened them with economic collapse. Until FDR, desperate to save the Soviet Union at any cost, provoked Japan to war, the Japanese--even the army's general stuff--had no intention of sending their forces into those nations because they wanted to focus on developing Manchuria and on guarding against a potential Soviet invasion. The comment about Burma is especially dumb because the only reason the Japanese moved into Burma was to cut off the flow of Allied/American weapons going to the Nationalists via Burma. 

You do realize that at one point the Japanese actually agreed to Chiang Kaishek's demand that they withdraw all of their troops from China in exchange for a peace deal, right? And guess why Chiang still refused to make peace with the Japanese even after they agreed to this condition? Because FDR's boys in China talked/pressured him into continuing the war.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, so our policy to keep hostile powers and ideologies from taking root in the Caribbean was wrong?! Uh, wow, that's just what the Communists say. What a coincidence.



Uh, guy, our policy starting with the Monroe Doctrine was wrong.  It's an imperialist policy.  Our policies caused "hostile idealogies" to take root. Have you ever wondered why Havana is still communist even though Russia isn't? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Blah, blah, blah says your brainwashed, illiterate mind. Japan intervened in Manchuria to establish order from warlord chaos and to protect its citizens and subjects there. And, as I've documented for you from several sources, Japan did not start the war in China--the Nationalists started the war by attacking the Japanese just after the Japanese had submitted another peace proposal. Even Chinese generals admitted that their side started the war and that the Japanese did not want war in China.



Again, nobody thinks the Japanese were the good guys in World War II.  Not even the Japanese.  They like to pretend the whole thing never happened.  

Japan shouldn't have been in Manchuria. they shouldn't have been in Korea.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Ohhhhh! So it was okay for the Soviets to take over part of Mongolia, but not okay for the Japanese to take over part of Manchuria or to want a small buffer zone between Manchuria and China. Got it. Thanks for sharing, Comrade.



Are you like five?  When you were caught doing something wrong, did you scream, "But Billy did it, too!" 

Maybe you should educate yourself about what Japan did in Manchuria. 

War crimes in Manchukuo - Wikipedia



mikegriffith1 said:


> What unbelievably stupid polemic. The Japanese would not have gone into any of those countries if FDR had not imposed draconian sanctions that threatened them with economic collapse. Until FDR, desperate to save the Soviet Union at any cost, provoked Japan to war, the Japanese--even the army's general stuff--had no intention of sending their forces into those nations because they wanted to focus on developing Manchuria and on guarding against a potential Soviet invasion. The comment about Burma is especially dumb because the only reason the Japanese moved into Burma was to cut off the flow of Allied/American weapons going to the Nationalists via Burma.



wow, do you also blame short skirts for rape? I mean, if she wasn't wearing that short skirt, the guy never would have raped her. 

Here's how you fix the Draconian sanctions.  YOu stop doing what you were doing to get sanctioned.  The point is, sanctions meant we weren't going to trade with them. No one else was trading with them at that point, either, mostly because they here allied with Hitler and  Hitler was invading their countries.  

If FDR was so keen on helping the USSR< why wasn't Japan partitioned the way Germany was after the War? In fact, all Russia got out of her participation in the Pacific War was half of Sakhalin Island.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> You do realize that at one point the Japanese actually agreed to Chiang Kaishek's demand that they withdraw all of their troops from China in exchange for a peace deal, right? And guess why Chiang still refused to make peace with the Japanese even after they agreed to this condition? Because FDR's boys in China talked/pressured him into continuing the war.



Again, I beat you over the head with a baseball bat, take your wallet, but offer to give you your credit cards back if you suck my dick.  

You really think this is a good offer? Even if the Japanese (notorious for double dealing, sneak attacks and breaking treaties) were really sincere about withdrawing from "China", they still planned to hold on to Manchuria and Taiwan, which were rightfully Chinese territories.


----------



## mikegriffith1

gipper said:


> FDR did much more than what you list. Get educated.





JoeB131 said:


> Everything he did was within the law and within international norms.



REALLY?  Humm, can you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country said it wanted? I'll be waiting and will periodically remind you that I'm still waiting for a precedent for/example of what FDR to Japan. 

(I suspect this will end up being like your other whacky claims, such as your howler that the Chinese Communists fought the Japanese as much as the Nationalists did.)



JoeB131 said:


> Again- I have a degree in history, what do you have....



Uh, then you need to get a refund, because you have made it quite clear in this thread that you no clue what you're talking about when it comes to the Second Sino-Japanese War and Japan's involvement in Manchuria. You are too blinded by your anti-Japanese brainwashing and bigotry to even consider reading scholarly sources that present the facts of the matter.

And I find it very interesting that you, like other Chang defenders, find it necessary to not only reject Dr. Smythe's survey and report but to launch pathetic, dishonest attacks on him. 

For those who might not know, Dr. Lewis Smythe was a professor of sociology at Jinling University in Nanking and a member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone. Not one but an ignorant jerk like JoeB131 would even hint that he was remotely pro-Japanese or that he was trying to minimize what the Japanese army had done. During the massacre, he wrote several letters of protest to the Japanese Embassy regarding the vicious conduct of some Japanese soldiers. He also helped to feed and shelter Chinese residents, and on some occasions he even intervened to prevent Japanese soldiers from abusing Chinese residents.

Dr. Smythe conducted his survey at the request of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone because he and the other committee members wanted to find out how many people had been killed and what damage had been done. Dr. Smythe, being a sociologist, had conducted surveys before. To conduct his Nanking survey, he hired _Chinese _college students. Dr. Smythe did not just survey Nanking proper but also the surrounding area, and he did his survey a matter of weeks after the massacre. His report on his survey findings, titled_ War Damage in the Nanking Area,_ is one of the best (if not the best) and most reliable primary source on the Nanking Massacre. 

"So," you might be thinking, "why would anyone reject Dr. Smythe's survey and report?" Because his findings destroy the myth that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking. The death numbers he determined are comparable to the death numbers given in two contemporaneous accounts written by Western observers in the city and are not even remotely close to 300,000. Moreover, Dr. Smythe determined that there were no more than 250,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese arrived, and, interestingly enough, that the population _began to steadily increase_ after the massacre, which of course (1) means that 300,000 people could not have been killed, and (2) suggests that the massacre was not massive but limited in nature (otherwise people naturally would have been afraid to go anywhere near Nanking). 

As other scholars have noted, to believe that 300,000 people were killed, you would have to believe that Dr. Smythe's survey was off by a staggering 4,400%.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> REALLY? Humm, can you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country said it wanted? I'll be waiting and will periodically remind you that I'm still waiting for a precedent for/example of what FDR to Japan.



Japan wasn't trying to avoid war. They were actively trying to conquer Asia. 

Which is why we had to put a serious beat-down on the mother fuckers... and the world is better off for it. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, then you need to get a refund, because you have made it quite clear in this thread that you no clue what you're talking about when it comes to the Second Sino-Japanese War and Japan's involvement in Manchuria. You are too blinded by your anti-Japanese brainwashing and bigotry to even consider reading scholarly sources that present the facts of the matter.



No history department ANYWHERE would look at your pro-fascist revisionism with anything but ridicule.  

Again- I have a degree in History, what do you have? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> And I find it very interesting that you, like other Chang defenders, find it necessary to not only reject Dr. Smythe's survey and report but to launch pathetic, dishonest attacks on him.
> 
> For those who might not know, Dr. Lewis Smythe was a professor of sociology at Jinling University in Nanking and a member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone. Not one but an ignorant jerk like JoeB131 would even hint that he was remotely pro-Japanese or that he was trying to minimize what the Japanese army had done. During the massacre, he wrote several letters of protest to the Japanese Embassy regarding the vicious conduct of some Japanese soldiers. He also helped to feed and shelter Chinese residents, and on some occasions he even intervened to prevent Japanese soldiers from abusing Chinese residents.



And so what?  Another white guy telling people of color to not be upset about human rights attrocities. 

Do you really think this guy was going to get accurate numbers when the Japs were still occupying the city?  

Seriously fuck that guy.  

300,000 dead in Nanking. 30 Million dead Chinese in the war of aggression.  

The whole region STILL hates Japan, for good reason.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY? Humm, can you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country said it wanted? I'll be waiting and will periodically remind you that I'm still waiting for a precedent for/example of what FDR to Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan wasn't trying to avoid war. They were actively trying to conquer Asia.
> 
> Which is why we had to put a serious beat-down on the mother fuckers... and the world is better off for it.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, then you need to get a refund, because you have made it quite clear in this thread that you no clue what you're talking about when it comes to the Second Sino-Japanese War and Japan's involvement in Manchuria. You are too blinded by your anti-Japanese brainwashing and bigotry to even consider reading scholarly sources that present the facts of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No history department ANYWHERE would look at your pro-fascist revisionism with anything but ridicule.
> 
> Again- I have a degree in History, what do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I find it very interesting that you, like other Chang defenders, find it necessary to not only reject Dr. Smythe's survey and report but to launch pathetic, dishonest attacks on him.
> 
> For those who might not know, Dr. Lewis Smythe was a professor of sociology at Jinling University in Nanking and a member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone. Not one but an ignorant jerk like JoeB131 would even hint that he was remotely pro-Japanese or that he was trying to minimize what the Japanese army had done. During the massacre, he wrote several letters of protest to the Japanese Embassy regarding the vicious conduct of some Japanese soldiers. He also helped to feed and shelter Chinese residents, and on some occasions he even intervened to prevent Japanese soldiers from abusing Chinese residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so what?  Another white guy telling people of color to not be upset about human rights attrocities.
> 
> Do you really think this guy was going to get accurate numbers when the Japs were still occupying the city?
> 
> Seriously fuck that guy.
> 
> 300,000 dead in Nanking. 30 Million dead Chinese in the war of aggression.
> 
> The whole region STILL hates Japan, for good reason.
Click to expand...

The truth is not pro fascist revisionism. It’s the truth. Too bad you aren’t informed enough to understand and accept it.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> The truth is not pro fascist revisionism. It’s the truth. Too bad you aren’t informed enough to understand and accept it.



Truth- Japan engaged in a war of aggression against China, and killed millions of Chinese.  

Anything other than that is fascist revisionism.


----------



## mikegriffith1

The population evidence provides us with another telling argument against the 300,000-killed myth. Dr. Shudo Higashinakano, a professor of history at Asia University in Tokyo, explains this in his book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction _(2005):

The Japanese did not allow ordinary citizens free access to those gates [the gates of the walled city of Nanking] until two and a half months had elapsed. Nevertheless, 20 days before and immediately prior to the fall of Nanking, the city’s population was 200,000, according to Europeans and Americans who were there at the time. Eight days after the fall and on Christmas Eve, it was still 200,000. No one indicated a vast decrease in population due to mass slaughter. Confronted by these facts, how can anyone claim that 300,000 noncombatants were murdered in Nanking? (p. ii) (Dr. Higashinakano’s book is available online at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/9_S4.pdf)​
As mentioned in previous replies, Dr. Lewis Smythe, based on his extensive survey conducted weeks after the massacre, said that Nanking’s population was between 200,000 and 250,000 when the Japanese arrived (_War Damage in the Nanking Area, December 1937 to March 1938_, Nanking International Relief Committee, June 1938, p. 4). As of March 1938, Smythe put the population of Nanking at 221,000 (_War Damage in the Nanking Area, _p. 8).

As of December 21, eight days after the Japanese had occupied the city, the Nanking International Relief Committee put the city’s population at 200,000, as Dr. Higashinakano points out:

Document No. 10, dated December 18, states, “We 22 Westerners cannot feed 200,000 Chinese civilians….” The Committee appealed to the Japanese military for help.​
Document No. 20, dated December 21, mentions difficulties the Committee had experienced in supplying food and fuel to 200,000 civilians, and adds, “The present situation is automatically and rapidly leading to a serious famine.” (_The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction, _p. 152) (_By the way, the Japanese then began to distribute large amounts of food to city residents_.)​
We also read the following in Document No. 10, which is a letter written on December 18 by the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone to the Japanese Embassy in Nanking:

Dear Sirs: We are very sorry to trouble you again the sufferings and needs of the 200,000 civilians for whom we are trying to care make it urgent that we try to secure action from your military authorities to stop the present disorder among Japanese soldiers wandering through the Safety Zone. (_International Military Tribunal for the Far East: Transcript of Proceedings_, August 29, 1946, p. 4516)​
Lily Abegg, a European newspaper correspondent in China, was in Nanking shortly before the Japanese arrived, and she reported that as of November 29 there were, at most, about 150,000 people in the city:

Now there are at most 150,000 people remaining, but the waves of evacuees seem interminable. (_The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction, _p. 30, citing Lily Abegg, “Wie wir aus Nanking flüchteten: Die letzten Tage in der Haupstadt Chinas” in _Frankfurter Zeitung_, 19 December 1937)​
The chief of the National Police Agency reported that as of November 28 there were “200,000 residents remaining here in Nanking” (_The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction, _p. 151). This was 15 days before the Japanese entered the city.

The obvious and crucial point is this: Since Nanking’s population was 150,000 to 200,000 as of late November, two weeks before the Japanese arrived, and was 200,000 as of December 21, eight days after the city fell, and was 221,000 in March, three months after the city fell, there is no way the Japanese killed 300,000 people in Nanking.

I’ve already made the point that virtually all of the early accounts of the massacre put the death toll in the tens of thousands, not in the hundreds of thousands. One of those early accounts comes from Rev. Miner Searle Bates. Bates was a famous Christian missionary who taught at the University of Nanking. Bates was also an adviser to the Nationalist government’s Ministry of Information. As is well known to scholars, when Bates provided his contribution to Harold Timperly’s book _What War Means, _he put the death toll at 42,000—12,000 civilians and 30,000 soldiers. Dr. Higashinakano:

Rev. Bates inserted language to the effect that 12,000 civilians and 30,000 soldiers had been killed in Nanking into Chapter 3 of _What War Means_. The Ministry of Information should have been delighted to disseminate news of a massacre with some 40,000 victims. (_The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction, _p. iv)​
Dr. Smythe stated that the records of burials in and near the city indicated that about 12,000 civilians were killed by violence:

A careful estimate from the burials in the city and in areas adjacent to the wall, indicates 12,000 civilians killed by violence. The tens of thousands of unarmed or disarmed soldiers are not considered in these lists. (_War Damage in the Nanking Area, _p. 8)​
Dr. Smythe added that about 1,000 of those civilian deaths were collateral fatalities from military operations, i.e., they were killed in crossfire or artillery exchanges between the Chinese and Japanese military forces.

Why do Iris Chang’s apologists ignore all this evidence, and also ignore other evidence that likewise supports the same figures, and instead insist on clinging to Chang’s mythical figure of 300,000 deaths? Why can’t they be satisfied with pointing out that the Japanese army killed about 10,000 civilians in Nanking?

By any measurement, killing 10,000 civilians is a horrific crime that deserves the harshest condemnation and punishment. So why do Chang’s defenders refuse to abandon her discredited 300,000 figure? Here’s one reason: The Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in the Yellow River Atrocity (aka the Yellow River Flood) in 1938 when they deliberately breached the Yellow River Dam and flooded thousands of square miles in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu to stop a non-existent Japanese advance. Can you imagine what Chang’s apologists would be saying if the Japanese had done this?

By the way, the Nationalists initially claimed that the Japanese had caused the flood by bombing the dam. However, this lie was soon exposed thoroughly enough that the Nationalists were forced to admit that they were the ones who had breached the dam.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> The population evidence provides us with another telling argument against the 300,000-killed myth. Dr. Shudo Higashinakano, a professor of history at Asia University in Tokyo, explains this in his book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction _(2005):
> 
> The Japanese did not allow ordinary citizens free access to those gates [the gates of the walled city of Nanking] until two and a half months had elapsed. Nevertheless, 20 days before and immediately prior to the fall of Nanking, the city’s population was 200,000, according to Europeans and Americans who were there at the time.



Well, a whole lot of problem with this SHIT STAIN of an argument. First of all, how did westerners know how many people lived in the area?  Did they do a census.  We know damned well Peanut and his government weren't capable of doing a census.  

Second, as stated many times, people flooded into Nanking from the surrounding countryside because they THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE.   

Population of Nanjing in December of 1937 - Wikipedia

_An official survey conducted in March 1937 had put the total civilian population of Nanking at 1,019,667.[5] However, most of the city's population, particularly the wealthy and middle class, fled after the Japanese starting bombing it in August. Most of those who stayed behind were the very poor who had nowhere else to go, as well as the officials who had jobs with the city government.[6]

In the first weeks of December, as the Japanese were advancing on the city, rapid population movements took place both into and out of the city. On the one hand, many inhabitants of Nanking attempted to flee to neighboring villages in the last days before the city's fall. On the other hand, refugees were streaming into the city from the rural villages around Nanking which were being burned down by the Chinese Army.[4] Starting on December 7, the Chinese Army launched a scorched earth policy of incinerating houses around Nanking to deprive the oncoming Japanese soldiers of shelter.[7] These chaotic conditions made it difficult to keep track of the city's population.[4]


On the other hand, Tokushi Kasahara asserts that the contemporary figure of 200,000 strongly underestimates Nanking's civilian population at the time of the city's fall. He argues that the contemporary figures probably included only those Chinese who had evaded the Japanese Army during and immediately after the battle and successfully escaped to the safety zone. Kasahara cites a letter that Ma Chaojun, the mayor of Nanking, wrote on November 23 that 500,000 civilians remained in the city and that 200,000 additional refugees from surrounding areas were expected to arrive soon. After that, Nanking was swollen with refugees due to the Chinese Army's incineration of villages just outside the city. Though Kasahara acknowledges that many Chinese people left the city after November 23, he suspects that the influx of new refugees would likely have brought the city's civilian population up to roughly 400,000-500,000 by the time that the Japanese arrived.[4]_


Fuck off, you fascist scumwad. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> By any measurement, killing 10,000 civilians is a horrific crime that deserves the harshest condemnation and punishment. So why do Chang’s defenders refuse to abandon her discredited 300,000 figure? Here’s one reason: The Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in the Yellow River Atrocity (aka the Yellow River Flood) in 1938 when they deliberately breached the Yellow River Dam and flooded thousands of square miles in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu to stop a non-existent Japanese advance. Can you imagine what Chang’s apologists would be saying if the Japanese had done this?



One more time.... You do realize that there's a difference between when people die of your ineptitude rather than deliberate murder, right?  It's why Bush didn't get as much blame as he deserved for Katrina or Iraq...  

Peanut was incompetent.... It's why people dropped their rifles and joined the Communists.  But the Japanese were pure fucking evil.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> REALLY? Humm, can you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country said it wanted? I'll be waiting and will periodically remind you that I'm still waiting for a precedent for/example of what FDR to Japan.





JoeB131 said:


> Japan wasn't trying to avoid war. They were actively trying to conquer Asia.



Nope, JoeB Mao, we have known for some time, following the release of the relevant Japanese archives and other primary sources, that Japan's leaders had no desire to conquer China, must less all of Asia. That is Chinese Communist and FDR-Truman-era propaganda.



JoeB131 said:


> Which is why we had to put a serious beat-down on them [low-class profanity deleted] and the world is better off for it.



I bet the tens of millions of Chinese who died at the hands of Mao's henchmen would disagree with you. I bet the tens of millions of Chinese who preferred Japanese rule to Nationalist and Communist rule during the war would disagree with you--I'd bet good money that they would have loved to have had the Japanese back in control as opposed to suffering under Mao's tyrannical and murderous rule. I bet the tens of millions of people in North Korea from 1946 onward would much rather have the Japanese back than to suffer under North Korea's Communist government, one of the most backward and barbaric regimes in world history.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, then you need to get a refund, because you have made it quite clear in this thread that you no clue what you're talking about when it comes to the Second Sino-Japanese War and Japan's involvement in Manchuria. You are too blinded by your anti-Japanese brainwashing and bigotry to even consider reading scholarly sources that present the facts of the matter.





JoeB131 said:


> No history department ANYWHERE would look at your pro-fascist revisionism with anything but ridicule.



Any history department would laugh at your description of the scholarship I have cited as "pro-fascist."

This is more of your ignorant clown material. You don’t know what history departments do or do not accept on this issue because you have not seriously studied this issue. The only sources you’ve read are a handful of online articles. The scholars who acknowledge the clear evidence that the Nationalists started the war, that the Japanese did not instigate the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, that the Japanese did not want war with the Nationalists, that the Japanese had no intention of occupying China, and that the Japanese in fact were willing to withdraw from China in exchange for tacit recognition of their state in Manchuria—the list of scholars who acknowledge these facts would fill more lines that a USMB reply page can hold. Here are a few of them:

-- John Toland, a renowned historian whose book on WWII-era Japan, _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire,_ won a Pulitzer Prize (let me guess: you’re going to say that all the Pulitzer Prize committee members were “fascists” or “pro-fascist,” right?).

-- Dick Wilson, an Oxford graduate and a professor of history at the University of California. Wilson was the editor of _The China Quarterly_ at one time. His book on the Second Sino-Japanese War, _When Tigers Fight: The Story of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945, _is one of the most balanced and objective works on the subject. I’m guessing you’ve never ever heard of the book.

-- James Crowley, a professor of history at Yale University. His 1966 book _Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930-1938, _which I have quoted in replies to you, is considered a “seminal” work on the Sino-Japanese War because, among other things, it refuted the long-held belief that the Japanese caused the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Even most Western scholars who are harshly critical of Imperial Japan now acknowledge, based on Crowley’s research, that Japan did not instigate the incident.

-- Peter Harmsen, a graduate in history from National Taiwan University and a foreign correspondent in the Far East for two decades. Harmsen is currently the bureau chief for the French News Agency in Taiwan. His 2018 book _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific_, which I have quoted in replies to you, is another one of the fairest, most objective studies on Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China.

-- Joshua Fogel, a professor of history at York University in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Fogel has been honored with visiting professorships at the School of Historical Studies of the Institute for Advanced Study (2001-2003) at Princeton, the British Inter-University China Centre, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As you might remember, Dr. Fogel has said that accepting the NMT-Iris Chang story of the 100-man killing contest “requires a leap of faith that no balanced historian can make.”

-- Richard Minear, a graduate in history from Harvard University and a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts. If your PRC handlers will ever let you read the other side of the story, you really should start with Dr. Minear’s book _Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial,_ published by Princeton University Press in 1971 (let me guess: you’re going to say that Princeton University Press is a “fascist” or “pro-fascist” publishing company, right?!).

-- Mark Peattie, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts and a research fellow at Stanford University. Peattie co-edited the excellent and balanced book _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, _published by Stanford University Press in 2010.

-- Edward Drea, a military historian who specializes in the Imperial Japanese Army. Drea earned in doctorate in Japanese history from the University of Kansas. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945. _In 2009, the University of Kansas Press published his superbly fair study of the Japanese army titled _Japan’s Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall, 1853–1945_.

-- Hans van de Ven, a professor of modern Chinese history at Cambridge University. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945._

-- Niall Ferguson, “one of Britain’s most renowned historians” and a professor of history at Harvard University and a senior research fellow at Stanford University. Ferguson’s 2006 book _The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West _includes a balanced, objective treatment of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China, as well as of the Pacific War and the factors that led to it.

-- Dayle Smith, a prominent Australian attorney who spent years studying the IMTFE. Smith focused on the IMTFE’s chief judge, William Webb, who was Australian. As part of his research into the IMTFE, Smith studied at the University of Queensland Library where Sir William Webb’s personal papers were lodged, at the Australian War Museum in Canberra, in Japan at the library of the _Japan Times_, at the Tokyo Diet Library, at the Supreme Court of Japan’s vault in Tokyo that houses many of the defense documents that the IMTFE would not allow into evidence, and at the Imperial War Museum in London. Smith presented a 15,000-word paper on the Tokyo War Crimes Trial to the Law faculty of the University of New England in Australia and made a similar presentation to the Supreme Court in Brisbane. The paper was later included in the book _Queensland Judges on the High Court_, published by the Supreme Court Library of Queensland in 2003. Smith’s massive study on the IMTFE, titled _Judicial Murder? Macarthur And The Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, was published in 2013.

-- Harold Vinacke, professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. His book 1952 book _The United States and the Far East 1945-1951 _acknowledges that Japan did not intend to conquer Asia in the same way or to the same degree that Nazi Germany intended to conquer Europe and Russia, and that Japanese colonial rule was not always brutal or totalitarian.

-- Edwin P. Hoyt, a renowned scholar on WW II. A graduate of the University of Oregon, Hoyt lectured at the University of Hawaii on the Pacific War. He spoke fluent Japanese and wrote numerous best-selling books on WW II. During the war, Hoyt served as the director of the Domestic Branch of the Office of War Information. His book _Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict, 1853 to 1952_ (McGraw, 1986) provides a fair and balanced analysis of Japan’s motives and actions in China and in the Pacific.

Allow me to throw in three Asian scholars:

-- Minoru Kitamura, a graduate in history from Kyoto University and a professor of humanities at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. He is also a member of the Japan Association for Nanjing Studies and an associate researcher at the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals. His book, co-authored with Chinese scholar Siyun Lin, _The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War_, published by the University Press of America in 2014, is, in my view, the best available book on the subject.

-- Siyun Lin, a Chinese scholar who graduated from Nanking University. As mentioned, Lin and Kitamura co-authored the book _The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War. _Lin wrote his own book on the Nanking Massacre: _The Battle in Defense of Nanking and the Massacre in Nanking _(2011).

-- Radhabinod Pal, the Indian judge on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) and a member of the UN’s International Law Commission from 1952-1966. Justice Pal’s famous massive dissent to the IMTFE’s kangaroo-court decisions is one of the most methodical destructions of the IMTFE-Chinese Communist version of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and the Second Sino-Japanese War ever written. Here is Pal’s dissent: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/65_S4.pdf.

I notice you ignored my request that you cite a single example of one country imposing the kinds of sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country would face economic ruin if the sanctions continued and when the other country made repeated peace offers.



JoeB131 said:


> Again- I have a degree in History, what do you have?



I have four degrees (a master's degree from CDU, a bachelor's degree from Excelsior College, and two associate degrees from the Community College of the Air Force), plus a graduate certificate in ancient and classical history from American Military University, and an advanced certificate in Civil War studies from Carroll College.



mikegriffith1 said:


> And I find it very interesting that you, like other Chang defenders, find it necessary to not only reject Dr. Smythe's survey and report but to launch pathetic, dishonest attacks on him.
> 
> For those who might not know, Dr. Lewis Smythe was a professor of sociology at Jinling University in Nanking and a member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone. Not one but an ignorant jerk like JoeB131 would even hint that he was remotely pro-Japanese or that he was trying to minimize what the Japanese army had done. During the massacre, he wrote several letters of protest to the Japanese Embassy regarding the vicious conduct of some Japanese soldiers. He also helped to feed and shelter Chinese residents, and on some occasions he even intervened to prevent Japanese soldiers from abusing Chinese residents.





JoeB131 said:


> And so what?  Another white guy telling people of color to not be upset about human rights attrocities. Do you really think this guy was going to get accurate numbers when the Japs were still occupying the city?



So you're just going to keep repeating this ignorant, evasive response? Yes, I think he got ballpark accurate numbers (1) because his numbers agree with the numbers given by several other contemporaneous Western sources before anyone knew what they were supposed to say, (2) because he was a trained sociologist who knew how to conduct such surveys, (3) because ALL of his assistants were Chinese, (4) because the Japanese never interfered with the survey (they had more important things to do--like getting utilities restored, establishing order, and feeding the residents until normal food supplies could be resumed), and (5) because the Japanese showed no interest in learning of the survey results.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Nope, JoeB Mao, we have known for some time, following the release of the relevant Japanese archives and other primary sources, that Japan's leaders had no desire to conquer China, must less all of Asia. That is Chinese Communist and FDR-Truman-era propaganda.



I count at least 8 countries they conquered on this map.  Do you realize how silly you sound. 









mikegriffith1 said:


> I have four degrees (a master's degree from CDU, a bachelor's degree from Excelsior College, and two associate degrees from the Community College of the Air Force), plus a graduate certificate in ancient and classical history from American Military University, and an advanced certificate in Civil War studies from Carroll College.



A Fascist lover like you wouldn't have lasted a week in a military institution.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Here are a few of them:




Oh, look, another list of WHITE GUYS.  Including John "I Heart Hitler" Toland. 




mikegriffith1 said:


> Allow me to throw in three Asian scholars:



*
One of them Japanese, another Indian.  Only one of them is Chinese.  
*
_*[*_QUOTE="mikegriffith1, post: 23748551, member: 40621"]So you're just going to keep repeating this ignorant, evasive response? Yes, I think he got ballpark accurate numbers (1) because his numbers agree with the numbers given by several other contemporaneous Western sources before anyone knew what they were supposed to say, (2) because he was a trained sociologist who knew how to conduct such surveys, (3) because ALL of his assistants were Chinese, (4) because the Japanese never interfered with the survey (they had more important things to do--like getting utilities restored, establishing order, and feeding the residents until normal food supplies could be resumed), and (5) because the Japanese showed no interest in learning of the survey results.[/QUOTE]
_*

THe Japanese didn't give a shit about the Chinese they had just massacred... They knew they did a bad thing and covered it up.  

I'm not sure why you feel this need to defend fascist thugs when even the Japanese themselves make no excuses for what they did. 

"So Sollly" 

List of war apology statements issued by Japan - Wikipedia*_

September 29, 1972: Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said to the people of the People's Republic of China: "The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. Further, the Japanese side reaffirms its position that it intends to realize the normalization of relations between the two countries from the stand of fully understanding 'the three principles for the restoration of relations' put forward by the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese side expresses its welcome for this" (Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China).[8]


August 23, 1993: Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa said in a speech at the 127th National Diet Session: "After 48 years from then, our nation has become one of nations that enjoy prosperity and peace. We must not forget that it is founded on the ultimate sacrifices in the last war, and a product of the achievements of the people of the previous generations. We would like to take this opportunity to clearly express our remorse for the past and a new determination to the world. Firstly at this occasion, we would like to express our deep remorse and apology for the fact that invasion and colonial rule by our nation in the past brought to bear great sufferings and sorrow upon many people" .[20]
September 24, 1993: Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa said, at the 128th National Diet Session:. "I used the expression war of aggression and act of aggression to express honestly my recognition which is the same as the one that the act of our nation in the past brought to bear unbearable sufferings and sorrow upon many people, and to express once again deep remorse and apology".[21]
August 31, 1994: Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama said in a speech: "Japan's actions in a certain period of the past not only claimed numerous victims here in Japan but also left the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere with scars that are painful even today. I am thus taking this opportunity to state my belief, based on my profound remorse for these acts of aggression, colonial rule, and the like caused such unbearable suffering and sorrow for so many people, that Japan's future path should be one of making every effort to build world peace in line with my no-war commitment. It is imperative for us Japanese to look squarely to our history with the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere. Only with solid basis of mutual understanding and confidence that can be built through overcoming the pain on both sides, can we and the peoples of neighboring countries together clear up the future of Asia-Pacific.... On the issue of wartime 'comfort women,' which seriously stained the honor and dignity of many women, I would like to take this opportunity once again to express my profound and sincere remorse and apologies. With regard to this issue as well, I believe that one way of demonstrating such feelings of apologies and remorse is to work to further promote mutual understanding with the countries and areas concerned as well as to face squarely to the past and ensure that it is rightly conveyed to future generations. This initiative, in this sense, has been drawn up consistent with such belief" (Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama on the "Peace, Friendship, and Exchange Initiative").[22]


----------



## mikegriffith1

James McCallum, an American living in Nanking, wrote in his diary that some people in the city believed the number of persons killed by the Japanese “would approach the 10,000 mark.” This is from the December 29, 1937, entry in McCallum’s diary:

It is absolutely unbelievable, but thousands have been butchered in cold blood how many it is hard to guess, some believe it would approach the 10,000 mark. (_International Military Tribunal for the Far East: Transcript of Proceedings_, August 29, 1946, p. 4471)​
This is an important and revealing statement for several reasons. One, McCallum is clearly not trying to minimize the crimes that were being committed by some Japanese soldiers (but don’t be shocked if JoeB131 suggests McCallum was “pro-fascist”). Two, McCallum’s use of the words “some believe” suggests that he himself was not certain about the 10,000 number but that he at least thought it was within the realm of possibility. Three, clearly nobody with whom McCallum had spoken believed that more than 10,000 had been killed, or else surely McCallum would have said something like “and others believe that even more than 10,000 have been killed.”

Recall that Dr. Smythe, realizing that his survey included considerable under-reporting, studied the burial records and concluded that about 10,000 civilians were killed in Nanking. His survey found that about 6,700 people had been killed (and 4,200 abducted). He increased the number killed to about 10,000 after studying the burial records, with the caveat that about 1,000 of those deaths were the result of civilians being caught in crossfire during combat.

Earlier I presented some of the considerable evidence that Nanking’s population was only around 200,000 when the Japanese occupied the city. More of this evidence comes from the 1939 book _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, _prepared by Shuhsi Hsu, an adviser to the Nationalist Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and produced under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs in Chunking (which was then the Nationalist capital). Six of the documents mention the city’s population as of December 17 to December 27, _and all six put the population at 200,000 _(pp. 17-18, 20, 48-49; see also Shigenobu Tomisawa, _Using Primary Sources to Clarify the Nanking Incident_, p. 24, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/57_S4.pdf).

Three additional sources support the 200,000 figure: (1) James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, sent a report to the U.S. State Department shortly after the Japanese arrived and stated therein that Nanking’s population was 200,000 (IMTFE transcript, CE 328, p. 4468); (2) John Rabe likewise said the population was 200,000 soon after the city fell (_The Good German of Nanking, _p. 52); and (3) even Harold Timperly’s overtly anti-Japanese report on the events in Nanking, titled _What War Means, _put the city’s population at 200,000 as of December 24, nearly two weeks after the Japanese arrived (pp. 22-23).

Historian David Askew, a professor of history at Monash University and Asia Pacific University, has focused on Nanking’s population before and after the massacre. One of his papers, titled “The Nanjing Incident: An Examination of the Civilian Population” is available online (note: “Nanking” is sometimes written as “Nanjing”). This is from Askew’s introduction in the paper:

The conclusion drawn from the various primary sources is that the civilian population of Nanjing was 200,000 in the weeks leading up to the fall of the city; that it remained 200,000 for the first 4 weeks of the occupation; and that it increased to 250,000 by January 10, 1938. This paper will also argue that the closest estimate of the population that can be made is 224,500 as of December 24, 1937, to January 5, 1938. (https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf)​
Of course, Chang’s defenders don’t like Askew’s thorough research on Nanking’s population. Obviously, if Nanking’s population was 200,000 when the Japanese took the city on December 13, and was 224,500 between December 24 and January 5, it is impossible to believe that the Japanese killed 300,000 people in Nanking, even if you include the surrounding areas. Moreover, the fact that people began to return to Nanking two weeks after the Japanese occupied the city is devastating to Chang’s 300,000 myth.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> James McCallum, an American living in Nanking, wrote in his diary that some people in the city believed the number of persons killed by the Japanese “would approach the 10,000 mark.” This is from the December 29, 1937, entry in McCallum’s diary:



Wow, you are sputtering..  Some guy looking out his window... 

"Gee, that looks bad, but it's not like it's white people or anything."  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Earlier I presented some of the considerable evidence that Nanking’s population was only around 200,000 when the Japanese occupied the city.



Population was 1 Million in 1937, and was swollen with refugees from the countryside trying to get away from the war. 

Now, while it amusing to watch this Fascist Cock-Sucker make claims that even the Japanese aren't making today, let's look at what REAL historians say about Nanking. 

Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia

After the end of the war between China and Japan in 1945, these estimates were in turn supplanted by the findings of two war crime trials, the International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal.* In one estimate the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put the death toll at more than 300,000, though the Tribunal also recorded other estimates including one of 430,000*.[3] The International Military Tribunal of the Far East tallied up 155,000 victims of the massacre, though in their verdict against General Iwane Matsui this figure was modified somewhat to "upwards of 100,000 people".[18][22] 

In addition, the total civilian population of Nanking in December 1937 and the size of the Chinese garrison defending the city are used as a basis for calculating the death toll, though the matter is complicated due to greatly varying estimates for both of these numbers.[25][35] For instance, Tokushi Kasahara claims that Nanking's population in 1937 included 400,000 to 500,000 civilians and 150,000 soldiers,[36] whereas David Askew believes it was 200,000 to 250,000 civilians and 73,790 to 81,500 soldiers.[37][38]

In his final analysis, Tokushi Kasahara looks at documents and diaries recorded by soldiers of the Japanese Army and concludes that at least 80,000 Chinese soldiers and POWs, or possibly over 100,000, were massacred by the Japanese, which was most of the estimated total force of 150,000 soldiers. Kasahara notes that Smythe's survey proves that a bare minimum of 12,000 ordinary civilians were massacred within Nanking, though other contemporary sources gives figures between 50,000 and 100,000, plus at least another 26,870 outside Nanking. Kasahara generally concludes that the death toll must have been well over 100,000, and possibly around 200,000.[30] His more specific range of figures is roughly 160,000 to 170,000.[39]


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> James McCallum, an American living in Nanking, wrote in his diary that some people in the city believed the number of persons killed by the Japanese “would approach the 10,000 mark.” This is from the December 29, 1937, entry in McCallum’s diary:
> It is absolutely unbelievable, but thousands have been butchered in cold blood how many it is hard to guess, some believe it would approach the 10,000 mark. (_International Military Tribunal for the Far East: Transcript of Proceedings_, August 29, 1946, p. 4471)
> 
> This is an important and revealing statement for several reasons. One, McCallum is clearly not trying to minimize the crimes that were being committed by some Japanese soldiers (but don’t be shocked if JoeB131 suggests McCallum was “pro-fascist”). Two, McCallum’s use of the words “some believe” suggests that he himself was not certain about the 10,000 number but that he at least thought it was within the realm of possibility. Three, clearly nobody with whom McCallum had spoken believed that more than 10,000 had been killed, or else surely McCallum would have said something like “and others believe that even more than 10,000 have been killed.”
> 
> Recall that Dr. Smythe, realizing that his survey included considerable under-reporting, studied the burial records and concluded that about 10,000 civilians were killed in Nanking. His survey found that about 6,700 people had been killed (and 4,200 abducted). He increased the number killed to about 10,000 after studying the burial records, with the caveat that about 1,000 of those deaths were the result of civilians being caught in crossfire during combat.
> 
> Earlier I presented some of the considerable evidence that Nanking’s population was only around 200,000 when the Japanese occupied the city. More of this evidence comes from the 1939 book _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, _prepared by Shuhsi Hsu, an adviser to the Nationalist Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and produced under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs in Chunking (which was then the Nationalist capital). Six of the documents mention the city’s population as of December 17 to December 27, _and all six put the population at 200,000 _(pp. 17-18, 20, 48-49; see also Shigenobu Tomisawa, _Using Primary Sources to Clarify the Nanking Incident_, p. 24, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/57_S4.pdf).
> 
> Three additional sources support the 200,000 figure: (1) James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, sent a report to the U.S. State Department shortly after the Japanese arrived and stated therein that Nanking’s population was 200,000 (IMTFE transcript, CE 328, p. 4468); (2) John Rabe likewise said the population was 200,000 soon after the city fell (_The Good German of Nanking, _p. 52); and (3) even Harold Timperly’s overtly anti-Japanese report on the events in Nanking, titled _What War Means, _put the city’s population at 200,000 as of December 24, nearly two weeks after the Japanese arrived (pp. 22-23).
> 
> Historian David Askew, a professor of history at Monash University and Asia Pacific University, has focused on Nanking’s population before and after the massacre. One of his papers, titled “The Nanjing Incident: An Examination of the Civilian Population” is available online (note: “Nanking” is sometimes written as “Nanjing”). This is from Askew’s introduction in the paper:
> 
> The conclusion drawn from the various primary sources is that the civilian population of Nanjing was 200,000 in the weeks leading up to the fall of the city; that it remained 200,000 for the first 4 weeks of the occupation; and that it increased to 250,000 by January 10, 1938. This paper will also argue that the closest estimate of the population that can be made is 224,500 as of December 24, 1937, to January 5, 1938. (https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf)​
> Of course, Chang’s defenders don’t like Askew’s thorough research on Nanking’s population. Obviously, if Nanking’s population was 200,000 when the Japanese took the city on December 13, and was 224,500 between December 24 and January 5, it is impossible to believe that the Japanese killed 300,000 people in Nanking, even if you include the surrounding areas. Moreover, the fact that people began to return to Nanking two weeks after the Japanese occupied the city is devastating to Chang’s 300,000 myth.



David Askew discusses the fact that contemporaneous accounts put the civilian death toll at around 10,000, plus around 30,000 Chinese soldiers:

Both Timperley, an advisor to the Chinese Nationalist Government's central propaganda department and the author of the first detailed account of the atrocities committed by the Japanese in Nanjing, and Hsu, "Sometime Adviser to the [Chinese] Ministry of Foreign Affairs," provide a large number of primary documentary sources (such as the letters from the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone to the Imperial Japanese Embassy) that show that (1) the civilian population of Nanjing was 200,000-250,000, (2) the entire population was located in the Safety Zone during the first weeks of the Japanese occupation, and (3) the population increased over the first month of occupation. Moreover, Timperley shows that (4) contemporary Western observers' estimates of' the death toll in and around Nanjing ranged from 10,000 to 40,000, of which 10,000 to 12,000 were civilians. ("The Nanjing Incident: An Examination of the Civilian Population," https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf)​
This is interesting because months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking, and this figure included both soldiers and civilians (Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,"  A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links). This, in turn, agrees with the figure that Rev. Bates gave to Timperly soon after the massacre _and_ later to the IMTFE: He said that about 12,000 civilians and 28,000 soldiers were killed (Ibid.).

For those who might be interested, I have uploaded a PDF version of Dr. Ikuhiko Hata's paper titled_ The Nanking Atrocity: Fact and Fable._ Dr. Hata is one of the most respected Japanese scholars on the Nanking Massacre. Before he retired, he was  a research associate at Harvard University, a senior fellow at Columbia University, and a visiting scholar at the University of Michigan and Princeton University. Here is the URL: https://miketgriffith.com/files/hata_nanking_atrocity_fact_and_fable.pdf.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, so our policy to keep hostile powers and ideologies from taking root in the Caribbean was wrong?! Uh, wow, that's just what the Communists say. What a coincidence.





JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, our policy starting with the Monroe Doctrine was wrong.  It's an imperialist policy.  Our policies caused "hostile idealogies" to take root. Have you ever wondered why Havana is still communist even though Russia isn't?



Ah, I see you're once again repeating Communist propaganda. Only Communists and Far Lefties claim that the Monroe Doctrine was wrong.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Blah, blah, blah says your brainwashed, illiterate mind. Japan intervened in Manchuria to establish order from warlord chaos and to protect its citizens and subjects there. And, as I've documented for you from several sources, Japan did not start the war in China--the Nationalists started the war by attacking the Japanese just after the Japanese had submitted another peace proposal. Even Chinese generals admitted that their side started the war and that the Japanese did not want war in China.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, nobody thinks the Japanese were the good guys in World War II.  Not even the Japanese.  They like to pretend the whole thing never happened.



You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. Why do you suppose that hundreds of Japanese scholars have written books and articles to counter the Chinese-FDR-Truman version of events?



JoeB131 said:


> Japan shouldn't have been in Manchuria. they shouldn't have been in Korea.



Gulp, more ignorant drivel. The Japanese had an internationally recognized treaty right to be in Korea, and even the Lytton Commission did not argue that Japanese citizens in Manchuria had no right to be there--the commission even argued that Japan had a right to station troops in Manchuria to protect its citizens and subjects from the lawlessness caused by frequent battles between Manchurian warlords and the Chinese and by criminal gangs.



mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Ohhhhh! So it was okay for the Soviets to take over part of Mongolia, but not okay for the Japanese to take over part of Manchuria or to want a small buffer zone between Manchuria and China. Got it. Thanks for sharing, Comrade.





JoeB131 said:


> Are you like five?  When you were caught doing something wrong, did you scream, "But Billy did it, too!"



That makes no sense in relation to anything I said. Can you read?



JoeB131 said:


> Maybe you should educate yourself about what Japan did in Manchuria.
> 
> War crimes in Manchukuo - Wikipedia



LOL! So once again your source for "real scholars" is . . . uh . . . umm . . . Wikipedia?! Really? Seriously? You haven't read a single, solitary book on Japan's involvement in Manchuria, have you?



mikegriffith1 said:


> What unbelievably stupid polemic. The Japanese would not have gone into any of those countries if FDR had not imposed draconian sanctions that threatened them with economic collapse. Until FDR, desperate to save the Soviet Union at any cost, provoked Japan to war, the Japanese--even the army's general stuff--had no intention of sending their forces into those nations because they wanted to focus on developing Manchuria and on guarding against a potential Soviet invasion. The comment about Burma is especially dumb because the only reason the Japanese moved into Burma was to cut off the flow of Allied/American weapons going to the Nationalists via Burma.





JoeB131 said:


> wow, do you also blame short skirts for rape? I mean, if she wasn't wearing that short skirt, the guy never would have raped her.



Huh???  Are you in high school or something? Your analogies are ridiculous.



JoeB131 said:


> Here's how you fix the Draconian sanctions.  YOu stop doing what you were doing to get sanctioned.  The point is, sanctions meant we weren't going to trade with them. No one else was trading with them at that point, either, mostly because they here allied with Hitler and  Hitler was invading their countries.



Sherlock, how many times do I have to point out to you that the Japanese offered to meet all of the conditions that FDR initially set to get the sanctions lifted?  But, when they did so, FDR shifted the goal posts yet again and made demands that no self-respecting nation would have accepted.  Please read the preceding two sentences 10 times and then ask your mom to explain them to you.



JoeB131 said:


> If FDR was so keen on helping the USSR< why wasn't Japan partitioned the way Germany was after the War? In fact, all Russia got out of her participation in the Pacific War was half of Sakhalin Island.



Whaaaaaattttt?!  Really? Are you perhaps talking about another planet named Earth? Down here on Earth, on our planet, thanks to FDR and Truman's bungling (or treason), once the Pacific War was over, the Soviets got to keep their puppet regime in Mongolia--in fact, they were able to gain diplomatic recognition of the regume; the Soviets got to set up pro-Soviet regimes in North Korea and North Vietnam, and when those regimes fought America, the Soviets supplied them with massive amounts of arms and advisers and even fighter pilots; the Soviets got to hand over thousands of tons of weapons and ammo to the Chinese Communists, which they used to defeat the pro-Western Nationalists; the Soviets got to cart off over half a million Japanese POWs and put many of them to work for years as slave laborers (I'm sure that's fine with you, but those soldiers were supposed to surrender to the Nationalists or the Americans); and the Soviets got to perform one of the biggest acts of mass industrial looting in history by hauling off virtually every factory and industrial asset in Manchuria before Truman belatedly demanded that they leave.



mikegriffith1 said:


> You do realize that at one point the Japanese actually agreed to Chiang Kaishek's demand that they withdraw all of their troops from China in exchange for a peace deal, right? And guess why Chiang still refused to make peace with the Japanese even after they agreed to this condition? Because FDR's boys in China talked/pressured him into continuing the war.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, I beat you over the head with a baseball bat, take your wallet, but offer to give you your credit cards back if you [more low-class vulgarity deleted].
> 
> You really think this is a good offer? Even if the Japanese (notorious for double dealing, sneak attacks and breaking treaties) were really sincere about withdrawing from "China", they still planned to hold on to Manchuria and Taiwan, which were rightfully Chinese territories.



Sigh. . . .  Just sigh. . . .  I've already documented that your claims here are erroneous. You just don't care about facts. Even the Lytton Commission said that Manchuria deserved to be independent from China. Manchuria was not "Chinese territory." Manchuria and China fought several huge battles precisely because the Manchurians did not want to be ruled by either the Peking government or the Nationalist government.  Even when Manchuria's last warlord cut a deal with the Nationalists, he did not cede full sovereignty, maintained his own army, ignored any Nationalists edicts he didn't like, and eventually handed over Chiang Kaishek to the Communists. Taiwan was "Chinese territory"?! Not on this planet. Japan acquired Taiwan by treaty, and Taiwan flourished under Japanese rule.



mikegriffith1 said:


> The population evidence provides us with another telling argument against the 300,000-killed myth. Dr. Shudo Higashinakano, a professor of history at Asia University in Tokyo, explains this in his book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction _(2005):
> 
> The Japanese did not allow ordinary citizens free access to those gates [the gates of the walled city of Nanking] until two and a half months had elapsed. Nevertheless, 20 days before and immediately prior to the fall of Nanking, the city’s population was 200,000, according to Europeans and Americans who were there at the time.





JoeB131 said:


> Well, a whole lot of problem with this [CRAP] STAIN of an argument. First of all, how did westerners know how many people lived in the area?  Did they do a census.  We know damned well Peanut and his government weren't capable of doing a census.



But Dr. Smythe did conduct a census, a prolonged one, and used only Chinese assistants. The Japanese never interfered with the census and showed no interest in its results. And, gee, golly, golly, isn't it amazing that Dr. Smythe's population figures from the census almost exactly match those of numerous other primacy sources? Just a whopping coincidence, right?



JoeB131 said:


> Second, as stated many times, people flooded into Nanking from the surrounding countryside because they THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE.



_*LOL!!!!  And how, how, how in the heck could they have thought it was safe if the Japanese had just killed hundreds of thousand of people and, according to the Iris Chang version, were still committing numerous acts of violence and destruction? *_

I mean, holy cow, even for you this is howling stupidity.



JoeB131 said:


> Population of Nanjing in December of 1937 - Wikipedia [Material from what JoeB131 considers to be "real scholars," i.e., Wikipedia, deleted]



So your answer to all the primary-source evidence and scholarly research that I presented to you on Nanking's population from mid-December to mid-January is to . . . uh . . . umm . . . errr  . . . cite another Wikipedia article? THAT's your answer?

Compare that Wikipedia article to these sources:

New Research on the Nanjing Incident | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/57_S4.pdf

Let's review some of the evidence I've presented to you, for which your only answer is to cite a Wikipedia article:

Earlier I presented some of the considerable evidence that Nanking’s population was only around 200,000 when the Japanese occupied the city. More of this evidence comes from the 1939 book _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone, _prepared by Shuhsi Hsu, an adviser to the Nationalist Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and produced under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs in Chunking (which was then the Nationalist capital). Six of the documents mention the city’s population as of December 17 to December 27, _and all six put the population at 200,000 _(pp. 17-18, 20, 48-49; see also Shigenobu Tomisawa, _Using Primary Sources to Clarify the Nanking Incident_, p. 24, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/57_S4.pdf)

Three additional sources support the 200,000 figure: (1) James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, sent a report to the U.S. State Department shortly after the Japanese arrived and stated therein that Nanking’s population was 200,000 (IMTFE transcript, CE 328, p. 4468); (2) John Rabe likewise said the population was 200,000 soon after the city fell (_The Good German of Nanking, _p. 52); and (3) even Harold Timperly’s overtly anti-Japanese report on the events in Nanking, titled _What War Means, _put the city’s population at 200,000 as of December 24, nearly two weeks after the Japanese captured the city (pp. 22-23).

Historian David Askew, a professor of history at Monash University and Asia Pacific University, has focused on Nanking’s population before and after the massacre. One of his papers, titled “The Nanjing Incident: An Examination of the Civilian Population” is available online (note: “Nanking” is sometimes written as “Nanjing”). This is from Askew’s introduction in the paper:

The conclusion drawn from the various primary sources is that the civilian population of Nanjing was 200,000 in the weeks leading up to the fall of the city; that it remained 200,000 for the first 4 weeks of the occupation; and that it increased to 250,000 by January 10, 1938. This paper will also argue that the closest estimate of the population that can be made is 224,500 as of December 24, 1937, to January 5, 1938. (https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf)​
Of course, Chang’s defenders don’t like Askew’s thorough research on Nanking’s population. Obviously, if Nanking’s population was 200,000 when the Japanese took the city on December 13, and was 224,500 between December 24 and January 5, it is impossible to believe that the Japanese killed 300,000 people in Nanking, even if you include the surrounding areas. Moreover, the fact that people began to return to Nanking two weeks after the Japanese occupied the city is devastating to Chang’s 300,000 myth.

As of December 21, eight days after the Japanese had occupied the city, the Nanking International Relief Committee put the city’s population at 200,000, as Dr. Higashinakano points out:

Document No. 10, dated December 18, states, “We 22 Westerners cannot feed 200,000 Chinese civilians….” The Committee appealed to the Japanese military for help.​
Document No. 20, dated December 21, mentions difficulties the Committee had experienced in supplying food and fuel to 200,000 civilians, and adds, “The present situation is automatically and rapidly leading to a serious famine.” (_The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction, _p. 152) (_By the way, the Japanese then began to distribute large amounts of food to city residents_.)​
We also read the following in Document No. 10, which is a letter written on December 18 by the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone to the Japanese Embassy in Nanking:

Dear Sirs: We are very sorry to trouble you again the sufferings and needs of the 200,000 civilians for whom we are trying to care make it urgent that we try to secure action from your military authorities to stop the present disorder among Japanese soldiers wandering through the Safety Zone. (_International Military Tribunal for the Far East: Transcript of Proceedings_, August 29, 1946, p. 4516)​
Lily Abegg, a European newspaper correspondent in China, was in Nanking shortly before the Japanese arrived, and she reported that as of November 29 there were, at most, about 150,000 people in the city:

Now there are at most 150,000 people remaining, but the waves of evacuees seem interminable. (_The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction, _p. 30, citing Lily Abegg, “Wie wir aus Nanking flüchteten: Die letzten Tage in der Haupstadt Chinas” in _Frankfurter Zeitung_, 19 December 1937)

The chief of the National Police Agency reported that as of November 28 there were “200,000 residents remaining here in Nanking” (_The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction, _p. 151). This was 15 days before the Japanese entered the city.

The obvious and crucial point is this: Since Nanking’s population was 150,000 to 200,000 as of late November, two weeks before the Japanese arrived, and was 200,000 as of December 21, eight days after the city fell, and was 221,000 in March, three months after the city fell, there is no way the Japanese killed 300,000 people in Nanking.



mikegriffith1 said:


> By any measurement, killing 10,000 civilians is a horrific crime that deserves the harshest condemnation and punishment. So why do Chang’s defenders refuse to abandon her discredited 300,000 figure? Here’s one reason: The Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in the Yellow River Atrocity (aka the Yellow River Flood) in 1938 when they deliberately breached the Yellow River Dam and flooded thousands of square miles in Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu to stop a non-existent Japanese advance. Can you imagine what Chang’s apologists would be saying if the Japanese had done this?





JoeB131 said:


> One more time.... You do realize that there's a difference between when people die of your ineptitude rather than deliberate murder, right?



Ho! Ho! Ho!  Soooo now it's your story that the Nationalists didn't realize that the flood waters from the Yellow River would kill many of the Chinese people in the flooded areas?!  Are you really thaaaat stupid? Do you reaaally expect anyone else to buy that absurdity?

And how about the Nationalist massacre at Changsha? In November 1938, Nationalist soldiers, without warning, began burning the city—the Chinese city—of Changsha, 200 miles southwest of the Nationalist stronghold of Wuhan, as part of Chiang Kaishek’s scorched-earth policy to deny the Japanese any spoils when they took the city. “At least 20,000 were buried in mass graves outside the city,” notes Harmsen (locs. 2196-2210).

And shall we talk about the tens of millions of Chinese who were murdered by the Communists once Mao took over China? Why won't you ever talk about that historically brutal crime?



JoeB131 said:


> Peanut was incompetent.... It's why people dropped their rifles and joined the Communists.  But the Japanese were pure evil.



No, the Japanese were not pure evil; they were not nearly as bad as the Chinese Communists. In many cases, Japanese rule was moderate and beneficial. And the Nationalists had the Communists staggering and on the verge of collapse when Truman and Marshall intervened to save the Communists from defeat, as I've documented from scholarly and government sources.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> David Askew discusses the fact that contemporaneous accounts put the civilian death toll at around 10,000, plus around 30,000 Chinese soldiers:



You know, this whole "Look, they only raped and murdered 42,000 people, not 300,000, that makes it okay somehow" is a solid argument for you.. You keep going with that buddy.  

It doesn't make you a fascist cocksucker at all.  




Happy Ending!


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> And shall we talk about the tens of millions of Chinese who were murdered by the Communists once Mao took over China? Why won't you ever talk about that historically brutal crime?



Because I don't buy into Cold War horseshit propaganda.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> No, the Japanese were not pure evil; they were not nearly as bad as the Chinese Communists. In many cases, Japanese rule was moderate and beneficial. And the Nationalists had the Communists staggering and on the verge of collapse when Truman and Marshall intervened to save the Communists from defeat, as I've documented from scholarly and government sources.



Peanut could fuck up a wet dream...  He was going down... Truman wisely decided not to prolong the inevitable and stop giving him American money to steal. 

The only problem is we didn't hang more of the Jap bastard war criminals, including Hirohito.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And shall we talk about the tens of millions of Chinese who were murdered by the Communists once Mao took over China? Why won't you ever talk about that historically brutal crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't buy into Cold War horseshit propaganda. .....
Click to expand...



You are the furthest thing imaginable from an actual historian; nothing but a brainless, ignorant partisan. The ass-kicking you have suffered on this thread is one of the worst ever seen on this site.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You are the furthest thing imaginable from an actual historian; nothing but a brainless, ignorant partisan. The ass-kicking you have suffered on this thread is one of the worst ever seen on this site.



Yawn...  reality check- China is communist and Mao is considered the way we consider George Washington.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Notice that JoeB131, like other Iris Chang apologists, has to reject every single primary source on Nanking’s population during the time in question, even though all the primary sources agree with the population number that Dr. Lewis Smythe determined when he did his survey weeks after the massacre.

When confronted with the substantial evidence from contemporary primary sources that the population was about 200,000 when the city fell, JoeB131 can only lamely sputter, “First of all, how did westerners know how many people lived in the area? Did they do a census. We know damned well Peanut and his government weren't capable of doing a census.”

Umm, well, those Westerners had lived in the city for a long time, so they knew what the population was before the residents began to flee, and those Westerners saw the huge masses of people leaving and saw the people who were still in the city. Nanking was not a large city geographically speaking, and it had a large wall. Those Westerners did not just stay holed up in their homes; many of them were out and about in the city trying to help people, among other things. 

German diplomat John Rabe and American diplomat James Espy (sometimes spelled Epsy) both came to their population numbers by noting that about 800,000 of the city’s one million people had fled (https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf). Thus, they based their estimates not just on how many people they saw remaining in the city but on how many people they saw leave the city. By the way, George Fitch, who was another member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety, also put the city’s December 1937 population at 200,000 and noted that the city’s pre-war population had been one million (Ibid.)

By the way, the Wikipedia article on Nanking’s population, titled “Population of Nanjing in December of 1937,” does not even mention Espy (Population of Nanjing in December of 1937 - Wikipedia). Also, the article’s table in the Primary Sources segment misrepresents Smythe’s findings by putting them at 200,000-250,000, which shows that the authors of the article failed to read Smythe’s report with sufficient care. However, the article does acknowledge that most of the primary sources that it cites originally put Nanking’s population at between 150,000 to 200,000 as of December 1937:

In December, members of the International Committee, including George Ashmore Fitch and its leader John Rabe, estimated the city's civilian population at approximately 200,000.[12] Rabe, however, revised his estimate upwards on January 14 to "250,000 to 300,000 civilians" in a letter to the Japanese embassy. Rabe stated that earlier figures had been "deliberately cautious guesses".[13] However, when another committee member, Lewis Smythe, compiled a population survey of Nanking the same year, he reaffirmed that Nanking's civilian population at the time the city fell was between 200,000 and 250,000.[14]​
By contrast, most Western journalists who were in Nanking in November and December 1937 put forward much lower population numbers of around 150,000.[15] For instance, New York Times reporter F. Tillman Durdin supported the estimate of 150,000.[16] By the time that the Japanese forces occupying Nanking attempted to formally register the city's entire population in late December, 1937, and early January, 1938, 160,000 people were recorded. However, the Japanese often did not count young children and elderly women in their registration.[17]​
If you look at the table that follows these paragraphs, which lists the primary sources and their estimates for Nanking’s December 1937 population, you see that

-- 8 of the 11 primary sources put the population at between 150,000 and 200,000

-- 2 of the 11 primary sources put the population at between 200,000 and 250,000 (although the table misrepresents/exaggerates their estimates)

-- 1 of the 11 primary sources (Rabe) put the population at between 250,000 and 300,000 (although the article admits that originally Rabe gave a lower number)

And, of course, folks like JoeB131 can’t allow themselves to accept Dr. Smythe’s population survey, even though Smythe took nearly four weeks to do the field work for it and used only Chinese assistants, and even though Smythe’s number matches the numbers originally given by every other primary source on Nanking’s population.

For Iris Chang’s 300,000 myth to be even halfway credible, Nanking’s December 1937 population would have needed to be at least 450,000, since nobody but nobody ever claimed that the population was below 150,000 as of February and March 1938, especially given the fact that Smythe determined that the city’s population actually began to gradually _increase _just a few weeks after the Japanese took the city and had risen to 221,000 as of March.

This brings us to one of JoeB131’s most amazing howlers: his claim that people began to return to Nanking soon after the Japanese took the city because they thought it was safe! No, I’m not exaggerating. Let me quote him:

Second, as stated many times, people flooded into Nanking from the surrounding countryside because they THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE. [original emphasis]​
This, of course, obviously begs the question: How, how, how in the world could anyone have thought it was safe to return to Nanking just weeks after the Japanese had taken the city if the Japanese had just killed, and/or were still in the process of killing, hundreds of thousands of people, and if there were huge piles of dead bodies outside the city, and if much/most of the city had been burned down?

I will conclude by quoting part of Australian historian David Askew’s superb article “The Nanjing Incident: An Examination of the Civilian Population”:

Although the estimates made in the primary sources are given further credence by Smythe's survey and the Japanese registration of the population, the other contemporary sources also need to be examined. They can be divided into three groups: the accounts of the Western journalists in Nanjing; the various letters and diaries of the members of the International Committee; and embassy reports. Although not all are official documents, they provide a valuable complementary source that can be compared with the story that emerges from official documents.​
Most Western journalists believed that the civilian population of Nanjing was considerably smaller than 200,000, setting it at 150,000. One German journalist, Lily Abegg, wrote that it was 150,000 in late November. After the fall of the city, the New York Times stated that the Safety Zone "shelters 150,000.” Arthur Menken wrote that "[m]ore than 100,000 Chinese sought refuge in the zone." Hallett Abend used exactly the same phrase: ''More than 100,000 Chinese sought refuge in the zone.” In an article dated December 18, F. Tillman Durdin speaks of" upward of 100,000 non-combatants" in the Safety Zone and "residents, numbering upward of 50,000, who sought no sanctuary in the zone.” This suggests that, in early to mid-December, Western journalists believed that the entire civilian population of Nanking was about 150,000, with 100,000 within the Zone and a further 50,000 outside it. As noted above, at least one member of the international community in Nanjing also believed that the civilian population was "perhaps 150,000 or more,” and Wilson thought that the population was between 150,000 and 200,000. . . .​
Thus, for instance, one "foreign resident who has spent almost the whole of his life" in China wrote on Christmas eve, 1937, that "we have only enough rice and flour for the 200,000 refugees for another three weeks." In a letter dated December 14, 1937, Wilson stated that the "entire” population of Nanjing, "some 150 or 200 thousand individuals," had "crowded into the zone.” Finally, George Fitch's autobiography also gives the population of Nanjing as 200,000. (https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Notice that JoeB131, like other Iris Chang apologists, has to reject every single primary source on Nanking’s population during the time in question, even though all the primary sources agree with the population number that Dr. Lewis Smythe determined when he did his survey weeks after the massacre.
> 
> When confronted with the substantial evidence from contemporary primary sources that the population was about 200,000 when the city fell, JoeB131 can only lamely sputter, “First of all, how did westerners know how many people lived in the area? Did they do a census. We know damned well Peanut and his government weren't capable of doing a census.”
> 
> Umm, well, those Westerners had lived in the city for a long time, so they knew what the population was before the residents began to flee, and those Westerners saw the huge masses of people leaving and saw the people who were still in the city. Nanking was not a large city geographically speaking, and it had a large wall. Those Westerners did not just stay holed up in their homes; many of them were out and about in the city trying to help people, among other things.



I've lived in my town for 14 years.  The only reason why I know how many people live here is because they do a census every ten years.   

Nanking had a population of 1 million in 1937.  It has a population of 6 million today.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> This brings us to one of JoeB131’s most amazing howlers: his claim that people began to return to Nanking soon after the Japanese took the city because they thought it was safe! No, I’m not exaggerating. Let me quote him:
> 
> Second, as stated many times, people flooded into Nanking from the surrounding countryside because they THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE.



You lying fascist cocksucker... that statement was made to describe why people were flooding INTO the city before the Japs started murdering people.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> First of all, how did westerners know how many people lived in the area? Did they do a census. We know damned well Peanut and his government weren't capable of doing a census.



Well, “first of all,” I can’t help but notice that you still have not responded to my request that you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of draconian sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country initially said it wanted but the sanctioning country refused to lift the sanctions and instead made more demands. I’m still waiting for you to produce such an example. 

Anyway, getting back to your lame rejection of what the primary sources say about Nanking’s population, we both know—we both know full well—that if the primary sources supported your story, you would be pointing out

-- that the primary sources mutually corroborate each other on the 200,000 number

-- that most of the primary sources did not know about the others’ numbers, i.e., they arrived at their numbers independently

-- that one of the primary sources is a population survey done weeks after the massacre, and that the survey was done by a trained sociologist, Dr. Smythe, who had lived in the area for years and who used only Chinese assistants to conduct the survey

-- that Dr. Smythe was horrified by the atrocities he saw and was anxious to document how many people had been killed and how much damage had been done

-- that one of the main rules of historical research is to find and use as many primary sources as possible, for obvious reasons

But you have to reject the primary sources because they blow your story to pieces. Even the bitterest anti-Japanese early sources did not put the death toll anywhere near the ridiculous IMTFE-Iris Chang figure of 300,000.

In fact, Chang suggested that the death toll might have been “well over 350,000”:

Years later experts at the International Military Tribunal of the Far East (IMTFE) estimated that more than 260,000 noncombatants died at the hands of Japanese soldiers at Nanking in late 1937 and early 1938, though some experts have placed the figure at well over 350,000. (_The Rape of Nanking, _p. 4)​
First off, the name of the IMTFE was not “the International Military Tribunal _of_ the Far East”; it was the “International Military Tribunal _for_ the Far East.”

And, pray tell, who were the “experts” at the bloodthirsty, corrupt, and rigged IMTFE?! The only person who would have qualified as an expert was Dr. Smythe, but the IMTFE refused to call him as a witness and brushed aside his findings. One could credibly accuse the IMTFE of outright judicial murder, and some scholars have made a compelling case for this accusation; see for example, Richard Minear’s book _Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial_ (Princeton University Press, 1971) and Dayle Smith’s book _Judicial Murder? Macarthur and the Tokyo War Crimes Trial _(CS IPS, 2013). As bad as the IMTFE was, the Nanking Military Tribunal (NMT) was arguably worse.

On a side note, in re-reading Chang’s book over the last few days, I came across this howler:

I was told in Nanking that the People’s Republic of China rarely permits its scholars to journey to Japan for fear of jeopardizing their physical safety. (p. 12)​
Are you kidding me? In 1997, the year Chang’s book was published, Japan was, as it is today, a vibrant democracy with freedom of speech and tremendous academic freedom and vigorous debate over just about any issue. In contrast, in 1997, Red China (PRC) was, as it is today, a repressive, brutal regime where people who expressed criticism of the government might well disappear in the night or find themselves in jail on phony charges, where Christians faced persecution and hostility from the government, where foreigners entering the country were forced to hand over any foreign newspapers or magazines they were carrying (this even happened during the Olympics in Beijing in 2008). Here is the U.S. State Department’s 1996 report on human rights in China:

1996 Human Rights Report: China

Pro-communist apologists like JoeB131 would do well to read it and then compare it with Japan’s superb human rights record during the same period. They should pay special attention to the sections in the report that deal with “Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” and “Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile” and “Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence” and “Freedom of Speech and Press” and “Freedom of Religion.”

The 1997 PRC was not as bad as it was under mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung, but it was still one of the most repressive and brutal regimes on the planet, and still is, in stark contrast to Japan, which has been a pro-Western democracy since the late 1940s (and was a pro-Western, pro-capitalist, pro-private property monarchy with an independent judiciary and an elected legislative assembly even in the years leading up to the Pacific War).


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, “first of all,” I can’t help but notice that you still have not responded to my request that you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of draconian sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country initially said it wanted but the sanctioning country refused to lift the sanctions and instead made more demands. I’m still waiting for you to produce such an example.



Japan had been engaged in a war of aggression against China for a decade before FDR imposed sanctions  The US also imposed sanctions on Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy for the same reasons. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Anyway, getting back to your lame rejection of what the primary sources say about Nanking’s population, we both know—we both know full well—that if the primary sources supported your story, you would be pointing out
> 
> -- that the primary sources mutually corroborate each other on the 200,000 number



No, the population was closer to 1 million.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, pray tell, who were the “experts” at the bloodthirsty, corrupt, and rigged IMTFE?! The only person who would have qualified as an expert was Dr. Smythe, but the IMTFE refused to call him as a witness and brushed aside his findings.



Well, the fact he was probably a pro-fascist cocksucker was the reason they didn't call him. The fact is, the findings of the war crimes trials after the war put the Rape of Nanking at 300K, and the bastards responsible were executed.  Except for Hirohito and the other royals..  Which is a damned same.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The 1997 PRC was not as bad as it was under mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung, but it was still one of the most repressive and brutal regimes on the planet, and still is, in stark contrast to Japan, which has been a pro-Western democracy since the late 1940s (and was a pro-Western, pro-capitalist, pro-private property monarchy with an independent judiciary and an elected legislative assembly even in the years leading up to the Pacific War).



Actually, Japan is not a happy land of Pokemon and Tentacle Porn you paint it to be.  Their justice system is still damned oppressive and its kind of a police state.  If accused of a crime, you don't get the rights you would enjoy as an American, and their prisons are kind of brutal.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> No history department ANYWHERE would look at your pro-fascist revisionism with anything but ridicule.






mikegriffith1 said:


> Any history department would laugh at your description of the scholarship I have cited as "pro-fascist."
> 
> 
> This is more of your ignorant clown material. You don’t know what history departments do or do not accept on this issue because you have not seriously studied this issue. The only sources you’ve read are a handful of online articles. The scholars who acknowledge the clear evidence that the Nationalists started the war, that the Japanese did not instigate the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, that the Japanese did not want war with the Nationalists, that the Japanese had no intention of occupying China, and that the Japanese in fact were willing to withdraw from China in exchange for tacit recognition of their state in Manchuria—the list of scholars who acknowledge these facts would fill more lines that a USMB reply page can hold. Here are a few of them:
> 
> 
> -- John Toland, a renowned historian whose book on WWII-era Japan, _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire,_ won a Pulitzer Prize (let me guess: you’re going to say that all the Pulitzer Prize committee members were “fascists” or “pro-fascist,” right?).
> 
> 
> -- Dick Wilson, an Oxford graduate and a professor of history at the University of California. Wilson was the editor of _The China Quarterly_ at one time. His book on the Second Sino-Japanese War, _When Tigers Fight: The Story of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945, _is one of the most balanced and objective works on the subject. I’m guessing you’ve never ever heard of the book.
> 
> 
> -- James Crowley, a professor of history at Yale University. His 1966 book _Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930-1938, _which I have quoted in replies to you, is considered a “seminal” work on the Sino-Japanese War because, among other things, it refuted the long-held belief that the Japanese caused the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Even most Western scholars who are harshly critical of Imperial Japan now acknowledge, based on Crowley’s research, that Japan did not instigate the incident.
> 
> 
> -- Peter Harmsen, a graduate in history from National Taiwan University and a foreign correspondent in the Far East for two decades. Harmsen is currently the bureau chief for the French News Agency in Taiwan. His 2018 book _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific_, which I have quoted in replies to you, is another one of the fairest, most objective studies on Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China.
> 
> 
> -- Joshua Fogel, a professor of history at York University in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Fogel has been honored with visiting professorships at the School of Historical Studies of the Institute for Advanced Study (2001-2003) at Princeton, the British Inter-University China Centre, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As you might remember, Dr. Fogel has said that accepting the NMT-Iris Chang story of the 100-man killing contest “requires a leap of faith that no balanced historian can make.”
> 
> 
> -- Richard Minear, a graduate in history from Harvard University and a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts. If your PRC handlers will ever let you read the other side of the story, you really should start with Dr. Minear’s book _Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial,_ published by Princeton University Press in 1971 (let me guess: you’re going to say that Princeton University Press is a “fascist” or “pro-fascist” publishing company, right?!).
> 
> 
> -- Mark Peattie, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts and a research fellow at Stanford University. Peattie co-edited the excellent and balanced book _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, _published by Stanford University Press in 2010.
> 
> 
> -- Edward Drea, a military historian who specializes in the Imperial Japanese Army. Drea earned in doctorate in Japanese history from the University of Kansas. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945. _In 2009, the University of Kansas Press published his superbly fair study of the Japanese army titled _Japan’s Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall, 1853–1945_.
> 
> 
> -- Hans van de Ven, a professor of modern Chinese history at Cambridge University. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book _The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945._
> 
> 
> -- Niall Ferguson, “one of Britain’s most renowned historians” and a professor of history at Harvard University and a senior research fellow at Stanford University. Ferguson’s 2006 book _The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West _includes a balanced, objective treatment of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China, as well as of the Pacific War and the factors that led to it.
> 
> 
> -- Dayle Smith, a prominent Australian attorney who spent years studying the IMTFE. Smith focused on the IMTFE’s chief judge, William Webb, who was Australian. As part of his research into the IMTFE, Smith studied at the University of Queensland Library where Sir William Webb’s personal papers were lodged, at the Australian War Museum in Canberra, in Japan at the library of the _Japan Times_, at the Tokyo Diet Library, at the Supreme Court of Japan’s vault in Tokyo that houses many of the defense documents that the IMTFE would not allow into evidence, and at the Imperial War Museum in London. Smith presented a 15,000-word paper on the Tokyo War Crimes Trial to the Law faculty of the University of New England in Australia and made a similar presentation to the Supreme Court in Brisbane. The paper was later included in the book _Queensland Judges on the High Court_, published by the Supreme Court Library of Queensland in 2003. Smith’s massive study on the IMTFE, titled _Judicial Murder? Macarthur And The Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, was published in 2013.
> 
> 
> -- Harold Vinacke, professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. His book 1952 book _The United States and the Far East 1945-1951 _acknowledges that Japan did not intend to conquer Asia in the same way or to the same degree that Nazi Germany intended to conquer Europe and Russia, and that Japanese colonial rule was not always brutal or totalitarian.
> 
> 
> -- Edwin P. Hoyt, a renowned scholar on WW II. A graduate of the University of Oregon, Hoyt lectured at the University of Hawaii on the Pacific War. He spoke fluent Japanese and wrote numerous best-selling books on WW II. During the war, Hoyt served as the director of the Domestic Branch of the Office of War Information. His book _Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict, 1853 to 1952_ (McGraw, 1986) provides a fair and balanced analysis of Japan’s motives and actions in China and in the Pacific.
> 
> 
> Allow me to throw in three Asian scholars:
> 
> 
> -- Minoru Kitamura, a graduate in history from Kyoto University and a professor of humanities at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. He is also a member of the Japan Association for Nanjing Studies and an associate researcher at the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals. His book, co-authored with Chinese scholar Siyun Lin, _The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War_, published by the University Press of America in 2014, is, in my view, the best available book on the subject.
> 
> 
> -- Siyun Lin, a Chinese scholar who graduated from Nanking University. As mentioned, Lin and Kitamura co-authored the book _The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War. _Lin wrote his own book on the Nanking Massacre: _The Battle in Defense of Nanking and the Massacre in Nanking _(2011).
> 
> 
> -- Radhabinod Pal, the Indian judge on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) and a member of the UN’s International Law Commission from 1952-1966. Justice Pal’s famous massive dissent to the IMTFE’s kangaroo-court decisions is one of the most methodical destructions of the IMTFE-Chinese Communist version of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and the Second Sino-Japanese War ever written. Here is Pal’s dissent: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/65_S4.pdf.



Oh my goodness, I left out Dr. F. C. Jones (Francis C. Jones) from my list!  Dr. Jones earned his Ph.D. in history at Harvard and taught history at the University of Bristol in England. He specialized in Asian history and wrote several books on Imperial Japan and China. His two books on Japan’s involvement in China, _Japan’s New Order in East Asia 1937-1945_ (1954) and _Manchuria Since 1931 _(1949), both published by Oxford University Press, received wide praise from scholars all over the world—but not from scholars in Red China, of course.

Dr. Jones’ book _Japan’s New Order in East Asia _lays out in painstaking detail the numerous Chinese provocations and Chinese rejections of Japanese peace offers that led to the Second Sino-Japanese War. Dr. Ralph Braibanti, in his review of Jones’ book in the University of Chicago’s _Journal of Politics, _said that it was “one of the most significant works on Japan to appear in recent years” and that it “merits careful attention also because of the new documentary sources” that it included (_Journal of Politics, _February 1955, p. 136).

Dr. Jones’ book _Manchuria Since 1931 _is a devastating refutation of the Chinese Nationalist-Communist-inspired myths about Japan’s involvement in Manchuria. Dr. Jones pointed out that the Japanese gave the Manchurians more autonomy than they would have been given by the Communists (p. 68). Dr. Jones examined every aspect of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria—legal, military, cultural, and economic. Now, mind you, Jones did _not_ say that the Japanese state in Manchuria was a progressive, tolerant, pluralistic democracy, but he did argue that it was not nearly as repressive or authoritarian as the Chinese claimed it was, and that Japanese economic investment and industrial development greatly improved economic conditions in the state.  

Dr. W. S. Toller said the following in the journal _International Affairs _in his review of _Manchuria Since 1931:_

More space than is available would be needed to do justice to this valuable work. . . . Dr. Jones describes the evolution of Manchukuo [the Japanese state in Manchuria] during the fifteen years of its existence. . . .​
Dr. Jones’s masterly record is a mine of information. . . .  He shows himself entirely judicial and dispassionate; he doubts the truth of the allegation that “the Japanese higher authorities deliberately spread the use of drugs to render the Chinese population more docile” (p. 134), and he gives them credit for the benefits that they conferred on the country by vocational training, by currency reform, and by the development of hydro-electric and thermal power plants. (_International Affairs, _October 1949, p. 549)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh my goodness, I left out Dr. F. C. Jones (Francis C. Jones)



More white guys telling people of color they shouldn't be upset about genocide.  Wow. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Jones’ book _Japan’s New Order in East Asia _lays out in painstaking detail the numerous Chinese provocations and Chinese rejections of Japanese peace offers that led to the Second Sino-Japanese War.



One more time... There is a sea that separates Japan from China.  They even call it the "Sea of Japan".  When the Japanese crossed that sea and invaded China, they were in the wrong.  THis isn't complicated. 

Imperialism is wrong, whether it is Japan in China, the US in the Philippines, or Europe in Africa.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Jones’ book _Manchuria Since 1931 _is a devastating refutation of the Chinese Nationalist-Communist-inspired myths about Japan’s involvement in Manchuria. Dr. Jones pointed out that the Japanese gave the Manchurians more autonomy than they would have been given by the Communists (p. 68). Dr. Jones examined every aspect of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria—legal, military, cultural, and economic. Now, mind you, Jones did _not_ say that the Japanese state in Manchuria was a progressive, tolerant, pluralistic democracy, but he did argue that it was not nearly as repressive or authoritarian as the Chinese claimed it was, and that Japanese economic investment and industrial development greatly improved economic conditions in the state.



So did he talk about this stuff that the Japs did in Manchuria? 

War crimes in Manchukuo - Wikipedia

*Human experimentation[edit]*
Main article: Unit 731
Special Japanese military units conducted experiments on civilians and POWs in Manchukuo. One of the most infamous was Unit 731. Victims were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia, and were used to test biological weapons, among other experiments.[2]

Between 3,000 and 12,000 men, women, and children died during human experimentation conducted by Unit 731.[3][4]

*Chemical and biological weapons[edit]*
According to historians Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Seiya Matsuno, Emperor Hirohito authorized the use of chemical weapons in China.[5] Furthermore, "tens of thousands, and perhaps as many 200,000, Chinese died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases", resulting from the use of biological warfare. Although owing to systematic Japanese destruction of records, there is no record of chemical or biological weapons in Manchukuo itself, these weapons of mass destruction were partly researched, produced, and stockpiled in Manchukuo by the Kwantung Army.

*Forced labor[edit]*
The Japanese military's use of forced labor also caused many deaths. According to a joint study of historians Zhifen Ju, Mitsuyochi Himeta, Toru Kubo and Mark Peattie, more than 10 million Chinese civilians were mobilized for forced labor in Manchukuo under the supervision of the Kōa-in.[6]

Forced laborers were often assigned work in dangerous conditions without adequate safety precautions. The world's deadliest mine disaster, at Benxihu Colliery, occurred in Manchukuo.

*Human rights violations[edit]*

Arrest of civilians without due cause by the local Manchukuo police or Japanese authorities.
Torture of prisoners in regular penal or military jails.
Disappearances and Extrajudicial execution of political opponents
Preferential civil rights for Japanese subjects over other nationalities.
Forced land appropriations either with or without legal orders in favour of Japanese citizens or private and government companies.
Use of criminal gangs for robbery and intimidation of political opposition
*Drug trafficking[edit]*
In 2007, an article by Reiji Yoshida in the Japan Times argued that the Japanese investments in Manchukuo were partly financed by selling drugs. According to the article, a document claimed to have been found by Yoshida directly implicated the Kōa-in in providing funds to drug dealers in China for the benefit of the puppet governments of Manchukuo, Nanjing and Mongolia.[7] This document corroborates evidence analyzed earlier by the Tokyo tribunal which stated that

“ Japan's real purpose in engaging drug traffic was far more sinister than even the debauchery of Chinese people. Japan, having signed and ratified the opium conventions, was bound not to engage in drug traffic, but she found in the alleged but false independence of Manchukuo a convenient opportunity to carry on a worldwide drug traffic and cast the guilt upon that puppet state ... In 1937, it was pointed out in the League of Nations that 90% of all illicit white drugs in the world were of Japanese origin ...[8]


----------



## mikegriffith1

I’ve mentioned Dick Wilson’s excellent book _When Tigers Fight: The Story of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945 _(New York: Penguin Books, 1982)_. _Wilson was willing to discuss Chinese provocations that led to war:

That sunset [July 25] a Japanese battalion returning from Fengtai to Beijing, under routine arrangements agreed earlier with the Chinese authorities, was it attacked as it passed through the Guang’an gate. Some Chinese felt that this arrival of 300 Japanese troops at the gates of Beijing was an attack, although the “invaders” had previously come and gone as they please, and were technically within their rights by international law.​
The Chinese guard . . . opened the main gate to the Japanese but then immediately closed it behind them, trapping them in the narrow area between the outer and inner gates. The Chinese then fired trench mortars at them and lobbed hand grenades from the walls. (p. 19)​
You rarely read about this and similar incidents in books that portray the Chinese as the poor, weak, innocent victims of Japanese aggression.

Wilson also discusses the conduct of the Japanese army after it took control of Beijing on August 7 and notes that on the whole it was good, with only minor offenses such as petty theft and occasional arrogance occurring:

How did the conquerors behave? A neutral Red Cross worker operating in the area around Beijing immediately after its capture found that the Japanese troops made a good impression. The worst offences were petty theft and occasional meanness.​
Most of them “were very young, obviously fresh from training school, and it was to resent as individuals these hordes of grinning children helping themselves to the benefits of the countryside and only incidentally making life miserable for the Chinese they encountered.”​
This observer drove past the Summer Palace in Beijing, which the Japanese had taken for their headquarters: “We found every brook and pond full of naked little Japs scrubbing themselves and rinsing their underwear. They were delighted to still be alive and many would laugh and wave at the Red Cross trucks as we passed”. . . .​
In the city itself, “the most serious trespasses were in shopping at Chinese stores and paying for their purchases only what fraction of the price they chose to give. Otherwise, as far as could be seen, their amusements were harmless.” (pp. 27-28)​
One wonders if Iris Chang read Wilson’s famous book, since she portrays most Japanese soldiers as rapists and murderers.

Regarding the Japanese government’s intentions in China, Wilson points out what so many other scholars have documented, i.e., that the government, including the Army’s leadership, did not want war in China:

In fact, neither the cabinet nor the War Office really wanted the incident [the Marco Polo Bridge Incident] to escalate into war, and General Sugiyama, the War Minister, was not initially allowed to send reinforcements from Japan. (p. 15)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> I’ve mentioned Dick Wilson’s excellent book _When Tigers Fight: The Story of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945 _(New York: Penguin Books, 1982)_. _Wilson was willing to discuss Chinese provocations that led to war:



The Chinese should have just gotten on their knees and promised a "Happy Ending" to the Japs. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> One wonders if Iris Chang read Wilson’s famous book, since she portrays most Japanese soldiers as rapists and murderers.



30 Million Chinese died, a third of them civilians... The Japanese were rapists and murderers.. 

The Greatest sin of the Japanese... they act as bad as white people.  

So of course, all the "historians" you drag out are white people from Imperialist countries trying to rationalize imperialism.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Getting back to the comfort women for a moment, as I've said previously, there has been a great deal of exaggeration and fabrication on this issue. Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, one of Japan's leading and most respected historians on Imperial Japan, made some important points about the comfort women in an April 2017 interview:

In 1944, while the war was still raging, twenty Korean comfort women taken prisoner in northern Burma (present-day Myanmar) by the US military were interrogated by American officers. The interrogation records as well as the pictures taken during the interrogation are all public documents. According to the US military’s questioning of these comfort women, they went out shopping with Japanese soldiers, held sporting matches and other athletic events, and had no financial problems whatsoever.

Apart from individual cases where crimes were committed in direct violation of orders from the Japanese military, there was no forced abduction of comfort women. Not only this, but the women who worked in the comfort stations did not live under the cruel conditions connoted by the term “sex slave.”

Let me provide some circumstantial evidence here to explain what I mean. First, advertisements appeared in newspapers in Seoul during the war announcing the “large-scale recruitment of comfort women.” The employers seeking such women were Koreans, not Japanese. The advertisements even listed the monthly salary that would be paid, as well as the “advance money” that women or their families received at the time of recruitment. At a time when the average Japanese soldier made around ten yen per month, the comfort women earned thirty times that: 300 yen in monthly salary.

This all begs the question: if women answered these advertisements and volunteered to work as comfort women, then would there be any need to kidnap them?

Additionally, the order was given by the Japanese military that the comfort women were completely free to quit working in the comfort stations and return to their home countries. There were even some Japanese soldiers who proposed marriage to the comfort women.

There were occasionally unscrupulous brokers, and there were destitute parents who sold their daughters into prostitution. In the Japanese home islands as well as in Korea, the majority of comfort women were professional prostitutes. This is proof that they were not sex slaves.

The South Korean side claims that there were 200,000 comfort women. In fact, though, this number is the result of conflating comfort women with the women’s volunteer corps, comprising females who were mobilized to work in factories in order to alleviate the wartime labor shortage due to the conscription of the men.

This conflation has been spread around as though it were true, when the reality is that the comfort women and the women’s volunteer corps are two entirely separate things. In point of fact, it is believed that there were some 20,000 comfort women, of whom around 20% were Korean.

The first people to take up the comfort women issue, set it aflame, and then fan the flames into a conflagration were Japanese. This happened in 1991. Some shrewd Japanese lawyers formed the nucleus of a Japanese NGO which took the lead in mounting an attack over the comfort women issue. These left-wing Japanese lawyers are the ones who began calling the comfort women “sex slaves,” took their case to the United Nations committees on human rights, and turned the issue into the firestorm we have today.

The Asahi Shimbun [a liberal Japanese newspaper--by the way, there are no such newspapers in Red China] then jumped on the comfort women bandwagon, brazenly debuting Seiji Yoshida (now deceased), who repeatedly lied in saying that he had gone “hunting” for comfort women. The Asahi Shimbun and other outlets thus helped spread the “fake news” that the Japanese lawyers created. This fake news rode a rising tide of global leftism and was thus drummed up into a truly worldwide issue. Forces acting out of anti-establishment motives, along with criminals who enjoy seeing the reactions provoked by their crimes, were the agents who disseminated the comfort women issue abroad.

For many years, the Japanese government was another source of misunderstanding, as it consistently gave the impression that it might at any time admit to having kidnapped women as sex slaves. The Japanese government’s ambiguous pronouncements on the issue only emboldened those who were lying for personal or political gain.

The United States has recently become a key battleground in the history wars. There are comfort women statues going up there, and the major textbook publisher McGraw-Hill has embroiled itself in the comfort women controversy. The McGraw-Hill textbook in question uses extremely harsh language when discussing WWII, such as this passage: “The Japanese army forcibly recruited, conscripted, and dragooned as many as two hundred thousand women age fourteen to twenty to serve in military brothels, called “comfort houses” or “consolation centers.” The army presented the women to the troops as a gift from the emperor…”

Nineteen intellectuals, including myself, publicly called for McGraw-Hill to correct the eight areas of clear factual error in the comfort women section of the textbook, but McGraw-Hill has so far done nothing to amend the false information. (See The Group of 19 Japanese Historians). (200,000 South Korean Wartime Sex Slaves is 'Fake News,' says Historian; An Interview with Dr. Ikuhiko Hata | JAPAN Forward)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Getting back to the comfort women for a moment, as I've said previously, there has been a great deal of exaggeration and fabrication on this issue. Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, one of Japan's leading and most respected historians on Imperial Japan, made some important points about the comfort women in an April 2017 interview:



Yes, these women totally wanted to be taken from their home, shipped halfway around Asia, and forced to have sex with dozens of men an evening because who wouldn't.  

Now a word from real historians who aren't fascist cocksuckers. 

https://www.history.com/news/comfort-women-japan-military-brothels-korea

_Lee Ok-seon was running an errand for her parents when it happened: a group of uniformed men burst out of a car, attacked her and dragged her into the vehicle. As they drove away, she had no idea that she would never see her parents again.

She was 14 years old.

That fateful afternoon, Lee’s life in Busan, a town in what is now South Korea, ended for good. The teenager was taken to a so-called “comfort station”—a brothel that serviced Japanese soldiers—in Japanese-occupied China. There, she became one of the tens of thousands of “comfort women” subjected to forced prostitution by the imperial Japanese army between 1932 and 1945.

Though military brothels existed in the Japanese military since 1932, they expanded widely after one of the most infamous incidents in imperial Japan’s attempt to take over the Republic of China and a broad swath of Asia: theRape of Nanking. On December 13, 1937, *Japanese troops began a six-week-long massacre that essentially destroyed the Chinese city of Nanking. Along the way, Japanese troops raped between 20,000 and 80,000 Chinese women.*

The mass rapes horrified the world, and *Emperor Hirohito* was concerned with its impact on Japan’s image. As legal historian Carmen M. Agibaynotes, he ordered the military to expand its so-called “comfort stations,” or military brothels, in an effort to prevent further atrocities, reduce sexually transmitted diseases and ensure a steady and isolated group of prostitutes to satisfy Japanese soldiers’ sexual appetites._

*Hey, Mikey, want to tell us again what a swell Guy Hirohito was?  *

“Recruiting” women for the brothels amounted to kidnapping or coercing them. Women were rounded up on the streets of Japanese-occupied territories, convinced to travel to what they thought were nursing units or jobs, or purchased from their parents asindentured servants. These women came from all over southeast Asia, but the majority were Korean or Chinese.

Once they were at the brothels, the women were forced to have sex with their captors under brutal, inhumane conditions. Though each woman’s experience was different, their testimonies share many similarities: repeated rapes thatincreased before battles, agonizing physical pain, pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and bleak conditions.

“It was not a place for humans,” Leetold_Deutsche Welle_ in 2013. Like other women, she was threatened and beaten by her captors. “There was no rest,”recalled Maria Rosa Henson, a Filipina woman who was forced into prostitution in 1943. “They had sex with me every minute.”


*Hey, Mikey, how about trying to be a decent human being for your New Year's Resolution, you cocksucker. *


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> James McCallum, an American living in Nanking, wrote in his diary that some people in the city believed the number of persons killed by the Japanese “would approach the 10,000 mark.” This is from the December 29, 1937, entry in McCallum’s diary:





JoeB131 said:


> Wow, you are sputtering..  Some guy looking out his window... "Gee, that looks bad, but it's not like it's white people or anything."



This is yet another comment that shows you don't know what you're talking about. James McCallum was not "some guy looking out his window." McCallum volunteered to transport wounded people in unmarked make-shift ambulances. Survivors recounted that McCallum used cold towels to keep himself awake while he transported patients, and that when that didn't work he would bite his tongue until it bled.

But you have to fabricate a smear against McCallum because his account puts the civilian death toll at no more than 10,000. And, again, McCallum's account is especially important because he got that number from others, because he believed that number was credible. and because clearly nobody with whom he had spoken believed that more than 10,000 had been killed, or else McCallum surely would have said so. 

By the way, in order to make her 300,000-plus death toll tenable, Iris Chang had to claim that Nanking's population was "at least" 500,000, and possibly 630,000, when the Japanese took the city! Anyone who wants to peddle the 300,000 myth must do this (1) because Dr. Smythe determined that the population was 221,000 in March and (2) because the Japanese census registered 160,000 people as of early January. So, in order for the Japanese to have been able to kill 300,000-plus people in Nanking and the surrounding area starting on December 13, there would have had to be at least 500,000 people there.

Even John Rabe's revised population figure of "250,000 to 300,000" destroys Chang's tale. If there were 300,000 people left in Nanking when the Japanese captured the city, the Japanese early-January census would have registered no more than a few thousand people, and Smythe would have found no more than 21,000 people in the city as of March.

This is why Chang and her defenders have no choice but to reject ALL the primary sources on Nanking's population during the time in question.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, in order to make her 300,000-plus death toll tenable, Iris Chang had to claim that Nanking's population was "at least" 500,000, and possibly 630,000, when the Japanese took the city! Anyone who wants to peddle the 300,000 myth must do this (1) because Dr. Smythe determined that the population was 221,000 in March and (2) because the Japanese census registered 160,000 people as of early January.



Hmmm... let's look at THIS batshittery.  

In 1937, the population of Nanking was 1.6 million 

After the massacre, the Japanese Census put the population at 160K.  

but ,no massacre to see here. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> This is why Chang and her defenders have no choice but to reject ALL the primary sources on Nanking's population during the time in question.



Because they are unreliable and defy logic. 

The Death Toll: Early Estimates

According to reports from the United Press and Reuters, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek announced as early as December 16, 1937, three days after the city fell, in Hankow, “Chinese army casualties on all fronts exceed 300,000. The loss of civilian life and property is beyond computation.” [181]

This was probably the first time a figure of hundreds of thousands was officially mentioned in the Second Sino-Japanese War, although Chiang’s estimate included all the battlefronts in China since the beginning of hostilities on July 7, 1937.

On January 11, 1938, a correspondent for the Manchester Guardian, Harold Timperley, apparently tried to cable a similar estimate but was censored out by the Japanese authority in Shanghai because in his report it was “not less than 300,000 Chinese civilians” who were slaughtered in cold blood in “Nanking and elsewhere.” His message was relayed from Shanghai to Tokyo to be sent out to the Japanese Embassies in Europe and the United States. [182]

In 1947 at the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, the verdict of Lieutenant General Tani Hisao, the commander of the 6th Division, quoted the figure of more than 300,000 victims. [185] Apparently the estimation was made from burial records and eyewitness accounts. It concluded that some 190,000 were illegally executed on a massive scale at various execution sites and 150,000 were individually massacred.

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated in its judgment that “over 200,000” civilians and prisoners of war were murdered during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation. [186] That number was based on burial records submitted by two charitable organizations, the Red Swastika Society and the Chung Shan Tang (Tsung Shan Tong), the research done by Smythe and some estimates given by survivors.


----------



## mikegriffith1

There is another piece of evidence that refutes the 500,000-600,000 figure for Nanking’s population in mid-December 1937: there was a population census done in Nanking and the surrounding area in August 1938, at least six months after the massacre, and that census counted the population at 308,000. I quote from Dr. Hata’s book _The Nanking Incident: The Structure of a Massacre_:

Next, concerning the civilian population of Nanking, a survey carried out by the municipal government of Nanking at the end of the year 1936 recorded a total population of 1,006,968 in 197,496 dwellings. This survey included the eight districts within the city walls as well as three districts outside the city walls, Yanziji, Shangxinhe, and Xiaolingwei. However, a survey of the same area in August 1938 put the population at 308,546, a dramatic drop to only a third of its previous size. (p. 207)​
This destroys the 500,000-600,000 figure and strongly supports the 200,000 figure for mid-December and the 221,000 figure for March. In his survey, Dr. Smythe determined that as of March, Nanking’s population was 221,000. If we assume that the population was 200,000 when the city fell and 221,000 in March, that would mean that about 10,000 people per month returned in January and February. If we assume that about 20,000 people per month returned to the city from April to August, since by April the city had pretty much returned to normal, this would give us around 300,000 people by August, consistent with the August census figure of 308,000.

Obviously, this means that 300,000 people could not have been killed in Nanking after the city fell, even if one wants to make the questionable assumption that the massacre continued for as long as six to eight weeks, as Iris Chang does—unless one is willing to assume, against all the evidence, that the city’s population was at least 500,000 on December 13.

When John Rabe was clearly inflating his earlier population number of 200,000, he put the population at 250,000 to 300,000 as of January 14, one month after the Japanese conquered the city. But even 300,000 as of January 14 destroys Chang’s 300,000-plus death toll myth, for obvious reasons.

We can easily imagine what Chang’s apologists would be saying about the primary sources on Nanking’s population if those sources put the population at 500,000 to 600,000 when they city fell, especially if Dr. Smythe’s survey and the Japanese census supported those numbers. They would point out that the sources mutually corroborate each other, that many of the sources had lived in Nanking for some time, that most of the sources did not know of the others’ numbers, that Dr. Smythe was a trained sociologist who had lived in Nanking for years, that all of Dr. Smythe’s assistants were Chinese, and that the Japanese census was consistent with the 500K-600K number because the Japanese often did not count young children and older women.

But, since the primary sources not only destroy Chang’s population numbers but also refute her death toll numbers, her apologists have no choice but to lamely dismiss all the primary sources as mistaken (and even as dishonest in some cases).


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> There is another piece of evidence that refutes the 500,000-600,000 figure for Nanking’s population in mid-December 1937: there was a population census done in Nanking and the surrounding area in August 1938, at least six months after the massacre, and that census counted the population at 308,000. I quote from Dr. Hata’s book _The Nanking Incident: The Structure of a Massacre_:



Wow- So basic math.  

You start with 600 K people.  You kill 300K people.  You have 300K people left.   Did they teach you basic math at the Eva Braun Memorial Home School you went to? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> But, since the primary sources not only destroy Chang’s population numbers but also refute her death toll numbers, her apologists have no choice but to lamely dismiss all the primary sources as mistaken (and even as dishonest in some cases).



You keep sucking that Fascist Cock, buddy.    Like I said, Stormfront needs a denier of your caliber.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Another fatal flaw in the 300,000-dead story is the burial records, which, even after obvious double-counting and the inclusion of combat deaths, not to mention subsequent outright fabrication, do not support anything close to Iris Chang’s incredible claim of 300,000-plus civilian deaths.

When Smythe and Bates studied the burial records shortly after the massacre, they concluded there had been about 12,000 civilian deaths, with Smythe adding the caveat that about 1,000 of those were people who were killed by crossfire during combat.

In early April, the two organizations that handled the burials—the Red Swastika Society and the Tsun-shan-tang—reported that they buried a combined total of 150,000/155,000 bodies, from both in and outside the city, as of March. Then, months later, the Tsun-shan-tang claimed that during three weeks in April, they buried an additional 105,000 bodies. Nobody denies that the burials from December through April included thousands of soldiers who died in combat, thousands of soldiers who were executed because they had shed their uniforms (under the standard laws of war, the Japanese had the right to execute them), and some non-massacre-related deaths (illness, old age, etc.).

Even taking these numbers at face value, they get you nowhere near 300,00 civilian deaths. 155,000 burials plus the alleged additional 105,000 burials equals 260,000 burials. Assuming that only half of those burials were soldiers killed in combat or executed for being in civilian clothes, that gets you to 130,000 civilian deaths, less than half the number posited by Iris Chang and her defenders.

Furthermore, as we’ve seen, even positing 130,000 civilian deaths is problematic given the population evidence and the death-toll estimates in the primary sources.

Moreover, there is also the fact that the burial evidence is riddled with problems. For example, let’s take a look at the Tsun-shan-tang’s claim that they buried an additional 105,000 bodies in three weeks in April. 105,000 burials in three weeks? This would have required an amazing rate of 5,000 burials per day. One reason this number is extremely doubtful is that during the period from mid-December through March, the Tsun-shan-tang, according to their own report, buried an average of 75 bodies per day. Yet we’re supposed to believe that in a three-week period in April, they buried 666 times more bodies per day than they had buried in the preceding three months, a staggering increase of 6,600 percent.

Significantly, the IMTFE, after studying the Tsun-shan-lang records, concluded that the group buried a total of 112,266 bodies from December 26 to April 20 (IMTFE transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4537). So even the IMTFE did not buy the organization’s claim that they buried 215,000 bodies from December through April.  

Even the figure of 150,000 to 155,000 burials from mid-December to March is problematic. Many scholars have pointed out several problems with the 155,000 figure. Dr. Hata points out that even Yoshiaki Itakura, the highly respected Japanese scholar who exposed Masaaki Tanaka’s tampering with General Matsui’s diary, rejected the 155,000 number as unrealistic and adjusted it down to 39,859:

The number of corpses buried by both of the two private charity groups is often said to have been a total of 155,000. This statistic counts civilians who died during the battle or died of disease, and probably also soldiers who died in combat. Furthermore, doubts have been expressed about the accuracy of the records. Itakura's calculations adjust this statistic to 39,859 corpses, a figure which comes close to the roughly 40,000 corpses estimated by Bates and Smythe of the International Committee. (_The Nanking Incident: The Structure of a Massacre,_ pp. 211-212)​
When you read the IMTFE transcripts, you discover that most of the incidents described in the statements occurred during the first two or three weeks after the Japanese occupied Nanking, and that most of them—not all, but the vast majority—describe a small number of victims—two here, three there, ten here, four there, eight here, six there, etc., etc. If you doubt this, just go read the IMTFE prosecution exhibits.

Another fact you will clearly see in the IMTFE transcripts is that the violent acts were not done as part of any systematic or official command policy of General Matsui, much less of the Japanese government, but were done by some local units and by roaming bands of enlisted personnel. The December 16 protest that the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone sent to the Japanese Embassy in Nanking noted that “_most of the trouble has come from wandering groups of three to four soldiers without an officer_” (IMTFE transcript, p. 4510, prosecution document 1744, exhibit number 323).

Two weeks later, on December 29, the International Committee reported that the number of cases of violence and crime were declining and that the situation had “much improved”:

We are glad to report that cases are declining and conditions are much improved. (IMTFE transcript, p. 4533)​
On January 2, four days after the December 29 report, the International Committee told the Japanese Embassy that, although there were still some cases of criminal acts, the situation had “improved a great deal”:

We appreciated very much your statement to us on the 29th that wandering Japanese soldiers had been ordered to stay out of the Safety Zone. (IMTFE transcript, p. 4534)​


----------



## mikegriffith1

In my previous reply, I accidentally omitted a key sentence from the final quote and put one word too many in quotes in my introductory paragraph for the quote. The paragraph and the quote should read as follows: 

On January 2, four days after the December 29 report, the International Committee told the Japanese Embassy that, although there were still some cases of criminal acts, the situation had improved "a great deal":

We appreciated very much your statement to us on the 29th that wandering Japanese soldiers had been ordered to stay out of the Safety Zone. This has improved the situation a great deal. (IMTFE transcript, p. 4534)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> In my previous reply, I accidentally omitted a key sentence from the final quote and put one word too many in quotes in my introductory paragraph for the quote. The paragraph and the quote should read as follows:
> 
> On January 2, four days after the December 29 report, the International Committee told the Japanese Embassy that, although there were still some cases of criminal acts, the situation had improved "a great deal":



Well, it wasn't like it was white people being killed.    

Funny thing about Genocide... no one really cares that much if the victims aren't white. It's why you have a million movies about the Holocaust and few about the Killing Fields or Nanking.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> You lying fascist %&^$%& ... that statement was made to describe why people were flooding INTO the city before the Japs started murdering people.



LOL!  What?!  Just what?!  Okay, JoeB Mao, you find me a single source, any source, heck even a Communist source, that says that people were flooding INTO the city shortly before the Japanese arrived, much less after the city fell (which, by the way, is what you initially said).  You are a total, abject, bizarre clown.  Every source we have, at least on this planet, says that huge numbers of people began to flee from Nanking as soon as word reached the city that the Japanese had broken through the Nationalist lines in Guangde and Danyang and were headed toward Nanking. This news triggered a massive exodus from the city, a fact profusely and dramatically documented and described in numerous primary sources.

You made your claim that "people flooded into Nanking from the surrounding countryside because they THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE" (your emphasis) in response to my point that the fact that people began to return to the city _soon after it fell_ indicates that there was no large-scale massacre, since no one in their right mind would go back to a city (1) where a gigantic massacre had just occurred and/or was still occurring and (2) where the enemy that had committed the massacre was now in total control. Nobody was talking about movement to or from the city before it fell. 

But, if you want to try to shift the goal posts to avoid admitting an egregious error, you're out of luck, since a massive exodus from the city began as soon as word reached Nanking that the Japanese were en route to the city. Heck, Chiang and his entourage even fled the city when they heard this news. Obviously, any movement to the city before anyone knew the Japanese were en route is irrelevant, and, again, you made your claim in specific response to my point about people returning to the city soon after it fell.  

Also, allow me to note that you still have not responded to my request that you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of draconian sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country initially said it wanted but the sanctioning country refused to lift the sanctions and instead made more demands. I’m still waiting for you to produce such an example.

Allow me to also note that you still have not cited a single non-Communist source to back up your fiction that the Chinese Communists fought the Japanase as much as the Nationalists did.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! What?! Just what?! Okay, JoeB Mao, you find me a single source, any source, heck even a Communist source, that says that people were flooding INTO the city shortly before the Japanese arrived,



I've provided several, you fascist cocksucker. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> You made your claim that "people flooded into Nanking from the surrounding countryside because they THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE" (your emphasis) in response to my point that the fact that people began to return to the city _soon after it fell_ indicates that there was no large-scale massacre, since no one in their right mind would go back to a city (1) where a gigantic massacre had just occurred and/or was still occurring and (2) where the enemy that had committed the massacre was now in total control. Nobody was talking about movement to or from the city before it fell.



Uh, guy, the whole country was a slaughterhouse thanks to the Japanese.  No place was particularly safe.  

30 million Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Also, allow me to note that you still have not responded to my request that you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of draconian sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country initially said it wanted but the sanctioning country refused to lift the sanctions and instead made more demands. I’m still waiting for you to produce such an example.



The Japanese were not trying to avoid war.   Avoiding war would be, "Whoops, our bad, we'll stop invading China and withdraw back to Japan."  

Obviously, the bastards didn't get a subtle message, so we had to give them this one! 





*That blowed up Real Good!!!!  




Oh, yeah, they got the fucking message! *


----------



## TheParser

In my opinion, no one will ever know the true number of people killed at Nanking.

Such an emotional topic brings out the extremes: some swear that X number of people were massacred, and some swear that the number is exaggerated.


All that we really know is that there WERE atrocities in Nanking. 

I am glad that the name of Mr. Rabe was mentioned. More people should know about his work to protect the Chinese, even though he was a German whose country was being governed by a very evil man.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! What?! Just what?! Okay, JoeB Mao, you find me a single source, any source, heck even a Communist source, that says that people were flooding INTO the city shortly before the Japanese arrived [because they thought it was safe],





JoeB131 said:


> I've provided several, you fascist &$*#$%.



Humm, I looked over your last 10 replies and did not see any such sources. Can you refresh everyone's memory and just cite one of them? And, again, I ask, how could anyone have thought it was safe to return to Nanking if a huge massacre had just occurred or was still occurring and when the enemy who supposedly committed that massacre had gained control of the city?

Actually, you are the fascist. Fascism and communism are simply two names for the same kind of government: totalitarian rule. Both fascism and communism involve total control by the government, a denial of basic rights, control of the press, and rule by one man or by a small group of men. The only real difference between a fascist government and a communist government is that some fascist governments do not implement socialism but allow a level of free enterprise. In fact, Red China's government is now more fascist than communist, since China's ruling elite have largely ditched socialism and embraced a form of free enterprise.

I, on the other hand, reject all forms of totalitarian government, whether they are called fascist or communist. I embrace limited government as expressed in the U.S. Constitution and in the writings of men like Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Taft, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln.



mikegriffith1 said:


> You made your claim that "people flooded into Nanking from the surrounding countryside because they THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE" (your emphasis) in response to my point that the fact that people began to return to the city _soon after it fell_ indicates that there was no large-scale massacre, since no one in their right mind would go back to a city (1) where a gigantic massacre had just occurred and/or was still occurring and (2) where the enemy that had committed the massacre was now in total control. Nobody was talking about movement to or from the city before it fell.





JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, the whole country was a slaughterhouse thanks to the Japanese.  No place was particularly safe.



That's a Communist myth, and it doesn't address my point. I ask you yet again: How in the world could any sane person have believed it was safe to return to Nanking (1) IF the Japanese had just committed, or were in process of committing (per Chang), an enormous massacre, and (2) given the fact that the Japanese controlled the city?

As we both know, here's the rub: We know, as I have pointed out several times, that people _did_ begin to return to Nanking just a few weeks after the city fell, _which of course screams against the idea that a gigantic massacre had just occurred, much less that one was still occurring, especially given the fact that the supposed perpetrators of that massacre now controlled the city_.

Now, I know that you've read nothing about the Nanking Massacre except for a few online articles (you don't even seem to have read Chang's book), but, just FYI, your fellow Chang apologists either (1) ignore the fact that people began to return soon after the Japanese occupied the city, (2) mention the return only in passing and decline to analyze its implications, or (3) claim that the Japanese tricked those people into returning. Chang takes the third approach but does not try to explain how anyone in the surrounding area (from which she admits the people came) could have believed it was safe to go back to Nanking if a gigantic massacre was occurring and the killers were in control of the city.



JoeB131 said:


> 30 million Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese.



You've been corrected on this myth before. R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at Yale University, the University of Indiana, and the University of Hawaii, spent his entire career studying mass killings around the world. He put the number of people killed by the Japanese at slightly below six million--and slightly fewer than the Nationalists killed, and far fewer than the Communists killed. Rummel wrote two books on the subject:_ Death By Government_ and_ Statistics of Democide._ The University of Hawaii maintains a website that presents much of Rummel's research--here's the link:

20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE (Genocide and Mass Murder)



mikegriffith1 said:


> Also, allow me to note that you still have not responded to my request that you cite me an example of a country that imposed on another country the kinds of draconian sanctions that FDR imposed on Japan when the other country was trying to avoid war and agreed to the conditions that the sanctioning country initially said it wanted but the sanctioning country refused to lift the sanctions and instead made more demands. I’m still waiting for you to produce such an example.





JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese were not trying to avoid war.   Avoiding war would be, "Whoops, our bad, we'll stop invading China and withdraw back to Japan."



You're just gonna keep repeating these myths, no matter how much evidence you're shown to the contrary, aren't you? Even books that are bitterly critical of the Japanese acknowledge that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, did not want war with the U.S. The fact that you can't even acknowledge this profusely documented fact shows that you are not to be taken seriously. 

And, uh, again, for about the tenth time now, Japan agreed to everything that FDR initially demanded as conditions for lifting the sanctions. This is a matter of record. I've cited several sources on this fact for you. But, FDR still refused to lift the sanctions, would not even meet with Japan's prime minister to discuss the matter, and then made demands that went far beyond anything he had previously demanded--demands that were both unreasonable and that FDR knew not even the most liberal Japanese leaders would accept. At that point, Japan's leaders realized that FDR was determined to go to war against Japan. If your PRC handlers will ever let you educate yourself on this issue, you might start with John Toland's long analysis of Japan's efforts to get FDR to lift the sanctions in _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire _(chapters 3-7)_. _


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Humm, I looked over your last 10 replies and did not see any such sources. Can you refresh everyone's memory and just cite one of them? And, again, I ask, how could anyone have thought it was safe to return to Nanking if a huge massacre had just occurred or was still occurring and when the enemy who supposedly committed that massacre had gained control of the city?



Nope.... I posted them in lots of places, from real historians... not the fascist hacks you cite. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> You're just gonna keep repeating these myths, no matter how much evidence you're shown to the contrary, aren't you? Even books that are bitterly critical of the Japanese acknowledge that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, did not want war with the U.S. The fact that you can't even acknowledge this profusely documented fact shows that you are not to be taken seriously.



Again, you fascist cocksuker, Japan's Leaders attacked the US.  How did they NOT think that wasn't going to lead to war? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, uh, again, for about the tenth time now, Japan agreed to everything that FDR initially demanded as conditions for lifting the sanctions.



Guy, Agreements don't mean anything. The fact was- Japan was NOT knocking off the invasion, they were escalating it.  

This is how sanctions work

You do something I don't like.
I put sanctions on you.
You promise to stop doing it.
I keep the sanctions on until you actually stop doing whatever you were doing to piss me off.  

Japan did something we didn't like.
We put sanctions on them. 
They promised to stop doing it, but what they were really doing was planning sneak attacks.  

Japan was in the wrong.  Or their leaders were.  Their people paid the price for it.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> That's a Communist myth, and it doesn't address my point. I ask you yet again: How in the world could any sane person have believed it was safe to return to Nanking (1) IF the Japanese had just committed, or were in process of committing (per Chang), an enormous massacre, and (2) given the fact that the Japanese controlled the city?



Because they were pretty much committing them everywhere... that's why... Seriously, are you some kind of special retard who can cut and paste.  Maybe we should hook you up with Political Chick if you weren't so racist. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> You've been corrected on this myth before. R. J. Rummel,



Another Fascist asshat? 

30 million Chinese died in World War II.  

Deal with it.  

The Japanese were cocksuckers in World War II.  They should be happy we didn't do the world a favor and erase them.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a Communist myth, and it doesn't address my point. I ask you yet again: How in the world could any sane person have believed it was safe to return to Nanking (1) IF the Japanese had just committed, or were in process of committing (per Chang), an enormous massacre, and (2) given the fact that the Japanese controlled the city?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they were pretty much committing them everywhere... that's why... Seriously, are you some kind of special retard who can cut and paste.  Maybe we should hook you up with Political Chick if you weren't so racist.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been corrected on this myth before. R. J. Rummel,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They should be happy we didn't do the world a favor and erase them.
Click to expand...



There’s that Nazi/KKK/Stalinist steak that has always run deep through the democrat party. Bloodthirsty, inhuman sons of bitches that you are.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> That's a Communist myth, and it doesn't address my point. I ask you yet again: How in the world could any sane person have believed it was safe to return to Nanking (1) IF the Japanese had just committed, or were in process of committing (per Chang), an enormous massacre, and (2) given the fact that the Japanese controlled the city?





JoeB131 said:


> Because they were pretty much committing them everywhere... that's why...



Howling howlers!  The Japanese were "pretty much" committing massacres "everywhere" in late 1937 and early 1938?!  LOL!  "Everywhere"?!  That's downright amazing because, uh, at that point the Japanese controlled only a small part of China! The Nationalists still controlled about 2/3 of China, with the rest being controlled by the Communists and warlords, and with Hong Kong being controlled by the British.

So the obvious question is, Why didn't the people who fled from Nanking before the Japanese took the city simply go to the large area still controlled by the Nationalists? Or, why didn't they go to Hong Kong?

You see, here's the problem: Those people had ample opportunity to leave Nanking forever. There were plenty of areas where they could have gone that were under Nationalist or British control. If a gigantic massacre had been occurring in Nanking and if the perpetrators of that massacre controlled the city, no one in their right mind would have gone back. But there was no large-scale massacre, and the Japanese exerted great effort to restore Nanking to normality and to ensure that its residents had ample food and water. People soon realized these facts, and that is why they began to return.



JoeB131 said:


> Seriously, are you some kind of special retard who can cut and paste.  Maybe we should hook you up with Political Chick if you weren't so racist.



Oh, so now I'm a retard and a racist?! Wow, okay, you bet.

Hey, I'm not the one who keeps making embarrassing gaffes, and I'm not the one who keeps describing an entire people in the same ugly ways that racists and bigots describe people they hate. Your comments about the Japanese are filled with hate and bigotry, not to mention raw ignorance.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> There’s that Nazi/KKK/Stalinist steak that has always run deep through the democrat party. Bloodthirsty, inhuman sons of bitches that you are.



Hmmmm... Steak.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Howling howlers! The Japanese were "pretty much" committing massacres "everywhere" in late 1937 and early 1938?! LOL! "Everywhere"?! That's downright amazing because, uh, at that point the Japanese controlled only a small part of China! The Nationalists still controlled about 2/3 of China, with the rest being controlled by the Communists and warlords, and with Hong Kong being controlled by the British.



Um, okay, if you want to go with that...  Fact is they killed 30 million Chinese. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Hey, I'm not the one who keeps making embarrassing gaffes, and I'm not the one who keeps describing an entire people in the same ugly ways that racists and bigots describe people they hate. Your comments about the Japanese are filled with hate and bigotry, not to mention raw ignorance.



Uh, an entire people who engaged in a genocidal war of aggression.  

The biggest mistake we made in WWII.... We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ........ We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.




Typical fucking democrat disdain for human life.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fucking democrat disdain for human life.
Click to expand...

It’s more than that. Joe is clearly a disgusting racist.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ We didn't slaughter enough of the bastards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical fucking democrat disdain for human life.
Click to expand...


Again, the Axis Powers had the disdain for human life when they slaughtered tens of millions across Asia and Europe. 

I knew a lot of WWII vets growing up...  They told all sorts of stories about what they saw.  

But listing to Fascist Mikey and You, you'd think we were the bad guys.  

"Oh, but the Japanese totally wanted peace! And mean old FDR imposed sanctions, which is why they attacked more people."


----------



## mikegriffith1

There is another key item of evidence from the primary sources that needs to be discussed: the fact that the rest of Nanking outside the Nanking Safety Zone was “practically deserted.” We learn this from none other than the 1938 book _What War Means: The Japanese Terror in China_, compiled by Harold Timperley. Timperley was ardently anti-Japanese and was on the Chinese Nationalist payroll, so no one would accuse him of pulling punches. Timperley’s contributors included members of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, such as Rev. Bates and John Rabe. In his section in Timperley’s book, Bates specified that the incidents under discussion occurred in the Nanking Safety Zone and that the rest of the city was “practically deserted” until the end of January:

It is to be noted that the incidents thus recorded cover only the Nanking Safety Zone, and that the rest of Nanking was practically deserted until the end of January and most of the time was without foreign observers during this whole period. (_What War Means, _p. 138)​
This is a vital point for a number of reasons. If the rest of Nanking outside the Safety Zone was virtually deserted, this is another devastating blow to the attempt to inflate Nanking’s December 1937 population to 500K-600K, a number that no primary source supports. Every single primary source puts Nanking’s December 1937 population at around 200,000, except for John Rabe, who revised his number to 250K-300K. But, obviously, even his revised number destroys the 300,000-dead figure.  

Some additional points:

-- Regarding JoeB131’s sleazy claim that Dr. Smythe did not care about determining how many Chinese had actually been killed by the Japanese in Nanking, it should be noted again that during the massacre, Dr. Smythe wrote protests to the Japanese Embassy in which he recounted cases of murder and rape by Japanese soldiers and urged the Japanese ambassador to get the army to stop such incidents. Dr. Minoru Kitomura, a professor of history at Ritsumeikan University who specializes in Chinese history, discusses some interesting facts about Smythe’s survey:

It should also be mentioned that, once the occupation of the city had settled down, the Japanese military approved a request by Dr. Lewis Smythe, a professor of sociology at the University of Nanking, to conduct a survey of the casualties and physical damage caused by the Battle of Nanking. Smythe then undertook a sampling survey of Nanjing and the surrounding six counties (xian) over a three-month period from March to June 1938 with the aid of Chinese assistants. The result was: Lewis Smythe, _War Damage in the Nanking Area, December 1937 to March 1938: Urban and Rural Surveys_. This report will be discussed later in this paper, but, significantly, it does not make any mention of a massive slaughter of 300,000 people in Nanjing. . . .​
Smythe’s _War Damage in the Nanking Area, December 1937 to March 1938_, previously introduced, is based on a Westerner’s surveys made immediately after the Japanese military’s occupation of Nanjing.​
Smythe worked as secretary for the International Committee and helped protect refugees alongside Rabe, the committee’s German member. As mentioned earlier, Smythe’s report was published with the intent of accusing the Japanese military of barbarism. Considering that only six months passed between the conclusion of the surveys the report was based on and its publication, and the level of organization apparent in the publication of both Shanghai and Nanjing editions, it is apparent that the Kuomintang’s International Propaganda Department was waiting and ready for the report. Whatever the report’s background, however, Smythe was a university professor of sociology and he wrote a solid report certainly so as to maintain his self-respect as a researcher. . . .​
Smythe’s survey of casualties within the city was carried out from March 9 to April 2, 1938 as a survey of families. A supplemental survey was performed from April 19 to the 23rd. . . .​
Smythe was a professional scholar with previous experience participating in a survey of flood damage in the area surrounding Nanjing. In the report’s forward, Bates, a historian at the University of Nanking, wrote that “the accomplishment of the present surveys is largely dependent upon the unusual abilities and energies of Dr. Smythe,” thereby explicitly supporting the report’s findings. (_What the Nanking Massacre Means, _Japan Policy Institute, 2010, pp. 14, 24-25)​
It is worth repeating that neither the Nanking Military Tribunal (NMT) nor the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) would agree to call Dr. Smythe as a witness, where he could be cross-examined by defense counsel. The NMT and the IMTFE each took a short sworn statement from Smythe but refused to call him as a witness. 

At the IMTFE, when the prosecutors introduced Smythe’s statement into evidence, the defense objected on the entirely valid grounds that since Smythe was alive and in good health, he should be called as a witness so he could be cross-examined. The statement itself did not even remotely support a six-digit death toll, so the defense did not object to its contents but simply made the point that by the standard rules of law a witness who gave a sworn statement should also be compelled to testify if they were able to do so in order to allow for cross-examination. Of course, the chief judge ruled that Smythe did not need to testify. Yeah, no need to follow long-accepted rules of law when it came to smearing the Japanese.

The problem was that although Dr. Smythe was no Japanese apologist and had been very critical of the conduct of the Japanese army in Nanking, apparently he was not willing to wildly exaggerate or lie under oath. Based on Dr. Smythe’s survey and his sworn statement, the prosecution had good reason to fear that under cross-examination he would state facts that would make it clear that there had been no gigantic, six-digit massacre in Nanking.

-- Dr. Kitomura also points out that even the official Nationalist news agency during that period did not claim that 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking:

The Nanjing tribunal’s figure of 300,000 for the number of victims lacks consistency with the contemporary situation in the city as can be determined from various other resources. Frankly, one gets the sense that 300,000 was first chosen to be the number of the victims and the evidence supporting this figure was then crafted so as to match it.​
The “massacre of 300,000 people in Nanjing” was created to serve as the centerpiece of the Japanese war crime charges for the war crime tribunals that were already being prepared for during the war. 

Even in the contemporary reporting of the Central News Agency (the Kuomintang’s news service), which often emphasized exaggerated reports in an attempt to boost the Chinese will to fight, no figure even close to 300,000 was ever reported as the number of victims in Nanjing. (_What the Nanking Massacre Means, _p. 29)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> There is another key item of evidence from the primary sources that needs to be discussed: the fact that the rest of Nanking outside the Nanking Safety Zone was “practically deserted.”



Sure it was, buddy... you keep telling yourself that.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Kitomura a



Another Japanese in denial.  Hey, for purposes of this discussion, let's leave ALL Japanese "Scholars" out of the fucking discussion.  Japan still likes to pretend they didn't do anything bad in WWII.  At least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Regarding JoeB131’s sleazy claim that Dr. Smythe did not care about determining how many Chinese had actually been killed by the Japanese in Nanking, it should be noted again that during the massacre, Dr. Smythe wrote protests to the Japanese Embassy in which he recounted cases of murder and rape by Japanese soldiers and urged the Japanese ambassador to get the army to stop such incidents.



Oh, look, he wrote a protest... Woooo... that's impressive.  

bad Japanese. Very bad. Stop raping that lady.  Very bad.  I'm going to have to write a very harsh letter to your superiors.  

Hey, guy, writing a protest during a mass murder isn't like complaining they put pickles on your fucking hamburger.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another key item of evidence from the primary sources that needs to be discussed: the fact that the rest of Nanking outside the Nanking Safety Zone was “practically deserted.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it was, buddy... you keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Kitomura a
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Japanese in denial.  Hey, for purposes of this discussion, let's leave ALL Japanese "Scholars" out of the fucking discussion.  Japan still likes to pretend they didn't do anything bad in WWII.  At least the Germans have the common decency to be ashamed.
Click to expand...


You are a fraud.  You don’t have a degree in History, nor likely anything else. In the face of mountains of fully cited evidence, you just say “nuh-uh!” like an ignorant child and deny the evidence in front of you because you don’t like it. Again like a child, you laughably attempt to summarily and pre-emptively disqualify any evidence or sources that don’t support your opinion (not conclusion, that would involve thought). You’re a joke.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You are a fraud. You don’t have a degree in History, nor likely anything else. In the face of mountains of fully cited evidence, you just say “nuh-uh!” like an ignorant child and deny the evidence in front of you because you don’t like it. Again like a child, you laughably attempt to summarily and pre-emptively disqualify any evidence or sources that don’t support your opinion (not conclusion, that would involve thought). You’re a joke.



The Holocaust Deniers have "mountains of cited evidence", too.  Some of them even have positions in Academia.

David Irving - Wikipedia

And it works, according to one poll, 1/3 of Americans don't think the Holocaust was a real thing. 

One-third of Americans don't believe 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust

And that's with tons of movies being made by the Jews in Hollywood to make sure we never forget.  

So when a shitstain like Axis Mikey gets on here and puts up the premise that less people died in Nanking than is generally accepted, so that makes it okay somehow, you are darned right I'm going to bitchslap that little see you next Tuesday.


----------



## Unkotare

Idiot resorts to a straw man, of course.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Idiot resorts to a straw man, of course.



not at all...  Frankly, what's the goal of denialism, whether it be of the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking or of the slaughter of Native Americans? 

It's to absolve the wrongdoers of guilt.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> There is another piece of evidence that refutes the 500,000-600,000 figure for Nanking’s population in mid-December 1937: there was a population census done in Nanking and the surrounding area in August 1938, at least six months after the massacre, and that census counted the population at 308,000. I quote from Dr. Hata’s book _The Nanking Incident: The Structure of a Massacre_:





JoeB131 said:


> Wow- So basic math.
> You start with 600 K people.  You kill 300K people.  You have 300K people left.



Oh, now it's 600K. Earlier you said 500K. You have zero evidence that Nanking's population was 600K when the Japanese took the city. Not a single primary source supports that wild claim. Even Smythe admitted that the city's population was no more than 250K when the city fell, and even when Rabe decided to inflate his number in the hope of getting more aid, he put the population at no more than 300K (even though he had earlier said 200K). Except for Rabe, every other primary source puts the population at between 150K and 200K when the Japanese entered the city. But you can't allow yourself to go where the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly points because it destroys your 300,000-killed tale.

Here is an interesting fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film _Why We Fight: The Battle of China _put the number of people killed at 40,000. The film was a propaganda documentary produced for U.S. military personnel and spared no adjectives in excoriating the Japanese army. Yet, even this propaganda film, which referred to “the rape of Nanking,” did not claim that anything approaching 300,000 people were killed in Nanking. This is significant because the War Department was compiling evidence on Japanese war crimes, and this film was produced by the War Department. Here is part of what the film said about Nanking:

But again Japanese power was too great, and after a battle lasting but a few days, the city fell to the invaders. In their occupation of Nanking, the Japs again outdid themselves in barbarism. The helpless populace was trapped by the city walls and could not flee. The Japanese soldiers went berserk. They raped and tortured. They killed and butchered. In one of the bloodiest massacres of recorded history, they [the Japanese] murdered 40,000 men, women and children.​
Not surprisingly, the film even claimed that the massacre “was deliberately planned by the Japanese high command to tear the heart out of the Chinese people.” But we have known for many decades that the Japanese high command had nothing to do with the massacre, and that the Japanese high command was disgusted when they began receiving reports abut it.

Even at a level well below the high command, senior Japanese officers were outraged when they heard about criminal violence being committed by some Japanese soldiers. For example, at the headquarters of the Tenth Army, whose troops occupied Nanking, reports that some of their soldiers were committing serious crimes caused the command to send a strong rebuke to their commanders in Nanking, such as this 12/20/1937 message to them:

We have told troops numerous times that looting, rape, and arson are forbidden, but judging from the shameful fact that over 100 incidents of rape came to light during the current assault on Nanking, we bring this matter to your attention yet again despite the repetition. (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity 1937-38: Complicating the Picture,_ New York and London: Berghahn Books, 2007, p. 47)​
When the Japanese high command received reports of war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking, they sent Major General Masaharu Homma of the General Staff to Nanking in late January to investigate. On January 26, General Homma met with American officials at the U.S. Embassy in Nanking. He apologized for what had been occurring and explained that he and his staff were doing all they could to ensure that local commanders understood the need for proper conduct and discipline among their soldiers.

Tenth Army and Central China Area Army (CCAA) legal documents prove that senior officers were punishing some Japanese soldiers for criminal acts in Nanking. These sources include a Tenth Army legal department daily log from 10/12/1937 to 02/23/1938 and a CCAA battlefield courts martial daily ledger from 01/04/1938 to 02/06/1938. As of February 18, 102 men had been convicted, 22 of them for rape, 27 for murder, and two for rape and murder, with others awaiting trial (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity 1937-38: Complicating the Picture,_ New York and London: Berghahn Books, 2007, pp. 47-49).


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, now it's 600K. Earlier you said 500K. You have zero evidence that Nanking's population was 600K when the Japanese took the city.



Shut the fuck up...  Seriously.   I'm not even sure why you play these number games or even why you think that if they killed 40K people, that somehow makes it less horrible than if they killed 300K.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is an interesting fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film _Why We Fight: The Battle of China _put the number of people killed at 40,000.



There were a lot of things that weren't known then... Jesus Christ, man, WWII propaganda films had lots of misinformation in them. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> When the Japanese high command received reports of war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking, they sent Major General Masaharu Homma of the General Staff



This would be the same Masahura Homma who was executed for war crimes in the Philippines....  The guy who orchestrated the Bataan Death March. (you know, you'll probably be denying that was all that bad, either.) 

Yeah, I'll take the word of an academic like Iris Chang over an executed war criminal.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Notice that JoeB131, like other Iris Chang apologists, has to reject every single primary source on Nanking’s population during the time in question, even though all the primary sources agree with the population number that Dr. Lewis Smythe determined when he did his survey weeks after the massacre.
> 
> When confronted with the substantial evidence from contemporary primary sources that the population was about 200,000 when the city fell, JoeB131 can only lamely sputter, “First of all, how did westerners know how many people lived in the area? Did they do a census. We know damned well Peanut and his government weren't capable of doing a census.”
> 
> Umm, well, those Westerners had lived in the city for a long time, so they knew what the population was before the residents began to flee, and those Westerners saw the huge masses of people leaving and saw the people who were still in the city. Nanking was not a large city geographically speaking, and it had a large wall. Those Westerners did not just stay holed up in their homes; many of them were out and about in the city trying to help people, among other things.





JoeB131 said:


> I've lived in my town for 14 years.  The only reason why I know how many people live here is because they do a census every ten years. Nanking had a population of 1 million in 1937.



But I've already pointed out to you that Rabe, Smythe, Fitch, and Espy knew that Nanking's population had been 1 million before the mass exodus began. Fitch referred to "the remaining 200,000 of Nanking's population of one million." Rabe specified that "800,000" of the "original population of one million" had fled. Smythe, of course, knew that the city's population had been 1 million, and he mentioned this fact in his survey report. Espy specified that "four-fifths" of the population had fled the city, leaving about 200,000 behind. So your argument just won't work.

As for your ridiculous claim that Nanking's population was a whopping 600,000 when the city fell, leaving aside the total lack of any primary evidence for that number, you realize that the Nanking Safety Zone, where 90% of the people who remained were located, was only 2.39 square miles in size, right? You knew that, right? Right? (Uh, no, I'm guessing you did not.)

The Safety Zone's small size is one reason that the population numbers given by the Western residents and journalists in Nanking are so consistent and close to each other, even though most of them did not know about the others' numbers. It's much easier to estimate the size of a population when the population is located in such a small area, especially when you're driving all over the area helping people, delivering messages, transporting people, etc.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, now it's 600K. Earlier you said 500K. You have zero evidence that Nanking's population was 600K when the Japanese took the city.





JoeB131 said:


> I'm not even sure why you play these number games or even why you think that if they killed 40K people, that somehow makes it less horrible than if they killed 300K.



Uh, well, wouldn't killing 300,000 people be a lot worse than killing 40,000 people? If 40,000 people died in Massacre A and 300,000 people died in Massacre B, everyone on the planet except you would say that Massacre B was much worse than Massacre A.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is an interesting fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film _Why We Fight: The Battle of China _put the number of people killed at 40,000.





JoeB131 said:


> There were a lot of things that weren't known then... WWII propaganda films had lots of misinformation in them.



But by 1944, Timperly's book was well known and the Chinese had begun to peddle the story that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking. Yet, the War Department, in a film designed to make the Japanese look like monsters, rejected those numbers and went with a figure supported by most of the primary sources.



mikegriffith1 said:


> When the Japanese high command received reports of war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking, they sent Major General Masaharu Homma of the General Staff





JoeB131 said:


> This would be the same Masahura Homma who was executed for war crimes in the Philippines....  The guy who orchestrated the Bataan Death March. (you know, you'll probably be denying that was all that bad, either.) Yeah, I'll take the word of an academic like Iris Chang over an executed war criminal.



I just knew you would be ignorant of the facts about General Homma. General Homma did not orchestrate the Bataan Death March and had no idea that some Japanese soldiers were killing prisoners during the march, and his conviction for that war crime is now widely recognized as a travesty of justice. General Homma spent many years in the West as a military attache, was very pro-Western, and was one of the Japanese generals who always called for moderate and tolerant rule and for following the rules of war. Sheesh, for once educate your brainwashed brain:

The Trial Of General Homma | AMERICAN HERITAGE



JoeB131 said:


> The Holocaust Deniers have "mountains of cited evidence", too. Some of them even have positions in Academia.



Holocaust deniers have "mountains of evidence"?!  No, they do not. Perhaps you meant to say that Holocaust deniers ignore the mountains of evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

The debate about the Nanking Massacre is nothing like the debate about the Holocaust. Only a small handful of fringe pseudo-scholars openly question the Holocaust, and there is undeniable photographic and documentary evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

In contrast, there is no such evidence that the Japanese killed 300,000 civilians in Nanking, and there are numerous credible scholars all over the world who agree that the death toll was nowhere near 300,000. Even the Wikipedia article on the Nanking death toll, _which you cited_, says that "the most reliable and widely agreed upon figures place the total death toll of the massacre between the broad range of 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District." So the mainstream of Nanking Massacre scholarship now rejects Chang's wild and impossible 300,000-plus figure.



JoeB131 said:


> And it works, according to one poll, 1/3 of Americans don't think the Holocaust was a real thing.



Yeah, and you can thank teachers in our high schools and universities who are anti-Israeli bigots like you for such a pathetic polling result. Go read that poll and see the age group with the largest number of doubters: Millennials. It is your side of the political spectrum, the Far Left, that is increasingly turning against Israel, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, excusing the crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and even calling for boycotting Israel.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> But I've already pointed out to you that Rabe, Smythe, Fitch, and Espy knew that Nanking's population had been 1 million before the mass exodus began. Fitch referred to "the remaining 200,000 of Nanking's population of one million." Rabe specified that "800,000" of the "original population of one million" had fled. Smythe, of course, knew that the city's population had been 1 million, and he mentioned this fact in his survey report. Espy specified that "four-fifths" of the population had fled the city, leaving about 200,000 behind. So your argument just won't work.



Here's the problem with that... you keep trying to pretend that Chinese killed outside the city limits don't count.. like some Chinese pulling a rickshaw with all his worldly possessions was really going to be able to outrun Japanese motorized columns...  



mikegriffith1 said:


> But by 1944, Timperly's book was well known and the Chinese had begun to peddle the story that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking. Yet, the War Department, in a film designed to make the Japanese look like monsters, rejected those numbers and went with a figure supported by most of the primary sources.



Uh, check out propaganda about the Nazis during World War II.  They had no idea how bad the holocaust was until they liberated the camps.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> I just knew you would be ignorant of the facts about General Homma. General Homma did not orchestrate the Bataan Death March and had no idea that some Japanese soldiers were killing prisoners during the march, and his conviction for that war crime is now widely recognized as a travesty of justice. General Homma spent many years in the West as a military attache, was very pro-Western, and was one of the Japanese generals who always called for moderate and tolerant rule and for following the rules of war. Sheesh, for once educate your brainwashed brain:



Homma was shot for murdering 80K Americans and Filipinos...  Obviously, you have never been in the military. "I had no idea my men were doing that" is never, ever an excuse for command responsibility.  Every leader from Sergeant to General realizes that he is responsible for the conduct of the troops under his command.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> The debate about the Nanking Massacre is nothing like the debate about the Holocaust. Only a small handful of fringe pseudo-scholars openly question the Holocaust, and there is undeniable photographic and documentary evidence that the Holocaust occurred.



There is photographic evidence because the Allies caught the Nazis in the Act...  (Also, the Germans were proud of what they were doing and documented it.)  Also, whenever anyone dares question the Holocaust, you get the usual chorus of survivors screaming and dragging out the picture of poor grandpa who got turned into a lampshade.  We need a similar level of shame for Nanking deniers. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Yeah, and you can thank teachers in our high schools and universities who are anti-Israeli bigots like you for such a pathetic polling result. Go read that poll and see the age group with the largest number of doubters: Millennials. It is your side of the political spectrum, the Far Left, that is increasingly turning against Israel, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, excusing the crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and even calling for boycotting Israel.



Guy, calling the Zionist entity on it's crimes is hardly excusing the Holocaust. 

The Holocaust is not an excuse for what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinian people, any more than a man who was abused as a child has an excuse for abusing his own children.  

Most of the Holocaust deniers are on the far right and wear MAGA hats.


----------



## TheParser

I have just read the Wikipedia article about Ms. Chang's life.

If one reads between the lines very carefully, it is clear why some people may feel that the figure of 300,000 may be inaccurate.


----------



## JoeB131

TheParser said:


> I have just read the Wikipedia article about Ms. Chang's life.
> 
> If one reads between the lines very carefully, it is clear why some people may feel that the figure of 300,000 may be inaccurate.



Oh, "between the lines".  I've always been interested in that statement.  Last time I checked, the only thing between the lines are blank spaces.  

Ms. Chang (who suffered from depression, probably just dealing with the horror of the subject she was studying) spent years studying this issue. Axis Cocksucker Mike just regurgitates the kind of Axis apologetics you see on White Power Websites.  

I'll go with Ms. Chang.


----------



## Unkotare

Of course commie Joe will “go with” the discredited author.


----------



## mikegriffith1

TheParser said:


> I have just read the Wikipedia article about Ms. Chang's life.
> 
> If one reads between the lines very carefully, it is clear why some people may feel that the figure of 300,000 may be inaccurate.



Well, she was a very troubled person. She suffered from paranoia, at one point fearing that the CIA was involved in a conspiracy to recruit her without her knowing it. 

Anyone who has studied the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Nanking Massacre can quickly spot some serious issues in her book. Some of her statements about the war are so distorted and erroneous as to equal saying that McGovern beat Nixon in the 1972 presidential election. She wrote about the IMTFE as if it was an honest, credible, fair tribunal instead of the shameful kangaroo court that it was. She severely misrepresented what the primary sources say about the massacre--basically, she ignored anything that didn't fit her gigantic-massacre scenario. And, we have known for some time that nearly all of her supposed "photographic evidence" was misleading and in some cases outright doctored.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> But I've already pointed out to you that Rabe, Smythe, Fitch, and Espy knew that Nanking's population had been 1 million before the mass exodus began. Fitch referred to "the remaining 200,000 of Nanking's population of one million." Rabe specified that "800,000" of the "original population of one million" had fled. Smythe, of course, knew that the city's population had been 1 million, and he mentioned this fact in his survey report. Espy specified that "four-fifths" of the population had fled the city, leaving about 200,000 behind. So your argument just won't work.





JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with that... you keep trying to pretend that Chinese killed outside the city limits don't count.. like some Chinese pulling a rickshaw with all his worldly possessions was really going to be able to outrun Japanese motorized columns...



Huh? When have I ever said that killings outside the city limits don't count? I've said no such thing. On the contrary, I have pointed out to you (1) that Smythe's survey was not confined to the Nanking city limits but also included Xiaguan and other areas outside the city limits, and (2) that Bates and other Western residents said that the part of the city outside the Safety Zone was practically deserted, that nearly all of the remaining residents had fled to the Safety Zone (which, by the way, agrees with the accounts of many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking).



mikegriffith1 said:


> But by 1944, Timperly's book was well known and the Chinese had begun to peddle the story that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking. Yet, the War Department, in a film designed to make the Japanese look like monsters, rejected those numbers and went with a figure supported by most of the primary sources.





JoeB131 said:


> Uh, check out propaganda about the Nazis during World War II.  They had no idea how bad the holocaust was until they liberated the camps.



LOL! Good grief. Where did you get your history degree again? It wasn't that we didn't know about the Holocaust by 1944; it was that your buddy FDR and his Democratic cronies did not want to make the plight of the Jews a war issue. By mid-July 1943, the U.S. Government absolutely knew that massive numbers of Jews were being killed by the Nazis. You might read the following books:

_The Jews Should Keep Quiet_ (2019), by Holocaust scholar Rafael Medoff. Here's a free large excerpt from the book: https://jps.org/wp-content/uploads/...-Only-He-Would-Do-Something-for-My-People.pdf.

_The Abandonment of the Jews_ (2007 edition), by David Wyman. Here's a good review of this book and two others: The Abandonment of the Jews, by David S. Wyman; The Jews Were Expendable, by Monty Noam Penkower; A Refuge From Darkness, by Nao - Commentary.



mikegriffith1 said:


> I just knew you would be ignorant of the facts about General Homma. General Homma did not orchestrate the Bataan Death March and had no idea that some Japanese soldiers were killing prisoners during the march, and his conviction for that war crime is now widely recognized as a travesty of justice. General Homma spent many years in the West as a military attache, was very pro-Western, and was one of the Japanese generals who always called for moderate and tolerant rule and for following the rules of war. Sheesh, for once educate your brainwashed brain:





JoeB131 said:


> Homma was shot for murdering 80K Americans and Filipinos...  Obviously, you have never been in the military. "I had no idea my men were doing that" is never, ever an excuse for command responsibility.  Every leader from Sergeant to General realizes that he is responsible for the conduct of the troops under his command.



That's a gross perversion of the idea of command responsibility, especially given the Japanese military's command structure and operation. I spent 21 years in the U.S. Army. A commander's responsibility for his troops' conduct is not carte blanche and unlimited, even in the U.S. Army. Any honest judicial inquiry will take into account the circumstances, such as communications, operations, subordinate commanders, and the orders that were issued prior to the operation. That's why the battalion and division commanders of soldiers who were convicted of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were not punished.

Homma was a good and decent man, and the lynch-mob court that convicted him is a stain on American military justice.



mikegriffith1 said:


> The debate about the Nanking Massacre is nothing like the debate about the Holocaust. Only a small handful of fringe pseudo-scholars openly question the Holocaust, and there is undeniable photographic and documentary evidence that the Holocaust occurred.





JoeB131 said:


> There is photographic evidence because the Allies caught the Nazis in the Act...  (Also, the Germans were proud of what they were doing and documented it.)  Also, whenever anyone dares question the Holocaust, you get the usual chorus of survivors screaming and dragging out the picture of poor grandpa who got turned into a lampshade.  We need a similar level of shame for Nanking deniers.



More of your ignorant silliness. According to your slavish adherence to Iris Chang's myth, you should be shaming all the authors of the Wikipedia article on the Nanking death toll, which you cited, since they say that the scholarly consensus is that the most reliable information puts the death toll at no more than 200,000 and as low as 40,000.

How about some shaming of people who get on public forums and praise Mao Tsetung as someone who brought prosperity, stability, and progress to China?



mikegriffith1 said:


> Yeah, and you can thank teachers in our high schools and universities who are anti-Israeli bigots like you for such a pathetic polling result. Go read that poll and see the age group with the largest number of doubters: Millennials. It is your side of the political spectrum, the Far Left, that is increasingly turning against Israel, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, excusing the crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and even calling for boycotting Israel.





JoeB131 said:


> Guy, calling the Zionist entity on it's crimes is hardly excusing the Holocaust.



The Holocaust is not an excuse for what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinian people, any more than a man who was abused as a child has an excuse for abusing his own children.[/QUOTE]

Pew! And you have the nerve to accuse others of being pro-Nazi?! The only people who use this kind of language to describe Israel and the Jews are neo-Nazis, Muslim terrorists, and anti-Israeli liberals.

You are as ignorant about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the state of Israel as you are about the Nanking Massacre and the Sino-Japanese War. How would you describe what the Palestinians have done to the Israelis since 1947? How would you compare the state of basic rights in Gaza as opposed to the state of basic rights in Israel--you know: things like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law, a credible judicial system, etc.?



JoeB131 said:


> Most of the Holocaust deniers are on the far right and wear MAGA hats.



What?! Hogwash! What planet do you live on? Neo-Nazis bash Trump as an Israeli/Jewish tool. They attack him because one of his daughters is Jewish. They attack him for his long-time support of Israel. They attack him for his long-time friendship with prominent Israelis and for his close ties to NYC's Jewish community.

Furthermore, look at all the videos of BDS rallies--you surely won't see any MAGA hats. It is liberals, not conservatives, who are increasingly bashing Israel, calling for anti-Israeli boycotts, and excoriating Israel every time she defends herself against Palestinian terrorism. And to this day, you have textbooks and other history books in Islamic nations that deny or minimize the Holocaust and that praise Hitler.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, she was a very troubled person. She suffered from paranoia, at one point fearing that the CIA was involved in a conspiracy to recruit her without her knowing it.
> 
> Anyone who has studied the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Nanking Massacre can quickly spot some serious issues in her book.



Yeah, for all you guys who idolize the Japanese and wank off to Hentai, she made the Japanese look REALLY BAD.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Good grief. Where did you get your history degree again? It wasn't that we didn't know about the Holocaust by 1944; it was that your buddy FDR and his Democratic cronies did not want to make the plight of the Jews a war issue. By mid-July 1943, the U.S. Government absolutely knew that massive numbers of Jews were being killed by the Nazis. You might read the following books:



Here you go attacking our greatest president again.. .are you sure you are an American? 

The reason why no one made a big deal about the Holocaust was NOBODY LIKED THE JEWS.  The Holocaust was the end result of 2000 years of anti-Jewish propaganda called "Christianity".  

Now, story my dad told me. During WWII, his best buddy was a Jewish guy. They were medics with the First Army.  Their CO was also Jewish, and gave them this long speech about how this was personal for him and Dad's buddy.  Dad's Buddy said, "I was driving my cab in LA and Hitler wasn't bothering me a bit."  



mikegriffith1 said:


> You are as ignorant about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the state of Israel



No, I don't buy the LIE of Zionism. The underlying LIE of Zionism is "A land without a people for a people without a land." 

THIS IS A FUCKING LIE.  There were people there.  They were displaced.  

At my heart I am an anti-Imperialist, and Zionism is another form of western imperialism.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Furthermore, look at all the videos of BDS rallies--you surely won't see any MAGA hats. It is liberals, not conservatives, who are increasingly bashing Israel, calling for anti-Israeli boycotts, and excoriating Israel every time she defends herself against Palestinian terrorism.



You mean actually insisting the Zionists act decently?  The Zionists are not the good guys here.  They are as bad as the Nazis or the Japanese or our 19th Century Americans who slaughtered the Native Americans.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Good grief. Where did you get your history degree again? It wasn't that we didn't know about the Holocaust by 1944; it was that your buddy FDR and his Democratic cronies did not want to make the plight of the Jews a war issue. By mid-July 1943, the U.S. Government absolutely knew that massive numbers of Jews were being killed by the Nazis. You might read the following books:





JoeB131 said:


> Here you go attacking our greatest president again.. .are you sure you are an American?
> 
> The reason why no one made a big deal about the Holocaust was NOBODY LIKED THE JEWS.  The Holocaust was the end result of 2000 years of anti-Jewish propaganda called "Christianity".
> 
> Now, story my dad told me. During WWII, his best buddy was a Jewish guy. They were medics with the First Army.  Their CO was also Jewish, and gave them this long speech about how this was personal for him and Dad's buddy.  Dad's Buddy said, "I was driving my cab in LA and Hitler wasn't bothering me a bit."





mikegriffith1 said:


> You are as ignorant about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the state of Israel





JoeB131 said:


> No, I don't buy the LIE of Zionism. The underlying LIE of Zionism is "A land without a people for a people without a land."
> 
> THIS IS A LIE.  There were people there.  They were displaced.
> 
> At my heart I am an anti-Imperialist, and Zionism is another form of western imperialism.





mikegriffith1 said:


> Furthermore, look at all the videos of BDS rallies--you surely won't see any MAGA hats. It is liberals, not conservatives, who are increasingly bashing Israel, calling for anti-Israeli boycotts, and excoriating Israel every time she defends herself against Palestinian terrorism.





JoeB131 said:


> You mean actually insisting the Zionists act decently?  The Zionists are not the good guys here.  They are as bad as the Nazis or the Japanese or our 19th Century Americans who slaughtered the Native Americans.



Well, I don't think I need to say much in response to your rather astonishing statements. I think you have made it very clear in your reply (1) that you are an anti-Israeli bigot whose viewpoint on Israel and the Jews closely resembles the Neo-Nazi/Stormfront/radical Muslim viewpoint, (2) that although you claim not to be anti-Semitic, every time you talk about Israel and the Jews, you sound like a Neo-Nazi or a radical Muslim, (3) that your political ideology seems very pro-totalitarian and anti-Western, and (4) that you have done no serious research on the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the Nanking Massacre, on FDR's abandonment of the Jews, on the degree of Soviet/Communist penetration and influence in FDR's administration (and in Truman's), and on the Second Sino-Japanese War.

I know this is probably a waste of time, but if you ever decide to educate yourself on the Arab-Israeli conflict, here are some good sources you should read:

Myths & Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Myths And Facts - The Conflict


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, I don't think I need to say much in response to your rather astonishing statements. I think you have made it very clear in your reply (1) that you are an anti-Israeli bigot whose viewpoint on Israel and the Jews closely resembles the Neo-Nazi/Stormfront/radical Muslim viewpoint, (2) that although you claim not to be anti-Semitic, every time you talk about Israel and the Jews, you sound a like a Neo-Nazi or a radical Muslim



You do realize that Neo-Nazis and Muslim sound nothing alike. 

Here, let me help you out. 

Neo Nazi - "We hate Jews because they killed Jesus and they aren't Aryan". 

Muslim - "We hate the Zionists because they stole our land and kill out children".  

Happy to have cleared that up for you, you looked a little dopey. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> (3) that your political ideology seems very pro-totalitarian and anti-Western, and



No, it's anti-imperialist.  You see, Imperialism is a bad thing.. in case you missed the whole bloody history of the 19th and 20th centuries... when the west slaughtered millions fighting over the right to control people of color. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> (4) that you have done no serious research on the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the Nanking Massacre, on FDR's abandonment of the Jews, on the degree of Soviet/Communist penetration and influence in FDR's administration (and in Truman's), and on the Second Sino-Japanese War.



Again, buddy, all your pro-fascist revisionism would get you laughed out of a serious history department.  Go to a University, they are pretty anti-Zionist. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I know this is probably a waste of time, but if you ever decide to educate yourself on the Arab-Israeli conflict, here are some good sources you should read:



Hey, I we get enough Zionist propaganda.  A bunch of Jews from Europe stole someone else's land. They weren't keen on going back before WWII... but after WWII, they were all for it.


----------



## mikegriffith1

After seeing numerous glowing reviews and positive references to Dr. Franco David Macri’s book _Clash of Empires in South China: The Allied Nations' Proxy War with Japan, 1935-1941_ (University Press of Kansas, 2012), a few days ago I decided it was time to get and read this book—this incredible, ground-breaking, amazing book. I heartily agree with the following endorsements of the book (one of which, you’ll notice, is written by Dr. Edward Drea):

“Sophisticated, pioneering, and a significant contribution to the field of World War II studies. Macri’s research is meticulous, exhaustive, and well balanced; his writing is cogent and smooth. An admirable work.” — Miles Maochun Yu, author of _The Dragon’s War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China_

“Massively researched and splendidly narrated, this is the best available international history of Hong Kong during the China-Japan war.” — Akira Iriye, author of _China and Japan in the Global Setting_

“Outstanding. Sweeping in scope and illuminating.” — Edward J. Drea, author of _Japan’s Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall_

“An impressive addition to the literature of the Pacific War.” — Xiaobing Li, author of _A History of the Chinese Army_​
It is hard to know where to begin to describe this astounding book. Macri is Canadian. After serving in the Canadian army, he earned his doctorate in history at the University of Hong Kong. He is currently a senior research fellow at St. John’s College in Hong Kong. Using previously untouched British sources, among other sources, Macri provides a new and intriguing perspective on the Second Sino-Japanese War. Although he focuses on the southern theater of the war, he also discusses the war in general and the events that led to it. Here are some of the points that Macri makes:

* The Japanese government never had any intention of annexing China. Even the worst of the most militant generals did not envision annexing China as a colony of Japan. Even most of Japan’s senior military leaders merely wanted the retention of Japan’s state in Manchuria and the _temporary_ stationing of troops in a few small areas in northern China to protect Japanese communities and interests in those areas—again, with the understanding that those troops would be withdrawn once it became clear that there was no longer a threat to Japanese citizens and interests in those few areas.

* The British, the Soviets, and the Americans intervened to prevent the Nationalists from accepting any of the repeated Japanese peace offers. To a significant extent, British policy was influenced by highly/strategically placed Soviet/Communist agents and pro-Soviet sympathizers in the British government.

* In December 1938, the Japanese made a peace offer that was so conciliatory that the British and American governments (i.e., Neville Chamberlain and FDR) felt compelled to quickly provide huge loans to Chiang Kaishek to keep him from accepting the offer.

* Many officials in the British government and the army objected to this intervention and did not want British policy to support Soviet policy goals in China, but they were eventually overruled.

* The Japanese army’s conduct in southern China was far better than it was in Shanghai and Nanking, and in fact in some places in the south the army’s conduct was so good that it caused many Chinese to either stop supporting the Nationalists or to become indifferent about the Nationalist cause.

* Hong Kong was the main conduit for arms and supply shipments to the Nationalists. If the British had refused to allow arms and supplies to be shipped via Hong Kong, the Nationalists would have collapsed relatively quickly, even with the large amount of Soviet aid they were getting.

* The Burma Road was a waste of blood, treasure, and time. Its impact was minimal and did not justify the cost in lives, supplies, and money.

* If more Japanese forces had behaved the way that General Ando’s army did in southern China, many more Chinese would have abandoned the Nationalists and embraced the pro-Japanese Chinese government in northern China.

* Macri does not come out and say this, but he definitely seems to hint that China and the Chinese people would have been better off if Chiang had accepted one of the peace offers that the Japanese made between July 1938 and December 1938. At one point, Macri says that the British refusal to halt the flow of weapons to the Nationalists through Hong Kong squandered an opportunity to mediate a “useful peace agreement” in the fall of 1939 (p. 175). Macri seems to go out of his way to point out that Soviet, British, and American policy did not want or welcome peace between the Nationalists and the Japanese, and that dragging out the war was a major Soviet policy goal.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> After seeing numerous glowing reviews and positive references to Dr. Franco David Macri’s book _Clash of Empires in South China: The Allied Nations' Proxy War with Japan, 1935-1941_



More white people telling yellow people to "get over it." Lovely.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * The British, the Soviets, and the Americans intervened to prevent the Nationalists from accepting any of the repeated Japanese peace offers. To a significant extent, British policy was influenced by highly/strategically placed Soviet/Communist agents and pro-Soviet sympathizers in the British government.



Yup... getting the Chinese to oppose murder and mass rape was a total Commie Plot.   They'd have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling Commies and their stupid dog. 








mikegriffith1 said:


> * The Japanese army’s conduct in southern China was far better than it was in Shanghai and Nanking, and in fact in some places in the south the army’s conduct was so good that it caused many Chinese to either stop supporting the Nationalists or to become indifferent about the Nationalist cause.



Yeah... 30 million dead Chinese... that's some wonderful conduct.   Oh, wait, they were now busy raping Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc....    There's a reason why the Japanese are hated across Asia even 80 years later, and the whole region objects if they even put a flight deck on a destroyer.  






Most people don't like when foreigners invade their country... it's why after the war, they all rallied to the Communists.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Macri’s book _Clash of Empires in South China _is so packed with important information that it would take two or three more posts just to summarize it. Here are some more points made in the book:

* The Chinese Communists rarely engaged the Japanese army. The only major offensive the Communists launched against the Japanese was the One Hundred Regiments Campaign in northern China, and the only reason the Communists launched that campaign was to keep the Nationalists from making peace with the Japanese because Nationalist morale was so low that the Communists feared the Nationalists were about to halt their war effort and make a deal (pp. 226-227).

* When Japanese generals met with Western officials in China, they frequently explained that they were very concerned about keeping communism from spreading in China, and that if England and America did not stop aiding and supplying Chiang Kaishek, China might end up being “bolshevized” (see, for example, pp. 113-115, 157-158).

* The conduct of the Japanese troops who took Canton, Kwantung Province, was so strikingly different from, so much better than, the conduct of the troops who took Shanghai and Nanking that Commander Sturgeon believed there must have been an official change in policy (pp. 112-115). He reported the following to the War Office in late November 1938:

That the Japanese authorities must have taken particular care in their selection of troops for operations in Kwangtung in borne out by many facts:​
(1) Nearly all the Gendarmerie appear to be reservists. They are certainly of a type superior to the normal infantry. Many are well educated, pleasant mannered, and a very reasonable proportion speak either English or Cantonese.​
(2) The infantry, who are of a lower type (many cannot read) are not allowed into Canton City. This is in the interests of avoiding trouble.​
(3) Many Formosans are to be found among the troops, both of the Gendarmerie, and of those infantry permitted to enter the city. These are very similar to the Chinese in character, and nearly all speak Chinese. The writer has seen several groups of Chinese and Japanese sitting and chatting in the most friendly manner.​
(4) The first Japanese officer to appear at the British concession was the former manager of M.B.K. in Shameen. He greeted warmly the Superintendent of Police who met him.​
(5) There had not been, up until 11/15/38, even a suggestion of any “incident,” and all foreigners are impressed by the good manners of Japanese sentries.

(6) The writer, on several official tours of the city, has never met with anything but courtesy and politeness. . . .​
Whatever the reason, it is an extremely pleasant surprise, and this policy is already having its effect in Canton where the Chinese populace is responding, and is learning the trust the Japanese, and where every day sees welcome signs of changes towards normal life. (pp. 114-115)​
* The Japanese pilot who was most responsible for causing the Lo Wu Incident in Hong Kong in February 1939 was court martialed and imprisoned (p. 117). In addition, the Japanese government paid $20,000 to compensate for the damage done, amount that the British viewed as reasonable.

* Nazi Germany supplied the Nationalists with huge amounts of arms and supplies. In March 1939 alone, notes Macri,

32,000 tank shells and 80 million rounds of small-arms ammunition originating from Germany passed through Hong Kong to Rangoon [the second major British conduit for arms and supplies to the Nationalists], followed in July by another 10 million rounds labeled as machine accessories. (p. 132)​
It is often overlooked that one reason the Japanese joined the Axis was to get Germany to stop supplying arms and supplies to the Nationalists. The Japanese rejected joining the Axis in 1939, but as German arms and supplies continued to flow to the Nationalists, the Japanese changed their minds and, as a result of joining the Axis, got the Nazis to stop the flow of German aid to the Nationalists. Even so, many Japanese leaders opposed joining the Axis, but even those who supported entering the Axis did not agree with many German policies. For example, the Japanese refused to hand over or harm the Eastern European Jews who fled to Japan.

* By 1944, in “many parts of China” there was a de facto peace. These were areas where the Japanese curbed their aggression and as a result life largely returned to normal; indeed, in these areas there was considerable trade between the Chinese and the Japanese (p. 134).

* “Stalin’s first concern in Asia,” notes Macri, “was to maintain the proxy war in China by reassuring the Chinese of his continued support” (p. 144). Macri continues:

As the battle was heating up, U.S. Army Captain Edwin Sutherland reported on Soviet objectives in Mongolia: “The aim of the Soviets in this war is to give the Chinese just enough aid and encouragement to keep them from accepting any Japanese peace proposals. . . . The Russian military attache, Combrig Ivanov, indicated this.” (pp. 144-145)​
* The American Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was “thoroughly compromised by the Soviet NKVD” (p. 157).

* The Nationalists were operating assassination squads out of Hong Kong (pp. 160-161). One of their missions was to drive a wedge between the Japanese and the British.

* In the fall of 1939, the Chinese expressed to the British a desire to make peace with Japan; but, the anti-Japanese/pro-Soviet elements in the British government, including in the military, prevented a policy shift toward mediation and succeeded in maintaining the flow of military aid to the Nationalists via Hong Kong (p. 163).

* Even after the Sino-Japanese war began, there were areas, including the province of Kwangsi, that would not allow Nationalists soldiers to enter, and many warlords continued to maintain their own private armies (p. 179).

* The Nationalists did a commendable job of vastly expanding the networks of roads in southern China (p. 171).

* Chinese Communist forces committed “periodic atrocities” (p. 199). In June 1949, the Communists buried 500 farmers alive in Hopei for failing to comply with their demands.

* In a report to the U.S. government in March 1941, LTC David Barrett, a U.S. Army attache in Chunking (then the Nationalist capital), warned that the British diplomats in Chunking, including the ambassador and the press secretary, were decidedly pro-Communist (pp. 224-225). “The Chunking representatives of the British government,” he said, “appear definitely in sympathy with the Communists” (p. 225).

* Several key members of the House of Commons (the British legislative body) and Foreign Office officials were so pro-Soviet that they supported Soviet policy goals even during the Hitler-Stalin pact. “Several significant individuals in the House of Commons, such as Labour’s Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as Foreign Office officials, such as Ambassador Clark Kerr,” notes Macri, “were still determined to be supportive of Soviet actions, despite Stalin’s alliance with Hitler” (p. 224).

* FDR and various British and Canadian officials wanted to keep the Sino-Japanese War going for the express purpose of helping the Soviet Union (pp. 210-280).

* FDR and various British and Canadian officials understood that imposing draconian sanctions on Japan would provoke Japan to war with the Allies (pp. 248-289). In mid-1942, Lord Halifax explained to Foreign Minister Anthony Eden that the Allies had provoked Japan to war and that most Americans still believed that the Japanese had stabbed America in the back at Pearl Harbor because they were unaware of how severe the Allied sanctions against Japan had been:

That the United States Government had, in fact, imposed a total blockade upon Japan by an adroit exploitation of its freezing order was scarcely appreciated by the general public. It is worth recording that the governments of the British Commonwealth and of the Netherlands East Indies followed the United States’ lead in this forward policy without asking for any prior military guarantee. The United States public do not to this day understand how severe were the measures of economic pressure imposed on Japan, and still believe implicitly in the official doctrine of the Japanese “stab in the back” at Pearl Harbor. (pp. 271-272)​
Of course, we should also note that the Japanese knew that FDR was helping to supply the Nationalists with weapons and supplies, not to mention huge loans, which any nation would view as a provocation. If anything, the Japanese showed an amazing amount of patience in responding to the massive aid that the British, the Soviets, and the Americans were providing to the Nationalists, even though the Nationalists were the ones who had started the war by attacking the Japanese in Shanghai.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Macri’s book _Clash of Empires in South China _is so packed with important information that it would take two or three more posts just to summarize it. Here are some more points made in the book:
> 
> * The Chinese Communists rarely engaged the Japanese army. The only major offensive the Communists launched against the Japanese was the One Hundred Regiments Campaign in northern China, and the only reason the Communists launched that campaign was to keep the Nationalists from making peace with the Japanese because Nationalist morale was so low that the Communists feared the Nationalists were about to halt their war effort and make a deal (pp. 226-227).



So, you claim this, and you wonder why the Communist won.  

Okay, so you have choices between two leaders. 

One who actually fought the raping, murdering Jap Bastards. 
And one who was willing to make peace with them after they STOLE half your country.  

Hmmmm... Which one are you going to support.  

So long, Peanut!!!! 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * Several key members of the House of Commons (the British legislative body) and Foreign Office officials were so pro-Soviet that they supported Soviet policy goals even during the Hitler-Stalin pact. “Several significant individuals in the House of Commons, such as Labour’s Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as Foreign Office officials, such as Ambassador Clark Kerr,” notes Macri, “were still determined to be supportive of Soviet actions, despite Stalin’s alliance with Hitler” (p. 224).



Interesting school of thought, from crazy people. It kind of sounds like Joe McCarthy the Drunk's list of 55 Card Carrying Communists at the State Department.  

 Here's one I heard from Leftist professors during my time in college.  The West never had any intent on really opposing Hitler.  They wanted him to take on Stalin.  That's why they turned a blind eye to the Anchluss, sold out Czechoslovakia at Munich, and only conducted a "Phony War" when Poland was overrun.  They were all secretly hoping Hitler would take on Stalin for them. 

Let's keep in mind, that Rudolf Hess did his flight to the UK because he really thought after everything, he could talk the UK into going along with their War against the USSR.  

Now, personally, I don't buy into this theory. I think that the West was basically clueless about the Axis intentions until the wolf was at their doorstep. 

The reality is, the west needed the Communists to defeat the Fascists, and then bemoaned that the Communists took their fair share of the spoils in Europe and Asia.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * FDR and various British and Canadian officials understood that imposing draconian sanctions on Japan would provoke Japan to war with the Allies (pp. 248-289). In mid-1942, Lord Halifax explained to Foreign Minister Anthony Eden that the Allies had provoked Japan to war and that most Americans still believed that the Japanese had stabbed America in the back at Pearl Harbor because they were unaware of how severe the Allied sanctions against Japan had been:



Again, by your logic, you've just rationalized Iran Nuking New York.   I want to make sure that you think that Sanctioning a country for it's bad behavior is a justification for war.   It isn't.  

The Japanese did a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor because that's what they did in their War with Russia in 1904 and both times they went to War with China.  It's like asking a snake to not be a snake. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Of course, we should also note that the Japanese knew that FDR was helping to supply the Nationalists with weapons and supplies, not to mention huge loans, which any nation would view as a provocation. If anything, the Japanese showed an amazing amount of patience in responding to the massive aid that the British, the Soviets, and the Americans were providing to the Nationalists, even though the Nationalists were the ones who had started the war by attacking the Japanese in Shanghai.



Mean old FDR, helping a country that was being invaded and raped by a foreign power.. HOW DARE HE!!!


----------



## JoeB131

They made a cartoon about people like Mikey during WWII.


----------



## mikegriffith1

If anyone wants to read the transcripts of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, aka the IMTFE, here's a link to the entire collection:

ICC Legal Tools

You have to set the search date range to something like 01.01.1946 to 30.12.1949. There will be other transcripts in the results, but the majority will be the IMTFE transcripts. 

In spite of the unethical limitations that the IMTFE placed on the defense lawyers, they still managed to put on a very good defense, sometimes a superb defense. Some of the defense attorneys were Americans; others were Japanese. A number of the American attorneys commented later that when they began their assignment, they harbored a strong anti-Japanese bias and viewed the assignment with disgust, but that after they examined the evidence, they came to see that much of what they had been told about the war in China and the Pacific War was either false or severely incomplete and misleading.

One of those attorneys was Owen Cunningham. Below is the two-part interview that he gave on his experiences at the IMTFE. After the trial, Cunningham became an outspoken critic of the tribunal. His interview is both fascinating and troubling. Here it is:

Trial of Tojo: interview with Owen Cunningham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (For the first four or five minutes, the audio skips occasionally, but plays normally after that.)

Trial of Tojo: interview with Owen Cunningham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> If anyone wants to read the transcripts of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, aka the IMTFE, here's a link to the entire collection:



The only tragedy of the IMTFE is that Hirohito wasn't in the dock with the rest of the war criminals, all of whom got exactly what they deserved.


----------



## JoeB131

Holy shit, I just visited Mikey's Website, and found out he's a Mormon.  

This explains everything....  

He actually thinks that Joseph Smith (dum-dum-dum-dum-dum) was talking to God.   

This is going to raise the fun to a whole new level.


----------



## JoeB131

Holy shit.. visiting Mikey's website. 

Sticking up for the Racist Confederacy in the Civil War. 
Claiming OJ was innocent.
Mormon Propaganda

The usually pro-Axis fascist rantings we see here. 

It's like a smorgasbord of crazy.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Macri’s book _Clash of Empires in South China _is so packed with important information that it would take two or three more posts just to summarize it. Here are some more points made in the book:
> 
> * The Chinese Communists rarely engaged the Japanese army. The only major offensive the Communists launched against the Japanese was the One Hundred Regiments Campaign in northern China, and the only reason the Communists launched that campaign was to keep the Nationalists from making peace with the Japanese because Nationalist morale was so low that the Communists feared the Nationalists were about to halt their war effort and make a deal (pp. 226-227).





JoeB131 said:


> So, you claim this, and you wonder why the Communist won.



It is not a "claim." It is a fact. The Communists engaged the Japanese far, far fewer times than did the Nationalists. Indeed, the Communists helped the Japanese cause by frequently attacking the Nationalists. As I've pointed out to you several tiems already, these facts are well documented.  



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, so you have choices between two leaders. One who actually fought the raping, murdering Jap Bastards. And one who was willing to make peace with them after they STOLE half your country.  Hmmmm... Which one are you going to support.  So long, Peanut!!!!



More baseless, bigoted ignorance. As I've already documented for you, it was Chiang, not Mao, who fought the Japanese the most, by far. I'm still waiting for you to cite a single non-Communist source that supports your absurd claim that the Communists fought the Japanese as much as, or more than, the Nationalists did.

And, by the way, in case you ever want to deal with facts, even at the height of their success in China, the Japanese never occupied anything close to "half" of China ("half your country"). Just FYI. Again, if you care about facts, which, of course, you don't.



mikegriffith1 said:


> * Several key members of the House of Commons (the British legislative body) and Foreign Office officials were so pro-Soviet that they supported Soviet policy goals even during the Hitler-Stalin pact. “Several significant individuals in the House of Commons, such as Labour’s Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as Foreign Office officials, such as Ambassador Clark Kerr,” notes Macri, “were still determined to be supportive of Soviet actions, despite Stalin’s alliance with Hitler” (p. 224).





JoeB131 said:


> Interesting school of thought, from crazy people. It kind of sounds like Joe McCarthy the Drunk's list of 55 Card Carrying Communists at the State Department.



Did you just beam into 2020 from the 1960s? I mean, the degree of Communist penetration into the American and British governments during and immediately after WWII has been documented beyond all dispute. Have you heard of the Venona Decrypts, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers, etc.? I know you don't like to read, and I'm guessing your PRC handlers won't let you even glance at this book, but you might start to educate yourself by reading Hebert Romerstein and Eric Briendel's massive work _The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors_ (2000).

And, just FYI, "McCarthy's list" of Communists and pro-Communists in the State Department turned out to be disturbingly accurate, as M. Stanton Evans has documented in painstaking detail in his definitive book _Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies._ And that list, by the way, was based largely on the Lee List, and McCarthy only raised it at the request of senior officials in the FBI who were disturbed that no action had been taken on the list.



JoeB131 said:


> The reality is, the west needed the Communists to defeat the Fascists



That's utter Communist hogwash. For one thing, as is now well known (except by you, of course), there was a powerful German resistance that was willing to kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, and give up all the territory that Hitler had occupied, if only FDR would renounce unconditional surrender and allow them to set up a non-Nazi, pro-Western government. For someone who supposedly has a degree in history, you are ignorant of an amazing amount of commonly known information. You can start with this article by historian Thomas Fleming:

FDR Writes a Policy in Blood

The Soviet Union was a far greater threat to world peace, and a more brutal regime, than was Nazi Germany, as bad as Nazi Germany was. And Communism was a far greater threat to world peace than was fascism. Some of the governments that were considered fascist were nothing like Nazi Germany and would have gladly abandoned Nazi Germany early in the war if they could have done so.



JoeB131 said:


> , and then bemoaned that the Communists took their fair share of the spoils in Europe and Asia.



Oh my goodness. Did you really just say that in a public forum? Eee-gads, you really are, no kidding, a Communist, aren't you? You see, over here in the civilized world, we recognize that the Communist tyranny in Russia and Eastern Europe and the Communist tyranny in China, North Korea, and North Vietnam were brutal, tragic, and catastrophically deadly. They killed tens of millions of innocent people, wrongly imprisoned millions of others, and forced millions of people to work in forced-labor camps like slaves. Nobody but a Communist whack job would say that Eastern Europe, China, North Vietnam, and North Korea were a "fair share" for the Communists.



mikegriffith1 said:


> * FDR and various British and Canadian officials understood that imposing draconian sanctions on Japan would provoke Japan to war with the Allies (pp. 248-289). In mid-1942, Lord Halifax explained to Foreign Minister Anthony Eden that the Allies had provoked Japan to war and that most Americans still believed that the Japanese had stabbed America in the back at Pearl Harbor because they were unaware of how severe the Allied sanctions against Japan had been:





JoeB131 said:


> Again, by your logic, you've just rationalized Iran Nuking New York.   I want to make sure that you think that Sanctioning a country for it's bad behavior is a justification for war.   It isn't.



I've already dealt with your bogus logic and arguments on this point, and you just repeating your talking point and ignoring the factual information that refute them.  



JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese did a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. . . .



Here, too, I've already debunked this nonsense, but you just keep repeating it. Are you aware that even the blood-thirsty, grossly biased IMTFE felt compelled to admit that the Japanese did not intend the Pearl Harbor attack to be a sneak/surprise attack?

And, of course, there's also the mountain of evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor several days before the attack occurred.

Even if one ignores all this evidence, it has been documented beyond dispute that by no later than 9:00 AM on 7 December 1941, several hours before the attack, FDR, Stark, and Marshall knew from the decrypted 14-part Japanese diplomatic cable that an attack was likely going to occur at around sunrise in Hawaii, and they did not use a scrambler phone to call the commanders in Hawaii to warn them. If FDR, or Admiral Start, or General Marshall had used one of the readily available scrambler phones to call Hawaii, the commanders in Hawaii would have had several hours to get ready for the attack.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Of course, we should also note that the Japanese knew that FDR was helping to supply the Nationalists with weapons and supplies, not to mention huge loans, which any nation would view as a provocation. If anything, the Japanese showed an amazing amount of patience in responding to the massive aid that the British, the Soviets, and the Americans were providing to the Nationalists, even though the Nationalists were the ones who had started the war by attacking the Japanese in Shanghai.





mikegriffith1 said:


> Mean old FDR, helping a country that was being invaded and raped by a foreign power.. HOW DARE HE!!!



Blah, blah, blah. You just keep repeating this myth and refuse to deal with the facts that refute it. And, again, why didn't FDR sanction and provoke the Soviets after they began killing millions of Russians, after they gobbled up a chunk of Mongolia, after they attacked tiny Finland, etc., etc., etc.? But, oh no, he was willing to ignore all of these crimes, and many others, and bent over backwards to befriend the murderous Soviet regime, but he took a very different approach toward the anti-Communist, pro-free enterprise Japanese.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> It is not a "claim." It is a fact. The Communists engaged the Japanese far, far fewer times than did the Nationalists. Indeed, the Communists helped the Japanese cause by frequently attacking the Nationalists. As I've pointed out to you several tiems already, these facts are well documented.



Actually, the Nationalist proved they couldn't be trusted, willing to sell their country out to the Japs at any opportunity.  

that' why the Communists won.   



mikegriffith1 said:


> Here, too, I've already debunked this nonsense, but you just keep repeating it. Are you aware that even the blood-thirsty, grossly biased IMTFE felt compelled to admit that the Japanese did not intend the Pearl Harbor attack to be a sneak/surprise attack?



You're kidding, right?  You send Ambassadors over to pretend to negotiate for peace, and then send six aircraft carriers to attack your naval base.  the only reason why their plan of having the attack happen AFTER a "formal declaration of war" was because the decryption machine broke down, but the bastards knew EXACTLY what they were up to.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, of course, there's also the mountain of evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor several days before the attack occurred.



Is that right next to the mountain of evidence that OJ was innocent or the mountain of evidence that Joseph Smith was talking to God?   Is there any crazy conspiracy theory you won't embrace?  Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Even if one ignores all this evidence, it has been documented beyond dispute that by no later than 9:00 AM on 7 December 1941, several hours before the attack, FDR, Stark, and Marshall knew from the decrypted 14-part Japanese diplomatic cable that an attack was likely going to occur at around sunrise in Hawaii, and they did not use a scrambler phone to call the commanders in Hawaii to warn them.



The only thing they knew from the cable was that Japan was going to declare war.  The thing was, no one really thought that an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible.  It was too far away. They thought there might be attacks on the Philippines or Guam. (Which they attacked, too.) 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Blah, blah, blah. You just keep repeating this myth and refuse to deal with the facts that refute it. And, again, why didn't FDR sanction and provoke the Soviets after they began killing millions of Russians, after they gobbled up a chunk of Mongolia, after they attacked tiny Finland, etc., etc., etc.?



Uh, a chunk of desert no one lives in, or a chunk of icy wasteland that was rightfully theirs?   The thing was, we didn't sanction the USSR because we barely had any economic relationship with them to start with. Pretty much broke off relations with them after their revolution and they reneged on all the Tsar's bad debts.  

What you leave out of your little discussion about the USSR is how the Western Powers backed the Whites and invaded in 1918 after the USSR got out of that collective bit of human stupidity called World War I.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> But, oh no, he was willing to ignore all of these crimes, and many others, and bent over backwards to befriend the murderous Soviet regime, but he took a very different approach toward the anti-Communist, pro-free enterprise Japanese.



The Japanese were murdering millions of Chinese... that was the thing.  

Again, the reason why the Axis got away with shit all through the 30's is they played on western fears they were penning in the nasty, evil commies.  The official name of the "Axis" was the "Anti-Comintern Pact".  So the west kind of turned a blind eye to what they were doing.  We didn't sanction Japan when they put Puyi's worthless fag ass on the throne of Manchuko, we didn't sanction them when they murdered all those people at Nanking. 

We sanctioned them when they officially threw in with Hitler.  

You seem to really love America's enemies.  The Confederates, the Axis... but then again, you belong to a cult that is anti-American at its core. 

Incidentally, our position toward China was the same it had been all along.  We opposed any attempts by other powers to infringe on Chinese sovereignty and favored an Open Door Policy.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Did you just beam into 2020 from the 1960s? I mean, the degree of Communist penetration into the American and British governments during and immediately after WWII has been documented beyond all dispute. Have you heard of the Venona Decrypts, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers, etc.? I know you don't like to read, and I'm guessing your PRC handlers won't let you even glance at this book, but you might start to educate yourself by reading Hebert Romerstein and Eric Briendel's massive work _The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors_ (2000).



I've heard of them, they aren't that big of a deal.  McCarthyism was a offense against everything this country stands for, it's why he's still shunned. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh my goodness. Did you really just say that in a public forum? Eee-gads, you really are, no kidding, a Communist, aren't you? You see, over here in the civilized world, we recognize that the Communist tyranny in Russia and Eastern Europe and the Communist tyranny in China, North Korea, and North Vietnam were brutal, tragic, and catastrophically deadly.



Compared to what?  British Genocide in Australia? American genocide of the indigenous population. Belgian genocide in the Congo?  I'm wondering when all this civilization is going to start.   Did you know the US Killed half a million Filipinos in 1899-1910? Of course you don't.  History books don't talk about it.  

Human beings as a group generally suck.  When shit gets bad, we act badly.   It's really not about any particular economic or political system. 

But just keep saying that Communism and Islam bad, Capitalism and Jesus are good.  I know you really need to beleive that buddy. That and Joseph Smith wasn't a two-bit con man who wanted to fuck little girls.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> It is not a "claim." It is a fact. The Communists engaged the Japanese far, far fewer times than did the Nationalists. Indeed, the Communists helped the Japanese cause by frequently attacking the Nationalists. As I've pointed out to you several tiems already, these facts are well documented.





JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the Nationalist proved they couldn't be trusted, willing to sell their country out to the Japs at any opportunity.  that' why the Communists won.



Actually, I've already refuted every statement you just made. You just keep repeating your talking points and refuse to deal with contrary evidence.   



mikegriffith1 said:


> Here, too, I've already debunked this nonsense, but you just keep repeating it. Are you aware that even the blood-thirsty, grossly biased IMTFE felt compelled to admit that the Japanese did not intend the Pearl Harbor attack to be a sneak/surprise attack?





JoeB131 said:


> You're kidding, right?  You send Ambassadors over to pretend to negotiate for peace, and then send six aircraft carriers to attack your naval base.



No, you must be kidding. The ambassadors were not "pretending" to negotiate for peace but were trying to achieve peace. Here, again, we've covered this ground, and you just keep ignoring evidence repeating your talking points.



JoeB131 said:


> the only reason why their plan of having the attack happen AFTER a "formal declaration of war" was because the decryption machine broke down, but the bastards knew EXACTLY what they were up to.



Ah, so you admit, albeit tacitly and with propaganda, that the Japanese did intend to provide notice. And, no, the ambassadors had no idea about the Pearl Harbor attack. This has been established for decades. Where, again, did you get your history degree?



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, of course, there's also the mountain of evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor several days before the attack occurred.





JoeB131 said:


> Is that right next to the mountain of evidence that OJ was innocent or the mountain of evidence that Joseph Smith was talking to God?   Is there any crazy conspiracy theory you won't embrace?  Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?



No, it's right next to your mountain of dishonest straw-man arguments and evasions. I see you don't like the fact that I'm a Mormon. Ok, so you're an anti-Mormon bigot as well.

I take it that you're not going to address any of the evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Even if one ignores all this evidence, it has been documented beyond dispute that by no later than 9:00 AM on 7 December 1941, several hours before the attack, FDR, Stark, and Marshall knew from the decrypted 14-part Japanese diplomatic cable that an attack was likely going to occur at around sunrise in Hawaii, and they did not use a scrambler phone to call the commanders in Hawaii to warn them.





JoeB131 said:


> The only thing they knew from the cable was that Japan was going to declare war.  The thing was, no one really thought that an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible.  It was too far away. They thought there might be attacks on the Philippines or Guam. (Which they attacked, too.)



Oh, boy. Just more and more ignorance. Every one of your statements here has been debunked, especially the howler that "no one really thought an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible." FYI, we had war-gamed for an attack on Pearl Harbor. Months before the attack, Ambassador Grew has passed along intelligence that Japan was considering an attack on Pearl Harbor.  FDR knew from the bomb-plot messages that the Japanese were gathering intelligence on ship positions and grid locations in Pearl Harbor, information that they were not gathering about any other American base. And on and on and on we could go.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Blah, blah, blah. You just keep repeating this myth and refuse to deal with the facts that refute it. And, again, why didn't FDR sanction and provoke the Soviets after they began killing millions of Russians, after they gobbled up a chunk of Mongolia, after they attacked tiny Finland, etc., etc., etc.?





JoeB131 said:


> Uh, a chunk of desert no one lives in, or a chunk of icy wasteland that was rightfully theirs?   The thing was, we didn't sanction the USSR because we barely had any economic relationship with them to start with. Pretty much broke off relations with them after their revolution and they reneged on all the Tsar's bad debts.



Yikes!  You have no clue what you're talking about.  



JoeB131 said:


> What you leave out of your little discussion about the USSR is how the Western Powers backed the Whites and invaded in 1918 after the USSR got out of that collective bit of human stupidity called World War I.



Yes, and it's a shame that the Whites did not overthrow the Communists. And, uh, the USSR only "got out of" WWI because they had no alternative after the Germans smashed their main army to pieces.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> But, oh no, he was willing to ignore all of these crimes, and many others, and bent over backwards to befriend the murderous Soviet regime, but he took a very different approach toward the anti-Communist, pro-free enterprise Japanese.





JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese were murdering millions of Chinese... that was the thing.



No, they were not, but the Soviets did in fact murder millions of people, in fact tens of millions of people. 

A





JoeB131 said:


> Again, the reason why the Axis got away with shit all through the 30's is they played on western fears they were penning in the nasty, evil commies.  The official name of the "Axis" was the "Anti-Comintern Pact".  So the west kind of turned a blind eye to what they were doing.  We didn't sanction Japan when they put Puyi's worthless fag ass on the throne of Manchuko, we didn't sanction them when they murdered all those people at Nanking.



Uh, no one claimed that FDR sanctioned them during that period. Are you sure your "degree" was not in How to Make Evasive Straw-Man Arguments"?



JoeB131 said:


> We sanctioned them when they officially threw in with Hitler.



Phew!  Oh, yeah, FDR "sanctioned" them all right, but nothing like what he did to the Japanese.



JoeB131 said:


> You seem to really love America's enemies.  The Confederates, the Axis... but then again, you belong to a cult that is anti-American at its core.



Umm, actually, you are the one who seems to love America's enemies, not I. 



JoeB131 said:


> Incidentally, our position toward China was the same it had been all along.  We opposed any attempts by other powers to infringe on Chinese sovereignty and favored an Open Door Policy.



LOL!  Ok, yeah!  How about the American, German, French, and British holdings in China, hey?!  You are a clown.

FDR didn't give a hoot about handing over Eastern Europe to Stalin. Indeed, he saved Stalin's murderous regime and forced the Nationalists to let the Communists in the door.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Actually, I've already refuted every statement you just made. You just keep repeating your talking points and refuse to deal with contrary evidence.



The ultimate contrary evidence.  The Communists WON! History is written by the winners.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, boy. Just more and more ignorance. Every one of your statements here has been debunked, especially the howler that "no one really thought an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible." FYI, we had war-gamed for an attack on Pearl Harbor. Months before the attack, Ambassador Grew has passed along intelligence that Japan was considering an attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR knew from the bomb-plot messages that the Japanese were gathering intelligence on ship positions and grid locations in Pearl Harbor, information that they were not gathering about any other American base. And on and on and on we could go.



Um, at the time, we were wargaming invasions from Canada...  

The reality... Everyone thought Pearl Harbor was too shallow for torpedo attacks, that the six carriers were in port, not at sea. 

That's the reason why they  put the battleships there. They thought it was a safe location, as opposed to putting them in the Philippines, where they'd have been closer to where they needed to be. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> No, they were not, but the Soviets did in fact murder millions of people, in fact tens of millions of people.



Again, the 1950's called, they want their Bircher Propaganda back. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, no one claim that FDR sanction them during that period. Are you sure your "degree" was not in How to Make Evasive Straw-Man Arguments"?



Okay, Mormon-boy, let's see if you can follow along here without getting your magic undies in a bunch.  

The Axis Powers were engaging in wars of aggression throughout the 1930s. Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, Italy annexed Albania and Ethiopia, Japan invaded Manchuria and China... And the west did.. really, nothing about it, they were more worried about those dirty stinking Commies, and those guys were all against the commies, so it was cool.  

Then they started turning on the west.. and it wasn't so cool anymore.  So FDR invoked Sanctions on Japan to get them to knock it the fuck off.  Instead, they launched a dastardly sneak attack.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Umm, actually, you are the one who seems to love America's enemies, not I.



No, I just don't mistake the Zionist Entity's enemies for our enemies... We should really try doing that.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Ok, yeah! How about the American, German, French, and British holdings in China, hey?! You are a clown.



But what didn't happen. China wasn't carved up like Africa was... because the US didn't allow it. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR didn't give a hoot about handing over Eastern Europe to Stalin.



Why should he have?  besides the fact the Soviets were doing most of the heavy lifting in Europe, most of those countries joined the Axis... 

Fuck 'em.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Yes, and it's a shame that the Whites did not overthrow the Communists. And, uh, the USSR only "got out of" WWI because they had no alternative after the Germans smashed their main army to pieces.



But yet the Whites wanted Russia to keep fighting.. the whole purpose of the Russian intervention was to keep them in the fight.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> I take it that you're not going to address any of the evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance?



I put that right up there with people who think that Bush knew 9/11 was about to happen.  We call those people "Wankers". 



mikegriffith1 said:


> No, it's right next to your mountain of dishonest straw-man arguments and evasions. I see you don't like the fact that I'm a Mormon. Ok, so you're an anti-Mormon bigot as well.



Well, when you belong to a cult started by a con-artist who was fucking teenage girls because he convinced less smart people he could get their families into the Celestial Heaven... um, yah, that is something I'm not fond of.  

I look at all religion as kind of something we need to outgrow, but if we can't even debunk an obvious, badly done fraud like Mormonism, you realize how tough progress is going to be.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> You seem to really love America's enemies.  The Confederates, the Axis... but then again, you belong to a cult that is anti-American at its core.



Since you constantly use evasion and straw-man posturing to avoid dealing with facts you can't handle, I'm going to try a new approach in dealing with you. I'm going to try to get you to respond to one single point at a time, and let's start with your repeated claim that I wish the Axis had won WWII, that I "love" the Axis, etc.

What statements have I made where I've said, or from which any rational person could remotely infer, that I not only "love" the Axis, or that I'm pro-Axis, but that I also wish the Axis nations had won the war?

You see, we both know that that's a sleazy lie. No one in their right mind who has read my posts and/or visited my website would think for a one second that I harbor any positive feelings toward the Axis, much less that I wish they had won the war.

So, here's your chance to back up your claim with specifics. Again, what statements have I made where I've said, or from which any rational person could remotely infer, that I not only "love" the Axis, or that I'm pro-Axis, but that I also wish the Axis nations had won the war?


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Since you constantly use evasion and straw-man posturing to avoid dealing with facts you can't handle, I'm going to try a new approach in dealing with you. I'm going to try to get you to respond to one single point at a time, and let's start with your repeated claim that I wish the Axis had won WWII, that I "love" the Axis, etc.
> 
> What statements have I made where I've said, or from which any rational person could remotely infer, that I not only "love" the Axis, or that I'm pro-Axis, but that I also wish the Axis nations had won the war?



Guy, I'm not going to rehash the whole thread where you blame the Chinese for not being "Reasonable" when the Japanese were raping and looting their country...  



mikegriffith1 said:


> No one in their right mind who has read my posts and/or visited my website would think for a one second that I harbor any positive feelings toward the Axis, much less that I wish they had won the war.



No, you just demonize FDR and Stalin while praising that bastard, Hirohito...  

Kind of like on your website, you spend a lot of time defending the assholes who nearly destroyed the country so a few rich white guys could keep raping their slaves.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Since you constantly use evasion and straw-man posturing to avoid dealing with facts you can't handle, I'm going to try a new approach in dealing with you. I'm going to try to get you to respond to one single point at a time, and let's start with your repeated claim that I wish the Axis had won WWII, that I "love" the Axis, etc.
> 
> What statements have I made where I've said, or from which any rational person could remotely infer, that I not only "love" the Axis, or that I'm pro-Axis, but that I also wish the Axis nations had won the war?





JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I'm not going to rehash the whole thread where you blame the Chinese for not being "Reasonable" when the Japanese were raping and looting their country...



Uh-huh. In other words, you can't provide a single quote where I have said anything that even comes close to saying that I wish the Axis had won WWII.

The Axis did not even exist until September 1940, over three years after the Nationalists attacked the Japanese in Shanghai and started the Second Sino-Japanese War. Before the Axis was formed, the Nazis were supplying the Nationalists with huge amounts of arms and supplies.

Saying that the Nationalists and the Chinese people as a whole would have been better off if Chiang had accepted any of the several Japanese peace offers is not even in the same galaxy with your sleazy misrepresentation that I wish the Axis had won WWII.



mikegriffith1 said:


> No one in their right mind who has read my posts and/or visited my website would think for a one second that I harbor any positive feelings toward the Axis, much less that I wish they had won the war.





JoeB131 said:


> No, you just demonize FDR and Stalin while praising that bastard, Hirohito...



"Demonize Stalin"???!!!  Oh my heavens.  Uh, yeah, I "demonize" Stalin, because, well, he was one of the worst mass murderers in human history.  How does pointing out Stalin's horrific crimes against humanity constitute saying that I wish the Axis had won WWII?

How does criticizing FDR's handling of WWII equal saying that I wish the Axis had won WWII? As I've made clear many times, I believe that WWII could have ended with a non-Communist Russia, a non-Communist China, with a non-Communist Eastern Europe, and with a non-Nazi government in Germany, and with far fewer people killed, if FDR had not been handling the American war effort but if we had had an anti-Communist, pro-Constitution president in the White House.



JoeB131 said:


> Kind of like on your website, you spend a lot of time defending the assholes who nearly destroyed the country so a few rich white guys could keep raping their slaves.



Another dishonest diversionary argument. I guess you missed all the articles on my website where I defend Union General George McClellan and Abraham Lincoln, where I defend Lincoln's Reconstruction policy, and where I provide numerous pro-Lincoln links?

You see, a big part of the problem is that you think in very superficial, simplistic terms. You seem incapable of dealing with complex issues but instead constantly resort to problematic oversimplification and superficial analysis.

Anyway, I ask you one last time, what statements have I made where I've said, or from which any rational person could remotely infer, that I not only "love" the Axis, or that I'm pro-Axis, but that I also wish the Axis nations had won the war?


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh-huh. In other words, you can't provide a single quote where I have said anything that even comes close to saying that I wish the Axis had won WWII.
> 
> The Axis did not even exist until September 1940, over three years after the Nationalists attacked the Japanese in Shanghai and started the Second Sino-Japanese War. Before the Axis was formed, the Nazis were supplying the Nationalists with huge amounts of arms and supplies.
> 
> Saying that the Nationalists and the Chinese people as a whole would have been better off if Chiang had accepted any of the several Japanese peace offers is not even in the same galaxy with your sleazy misrepresentation that I wish the Axis had won WWII.



Sorry, man, you diss FDR, the man who saved Western Civilization and treat war criminal and all around scumwad  Hirohito as a nice guy.  

If you look at World War 2 and can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, I'm not sure there is much to be done with you. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> How does criticizing FDR's handling of WWII equal saying that I wish the Axis had won WWII? As I've made clear many times, I believe that WWII could have ended with a non-Communist Russia, a non-Communist China, with a non-Communist Eastern Europe, and with a non-Nazi government in Germany, and with far fewer people killed, if FDR had not been handling the American war effort but if we had had an anti-Communist, pro-Constitution president in the White House.



Yeah, then again, you also believe your Underwear is Magic... so there's that.  

The reality- if we had a conservative in the White House, the Axis probably would have won.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> You see, a big part of the problem is that you think in very superficial, simplistic terms. You seem incapable of dealing with complex issues but instead constantly resort to problematic oversimplification and superficial analysis.



Some things aren't that difficult to analyze, buddy. 

Slavery was wrong- end of story. 
The Axis were the bad guys in World War II.  End of story.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Anyway, I ask you one last time, what statements have I made where I've said, or from which any rational person could remotely infer, that I not only "love" the Axis, or that I'm pro-Axis, but that I also wish the Axis nations had won the war?



Again, not going to rehash the whole "Poor Hirtohito, mean old FDR" shtick.  You need to get with the rest of your Mormon Racist pals and talk about how white and delightsome you are.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh-huh. In other words, you can't provide a single quote where I have said anything that even comes close to saying that I wish the Axis had won WWII.
> 
> The Axis did not even exist until September 1940, over three years after the Nationalists attacked the Japanese in Shanghai and started the Second Sino-Japanese War. Before the Axis was formed, the Nazis were supplying the Nationalists with huge amounts of arms and supplies.
> 
> Saying that the Nationalists and the Chinese people as a whole would have been better off if Chiang had accepted any of the several Japanese peace offers is not even in the same galaxy with your sleazy misrepresentation that I wish the Axis had won WWII.





JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, you diss FDR, the man who saved Western Civilization and treat war criminal and all around scumwad Hirohito as a nice guy.



In other words, you are purposely reading miles between the lines of my statements and views to draw the absurd inference that I wish the Axis had won WWII, even though I've made it clear that I do not. You might ask your PRC handlers to explain the difference between quotation and inference.

Not only are you clearly drawing baseless inferences, but you're basing those inferences on erroneous assumptions, such as that FDR "saved Western civilization" and that Hirohito was a scumwad and a war criminal.

FDR handed over tens of millions of Europeans to Communist tyranny. He played the key role in saving the second-worst tyranny in history from destruction. He paved the way for the worst mass murderer in human history to take over China. He refused to take any meaningful action to save Jews from the Nazi death camps--he even refused to use the existing immigration quotas to save thousands of Jews from the Nazis. And on and on we could go.

And, yes, Hirohito was most certainly a nice guy. He did all he could within the constraints of the Japanese system of government to avoid war with the U.S. He tried to restrain the worst of the hardline generals in China. He intervened to spare some of the Dolittle Raid pilots from execution (he wanted them all spared, but could not bring this about). Before the war, militants staged a coup and killed some of Hirohito's advisers/friends, and when he, at great risk, took advantage of the opportunity to intervene to order a surrender in August 1945, militants tried to stage another coup, tried to hold him hostage, and tried to stop his surrender message from being broadcast.

If you could ever get over your bigotry toward anything Japanese and do some serious research, you would discover that Hirohito was one of the good guys. You might start with Dr. Noriko Kawamura's recent ground-breaking book_ Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War _(University of Washington Press, 2015)_,_ which includes previously unavailable primary sources.



JoeB131 said:


> If you look at World War 2 and can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, I'm not sure there is much to be done with you.



This is a perfect example of your ignorant over-simplification and superficiality. If you believe that the Soviets and the Chinese Communists were among "the good guys," then I don't know what can be done with _you_. The Soviets and the Chinese Communists made the Japanese look like school boys when it came to brutality and oppression. But because FDR made them "allies," and since you are pro-Communist, you blindly call them "good guys."

I've already explained to you several times that there were huge differences between the Axis nations, just as there were between the Allied nations, but you insist on ignoring these facts and maintaining your ignorant assumption that all the Allied nations were good and all the Axis nations were bad.



mikegriffith1 said:


> How does criticizing FDR's handling of WWII equal saying that I wish the Axis had won WWII? As I've made clear many times, I believe that WWII could have ended with a non-Communist Russia, a non-Communist China, with a non-Communist Eastern Europe, and with a non-Nazi government in Germany, and with far fewer people killed, if FDR had not been handling the American war effort but if we had had an anti-Communist, pro-Constitution president in the White House.





JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, then again, you also believe your Underwear is Magic... so there's that.



So when confronted with another clear statement of mine that I do not wish the Axis had won, you resort to your usual rude and crude ignorance and evasion. You're just not willing to be honest. 



JoeB131 said:


> The reality- if we had a conservative in the White House, the Axis probably would have won.



Phew! What a joke. A conservative president would have supported and encouraged the German resistance, instead of telling them to go jump in a lake ala FDR, and by so doing would have gotten Hitler killed by no later than November 1944 and saved millions of lives, including hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives.  

A conservative president would not have provoked Japan to war but would have cut off the flow of arms to the Nationalists early on and pressured the Nationalists to accept one of the early Japanese peace offers, which would have spared millions of lives, would have spared China from Communist rule, would have left the Chinese in control of at least 95% of China, and might well have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If the fallout from the Marco Polo Bridge Incident had been contained early on, as it could have been by sensible mediation by the American or British governments, Chiang Kaishek would not have attacked the Japanese in Shanghai to start the war; the Japanese never would have taken Shanghai or Nanking; the Japanese never would have gone into Indochina to interdict the flow of arms to the Nationalists (since there would have been no flow to interdict); the Japanese never would have even thought about moving on the Dutch East Indies to find a new supply of oil (since they would not have needed a new supply); etc., etc., etc.



mikegriffith1 said:


> You see, a big part of the problem is that you think in very superficial, simplistic terms. You seem incapable of dealing with complex issues but instead constantly resort to problematic oversimplification and superficial analysis.





JoeB131 said:


> Some things aren't that difficult to analyze, buddy.



And many things, especially involving politics and wars, are very complex and do not lend themselves to your brand of ignorant over-simplification and superficial analysis. 



JoeB131 said:


> Slavery was wrong- end of story.



Uh, yes, of course. I don't know what that has to do with the subject under discussion, but, yes, slavery was inherently immoral.



JoeB131 said:


> The Axis were the bad guys in World War II.  End of story.



No, that's an ignorant and erroneous over-simplification. The Nazis, the Soviets, the Chinese Communists, and elements of the Japanese military were the worst bad guys in WW II, followed by elements of the Chinese Nationalist army and elements of the Italian army. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Anyway, I ask you one last time, what statements have I made where I've said, or from which any rational person could remotely infer, that I not only "love" the Axis, or that I'm pro-Axis, but that I also wish the Axis nations had won the war?





JoeB131 said:


> Again, not going to rehash the whole "Poor Hirtohito, mean old FDR" shtick.  You need to get with the rest of your Mormon Racist pals and talk about how white and delightsome you are.



Uh-huh, so in response to a repetition of my straightforward request, which you still have not fulfilled, you once again resort to evasive and crude comments. I think it's clear to fair-minded people that you are simply a dishonest, rude, and bigoted jerk.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> In other words, you are purposely reading miles between the lines of my statements and views to draw the absurd inference that I wish the Axis had won WWII, even though I've made it clear that I do not. You might ask your PRC handlers to explain the difference between quotation and inference.



I might ask them the difference between a cocksucker and a ball-licker, but you fall into both categories. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR handed over tens of millions of Europeans to Communist tyranny. He played the key role in saving the second-worst tyranny in history from destruction. He paved the way for the worst mass murderer in human history to take over China. He refused to take any meaningful action to save Jews from the Nazi death camps--he even refused to use the existing immigration quotas to save thousands of Jews from the Nazis. And on and on we could go.



You could.  No one really wanted more Jews in this country... that was the thing.  Sure, FDR could have done a lot more.. except the REpublicans opposed him every step of the way and most Americans didn't want another war.

guy, you bemoan soviet domination of Eastern Europe, even though those countries were full co-conspirators in the Holocaust.  And I have more sympathy for ROmania or Hungary than I do for Japan.



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, yes, Hirohito was most certainly a nice guy. He did all he could within the constraints of the Japanese system of government to avoid war with the U.S. He tried to restrain the worst of the hardline generals in China. He intervened to spare some of the Dolittle Raid pilots from execution (he wanted them all spared, but could not bring this about). Before the war, militants staged a coup and killed some of Hirohito's advisers/friends, and when he, at great risk, took advantage of the opportunity to intervene to order a surrender in August 1945, militants tried to stage another coup, tried to hold him hostage, and tried to stop his surrender message from being broadcast.



Again, if he did that before the war started, I'd have given him some credit. Doing it after millions of your countrymen died in a war you were told from the get-go you couldn't win doesn't impress me. He was considered a freaking God in his culture.  Too bad he wasn't a very good one. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> If you could ever get over your bigotry toward anything Japanese and do some serious research, you would discover that Hirohito was one of the good guys. You might start with Dr. Noriko Kawamura's recent ground-breaking book_ Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War _(University of Washington Press, 2015)_,_ which includes previously unavailable primary sources.



Uh, guy, I don't have bigotry against the Japanese.  I even dated a Japanese girl once.  I also worked for a Japanese company, and frankly, it was much better than most of the American companies I've worked for.   But in WWII, they were a bunch of evil cocksuckers who needed to be taken out.



mikegriffith1 said:


> I've already explained to you several times that there were huge differences between the Axis nations, just as there were between the Allied nations, but you insist on ignoring these facts and maintaining your ignorant assumption that all the Allied nations were good and all the Axis nations were bad.



All the Axis nations were bad.  Most of the Allied nations were good.  Maybe the USSR, but the USSR did most of the heavy lifting, so I cut them a lot of slack. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Phew! What a joke. A conservative president would have supported and encouraged the German resistance, instead of telling them to go jump in a lake ala FDR, and by so doing would have gotten Hitler killed by no later than November 1944 and saved millions of lives, including hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives.



The German "resistance" were all the Generals who did nothing to stop Hitler from rising to power to start with and were all for the war when Germany was winning. This is the typical Axis apologist bullshit, the west should have teamed up with Hitler to beat the bad old Commies... Because it wasn't like they weren't going to double cross you or anything. Oh wait, they were double crossing people all the time, that's how the war started.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If the fallout from the Marco Polo Bridge Incident had been contained early on, as it could have been by sensible mediation by the American or British governments, Chiang Kaishek would not have attacked the Japanese in Shanghai to start the war; the Japanese never would have taken Shanghai or Nanking; the Japanese never would have gone into Indochina to interdict the flow of arms to the Nationalists (since there would have been no flow to interdict); the Japanese never would have even thought about moving on the Dutch East Indies to find a new supply of oil (since they would not have needed a new supply); etc., etc., etc.



The Japanese could have gotten the fuck out of China where they didn't belong. They could have also gotten out of Korea, because the Koreans would have been happy to see them leave. 

I just have this image of Axis Mikey telling a rape victim that she should lie back and enjoy it.


----------



## Unkotare

Commie Joe is the furthest thing from a historian. He’s just a radical, wannabe communist imbecile.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Commie Joe is the furthest thing from a historian. He’s just a radical, wannabe communist imbecile.



Not at all... I just realize the only reason why the "Good Guys" won WWII is because a lot of Russian and Chinese Communists did most of the fighting.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Now that it is crystal clear that you can't quote a single statement of mine that says or even logically implies that I wish the Axis had won the war, let's move on to two other things you said recently.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Did you just beam into 2020 from the 1960s? I mean, the degree of Communist penetration into the American and British governments during and immediately after WWII has been documented beyond all dispute. Have you heard of the Venona Decrypts, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers, etc.? I know you don't like to read, and I'm guessing your PRC handlers won't let you even glance at this book, but you might start to educate yourself by reading Hebert Romerstein and Eric Briendel's massive work _The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors_ (2000).





JoeB131 said:


> I've heard of them, they aren't that big of a deal.



You've "heard of them" but they "aren't that big of a deal"?!  If you knew anything about the evidence, you would not make such a crazy claim (or at least so one would hope). In the 1930s and 1940s, Soviet agents and sympathizers penetrated into the highest echelons of the American government, including the White House and the War Department. That's how the Soviets were able to put a key spy in the Manhattan Project, one who so high up in the program that he was one of the scientists who participated in the first nuke test in New Mexico (and that's how Stalin already knew all about that test when Truman obliquely told him about it at Potsdam). Those people played a key role in the handing over of China to Mao, as has been well documented.

Even in his obscene anti-McCarthy screed, _Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America_, liberal scholar Ted Morgan, to his credit, admits that Communist penetration of the American government reached shocking levels in the 1930s and 1940s.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh my goodness. Did you really just say that in a public forum? Eee-gads, you really are, no kidding, a Communist, aren't you? You see, over here in the civilized world, we recognize that the Communist tyranny in Russia and Eastern Europe and the Communist tyranny in China, North Korea, and North Vietnam were brutal, tragic, and catastrophically deadly.





JoeB131 said:


> Compared to what?  British Genocide in Australia? American genocide of the indigenous population. Belgian genocide in the Congo?  I'm wondering when all this civilization is going to start.   Did you know the US Killed half a million Filipinos in 1899-1910? Of course you don't.  History books don't talk about it.



Uh, I guess you forgot that I brought some of these examples to show that the Japanese killed far, far fewer people when they consolidated their rule in Korea and Taiwan than did the Americans, the British, the Dutch, and the French when they consolidated their rule in some of their colonies/holdings.

Do you recall when I asked you what business America, the British, and the Dutch had taking hostile actions against Japan for its virtually bloodless occupation of Indochina when they had taken territories at a much higher cost in human lives?

It is interesting that you only cite examples of Western brutality in order to minimize Communist brutality.

Easy, simple question about this issue: Who would you say treated the people better after they conquered them, the Western powers or the Soviets and the Chinese Communists?

Finally, I notice that you still have not provided any sources to back up your claim that the Chinese Communists fought the Japanese as much as, or more than, the Nationalists did. Nor have you provided any sources to back up your claim that Mao brought prosperity, stability, and progress to China after he took over. Nor have you provided any primary sources to support your claim that Nanking's population was 600,000 when the Japanese took the city.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> You've "heard of them" but they "aren't that big of a deal"?! If you knew anything about the evidence, you would not make such a crazy claim (or at least so one would hope). In the 1930s and 1940s, Soviet agents and sympathizers penetrated into the highest echelons of the American government, including the White House and the War Department.



Yup, Joe McCarthy had the names of 60 Card Carrying Communists in the State Department.  NO, really, he did.  

Oh, no, wait. When something is compared to "McCarthyism", it's never a compliment.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, I guess you forgot that I brought some of these examples to show that the Japanese killed far, far fewer people when they consolidated their rule in Korea and Taiwan than did the Americans, the British, the Dutch, and the French when they consolidated their rule in some of their colonies/holdings.



Again, we know, buddy, you think Hirohito was a wonderful guy when he was kidnapping Korean and Chinese women to be serially raped by the Japanese Army.   You probably told them they should lie back and enjoy it. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Do you recall when I asked you what business America, the British, and the Dutch had taking hostile actions against Japan for its virtually bloodless occupation of Indochina when they had taken territories at a much higher cost in human lives?



Naw, Cocksucking Mikey, all your excuses for the Jap Bastards kind of blend together.  

True story- The Japanese are universally hated across Asia to this very day.   Even the Vietnamese kind of like Americans now.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> It is interesting that you only cite examples of Western brutality in order to minimize Communist brutality.
> 
> Easy, simple question about this issue: Who would you say treated the people better after they conquered them, the Western powers or the Soviets and the Chinese Communists?



Oh, easily... the Imperialist powers.  Imperialism is bad.  Social revolution... can't get that worked up about it.  If Chang is shooting Wang after the revolution is over, Wang probably did something to deserve it.  The problem you leave out is that the reason why the Chinese revolution was so violent is because from the First Opium War until they chased Peanut off to Taiwan, the Chinese were abused on a regular basis by the Imperial powers, and yes, they took it out on some of their own people.  

you see, my idea of foreign policy would kind of look like Star Trek's Prime Directive.  no interference in the development of the society.  We'll protect you if someone is invading you, but we don't get involved in your internal struggles.  

This is how we fucked up in Vietnam.  There was a civil war, we picked the wrong side.  And given what we are doing in Iraq, it's not like we've learned a fucking thing.


----------



## mikegriffith1

One rarely reads about the agricultural survey that Dr. Smythe did after he did his population survey. Why is that? His population survey was done in Nanking and in the immediate surrounding area, and concluded that 5,450 civilians had been killed or injured by Japanese soldiers in non-combat situations—2,400 killed, 3050 wounded (see table 4 in his survey report). (Earlier, I errantly said the number killed was 6,750, but this is actually the total number of civilians _killed and wounded_ by soldiers’ violence, unknown causes, and collateral deaths during combat/crossfire deaths.) 

However, in his subsequent agricultural survey, which was conducted in four and a half prefectures (roughly equal to American counties) around Nanking, beyond the area covered in his population survey, Dr. Smythe found that 30,905 civilians were killed by Japanese soldiers (see table 25 in his survey report). The prefectures were Luho, Kuyung, Lishui, Kaoshun, and Kiangning (in which Nanking was located). Again, in this survey, Dr. Smythe found that 30,905 civilians had been killed. These killings were in addition to the 2,400 deaths from his population survey in and around Nanking (and remember that Dr. Smythe, realizing that there was under-reporting, studied the burial records and concluded that about 10,000 people had been killed in Nanking). So why don’t we hear more about the agricultural survey, which added 30,905 people to the death toll?

Here’s one problem: In order to inflate the death toll to 300,000-plus, Iris Chang vastly expanded the area of the massacre. Instead of considering just Nanking and its immediate surrounding area, which was where the primary sources said the atrocity occurred, Chiang included most of the massive area covered in the agricultural survey. But the agricultural survey, whose area was 750 times larger than Nanking, did not come up with anything close to numbers that would make Chang’s figure credible.

Here’s another problem: Japanese forces did not pass through or near many of the areas surveyed in Smythe’s agricultural survey. The routes used by the two Japanese forces that fought in Nanking are well known. They are documented in a number of sources. They were observed by journalists, local residents, tracked by the Nationalist army, etc., etc. Many chunks of territory included in Smythe’s agricultural survey were areas where Japanese forces simply did not travel near or through. Is this an indication that Smythe’s Chinese assistants, who were the ones who did most of the field work, might have inflated their findings, not bothering to consider where the Japanese forces had and had not traveled and/or operated?

As you’ll recall, the Nationalists beached the Yellow River Dam in 1938 and caused massive flooding that killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese. At the time, the Nationalists claimed that the Japanese had breached the dam with indiscriminate bombing, although this seemed so implausible than even some of the gullible foreign journalists in China doubted the claim. For one thing, there were no credible targets anywhere near the part of the dam that was breached. Well, in his memoirs, Guo Moruo, a high-ranking official in the Nationalist propaganda department, admitted that the Nationalist claims about the Yellow River Atrocity had been based on falsehoods and was a dismal failure tactically.:

According to our propaganda, the cause was indiscriminate bombing on the part of the Japanese. In fact, our troops broke up the dikes on orders from top-ranking officers at the front line. This is one of our time-honored tactics: water can destroy huge armies, as the proverb goes. The damage done to the enemy was limited, but we experienced extraordinary casualties in terms of civilian lives and property. (Kenichi Ara, _The Nanking Hoax: A Historian Analyzes the Events of 1937, _2007, p. 9).​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here’s one problem: In order to inflate the death toll to 300,000-plus, Iris Chang vastly expanded the area of the massacre. Instead of considering just Nanking and its immediate surrounding area, which was where the primary sources said the atrocity occurred, Chiang included most of the massive area covered in the agricultural survey. But the agricultural survey, whose area was 750 times larger than Nanking, did not come up with anything close to numbers that would make Chang’s figure credible.



again, Axis Mikey keeps claiming that if you were killed outside Nanking's city limits, it was okay.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> As you’ll recall, the Nationalists beached the Yellow River Dam in 1938 and caused massive flooding that killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese.



Yes, Peanut was an incompetent boob, that's why the Commies won, buddy. 

Now go check with the Daily Stormer... see what your other talking points are.


----------



## mikegriffith1

A few points to follow up on Smythe's agricultural survey and to highlight one of the specious assumptions that Iris Chang had to make to get to her 300,000-plus figure—namely, that the massacre occurred not only in Nanking but in most/all of the six counties around Nanking:

* The combined area of the 4.5 counties that Dr. Smythe surveyed in his agricultural survey was 2,438 square miles. That’s an area equal in size to the state of Delaware plus nearly half the state of Rhode Island.

* In contrast, the city of Nanking was about 26 square miles in size, and the Nanking Safety Zone was 2.39 square miles. (Some authors put the Safety Zone’s size at 3.4 square miles, but the earliest sources, including an almanac done in 1939, put it at something over 2 square miles.)

* We know the marching routes and areas of operations of the Japanese army on its way to and from Nanking. Japanese forces did not go through or near many of the areas in Smythe’s survey.

* Many Iris Chang defenders argue that the area of the massacre included an area that is even larger than the area of Smythe’s agricultural survey! They claim that it included the six counties around Nanking, whereas Smythe excluded one of those counties and half of another one. In fact, most of these apologists claim that the Japanese killed 100,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians in the six surrounding counties, and some of them use that number to get to the 300,000 figure. I guess these folks have never bothered to look at the marching routes and the areas of operations of the Japanese forces under discussion.  

* We should also keep in mind that the Japanese force that attacked Nanking—the Central China Area Army, consisting of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and the 10th Army—only amounted to about 50,000 soldiers (some sources say 70,000; Wikipedia erroneously says 200,000). Furthermore, most of this force quickly left the city soon after the city fell and after order had been established.

* We should keep in mind that the International Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) said the massacre occurred only in the city of Nanking, and that the primary sources, most of whom were very anti-Japanese, said all or nearly all of the deaths occurred in the Safety Zone.

* Several primary sources mention the fact that the part of Nanking outside the Safety Zone was nearly deserted. This agrees with the accounts of numerous Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking: they described the rest of city as being like a ghost town.

I think the 300,000-civilian-deaths tale is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. When you finally force a discussion on the facts of the matter, the emperor’s nakedness quickly becomes obvious.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> A few points to follow up on Smythe's agricultural survey and to highlight one of the specious assumptions that Iris Chang had to make to get to her 300,000-plus figure—namely, that the massacre occurred not only in Nanking but in most/all of the six counties around Nanking:



Yawn, guy, we've been over this.  The population of Nanking in 1937 was over a million. 

Here's a view from a real historian, not willing to suck Axis Cock.  

Nanking

By 1937, Nanking, which usually boasted a population of about 250,000, *had swelled to more than 1 million people.* This large population growth might be attributed to refugees fleeing the Japanese forces, running to the nation’s capital. On November 11, 1937, Japanese forces had taken Shanghai and were advancing on Nanking. Three groups of Japanese troops marched on Nanking in tandem. Nakajima Kesago led his forces from the west by the southern banks of the Yangtze River. General Matsui Iwane led an amphibious assault south of Nakajima’s forces. Lieutenant General Yanagawa Heisuke led the final group up from the southeast. Each of these leaders has been characterized as uniquely different from one another. Nakajima has been described as a cruel violent man, a specialist in thought control, intimidation, and torture. Matsui, was a Buddhist from a scholarly family. Yanagawa was a serious man who focused on the importance of military discipline and control. Their forces had reached the outskirts of Nanking by December. On December 7, General Matsui, of a generally weak constitution, grew very ill on the field and was replaced by Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, a member of the royal family, who brought the authority of the emperor’s crown to the front line in Nanking. On December 9 the Japanese launched a massive attack on Nanking. As many as possible of the defending Chinese troops retreated to the other side of the Yangtze River on December 12, and the December 13 saw the Japanese Army’s 6th and 16th Divisions enter the Zhongshan and Pacific Gates. *Two Japanese Fleets arrived that afternoon and in the following six weeks, a flood of mass executions, rapes, and animalistic behavior poured over Nanking.*

The Japanese did not limit themselves to killing just the soldier prisoners. From the first, Japanese troops scoured the city, searching houses for soldiers and killing the city-dwellers. The next six weeks saw Japanese soldiers committing a huge number of atrocious acts, acts which are now labeled as crimes against humanity. Door to door, soldiers demanded to be let in, only to open fire on the occupants. *Chinese captives would be forced to dig graves and bury a group of captives alive, only to be buried by the next group of captive diggers. Others were buried halfway in the ground and attacked by dogs. Japanese soldiers tortured citizens with mutilation, including disembowelment, decapitation, dismemberment, and more creative means. *Victims were also pushed into pits, tied together, and burned en masse. Others were forced into the River to freeze to death. Soldiers engaged in decapitation contests which would leave participants exhausted after a days’ sport. For example, coverage in the Japan Advertiser reported that “the score [between two competing soldiers] was: Sub-Lieutenant Mukai, 89, and Sub-Lieutenant Noda, 78” in an article entitled “Sub-Lieutenants in Race to Fell 100 Chinese Running Close Contest.” The contest the article was covering was a decapitation contest held between Japanese soldiers on Chinese prisoners. *In total, estimates of the Chinese dead from Nanking alone range from 200,000 to 350,000. The International Military Tribunal of the Far East places the death toll at 260,000.* Perhaps even worse than the mass murders was the mass rapes that took place. *Anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women are estimated to have been raped.* Fathers were forced on daughters and sons on mothers. Women were subjected to gang rape, forced to perform countless sexual acts, and often killed after soldiers tired of them.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> You've "heard of them" but they "aren't that big of a deal"?! If you knew anything about the evidence, you would not make such a crazy claim (or at least so one would hope). In the 1930s and 1940s, Soviet agents and sympathizers penetrated into the highest echelons of the American government, including the White House and the War Department.





JoeB131 said:


> Yup, Joe McCarthy had the names of 60 Card Carrying Communists in the State Department.  NO, really, he did. Oh, no, wait. When something is compared to "McCarthyism", it's never a compliment.



You see, you just won't be honest; you won't deal with issues honestly. I'm talking about the Communist penetration into the U.S. government that no credible scholar disputes, not even a virulent anti-McCarthy author such as Ted Morgan. I notice you snipped and ignored my point that even Morgan admits that Communist penetration into our government reached shocking, dangerous levels in the 1930s and 1940s. Since I know you'll never read Morgan's book, here's an informative review of the book:

A Closer Look Under The Bed - Claremont Review of Books

As for McCarthy's list of Communists in the U.S. government, here are some scholarly sources if you dare to educate yourself on the subject:

Joseph McCarthy

Joseph McCarthy - Conservapedia...



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, I guess you forgot that I brought some of these examples to show that the Japanese killed far, far fewer people when they consolidated their rule in Korea and Taiwan than did the Americans, the British, the Dutch, and the French when they consolidated their rule in some of their colonies/holdings.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, we know, buddy, you think Hirohito was a wonderful guy when he was kidnapping Korean and Chinese women to be serially raped by the Japanese Army.   You probably told them they should lie back and enjoy it.



One, that's another evasion. It has nothing to do with the point I made.

Two, your claim that Hirohito kidnapped Korean and Chinese women is nutty--not even a bitter anti-Hirohito scholar such as Herbert Bix has made such a whacky claim.

Three, again, yes, absolutely: I absolutely believe that Hirohito was a good person and one of the good guys, and I've given you some of my reasons for this view and have cited what other scholars have called "a convincing reappraisal" and "a well-balanced analysis" on Hirohito to support my position (i.e., Dr. Kawamura's recent book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War_).

If you want to read another widely praised scholarly work that shows that Hirohito was a good and decent man who tried to avoid war and who opposed the hardliners at virtually every turn, you might read Ikuhiko Hata's famous work_ Emperor Hirohito: The Showa Emperor in War and Peace._ FYI, Dr. Hata, who studied at Harvard and other fine schools, is one of the most internationally respected scholars on Imperial Japan, which perhaps explains why he was invited to be a Visiting Fellow at Columbia and Princeton.

Another highly regarded book on Hirohito that could shock some sense into your anti-Japanese ignorance and bigotry is_ Showa: The Japan of Hirohito_, which is a collection of essays written by leading scholars on Imperial Japan, including Carol Gluck, John Dower, William Kelly, and David Plath. Even you've heard Gluck and Dower, right?



mikegriffith1 said:


> Do you recall when I asked you what business America, the British, and the Dutch had taking hostile actions against Japan for its virtually bloodless occupation of Indochina when they had taken territories at a much higher cost in human lives?





JoeB131 said:


> Naw, Mikey, all your excuses for the Jap Bastards kind of blend together.  True story- The Japanese are universally hated across Asia to this very day.   Even the Vietnamese kind of like Americans now.



Is this the only answer that your PRC handlers could suggest to you? On what planet are the Japanese "universally hated across Asia to this very day"? You keep sounding like you beamed into this century from the '40s, '50s, or '60s.

Anyway, I take it that you're still not going to explain why FDR had any moral right to impose draconian sanctions on Japan for her virtually bloodless occupation of parts of Indochina.



mikegriffith1 said:


> It is interesting that you only cite examples of Western brutality in order to minimize Communist brutality.
> 
> Easy, simple question about this issue: Who would you say treated the people better after they conquered them, the Western powers or the Soviets and the Chinese Communists?





JoeB131 said:


> Oh, easily... the Imperialist powers.  Imperialism is bad.  Social revolution... can't get that worked up about it.  If Chang is shooting Wang after the revolution is over, Wang probably did something to deserve it.  The problem you leave out is that the reason why the Chinese revolution was so violent is because from the First Opium War until they chased Peanut off to Taiwan, the Chinese were abused on a regular basis by the Imperial powers, and yes, they took it out on some of their own people.



Uhhhh, ummmmm, so the reason that Mao killed over 30 million Chinese is that the Chinese were regularly abused by the imperial powers?!  Gosh, you have reached a new level of mythology and absurdity. But, at least you're willing to lay out these bizarre, blatantly Communist views on a public forum. That takes guts.



JoeB131 said:


> you see, my idea of foreign policy would kind of look like Star Trek's Prime Directive.  no interference in the development of the society.  We'll protect you if someone is invading you, but we don't get involved in your internal struggles.



Ah, but you're okay with the fact that the Soviets gave the Chinese Communists tons of weapons and ammo. You're okay with the fact that Truman and Marshall withheld weapons from the Nationalists at a crucial point and imposed ceasefires that allowed the Communists to avoid destruction. Your version of the Prime Directive is that you don't want any intervention that hurts the Communist cause, but you're totally fine with intervention that helps the Communist cause. 



JoeB131 said:


> This is how we messed up in Vietnam.  There was a civil war, we picked the wrong side.  And given what we are doing in Iraq, it's not like we've learned a thing.



We lost Vietnam because your buddies the Democrats refused to honor our promise to provide South Vietnam with air support if North Vietnam violated the peace agreement and attacked. We lost because most of our press acted as North Vietnam's propaganda department. We lost because the first several years of the war were run by the spineless and clueless Lyndon B. Johnson and his idiot "whiz kid" Robert McNamara.


----------



## JoeB131

Hey, how badly are the Japanese STILL hated for what they did.  Check out this controversy over our new US Ambassador to South Korea. 

Harry Harris: Mustache of US ambassador sparks uproar - CNN

_Some of Japan's most prominent wartime leaders -- like Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister who was later executed by a postwar tribunal, and Emperor Hirohito -- had mustaches.
Under Japanese rule, many Koreans were brutalized, murdered and enslaved. It's still living memory for elderly Koreans and remains a highly emotive subject in both North and South Korea.
In recent years, issues relating to the war have become a point of contention between Japan and South Korea. Fierce debates have broken out over the status of "comfort women" -- Korean women forced into providing sexual services for Japanese soldiers -- and whether Japanese corporations should pay individual reparations for Koreans who were forced into labor._

Yup, our new Ambassador to South Korea is controversial to the South Koreans because he's half-Japanese and he rocks a mustache, just like the Japanese oppressors did.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> You see, you just won't be honest; you won't deal with issues honestly. I'm talking about the Communist penetration into the U.S. government that no credible scholar disputes, not even a virulent anti-McCarthy author such as Ted Morgan. I notice you snipped and ignored my point that even Morgan admits that Communist penetration into our government reached shocking, dangerous levels in the 1930s and 1940s. Since I know you'll never read Morgan's book, here's an informative review of the book:



I don't read Bircher bullshit.   McCarthyism was a disgrace to a free people, where we persecuted loyal government servants merely on the basis of association. 

here's the thing.  We Americans let Russian and Chinese Communists do the fighting we weren't too keen on doing. If we took the kinds of Casualties in WWII that Russia and China did, we'd have sued for peace in the first year.  And that's when Americans still had balls.  So surprise, surprise, when those Commies found themselves in charge of the places we didn't want to fight over, they refused to give them back.  GASP.  Must be those commies in the Army!!!!   Joe McCarthy has a list of 60 Card Carrying Communists... that he never showed anyone.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Three, again, yes, absolutely: I absolutely believe that Hirohito was a good person and one of the good guys, and I've given you some of my reasons for this view....



Of course you do. You also think that OJ was innocent, Joseph Smith was Talking to God, and the South was right in the Civil War.   I'm just waiting for you to come out with your full defense of Hitler, to make your racist bullshit complete. 

Hirohito was a murdering piece of shit and we should have put him at the end of a rope, right next to Tojo. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Is this the only answer that your PRC handlers could suggest to you? On what planet are the Japanese "universally hated across Asia to this very day"? You keep sounding like you beamed into this century from the '40s, '50s, or '60s.



Check out the previous article.  The Koreans hate our new Ambassador because him Mom was a Jap and he sports a Tojo Mustache.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Anyway, I take it that you're still not going to explain why FDR had any moral right to impose draconian sanctions on Japan for her virtually bloodless occupation of parts of Indochina.



Um, yeah, because stealing someone else's territory is wrong...  and sanctions are a bloodless way to get them to knock that shit off.  

Unless they are crazy fucks who try to militarily attack a country with an economy five times as large... but who would do something that ass-poundingly stupid?  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Uhhhh, ummmmm, so the reason that Mao killed over 30 million Chinese is that the Chinese were regularly abused by the imperial powers?! Gosh, you have reached a new level of mythology and absurdity. But, at least you're willing to lay out these bizarre, blatantly Communist views on a public forum. That takes guts.



Guy, realism time.   Mao didn't kill 30 million people unless you count famines and shit.  Which is what you guys always do when talking "Commies bad".  The west imposes sanctions (remember when you just said sanctions were a bad thing), people starve, and they you blame the commies.  Now, I will agree, Communism is a bad economic system (happy now), that discourages iniative.  

But the point remains.  100 years of being dominated and humiliated by foreign powers has a long term effect on a country. We Americans have no real clue as to this... since we've never been occuppied.  But of course, people like you lose your shit when a few Mexicans show up and want to pick lettuce. 

The Foreign powers encouraged massive opium addiction (A problem the communists dealt with harshly, I'll admit, but we are still in Year 40 of the War on Drugs, how's that working out for us?)  They created laws where you could kill Chinese citizens and get tried in your own courts. And then there's what the Japanese did to them.  Darn straight Chinese people would have taken their frustrations out on someone when the war was over. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Ah, but you're okay with the fact that the Soviets gave the Chinese Communists tons of weapons and ammo. You're okay with the fact that Truman and Marshall withheld weapons from the Nationalists at a crucial point and imposed ceasefires that allowed the Communists to avoid destruction. Your version of the Prime Directive is that you don't want any intervention that hurts the Communist cause, but you're totally fine with intervention that helps the Communist cause.



Yawn, guy, the Communist did not win because the Russians gave them some old rifles the Japanese had left behind. The Communist won because Peanut was kind of an asshole and no one was too keen on dying for him. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> We lost Vietnam because your buddies the Democrats refused to honor our promise to provide South Vietnam with air support if North Vietnam violated the peace agreement and attacked. We lost because most of our press acted as North Vietnam's propaganda department. We lost because the first several years of the war were run by the spineless and clueless Lyndon B. Johnson and his idiot "whiz kid" Robert McNamara.



Wow, that Myth again.  We were funding the Kleptocracy in Saigon all the way up until the day they got on the helicopters and fled.  

Another Right Wing Myth Debunked. 

The Myth That Congress Cut Off Funding for South Vietnam |  History News         Network

Mel Laird, Richard Nixon’s defense secretary, started the modern myth that “Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975” in a 2005 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.

A quick, easy check of an old newspaper database shows Laird's cutoff claim to be false. In the fiscal year running from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, the congressional appropriation for military aid to South Vietnam was $700 million. 

Nixon had requested $1.45 billion. Congress cut his aid request, but never cut off aid. 

_Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, requested an additional $300 million for Saigon.  Democrats saw it as an exercise in political blame-shifting. "The administration knows that the $300 million won't really do anything to prevent ultimate collapse in Vietnam," said Senator and future Vice President Walter F. Mondale, D-Mn., "and it is just trying to shift responsibility of its policy to Congress and the Democrats." Congress didn't approve the supplemental appropriation. 

The Times reported that with National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry "Kissinger's personal prestige tied to peace in Vietnam, his aides have said that he will try to pin the blame for failure there on Congress." He tried to do just that at a March 26, 1975 news conference in which he framed the question facing Congress as "whether it will deliberately destroy an ally by withholding aid from it in its moment of extremity." *Three years earlier, in October 1972, the month in which Kissinger publicly proclaimed that "peace is at hand," he privately told the President that their own settlement terms would destroy South Vietnam. *

Congressional aid cuts didn't determine the war's final outcome. Saigon's fate was sealed long before, when Nixon forced it accept his settlement terms in January 1973. 

As for Laird's "cut off" of funds for Saigon, it just never happened. Even Nixon acknowledged the 1975 military appropriation for Saigon of $700 million (on page 193 of No More Vietnams_).
_
To get the North Vietnamese to accept a settlement that, on paper, guaranteed the South's right to free elections, Nixon assured them, through the Soviet Union and China, that if they waited a "decent interval" of a year or two before taking over South Vietnam, he would not intervene. The Communists accepted Nixon's settlement terms because they knew that they didn't have to abide by them and the would get a clear shot at overthrowing the South Vietnamese government if they waited approximately 18 months after Nixon withdrew the last U.S. ground forces. Nixon wanted this "decent interval" to make it look like Saigon's fall wasn't his fault. _

Short version... We knew the minute we withdrew troops, Ky and Theiu were done.  it was just a matter of time. It was just a matter of how much more treasure we were going to expend after we stopped expending blood.


----------



## mikegriffith1

whitehall said:


> James Bradley's remarkable book "Flyboys" gives a good overview about the political chaos in Japan prior to WW2. The Japanese victory over the Russians early in the 20th century gave the Japanese a false sense of confidence in their religious superiority. The emperor was a puppet for the insanity of the militaristic Bushido thugs who rose in power and the stage was set for Japanese expansion into China and the Korean peninsula.



There are bits of truth in what you say, mixed with bits of error. A few points: 

* Japan's annexation of Korea occurred long before Hirohito became emperor, and that annexation was internationally recognized, just as our annexation of a huge chunk of Mexico via the Mexican Cession was internationally recognized. In a nutshell, when the corrupt Korean government asked China to help it put down a peasant revolt, Japan, which had considerable business interests in Korea, intervened and fought China for control over Korea, and Japan won.  

* It's going too far to say that Hirohito was a puppet of the militarists. Hirohito was only 26 when he became emperor, and the militarists tried to take advantage of his youth and seemingly bookish, nerdy nature. In 1932 the militarists murdered the moderate prime minister, Tsuyoshi Inukai. In 1936, the militarists tried to stage a coup, and in the process murdered some of the emperor's leading allies in the government--but this was too much even for many in the army, and the coup was put down. Nineteen of the coup leaders were executed, on the insistence of Hirohito, and the militarist faction suffered substantial losses in the next Diet elections. 

* Certainly by 1932, if not earlier, the military had veto power over any government. They could bring down any cabinet by having the army or navy minister resign, which would force the formation of a new cabinet, and a new cabinet could not be formed if the military would not nominate/approve an army or navy minister.  

* All the moderate leaders and officials in the government supported Hirohito because they recognized that he was one of them and that he had no love for the militarists. In many cases, the moderates were able to get their way, but in many other cases they were not. By April 1944, the moderates had regained enough strength and influence to force Tojo to resign and to replace him with the more moderate Suzuki, who played a key role in bringing about Japan's surrender. 

* "Political chaos" in Japan before WW II?  Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. FDR was a gift from heaven for the militarists. His increasingly draconian sanctions and constantly escalating demands eventually pushed even moderates such as Togo, Kido, and Konoe, along with the emperor, to agonizingly and reluctantly support war with America.

* Finally, judging Imperial Japan requires an informed and fair approach. Judging Japan as a whole based on the shameful conduct of the more radical and barbaric army and naval officers would be a lot like judging the American government as a whole during the Civil War based on the disgraceful conduct of generals such as Sherman and Sheridan. 

The barbaric Japanese military officers were just as bad as, if not worse than, the worst of the Nazi military officers. We didn't bring enough of those scum to justice after the war, while we shamefully punished a number of Japanese officers who had opposed the radical officers and who had tried to follow the rules of war as best they could under the circumstances. 

The vast majority of Japan's civilian leaders were good, decent, and honorable men who opposed the militarists, who wanted closer ties with the West, and who understood the dangers that communism posed to Asia.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> There are bits of truth in what you say, mixed with bits of error. A few points:
> 
> * Japan's annexation of Korea occurred long before Hirohito became emperor, and that annexation was internationally recognized, just as our annexation of a huge chunk of Mexico via the Mexican Cession was internationally recognized. In a nutshell, when the corrupt Korean government asked China to help it put down a peasant revolt, Japan, which had considerable business interests in Korea, intervened and fought China for control over Korea, and Japan won.



Yeah, fuck them Koreans... they don't get a say in anything.   

Hey, do you know why we spell Korea with a K now?  because the Japanese didn't want Korea appearing before Japan in a list of nations.  Prior to that, it was spelled with a C.  that's how awful the Japanese were. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * It's going too far to say that Hirohito was a puppet of the militarists. Hirohito was only 26 when he became emperor, and the militarists tried to take advantage of his youth and seemingly bookish, nerdy nature. In 1932 the militarists murdered the moderate prime minister, Tsuyoshi Inukai. In 1936, the militarists tried to stage a coup, and in the process murdered some of the emperor's leading allies in the government--but this was too much even for many in the army, and the coup was put down. Nineteen of the coup leaders were executed, on the insistence of Hirohito, and the militarist faction suffered substantial losses in the next Diet elections.



Um, yeah, then he let the militarists take over and rampage across Asia... Piece of shit should have ended up at the end of a rope. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * All the moderate leaders and officials in the government supported Hirohito because they recognized that he was one of them and that he had no love for the militarists. In many cases, the moderates were able to get their way, but in many other cases they were not. By April 1944, the moderates had regained enough strength and influence to force Tojo to resign and to replace him with the more moderate Suzuki, who played a key role in bringing about Japan's surrender.



Yet it still took a year and a half for these "Moderates" to actually, you know. Surrender.  Why? Because they had some delusion of Japan holding onto some of their ill-gotten gains. Millions of people died while the "moderates" were struggling with reality. 

You also left out the part where in April 1944, Tojo was replaced by another War Criminal named Kuniaki Koiso for about a year.  Suzuki didn't get in charge until 1945 when they had lost Okinawa and were getting bombed on a daily basis. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * "Political chaos" in Japan before WW II? Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. FDR was a gift from heaven for the militarists. His increasingly draconian sanctions and constantly escalating demands eventually pushed even moderates such as Togo, Kido, and Konoe, along with the emperor, to agonizingly and reluctantly support war with America.



Or they could have done something as breathtakingly rational as NOT invading the rest of Asia.  Again, do you blame rape victims for dressing too provocatively?  "That bitch was showing some ankle, she was totally asking for it."  

Oh, wait, you're a Mormon, that's probably exactly what you think.  My bad. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * Finally, judging Imperial Japan requires an informed and fair approach. Judging Japan as a whole based on the shameful conduct of the more radical and barbaric army and naval officers would be a lot like judging the American government as a whole during the Civil War based on the disgraceful conduct of generals such as Sherman and Sheridan.



Really?  Okay, let's look at that.  Sherman in his march to the Sea (A brilliant military maneuver that was praised by President Lincoln) killed MAYBE a thousand people.  Japan's rampage into China killed Millions.  The South had actually instigated the war with the North.  China was the victim of an invasion Hirohito approved.  

The ironic thing about Sherman's march to the Sea was that he employed the same tactic he and other Army generals had employed against Native Americans for decades.   Except now they were doing it to WHITE PEOPLE!! "GASP!!!" 

Of course, the white people they were doing it to were inbred, racist traitors, so I just can't get that worked up about it. 

Final point.  Sherman did what he did before we had established a number or rules of warfare, such as the Geneva Conventions.  (True, Japan didn't sign Geneva, but we hung the bastards anyway.) 



mikegriffith1 said:


> The barbaric Japanese military officers were just as bad as, if not worse than, the worst of the Nazi military officers. We didn't bring enough of those scum to justice after the war, while we shamefully punished a number of Japanese officers who had opposed the radical officers and who had tried to follow the rules of war as best they could under the circumstances.
> 
> The vast majority of Japan's civilian leaders were good, decent, and honorable men who opposed the militarists, who wanted closer ties with the West, and who understood the dangers that communism posed to Asia.



No, guy, we didn't punish enough of them, that's the problem.  Unlike the Germans, who are STILL apologizing for what they did in WWII, some Japanese still don't think they did anything wrong.  And that's fucked up.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR handed over tens of millions of Europeans to Communist tyranny. He played the key role in saving the second-worst tyranny in history from destruction. He paved the way for the worst mass murderer in human history to take over China. He refused to take any meaningful action to save Jews from the Nazi death camps--he even refused to use the existing immigration quotas to save thousands of Jews from the Nazis. And on and on we could go.





JoeB131 said:


> You could.  No one really wanted more Jews in this country... that was the thing.  Sure, FDR could have done a lot more.. except the REpublicans opposed him every step of the way and most Americans didn't want another war.



You are just making up stuff. Republicans had nothing to do with FDR's failure to use the existing immigration quotas to save tens of thousands of Jews. The Democrats held overwhelming majorities in the House and the Senate, so the Republicans were in no position to "oppose him every stop of the way." And FDR's refusal to help the Jews continued well after the war started, so you can't blame his inhumanity and immorality on the public's opposition to getting involved in the war. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, yes, Hirohito was most certainly a nice guy. He did all he could within the constraints of the Japanese system of government to avoid war with the U.S. He tried to restrain the worst of the hardline generals in China. He intervened to spare some of the Doolittle Raid pilots from execution (he wanted them all spared, but could not bring this about). Before the war, militants staged a coup and killed some of Hirohito's advisers/friends, and when he, at great risk, took advantage of the opportunity to intervene to order a surrender in August 1945, militants tried to stage another coup, tried to hold him hostage, and tried to stop his surrender message from being broadcast.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, if he did that before the war started, I'd have given him some credit. Doing it after millions of your countrymen died in a war you were told from the get-go you couldn't win doesn't impress me. He was considered a freaking God in his culture.  Too bad he wasn't a very good one.



Can you read? Did you not read what I said before you "responded" to it? Hirohito did plenty "before the war started" to avoid war with the U.S., and he also tried to restrain the insubordinate hardline generals in China before and after the war in China began. 

You'd know these things if your PRC handlers would let you read some real scholarship on Hirohito. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I've already explained to you several times that there were huge differences between the Axis nations, just as there were between the Allied nations, but you insist on ignoring these facts and maintaining your ignorant assumption that all the Allied nations were good and all the Axis nations were bad.





JoeB131 said:


> All the Axis nations were bad.  Most of the Allied nations were good.  Maybe the USSR, but the USSR did most of the heavy lifting, so I cut them a lot of slack.



LOL! "Maybe" the USSR was bad?! Maybe?! 

The USSR did "most of the heavy lifting"? Really? Good grief. You mean the Soviet rape of Eastern Europe? You means the thousands of Russians the Soviets murdered during the war? And, leaving aside the monstrous Soviet war crimes in Eastern Europe, what did they do to help in the Pacific War before August 1945? What did they do to help in North Africa? What did they do to help the Jewish resistance fighters who staged an armed revolt against the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto? 

I'm guessing you are not aware that the Soviets were poised to invade Europe when Germany attacked them, right? German intelligence discovered that Stalin was about to launch an attack on Europe, and so the Germans launched a preemptive strike. You might start with former Soviet GRU officer Viktor Suvorov's international best-seller The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II, published by the U.S. Naval Institute in 2013. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Phew! What a joke. A conservative president would have supported and encouraged the German resistance, instead of telling them to go jump in a lake ala FDR, and by so doing would have gotten Hitler killed by no later than November 1944 and saved millions of lives, including hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives.





JoeB131 said:


> The German "resistance" were all the Generals who did nothing to stop Hitler from rising to power to start with and were all for the war when Germany was winning.



Wrong. Clearly, you've done no reading on the German resistance or on Hitler's rise to power. 



JoeB131 said:


> This is the typical Axis apologist crap, the west should have teamed up with Hitler to beat the bad old Commies... Because it wasn't like they weren't going to double cross you or anything. Oh wait, they were double crossing people all the time, that's how the war started.



Listen to your idiocy. Take a breath and consider what you just said. I'm talking about and defending patriotic, anti-Nazi Germans who wanted to _kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazi regime, establish a pro-Western government, and hand back the territory the Nazis had taken_. How on earth does that qualify as "Axis apologist crap"? What in the world does any of this have to do with apologizing for the Axis? Do you even think before you write your drivel? 

Sheesh, where on earth did you get your alleged degree in history again? I take it your degree program did not include any classes on critical thinking or logic.



mikegriffith1 said:


> If the fallout from the Marco Polo Bridge Incident had been contained early on, as it could have been by sensible mediation by the American or British governments, Chiang Kaishek would not have attacked the Japanese in Shanghai to start the war; the Japanese never would have taken Shanghai or Nanking; the Japanese never would have gone into Indochina to interdict the flow of arms to the Nationalists (since there would have been no flow to interdict); the Japanese never would have even thought about moving on the Dutch East Indies to find a new supply of oil (since they would not have needed a new supply); etc., etc., etc.





JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese could have gotten tout of China where they didn't belong.



Talking with you is like trying to talk to a robot. You just keep repeating this line, even tough I've proved it false. For about the tenth time, the Japanese had internationally recognized treaty rights to be in China. They had the largest non-Chinese population in China. They had billions of dollars invested in China. They had made large loans to the Chinese, which the Chinese failed to pay back. They operated huge factories in China, factories that employed a large number of Chinese, by the way. Even the Lytton Commission admitted that the Japanese living in China suffered more than any other foreign population from the lack of law and order, the instability, the fighting between warlords and between the Nationalists and the warlords, etc., etc. 

And, for about the tenth time as well, the Japanese offered to withdraw from 98% of China, if the Nationalists would stop trying to undermine their state in Manchuria, would stop their anti-Japanese boycotts, and would resume their energetic opposition to the Communists. 



JoeB131 said:


> They could have also gotten out of Korea, because the Koreans would have been happy to see them leave.



You don't know that because you've done no serious research on Japanese colonial rule in Korea. You have no idea what you're talking about. I guarantee you that the Koreans in North Korea dearly wished the Japanese had not left once they got a taste of Communist tyranny. The millions of Korean lives that were lost during the Korean War would have been spared if Japan had not been forced to give up Korea.

I know you have zero interest in educating yourself about anything Japanese, but on the off chance that one day you grow up and decide to do some serious research on this issue, you might start with George Akita and Brandon Palmer's super book _The Japanese Colonial Legacy in Korea, 1910–1945: A New Perspective_ (2015). 



JoeB131 said:


> I just have this image of Axis Mikey telling a rape victim that she should lie back and enjoy it.



This is the kind of rude garbage that one would expect from a poorly raised teenager.  It's worth remembering that you're the one who says the Communists got their "fair share" in Asia, who bashes the German resistance, who complains about people "demonizing" Joseph Stalin, and who says that Mao, the worst mass murderer in human history, brought prosperity and stability to China. 

Perhaps you feel compelled to accuse others of being pro-Axis because of your numerous and repeated ugly comments about Jews and Israel.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> You are just making up stuff. Republicans had nothing to do with FDR's failure to use the existing immigration quotas to save tens of thousands of Jews. The Democrats held overwhelming majorities in the House and the Senate, so the Republicans were in no position to "oppose him every stop of the way." And FDR's refusal to help the Jews continued well after the war started, so you can't blame his inhumanity and immorality on the public's opposition to getting involved in the war.



Uh, guy, no one was keen on bringing more people into the country in the 1930's when you had 25% unemployment... They just weren't.  

Shit, look at what your Hero Trump. We have full employment, and Trump is making his bones on keeping people out. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Can you read? Did you not read what I said before you "responded" to it? Hirohito did plenty "before the war started" to avoid war with the U.S., and he also tried to restrain the insubordinate hardline generals in China before and after the war in China began.



Plenty would have been, "No War with the US, period."  If anyone still refused, he should have ordered them to commit _seppuku_ for defying their God-Emperor. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Listen to your idiocy. Take a breath and consider what you just said. I'm talking about and defending patriotic, anti-Nazi Germans who wanted to _kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazi regime, establish a pro-Western government, and hand back the territory the Nazis had taken_. How on earth does that qualify as "Axis apologist crap"? What in the world does any of this have to do with apologizing for the Axis? Do you even think before you write your drivel?



Again, all the German officers were totally FOR the war when it started.  Heck, even the ringleader of the plot, General Beck, was only against the war because he thought Germany wasn't ready, and didn't have a lot of credibility when Germany was winning.  Good thing Hitler killed these assholes, they should have been in the dock at Nuremburg right next to the Nazis. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Talking with you is like trying to talk to a robot. You just keep repeating this line, even tough I've proved it false. For about the tenth time, the Japanese had internationally recognized treaty rights to be in China. They had the largest non-Chinese population in China. They had billions of dollars invested in China. They had made large loans to the Chinese, which the Chinese failed to pay back.



Wow, so by your logic, banks should send people over to rape someone's family if they don't pay back loans? Really?  I hope you aren't in banking.   

Japan had no business in Japan, period, beyond being invited by China's legitimate government.  

They were asked to leave. They should have left.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, for about the tenth time as well, the Japanese offered to withdraw from 98% of China, if the Nationalists would stop trying to undermine their state in Manchuria, would stop their anti-Japanese boycotts, and would resume their energetic opposition to the Communists.



Uh, guy, they should have withdrawn from 100% of China, including Manchuria.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> You don't know that because you've done no serious research on Japanese colonial rule in Korea. You have no idea what you're talking about. I guarantee you that the Koreans in North Korea dearly wished the Japanese had not left once they got a taste of Communist tyranny. The millions of Korean lives that were lost during the Korean War would have been spared if Japan had not been forced to give up Korea.



Uh, guy, as stated earlier, the Koreans want us to replace our new Ambassador because he's half Japanese and sports a Tojo Mustache.  Now funny thing.  The North Korean regime is awful.  But as the old saying goes, "He might be a jerk, but he's OUR jerk."  Just like as much as I fucking hate Trump with a passion that would blot out suns, if the Chinese invaded the US, I'd be against them.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> This is the kind of rude garbage that one would expect from a poorly raised teenager. It's worth remembering that you're the one who says the Communists got their "fair share" in Asia, who bashes the German resistance, who complains about people "demonizing" Joseph Stalin, and who says that Mao, the worst mass murderer in human history, brought prosperity and stability to China.



Hey, guy, that's how history worked out. 
Stalin and Mao are still loved in their countries. 
Nobody has a particularly high opinion of the German Resistance, even getting Sissy Tom Cruise playing one. 
And people across Asia STILL hate the Japanese for the shit they pulled in the war.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Perhaps you feel compelled to accuse others of being pro-Axis because of your numerous and repeated ugly comments about Jews and Israel.



Why? The Zionists have BECOME the Nazis...  I have no more sympathy than I would have for a serial killer telling me about how his daddy abused him.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Another problem with the gigantic-massacre story is that a number of the alleged eyewitness accounts of the massacre contain contradictory and/or implausible claims. Justice Radhabinod Pal discussed one such witness in his famous IMTFE dissent, after summarizing the prosecution’s account of the massacre:

This is the Prosecution account of the Nanking rape. As I have already pointed out, there is some difficulty in accepting the account given in its entirety. There have been some exaggerations and perhaps some distortions. I have already noticed some such instances. There were certainly some overzealous witnesses whose evidence would require careful scrutiny.​
I may mention here one particular witness whose name was Chen Fupao. The statement of this witness is Exhibit 208. In this statement he claims to have been eye-witness of thirty-nine persons having been taken away from the refugee area on the 14th December and having been machine-gunned and killed near a little pond. This, according to the witness, happened in the daytime in the morning near the American Embassy. On the 16th he was taken by Japanese soldiers and again saw a lot of healthy young men being killed with bayonets. On the same day in the afternoon he was taken to Taiping Road and there saw three Japanese soldiers set fire to two buildings. He could even give the names of these Japanese soldiers.​
This seems to me a somewhat strange witness. The Japanese seem to have taken such a special fancy to him as to take him to various places to witness their various misdeeds and yet spare him unharmed. This witness, as I have said, states that on the very second day the Japanese were in Nanking they took thirty-nine persons from the refugee area. The witness is definite that it was the 14th of December when this took place. Of this group, thirty-seven were killed on that very day. Even Dr. Hsu Chuan-ying could not say that any such thing happened on the 14th of December. He speaks of the Japanese behavior of the 14th December in relation to the refugee camp, but does not say that anybody was taken away from the camp on that day. (p. 624, https://miketgriffith.com/files/justicepaldissent.pdf)​
This should raise a big red flag that we cannot uncritically and automatically accept all the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses.

As I read the testimony about the massacre that was given at the IMTFE, it seems to me that some of the witnesses were trying to outdo each other in providing lurid, shocking accounts. Some of the witnesses changed their stories while they were testifying and/or under cross-examination. Some of the witnesses could not be cross-examined because they did not testify—instead, the prosecution was allowed to submit signed and/or sworn statements made by them, most of which came with no audio recording of the interview that led to the statement.


----------



## Unkotare

Commie Joe knows nothing about History OR current political circumstances anywhere.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> As I read the testimony about the massacre that was given at the IMTFE, it seems to me that some of the witnesses were trying to outdo each other in providing lurid, shocking accounts. Some of the witnesses changed their stories while they were testifying and/or under cross-examination. Some of the witnesses could not be cross-examined because they did not testify—instead, the prosecution was allowed to submit signed and/or sworn statements made by them, most of which came with no audio recording of the interview that led to the statement.



You really think they'd have hung the Japs less for killing only 40,000 people?  Really? This is what you are going with, Axis Mikey?  

Here's the real problem with both Nurenburg and the IMTFE.  We didn't hang enough of the bastards.  So a lot of Jap and Nazi War criminals got to live happy full lives after the war, some of them even wormed their way back into politics.


----------



## mikegriffith1

We have talked about the fact that Japan’s militarists often exercised a negative influence on Japan’s political decisions and foreign policy, and that they sometimes blocked Japan’s civilian leaders from implementing wise policies, but we have not talked about the fact that the Nationalists had their own militarists who likewise exerted a negative influence and opposed reasonable peace offers.

In his book _Nanjing 1937: Battle for a Doomed City_, Peter Harmsen discusses a revealing meeting that Chiang had with his top advisers on December 2, 1937, about a week before the Japanese army began its ground assault on Nanking. After losing Shanghai, and with Nanking threatened, Chiang felt compelled to reveal that Japan had offered peace terms several weeks earlier and that he was considering opening peace negotiations with the Japanese. Many of the people in the meeting had heard nothing about Japan’s peace overture. When Chiang explained the Japanese peace terms, many in the meeting were “startled” by their moderate nature. One of the generals wondered aloud why they had to be at war if these were the Japanese terms! Says Harmsen,

Chiang Kaishek met with his closest advisers, mostly generals. Vice Foreign Minister Xu briefed those present about the conditions for peace the Japanese had put forward nearly a month earlier. Many participants in the meeting were hearing them for the first time. They were startled to learn that Japan did not require cuts in Chinese armaments. “If these and these alone are the terms,” General Bai Chongxi exclaimed, “where should there be war?” (Kindle Edition, loc. 2267)​
Harmsen goes on to explain one of the major obstacles that Chiang created to making peace with Japan: Chiang “was not willing to sacrifice his recent friendship with the Soviet Union for the sake of achieving peace with Japan” (loc. 2283).

Many Nationalist leaders disagreed and wanted to accept Japan’s peace terms, which would have recognized the Nationalists as the rulers of the vast majority of China, but the peace faction was overruled by the militarist faction—Chiang usually ended up siding with the militarists. 

Chiang’s decision to rely on the Soviets and to form an alliance with Mao’s Communists was one of the main reasons the Japanese government eventually declared that it would no longer recognize the Nationalist government. That is also the reason that subsequent Japanese peace offers included the demand that the Nationalists stop accepting Soviet aid, break their alliance with the Communists, and help them destroy the Communist threat in China.

But, tragically, FDR was determined to save the Soviet Union and was doing all he could to support the Soviet policy goals of blocking peace between the Nationalists and the Japanese and of provoking war between America and Japan. As I have documented earlier in this thread, FDR pressured Chiang not to make peace with Japan.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> We have talked about the fact that Japan’s militarists often exercised a negative influence on Japan’s political decisions and foreign policy, and that they sometimes blocked Japan’s civilian leaders from implementing wise policies, but we have not talked about the fact that the Nationalists had their own militarists who likewise exerted a negative influence and opposed reasonable peace offers.
> 
> In his book _Nanjing 1937: Battle for a Doomed City_, Peter Harmsen discusses a revealing meeting that Chiang had with his top advisers on December 2, 1937, about a week before the Japanese army began its ground assault on Nanking. After losing Shanghai, and with Nanking threatened, Chiang felt compelled to reveal that Japan had offered peace terms several weeks earlier and that he was considering opening peace negotiations with the Japanese. Many of the people in the meeting had heard nothing about Japan’s peace overture. When Chiang explained the Japanese peace terms, many in the meeting were “startled” by their moderate nature. One of the generals wondered aloud why they had to be at war if these were the Japanese terms! Says Harmsen,



And this is why after the war, the Chinese threw Peanut the fuck out.  Seriously, I imagine this conversation.  

"Hey, they just beat us over the head with a baseball bat and took our money and credit cards, but they are willing to offer us terms." 

"Really, what are the terms." 

"If we suck their dick, they'll let us have our credit cards back!"  

"Why, what a moderate nature they have. That sounds totally reasonable."


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> Commie Joe knows nothing about History OR current political circumstances anywhere.



Yes, it's rather astounding how he keeps defending Maoist China, attacking America, and making erroneous claims that prove he's read next to nothing on the subjects he ventures to discuss. Let's go over a few of his howlers:

* The Chinese Communists fought the Japanese as much as, or more than, the Nationalists did.

* Mao brought prosperity, stability, and foreign respect to China after he took over.

* It's unfair to "demonize" Joseph Stalin.

* It was the Republicans' fault that FDR turned away tens of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe. (Never mind that the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate with large majorities.)

* Another reason that FDR turned away thousands of European Jewish refugees was that Americans did not want them, because nobody liked the Jews.

* At the time of the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese were committing atrocities "pretty much" everywhere in China. (Never mind that at that point they only controlled perhaps 20% of the country.)

* South Vietnam deserved to fall because it couldn't survive without our support.

* The people who fell under Communist tyranny in Asia actually "selected" communism. (Down here on planet Earth, most humans know that most of those people were either tricked or coerced into Communist rule, and that millions of them tried to flee that rule once they realized how horrible it was.)

* The Communists merely got "their fair share" in Asia after the war.

* Nanking's population was 500,000 . . . no, wait, it was 600,000, when the Japanese took the city, contrary to what every single primary source says about the size of the population at that time.

* The Communists won in China because the Nationalists were corrupt and because most of the people therefore sided with the Communists.

* The people in Red China were better off than the people in Free China. No, really, they were--at least the people who were left in Red China after the Maoists killed over 30 million of them, and not counting the million-plus people who were imprisoned in forced-labor camps. (And just never you mind that Free China's per capita economic growth dwarfed Red China's, that most Chinese POWs and refugees chose to go to Free China, and that Free China allowed freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right of private property, freedom of travel, and never found it necessary to kill massive numbers of its citizens.)

* The German resistance leaders had no problem with Hitler until German forces began losing battles.

* FDR was right to refuse to help the German resistance, even though they wanted to kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, set up a pro-Allied government, and return all the territory Hitler had conquered. Why? Well, uh, because supposedly the resistance leaders all loved Hitler until Germany began losing battles.

* Hirohito was a militarist. (Just never you mind that some militarists tried to overthrow the government and in the process killed several of the emperor's friends and supporters in the government, and that the emperor had the leaders of the coup attempt executed.)

* The only thing that FDR knew from the 14-part message from Tokyo to the Japanese Embassy in DC was that Japan was breaking off negotiations. (Actually, FDR also knew from the instructions included with the message that the Japanese Embassy was ordered to destroy its cipher machine and all of its secret documents, and that the 14-part message was supposed to be presented at the same time as sunrise in Hawaii, a fact that several people recognized as indicating that Hawaii would be attacked. FDR also knew from the bomb-plot messages that the Japanese were seeking precise information about the berthing of ships in Pearl Harbor and were using a grid system to identify their location, a fact that many people recognized as a clear, telltale sign that an air raid was being contemplated--the Japanese did not seek this information about any other port that hosted U.S. ships).

* James McCallum, one of the Westerners in Nanking during the massacre, stayed in his house all the time and merely looked out his window, and therefore his account is worthless. (Actually, McCallum drove all over the city to take patients to and from the hospital and to help other people as well.)

* Lewis Smythe didn't care about getting accurate numbers when he did his survey in Nanking a few weeks after the massacre. (Never mind that Smythe was one of the Westerners who sent written protests to the Japanese Embassy about the vicious misconduct of some Japanese soldiers, and never mind that he used only Chinese assistants to do the survey.)

* It's no big deal that the Nationalists killed at least 400,000 Chinese by purposely breaching the Yellow River Dam in 1938 because those people "only" drowned.

* The Japanese should have handed over Manchuria to the Nationalists (or, presumably, to the Communists). (Never mind that the Nationalists had never controlled Manchuria--nor had the Communists--and that most Manchurians wanted independence from China, as even the Lytton Commission tacitly conceded. And never mind that the Japanese vastly improved Manchuria's economy, infrastructure, and standard of living, which attracted workers from all over Asia.)


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> * The Japanese should have handed over Manchuria to the Nationalists (or, presumably, to the Communists). (Never mind that the Nationalists had never controlled Manchuria--nor had the Communists--and that most Manchurians wanted independence from China, as even the Lytton Commission tacitly conceded. And never mind that the Japanese vastly improved Manchuria's economy, infrastructure, and standard of living, which attracted workers from all over Asia.)



Cocksucking Mikey Lies again. If the Manchurians wanted to be raped by Japan, they wouldn't have needed to have invaded. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * FDR was right to refuse to help the German resistance, even though they wanted to kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, set up a pro-Allied government, and return all the territory Hitler had conquered. Why? Well, uh, because supposedly the resistance leaders all loved Hitler until Germany began losing battles.



I'm sorry, who were these magical German Resistance fighters?  Are we talking about the July 20 Plotters?  They were all hard-core German militarists.  Or are you talking about the White Rose rebellion, who were three stupid college kids who got guillotined because they weren't smart enough to realize the Nazis had already won? 

Again, very good reason you don't side with an internal force.  In 1918, the Socialists overthrew the Kaiser and ended WWI. The Allies then proceeded to screw Germany, and lo and behold, you had Hitler and Ludendorf promoting the "Stabbed in the Back" myth.   Nope.  No giving Germany a fucking out..  You defeat the cocksuckers and you let them KNOW they were defeated.  You hang their fucking leaders who don't have the decency to kill themselves.  This is what we did to Germany and Japan, and LO AND BEHOLD- the fuckers have been really, really well behaved ever since.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * Hirohito was a militarist. (Just never you mind that some militarists tried to overthrow the government and in the process killed several of the emperor's friends and supporters in the government, and that the emperor had the leaders of the coup attempt executed.)



Command responsibility. He was the fucking Emperor.  He went along with the war up until the point it was pretty clear Japan was going to lose.  

If he could have coup leaders executed, he could have had the militarists like Tojo executed.  He didn't.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * It was the Republicans' fault that FDR turned away tens of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe. (Never mind that the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate with large majorities.)
> 
> * Another reason that FDR turned away thousands of European Jewish refugees was that Americans did not want them, because nobody liked the Jews.



Hey, guy, look how Trump has managed to demonize Hispanics...   Then remember than in the 1930's, unemployment was still at 25% and we were going to take in refugees from Europe because Hitler was mean to them?  No one was going for that.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here is an interesting 12-minute documentary on the Nanking Massacre posted on the Jesus and Japan Channel on YouTube. The documentary presents information that casts doubt on the large-massacre theory. I think the documentary errs in claiming there was no small-scale massacre either, although they don't define what they mean by "small scale." Anyway, the documentary is worth viewing. It presents a lot of information in just 12 minutes.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is an interesting 12-minute documentary on the Nanking Massacre posted on the Jesus and Japan Channel on YouTube. The documentary presents information that casts doubt on the large-massacre theory. I think the documentary errs in claiming there was no small-scale massacre either, although they don't define what they mean by "small scale." Anyway, the documentary is worth viewing. It presents a lot of information in just 12 minutes.



Hey, Axis Mikey, I think just for you, we should rename the "Rape of Nanking" as the "Really Bad Date of Nanking".  Or maybe the "Inappropriate Touching of Nanking"

Just so we aren't offending your sensibilities.  

I turned it off after 44 seconds of some Jap spewing conspiracy theories in mangled English.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here is a short documentary, divided into two parts, that exposes the fake photographic evidence that has been used by those who advocate the large-massacre theory:



And here is a short video, produced by China Uncensored, on the prevalence of anti-Japanese propaganda in modern China:


It would be worthwhile at some point to discuss the Chinese Nationalist propaganda effort before and during the war. The Chinese Communists had an equally active propaganda arm. Recall that the Nationalists initially claimed that the Japanese were the ones who had breached the Yellow River Dam in 1938, which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Chinese.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is a short documentary, divided into two parts, that exposes the fake photographic evidence that has been used by those who advocate the large-massacre theory:



YOu can go on all day, buddy.  

The fact is, 300,000 people were slaughtered, 80,000 women were raped.   The people responsible were hanged after the war, and totally had it coming.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Below is what the website Alpha History says about the Yellow River Atrocity. Alpha History is a site run by a group of Australian scholars who specialize in Chinese history. As you will quickly detect, it is harshly critical of Imperial Japan. Yet, even it admits the truth about the Yellow River Flood:

In June 1938 Jiang [Chiang Kaishek] ordered the dykes of the Yellow River dam to be blown, a desperate attempt to slow the advance of the Japanese invasion. While this ploy worked, it also caused a devastating flood that killed between 500,000 to one million Chinese civilians, rendered up to ten million homeless and ruined millions of acres of important farmland. The resulting food shortages, famine, and human suffering only contributed to rising peasant hatred of Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kaishek] and the Nationalist regime. Other problems confronting Jiang and the Guomindang [Kuomintang] government [the Nationalist government] were widespread corruption, rising inflation and high desertion rates caused by poor treatment of Nationalist soldiers, most of whom were unwilling conscripts. (The Second Sino-Japanese War)​


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Below is what the website Alpha History says about the Yellow River Atrocity. Alpha History is a site run by a group of Australian scholars who specialize in Chinese history. As you will quickly detect, it is harshly critical of Imperial Japan. Yet, even it admits the truth about the Yellow River Flood:
> 
> In June 1938 Jiang [Chiang Kaishek] ordered the dykes of the Yellow River dam to be blown, a desperate attempt to slow the advance of the Japanese invasion. While this ploy worked, it also caused a devastating flood that killed between 500,000 to one million Chinese civilians



What kind of idiot can't outrun rising water?   Why do you keep coming back to this bit of idiocy?  

There's a big difference between destroying infrastructure that might accidently lead to loss of life, and then going in on a campaign of rape and murder with the intent of terrorizing people into submission. 

That's why they call it the "Rape of Nanking" and not the "Inappropriate Touching of Nanking".


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is a short documentary, divided into two parts, that exposes the fake photographic evidence that has been used by those who advocate the large-massacre theory:





JoeB131 said:


> You can go on all day, buddy.  The fact is, 300,000 people were slaughtered. . . .



No, the fact is that there were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese took the city. The fact is that even staunchly anti-Japanese early accounts by Westerners in Nanking put the death toll at no more than 40,000 to 50,000, and that number included thousands of dead Chinese soldiers. The fact is that the only professional survey done weeks after the massacre determined a death toll that was only a small fraction of your mythical 300,000 figure. And the fact is that none of the photos in Chang's book even remotely establishes the wild 300,000 figure. 

I just had to giggle when you said that you turned off one of the videos after less than 1 minute into it. I guess you just don't realize that such admissions prove that you are not to be taken seriously, that you have zero objectivity and zero interest in doing serious research.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> No, the fact is that there were only about 200,000 people in Nanking when the Japanese took the city. The fact is that even staunchly anti-Japanese early accounts by Westerners in Nanking put the death toll at no more than 40,000 to 50,000, and that number included thousands of dead Chinese soldiers. The fact is that the only professional survey done weeks after the massacre determined a death toll that was only a small fraction of your mythical 300,000 figure. And the fact is that none of the photos in Chang's book even remotely establishes the wild 300,000 figure.



You mean at a time when photography was expensive, the couldn't photograph every body the Japs killed during the "Inappropriate Touching of Nanking"?  (We are going to rename it that for you. We'll also rename the Holocaust the "Really disappointing summer camp", just to appeal to your fascist sensibilities.) 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I just had to giggle when you said that you turned off one of the videos after less than 1 minute into it. I guess you just don't realize that such admissions prove that you are not to be taken seriously, that you have zero objectivity and zero interest in doing serious research.



No, I have ZERO objectivity towards Genocidal Fascist Maniacs.  I'm just sorry that I wasn't around to shoot the bastards during WWII.  My dad had that covered though. 

He liberated a place called Nordhausen... but some Fascist Fuck like you goes out there and claims the Holocaust.. no excuse me, "The Really Disappointing Summer Camp" wasn't a thing, either.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...  I'm just sorry that I wasn't around to shoot the bastards......




You're sorry you weren't around to piss yourself and hide under the bed? Yeah, the Greatest Generation really missed out on a hero like you. YOUR greatest achievement has been acting out as an uneducated racist on the internet. Way to go, champ.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is an interesting 12-minute documentary on the Nanking Massacre posted on the Jesus and Japan Channel on YouTube. The documentary presents information that casts doubt on the large-massacre theory. I think the documentary errs in claiming there was no small-scale massacre either, although they don't define what they mean by "small scale." Anyway, the documentary is worth viewing. It presents a lot of information in just 12 minutes.






JoeB131 said:


> I turned it off after 44 seconds of some Jap spewing conspiracy theories in mangled English.



LOL! Oh my goodness. Can you do anything else to show what a joke you are? What "conspiracy theories" does the narrator mention in the first 44 seconds? In the first 40 seconds, he explains the fact that the Sino-Japanese War began when the Nationalists launched a large-scale attack on the Japanese quarter in Shanghai, and that Japan then decided to occupy Nanking to try to get the Nationalists to stop fighting. I've documented these facts for you with numerous scholarly sources, including an admission by a Nationalist general that the Nationalists started the fighting and that the Japanese did not want to fight. 

At 00:40, the narrator introduces the main topic while the video shows the caption "Is it true that the Japanese military committed the massacre there?" 

Perhaps you're referring to a bit later on where the documentary discusses an account by a former Chinese Nationalist soldier in which he recounts that Chinese Nationalists were feeding Westerners in Nanking false stories about Japanese atrocities. Is this what you're talking about? I hope not, since the fact that the Nationalists spread all kinds of propaganda about the Japanese army is well established and thoroughly documented, not to mention that it was later admitted by a former Nationalist who worked in the Nationalist propaganda department. ​


JoeB131 said:


> Hey, Axis Mikey,



Your continued juvenile name-calling is duly noted, even though you know I was raised Jewish for part of my childhood, that I've lived in Israel, and that I am ardently pro-Israeli, and even though you ducked and dodged when I asked you to cite a single statement of mine to support your claim that I wish the Axis had won the war. I don't really care, and your name-calling doesn't bother me, since I can tell you're an immature, ignorant jerk, but I think it's worthwhile to pause every now and then to note your continued rudeness, crudeness, and dishonesty.



JoeB131 said:


> I think just for you, we should rename the "Rape of Nanking" as the "Really Bad Date of Nanking".  Or maybe the "Inappropriate Touching of Nanking."



Except that I've already told you that I have no problem with the terms "Rape of Nanking" and "Nanking Massacre," given the evidence that about 12,000 civilians were killed and that hundreds, if not thousands, of rapes were committed. But, hey, don't let facts get in your way, much less integrity.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL! Oh my goodness. Can you do anything else to show what a joke you are? What "conspiracy theories" does the narrator mention in the first 44 seconds? In the first 40 seconds, he explains the fact that the Sino-Japanese War began when the Nationalists launched a large-scale attack on the Japanese quarter in Shanghai, and that Japan then decided to occupy Nanking to try to get the Nationalists to stop fighting. I



Mikey describing a rape. 

"Well, she slapped his hand when he was touching her genitals under her panties, so he decided to pin her to the ground and stick it to her to get her to stop fighting." 

One more time.  JAPAN HAD NO BUSINESS BEING IN CHINA AT ALL.   If China asked them to leave, they SHOULD HAVE LEFT.  That's what you do when you are a guest in someone else's country.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Your continued juvenile name-calling is duly noted, even though you know I was raised Jewish for part of my childhood,



But then you converted to Mormonism... so it didn't take.  Seriously, how bad was your religious education that someone could come to you with, "Well, there was this guy Joseph Smith, and he had these magic plates that no one else saw, that he magically translated at the bottom of his hat... and told a story of Hebrews in America!"  

Never mind, please don't answer.  I've dealt with enough religious crazy for one day. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> but I think it's worthwhile to pause every now and then to note your continued rudeness, crudeness, and dishonesty.



Well, if you werent' a Nazi fuck making excuses for rape and genocide and religious asshattery, I wouldn't be so rude to you.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Except that I've already told you that I have no problem with the terms "Rape of Nanking" and "Nanking Massacre," given the evidence that about 12,000 civilians were killed and that hundreds, if not thousands, of rapes were committed. But, hey, don't let facts get in your way, much less integrity.



Naw, you just try to downplay it by saying, "Well, it wasn't so bad, it was only 10s of thousands of dead, and only hundreds of Rapes, and that made it okay, somehow. Because Peanut blew up a damn and some people didn't get the fuck out of the way."


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You're sorry you weren't around to piss yourself and hide under the bed? Yeah, the Greatest Generation really missed out on a hero like you. YOUR greatest achievement has been acting out as an uneducated racist on the internet. Way to go, champ.



Again, I have a DD214, what do you have, other than that restraining order the Asian girls at your school swore out?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here is one of the better short videos on some of the indications of fakery/alteration/mislabeling of photos that are included in most books that espouse the huge-massacre theory:


The video includes shadow analysis and other analysis to prove that some of the photos were not even taken--could not have been taken--during the time when the massacred occurred (mid-December to mid-January/mid-February). 

The video page comes with a link to a PDF that provides a more detailed analysis. 

Someone who read part of this thread e-mailed me and asked me to summarize my position on the Nanking Massacre. I told them I think my position is identical to the one expressed by Justice Radhabinod Pal of India in his dissent to the IMTFE ruling:

Keeping in view everything that can be said against the evidence adduced in this case in this respect and making every possible allowance for propaganda and exaggeration, the evidence is still overwhelming that atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population of some of the territories occupied by them as also against the prisoners of war. (p. 609)​
The only real issue is the scale of the massacre. I believe that  around 12,000 civilians, and possibly as many as 40,000 civilians, were killed by the Japanese in Nanking and in the immediate surrounding area (not the gigantic area claimed by Iris Chang). I think the number was in the lower part of that range, but I would not be shocked to learn one day that it was closer to 40,000.  

A related issue is who was punished for the massacre. I think it was wrong to punish General Matsui with the death penalty. He wasn't even near Nanking and was seriously ill for part of the period when the massacre occurred. I think some of the division and brigade commanders deserved severe punishment, in some cases capital punishment, and I think the Japanese army should have made a concerted effort to identify the soldiers who committed the crimes. But I think it was wrong to hold General Matsui "responsible" for the massacre, given the fact that he was not even in the area and was seriously ill part of the time, given that he issued clear orders before the battle that prohibited such crimes, given that he was outraged and disgusted when he heard about the massacre, given that he severely reprimanded the division commanders for the massacre, and given that he ordered that the guilty parties be punished.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> The only real issue is the scale of the massacre. I believe that around 12,000 civilians, and possibly as many as 40,000 civilians, were killed by the Japanese in Nanking and in the immediate surrounding area (not the gigantic area claimed by Iris Chang). I think the number was in the lower part of that range, but I would not be shocked to learn one day that it was closer to 40,000.



Not sure why you think it makes a difference at all, but I'll take Ms. Chang's studious research over your Axis Apologetics any day. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> A related issue is who was punished for the massacre. I think it was wrong to punish General Matsui with the death penalty. He wasn't even near Nanking and was seriously ill for part of the period when the massacre occurred. I think some of the division and brigade commanders deserved severe punishment, in some cases capital punishment, and I think the Japanese army should have made a concerted effort to identify the soldiers who committed the crimes. But I think it was wrong to hold General Matsui "responsible" for the massacre, given the fact that he was not even in the area and was seriously ill part of the time, given that he issued clear orders before the battle that prohibited such crimes, given that he was outraged and disgusted when he heard about the massacre, given that he severely reprimanded the division commanders for the massacre, and given that he ordered that the guilty parties be punished.




Oooh.  Severe reprimands for a massacre of 40K to 300K people?  Wow. That'll teach them!!!   Did he also stamp their meal cards "No Dessert"? 

Point was, he was in command. If he were an effective commander, his subordinates would have known a massacre on that scale was going to get them in a lot more trouble than a "reprimand"  

You see, funny thing, when I was in the service, I had commanders who were laid back, and commanders who were real hard asses... and you knew what you could get away with and what you couldn't.   

The fact that guys from Division Commanders down to average soldiers thought they could get away with wide-scale rape and murder of civilians tells me exactly what kind of officer General Matsui was.  

The reality - after the Massacre, the Imperial High Command SACKED Matsui.  So what kind of absolute bastard was he that other genocidal war criminals were like "Damn!!!!"   

The only crime in his trial is that he didn't have a lot more company on the gallows.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> The only real issue is the scale of the massacre. I believe that around 12,000 civilians, and possibly as many as 40,000 civilians, were killed by the Japanese in Nanking and in the immediate surrounding area (not the gigantic area claimed by Iris Chang). I think the number was in the lower part of that range, but I would not be shocked to learn one day that it was closer to 40,000.





JoeB131 said:


> Not sure why you think it makes a difference at all



All kidding aside, you make some of the dumbest, most bizarre arguments I've ever seen made in a public forum. You're not sure why killing 300,000 people would be much worse than killing 40,000 or 12,000 people? I mean, really? You really don't understand why "it makes a difference at all"?

Well, let me tell you why: Because any rational, even modestly educated person understands that killing 300,000 people is a lot worse than killing 40,000 or 12,000 people.



JoeB131 said:


> but I'll take Ms. Chang's studious research over your Axis Apologetics any day.



That's because you're consumed with anti-Japanese hatred and have read next to nothing on the massacre. If you had done even a little bit of serious research, you would know that even many scholars who lean toward the higher end of the death toll range for the massacre have acknowledged that Chang's book was poorly researched and tainted with clear bias. Here's just one example, from a review by historian Robert Entenmann:

Chang seems unable to differentiate between some members of the ultranationalist fringe and other Japanese. . . .

Moreover, although Chang explicitly rejects explanations of national character, her own ethnic prejudice implicitly pervades her book. Her explanations are, to a large extent, based on unexamined ethnic stereotypes. . . .

The Japanese historical background Chang presents is clichd, simplistic, stereotyped, and often inaccurate. (Entenmann on Chang, 'The Rape Of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust Of World War II' | H-Asia | H-Net)​
In fact, some large-massacre historians have complained that the numerous errors and wild accusations in Chang's book have made it possible for the no-massacre school to look more credible.



mikegriffith1 said:


> A related issue is who was punished for the massacre. I think it was wrong to punish General Matsui with the death penalty. He wasn't even near Nanking and was seriously ill for part of the period when the massacre occurred. I think some of the division and brigade commanders deserved severe punishment, in some cases capital punishment, and I think the Japanese army should have made a concerted effort to identify the soldiers who committed the crimes. But I think it was wrong to hold General Matsui "responsible" for the massacre, given the fact that he was not even in the area and was seriously ill part of the time, given that he issued clear orders before the battle that prohibited such crimes, given that he was outraged and disgusted when he heard about the massacre, given that he severely reprimanded the division commanders for the massacre, and given that he ordered that the guilty parties be punished.





JoeB131 said:


> Oooh.  Severe reprimands for a massacre of 40K to 300K people?  Wow. That'll teach them!!!   Did he also stamp their meal cards "No Dessert"?



You're a high school student, aren't you? Did you miss the part where he also "ordered that the guilty parties be punished"? At that point he had only heard partial accounts of what had had happened, but even those disgusted and outraged him. He wanted the matter investigated and the guilty parties punished. But you're so blinded by anti-Japanese hatred that you don't care.



JoeB131 said:


> Point was, he was in command. If he were an effective commander, his subordinates would have known a massacre on that scale was going to get them in a lot more trouble than a "reprimand."



Yeah, of course you'd say that, never mind the contrary facts that I've presented to you several times. You just keep repeating your arguments without dealing with the facts that refute them. Matsui was not just in command of the forces in Nanking but of other forces in China. He was not even in Nanking at the time and was seriously ill for part of the period when the massacre occurred. 



JoeB131 said:


> You see, funny thing, when I was in the service, I had commanders who were laid back, and commanders who were real hard asses... and you knew what you could get away with and what you couldn't.
> 
> The fact that guys from Division Commanders down to average soldiers thought they could get away with wide-scale rape and murder of civilians tells me exactly what kind of officer General Matsui was.
> 
> The reality - after the Massacre, the Imperial High Command SACKED Matsui.  So what kind of absolute bastard was he that other genocidal war criminals were like "Damn!!!!"
> 
> The only crime in his trial is that he didn't have a lot more company on the gallows.



Oh, blah, blah, blah with more drivel based on your hatred of all things Japanese. This drivel shows you know nothing about the command structure and operations of the Japanese army and how the Japanese army operated in China at the time. And I've already pointed out to you that over 100 Japanese soldiers were court martialed for rape and murder in Nanking and that the General Staff sent General Homma to investigate the matter and apologize to the Western diplomats in Nanking for what had occurred. 

Yes, the General Staff did recall Matsui, but they did not punish him because they knew that he was not to blame for the massacre, that the soldiers who committed the massacre acted directly contrary to his orders, and that he had taken steps to investigate the matter and punish those who had committed criminal acts. 

A large part of the reason that Matsui was recalled was his advanced age and his health issues. He had been retired for many years before he was called up to active service again to take command in China. 

No matter what, you're not going to give credit to any Japanese general for being decent and human and for trying to do the right thing. You're just going to demonize any and every Japanese general and politician because you're consumed with anti-Japanese hatred and have no interest in dealing with this subject in an honest, objective manner. 

And, finally, it's interesting to note that while you excoriate the Japanese and refuse to give them any credit for good or decent act, you take a very different approach when it comes to Mao Tsetung, the worst mass murderer in human history, and the Communist thugs who helped him impose his murderous regime on the Chinese people. Oh, boy, when it comes to those monsters, you can't bring youself to utter anything more than the blandest, limpest, equivocal, mildest criticism, while at the same time you make the horrendous claim that Mao brought prosperity, stability, and respect to China. ​


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> A related issue is who was punished for the massacre. I think it was wrong to punish General Matsui with the death penalty. He wasn't even near Nanking and was seriously ill for part of the period when the massacre occurred. I think some of the division and brigade commanders deserved severe punishment, in some cases capital punishment, and I think the Japanese army should have made a concerted effort to identify the soldiers who committed the crimes. But I think it was wrong to hold General Matsui "responsible" for the massacre, given the fact that he was not even in the area and was seriously ill part of the time, given that he issued clear orders before the battle that prohibited such crimes, given that he was outraged and disgusted when he heard about the massacre, given that he severely reprimanded the division commanders for the massacre, and given that he ordered that the guilty parties be punished.





JoeB131 said:


> Oooh.  Severe reprimands for a massacre of 40K to 300K people?  Wow. That'll teach them!!!   Did he also stamp their meal cards "No Dessert"?



Well, uh, yeah, what else was he supposed to do at that point? Within the preceding few hours, he had heard rumors, mainly from the Japanese diplomatic staff in Nanking, that there had been numerous cases of murder, rape, and theft committed by some Japanese soldiers in the city. He had just arrived to march in the victory parade in Nanking. There had been no investigation yet. At that point, he didn’t know which units’ soldiers had been involved, how widespread these cases had been, who knew what, how reliable the reports were, etc., etc. Yet, even then, when he reprimanded the divisional commanders in his meeting with them before he left Nanking to return to Shanghai, his reprimand was so severe that it shocked the staff officers who attended the meeting.

And just to provide some added perspective on General Matsui’s reprimand, if you add up all the cases described in the letters that the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone sent to the Japanese embassy in Nanking, and if we assume that the diplomats described to Matsui every single case from the letters, here are the cases and their numbers that he would have heard about: 49 cases of murder, 311 cases of rape, 390 cases of abduction, and 179 cases of looting and vandalism.

Yes, those are the total numbers of those cases that are described in the letters of protest from the Safety Zone committee members, and those letters were based on reports received from Chinese Nationalists in the city and on events that some of the Westerners in the city had witnessed firsthand (including Rabe, Wilson, and Vautrin).

Let’s repeat those totals, shall we? 49 cases of murder, 311 cases of rape, 390 cases of abduction, and 179 cases of looting and vandalism. Not tens of thousands of murders, much less hundreds of thousands of murders. And not thousands of rapes, much less tens of thousands of rapes. Anyone can go through those protest letters and add up the numbers themselves. Here is a collection of the letters: The Nanking Massacre Archival Project: Documents | Yale University Library. All such letters were published in the famous 1939 book_ Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone._ And here's a helpful article on those and other contemporary and near-contemporary primary sources: https://chinajapan.org/articles/14/14.03-23askew.pdf.

So before anyone knew what they were supposed to say, and before the Chinese Nationalist propaganda machine kicked into high hear on the issue, none of the Westerners in Nanking said a word about a gigantic massacre of 300,000-plus people. As mentioned earlier, James McCallum, who drove all over the city during the first weeks of the occupation, put the maximum number killed at 10,000, and he was reporting what he had heard from others—that “as many as” 10,000 people had been killed--and clearly agreed with them. And, coincidentally enough, that’s almost identical to the number that Smythe and Bates reached after they studied the burial records: they said about 12,000, with about 1,000 of those being deaths caused by crossfire, and it's likely that quite a few Chinese soldiers who had shed their uniforms were included in those burials and were counted as civilians.

And, by the way, just FYI, one of the reasons that General Matsui was so outraged by the reports of misconduct that he received, besides the fact that he was a decent person, was that before the war he had been active in promoting better Chinse-Japanese relations. He spent considerable time in China before the war and even helped set up the Greater Asia Association in China.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> All kidding aside, you make some of the dumbest, most bizarre arguments I've ever seen made in a public forum. You're not sure why killing 300,000 people would be much worse than killing 40,000 or 12,000 people? I mean, really? You really don't understand why "it makes a difference at all"?
> 
> Well, let me tell you why: Because any rational, even modestly educated person understands that killing 300,000 people is a lot worse than killing 40,000 or 12,000 people.



After a certain point, it just becomes a number, buddy.  The Japanese were ruthless, murdering raping bastard at the "Inappropriate Touching of Nanking".  



mikegriffith1 said:


> That's because you're consumed with anti-Japanese hatred and have read next to nothing on the massacre.



Naw, i love Japanese people. I even dated a Japanese gal once.  I'm also half German (my dad was born in the Rhineland).  But the Japanese and Germans were absolute fucking evil in World War II.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Here's just one example, from a review by historian Robert Entenmann:



Wow.. Another White Guy telling a person of color that it's no big deal.  I kind of wish we'd start treating Japanese apologists like Holocaust deniers.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Chang seems unable to differentiate between some members of the ultranationalist fringe and other Japanese. . . .



Mostly because the "other Japanese" are like the "Good Germans".   The Nazis or the "Ultra-Nationalists" were only a small fraction of the German or Japanese nations, but everyone else JUST KIND OF WENT ALONG WITH IT.  Nobody said, "Wait a minute, this is wrong."  Oh, wait, a few Germans did when Germany started LOSING the war, but the Japanese, man, they were ready to fight and die to the last man.   I consider the person who stands by and says nothing to be JUST AS GUILTY as the guy who engages in the slaughter.  








mikegriffith1 said:


> You're a high school student, aren't you?



Nope, I'm 58 and really sick of fascist cocksuckers like you.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Did you miss the part where he also "ordered that the guilty parties be punished"? At that point he had only heard partial accounts of what had had happened, but even those disgusted and outraged him. He wanted the matter investigated and the guilty parties punished. But you're so blinded by anti-Japanese hatred that you don't care.



Again, you hear a partial account, you go out and find out what happened.  A least one contributing factor to the Really Bad Date of Nanking was that Mutsui wanted to have a triumphal entry into the city, but his soldiers really didn't have anywhere to put all the Chinese POW's, so they killed them so they could make the big parade.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Yeah, of course you'd say that, never mind the contrary facts that I've presented to you several times. You just keep repeating your arguments without dealing with the facts that refute them. Matsui was not just in command of the forces in Nanking but of other forces in China. He was not even in Nanking at the time and was seriously ill for part of the period when the massacre occurred.



Okay, guy, the "I had my mind on other things" excuse won't fly. The Nanking operation was KIND OF A BIG DEAL. Nanking was the capital of the Republic of China. Taking it was supposed to break the back of Peanut's government. That's why the massacre was a big deal. It was meant as exactly what it was.... you murder and rape the shit out of a lot of people and break their will to resist.  Sounds good on paper, never really works out well in real life. 




mikegriffith1 said:


> And I've already pointed out to you that over 100 Japanese soldiers were court martialed for rape and murder in Nanking and that the General Staff sent General Homma to investigate the matter and apologize to the Western diplomats in Nanking for what had occurred.



"OOOOOOhhhh, So Solly we killl all those people. Most apologizing for terrible thing".   

Fucking please.   Sending one War Criminal to apologize for another war criminal.  The good things was, at the end of the war, Homma AND Mutsui ended up at the business end of a noose!   



mikegriffith1 said:


> No matter what, you're not going to give credit to any Japanese general for being decent and human and for trying to do the right thing. You're just going to demonize any and every Japanese general and politician because you're consumed with anti-Japanese hatred and have no interest in dealing with this subject in an honest, objective manner.



No, I'm not going to give ANY of them a pass.  Certainly not war criminals like Mutsui and Homma.  Not a guy like Yamamoto who knew the war was a stupid idea, but went ahead and attacked Pearl Harbor anyway.  The best thing we did for Japan was hold it's leaders to account.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, finally, it's interesting to note that while you excoriate the Japanese and refuse to give them any credit for good or decent act, you take a very different approach when it comes to Mao Tsetung, the worst mass murderer in human history, and the Communist thugs who helped him impose his murderous regime on the Chinese people. Oh, boy, when it comes to those monsters, you can't bring youself to utter anything more than the blandest, limpest, equivocal, mildest criticism, while at the same time you make the horrendous claim that Mao brought prosperity, stability, and respect to China.



Because - again- internal matter.  After a century of imperialist humiliation, China rose up and broke free. And yes, in that process, there was a lot of blood spilled.  The Chinese people STILL revere Mao, even if they aren't so sold on Communism. 

Um, yeah, China is a great power today.  Mao had a lot to do with it.  And in the process of unifying and building his country, he had to bust up a lot of faces.  Probably made a lot worse by the fact we kept trying to fuck with him until Nixon finally accepted reality and realized he was someone we could work with. 


.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> So before anyone knew what they were supposed to say, and before the Chinese Nationalist propaganda machine kicked into high hear on the issue, none of the Westerners in Nanking said a word about a gigantic massacre of 300,000-plus people.



Well, it's not like they were killing White People or something.   If they were, we'd never fucking hear the end of it. Every Producer in Hollywood would be treating us to movies about it every year like we all have to suffer through depressing movies about the Holocaust.  

I think I've seen one movie on the Inappropriate Touching of Nanking, and it was mostly told through the perspective of white people. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, by the way, just FYI, one of the reasons that General Matsui was so outraged by the reports of misconduct that he received, besides the fact that he was a decent person, was that before the war he had been active in promoting better Chinse-Japanese relations. He spent considerable time in China before the war and even helped set up the Greater Asia Association in China.



Ah, yes, he was active in that.  The various incarnation of the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" where the Japanese found QUISLINGS in every country they invaded and looted. 

Mutsai wasn't a "decent" person, he was a cocksucking murderer who got put at the end of a rope where he belonged. It's just a pity he didn't have more company.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> So before anyone knew what they were supposed to say, and before the Chinese Nationalist propaganda machine kicked into high hear on the issue, none of the Westerners in Nanking said a word about a gigantic massacre of 300,000-plus people.





JoeB131 said:


> Well, it's not like they were killing White People or something.   If they were, we'd never hear the end of it. Every Producer in Hollywood would be treating us to movies about it every year like we all have to suffer through depressing movies about the Holocaust.
> 
> I think I've seen one movie on the Inappropriate Touching of Nanking, and it was mostly told through the perspective of white people.





mikegriffith1 said:


> And, by the way, just FYI, one of the reasons that General Matsui was so outraged by the reports of misconduct that he received, besides the fact that he was a decent person, was that before the war he had been active in promoting better Chinse-Japanese relations. He spent considerable time in China before the war and even helped set up the Greater Asia Association in China.





JoeB131 said:


> Ah, yes, he was active in that.  The various incarnation of the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" where the Japanese found QUISLINGS in every country they invaded and looted.
> 
> Mutsai wasn't a "decent" person, he was a murderer who got put at the end of a rope where he belonged. It's just a pity he didn't have more company.
> 
> Because - again- internal matter. After a century of imperialist humiliation, China rose up and broke free. And yes, in that process, there was a lot of blood spilled. The Chinese people STILL revere Mao, even if they aren't so sold on Communism.



Oh, wow. Let me read that again. Surely I misread it. Hold on. . . .

Nope, you actually did say that when the Communists came to power in China, China "broke free"! I'm going to quote this at least once a month for the foreseeable future. So your idea of "breaking free" is to have a murderous Communist tyranny take over, a tyranny that kills over 30 million people and sends at least a million others to forced-labor camps.

China would have been much better off and would have suffered far, far fewer deaths under Nationalist or Japanese rule.

By the way, I'm *still* waiting for you to provide evidence to back up your spurious claims (1) that the Communists fought the Japanese as much as/more than the Nationalists did; (2) that with Iris Chang's version of the massacre in full swing, somehow the tens of thousands of people who returned to Nanking starting in late December did so because "they thought it was safe"; (3) that FDR's draconian sanctions on Japan in the fact of Japan's repeated efforts to make peace had plenty of precedents (you still haven't named one, much less several); (4) that the Western observers in Nanking were all just a bunch of people who stayed in their houses and thus did not really know what they were talking about; and (5) that Mao Tsetung brought prosperity, stability, and respect to China when he took over (funny how you defend Mao but excoriate decent, honorable men like Matsui and Homma).


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, wow. Let me read that again. Surely I misread it. Hold on. . . .
> 
> Nope, you actually did say that when the Communists came to power in China, China "broke free"! I'm going to quote this at least once a month for the foreseeable future. So your idea of "breaking free" is to have a murderous Communist tyranny take over, a tyranny that kills over 30 million people and sends at least a million others to forced-labor camps.



They killed nowhere near 30 million and most of the people they DID kill were collaborating with Peanut or the Japs... Shit, they didn't even kill Puyi, even though that fucker totally had it coming.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> China would have been much better off and would have suffered far, far fewer deaths under Nationalist or Japanese rule.



Given the Chinese people threw the Japanese and Nationalists out, they didn't agree.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> y the way, I'm *still* waiting for you to provide evidence to back up your spurious claims



Why. Your stupid Mormon ass would shit your magic underwear if anyone challenged your racist world view.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> (funny how you defend Mao but excoriate decent, honorable men like Matsui and Homma).



You should ask survivors of the Bataan Death march how honorable Homma was.  They referred to him as "The Beast of Bataan."  

Oh, yeah, and he was forced to retire because he wasn't enough of a ruthless cocksucker.   

Thankfully, this story has a "happy ending". 

_On February 11, 1946, Homma was convicted of all counts and sentenced "to be shot to death with musketry",[16] which is considered to be more honorable than a sentence of death by hanging.[9] Homma's wife visited Douglas MacArthur to urge a careful review of her husband's case.[9] MacArthur affirmed the tribunal's sentence, and Homma was executed by firing squad by American forces on April 3, 1946, outside Manila.[12]_


----------



## mikegriffith1

Regarding the ludicrous claim that there were 600,000 people left in Nanking when the Japanese took the city, we should keep in mind that on November 14, nearly a month before the city fell, the Nationalist Government ordered all women and children to leave Nanking, which meant the departure of at least half of the city’s 1 million residents. We should also keep in mind that the mass exodus from the city, seen by many Western observers, continued until December 8, when the Chinese army closed all the gates of the walled city.

On January 13, Chancellor Scharffenberg reported from Nanking to the German Embassy that as of that date the population of the city was about (“circa”) 200,000, that nearly everyone was in the Safety Zone, and that most of the suburbs had been burned by the Chinese, not the Japanese:

The suburbs were burned down almost in their entirety by the Chinese [as part of a scorched earth policy] and the center of the city has largely been burned down by the Japanese. No one lives there now. The rest of the population--circa 200,000--is confined to the Safety Zone. . . .  The streets outside the Zone are deserted. (https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf)​
By the way, an indication that the Japanese force that took Nanking was not massive but was no more than about 70,000 in size is the fact that entire division-sized units of Chinese troops were able to sneak out of the city and through Japanese lines after the Japanese occupied the city (Peter Harmsen, _Nanjing: Battle for a Doomed City_, Kindle Edition, loc. 4254). The Japanese simply did not have enough troops to impose a dragnet around the city.

This, in turn, casts further doubt on Iris Chang’s fantastic claim that the area of the massacre included the six counties around Nanking, an area the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined!


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Regarding the ludicrous claim that there were 600,000 people left in Nanking when the Japanese took the city, we should keep in mind that on November 14, nearly a month before the city fell, the Nationalist Government ordered all women and children to leave Nanking, which meant the departure of at least half of the city’s 1 million residents. We should also keep in mind that the mass exodus from the city, seen by many Western observers, continued until December 8, when the Chinese army closed all the gates of the walled city.



Okay, Axis Mikey, now you are just getting silly.   

Most of the residents of Nanking in 1937 didn't have cars.  How far were they going to get on foot, exactly, with women and children in tow?  Where were they going to go that had food and shelter?  



mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, an indication that the Japanese force that took Nanking was not massive but was no more than about 70,000 in size is the fact that entire division-sized units of Chinese troops were able to sneak out of the city and through Japanese lines after the Japanese occupied the city (Peter Harmsen, _Nanjing: Battle for a Doomed City_, Kindle Edition, loc. 4254). The Japanese simply did not have enough troops to impose a dragnet around the city.
> 
> This, in turn, casts further doubt on Iris Chang’s fantastic claim that the area of the massacre included the six counties around Nanking, an area the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined!



Well, no, not really.  It's just not that big of an area.  The point is, the soldiers had vehicles and training and the ability to escape.  That's not quite the same as a family living there, who knew damned well whatever they had, if they left it, wouldn't be there when they got back.  So most of them probably didn't leave.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Regarding the ludicrous claim that there were 600,000 people left in Nanking when the Japanese took the city, we should keep in mind that on November 14, nearly a month before the city fell, the Nationalist Government ordered all women and children to leave Nanking, which meant the departure of at least half of the city’s 1 million residents. We should also keep in mind that the mass exodus from the city, seen by many Western observers, continued until December 8, when the Chinese army closed all the gates of the walled city.





JoeB131 said:


> Okay, Axis Mikey, now you are just getting silly.



No, you're about to stick your foot deep into your mouth again because you don't know what you're talking about. It is comical that you, of all people, would talk about anyone being "silly," given the jaw-dropping howlers you've spewed in this and other threads.   



JoeB131 said:


> Most of the residents of Nanking in 1937 didn't have cars.  How far were they going to get on foot, exactly, with women and children in tow?  Where were they going to go that had food and shelter?



Oh, boy. . . .  Just oh boy. . . .  This isn't as absurd as some of your other arguments, but it ranks right up there with the worst and the silliest. The miles and miles of lines of refugees trudging on the roads out of Nanking were described by numerous Western observers. I've cited articles for you that discuss this fact.

You also apparently don't know that quite a few refugees were able to escape by boat, since the Yangtze River runs right by Nanking. There were also these things called trains back then, and a number of refugees took trains away from the city. How can you not know this stuff?

Furthermore, there are numerous cases where huge numbers of refugees traveled hundreds of miles on foot to escape from anticipated destruction and tyranny. Good grief, how can you not know this? Again, what Cracker Jack box did you get your history degree from? 



mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, an indication that the Japanese force that took Nanking was not massive but was no more than about 70,000 in size is the fact that entire division-sized units of Chinese troops were able to sneak out of the city and through Japanese lines after the Japanese occupied the city (Peter Harmsen, _Nanjing: Battle for a Doomed City_, Kindle Edition, loc. 4254). The Japanese simply did not have enough troops to impose a dragnet around the city.
> 
> This, in turn, casts further doubt on Iris Chang’s fantastic claim that the area of the massacre included the six counties around Nanking, an area the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined!





JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, not really.  It's just not that big of an area.



Uh, no, actually, it is that big of an area. Do you know how to Google a map of that region? Get your mom to show you how.

Those 6 counties were right around the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Dr. Smythe surveyed 4.5 of those 6 counties in his agricultural survey, an area of 2,438 square miles, which equals an area the size of Delaware plus nearly half of Rhode Island. When you add the 1.5 counties that Smythe did not survey, you get an area of nearly 3,000 square miles--Delaware has 1,955 square miles and Rhode Island has 1,034 square miles.



JoeB131 said:


> The point is, the soldiers had vehicles and training and the ability to escape.  That's not quite the same as a family living there, who knew damned well whatever they had, if they left it, wouldn't be there when they got back. So most of them probably didn't leave.



Just more of your ignorant myth-defending drivel. Every single solitary primary source put Nanking's population at between 150,000 and 250,000 when the Japanese took the city, and all but one of them said it was no more than 200,000. Dozens of Western observers, including Western journalists, chronicled the massive weeks-long exodus from Nanking. They described seeing miles and miles of refugees trudging on the roads to leave Nanking. Some said the lines of refugees ran "for as far as the eye could see," and this isn't counting the ones who left by boat and train.

But, of course, you can't concede that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a population of around 200,000 as of December 13 because that destroys your 300,000-killed myth. Nor can you admit that the fact that thousands of Chinese began to return to the city a few weeks after it fell clearly suggests that there was no large-scale massacre. According to your version, those people would have been returning at the same time when Japanese soldiers were still wantonly killing thousands of people _per day_, when the gunfire and screams of these killings were audible for miles, when huge piles of dead bodies were supposedly in plain view all over the place, and when the Japanese controlled all the roads leading to the city.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, boy. . . . Just oh boy. . . . This isn't as absurd as some of your other arguments, but it ranks right up there with the worst and the silliest. The miles and miles of lines of refugees trudging on the roads out of Nanking were described by numerous Western observers. I've cited articles for you that discuss this fact.



I dismiss anything from Western Observers, to be honest.  The west was criminal in it's avoidance of Japanese War Crimes for years before doing anything about them.  

What, you killed a bunch of white people at Pearl Harbor, now we are going to get you bastards.  Oh, wait, you think Pearl Harbor was justified because FDR wouldn't sell them materials to keep killing other people of color. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Those 6 counties were right around the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Dr. Smythe surveyed 4.5 of those 6 counties in his agricultural survey, an area of 2,438 square miles, which equals an area the size of Delaware plus nearly half of Rhode Island. When you add the 1.5 counties that Smythe did not survey, you get an area of nearly 3,000 square miles--Delaware has 1,955 square miles and Rhode Island has 1,034 square miles.



Rhode Island and Delaware aren't that big of an area.  Fuck Dr. Smythe, the little apologist bastard.  Point was, they couldn't have gotten that far on foot. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> But, of course, you can't concede that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a population of around 200,000 as of December 13 because that destroys your 300,000-killed myth.



Except the population of Nanking was close to a million before the war started.  

Nanking

_By 1937, Nanking, which usually boasted a population of about 250,000, had swelled to more than 1 million people. This large population growth might be attributed to refugees fleeing the Japanese forces, running to the nation’s capital.

Though the Chinese outnumbered the invading Japanese troops, the fall of Nanking was a relatively quick event. The Japanese on their way to China had razed the countryside and burned and pillaged all the villages on the way between Shanghai and Nanking. By the time the Japanese were closing in on Nanking, half the population had fled, leaving about 500,000 in the city.

The Japanese did not limit themselves to killing just the soldier prisoners. From the first, Japanese troops scoured the city, searching houses for soldiers and killing the city-dwellers. The next six weeks saw Japanese soldiers committing a huge number of atrocious acts, acts which are now labeled as crimes against humanity. Door to door, soldiers demanded to be let in, only to open fire on the occupants. Chinese captives would be forced to dig graves and bury a group of captives alive, only to be buried by the next group of captive diggers. Others were buried halfway in the ground and attacked by dogs. Japanese soldiers tortured citizens with mutilation, including disembowelment, decapitation, dismemberment, and more creative means. Victims were also pushed into pits, tied together, and burned en masse. Others were forced into the River to freeze to death. Soldiers engaged in decapitation contests which would leave participants exhausted after a days’ sport. For example, coverage in the Japan Advertiser reported that “the score [between two competing soldiers] was: Sub-Lieutenant Mukai, 89, and Sub-Lieutenant Noda, 78” in an article entitled “Sub-Lieutenants in Race to Fell 100 Chinese Running Close Contest.” The contest the article was covering was a decapitation contest held between Japanese soldiers on Chinese prisoners. In total, estimates of the Chinese dead from Nanking alone range from 200,000 to 350,000. The International Military Tribunal of the Far East places the death toll at 260,000. Perhaps even worse than the mass murders was the mass rapes that took place. Anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women are estimated to have been raped. Fathers were forced on daughters and sons on mothers. Women were subjected to gang rape, forced to perform countless sexual acts, and often killed after soldiers tired of them.

*THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING, YOUR MORMON COCKSUCKER!!!  *_


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, boy. . . . Just oh boy. . . . This isn't as absurd as some of your other arguments, but it ranks right up there with the worst and the silliest. The miles and miles of lines of refugees trudging on the roads out of Nanking were described by numerous Western observers. I've cited articles for you that discuss this fact.





JoeB131 said:


> I dismiss anything from Western Observers, to be honest.



Of course you do, because those accounts, written mostly by people who were very pro-Chinese and anti-Japanese, destroy the 300,000-killed myth. And I guess you forgot that all of my Smythe's field workers were Chinese.



JoeB131 said:


> What, you killed a bunch of white people at Pearl Harbor, now we are going to get you bastards.  Oh, wait, you think Pearl Harbor was justified because FDR wouldn't sell them materials to keep killing other people of color.



I already answered this nonsense. And, uh, aren't white people also "people of color"? Isn't white a color?



mikegriffith1 said:


> Those 6 counties were right around the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Dr. Smythe surveyed 4.5 of those 6 counties in his agricultural survey, an area of 2,438 square miles, which equals an area the size of Delaware plus nearly half of Rhode Island. When you add the 1.5 counties that Smythe did not survey, you get an area of nearly 3,000 square miles--Delaware has 1,955 square miles and Rhode Island has 1,034 square miles.





JoeB131 said:


> Rhode Island and Delaware aren't that big of an area.



3,000 square miles is not that "big of an area"?!  Yeah, okay. What a yo-yo.



JoeB131 said:


> Screw Dr. Smythe, the little apologist bastard.  Point was, they couldn't have gotten that far on foot.



Oh!!!!  So now Smythe was a Japanese "apologist"?!!!  Not even Iris Chang made such a bonkers idiotic claim.



JoeB131 said:


> Point was, they couldn't have gotten that far on foot.



Umm, as I pointed to you in my previous reply, history is full of examples of large groups of refugees traveling long distances on foot. As I also pointed out to you, the miles and miles of lines of refugees on the roads leading from Nanking were documented by numerous contemporary observers, both Western and Chinese.



mikegriffith1 said:


> But, of course, you can't concede that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a population of around 200,000 as of December 13 because that destroys your 300,000-killed myth.





JoeB131 said:


> Except the population of Nanking was close to a million before the war started.



Do you suffer from amnesia? I already pointed out to you that Nanking's population was 1 million before the war. I quoted two Western diplomats who noted that 80% of Nanking's 1 million citizens fled the city before the Japanese arrived. I also pointed out that those observations agree with every other primary source that commented on the size of Nanking's population when the city fell.

But, as we have seen, you can't allow yourself to go where the evidence clearly leads on this issue because it destroys your 300,000-killed myth.

Instead, you have to make the ridiculous assumption that 600,000 people were still in Nanking when the Japanese took the city. That would mean that about 540,000 of them were somehow crammed into the 2.39 square miles of the Nanking Safety Zone, since numerous observers, including the Japanese, said that the overwhelming majority of the remaining residents--some sources said 90% of them--were in the safety zone and that the rest of the city was virtually deserted when the Japanese arrived.


----------



## CWayne

whitehall said:


> I wonder what Iris Chang thought about Chairman Mao's ten year cultural revolution (1966-1976) that killed ten times more than the Japanese did. Maybe Ms. Chang was one of the victims.


I'm thinking you don't really have a point here other than to obfuscate.  What Mao did has no bearing on what was done in Nanking.


----------



## Picaro

lol fake history buffs arguing over whose fake history is the least fake. Hilarious.


----------



## MaryL

mikegriffith1 said:


> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.


The outrages Japan committed in China in the 30s was exactly WHY America embargoed oil exports to Japan that led to Pearl Harbor...The Japanese started Americas involvement in WWII and led to the nuking of Hiroshima.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Of course you do, because those accounts, written mostly by people who were very pro-Chinese and anti-Japanese, destroy the 300,000-killed myth. And I guess you forgot that all of my Smythe's field workers were Chinese.



No, I just kind of don't care, because frankly, a quick survey taken during a battle is going to be less accurate than a more complete survey after the war when they exhumed all the graves and found out how bad things were. 

We really had no idea how bad the Holocaust was, either, until after the war was over. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I already answered this nonsense. And, uh, aren't white people also "people of color"? Isn't white a color?



Well, you are the one who belongs to a cult that thinks that non-white races have been cursed with darkness.. so there's that. 

(Yes, this is what Mormons Really believe.) 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Umm, as I pointed to you in my previous reply, history is full of examples of large groups of refugees traveling long distances on foot.



NOt in that short of a time, not in those numbers, and not when they really had nowhere to go.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> But, as we have seen, you can't allow yourself to go where the evidence clearly leads on this issue because it destroys your 300,000-killed myth.



Nope, because that is what was documented after the war and that's what they hung the Jap Bastards for.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Instead, you have to make the ridiculous assumption that 600,000 people were still in Nanking when the Japanese took the city. That would mean that about 540,000 of them were somehow crammed into the 2.39 square miles of the Nanking Safety Zone, since numerous observers, including the Japanese, said that the overwhelming majority of the remaining residents--some sources said 90% of them--were in the safety zone and that the rest of the city was virtually deserted when the Japanese arrived.



Or that the Jap bastards slaughtered those people in the safe zone, outside the safe zone, in the surrounding countryside and anywhere else they found them.  Which is pretty much what they did.


----------



## MaryL

Excuse me, Japan in the 30s was an imperialist state. They invaded China  and murdered millions to feed their imperialist ambitions in Manchuria. America, FDR tried to stop that with a boycott and instead we got Pearl Harbor.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryL said:


> Excuse me, Japan in the 30s was an imperialist state. They invaded China and murdered millions to feed their imperialist ambitions in Manchuria. America, FDR tried to stop that with a boycott and instead we got Pearl Harbor.



Don't tell that to Axis Mikey.. he thinks Japan invading China was the best thing that ever happened to it, and the Chinese need to stop whining about the 'Inappropriate Touching of Nanking".


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> _THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING. . . . [low-class, gutter profanity deleted]_



And just on a point of basic logic, not to mention common sense and decency, no one is “defending” the Nanking Massacre. What a ludicrous, idiotic claim for you to make. The fact that I do not accept the wild theory that 300,000 civilians were killed in Nanking, and that I believe the actual civilian death toll was around 10,000, does not mean I am “defending” the massacre. As you well know, I have said repeatedly that killing 10,000 civilians, as well as 20,000 to 30,000 Chinese POWs, was a terrible atrocity and a war crime. Not even a punk in the sixth grade would be stupid or foolish enough to claim that harshly condemning the killing of 10,000 civilians and 20K-30K POWs constitutes “defending” such a massacre. It is baffling to fathom how any sane person could make such a bizarre claim.

If anyone has defended mass slaughter, it is you with your repeated praising of the worst mass murderer in history, Mao Tsetung, who killed at least 30 million people after he came to power in China. Not only have you doubled-down on your shocking defense of that evil, sick mass killer, but you have complained about people “demonizing” Joseph Stalin, arguably the second worst mass murderer in history.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> And just on a point of basic logic, not to mention common sense and decency, no one is “defending” the Nanking Massacre. What a ludicrous, idiotic claim for you to make. The fact that I do not accept the wild theory that 300,000 civilians were killed in Nanking, and that I believe the actual civilian death toll was around 10,000, does not mean I am “defending” the massacre. As you well know, I have said repeatedly that killing 10,000 civilians, as well as 20,000 to 30,000 Chinese POWs, was a terrible atrocity and a war crime. Not even a punk in the sixth grade would be stupid or foolish enough to claim that harshly condemning the killing of 10,000 civilians and 20K-30K POWs constitutes “defending” such a massacre. It is baffling to fathom how any sane person could make such a bizarre claim.



what's baffling to me is that anyone would come on here and try to claim that WAR CRIMINALS got a raw deal when they were executed for things like Nanking and Bataan, and even call those men 'Honorable" as you did.  

This is up there with the Neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.  

Then Again, you belong to a fucked up cult started by a two-bit con-man who was fucking teenage girls by convincing their parents they'd get to rule their own planets in the afterlife.  A great day in history was when the fine people of my state did this. 








mikegriffith1 said:


> If anyone has defended mass slaughter, it is you with your repeated praising of the worst mass murderer in history, Mao Tsetung, who killed at least 30 million people after he came to power in China. Not only have you doubled-down on your shocking defense of that evil, sick mass killer, but you have complained about people “demonizing” Joseph Stalin, arguably the second worst mass murderer in history.



Yawn, buddy, the 1950's called, they want their Bircher Propaganda back.  And Joe McCarthy's Corpse, before you baptize it into the Mormon Faith.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?
> 
> * Nearly all the photos in Chang’s book had nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre. Chang either did not know this or deliberately used irrelevant photos to mislead her readers. The Japanese scholar Dr. Ikuhiko Hata, who is widely respected even by some of Chang’s defenders, has done the most to work to discredit the photos. Dr. Joshua Fogel notes,
> 
> Hata is largely responsible for discrediting virtually every one of the photographs that adorn the pages of Iris Chang’s book. (“Response to Herbert Bix,” _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _August 9, 2003, p. 4, https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf)​
> * The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka the Tokyo Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, spent considerable time on the massacre, and the prosecution offered four figures for the death toll: 100,000, 127,000, 200,000, and 300,000-340,000. The IMTFE seemed to settle on the figure of 200,000.
> 
> * In February 1938, just two months after the massacre, the Nationalists’ Central News Agency stated that the Japanese had killed 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking (Masahiro Yamamoto, _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000, p. 110). At the same time, an official Nationalist spokesman said that 20,000 civilians had been killed in Nanking (Ikuhiko Hata, "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable," _Japan Echo_, August 1998, pp. 47-57).
> 
> Yet, four years later, Chiang Kaishek, the Nationalist leader, claimed that 200,000 people had been killed in Nanking (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "The Messiness of Historical Reality," in Wakabayashi, editor, _The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture_, New York: Berghahn Books, 2008, pp. 3-5).
> 
> * Months after the massacre, the Chinese Communists claimed that the Japanese had killed 42,000 people in Nanking.
> 
> * The burial records do not support a figure anywhere close to 300,000:
> 
> The Red Swastika Society, a charitable organization that was operating with the approval of both the Japanese occupiers and the International Safety Zone Committee, reported having buried 40,000 people. Another charitable group, which was called the Tsun-shan-tang but whose history is not well known, said it buried 110,000 bodies. The sum of these figures is 150,000. The average daily figure for the Red Swastika was 320 burials, and the average for the Tsun-shan-tang was 75 through March 1938. But in a three-week period of April, the latter society claimed to have buried an additional 105,000 corpses, or a staggering 5,000 per day; this is close to an impossible feat. I surmise that this group operated as a "subcontractor" of the Red Swastika and judge its count to be unreliable. Because the two charity organizations probably overlapped in their responsibilities at some of the burial sites, at least some of the corpses are likely to have been counted twice. Also, burials would have included those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died either of illness or from being caught in the crossfire. (Hata, “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable,” _Japan Echo_, online reprint, available at A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links)​
> * At the Tokyo Tribunal, the defense tried to enter evidence that the 300,000 figure could not be correct because Nanking’s population was only about 200,000 in December 1937, when the massacre occurred. Defense attorney Michael Levin said,
> 
> Mr. Brooks calls my attention to the fact that in another portion of the affidavit is contained the statement that 300,000 were killed in Nanking, and as I understand it the total population of Nanking is only 200,000 [at the time of the massacre]. (IMTFE, _Proceedings_, Court Reporter’s Transcript, August 29, 1946, p. 4551)​
> The presiding judge, William Webb, refused to allow the defense to enter evidence of Nanking’s population at the time of the massacre.
> 
> Six contemporaneous records from Nanking support the figure of 200,000 for the population of Nanking when the Japanese army entered the city, and none suggest a higher figure:
> 
> Between December 13 (the day the Japanese breached the gates of Nanking) and February 9, 1938, the International Committee issued 61 missives addressed and hand-delivered to the Japanese, American, British, and German embassies, on an almost daily basis. Most of them are of complaints about misconduct on the part of Japanese military personnel or requests to military authorities for improved public safety or food supplies. These 61 documents are contemporaneous records, and should certainly be considered primary sources. . . . They were compiled by Dr. Hsü Shuhsi, a professor at Beijing University, under the title _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_. They also appear in their entirety in _What War Means_, edited by Manchester Guardian correspondent Harold Timperley, and were submitted as evidence to the IMTFE. As shown in the photograph on p. 4, the version edited by Hsü Shuhsi bears the imprimatur of the Nationalist government: “Prepared under the auspices of the Council of International Affairs, Chunking.” It was published by the Shanghai firm Kelly & Walsh in 1939. Any treatment of the Nanking Incident that disregards these valuable resources is suspect.​
> There are four references to the population of Nanking in late 1937 in _Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone_; all of them state that the total refugee population was 200,000. A report written by James Espy, vice-consul at the American Embassy, and dispatched to the United States, and another report written by John Rabe, chairman of the International Committee, also mention that Nanking’s population was 200,000. (Masaaki Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _Tokyo: Sekai Shuppan, Inc., 2000, pp. 3-5, available at http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> Clearly, the Japanese army could not have killed 300,000 people in a city with a population of 200,000.
> 
> * In June 1938, six months after the massacre, John Rabe, a German business leader in Nanking and the chief of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, provided a written estimate of how many people were killed in Nanking, and it was far below Chang’s number. Rabe is famous and honored for sheltering Chinese citizens during the sacking of Nanking and for protesting to Japanese officials about the conduct of Japanese troops. In his letter to the German government, Rabe said the following:
> 
> According to Chinese claims, 100,000 civilians were killed; this, however, is probably somewhat of an overstatement. We foreigners view the figure as having been from about 50,000 to 60,000.​
> * Japanese army field reports on the fighting in Nanking seem to indicate the total number of soldiers and civilians killed in Nanking was about 40,000, according to Dr. Hata:
> 
> Both the veterans' group KaikÙsha and I accordingly decided to shift our attention to a search for the field reports of the units involved. We managed to find reports from 16 of the 56 battalions directly involved in the battle for Nanking--in other words, just under 30% of the total. These documents of course do not use the word "massacre." But they record, as part of their military operations, the "annihilation" of the remnants of the defeated army, including soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes (a common practice in the Nationalist Army), and the "execution of prisoners." One reason such records were kept was to serve as future reference for the granting of medals. If those keeping them had had any sense that these acts were illegal killings, they would naturally not have put them down in writing.​
> Fujiwara Akira has calculated that these field reports record the killing of 12,921 Chinese soldiers who were either prisoners or remnants of the defeated army.6 The figure for the Japanese Army as a whole can only be estimated by extrapolation. This is not such a simple task, however. A full 60% of the 12,921 killings recorded were carried out in two incidents involving just two units, namely, the execution of prisoners by the Yamada Detachment and the extirpation of those thought to be soldiers in civilian clothing in the International Safety Zone conducted by the Seventh Infantry Regiment. It is hard to reach a consensus on how the actions of the recorded battalions should be extrapolated to the battalions whose field reports cannot be found.​
> Using the existing reports and adding in various estimations, I have come up with a figure of 40,000 for the total of soldiers and civilians killed. . . . (A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links).​
> * Some people later claimed that they saw “mountains of dead bodies” near the Guanghua Gate, but other eyewitnesses dispute this claim:
> 
> In _The Battle of Nanking_, Vol. 6, former _Asahi Shinbun_ correspondent Kondo states that “there were corpses of both Chinese and Japanese military personnel outside Guanghua Gate, the result of the bloody battle fought there. But I don’t recall there being a lot of them. I saw no dead civilians.” Also, Futamura Jiro, a photographer who worked for _Hochi Shinbun_ and later _Mainichi Shinbun_, states, “Together with the 47th Infantry Regiment, I climbed over the wall into the city, but I saw very few corpses there.” (Tanaka, _What Really Happened in Nanking, _p. 14, http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf)​
> * Many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking during and/or just after the battle emphatically denied that “hundreds of thousands” of people were killed there. Most of them admitted that war crimes occurred and that some of their fellow soldiers behaved in a disgraceful manner, but they insisted that the number of wrongful deaths was nothing close to 300,000. Of course, many people will immediately dismiss their claims as self-serving lies. But one of those soldiers, a staff officer with the 10th Army, happened to have taken a picture of the Guangha Gate soon after the Japanese army captured the city, and Theodore and Heroka Cook confirmed that it showed no piles of dead bodies (Theodore and Heroka Cook, _Japan At War: An Oral History, _New York: The New Press, 1992, pp. 35-37).
> 
> * Very few books on the Nanking Massacre mention what the Chinese did to the Japanese in Tongzhou, a few months before the Japanese army captured Nanking. On July 29, 1937, when all but a handful of the Japanese soldiers in the small city of Tongzhou left the city to aid in the attack on Beijing, the city’s Chinese auxiliary police force attacked. They killed most of the few Japanese soldiers in the city and 63% of the Japanese and Korean civilians in the city, including many women and children (223 out of 385) (locs. 1384-1398).
> 
> The Chinese hung some of the victims’ heads in wicker baskets from the parapets of the city’s gates. One family of six was thrown into a well with their hands tied together and pierced with steel wire. A pregnant Japanese woman was stabbed with a bayonet, and a child had his nose pierced crosswise with wire—amazingly, both survived but were scarred for life. “Avenge Tongzhou” became of rallying cry for Japanese soldiers as they headed south toward Nanking (Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941 _(Casemate Publishers, locs. 1384-1398). This does not excuse the Japanese army’s conduct in Nanking, but it does provide context.
> 
> For those who want to do more research on the Nanking Massacre, I have found the following sources to be valuable, especially Dr. Hata’s research. I don’t agree with all these sources contain, but I think they present important information on the subject:
> 
> A Japanese Perspective on the Nanjing Massacre - China Politics Links
> Dr. Hata’s long article “The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable”
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/7_S4.pdf
> Tanaka’s book _What Really Happened in Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth_. I think some of Tanaka’s conclusions are wrong, but he presents a great deal of important evidence that contradicts the 300,000 figure and that casts serious doubt on Iris Chang’s reliability.
> 
> https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-A--Fogel/1637/article.pdf
> Dr. Joshua Fogel’s reply to Herbert Bix on the Nanking Massacre. Dr. Fogel says the following about Dr. Hata: “Hata, no matter how much one may disagree with him, is an eminent scholar who has for over forty years been writing numerous excellent studies of Japan at war. He was certainly writing about the Nanjing Massacre before Iris Chang or Lee En-han were, and his book on the subject, first published in 1986 and translated into Chinese, is still an authority in the field.”
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Anatomy-Atrocity-Masahiro-Yamamoto/dp/0275969045&tag=ff0d01-20
> Masahiro Yamamoto’s book _Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity_. This book includes chapters written by authors from both camps in the debate.
> 
> THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
> Shūdō Higashinakano’s book _The Nanking Massacre: Fact vs. Fiction_. Dr. Higashinakano is a professor of history at Asia University. I think his death toll estimates are far too low, but he presents a lot of valid information that you won’t find in most books on the subject.





MaryL said:


> The outrages Japan committed in China in the 30s was exactly WHY America embargoed oil exports to Japan that led to Pearl Harbor...



So that's your response to all the evidence that you quoted from the OP?

Why didn't FDR respond in the way to all the Soviet outrages?  Why didn't Truman respond in the same way when the Maoist Communists started killing millions of people? It's not like he didn't know what was going on. Serious scholars have documented that the Japanese army's outrages in China resulted in far fewer deaths than the tens of millions of deaths caused by the Chinese Communists, as I've documented elsewhere in this thread.



MaryL said:


> The Japanese started Americas involvement in WWII and led to the nuking of Hiroshima.



Again, that's your answer to all the evidence presented in this thread? Aside from some very mild, token measures, FDR looked the other way when it came to Soviet aggression in Asia and Eastern Europe, but, oh wow, when Japan occupied Indochina, especially southern Indochina, he used that as an excuse to impose sanctions that any other country would consider an act of war; he rejected all of Japan's quite reasonable peace offers; and then he falsely claimed that the attack on Pearl Harbor was "unprovoked." The difference between how he reacted to Soviet aggression and brutality and how he reacted to Japanese aggression and brutality was striking.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> So that's your response to all the evidence that you quoted from the OP?
> 
> Why didn't FDR respond in the way to all the Soviet outrages? Why didn't Truman respond in the same way when the Maoist Communists started killing millions of people? It's not like he didn't know what was going on. Serious scholars have documented that the Japanese army's outrages in China resulted in far fewer deaths than the tens of millions of deaths caused by the Chinese Communists, as I've documented elsewhere in this thread.



They did.  There was very little trade with the USSR after the Bolsheviks won.  In fact, the USSR had to make alliances with Weimar and later Nazi Germany until Hitler turned on them.   You see, the dirty little secret about the Axis is that it was tolerated by the West because they were more afraid of the Communists killing rich people. The Nazis only wanted to kill Jews, and you got to have your priorities straight if you are rich and run things. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Again, that's your answer to all the evidence presented in this thread? Aside from some very mild, token measures, FDR looked the other way when it came to Soviet aggression in Asia and Eastern Europe, "



Okay, let's look at that.   Prior to WWII, the only thing the USSR took was Mongolia AFTER the White Russian Forces took it from the flailing Republic of China which had pretty much broken into pieces at that point.  In Europe, even with the Ribbentrop Molotov pact, the USSR ONLY took territories that had formerly belonged to Russia. So what was FDR supposed to do, exactly?  

The thing was, between 1919 and 1941, the west was hostile towards the USSR.   



mikegriffith1 said:


> but, oh wow, when Japan occupied Indochina, especially southern Indochina, he used that as an excuse to impose sanctions that any other country would consider an act of war and rejected all of Japan's quite reasonable peace offers, and then he falsely claimed that the attack on Pearl Harbor was "unprovoked."



Again, Japan was taking things that didn't belong to it... I'm not sure why you think their position was "reasonable".  There was a time when Russia owned Moldava or Latvia... there was never a time when Japan had any claim to Vietnam.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ...
> The thing was, between 1919 and 1941, the west was hostile towards the USSR.  ....




The scumbag fdr wasn't.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The thing was, between 1919 and 1941, the west was hostile towards the USSR.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag fdr wasn't.
Click to expand...


Uh, yeah, actually, he kind of was.  

The only thing he really did before 1941 was actually recognize the USSR as the legitimate government of Russia, and the goal there was to see if they could get back some of the money the US had loaned the Tsar.


----------



## Rigby5

whitehall said:


> I wonder what Iris Chang thought about Chairman Mao's ten year cultural revolution (1966-1976) that killed ten times more than the Japanese did. Maybe Ms. Chang was one of the victims.



Chang lived in the US, and had no first hand info for her works of fiction.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Right. So immediately after that, they decided this war with China was silly and negotiated a fair and just peace..
> 
> Um. No? They continued their invasion of China until 1945 and then attacked the United States when they objected to the whole thing?



Wrong.
The US had orchestrated a takeover of China by the US, years before the war started between Chinese factions.
And the Japanese had the Emperor of China on their side.
The US was supporting Chaing Kai Shek, who was a military dictator and very unpopular.


----------



## JoeB131

Rigby5 said:


> Chang lived in the US, and had no first hand info for her works of fiction.



BY that logic, no one can write a book about history unless they experienced it first hand... 

Are you always this stupid or do you take special pills? 



Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The US had orchestrated a takeover of China by the US, years before the war started between Chinese factions.
> And the Japanese had the Emperor of China on their side.
> The US was supporting Chaing Kai Shek, who was a military dictator and very unpopular.



Uh, nobody respected the gay puppet Emperor of China.  

What the Japanese did to China was unacceptable.


----------



## Rigby5

MaryL said:


> Excuse me, Japan in the 30s was an imperialist state. They invaded China  and murdered millions to feed their imperialist ambitions in Manchuria. America, FDR tried to stop that with a boycott and instead we got Pearl Harbor.



However, if you go back, Japan was NOT normally imperialist at all, but was frightened and intimidated into it by the visit by Admiral Perry, who spend a lot of time demonstrating our superior ship cannons.

The Allies then not only snubbed the Japanese during WWI, but also the Treaty of 5-5-2 was a humiliating act of war.

The boycotts the US imposed were not really "boycotts" at all, but illegal embargos of iron, oil, coal, food, etc., from Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.

So the reality is that the US was the primary and deliberate cause of WWII.
The Japanese actually were the victims.

Think about it for a second even, what the heck is the US doing in Pearl Habor at all?


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Or that the Jap bastards slaughtered those people in the safe zone, outside the safe zone, in the surrounding countryside and anywhere else they found them. Which is pretty much what they did.



Wrong.
That is the Iris Chang version, which has no relationship to reality.
For example, in her book, "The Rape of Nanking", she posts an article from a Japanese newspaper, and claims it is about a contest over who could behead the most POWs with a sword.
When you actually read the Japanese script however, it says that the Japanese were disgusted by firearms, and preferred to fight with a sword instead of a gun, because it was more honorable.
And the contest was about how many enemy soldiers they killed in battle, not execute as POWs.
So basically, Iris Chang had no idea at all what really happened, and just lied.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> BY that logic, no one can write a book about history unless they experienced it first hand...
> 
> Are you always this stupid or do you take special pills?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, nobody respected the gay puppet Emperor of China.
> 
> What the Japanese did to China was unacceptable.



That is silly, Iris Chang has ZERO knowledge of anything going on in China at the time.
She made it all up, and deliberately lied.

What Japan did to China was unacceptable, but what the US, England, etc., was doing was even worse.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Iris Chang was a respected scholar... you, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I don't waste my time on bullshit Bircher Propaganda...   To hear you guys tell it, there would be no Russians left at all Because Stalin supposedly killed all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about Korea or Taiwan... I was talking about the Rape of Nanking, which is documented.
> 
> I'll criticize America when it deserves to be criticized, but the Japanese were real bastards in their wars in Asia, which is why no one really trusts them today, 70 years later.


When you say “no one” trusts the Japanese you are really talking about libs

Progressives, socialists, marxists and the usual America haters see Japan as an ally of the US and that makes them Enemy #2 after America itself


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> We really had no idea how bad the Holocaust was, either, until after the war was over.



Wrong again.
While 6 million deaths of Jews is incredible, once you realize the WWII death toll was over 50 million, and mostly civilians, then it is not significant any more.
You just are not putting anything into perspective.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Iris Chang was a respected scholar... you, not so much.



Not in the least.
Iris Chang was not at all respected or a scholar.
Her work was universally ridiculed except by those using her for propaganda purposes.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> what's baffling to me is that anyone would come on here and try to claim that WAR CRIMINALS got a raw deal when they were executed for things like Nanking and Bataan, and even call those men 'Honorable" as you did.
> 
> This is up there with the Neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.
> 
> Then Again, you belong to a fucked up cult started by a two-bit con-man who was fucking teenage girls by convincing their parents they'd get to rule their own planets in the afterlife.  A great day in history was when the fine people of my state did this.
> 
> View attachment 309446
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, buddy, the 1950's called, they want their Bircher Propaganda back.  And Joe McCarthy's Corpse, before you baptize it into the Mormon Faith.



That is totally ignorant.
What actually happened at Nanking is that tens of thousands of retreating Khang Kai Shek troops tried to blend into the civilian population, and continued to shoot Japanese, instead of honorably surrendering.
Making Nanking into an insurgency, and NOT the massacre of innocents claimed by liars like Iris Chang.

And while I do not like religions or have any connection to Mormons, they are one of the most honorable of the religions anyone could pick.
The claim Joseph Smith was rapping teens likely is a lie, as Mormons are more sexually repressed than any other religion I know of.
Polygamy is not underage sex, but more than one wife, exactly as the Bible describes, and common in Judaism until recently.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Rigby5 said:


> That is totally ignorant.
> What actually happened at Nanking is that tens of thousands of retreating Khang Kai Shek troops tried to blend into the civilian population, and continued to shoot Japanese, instead of honorably surrendering.
> Making Nanking into an insurgency, and NOT the massacre of innocents claimed by liars like Iris Chang.
> 
> And while I do not like religions or have any connection to Mormons, they are one of the most honorable of the religions anyone could pick.
> The claim Joseph Smith was rapping teens likely is a lie, as Mormons are more sexually repressed than any other religion I know of.
> Polygamy is not underage sex, but more than one wife, exactly as the Bible describes, and common in Judaism until recently.


That is a bald faced lie.

What happened at Nanking wass that no Chinese troops were present and ther Japanese merely raped and slaughtered innocent civilians.

It was noty an insurgency and you manufactured your claim out of thin air as you always do you scummy lying sack of trash


----------



## DudleySmith

Mac-7 said:


> When you say “no one” trusts the Japanese you are really talking about libs
> 
> Progressives, socialists, marxists and the usual America haters see Japan as an ally of the US and that makes them Enemy #2 after America itself



This is true.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> ....t the Japanese were real bastards in their wars in Asia, which is why no one really trusts them today, 70 years later.


As usual, you are completely full of shit.


----------



## JoeB131

So you do take special pills to stay stupid. 



Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> That is the Iris Chang version, which has no relationship to reality.
> For example, in her book, "The Rape of Nanking", she posts an article from a Japanese newspaper, and claims it is about a contest over who could behead the most POWs with a sword.
> When you actually read the Japanese script however, it says that the Japanese were disgusted by firearms, and preferred to fight with a sword instead of a gun, because it was more honorable.
> And the contest was about how many enemy soldiers they killed in battle, not execute as POWs.
> So basically, Iris Chang had no idea at all what really happened, and just lied.



Actually, the two officers were put on trial after the war, numerous witnesses testified they beheaded POW's, and they were promptly executed.  





__





						Contest to kill 100 people using a sword - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Other soldiers and historians have noted the unlikelihood of the lieutenants' alleged heroics, which entailed killing enemy after enemy in fierce hand-to-hand combat.[4] Noda himself, on returning to his hometown, admitted this during a speech:



> Actually, I didn't kill more than four or five people in hand-to-hand combat ... We'd face an enemy trench that we'd captured, and when we called out, "Ni, Lai-Lai!" (You, come here!), the Chinese soldiers were so stupid, they'd rush toward us all at once. Then we'd line them up and cut them down, from one end of the line to the other. I was praised for having killed a hundred people, but actually, almost all of them were killed in this way. The two of us did have a contest, but afterwards. I was often asked whether it was a big deal, and I said it was no big deal ...[7]





Rigby5 said:


> Wrong again.
> While 6 million deaths of Jews is incredible, once you realize the WWII death toll was over 50 million, and mostly civilians, then it is not significant any more.
> You just are not putting anything into perspective.



Actually, what the Japanese did in China was much worse... but since the Jews run Hollywood, we get all sorts of movies about the Holocaust and the only movie I've seen about the Rape of Nanking was one where they showed how white people were slightly inconvenienced. 



Rigby5 said:


> Not in the least.
> Iris Chang was not at all respected or a scholar.
> Her work was universally ridiculed except by those using her for propaganda purposes.











						Iris Chang - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Her second book, _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ (1997),[9] was published on the 60th anniversary of the Nanking Massacre and was motivated in part by her own grandparents' stories about their escape from the massacre. It documents atrocities committed against Chinese by forces of the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War, and includes interviews with victims. _The Rape of Nanking_ remained on the _New York Times_ Bestseller list for 10 weeks.[10] Based on the book, an American documentary film, _Nanking_, was released in 2007.

Success as an author made Iris Chang a public figure. _The Rape of Nanking_ placed her in great demand as a speaker and as an interview subject, and, more broadly, as a spokesperson for the viewpoint that the Japanese government had not done enough to compensate victims of their invasion of China. In one often-mentioned incident (as reported by _The Times_ of London):



> ...she confronted the Japanese Ambassador to the United States on television, demanded an apology and expressed her dissatisfaction with his mere acknowledgement "that really unfortunate things happened, acts of violence were committed by members of the Japanese military". "It is because of these types of wording and the vagueness of such expressions that Chinese people, I think, are infuriated," was her reaction.[13]


Chang's visibility as a public figure increased with her final work, _The Chinese in America_. After her death, she became the subject of tributes from fellow writers. Mo Hayder dedicated a novel to her. Reporter Richard Rongstad eulogized her as "Iris Chang lit a flame and passed it to others and we should not allow that flame to be extinguished."

In 2007, the documentary _Nanking_ was dedicated to Chang, as well as the Chinese victims of Nanking.

"The Man Who Ended History", a story in _The Paper Managerie_ by Ken Liu about uncovering the history of Unit 731, is dedicated to the memory of Chang.[14]

R.F. Kuang's debut novel, _The Poppy War,_ is dedicated to Iris Chang.[15]

Iris Chang Park in San Jose, that opened in November 2019, is a municipal park dedicated to Chang.[16][17]



Rigby5 said:


> That is totally ignorant.
> What actually happened at Nanking is that tens of thousands of retreating Khang Kai Shek troops tried to blend into the civilian population, and continued to shoot Japanese, instead of honorably surrendering.
> Making Nanking into an insurgency, and NOT the massacre of innocents claimed by liars like Iris Chang.



First, it's Chiang Kai-shek (Giles Wade Transliteration). Secondly, it was a massacre of civilians.  



Rigby5 said:


> And while I do not like religions or have any connection to Mormons, they are one of the most honorable of the religions anyone could pick.
> The claim Joseph Smith was rapping teens likely is a lie, as Mormons are more sexually repressed than any other religion I know of.
> Polygamy is not underage sex, but more than one wife, exactly as the Bible describes, and common in Judaism until recently.



Mormons are scum.  

Joseph Smith married numerous teenage girls among his 34 wives.   He did what all cult leaders did... used his position to get sex from less smart people. 

The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?  Original and Extra-Crispy.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the two officers were put on trial after the war, numerous witnesses testified they beheaded POW's, and they were promptly executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contest to kill 100 people using a sword - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other soldiers and historians have noted the unlikelihood of the lieutenants' alleged heroics, which entailed killing enemy after enemy in fierce hand-to-hand combat.[4] Noda himself, on returning to his hometown, admitted this during a speech:
> 
> Actually, what the Japanese did in China was much worse... but since the Jews run Hollywood, we get all sorts of movies about the Holocaust and the only movie I've seen about the Rape of Nanking was one where they showed how white people were slightly inconvenienced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iris Chang - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her second book, _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ (1997),[9] was published on the 60th anniversary of the Nanking Massacre and was motivated in part by her own grandparents' stories about their escape from the massacre. It documents atrocities committed against Chinese by forces of the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War, and includes interviews with victims. _The Rape of Nanking_ remained on the _New York Times_ Bestseller list for 10 weeks.[10] Based on the book, an American documentary film, _Nanking_, was released in 2007.
> 
> Success as an author made Iris Chang a public figure. _The Rape of Nanking_ placed her in great demand as a speaker and as an interview subject, and, more broadly, as a spokesperson for the viewpoint that the Japanese government had not done enough to compensate victims of their invasion of China. In one often-mentioned incident (as reported by _The Times_ of London):
> 
> 
> Chang's visibility as a public figure increased with her final work, _The Chinese in America_. After her death, she became the subject of tributes from fellow writers. Mo Hayder dedicated a novel to her. Reporter Richard Rongstad eulogized her as "Iris Chang lit a flame and passed it to others and we should not allow that flame to be extinguished."
> 
> In 2007, the documentary _Nanking_ was dedicated to Chang, as well as the Chinese victims of Nanking.
> 
> "The Man Who Ended History", a story in _The Paper Managerie_ by Ken Liu about uncovering the history of Unit 731, is dedicated to the memory of Chang.[14]
> 
> R.F. Kuang's debut novel, _The Poppy War,_ is dedicated to Iris Chang.[15]
> 
> Iris Chang Park in San Jose, that opened in November 2019, is a municipal park dedicated to Chang.[16][17]
> 
> First, it's Chiang Kai-shek (Giles Wade Transliteration). Secondly, it was a massacre of civilians.



<<< Actually, the two officers were put on trial after the war, numerous witnesses testified they beheaded POW's, and they were promptly executed. >>>

Their "trial"??? You mean the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, right? They had no normal trial with an impartial jury, and the "numerous witnesses" would have testified that the two officers were aliens from Mars if asked to do so. Even the Tokyo Tribunal declined to prosecute the two officers, so questionable was the "evidence" against them.

In chapter 12 of _The Nanking Atrocity_, historian Joshua Fogel says that no balanced historian can accept the killing-contest story as accurate:

Fourth Generation Chinese argue that racism—by which they mean the Japanese troops’ dehumanization of the Chinese people—was indeed an essential part of the assault on China. The piece of evidence usually cited is the infamous 100-man killing contest, in which two Japanese soldiers allegedly vied to see who could first slay 100 Chinese en route to Nanking. Many have questioned the veracity of this story, and not only arch right-wingers in Japan. See Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi’s chapter 6 in the present volume. But the Japanese press in November-December 1937 did give the story considerable play, and the soldiers did receive death sentences at the postwar Nanking War Crimes Tribunal; so, as a result, anti-Japanese Chinese believe the story today. But despite the guilty verdict, to accept this story as true and accurate requires a leap of faith that no balanced historian can make. (pp. 279-280; p. 172 in some editions)

Yes, we get it that you love Iris Chang and that you are diehard Mao apologist. You've made that clear.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Their "trial"??? You mean the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, right? They had no normal trial with an impartial jury, and the "numerous witnesses" would have testified that the two officers were aliens from Mars if asked to do so. Even the Tokyo Tribunal declined to prosecute the two officers, so questionable was the "evidence" against them.



The Tokyo tribunal was for the top leaders who instigated Japan's war against humanity.  

Not for the low level war criminals like these two shmucks.  

I do like Iris Chang, her early death was very sad.   I recognize Mao was a ruthless bastard, but so was George Washington.  And both are revered in their countries today.  

The biggest problem was that not enough Nazis or Japanese were executed after the war.


----------



## Dayton3

mikegriffith1 said:


> The claim that the Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking, China, in 1937 became widely accepted with the publication of Chinese author Iris Chang’s book _The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II_ in 1997.
> 
> Before we discuss this matter, one thing must be made clear: Killing 20 civilians and/or POWs, much less thousands or hundreds of thousands, is a war crime, and those who take part in such crimes should be severely punished. There is no credible doubt that many of the Japanese soldiers who fought in Nanking committed war crimes and deserved to be punished. What is a “massacre”? I think the killing of “just” a few dozen innocent people constitutes a massacre or an atrocity. I believe that about 40,000 people—soldiers plus civilians—were wrongfully killed in Nanking, so I have no problem with the term Nanking Massacre to describe the crime.
> 
> With these stipulations understood, let us look at some facts regarding the 300,000 figure and Chang’s book. The points below do not address all the problems with the 300,000 figure, but they are a decent introduction to the problems with Chang’s case.
> 
> * To provide some context and perspective, even if one assumes that the 300,000 figure is correct, it should be pointed out that the Chinese Nationalists killed at least 400,000 people in Xuzhou in 1938. When the Nationalists were retreating from Xuzhou in June 1938, they purposely breached the southern dyke of the Yellow River in order to flood the Japanese’s path to Wuhan (even though the Japanese were not advancing), and in so doing they killed a bare minimum of 400,000 civilians (Peter Harmsen, _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Casemate Publishers, 2018, locs. 1895-1907). This is still the largest, deadliest act of environmental warfare in history.
> 
> Some scholars conclude that at least 500,000 innocent civilians were killed in the Yellow River flood, calling 500,000 “the lowest estimate” (Diana Lary, "Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938," _War in History_. April 1, 2001, pp. 191–207, SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals). Why didn’t FDR condemn this atrocity? Why haven’t the Nationalist Chinese been subjected to the same kind of withering criticism that the Japanese have endured over Nanking? Why isn’t there a memorial at Xuzhou to honor the 400,000-plus victims of Chinese Nationalist barbarism?



Because the action by the  Chinese nationalists was part of their war effort.    The massacre of civilians in Nanking by the Japanese most certainly was not.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> The Tokyo tribunal was for the top leaders who instigated Japan's war against humanity.
> 
> Not for the low level war criminals like these two shmucks.
> 
> I do like Iris Chang, her early death was very sad.   I recognize Mao was a ruthless bastard, but so was George Washington.  And both are revered in their countries today.
> 
> The biggest problem was that not enough Nazis or Japanese were executed after the war.



No, no, no, it is plain nutty to even imply that George Washington was as ruthless as Mao Tse Tung. That is crazy.

I know lots of Chinese, partly because one of my son's married a Chinese national who later became a citizen, and not one of them thinks highly of Mao. Not one.

The Tokyo Tribunal did look into the case of the two officers and passed on it. The Nanking Tribunal was an exercise in blind revenge in far too many cases.

And, lo and behold, I actually agree with you that not enough Nazi and Japanese war criminals were executed after the war. Too many innocent or minimally guilty Germans and Japanese were prosecuted, while far too many truly guilty Germans and Japanese got off scot-free, especially among the Japanese officers who brutalized American and Allied POWs.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> No, no, no, it is plain nutty to even imply that George Washington was as ruthless as Mao Tse Tung. That is crazy.



My Native American ancestors would beg to differ.  So, I imagine, would the slaves on Geo. Washington's plantation.  

Hey, check this out, they are George's false teeth.   Unlike popular legends about "wooden teeth", George actually had teeth that were extracted from slaves. 






Of course, if they talked about that in History Class, you guys would be whining about Critical Race Theory and making white kids hate themselves.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> I know lots of Chinese, partly because one of my son's married a Chinese national who later became a citizen, and not one of them thinks highly of Mao. Not one.



I'm currently dating a Chinese woman...  And most Chinese have a different opinion of Mao.   Mostly that he liberated China from foreign domination and made her a great power. 

Unlike Stalin, who the Soviets denounced almost as soon as he was in the Ground, Mao is still well regarded.  

Side note, I've been teaching myself Chinese and found out that "Mao" translates to "Cat".   This could explain a lot. 







mikegriffith1 said:


> The Tokyo Tribunal did look into the case of the two officers and passed on it. The Nanking Tribunal was an exercise in blind revenge in far too many cases.



The Tokyo Tribunal worked on the assumption the war began at Pearl Harbor, not the Marco Polo Bridge.  These two bastards admitted that most of the people they beheaded weren't active combatants..  



mikegriffith1 said:


> And, lo and behold, I actually agree with you that not enough Nazi and Japanese war criminals were executed after the war. Too many innocent or minimally guilty Germans and Japanese were prosecuted, while far too many truly guilty Germans and Japanese got off scot-free, especially among the Japanese officers who brutalized American and Allied POWs.



OH MY GOD, THEY DID BAD STUFF TO WHITE PEOPLE!!!!   Yes, I can see why that upsets your Racist Mormon Ass.  
You don't see why slaughtering thousands of unarmed civilians is worse than mistreating a POW.  

The real problem with the latter trial is that Japan never signed the Geneva Conventions, but we prosecuted them under it as if they had.  Combined that with the mentality that the Japanese believed in never surrendering, and saw Americans and Allies who did as dishonorable, and you can see the potential for abuse.  

But the bastards at Nanking were much worse and should have been executed.


----------

