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

[JoeB131]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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]

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]

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...

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]

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...

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.

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...

"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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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...

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.

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?

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

* 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.

* 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.

* "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.

* 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.)

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.