RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII

RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 6:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Japan's war did not start on Dec 7'th,cutting off oil imports to Japan was a direct consequence of Japanese aggression in Manchuria and China proper...in other words the man's opinion is ridiculous. What do you think the U.S. response would be to China or N. Korea or Iran stationing a hundred jet fighters in Mexico? I know what we did when Russia put a few nukes in Cuba. You may have heard of the "Flying Tigers" We injected ourselves into that conflict. If you read history you will find numerous accounts of Roosevelt commenting that he needed Japan to make the first overt strike. So step by step we shut off their supply of strategic materials both directly and through our Allies. It was known as the ABCD group. America,Britain,China,Dutch. If you look at a pre 1940 map of the area you will see that the four countries named pretty much had Japan surrounded. Tojo told the Emperor that if they pulled in the fishing fleet and did nothing more militarily their strategic reserves of oil would expire in two years. At which time they would be pretty much "Anybodies bitch". H. All true...key phrase here though is "We injected ourselves into that conflict"...Japan was already waging a war of aggression,whether or not you or anyone else wants to make a case for justification.They initiated the conflict,did they do so with good reason,possibly but initiate it they did ...hence strictly as an answer to the question posed by the OP...yes they were the aggressor...quite simple really.

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 6:09:46 PM)
Surely that is rather an Orwellian answer. The Japanese officier in question is merely doing the same.

slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 6:16:23 PM)
Explain how that is Orwellian.....Or better yet answer this did or did not Japan start a shooting war in China.Please skip the justifications or the usual diversions into American/Western behavior.At it's core this is a rather simple question...and BTW there is only one answer ,and George Orwell has nothing to do with it.Let me help here the answer to the question posed is YES as is the answer to whether or not Japan was the aggressor and initiator of armed conflict in the Pacific Rim,twist it, turn it do what you like to it ,the answer is inescapable and incontrovertible.

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 6:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Explain how that is Orwellian.....Or better yet answer this did or did not Japan start a shooting war in China.Please skip the justifications or the usual diversions into American/Western behavior.At it's core this is a rather simple question...and BTW there is only one answer ,and George Orwell has nothing to do with it.Let me help here the answer to the question posed is YES as is the answer to whether or not Japan was the aggressor and initiator of armed conflict in the Pacific Rim,twist it, turn it do what you like to it ,the answer is inescapable and incontrovertible. You start history at a convenient moment for your argument. The OP is about Japan being a aggressor, it was but so was the west. What the fuck were western powers doing in south Asia, having a cruise? No, they were involved in subjugating and exploiting countries in the region, Japan was the west's enemy because it wanted some of the action. The US justifies its wars by events at its convenience and them blames the enemy it attacks as being the aggressor, the Japanese officier is doing the same. What is the difference? If someone blockaded the USA, the USA would have no problem seeing that as an initial aggressive act of war. Countries have done far less for the USA to consider them having mounted an offensive action. Why the difference in interpretation? Don't tell me, it is just usual western hypocrisy Orwellian - Newspeak. ie. War is peace. ie Western subjugation and exploitation in SE Asia was not aggressive, it was civilizing the savages. Blockading Japan was saving the savages from other savages.

UncleNasty -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 6:46:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I am damn glad I'm not a history professor. Bless those who are historians. I think a true history professor would insist on the antiquated usage of "an." An history professor. Just poking fun. Uncle Nasty

slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 6:51:03 PM)
Knew you couldn't or wouldn't answer the question as posed.Not that I can disagree with much of what you say...the OP poses the question of whether or not Japan was the aggressor in WW2...and the short answer is yes....you insist in justifying their behavior.....all well and good.Nationalistic aspirations in truth did lead to Japan seeing no other path but war....Which is the path they chose ,to wage a war of aggression which is what they did...hence answering the original question posed.You can put lipstick on this pig if you like.... but it is still a pig.If you wish to start a separate thread exploring America's wars of conquest,imperialism or the one we fought amongst ourselves go right ahead.....there is only one answer to this one and BTW apparently the Japanese Government agrees with me. And sorry to be a stickler for details but....we engaged in an oil embargo...not a blockade prior to hostilities between the Government's of Japan and the United States...and that is a big difference.

HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 7:29:13 PM)
If you ask the question...did Japan start a war with China the answer is reasonable straightforeward. If you ask the question ...did Japan start a war with the U.S. the answer is hardly clearcut. I know of no treaty that the U.S. had with China requiring us to support them militarily against Japan that was in force at the time of Japan attacking China. H.

slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 7:38:28 PM)
True HunterS,but if you will make allowances for Japanese aggression based on their self interest and ambitions....what but self interest and ambitions were driving American actions in the late 30's...and yet America was still negotiating with Japan as of the 7th Dec 1941 so we are still left with Japan as the aggressor

Owner59 -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 7:47:40 PM)
Japan was clearly the aggressor. They turned out to be some of the most evil fucks ever,left to their own devices. The conservative/right-wingers in Japan have a cool-aid like narrative in which they are absolved of all and any war crimes they systematically committed during WW II. This same bunch still worship the Emperor as a deity and get a lot of their funding from the Yakuza as well as from a part of corporate-Japan. They are Japan`s version of the right-wing lunitic fringe and count about as much.Which is not much.

Termyn8or -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 8:07:28 PM)
"They turned out to be some of the most evil fucks ever,left to their own devices" They are fast learners. T

MrRodgers -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 8:30:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Japan's war did not start on Dec 7'th,cutting off oil imports to Japan was a direct consequence of Japanese aggression in Manchuria and China proper...in other words the man's opinion is ridiculous. What do you think the U.S. response would be to China or N. Korea or Iran stationing a hundred jet fighters in Mexico? I know what we did when Russia put a few nukes in Cuba. You may have heard of the "Flying Tigers" We injected ourselves into that conflict. If you read history you will find numerous accounts of Roosevelt commenting that he needed Japan to make the first overt strike. So step by step we shut off their supply of strategic materials both directly and through our Allies. It was known as the ABCD group. America,Britain,China,Dutch. If you look at a pre 1940 map of the area you will see that the four countries named pretty much had Japan surrounded. Tojo told the Emperor that if they pulled in the fishing fleet and did nothing more militarily their strategic reserves of oil would expire in two years. At which time they would be pretty much "Anybodies bitch". H. All true but will use this post to give some perspective. Ask yourself just what are the alternatives...just what IS diplomacy ? Japan on two counts was always the aggressor. Simply to secure all comodities for their industrialization at their zenith in military power having the world's largest naval armada (post Austria) around 1933. For 8 years prior to Pearl, they had started in (went to war with) the pacific islands, Burma and China. Any power including the Australians and Philipinos (Indonesia - oil) etc. saw that soon it would be them. As long as Japan had oil and resources, they were on the march. All of their historians and military strategists knew America had to be dealth with. FDR reacts in every non-military way to stop or least slow the Japanese advance. The Japanese did make plans for Europe and the Nazis. We try trade embargos and blockades although I don't know of any specific blockade we threw at Japan but suffice it to say...without firing a round we tried to stop or slow the Japanese advance. Nothing worked, the Japanese had ruthlessly invaded Manchuria and was for 10 years drawing the world a picture of war and conquest. To suggest that to cut off their oil is an act of aggression is thus rendered ridiculous. The reason FDR needed the Japanese to be the agressor is because eveything else failed and war would be necessary even if 83% of the American people were against it. Yes, still WWII could be viewed as a war for profit given the American nazi financing...but note that the Japanese upon forming the axis powers told their empire that they would merely give the nazis the opportunity...to be last.

HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 8:45:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u True HunterS,but if you will make allowances for Japanese aggression based on their self interest and ambitions....what but self interest and ambitions were driving American actions in the late 30's...and yet America was still negotiating with Japan as of the 7th Dec 1941 so we are still left with Japan as the aggressor What do you call the AVG...you know the flying tigers and Claire Chenault? Certainly not diplomacy I hope. Perhaps you should read a little about this conflict before you make such statements. A good place to start might be John Toland's "The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire" H.

slvemike4u -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 8:49:35 PM)
AVG was a response o Japanese aggression in China....without Japanese aggression their is no need for the AVG.And BTW I have read all of Toland's books thanks for the suggestion all the same. Might I suggest you go back and reread the OP, it is not a question of whether Japan was the aggresor on Dec 7th,rather were they aggresors in the war in its totality...which in my mind anyway translates to the beginning of WW 2 ...which easily precedes Dec 7 1941....so look at Japans behavior in Manchuria and China proper(which precedes the formation of the AVG) and you are left wih only one answer to the question....YES they were the aggresors.

HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 8:49:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Japan was clearly the aggressor. They turned out to be some of the most evil fucks ever,left to their own devices. Just like everyone else....warcrimes enough to go around on all sides. The conservative/right-wingers in Japan have a cool-aid like narrative in which they are absolved of all and any war crimes they systematically committed during WW II. Not at all unlike the gang of thugs we have in Washington. This same bunch still worship the Emperor as a deity and get a lot of their funding from the Yakuza as well as from a part of corporate-Japan. Hmmmm just like that gang of thugs in Washington. They are Japan`s version of the right-wing lunitic fringe and count about as much.Which is not much. Just like that gang of thugs in Washington except they are in power.

MrRodgers -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 8:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "They turned out to be some of the most evil fucks ever,left to their own devices" They are fast learners. T They didn't learn it from us and did a whole lot more and I mean a whole lot more worse than the Europeans colonialsts ever did.

MrRodgers -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 9:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Japan was clearly the aggressor. They turned out to be some of the most evil fucks ever,left to their own devices. Just like everyone else....warcrimes enough to go around on all sides. The conservative/right-wingers in Japan have a cool-aid like narrative in which they are absolved of all and any war crimes they systematically committed during WW II. Not at all unlike the gang of thugs we have in Washington. This same bunch still worship the Emperor as a deity and get a lot of their funding from the Yakuza as well as from a part of corporate-Japan. Hmmmm just like that gang of thugs in Washington. They are Japan`s version of the right-wing lunitic fringe and count about as much.Which is not much. Just like that gang of thugs in Washington except they are in power. HunterS I am with you but this war in Iraq is an abberation and not part of the normal American polity. The war powers act and a spineless, capitalist congress that was a pushover is at fault. It is during the next 8 years for us to demonstrate that we are a benevolent power until we are pushed and focus our resources and diplomacy at that.

HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 9:11:48 PM)
g quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Japan's war did not start on Dec 7'th,cutting off oil imports to Japan was a direct consequence of Japanese aggression in Manchuria and China proper...in other words the man's opinion is ridiculous. What do you think the U.S. response would be to China or N. Korea or Iran stationing a hundred jet fighters in Mexico? I know what we did when Russia put a few nukes in Cuba. You may have heard of the "Flying Tigers" We injected ourselves into that conflict. If you read history you will find numerous accounts of Roosevelt commenting that he needed Japan to make the first overt strike. So step by step we shut off their supply of strategic materials both directly and through our Allies. It was known as the ABCD group. America,Britain,China,Dutch. If you look at a pre 1940 map of the area you will see that the four countries named pretty much had Japan surrounded. Tojo told the Emperor that if they pulled in the fishing fleet and did nothing more militarily their strategic reserves of oil would expire in two years. At which time they would be pretty much "Anybodies bitch". H. All true but will use this post to give some perspective. Ask yourself just what are the alternatives...just what IS diplomacy ? Japan on two counts was always the aggressor. Simply to secure all comodities for their industrialization at their zenith in military power having the world's largest naval armada (post Austria) around 1933. For 8 years prior to Peal, they had started in (went to war with) the pacific islands, Burma and China. Japan did not have the worlds largest navy in 1941...although they did have the largest battleship. They did not attack Burma till mid 42 and the pacific islands you speak of are the Dutch East Indies late 41 into 42. Any power including the Austrialian and Philipinos (Indonesia) etc. saw that soon it would be them. As long as Japan had oil and resources, they were on the march. All of their historians and military strategists knew America had to be dealth with. Even a cussory reading of histor will show that Japan had no real desire to take Australia or New Zealand. The Dutch East Indies,the Malay pennesula,IndoChina and the Phillippines were of course obvious targets. That is where the strategic materials were that Japan wanted to fuel her industrialization... not at all dissimilar to the U.S. and Iraq. FDR reacts in every non-military way to stop or least slow the Japanese advance. I hope you do not consider the AVG to be a diplomatic approach. An Embargo is in fact an act of war. The Japanese did make plans for Europe and the Nazis. Plans????what kind of plans? We try trade embargos and blockades although I don't know of any specific blockade we threw at Japan but suffice it to say...without firing a round we tried to stop or slow the Japanese advance. Today we want to bomb Syria and Iran for supplying arms to the Iraquies....How is that different than the U.S. supplying arms to the Chinese. Nothing worked, the Japanese had ruthlessly invaded Manchuria and was for 10 years drawing the world a picture of war and conquest. I am not sure how one invades another country in a non ruthless manner. To suggest that to cut off their oil is an act of aggression is thus rendered ridiculous. No it is not. The reason FDR needed the Japanese to be the agressor is because eveything else failed and war would be necessary even if 83% of the American people were against it. Yes, still WWII could still be viewed as a war for profit given the American nazi financing...but note that the Japanese upon forming the axis powers told their empire that they would merely give the nazis the opportunity...to be last. Perhaps you should check the size of the Japanese military and compare it to the size of the German army and then consider what it would take to get an army from Japan to Europe and supply it.

HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 9:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u AVG was a response o Japanese aggression in China....without Japanese aggression their is no need for the AVG. Why is the U.S. job to respond to Japanese agression in China...How about we let those fuckers solve their own problems. And BTW I have read all of Toland's books thanks for the suggestion all the same. Might I suggest you go back and reread the OP, it is not a question of whether Japan was the aggresor on Dec 7th,rather were they aggresors in the war in its totality...which in my mind anyway translates to the beginning of WW 2 ...which easily precedes Dec 7 1941....so look at Japans behavior in Manchuria and China proper(which precedes the formation of the AVG) and you are left wih only one answer to the question....YES they were the aggresors. I already responded to this point...I said that Japan started a war of agression with China. I also pointed out that the U.S. insinuated itself into that conflict for its own purposes. Japan is the agressor in China not with the U.S. Everything Toland writes on this subject says the same thing. H.

HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (10/31/2008 9:22:40 PM)
quote: HunterS I am with you but this war in Iraq is an abberation and not part of the normal American polity. The war powers act and a spineless, capitalist congress that was a pushover is at fault. It is during the next 8 years for us to demonstrate that we are a benevolent power until we are pushed and focus our resources and diplomacy at that. Every war the U.S. has been in it has either started or insinuated itself into. Every inch of the U.S. (with the exception of Alaska) was acquired at the point of a gun or the threat of same. H.

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/1/2008 3:39:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "They turned out to be some of the most evil fucks ever,left to their own devices" They are fast learners. T They didn't learn it from us and did a whole lot more and I mean a whole lot more worse than the Europeans colonialsts ever did. True, this was Japan's downfall. They could have been the heroes of south east Asia if they concentrated on kicking the Europeans out and liberating the south east Asian nations. Thye would be still be feted there if they had taken that course. However, the extreme militarists had the power in Tokyo who had bought into the whole national myth of superiority. The westerners had more interested in loot and commerce than murdering people for the sake of it, which is still the western motivation.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875