RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII

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

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

Message

HansBrinker -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/1/2008 9:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 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. If you are going to blame some Western power, then you should really blame the British. In the 1921 Treaty between France, Britain, Japan and the US, the British pushed to limit the size of the Imperial fleet. This more than anything else with the superior numbers of vessels by classes to the Western powers and limiting what the Imperial Fleet could have, was very much akin to the Treaty of Versailles and how it created the atmosphere that allowed Hitler to rise to power in Germany by 1932. The Treaty was for 10 years. But by the time it was over, the Imperial Army was looking to flex its muscles for sure. Expansion into China was first sought. The Emperor did not always know what the Army was up to for sure. The rape of Nanking and other autrocities on the Korean peninsula is what caused the Western powers to try and limit the expansion of Japan. Only when the British and US stopped the exports of raw materials to feed the military-industrial complex, did plans start to formulate to eliminate the US from the Pacific. Japan thought the US isolationist position would allow it to remain unchecked by France and Britain alone. Look how easy Singapore fell. So to say that the US of the 1940's was like that of today is just plain wrong!

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 2:48:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBrinker quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 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. If you are going to blame some Western power, then you should really blame the British. In the 1921 Treaty between France, Britain, Japan and the US, the British pushed to limit the size of the Imperial fleet. This more than anything else with the superior numbers of vessels by classes to the Western powers and limiting what the Imperial Fleet could have, was very much akin to the Treaty of Versailles and how it created the atmosphere that allowed Hitler to rise to power in Germany by 1932. The Treaty was for 10 years. But by the time it was over, the Imperial Army was looking to flex its muscles for sure. Expansion into China was first sought. The Emperor did not always know what the Army was up to for sure. The rape of Nanking and other autrocities on the Korean peninsula is what caused the Western powers to try and limit the expansion of Japan. Only when the British and US stopped the exports of raw materials to feed the military-industrial complex, did plans start to formulate to eliminate the US from the Pacific. Japan thought the US isolationist position would allow it to remain unchecked by France and Britain alone. Look how easy Singapore fell. So to say that the US of the 1940's was like that of today is just plain wrong! I have no problem in heaping blame on Britain, it was an imperial power whose sole reason for being in the region was exploitation like all the other western powers. Singapore fell through complancy and not believing little yellow men could take it. As for the rise of Hitler. The French and the Belgians were the main culprits in that affair in creating the situation and the resentment in Germany that Hitler was able to take advantage of. WWI expanding from European continental war to a world war can be put directly at Britain's door.

Owner59 -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 4:35:32 AM)
So Japan felt the need to exploit and conquer as well? This is what lifts the onus(or even some of it) off of them? Rubbish.

HunterS -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 4:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 So Japan felt the need to exploit and conquer as well? This is what lifts the onus(or even some of it) off of them? Rubbish. What we have is a group of thugs getting into a pissing contest about the spoils to be had by way of rape pillage and plunder. When it is over and the dusts settles the winner points the finger at the looser and claims "you started this". Yes rubbish. Hunter

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 5:06:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 So Japan felt the need to exploit and conquer as well? This is what lifts the onus(or even some of it) off of them? Rubbish. Japan was copying the west, they got their model from the west, they learnt their imperialism from the west. It doesn't take the onus off Japan and it doesn't take the onus off the west either. Let's bite the bullet here, WWII was fought between imperial powers, not for freedom. The reason the socialist government in Britain after WWII started to dismantle the empire (apart from Britain being bust) was because it saw the hypocrisy in fighting for freedom and having an empire and imperialist ambitions and that Britain couldn't claim to have fought a war for freedom and carried on exploiting its colonies. Ask yourself 59, who, under the threat of the use of arms, opened up Japan in the 19th century. It was that hard lesson at the hands of western imperialism that set the Japanese on the long road to 1942.

piratecommander -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 9:09:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JustDarkness quote: ORIGINAL: piratecommander quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: How can it be wrong when god orders you to attack? God always sides with the victors. Flip side.....it's only wrong when you lose. What kind of God is it that would take sides in a war,let alone allow one to happen ? I think it's the victors that TELL you that god/s were on their sides after they've won,just as god/s is/are on your side while you carry out the slaughter of men women and CHILDREN to acheive victory. Who is this God person anyway ? If you would read back..you would have seen that God = The japanese Emperor That is how the japanese saw him..as a god. So all was justified. Well it was a provocative postulation......I couldn't agree more.....having people see you as a god is a good way of getting away with being a warmonger,it has been a popular way of getting people to fight ones battles over the course of time. In that case , does this mean that God was the aggressor? I beleive the U.S. laid some claim to the support of a God too.

piratecommander -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 9:20:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: JustDarkness quote: ORIGINAL: piratecommander quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: How can it be wrong when god orders you to attack? God always sides with the victors. Flip side.....it's only wrong when you lose. What kind of God is it that would take sides in a war,let alone allow one to happen ? I think it's the victors that TELL you that god/s were on their sides after they've won,just as god/s is/are on your side while you carry out the slaughter of men women and CHILDREN to acheive victory. Who is this God person anyway ? If you would read back..you would have seen that God = The japanese Emperor That is how the japanese saw him..as a god. So all was justified. Thanks for clearing that up. Sometimes threads get highjacked over something mis-spoken or mis-heard. Not hijacked by me.....I was indicating that God is the aggressor.........unless of course one does not have God/s(,in which case everyone involved is an aggressor) I believe I am entitled to blame other peoples divinities,just as much as one might blame other factors. "Who Is This God Person Anyway" is actually my way of questioning the existance of said God/s.

JustDarkness -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 9:57:39 AM)
found this by accident..lol. IT seems soem one has this discussion (We having) by itself. LOL..the first sentence (afther the quote) made my laugh. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers178.html I was looking for the god emperor of Japan in WW2 and from an interview quote: When you were in the war, did most people think Emperor Hirohito was a god?2 Oh yeah. We were always taught in school that the emperor was a god. We were supposed to sacrifice anything for him. Of course there were some people that doubted and said because he had all the bodily functions of a normal human being, he couldn’t be a god, but most people definitely believed he was a god, including myself. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/i4tamura.htm

LadyKarin -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 10:05:42 AM)
well, they started "shooting" - but they did NOT start hostile actions. The US supported Japan´s enemies with weapons. This is a hostile action. Japan was dump enough to react in a manner, the US Government craved for.

JustDarkness -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 10:07:15 AM)
In the end..Japan an his economy did well..afther the war. As did Germany. I heard a person say once...once every 100 year a continent needs war..to grow and rethink.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 11:27:15 AM)
And the big bad Japanese attacked those American states full of American citizens, the Philippines and Hawaii. Two states that had volunteered to join our country.

RealSub58 -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 11:41:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Japan was not an aggressor in WWII, I think he might find his reception at the job centre be a bit "Pearl Harbor" so to speak E Japan were aggressors against the US. It was the German's who initiated WWII, so why the hell should Japan think WWII was cause of them?

JustDarkness -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 11:56:29 AM)
Japan made it really a world war..first it was more like a cozy Europe thingy

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 12:05:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JustDarkness Japan made it really a world war..first it was more like a cozy Europe thingy Hmmm Brutal as Japan was, it was fighting in its backyard. Western countries were half way around the globe making it a world war and Japan was their enemy because Japan was muscling in on the action. Westerners were hated in the region until Japan proved there were more brutal people than westerners in the world.

Irishknight -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 2:18:14 PM)
Interesting to note that since a few sought to pounce on my statements about the AVG, they were miraculously WRONG. China funded the whole deal at a cost of 8 million US dollars. The US supplied no planes and the pilots had to resign their commissions to join the group. Most of the survivors were reactivated after returning to the states. A few didn't even make it stateside before entering military service again. The governments of both the US and Britain did make allowances for the group in a number of ways. Britain allowed the Chinese to purchase the remainder of an order of P40-Bs that were not considered "fit for combat" by either the US or the British. In return, a new line building the newer model P40s was put into place building for the British. The US did agree to accept the resignations of those pilots who wanted to go. An unheard of order did allow enlisted men to leave US service to join the group. They were then hired as civilians. They recieved a wage of $250 per month to $750 per month. The Japanese even realized the difference. They had a policy in place to kill all AVG pilots captured instead of treating them as American or RAF pilots. To their credit, they did not follow their own stated policy with the 3 pilots they captured. "The outstanding gallantry and conspicuous daring that the American Volunteer Group combined with their unbelievable efficiency is a source of tremendous pride throughout the whole of America. The fact that they have labored under the shortages and difficulties is keenly appreciated..." Frankiln D. Roosevelt, April 1942. The shortages he spoke of were the lack of promised parts and equipment. Those are well documented. As for official forces, the RAF flew beside the AVG. They were a directly supported military group. The AVG existed for less than one year and disbanded in July of 1942. They were directly funded by China and had a better record than any flying force in the air war over that region. They shot down 299 enemy aircraft with another 153 unconfirmed but likely. China called it "the best money they ever spent."

SimplyMichael -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 2:47:07 PM)
If you think the AVG was some magical spontaneous event that wasn't created by the US military, you are on crack. They bent all sorts of rules to allow the creation of the AVG

meatcleaver -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 2:51:52 PM)
"The outstanding gallantry and conspicuous daring that the American Volunteer Group combined with their unbelievable efficiency is a source of tremendous pride throughout the whole of America. The fact that they have labored under the shortages and difficulties is keenly appreciated..." Frankiln D. Roosevelt, April 1942. The shortages he spoke of were the lack of promised parts and equipment. Those are well documented. The very fact a President could officially recognize and approve of the mercenaries says a lot about official American policy and attitudes. If a government in the middleast today would support mercenaries, American would accuse them of being terrorists and part of an axis of evil and attack them. I would imagine this is how Japan viewed the AVG pilots, terrorists fighting a US proxy war because that is exactly how the US would view it if the boot was on the other foot.

Irishknight -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 3:41:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael If you think the AVG was some magical spontaneous event that wasn't created by the US military, you are on crack. They bent all sorts of rules to allow the creation of the AVG Neither magical, spontaneous, nor on crack. It was the idea of a retired military man who had acted as advisor to the Chinese Air Force. If you'll read my post, you will see that I even mentioned the unprecedented allowances made for enlisted men to join the AVG. I know how and why they were created. I also know that Chenault was turned down the first time he tried to get the idea approved. It was not over night nor was it an official US military unit. No troops would have been expended by the US to get them out had they all been captured. There is a huge difference between a government to send in active duty troops and a government allowing volunteers to do a job they can't. MC, your statement is lacking something....substance. Since we have yet tocondemn the French for their use of the Foreign Legion, a government run mercenary organization, you are apparently wrong. We have also not condemned the various countries who have hired Execuitve Outcomes out of Africa. Mercs are private soldiers, not terrorists by definition. Were a government in the Middle East to hire a merc organization to act as soldiers, it would be no different. The funniest thing is that the people who are arguing against the AVG are the same ones who would speak up the loudest against the types of atrocities that were being committed in China by Japan. They would call for the world to stand up and do something about it. That is exactly what happened. FDR was unable to send official military aid so he stepped aside and opened the door for others to do so. Would anyone like to point out the yar that Japan launched an invasion of Mongolia due to a bombing that they committed? It was well before the AVG. It was a clear act of aggression. They were an aggressor. Maybe not the only one but they were an aggressor. aggressor Pronunciation: \ə-ˈgre-sər\ Function: noun Date: 1646 : one that commits or practices aggression

SimplyMichael -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 3:47:48 PM)
The point others have made quite clearly is the AVG only existed because of clandestine support of the US military. Chenault was allowed access to people, documents, staff, etc. It would be like saying Saudi Arabia and UAE weren't involved in 9/11 because they issued official denials. Give me a fucking break. If the US military had wanted to stop the creation of the AVG it would never have been formed. Japan was an aggressor, deserved to be nuked BUT to act like we were all nice and peaceful and they were the axis of evil is horseshit.

Irishknight -> RE: Japan not the aggressor in WWII (11/2/2008 4:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael The point others have made quite clearly is the AVG only existed because of clandestine support of the US military. Chenault was allowed access to people, documents, staff, etc. It would be like saying Saudi Arabia and UAE weren't involved in 9/11 because they issued official denials. Give me a fucking break. If the US military had wanted to stop the creation of the AVG it would never have been formed. Japan was an aggressor, deserved to be nuked BUT to act like we were all nice and peaceful and they were the axis of evil is horseshit. Chenault could just have easily went through the British government. Wait. He did. They gave up their order of 100 planes to the AVG for an offer of having better planes from the manufacturer, who was run by a friend of Chenault's. A force would have been formed regardless. They would probably not have been as effective but they would have been formed. History will show that there is never a problem finding men willing to fight and kill other men. The US allowed it to happen and made it easier but it would have happened anyway. As for denying that we were an aggressive state, I never have. I merely stated that to deny that Japan was an aggressor is a lie just as calling a mercenary force funded by the Chinese an American military unit is a lie. We are not squeaky clean but that does not change their guilt either. Have you ever thought that the request of the Chinese might have had something to do with the allowances made for the AVG? Perhaps, when they asked for help, the AVG was the best we could do. Unofficial help that most military men stated were doomed to fail in a month.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02