Japanese non-war guilt movies

[urbanoid]

  

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well it kinda wasn't as I recall...

 Japanese non war guilt movies? Battle Royale and Black Rain.

Also Barbie.

Edited August 9 by urbanoid

[LT Ducky]

Suggested Reading

“OUR MAN IN TOKYO: AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR AND THE COUNTDOWN TO PEARL HARBOR”

by Steve Kemper

“JAPAN 1941”

by Eri Hotta

[Rick]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well it kinda wasn't as I recall...

 Japanese non war guilt movies? Battle Royale and Black Rain.

Surprised no one has mentioned Godzilla yet.

[futon]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

50/50 war guilt for the chinese in Nanking I guess. 

Nanking massacre was 100 percent guilt on the Japanese.

[futon]

6 hours ago, rmgill said:

If the US had played the end of the war by Japanese IJA rules what would it have looked like? You think the country would have been left standing? 

 

 

Actually, US occupation was much like Japan's in Singapore. It was very similar to Singapore, an initial massacre but then afterwards, as long as rules were followed, everything was ok. 

But the Neo-imperialists must do the agenda of searching for or fabricating with troll tricks an extra ounce for moral superiority and then to use it as if it constituted a full glass of justification. 

The atomic bomb dropping were war crimes. And Truman or whoever ought to take the blame for it as a war criminal. General Iwane Matsui didn't order or allow the Nanking massacre, but he took the charge anyway. 

For all my aurguments, that doesn't mean Japan is not guilty for atrocities, they are.

But for attack on Pearl Harbor... no, I just don't feel it anywhere near like it is for China. The US butted in, period. The US government officials and neo-imperialists that were at the driving wheel were surprised by it not because they were surprised about being attacked by Japan. They knew it was likely coming because of the steps they were taking. FDR date of infamy speech was a real class act, a tone and head movement to convey such shock and surprise. Give me a break. Way over played. Nothing of greater value than Tojo's declaration of war speech. They were surprised by the Pearl Harbor attack because of thinking that the Japanese were pushovers and couldn'd do it. Only the Philippines was meant to take the brunt, then the USN in all its BB glory can go west and show the yellow japs what a navy means. That was the thinking. A day of hell for all those young American service men. That deserves a moment of silence. For those at the government driving wheel on that day and associated neo-imperialists, a slap in the face with the Japanese red circle on it was deserved, sorry to say. 

No oil embargo, no lines of credit, no repositioning pacific fleet to Hawaii, no start up of massive carrier construction under FDR's posture towards the Asia such as Burma road, no AVG.... very easily no PH. 

Edited August 9 by futon

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, futon said:

Actually, US occupation was much like Japan's in Singapore. It was very similar to Singapore, an initial massacre but then afterwards, as long as rules were followed, everything was ok. 

Japanese behavior with regards to prisoners was a shuffle step removed from their feudal period. 

 

6 hours ago, futon said:

But the Neo-imperialists must do the agenda of searching for or fabricating with troll tricks an extra ounce for moral superiority and then to use it as if it constituted a full glass of justification. 

Not imperialists. Hegemony at best. No imperium, no Emperor. Imperiums have an Emperor. 

6 hours ago, futon said:

The atomic bomb dropping were war crimes. And Truman or whoever ought to take the blame for it as a war criminal. General Iwane Matsui didn't order or allow the Nanking massacre, but he took the charge anyway. 

It was existential war. Nanking was a bigger issue for how Japanese Soldiers were. But then I'm also aware that Japanese troops were similarly ghastly to their own folks from time to time. 

6 hours ago, futon said:

For all my aurguments, that doesn't mean Japan is not guilty for atrocities, they are.

But for attack on Pearl Harbor... no, I just don't feel it anywhere near like it is for China. The US butted in, period. The US government officials and neo-imperialists that were at the driving wheel were surprised by it not because they were surprised about being attacked by Japan.

Japan decided to get in on the Empire/colonialism game. But decided to push the west out of the way and in the process went WELL beyond what even the west considered to be proper. IF you'd not had had Nanking, you'd have not had the Dutch Government shutting down Japan. If it'd been kept low key it would have been fine. It didn't stay low key. 

Futon, I've talked first hand with the daughter of a man who was in the China fleet when the Japanese were there doing their thing. She related quite a bit. He was on USS Sacramento and witnessed the invasion of Shanghai and Shantou. Rear Admiral Bulkeley talked with her, her gr

 

6 hours ago, futon said:

No oil embargo, no lines of credit, no repositioning pacific fleet to Hawaii, no start up of massive carrier construction under FDR's posture towards the Asia such as Burma road, no AVG.... very easily no PH. 

Maybe if Japan had kept their troops on tighter discipline, officers included it might have happened. But with Unit 731, Bataan, the Hellships and numerous other atrocities.....sorry....

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, urbanoid said:

  

Also Barbie.

Didnt she build an Atomic Bomb?

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, futon said:

Actually, US occupation was much like Japan's in Singapore. It was very similar to Singapore, an initial massacre but then afterwards, as long as rules were followed, everything was ok. 

But the Neo-imperialists must do the agenda of searching for or fabricating with troll tricks an extra ounce for moral superiority and then to use it as if it constituted a full glass of justification. 

The atomic bomb dropping were war crimes. And Truman or whoever ought to take the blame for it as a war criminal. General Iwane Matsui didn't order or allow the Nanking massacre, but he took the charge anyway. 

For all my aurguments, that doesn't mean Japan is not guilty for atrocities, they are.

But for attack on Pearl Harbor... no, I just don't feel it anywhere near like it is for China. The US butted in, period. The US government officials and neo-imperialists that were at the driving wheel were surprised by it not because they were surprised about being attacked by Japan. They knew it was likely coming because of the steps they were taking. FDR date of infamy speech was a real class act, a tone and head movement to convey such shock and surprise. Give me a break. Way over played. Nothing of greater value than Tojo's declaration of war speech. They were surprised by the Pearl Harbor attack because of thinking that the Japanese were pushovers and couldn'd do it. Only the Philippines was meant to take the brunt, then the USN in all its BB glory can go west and show the yellow japs what a navy means. That was the thinking. A day of hell for all those young American service men. That deserves a moment of silence. For those at the government driving wheel on that day and associated neo-imperialists, a slap in the face with the Japanese red circle on it was deserved, sorry to say. 

No oil embargo, no lines of credit, no repositioning pacific fleet to Hawaii, no start up of massive carrier construction under FDR's posture towards the Asia such as Burma road, no AVG.... very easily no PH. 

Isnt that kind of like saying 'Sure, I walked in the bank and shot one teller, but the rest were absolutely fine!' Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

TBH, Im not sure its Japan and its war guilt that is the problem here. Yes, Wartme Japan was exceptionally brutal, probably beyond the realms of what other civilised nations found acceptable at the time. Im reminded of the charming incident in Burma where Japanese soldiers found a frontline medical facility, and slaughtered everyone, doctors, nurses and patients with samurai swords.

OTOH, lets be scrupulously fair and say it was the uniquely Japanese perception of how imperialism should work. And speaking as a  Brit, im increasingly aware of the brutality in which we conqueored India. Like strapping ringleader's of the Indian mutiny on the end of cannons and blowing their guts to the winds. The Belgians in the Congo were even worse.

The real problem here is not the brutality of what japan did in WW2, or your defence thereof. You are not wrong that everyone else also did exceptionally brutal things in WW2. The problem to my my mind is you are arguably trying to defend the act of Imperialism itself, and the Japanese policies that made it believe it deserved other peoples territories. And speaking as someone whom didnt really didnt fully get it, even a few years ago, I have to say witnessing what Russia is doing in Ukraine was a real wake up call in perceptions how ALL imperial nations behave. Something even France is now receiving an education on in Africa as we speak.

I mean no disrespect Futon, for you are pretty nice, intelligent guy. But this defence 'I would never have shot the sherriff, if he didnt try to stop me robbing the bank!' is not, personally at least, working for me. Imperialism sucks. Leave it behind, and stop trying to find ways where it was beneficial.

 

Edited August 10 by Stuart Galbraith

[futon]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

Japanese behavior with regards to prisoners was a shuffle step removed from their feudal period. 

 

Not imperialists. Hegemony at best. No imperium, no Emperor. Imperiums have an Emperor. 

It was existential war. Nanking was a bigger issue for how Japanese Soldiers were. But then I'm also aware that Japanese troops were similarly ghastly to their own folks from time to time. 

Japan decided to get in on the Empire/colonialism game. But decided to push the west out of the way and in the process went WELL beyond what even the west considered to be proper. IF you'd not had had Nanking, you'd have not had the Dutch Government shutting down Japan. If it'd been kept low key it would have been fine. It didn't stay low key. 

Futon, I've talked first hand with the daughter of a man who was in the China fleet when the Japanese were there doing their thing. She related quite a bit. He was on USS Sacramento and witnessed the invasion of Shanghai and Shantou. Rear Admiral Bulkeley talked with her, her gr

 

Maybe if Japan had kept their troops on tighter discipline, officers included it might have happened. But with Unit 731, Bataan, the Hellships and numerous other atrocities.....sorry....

Treatment of POWs is somewhat overplayed. It was bad, but giving that the IJA was reaching the point of having difficulty in feeding themselves, then things get really desparate. The terms announced in the Cairo Declaration really raised the stakes. Nevertheless, 75% made it back home. Some that didn't make it was due to ally fire. If prisoner treatment was really bad, the survival rate would be less. It was still bad of course.

The US hegemony was developed from imperialism. Not having a monarch made difference to the outward expansion. Hawaii.. Korea 1871..  Guam.. Peuto Rico.. the Philippines... it was all imperialism play like any of the others. If the US wanted to live to its espoused values, they should have not done those. Maybe only Hawaii at most for securing ocean buffer... 

Nanking was also an example how that was not always the case. Naturally it didn't happen. If there were more Nanking style massacres, it would be recorded. There was Sook Ching in Singapore/Malaysia. But there was also the Atomic Bombs. That doesn't get a pass because it didn't require grunts on the ground to do it.

The real reason for the US to get involved was not because on Nanking, it was because the Japanese actually started getting closer to winning.  After Nanking there still was Wang and loads of other collaborists. If the US cannot comprehend a complex situation, thej they are not fit to take a role of judging. That's when the SU changed its support from communists Chinese to CKS's Nationalists and when the Burma road opened up and supplies and lines of credit started going in. And despite that aid from the SU and US.. the Nationalists, while having some who were very loyal and fought bravely, they still had much corruption and horrific forced recruitment program. So credibility in comparison to the Wang Regime wasn't that high. Even during operation Ichi-Go when CKS's Nationalists Army moved into an area to face the Japanese forces, the local Chinese shot at the Nationalists Army.

For this kind of discussion, while interesting for a person's personal experience, personal contacts don't really have much weight. 

Yes, if the IJA had fewer of the heavy handed type of officers and more officers of humanitarian type, that would be a slam dunk for Japan's cause. Asia wasn't Europe though with paved roads all over the place and high income cities all over yhe place. China ridden with interwar civil war, bandit ridden Fangtien-clique failed Manchuria, colonies abound.. the most civilized place was... Japan.

What happened after Japan was defeated.

Colonial Korea yet still half GDP per capita of Japan.. as a colony really high. Political free will curtailed but modern education introduced. 1900 literacy rate of 10% more than doubled while the population doubled as well. Hangul taught. Korea was one Korea. After Japan's defeat... millions of dead Koreans in one of the worsed ideology wars in history. Korea cut in half. South in dictatorship for 4 decades. North is still wack as f'ck. US discredited its justification for the Pacific War. If it least Korea was not cut in half... an obvious give that couldn't be delived. It could have been a very good thing about the end of Imperial Japan. A free Korea. Nope. Discredited. Fat Kim rocket boy. 

Simalar result with Taiwan. Dictatoship for 4 decades. Identity screwed. International community has their destiny in limbo with destructive threat hanging above them. What matters for US not having a monarch if deliveries abroad have this record? The West should stay in the West, that's what. Taiwan should have stayed in Japan. I could say much more on Taiwan as I have before.

Unit 731. yes, the end of that is probably the best thing about the end of Imperial Japan. Everytime you mention Unit 731, I respond to with just a link about unethical human experients in the US. Experients done on blacks in the US South. Experients done on testicals changes, ass loads of testical changes (like WTF???), of prisoners in California or some state by some doctor guy that got normal role during WW2 and back to running his lab prison after WW2. Didn't you bother to read that link? Experients on lots of people in central America.. Guatemala IIRC.. and expermentation people in US colonial Philippines. And of course, full complience in providing victims of the atomic bombs for data collection. Good thing they dropped two bombs instead of one.. make sure they get enough radiated humans to study. By today, probably loads of Falun Gong organs have been imported. Yeah, of course Unit 731 was really really bad stuff. But is there really comparative can conjure the feeling of not giving a rats ass about Imperial Japan? Look in the mirror, but defog the comparative first.

 

Edited August 10 by futon

[futon]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Isnt that kind of like saying 'Sure, I walked in the bank and shot one teller, but the rest were absolutely fine!' Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

TBH, Im not sure its Japan and its war guilt that is the problem here. Yes, Wartme Japan was exceptionally brutal, probably beyond the realms of what other civilised nations found acceptable at the time. Im reminded of the charming incident in Burma where Japanese soldiers found a frontline medical facility, and slaughtered everyone, doctors, nurses and patients with samurai swords.

OTOH, lets be scrupulously fair and say it was the uniquely Japanese perception of how imperialism should work. And speaking as a  Brit, im increasingly aware of the brutality in which we conqueored India. Like strapping ringleader's of the Indian mutiny on the end of cannons and blowing their guts to the winds. The Belgians in the Congo were even worse.

The real problem here is not the brutality of what japan did in WW2, or your defence thereof. You are not wrong that everyone else also did exceptionally brutal things in WW2. The problem to my my mind is you are arguably trying to defend the act of Imperialism itself, and the Japanese policies that made it believe it deserved other peoples territories. And speaking as someone whom didnt really didnt fully get it, even a few years ago, I have to say witnessing what Russia is doing in Ukraine was a real wake up call in perceptions how ALL imperial nations behave. Something even France is now receiving an education on in Africa as we speak.

I mean no disrespect Futon, for you are pretty nice, intelligent guy. But this defence 'I would never have shot the sherriff, if he didnt try to stop me robbing the bank!' is not, personally at least, working for me. Imperialism sucks. Leave it behind, and stop trying to find ways where it was beneficial.

 

Japan is now facing a PRC much larger. Even the strongest arm of the JSDF, the JMSDF is getting dwarfed by the PLAN. The US hegemony looks like neo-imperialism when some points are not fairly conceded by them. What could have been with a Japanese Pacific War victory starts looking better of two bad choices. If the PRC was better, more trustworthy, not single party heavy handed, then the weight wouldn't tip in that direction. But today, no the imperialistic outlook is no good. Japan must keep good relations with important allies and Japan has been very careful to craft those security and defense relations in a modernistic mode. Don't hate the PRC. Just deter. In the long term. 

[urbanoid]

Philippines were already promised independence before the war. Legally, not with mere words and we know that the promise was fulfilled, just with the delay due to the war. I'd say Taiwan did damn well all things considered, dictatorship or not. Same with South Korea, the foundations for future prosperity were also laid during dictatorship. South Korea was clearly a better place ruled by the locals than by the Japanese, not sure about Taiwan, probably depends on the period. And well, Taiwan was not really ruled by the locals during that time, more like by the transplants from the mainland. Glad that thing changed at least and the new Taiwanese (not Chinese and sometimes even anti-Chinese) identity emerged.

During WW1 and before Japan was known for exceptional treatment of POWs. I've heard the theory that it changed because Japan got very, very pissed off during the 20s and 30s because of what they saw as 'unequal' treatment by the Western great powers. At the same time they were preparing for a war against them and due to the obvious military supremacy of the Western powers they decided to turn their military into people who would never stop fighting no matter how bad the situation was and who considered surrendering an absolute dishonor. That was supposed to compensate for the numerical and materiel deficits, but at the same time contributed to the treatment of Western POWs - after all they have already 'dishonored' themselves by being captured.

"А у вас негров линчуют" - literally

[futon]

37 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Philippines were already promised independence before the war. Legally, not with mere words and we know that the promise was fulfilled, just with the delay due to the war. I'd say Taiwan did damn well all things considered, dictatorship or not. Same with South Korea, the foundations for future prosperity were also laid during dictatorship. South Korea was clearly a better place ruled by the locals than by the Japanese, not sure about Taiwan, probably depends on the period. And well, Taiwan was not really ruled by the locals during that time, more like by the transplants from the mainland. Glad that thing changed at least and the new Taiwanese (not Chinese and sometimes even anti-Chinese) identity emerged.

During WW1 and before Japan was known for exceptional treatment of POWs. I've heard the theory that it changed because Japan got very, very pissed off during the 20s and 30s because of what they saw as 'unequal' treatment by the Western great powers. At the same time they were preparing for a war against them and due to the obvious military supremacy of the Western powers they decided to turn their military into people who would never stop fighting no matter how bad the situation was and who considered surrendering an absolute dishonor. That was supposed to compensate for the numerical and materiel deficits, but at the same time contributed to the treatment of Western POWs - after all they have already 'dishonored' themselves by being captured.

"А у вас негров линчуют" - literally

I have to doubt the Philippines indepedence would have been granted had "the Japan threat" still remained. Your talking about Taiwan and South Korea in terms of  5 decades. In the span of 50 years man, how can one assume a worse case remaining in Japan being so bad.. maybe Korea would undergo decolonization like many other places. Maybe Japanese resistance would have been heavy handed. But even if heavy handed.. as costly as the Korean War? I have to doubt that. And decolonization would mean a single Korea. Sure South Korea has put on a good run. A damn good run. Semiconductors, cars, military equipment, and culture. But there's a catch... the cost was short sighted money killed their baby bearing culture. It really has. I think North Korea has become better at making babies. And the number of South Koreans that yearn for a united Korea has dropped. They've given up. For a national identity for one's country over the 100s of years, it was a single Korean nation over 500 years, but to accept that that has ended, to not even care that it has ended... that's really strange. They've whipped themselves into comfort women this and that for so long then to BTS superhuman boyfriend models, too many lost their senses on basic realities. They'll remain a credible player in some fields for some time but they really need to fix some of their societal issues, even if it means plugging off some amount of the money converter hooked up onto the materialism extractor.

 

After WW1, it was not just unequal naval treaties but the condition that the Anglo-Japanese alliance had to end. Japan joined the 9 power treaty. The SU did not. The SU exported communism into China, set up a puppet regime in Mongolia, and attacked the collapsed Fangtien Clique in 1929 to restablish control of a railway that went through Manchuria. The SU was resurgant. Japan takes the failed state of Manchuria and the US grants recognition of the SU as a response. To say that Japan was wrong and the other colonial powers were right is hypocrasy. Japan was wrong but doesn't say the US and others were right. Just all colonial games. If Manchuria was a successful state, as the Fangtian clique for a bit, then it be sonewhat different. Poland was a functioning state, as were other countries in Europe. The Nationalists Chinese at the tine had no capability whatsoever to exercise jurisdiction in Manchuria. They couldn't for 3 years after the Fangtian clique collapsed in 1928. It was a mess, right on Koreas border with the SU sending in communists. How dare Japan upset the colonial west for taken what had become a bandet ridden place. The Manchuria grab was expansionism, but for the other colonial powers to be that distressed over Manchuria... yeah, I'm not feeling it. That really made a gap between them and Japan.

Edited August 10 by futon

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

OTOH, lets be scrupulously fair and say it was the uniquely Japanese perception of how imperialism should work. And speaking as a  Brit, im increasingly aware of the brutality in which we conqueored India. Like strapping ringleader's of the Indian mutiny on the end of cannons and blowing their guts to the winds. The Belgians in the Congo were even worse.

They did that to the leaders. Did they go in and do that to random people just to make a point or have fun? No. That's the point. War might get brutal. The US when they sometimes caught. I'm reminded of the VC saboteur/murderer who was shot by Brigadier General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Everyone's seen that photo. 

 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I mean no disrespect Futon, for you are pretty nice, intelligent guy. But this defence 'I would never have shot the sherriff, if he didnt try to stop me robbing the bank!' is not, personally at least, working for me. Imperialism sucks. Leave it behind, and stop trying to find ways where it was beneficial.

Good measured point for once. 😉

 

[rmgill]

8 minutes ago, futon said:

I have to doubt the Philippines indepedence would have been granted had "the Japan threat" still remained.

Chigaimasuyo. 

The US independence of the Phillipines was delayed by the Islands having been ravaged by the war. The US delayed it and the folks who lived there were promised the extension was to get them back on their feet so to speak and not leave them in the dirt. The US continued to be a protector for decades afterwards and there's now even after the US is long gone, a whistful desire for the US to be back in some form. Now that China is trying to do the imperialism that they failed to do for centuries, it's a glaring absence. 

 

8 minutes ago, futon said:

Your talking about Taiwan and South Korea in terms of  5 decades. In the span of 50 years man, how can one assume a worse case remaining in Japan being so bad.. maybe Korea would undergo decolonization like many other places.

How did Nanking look after the massacre? Lots of japanese aid or medical folks sent in to fix it? Or was it just 'nandemonaidesune'? 

8 minutes ago, futon said:

Maybe Japanese resistance would have been heavy handed. But even if heavy handed.. as costly as the Korean War? I have to doubt that. And decolonization would mean a single Korea. Sure South Korea has put on a good run. A damn good run.

If Japan had gone softer, pivoted to oppose the USSR, not been ghastly to the Chinese and not tried to kick the US/Britain/French out of their holdings and instead taken the allied position it had during WWI, the world would have been a lot different. Japan opposing Germany and the USSR at the start would have been much better. 

I imagine Japan didn't go so nearly heavy handed in Taiwan. What if Japan had been that way across Manchuria and eastern China? 

Better for Japan, better for the entire region. 

Was getting into an existential war with the US and Britain really good for Jaan in the near term of the 30s, 40s and 50s? No, it wasn't. It was something that left Japan mentally traumatized. Who made that decision? 

 

8 minutes ago, futon said:

To say that Japan was wrong and the other colonial powers were right is hypocrasy. Japan was wrong but doesn't say the US and others were right. Just all colonial games. If Manchuria was a successful state, as the Fangtian clique for a bit, then it be sonewhat different. Poland was a functioning state, as were other countries in Europe. The Nationalists Chinese at the tine had no capability whatsoever to exercise jurisdiction in Manchuria. They couldn't for 3 years after the Fangtian clique collapsed in 1928. It was a mess, right on Koreas border with the SU sending in communists. How dare Japan upset the colonial west for taken what had become a bandet ridden place. The Manchuria grab was expansionism, but for the other colonial powers to be that distressed over Manchuria... yeah, I'm not feeling it. That really made a gap between them and Japan.

Not to justify colonialism, but there was a measured effect that it did lift those nations up out of poverty if done right that was both beneficial to the colonizing nation and the nation that was colonized. It has problems, but it also has benefits, especially if done more carefully. In the case of India, a great many of those principalities joined the British Crown to escape predations by neighbors that would have been or WERE much worse. They were still principalities up until the independence of India in the late 40s. 

[futon]

Ryan, you are practically perfect in every way.

[urbanoid]

I don't really doubt the Philippines independence would have been granted, especially that there were clauses about US basing rights. All those fortifications and military facilities weren't going to be abandoned by the US after spending all those millions in the 1930s. As much as I have the soft spot for Imperial Japan for... reasons, the Koreans didn't want to be a part of it and they were clearly a people with national identity, the position of their country a bit similar to Poland's between Germany and Russia. Sure North Korea is probably better at making babies, but Japan doesn't really have bragging rights in this department either. I'm pretty sure the South Koreans themselves are of the opinion that they're better off since the Japanese rule ended, even with low birthrates, even with the country divided, even with the threat from North Korea. 

I don't think the US leadership was entirely unhappy about the Japanese attack, even if they didn't expect it to include Pearl Harbor. Yes, the US wanted to temper Japanese ambitions, but what they were doing was within their rights. There was no reason for the Japanese to be offended because the US didn't want to trade with them, you trade with who you want. In this case the trade, including selling critical resources, would mean that the US is underwriting Japanese expansion that the US clearly didn't agree with and maintained such position since long before. Imperial Japan, torn between plans of expansion to the West/North and to the South, clearly didn't consider not expanding at all very much. Or, god forbid, not having the overseas empire. Yeah, I get it, sometimes it's hard. Clearly Russia doesn't want to consider it today either. 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

24 minutes ago, rmgill said:

They did that to the leaders. Did they go in and do that to random people just to make a point or have fun? No. That's the point. War might get brutal. The US when they sometimes caught. I'm reminded of the VC saboteur/murderer who was shot by Brigadier General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Everyone's seen that photo. 

 

Good measured point for once. 😉

 

Good measured points always, you just arent tuned to the right frequency is all. 

Yeah well Loan had his best friend and his family murdered by that man. Im not saying he was right. Im just saying in the circumstances, im not sure I wouldnt have done the same thing.

Im reminded of something that happened at Princes Gate. The SAS had managed to find a terrorist whom was hiding among the hostages. It was their intent to take him back inside and finish him off. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Then they noticed a TV cameraman watching them, so the had to hand him over to the police. He did 25 years IIRC, and instead of being deported back to Iran where they would have executed him, they gave him asylum.

Im sure there is a lesson there, just not one we are very good at learning.

 

[futon]

16 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I don't really doubt the Philippines independence would have been granted, especially that there were clauses about US basing rights. All those fortifications and military facilities weren't going to be abandoned by the US after spending all those millions in the 1930s. As much as I have the soft spot for Imperial Japan for... reasons, the Koreans didn't want to be a part of it and they were clearly a people with national identity, the position of their country a bit similar to Poland's between Germany and Russia. Sure North Korea is probably better at making babies, but Japan doesn't really have bragging rights in this department either. I'm pretty sure the South Koreans themselves are of the opinion that they're better off since the Japanese rule ended, even with low birthrates, even with the country divided, even with the threat from North Korea. 

I don't think the US leadership was entirely unhappy about the Japanese attack, even if they didn't expect it to include Pearl Harbor. Yes, the US wanted to temper Japanese ambitions, but what they were doing was within their rights. There was no reason for the Japanese to be offended because the US didn't want to trade with them, you trade with who you want. In this case the trade, including selling critical resources, would mean that the US is underwriting Japanese expansion that the US clearly didn't agree with and maintained such position since long before. Imperial Japan, torn between plans of expansion to the West/North and to the South, clearly didn't consider not expanding at all very much. Or, god forbid, not having the overseas empire. Yeah, I get it, sometimes it's hard. Clearly Russia doesn't want to consider it today either. 

 

Well posts on going in circles now. The US did more than just cancel trade, they butted in. https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/48332-japanese-non-war-guilt-movies/&do=findComment&comment=1692153

 

-Thud- There's that glass ceiling again.

Edited August 10 by futon

[urbanoid]

They were very well within their rights to construct as many carriers and battleships as they wanted to, to reposition one of their fleets to a different place on their own territory (or not their own, as long as the host nation agreed to it), to support the internationally recognized government of China, including finding a way to supply it.

[futon]

Lawyer game rights went beyond their constitution's place of being. The further hungry lawyer games push the rights to..the dumber they get. 

[futon]

Good job! Respect em rightz!