14 more today. 43 US Soldiers killed in Last 10 Days in Iraq

Here's the difference, we know those Americans were in it for the long haul because they "liberated" themselves. Two totally separate situations.

 

Think of Iraq more as the 'Yugoslavia' of the ME, that's what it resembles the most.

 

Chill dude, I meant the US troops occupying Japan (my Dad) weren't there to keep the Chinese out of Japan but were there to install a government that would bever again threaten it's neighbors.

I'm sure many Chinese understandably felt like they should wipe the Japanese people from the face of the Earth but I don't think they had the military power to do that and I think the nationalist leadership at the time were beholden enough to McArthur to let him direct the occupation recognizing him as the supreme commander of the Allied forces in the Pacific.

The Emperor lived in a world where his perceptions were entirely controlled by his advisors and his wishes were exercised soley through his generals. If you think George Bush only got what the information his advisors wanted him to hear about Iraq think what it was like for the emperor living in a compound with no mass communications at all.

The decision was made that the most expedient way (loss of Allied lives) to control the people of Japan was to keep the Emperor alive to promote a passive accpetance of the surrender. They hung , shot and imprisoned a lot of the bastards that were responsible for the atrocities in China but I will grant you they should have hung them all. Too many survived to live comfortably as the captains of industry and influencing the modern govenment of Japan to downplay their history as a scourge on humanity.

 

Well the problem is your original post had not been constructed the same way as you did just now.

Say A was a menace to X, Y, and Z at time 0, while B wasn't, and B only became a menace to X and Z at time 1. You can't say in one generalized statement that "A and B were menaces to X, Y, and Z at time 0" (because the context was "US stayed in Japan" immediately following the end of WWII, which was in 1945).

Also (I know it's not a subject the debate, but I bring this up anyway to illustrate my point) no matter how one can spin it, at least you should realize China was never a threat to Germany in the Cold War. If someone has no knowledge of recent world history, by just reading your post (#66), he/she would otherwise think that's a fact.

To make the discussion easier, again here's what you wrote: "In the question of whether the US stayed in Japan et al for 'democratic' motives, I think that's an obvious 'yes.' Japan, Germany, and Korea - to cover the examples already listed - certainly had the Soviets and Chinese as threats to their democracies."

 

I absolutely agree. It was not otherwise as someone here claimed to protect Japanese democracy from Chinese threat.

Some chinese think that way, and I argued intensely with them in some chinese BBS. Why? Because atrocities were committed by one generation, not the current, not the whole Japanese people. I still consider Chinese forgiving people. Lots of western countries brought harm and shame to China in modern history. Yuan and Qing dynasty were simply ruled by foreign nations other than Han-Chinese. Especially in the beginning of Qing dynasty, terrible things were done to Han-Chinese. Chinese learned to forgive and look ahead. Do they have much problem with Britains, French, Germans, and Americans? (I still consider Americans did least harm to Chinese people in the history among those Western Countries). NO they don't. Why they had so much problem with Japanese? In my opinon, first of all, the atrocities they did in WWII was unheard of in human history, and I simply couldn't find any similar examples from any invaders. Second, more importantly, Japan as a country, led my goverment were and are whitewashing the whole capital of that sad history. That's just not acceptable. After WWII, Germans were clear if they don't differentiate themselves from Nazi Germany, if they can't face the history, and honest with themselves, they wouldn't be accepted in the World again. As for Japan, it was totally different. Because it happened in far east, it didn't affect Western World too much. On top of that, with the starting of Cold War, interest-driven, Japanese weren't punished as German. They weren't asked to compensate the harm they did during the war. Except for less than 20 commanders, most of the criminals survived and lived well, so that they could be so active in polical arena and government, to lead the "whitewash" mission.

That's where most Chinese have problem with Japanese. That's also where I have problem with some posters when it came to Japanese vs. Chinese.

 

You're right. It obviously wasn't delineated in that manner but I also didn't say at time 0. In fact I went out of my way to explain there was a five year lag between the Soviet threat and the Chinese threat.

I would think he or she would be a very confused person if they thought I was saying China was a threat to Germany. Or they could just have stopped at the 'China' in the sentence, and ignore the 'Soviet' part, which seems most likely.

Exactly - they STAYED in Japan for democratic motives. That is not INTERVENED in Japan for democratic motives, or OCCUPIED Japan for democratic motives. Once the Cold War started each outpost be it S Korea, Japan, Western Europe or any of the other CW battleground, became part of a battle of democratic ideals vs totalitarianism.

 

Gosh, I can't believe what you were saying. Take a look at your statement again,

tell me any logical person without the slightest historical knowledge would intelligently disect the whole sentence and interpret it as:

- Japan, Germany, and Korea had the Soviets as a threat to their democracies;
- Japan and Korea had China as a threat to their democracies;
- Germany did NOT had China as a threat to its democracy.

You are better than this, HayesStreet. I hope.

 

Given that you're assuming they have enough knowledge to know what Japan, Germany, and Korea are - what the Soviet Union was, that there was a competition between democratic states and totalitarian states....yeah - i don't think its that big a leap for them to recognize that China and Germany don't directly link together (although one can argue they did both have thier parts in the competition between communism and the West).

 

Mongol slaughters of entire cities that resisted them, Roman cruxifictions, Viking rape and pilliging, Sumarians tempering their molten swords in the assholes of captured warriors, Aztec disembowelments, The proliferation of Smallpox as a weapon against the indigenous people of the New World, Scalping by American Indians, Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia etc. ect. You just weren't looking or you were mislead by your bias that the Japanese on Chinese violence was worse.

Human beings have an almost infinite capacity for atrocity. One reason is that the invading forces are usually outnumbered by the peoples they are at war with. If you do things that make you appear fierce you can intimidate them into capitulation rather than having to battle their overwhelming masses.
Another thing is to inspire men to battle you have to dehumanize the enemy. If you are effective enough at this your soldiers will not feel as much guilt about killing them and that same guiltessness can lead to the comission of atrocities. Also, men in battle fight for one another more than a cause, revenge is a powerful emotion than can lead to atrocity.

 

real_egal, here're some historical facts you may want to reflect upon.

http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=mychina&MsgID=134146

 

Dubious;

I think I understand where you're coming from but you it sounds like you are pretty much excusing the Rape of Nanking which I presume you are not intending too.

I agree humans have behaved viciously but the Rape of Nanking along with what the Japanese did in Occupied China and the Holocaust stand out from the barbaric history of humanity because it was the marriage of old fashioned barbarism to industrialization and bureacratic efficiency. There had been nothing like those events prior and nothing like that since. Neither the Serbs or Hutus ravages approached to the scale, scope and efficiency to what happened in Nanking.

 

Hmmm, Pol Pot in Cambodia? Mao in the Cultural Revolution? I don't think anyone is being an apologist for Nanking etc when they point out that similar acts have been carried out before in other places. Anymore than you are an apologist for comparing the Holocaust with Nanking.

btw:

"Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, made an unusually public apology for his country's World War II aggression at a conference here Friday. His remarks preceded a meeting set for this weekend with China's president, Hu Jintao, to try to defuse a diplomatic row over how Japan interprets its wartime history.

Speaking to a gathering of more than 100 Asian and African leaders, Koizumi expressed "deep remorse" over the pain Japan inflicted on its neighbors in Asia. While Japanese leaders have extended such apologies in the past, it is rare for a prime minister to address the issue in so public a forum."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/22/news/bandung.php

 

Comparing death count, there were similar atrocities committed elsewhere in human history, as several posters here pointed out. But comparing the scale, scope, and well-planed cruel ways those atrocities were committed, in my opinion, no one toped them. Of course, as you mentioned, I am biased. However, some of the missionaries experienced that Nanking massacre were in the same opinion in their books, same as some of the Japanese commanders and soldiers. One Nazi commander called those Japanese soldiers in Nanking "animals" and their crimes "the worst in human history". You can go back to the post which you accused me of "ranting about Nanking", I just gave you some of examples why some people, including myself considered that the worst. Of course, when you talk about which one is worse, it's absolutely subjective. I am not trying to convert you.

Culture revolution was different, while lots of lives lost, due to terrible terrible policies and power struggles in Communist party, but it was not caused by systematic massacre or ethnic cleansing. Most of those people were starved, not beheaded, burned, or raped. It was a crime committed by Mao and his followers, none of them created or carried out a massacre plan. A life is a life, Nanking is certainly no excuse for Culture Revolution 20 years later, and Culture Revolution is no excuse for Nanking either.

The reason I "ranted about Nanking" was to show you with some examples, that what kind of "Japanese democracy" you claimed the Americans were protecting in 1945, against Chinese threat.

Prime minister Koizumi's "deep remorse" is certainly a good sign; however, actions weigh more than thousands words. I believe he's scheduled to visit the Holy Shrine sometime later this month, where those hung war criminals were worshiped among other soldiers. Of course, he will be there only worshiping those other soldiers, not those executed war criminals.

I am not saying you are a Nanking apologist. You are the only person knows what you really think. You just happened to dismiss my opinion that Nanking was the worst, because I am biased. You just happened to bring up Culture Revolution when others show you how horrible Nanking was. You just happened to insist that was the "democracy" Americans protected in 1945. When Holocaust was mentioned, only Jews and Germany during that period were discussed. But when Japanese invasion was mentioned, Culture Revolution, Chinese (Yuan Dynasty in some 800 years ago) attempted invasion in Japan, and dozens of other events in history has to be brought up. Of course you are not implying that since Chinese did bad things to others and themselves, so it's ok about Nanking. You wouldn't do that, you just feel that Culture Revolution after 20 years is very related to Nanking massacre. For me, you are not a Nanking apologist, but rather an "anti-China" apologist. Of course I am biased, but you are not.

 

I think we at least can agree that Japan pre-1945 surrender and Japan post-1945 surrender are different, right. I understand you being upset about Nanking. No problem. I've explained my statement about four times so if you don't understand what I am saying....we'll just have to move on.

 

I consider Germany pre-1945 surrender and Germany post-1945 different, because they viewed the war differently. They realized how much sorrow they brought to others and themselves. They considered those actions during the war crimes against human beings. They are different. As for Japan, they are certainly a different country, but the majority view of WWII never changed. That's why today, they are still trying to "whitewash" that period of history; they are still claiming they were to protect asian countries from Western colonization; they are still insisting that Nanking massacre was a lie; they are still worshiping those war criminals in the Holy Shrine; now they are pushing to change the constitution to allow them to send troops abroad. I don't think their view of WWII has changed. That's the problem.

 

Fair enough. I don't think this is really relevant to my original point which is why I labeled it a 'rant' about Nanking. For instance let's say I said: 'the Soviet Union was a threat to West Germany in the Cold War.' If the reply is: 'germany committed the holocaust!' - then that is really a non sequitur.