noyhauser, it may be just as well that you don't respond further to this thread. Members like astroboy, caster51, let's talk, and Anatoli have a way of making the argument so filled with misinformation and bullshit that it's really not worth contributing to the tireless and worthless discussions they turn almost every thread they reply to into.
Great job everyone, another thread about how the USA allegedly sucks.
Thor, you may feel that my comment about US joining the war only in 1944 sounded like misinformation but this is the way it feels when millions were dying and one country acted as an observer and supplier of food and ammunition for hard cash. The history was rewritten since then and US has been portrayed as the winner of the war and the main contributor to the victory, even forgotten that the hardest and the dirtiest bits were left for USSR, China to finish even after US joined the main actions in 1944. The battles for Berlin and the liberation of Manchuria are just two example. It's so much easier to finish it off with two bombs, reducing any possibility of battles on the ground to minimum. It's not misinformation but the perception if you wish, for which there are good reasons. I read comments of an American guys ridiculing Russians and others for losing so many lives while US was cashing in, since then I have very bad feelings about it. Nobody seems to care about the Russian Holocaust.
On the other hand, I understand that saving lives of own people should be the objective of each government and there is no reason for Americans themselves to blame the American government. It doesn't make Americans look good in the eyes of other nations, though. Do you see my point?
Also, America owns all the media, so they made sure that the world perceives the way the war was carried out the way America wanted it - always making Russians the bad guys, downplaying or simply ignoring the history and making sure Russia and Japan don't sign the peace treaty.
--
I probably won't continue in this thread, I agree it's not friendly to anyone and it's better be closed. We can't determine for sure the historical events now. There is no "if" in History, just facts. There are many articles and different opinions. Maybe some parts should be just left alone. I am a peace lover and believe that all modern conflicts can be resolved by communications and negotiations. All the best to you all.
Yes WWII was really horrible
I have been in Japanese camps 2½ years long on the island Java, my Dad and my uncle have been killed. We lost everything.
Very ugly things happen during wars. My mother hated the Japanese! My two younger sisters still dislike the Japanese people up till today.
That war ended 65 years ago. I was 18 years old when WWII ended. Unconsciously in the beginning but consciously later on I realized that I didn't want to be a loser. I learned to stand above all hatred.
There are fine people in each country of this world and alas also extremely bad people in all countries.
Such is Life!
Thor, you may feel that my comment about US joining the war only in 1944 sounded like misinformation but this is the way it feels when millions were dying and one country acted as an observer and supplier of food and ammunition for hard cash. The history was rewritten since then and US has been portrayed as the winner of the war and the main contributor to the victory, even forgotten that the hardest and the dirtiest bits were left for USSR, China to finish even after US joined the main actions in 1944. The battles for Berlin and the liberation of Manchuria are just two example. It's so much easier to finish it off with two bombs, reducing any possibility of battles on the ground to minimum. It's not misinformation but the perception if you wish, for which there are good reasons. I read comments of an American guys ridiculing Russians and others for losing so many lives while US was cashing in, since then I have very bad feelings about it. Nobody seems to care about the Russian Holocaust.
On the other hand, I understand that saving lives of own people should be the objective of each government and there is no reason for Americans themselves to blame the American government. It doesn't make Americans look good in the eyes of other nations, though. Do you see my point?
Also, America owns all the media, so they made sure that the world perceives the way the war was carried out the way America wanted it - always making Russians the bad guys, downplaying or simply ignoring the history and making sure Russia and Japan don't sign the peace treaty.
--
I probably won't continue in this thread, I agree it's not friendly to anyone and it's better be closed. We can't determine for sure the historical events now. There is no "if" in History, just facts. There are many articles and different opinions. Maybe some parts should be just left alone. I am a peace lover and believe that all modern conflicts can be resolved by communications and negotiations. All the best to you all.
Yes, I think a country that didn't have to enter a war situated in Europe should be applauded for their entry into it to aid the Allied Forces. We had already over a hundred thousand dead in one year during World War I, so what makes you think Americans were interested in sending their sons, husbands, and fathers to die en mass again? I guess it's okay for you to condemn America's late entry into the war because you're not an American, and our lives are worth less to you than your own countrymen.
Let's face it. We supplied your war effort even before we took military action against the Axis. We gave 50 destroyers to the Allied Forces for some land. We also changed the Neutrality Acts, and from that came cash and carry. And that became the Lend-Lease program, under that we provided $759 billion dollars under 2008 prices to the Allied Forces. And then, hey, Japan attacked us, and we sent hundreds of thousands of husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons to die in a war that we didn't want to fight, considering the losses we suffered in WWI. We may not have won the war single-handedly, but we certainly contributed more than our fair share to the overall victory by the Allied Forces.
We were all about non-interventionism, and the growing number of conflicts across the pond led us to the point we're at today, a stance of international intervention. So, to all who criticize America's past actions, and it's actions today, look back to your country's past and see how much we contributed to it then, and how American culture is influencing you today.
I'm seriously done with these goddamn anti-American comments by idiots with half a brain. This is the last goddamn argument I'm getting into over American actions in the past. Read Wikipedia, be enlightened, and shut up about it already.
It does not matter. If Stalin seriously wanted to invade Hokkaido , he would have done that. Luckily for Japan he was too busy with building communism in the Eastern Europe
battle of Kuril Islands
1657 Russian who were killed in War
1018 Japanese who were killed in WAR .
Anyway Russia was defeated. the Japanese soldiers were orderd to stop the fighing from Tokyo.
then Russia could not land Hokkaido until the surrender document signature of Japan September 2.
Russia was not able to make an established fact
staline was shocked the number of victimes at small island battle
1657 dead was more than victimes in Manchuria
He thought that the Japanese northern force was deployed
and he gave up further progress.
that why he said it was the saddest day for russia
anyway
Russian is always looter at the scene of a fire.
One million Japanese were taken to Siberia and it became forced labor.
half of them died in Siberia.
It's interesting to me that Europeans criticize the US for not having the Bush Doctrine (attack someone else first, if you think they might attack you) in place at the start of WW II. It's most curious because a lot of them didn't much like the Bush Doctrine when it led us into Iraq.
At the start of WW II, most Americans saw it as just the latest European war. They didn't figure it was any of our business to go a-meddling around in Europe. I can understand that philosophy; I feel the same way about Iraq now.
Ms. van Kampen, I find your personal story very interesting and touching. Your willingness to forgive the Japanese people is especially moving to me.
Anatoli, I was talking about the common American perception, not necessarily the truth.
"The World War II history for the world is not written by Russians and more and more facts are forgotten or changed. . . ."
Thor, you may feel that my comment about US joining the war only in 1944 sounded like misinformation but this is the way it feels when millions were dying and one country acted as an observer and supplier of food and ammunition for hard cash. The history was rewritten since then and US has been portrayed as the winner of the war and the main contributor to the victory, even forgotten that the hardest and the dirtiest bits were left for USSR, China to finish even after US joined the main actions in 1944. The battles for Berlin and the liberation of Manchuria are just two example. It's so much easier to finish it off with two bombs, reducing any possibility of battles on the ground to minimum. It's not misinformation but the perception if you wish, for which there are good reasons. I read comments of an American guys ridiculing Russians and others for losing so many lives while US was cashing in, since then I have very bad feelings about it. Nobody seems to care about the Russian Holocaust.
On the other hand, I understand that saving lives of own people should be the objective of each government and there is no reason for Americans themselves to blame the American government. It doesn't make Americans look good in the eyes of other nations, though. Do you see my point?
Also, America owns all the media, so they made sure that the world perceives the way the war was carried out the way America wanted it - always making Russians the bad guys, downplaying or simply ignoring the history and making sure Russia and Japan don't sign the peace treaty.
--
I probably won't continue in this thread, I agree it's not friendly to anyone and it's better be closed. We can't determine for sure the historical events now. There is no "if" in History, just facts. There are many articles and different opinions. Maybe some parts should be just left alone. I am a peace lover and believe that all modern conflicts can be resolved by communications and negotiations. All the best to you all.
You just have be careful how you word things, because saying America entered the war in Europe in 1944 IS misinformation. Americans were fighting directly with the Nazis as early as 1942 and had pushed their way to Southern Europe by 1943 (please see my previous posts with the wikipedia links and read the articles) the American generals wanted to start their assault against Hitler in Europe but the British believed that to be a foolish route to take Operation Sledgehammer - Wikipedia, so north Africa was opted as the starting point. This was not about just letting others die, it was about strategy and choosing the best way to win the war.
And btw everything I have read or seen about the battle of Berlin was that the city was not left for the Soviets to take over because the Americans and British did not want it, it is because Stalin and his generals wanted the glory of taking the city, and so the other allies consented to letting him have his way.
No doubt many countries lost much more than the US, but these were matters geography, and politics, and military strategy. Do you think it should be the goal of any country in a war to try to be the one to sustain the most losses or something, otherwise their sacrifices are insignificant, or that Americans should have all rushed to strap bombs to their chests and take their fair share of death and suffering?
Yes, Russia sustained horrible losses, that is no secret and it is a tragedy, but that does not mean its ok to just make statements that are flat out not true, because some idiots in the past have struck an emotional bad cord with you by their dumb comments.
You talk like we were just sitting on our a$$es waiting for all the grunt work to be done...... So talking like the US should have just parachuted into Berlin in January 1942, sounds really ridiculous.
The American concept of partnership (or speaking about WWII- Allies) is to work not for the partenship but for the American interests only. Basically for one side of the partnership and didn't bother to follow the interests of the opposite party. Just like they did with the Kurils islands. They agreed them to be Soviet in exchange of the Soviet help in Pacific and after the US got it, they did everything they could to spoil the Soviet-Japanese relationship. In Europe the US were waiting until the time was right. If the USSR had lost to Hitler (I know it is impossible to image now but let's try), the US would have forgotten about their obligations completely, surely wouldn' have helped the beaten USSR at all and would have signed a deal with Hitler. You are probably right. The US shouldn't have entered the war in Europe neither in 1942 nor in 1944. In this case the war would have lasted a few months longer, more thousands of non-Americans, and therefore not important for the US lives, would have been lost. But the USSR, France, the UK and others would still have won. In this scenario the Soviets wouldn't have entered the war in Pacific. The question is why the US entered the war in Europe if it was so far and not so much important for average Americans. Because of greed and its two eternal consequences: power and money. The US couldn't stand the idea that they would get nothing from the victory over Nazi, would lose the control of Western Europe and Stalin would get all the glory. They entered the war in Europe and got the western world to ransom.
And 28 million, plus millions who learn Spanish throughout there school years as well as French and German.. is monolingual.
The fact that they had a schoool subject "Spanish/French language" does not mean that they speak the language. I am sure you can speak five maybe ten foreign languages at a much greater level than my poor English. But an average American high school graduator doesn't speak a foreign language well enough. Unlike in Europe (and recently in Russia, at least for younger people who got education in the post-communism era), where the lack of foreign language skills almost equals illiteracy.
So, it was you who said: "The Manchurian invasion could have ended the war on its own."
Nimitz actually pressed for its use earlier, as did not want to send his soldiers to die in Operation Coronet or Olympic. Him, Spaatz and Curtis LeMay wanted a third bomb to be used on Tokyo. So none of those three were against it.
Somebody here recommended to read Wikipedia. If you do, maybe your posts will be less riddled with inaccuracies and misinerpretations. Fleet Admiral Nimitz said: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of you, in the defeat of Japan." So, it is not my opinion only that the Truman's decision was political and not military. Nimitz thought the same, as I stated earlier. Fleet Admiral Lehay said: "My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age." I was probably wrong. The ability to speak foreign languages will not help brainwashed American nationalists. They obviously have problems with reading in English too.
I have already provided evidence to that directly contradicts what you've stated here, with citations. Please repudiate it with evidence beyond "your opinion."
I don't see any evidence except your opinion. Moreover, you are contradicting yourself. You pointed out that Japanese soldiers would have fought to the end, basically to the suicide. Why did you assume that they would have been scared of the new weapon? They wouldn't. They would have kept fighting and the USA would have had to lose their people and probably dropped a couple of more A-bombs. My evidence is that the USSR was the only diplomatic hope for Japan to stay active in war. When they lost the neutrality of the Soviets, they understood they lost the war.
LOL. He wasn't. The designer of Gulag is not the type who could be shocked with the number of deaths. If he wanted to invade Hokkaido , he would continue by any price until he reached the goal.
600,000 to be exact and 60,000 of them died in Siberia. Those who survived and stayed in the USSR at least got the citizenship. Unlike Koreans in Japan who were taken by Japanese from Korean to Japan.They have been living here for three generations and still have no rights of citizen.
"The article says: The Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already secretely promised Washington and London that he would attack Japan within three months of Germany's defeat. He thus ignored Tokyo's plea and mobilized more than 1 million troops along Manchuria's border"
===============
So I understood that indeed Russia ended the Pacific War.
But no film was ever made about that part of the War. One hardly ever reads about this matter.
Since I spent my whole youth in the Far East, the above article matters to me too, it touched me when I read it. That is why I shared it with you.
I am not blaming any country at all of course! It is history and we can't change history.
LOL. He wasn't. The designer of Gulag is not the type who could be shocked with the number of deaths. If he wanted to invade Hokkaido, he would continue by any price until he reached the goal
OMG. willing to forgive?
was she living in Nightmare until now?
many Japanese families also have some relatives who was killed by enemy
I dont know how many Japanese still dislike Dutch ppl for WAR or willing to forgive Dutch ppl
I think most Japanese sublimed hatred for the enemy by hatred for the war.
The American concept of partnership (or speaking about WWII- Allies) is to work not for the partenship but for the American interests only. Basically for one side of the partnership and didn't bother to follow the interests of the opposite party. Just like they did with the Kurils islands. They agreed them to be Soviet in exchange of the Soviet help in Pacific and after the US got it, they did everything they could to spoil the Soviet-Japanese relationship. In Europe the US were waiting until the time was right. If the USSR had lost to Hitler (I know it is impossible to image now but let's try), the US would have forgotten about their obligations completely, surely wouldn' have helped the beaten USSR at all and would have signed a deal with Hitler. You are probably right. The US shouldn't have entered the war in Europe neither in 1942 nor in 1944. In this case the war would have lasted a few months longer, more thousands of non-Americans, and therefore not important for the US lives, would have been lost. But the USSR, France, the UK and others would still have won. In this scenario the Soviets wouldn't have entered the war in Pacific. The question is why the US entered the war in Europe if it was so far and not so much important for average Americans. Because of greed and its two eternal consequences: power and money. The US couldn't stand the idea that they would get nothing from the victory over Nazi, would lose the control of Western Europe and Stalin would get all the glory. They entered the war in Europe and got the western world to ransom.
Wow, you are just all knowing aren't you? The US definitely would have done this or that, the US only this or that.. Your hatred for the US tilts so much bias into your opinion, I feel you have shot all your credibility. You do realize you are speaking out of pure conjecture right? You have nothing but your feelings and your hatred for the US to back up your claims, you simply just are judging the US based on your feelings. Do you even have a single source to back up a single sentence of all the allegations you just said? No? I didn't think so.
And I will take your silence about when the US entered the war as admitting you were wrong.
The fact that they had a schoool subject "Spanish/French language" does not mean that they speak the language. I am sure you can speak five maybe ten foreign languages at a much greater level than my poor English. But an average American high school graduator doesn't speak a foreign language well enough. Unlike in Europe (and recently in Russia, at least for younger people who got education in the post-communism era), where the lack of foreign language skills almost equals illiteracy.
Your statement was the US is the most monolingual country in the world. If your definition is that the average person is not perfectly fluent after a junior high and high school education, then you are totally wrong. I not trying to speak ill against Japan here but they get plenty of English education and still cannot communicate perfectly afterwards. And I will guarantee you that Japan is not the only country like this. America= the most monolingual country in the world.. what a JOKE. Sorry, not even close, try again please. Your opinion about the USA and its actions (like so many others) is totally biased, based on the hatred and indoctrination others have imposed upon you. So the US is wrong and your country is always right? You are almighty and perfect and your side of the story is absolute so now, every thought you have about the US is negative, and you cannot give it an inch of credit...
Man i really get sick of narrow minded people who let their feelings about one thing, taint their judgment about everything else related to that thing....
Are you saying I am wrong and the USA would enter the war against Hitler to help Russians if Russians were losing? Do you have any single source to back up your statement except the American nationalist feeling?
And I will take your silence about when the US entered the war as admitting you were wrong.
Which silent? The USA entered the war in Europe when it was convenient for them. What they did before that, like some actions in Africa or hard cash when millions of Allias were losing their lives, is cowardness.
Your opinion about the USA and its actions (like so many others) is totally biased, based on the hatred and indoctrination others have imposed upon you.
It seems to me you have to take into consideration the hatred, desire for revenge, and prejudice, in mens minds back then when considering why we used the bomb, if you are going to be honest about it.
Uncle Frank
:?
To some degree thats true Frank. I think if anything it fed into perceptions that the Japanese were a merciless enemy that would never surrender. The brutal fighting across the pacific, including the Kamikaze fighters reinforced these views. Its the prism that informs alot of these discussions.
At the same time many officials could get pass personal hatred and considered the wider implications of their actions. The fact that Kyoto , Nara and the Imperial Palace were removed from the strategic bombing lists illustrate this the best. The use of the atom bomb was never taken lightly by Truman or his senior advisors. The new president felt he did not have sufficient information to make a decision, so he had the Interim Committee established to discuss its use. It consisted of a number of senior officials, scientists and the like who were charged with dissecting issues related to the bomb.
Wikipedia is a poor source and highly prone to inaccuracies. I don't accept it from students, so why would I accept it here? The problem with wikipedia is that its often an accurate source. For example the article on the use of the bomb relies heavily on the work of Gar Alperovitz, which was later discredited by Robert Maddox in Hiroshima in history: the myths of revisionism because he altered the meaning of many of his citations in order to prove his point.
By comparison everything I've written here is based on works I've read, including Gar Alperovitz's works. These include:
Fleet Admiral Nimitz said: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of you, in the defeat of Japan." So, it is not my opinion only that the Truman's decision was political and not military. Nimitz thought the same, as I stated earlier.
Fleet Admiral Lehay said: "My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age." I was probably wrong. The ability to speak foreign languages will not help brainwashed American nationalists. They obviously have problems with reading in English too.
Yes, Leahy was against the bomb, but for different reasons. In his book, he suggests as an alternative the United States should continue strategic bombing of Japanese Cities with B-29s and carrying out a naval blockade. This reveals a major contradiction; He suggested to inflict more suffering and death through regular bombing and starvation was better than fewer deaths by a nuclear weapon. Moreover Leahy was against the bomb in general because he feared it would make the navy obsolete. He claimed up until the day the bomb was dropped it would not work.
I don't see any evidence except your opinion. Moreover, you are contradicting yourself. You pointed out that Japanese soldiers would have fought to the end, basically to the suicide. Why did you assume that they would have been scared of the new weapon?
I don't assume anything and its not a contradiction. It was one viewpoint within the Japanese government. During the Cabinet deliberations on surrender, Butow notes that Army Chief of Staff Umezu stated (Butow Pg 161);
Japan's soldiers and sailors were not permitted to surrender, that the penal code of the services prescribed heavy penalties for those who laid down their arms and tat the word "capitulation could not be found in the Japanese military dictionary. This inculcation had gone as far as to advise Japanese soldiers that, in the last extremity when their weapons were useless and they were powerless to fight on, the only honorable outlet was to commit suicide on the spot. In view of this psychological conditioning, Umezu considered it highly unlikely that the men at the various fighting fronts would obey an order to surrender.
This was part of the view held by individuals like Umezu and Army Minister Anami. Even after hearing about the Soviet Invasion, they either rejected calls for surrender or called for a stipulations like the retention of the emperor, internal warcrimes trials and no occupation, which they knew would not be accepted by the allies (Asada in Maddox Pg 33)
Given the atomic bomb and the soviet entry, there is no chance of winning on the basis of mathematical calculation...(but) there will be some chance as long as we keep fighting for the honor of the Yamato race... if we go on like this and surrender, the Yamato race would be good as dead spiritually.
So that refutes your claim that the invasion changed the hardliners minds too. It was only the intervention of the emperor which resulted in them agreeing to unconditional surrender.
They wouldn't.They would have kept fighting and the USA would have had to lose their people and probably dropped a couple of more A-bombs. My evidence is that the USSR was the only diplomatic hope for Japan to stay active in war. When they lost the neutrality of the Soviets, they understood they lost the war.
Actually they were swayed by the Hiroshima bombing. The bombs shifted the balance of power within the government, away from the Umezu and Anami to Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and the Emperor himself. As the emperor said on the 7th (Asada in Maddox Pg 35);
Now that such a new weapon has appeared, it has become less and less possible to continue the war. We must not miss a chance to terminate the war by bargaining [with the allied powers] for more favorable conditions. Besides, however much we consult about [surrender] terms we desire, we shall not be able to come to an agreement. So my wish is to make such arrangements as will end the war as soon as possible.
It was on August 8th that Suzuki decided to endorse unconditional surrender, a day before the invasion and the second strike. It was the force of these opinions, which were strengthened by the Soviet invasion, which led to the end of the war.
Did I ever claim otherwise? The point was to say that an invasion of Japan by Soviets would cause unbelievable amounts of Japanese casualties as would an American invasion.
I should note There is a qualitiative difference between the two. German occupations were methodical in how they applied violence. The Wehrmacht was a proper army with deep military traditions going back to Prussia. They carried out massacres within their military framework, which was the systematic use of violence. Referring to its European conquests, The Germans sent in special squads after the front line units to "clean up" villages. That meant summary executions and the like.
By comparison the Soviet Army was far less disciplined; there was rarely the systematic use of violence. Rather it was largely done by regular soldiers and officers killing raping and looting at their own interests.
It wasn't just soldiers who were convinced by the Japanese WW II war machine to commit suicide, but civilians too. The US experience in taking Iwo Jima made this clear. Civilians threw themselves off cliffs because they'd been brainwashed into believing the Americans would rape, murder, and torture them.
Are you saying I am wrong and the USA would enter the war against Hitler to help Russians if Russians were losing? Do you have any single source to back up your statement except the American nationalist feeling?
Which silent? The USA entered the war in Europe when it was convenient for them. What they did before that, like some actions in Africa or hard cash when millions of Allias were losing their lives, is cowardness.
My opinion is based on average Americans' intelligence:
www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=related
Thanks Scotty for the link.
You do not seem to understand that I am talking about history, facts that actually happened. You said that America did not enter the war in Europe until 1944, and were just sitting on their asses in the meantime, historically that is not true. This whole new thing you have come up with about what the US might have done, or may have done, these are not facts, these are just your guesses and assumptions, how could there be academic sources talking about your fantasy fiction future (or past now)? The sources in my statement were clear posted earlier, which you have either not read or ignored. There is no point in talking with you, your mind is made up, whatever brainwashing you were brought up with has allowed you to have America all figured out huh?
The US coulda, woulda, mighta shoulda done this, that, if, then, plus alpha= who cares! it's not worth arguing about things that never happened because there is no way to come to a conclusion about anything. You can go ahead and believe whatever you think the USA would have done, I am talking about history, you are talking about fantasy rooted in your hatred. See the difference?
Now about what the US actually did, I think I already told you that the US was for Operation Sledgehammer (ie running to the Soviets aid by attacking France) but the British were against it because we were not well enough prepared yet. (oh wait you ignored that link). I think winning a war needs to be about strategy, you are mad because not enough Americans were slaughtered during the war despite taking the best strategic route they (the allies) believed was needed to win the war? All I have to say to that is.. whatever..
Second question, you are whining that battalion after battalion of American soldiers were not marched across siberia to come to the Soviets aid on the Eastern front.. but did the Soviets lift a finger to help us fight Japan (until the very end?) No? oh well gee.. let me personally apologize to you that my grandfather's generation did not go running to Russia to act as human shields or something for them. Would that have made you happy??
And please do not even bother responding if you are going tell me more fantasies about what you believe America would have done in some hypothetical situation.
I see you have a lack of not inaccuracies only but humor too. Don't get upset. To be born humorless is the same disadvahtage as to be born a talentless artist or a pianist. Sarcasm is difficult to get when it is written and you abviously the best proof of that. I have pretty much the same opinion about wikipedia but I still respect it better that those Cold War propagandists that are enjoying your bookshelves. My sarcasm was about Thor imperative statement to posters who have different opinions than his. He told them to go to read wikipedia, get enlightened or shut up. Just like Goebbels.
Aaa.. What a wonderful example of the whoring policy of the US fleet admilrals: say what is good for the moment and change you opinions freely. If of course your sources about Nimitz are true which I doubt.
Yes, Leahy was against the bomb, but for different reasons.
It doesn't matter. You are old and you were brainwashed by the US cold war propaganda. It is impossible to make you think objectively. Moreover, you are in Japan and as I assume you are teaching here. You have no choice but explain Japanese why A-boms were used and by this you heal your subconcious guilt. But nobody cares. I realize that at least one generation international community will have to deal with cold war half-brain victims. I am not saying Americans will be smarter. I am saying they will be less brainwashed about the topic and as the result they will know nothing about the WWII. Some of the youngests already think that WWII stands for a new video game. But the rest of the world is changing. It became common for the US president and others to party in Moscow in May to celebrate the victory over Nazi. By this they admitted that the main share belongs to the USSR. Even Koizumi visited the notorious assembly in spite of the no peace treaty status with Russia. 30 years ago there were much less talks about the controversy of A-bombings. Now it is official. I am sure a few decades from now the world officially will call A-bombings as American War crimes as some upper-educated people already are calling it like that. But you will be dead by that moment.
By comparison the Soviet Army was far less disciplined; there was rarely the systematic use of violence. Rather it was largely done by regular soldiers and officers killing raping and looting at their own interests.
They wouldn't do anything that Japanese didn't do in China or Americans in Vietnam. Actually you gave me a cynical thought. If the Soviets had showed Japanese at least 1% of Nanking in Hokkaido , I wonder if the regular Japanese would still be rather indifferent to war crimes committed by Japan in Asia. I think they would. Just like Americans that counted lost Americans lives and didn't bother to count rape victims in Vietnam.
You said that America did not enter the war in Europe until 1944, and were just sitting on their asses in the meantime, historically that is not true. I am talking about history, you are talking about fantasy rooted in your hatred. See the difference?
Of course I do. You are saying that the USA entered the war in Europe before 1944 and gave an example as some war actions in Africa, sacks of flour and hard cash. You are a typical brainwashed victim of cold war and a rather standard US nationalist. Your borthers are ready to fight the whole world now and meantime they show Frastralia on the map. See my youtube link. And then you are surprised why Americans are the most hated nation in the world. Because you don't care about non-American lives. By the way inside the US you don't care about American lives too. That is why you have 40 million uninsured. You are angry because you know that things that I am saying about the US in WWII are not just mine. They are very popular in Europe and recently in other parts of the world. The US are very slowly losing their propaganda war but you as an old warrior cannot accept it.
Second question, you are whining that battalion after battalion of American soldiers were not marched across siberia to come to the Soviets aid on the Eastern front..
You are lying. I didn't say that. I said that if Hitler had won over the USSR, the US would have forgotten about their obligations and they would have signed a deal with Hitler about how to share the world.
but did the Soviets lift a finger to help us fight Japan (until the very end?)
Uuuhh.. What a great example of how much you value non-American lives. The USSR was losing 27 million and helped you the instance the war with Nazi was over. The USA were losing 400,000 and they count them as more valuable since they were American lives and as the result they think the USSR must have helped them earlier because 27 million don't count. They are not Americans. A la Sieg Heil here.
Of course I do. You are saying that the USA entered the war in Europe before 1944 and gave an example as some war actions in Africa, sacks of flour and hard cash. You are a typical brainwashed victim of cold war and a rather standard US nationalist. Your borthers are ready to fight the whole world now and meantime they show Frastralia on the map. See my youtube link. And then you are surprised why Americans are the most hated nation in the world. Because you don't care about non-American lives. By the way inside the US you don't care about American lives too. That is why you have 40 million uninsured. You are angry because you know that things that I am saying about the US in WWII are not just mine. They are very popular in Europe and recently in other parts of the world. The US are very slowly losing their propaganda war but you as an old warrior cannot accept it.You are lying. I didn't say that. I said that if Hitler had won over the USSR, the US would have forgotten about their obligations and they would have signed a deal with Hitler about how to share the world.
Uuuhh.. What a great example of how much you value non-American lives. The USSR was losing 27 million and helped you the instance the war with Nazi was over. The USA were losing 400,000 and they count them as more valuable since they were American lives and as the result they think the USSR must have helped them earlier because 27 million don't count. They are not Americans. A la Sieg Heil here.
Please do not suppose you know anything about me or my political beliefs, about things like healthcare because you don't.
I am not going to get thrown off into some pointless tangent, based on your emotions and what YOU have been indoctrinated with and brought up to believe. You are calling Americans brainwashed, but it is you that is just spewing off opinions based in your emotions. I am trying to stick to the facts. My only gripe was that you and that other guy got your facts wrong, your opinion is allowed to be whatever you want it to be, but do not confuse opinion with fact.
You know what I thought about Russia growing up, what I as an American was taught about Russia in school? I was brought up feeling sorry for Russians, it seemed they had such hard lives compared to me, were forced to sacrifice so much, and live in oppression. .. Its pretty clear to me what you were brought up being taught. All about the ENEMY AMERICA!! Pathetic.. now who was brainwashed again??
What I was talking about, with the Americans being sent to Siberia was, the fact that you have been talking like what America did in the war prior to 1944 was not good enough for you, I was assuming that you were saying that Americans should have been fighting with Soviets on the eastern front instead of in north Africa, correct? So then I was trying to illustrate the fact that, you seemed to demanding that the Soviets should have had aid from the US, while we were fighting another power (Japan), but history shows that Soviets gave us no aid against Japan at that time either, therefore your complaint about the US fighting in north Africa, instead of wherever you think they should have been seems slightly hypocritical.
And you really have this victim mentality going on don't you? Was it USA's fault Russia lost 27 million lives? Cuz it sure sounds like that is what you are insinuating. Should every nation somehow have shared equally in the suffering? Would you be happy then? I am fully aware of Russia's losses during the war and I think it is horrific and tragic, and a terrible misfortune.... but my first thought was that maybe those Nazi guys had just a little something to with that.... I never realized that it was actually all America's fault.. thank you for the enlightenment.
Lastly, your comment about the USA signing a deal with Hitler had the Soviets lost is more of your fantasy fiction, and I have no intention of addressing it, so believe whatever your angry, hateful, blinded heart wants to.
I know I said I was not going to get thrown off, but there I am done..
So we have come to the conclusion that the statement that the USA did not enter the war in Europe until 1944, is false? if so good, cuz I can be done here then.
You are calling Americans brainwashed, but it is you that is just spewing off opinions based in your emotions. I am trying to stick to the facts. My only gripe was that you and that other guy got your facts wrong, your opinion is allowed to be whatever you want it to be, but do not confuse opinion with fact.
You logic says that the fact is only what you consider as a fact. All other facts that you don't see as facts cannot be qualified as facts and therefore you call them opinions. Classic. Actullay I didn't expect much from you. You are upset because you know that my facts are not just mine or that another poster's. They are very popular point of views in Europe and recently in the world- the US entered the war in Europe the very last minute when all hard bloody work was done and got the Western world to ransom.
You know what I thought about Russia growing up, what I as an American was taught about Russia in school? I was brought up feeling sorry for Russians, it seemed they had such hard lives compared to me, were forced to sacrifice so much, and live in oppression. ..
Funny. Is that what they told you? What easy guinea pigs you were. In fact in Soviet schools they told them exactly the same things about Americans as they told you in your US cold war school about Russians. Don't see the difference. In cold war Soviet pupils were as brainwashed as Americans. The only difference is that they more or less stopped this practice while in the States the propaganda still sucks. As the result you are ready to fight and kill anyone who is not American and who is far from American. The reason, it doesn't matter. It could be because an old US President banged a younger secretary and wanted to become President again. He used the US PR weapon- he started the war. Nobody cared about victims. They were not Americans.
it was Its pretty clear to me what you were brought up being taught. All about the ENEMY AMERICA!!
I didn' attend the Soviet school. And I don't see America as an enemy. For me it is just a sad country with a lot of poor low-educated people in trailer parks with no bright future. I pity them. But they got what they deserved- the government they chose. I despise some recent US governments for their arrogant attitude to non-American lives and readiness to kill citizens of other country for political and financial profits. The same governments that despise citizens who chose them- trailer park trash.
It is your problem what you are assuming. What I said is the US always behave like a political prostitute and never follow their obligations. If the USSR had lost, the USA would have made a deal with Hitler about how to share the world.
but history shows that Soviets gave us no aid against Japan at that time either, therefore your complaint about the US fighting in north Africa, instead of wherever you think they should have been seems slightly hypocritical.
If you had a slightly more human mentality, you wouldn't even compare these two situations: 1. the USSR was losing 27 million and was not in the position to fight Japan. When the war with Nazi was over, the USSR hepled the USA as Stalin promised. 2. the USA were not losing 27 million, not even near, were not having the war on the US territory, obviously could have done more for fighting Hitler but they chose to wait and see who would start winning and then they entered the war at the very last minute. You must be a very cynical hypocrite if you compare the situation that the USSR had at that moment with the situation that the USA had. Because you don't care about non-American interests and people. Where will the USA bomb next? Iran or Frastralia?
I dont think so
it is not the problem that to forgive or not to forgive
Of course, it hates the fire-bombing it believes war is wrong
that is why the Japanese is the super softhearted person like a *****
You logic says that the fact is only what you consider as a fact. All other facts that you don't see as facts cannot be qualified as facts and therefore you call them opinions. Classic. Actullay I didn't expect much from you. You are upset because you know that my facts are not just mine or that another poster's. They are very popular point of views in Europe and recently in the world- the US entered the war in Europe the very last minute when all hard bloody work was done and got the Western world to ransom.
Ok, lets go over this one more, time. Your little rambling about how a fact can be an opinion...i must say I laughed a bit..(you realize that makes no sense). Fact: America was involved in the fighting the war in Europe from 1942. Opinion (yours): America did not do enough on the European side of the war. Understand? My argument was that you said, America did not enter the war in Europe until 1944.. which is incorrect. I presented historical facts as to why what you said is not true, and you then you went of on your crazy tangent without reading anything I posted.
Funny. Is that what they told you? What easy guinea pigs you were. In fact in Soviet schools they told them exactly the same things about Americans as they told you in your US cold war school about Russians. Don't see the difference. In cold war Soviet pupils were as brainwashed as Americans. The only difference is that they more or less stopped this practice while in the States the propaganda still sucks. As the result you are ready to fight and kill anyone who is not American and who is far from American. The reason, it doesn't matter. It could be because an old US President banged a younger secretary and wanted to become President again. He used the US PR weapon- he started the war. Nobody cared about victims. They were not Americans. I didn' attend the Soviet school.
Wow, they actually taught in Soviet schools that Americans had a horrible standard of living, and suffered under an oppressive government. Thats really sad... quite the opposite in fact, I could find study after study proving that what I was taught about the Soviet citizen's standard of living (and how it was far below an Americans) to be true, but I am not going to bother cuz you will not read it anyway, and just blow it off as propaganda or some other ridiculous cop out arguments you like to use. But I should not expect much more from someone who is under educated and ignorant enough to use sweeping generalizations about a whole population of people. You do not see me making sweeping comments about all Russians just because I have clearly met one of the more unpleasant ones online.
And I don't see America as an enemy. For me it is just a sad country with a lot of poor low-educated people in trailer parks with no bright future. I pity them. But they got what they deserved- the government they chose. I despise some recent US governments for their arrogant attitude to non-American lives and readiness to kill citizens of other country for political and financial profits. The same governments that despise citizens who chose them- trailer park trash.
It is your problem what you are assuming. What I said is the US always behave like a political prostitute and never follow their obligations. If the USSR had lost, the USA would have made a deal with Hitler about how to share the world.
Honestly you really have not comprehended what I wrote if you think the problem was my "assuming". But once again you are back to more of your fantasy fiction. I am sorry but you are not some mystic fortune teller who know what the hell would have happened had the Soviets lost to Hitler, you can believe whatever you want but I am not here to talk about fantasies with you.
If you had a slightly more human mentality, you wouldn't even compare these two situations: 1. the USSR was losing 27 million and was not in the position to fight Japan. When the war with Nazi was over, the USSR hepled the USA as Stalin promised. 2. the USA were not losing 27 million, not even near, were not having the war on the US territory, obviously could have done more for fighting Hitler but they chose to wait and see who would start winning and then they entered the war at the very last minute. You must be a very cynical hypocrite if you compare the situation that the USSR had at that moment with the situation that the USA had. Because you don't care about non-American interests and people. Where will the USA bomb next? Iran or Frastralia?
If you had a slightly more human mentality you would not feel like other countries should have suffered just as much as Russia did in order for things to be "fair". First lets break down the whole Soviet casualty numbers with a little bit of logic and reason (two words you should really try to familiarize yourself with). First lets talk about this thing called geography. Now, first more than half to two-thirds of Soviet casualties were civilians, now could you tell me why do you think not so many American civilians lost their lives in the war?? Umm maybe it had something to do with the fact that our enemies were thousands and thousands of kilometers away??? And I do not want to get into why there were so many military losses for the Soviets too, but I imagine it was not just because they were fighting the Nazis. (you would not read any sources I brought for you anyway). So I am very sorry that Russia just happens to be close to Germany, but that has more to do with unfortunate circumstances than it does with American inaction. Do you get that? Probably not. So you are totally entitled to your victim mentality, but stop misplacing the blame please.
And lastly as I posted before the US wanted to enter France in 1942, but the British disagreed with that strategically. Winning a war is not about how many lives you can throw away it is about the best strategy and that is the route the allied generals chose to take. What do you not understand about this?? Anyhow I am done talking with you because just ignore many of the points that I make, provided no sources to back up any of the things you are saying, and just ramble on based on your biased emotional hatred. Your like a wounded animal, there is no reasoning with you so I am done trying.
What Nazi Germany did in Poland and Russia is one of the most tragical pages in the world war history. But the relationships between Germany and Russia or Germany and Poland are great. One of the main reasons of that is that Germany admitted their historical crime against humanity. There is no German Yasakuni shrine with enshrined war criminals. Probably if Japan did something similar, the attitude and the relationships between Japan and some other Asian countries were much better than they are now. Formal apologies of the J-government is not enough. The guilt of millitaristic Japan should be taught at schools and taught properly. But I have met a very few Japanese who called Nanking as a terrible war crime. Most of Japanese often say that J-troops maybe did something wrong there but the Chinese communist propaganda made it look much more terrible than it was in reality. Basically they say that Nanking never happened. If some people who survived the Japanese in Asia are now ready to forgive them, it is a really great kindness coming from them to forgive the ex-enemy that probably don't deserve to be forgiven. At least not until they do things right.
Fact: America was involved in the fighting the war in Europe from 1942. My argument was that you said, America did not enter the war in Europe until 1944.. which is incorrect. I presented historical facts as to why what you said is not true.
Fact: the first US troops arrived in Britain in January 1942.
Fact: for nearly a year they were sitting on their a$$es and doing nothing before they went into action against Axis.
Fact: in November 1942 they finally started some pathetic and unprofessionally done actions in Africa and blew them off completely. As the result the Vichy France was occupied, the Axis forces in Africa were reinforced.
Fact: after the failed operation in Northen Africa, Americans were keeping sitting on their a$$es for 18 months and doing nothing.
Fact: only in June 1944, after all hard bloody work was done by Russians, French, Polish and others, the USA finally entered Normandy with serious forces and got the western world to ransom.
Wow, they actually taught in Soviet schools that Americans had a horrible standard of living, and suffered under an oppressive government.
The Soviet propaganda mainly taught about high unemployment in the USA, no social security, no free health care, no free university education, etc. Nowdays they don't tell such things at schools because it is not necessary. All the world knows thanks to Michael Moore about the US health care, 40 million uninsured, no free colleges, etc. As well as they know about trailer parks and traler trash.
But I should not expect much more from someone who is under educated
Surely you shouldn't. My concept of education is no doubt different than yours. At least I know how to spell undereducated.
I am sorry but you are not some mystic fortune teller who know what the hell would have happened had the Soviets lost to Hitler, you can believe whatever you want but I am not here to talk about fantasies with you.
For your records to analize things is what smart people do in politics, business, science and other fields. All "under educated" simply repeat what they read or heard. They can't analize. It is too difficult for your brothers.
Umm maybe it had something to do with the fact that our enemies were thousands and thousands of kilometers away
Haha. Finally you got my point. Exactly, the US were thousands kilometers away sitting on the a$$es. But nothing change in the US policy. Nowdays they also start wars far from home and count only American casulaties.
So you are totally entitled to your victim mentality
So are you. You can keep being a brainwashed guinea pig. Nobody cares. The rest of the world is changing and the values of contributions in WWII too. This thread was started because some Japanese believe the USSR made more to end the war than A-bombs. 15 years ago it was impossible to image such a talk in Japanese mass media. Now it is a fact.
And lastly as I posted before the US wanted to enter France in 1942, but the British disagreed with that strategically.
Oh, please.. give me a break. Just as a big secret I will tell you that Europeans call Great Britain the 51st State. By the way in a regular life is it a norm too for Americans to put all responsibilities on someone else?
provided no sources to back up any of the things you are saying
There is no German Yasakuni shrine with enshrined war criminals. Probably if Japan did something similar, the attitude and the relationships between Japan and some other Asian countries were much better than they are now.
I dont think so. they did not complain at all until 1990's
they are using it for their politics
just check out our article 9 . this is the most sincere apology for Japan
do you know this mean?
International Military Tribunal for the Far East サービス終了のお知らせ
But I have met a very few Japanese who called Nanking as a terrible war crime. Most of Japanese often say that J-troops maybe did something wrong there but the Chinese communist propaganda made it look much more terrible than it was in reality.
Are there any evidence? if there is, Japan would admit it.
Do you accept that you did not?
every pics are faked..
Of course, the Japanese soldiers killed many chinese soldiers as a battle
do you know the Tungchow Mutiny Tungchow mutiny - Wikipedia
did they aplogize first? how about mongolian invasion to Japan?
if CCP succeed it, they shoud apologize too.
Basically they say that Nanking never happened. If some people who survived the Japanese in Asia are now ready to forgive them, it is a really great kindness coming from them to forgive the ex-enemy that probably don't deserve to be forgiven. At least not until they do things right.
that is why the Japanese government never complains against their propagandas at all.
Japan accepted their judgement though Japan never admit their crime.
Do you know the Japanese ppls's character?.
do you know the commies propaganda?
Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Massacre ,,,all chinese were brainwashed By ccp
even today they can not say anything about that..
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
