Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[untermensche]

The thinking during WWII didn't change by Vietnam.

In your opinion.

What was the change?

The US dropped more tonnage on Vietnam and Cambodia than it did in WWII.

It was unimaginable savagery. War crimes with few parallels.

 

[Bronzeage]

Did you read the article? I ask because your argument with zipprhead that I bolded above is in contradiction to the argument in your cited article that claimed Roosevelt favored China and disliked Japan, citing an opinion write by Harry Barnes the Holocaust denier. Of course we can all ignore the more plausible reason which would be that Japan had been waging an aggressive war against China since 1931, when they invaded Manchuria in 1931.

Did the US have economic interests in Asia? Sure. One of our most lucrative interests was selling oil and scrap metal to Japan, which we cut off because of their war with China. Where's the logic in this? I don't know.

Japan, on the other hand envisioned what it called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, in which they would throw out all of the Colonial powers and have hegemony over all of East Asia, which to them was peopled by inferior beings.

What you need to do is refute the specific economic measures mentioned.

Argument by "Holocaust Denial accusation" won't cut it.

The reason FDR cut off oil and scrap metal sales to Japan was because Japan was waging war in China, an ally of the US.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was not going to make him rescind those decisions. The strategic goal of the attack was to render the US Navy impotent in the Pacific and force the US into a truce, which would have given Japan time to solidify it's holdings and prepare for full war with the US. As history shows, this was a monumental fuck up on the part of the Japanese and lead to their ultimate defeat.

If you want to contend that the US had it coming, that's certainly your prerogative, but you are as monumentally wrong as the Japanese were.

 

[untermensche]

What you need to do is refute the specific economic measures mentioned.

Argument by "Holocaust Denial accusation" won't cut it.

The reason FDR cut off oil and scrap metal sales to Japan was because Japan was waging war in China, an ally of the US.

I am saying that is a naive position.

Japan and the US were two imperial powers that clashed.

Two big dogs that were going to fight because they were both expansionist.

Hawaii was just a part of US imperialism.

 

[Ford]

Japan and the US were two imperial powers that clashed.

Hawaii was just a part of US imperialism.

This guy disagrees with you:

I called Vietnam imperialism. Not WWII.

Try to keep up.

 

[untermensche]

This guy disagrees with you:

No he doesn't.

The US has been an imperial power since day one. It carried out genocide and took land.

It took Hawaii by force.

But WWII was about clashes between imperial powers. Not imperialism, which is the exploitation of the weak by the strong.

 

[Ford]

This guy disagrees with you:

No he doesn't.

The US has been an imperial power since day one. It carried out genocide and took land.

It took Hawaii by force.

But WWII was about clashes between imperial powers. Not imperialism, which is the exploitation of the weak by the strong.

Ah. So FDR was imperial, but not an imperialist? And he started the war with Japan, but it was only an economic war so the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified and/or not justified because I'm not your master.


Well that makes sense.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

You are familiar with Asians in business and life. Even if he wants to deal he will try to make it look as if he is not that interested, when really he is.

That's one hell of a negotiating strategy when your country is being bombed into oblivion.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Did you read the article? I ask because your argument with zipprhead that I bolded above is in contradiction to the argument in your cited article that claimed Roosevelt favored China and disliked Japan, citing an opinion write by Harry Barnes the Holocaust denier. Of course we can all ignore the more plausible reason which would be that Japan had been waging an aggressive war against China since 1931, when they invaded Manchuria in 1931.

Did the US have economic interests in Asia? Sure. One of our most lucrative interests was selling oil and scrap metal to Japan, which we cut off because of their war with China. Where's the logic in this? I don't know.

Japan, on the other hand envisioned what it called The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, in which they would throw out all of the Colonial powers and have hegemony over all of East Asia, which to them was peopled by inferior beings.

What you need to do is refute the specific economic measures mentioned.

Argument by "Holocaust Denial accusation" won't cut it.

Whats to refute? That the US put economic sanctions on Japan? Of course they did, it was an embargo due to the Japanese aggression in China-the article makes no case for an economic competition in the far east. Incidentally the article is also inaccurate in it's apologetics of Adolf Hitler "not taking the bait" that Roosevelt supposedly was dangling before him with lend-lease. German U-boats did attack our destroyers and even sank the Reuben James. If we wanted a war so bad that would have certainly given us an excuse for at least escalating our involvement.

Of course it was our embargo that caused Japan to attack us, they saw they had no choice. What many people forget is that we didn't actually shut off their oil until they occupied French Indo-China in the summer of '41. This was done in order to be able to cover the invasions of Burma and Singapore from airfields in that country. Taking Indo-China was the last straw, it essentially confirmed Japan's intentions, and it was only after that that we shut off the oil. We knew that Japan had to attack us because they had to rid Burma of the Brits and Java of the Dutch, and they would have to take the Philippines to ensure a route between their newly won resources and their home Islands.

You should try reading real history instead of shit written by some hack for the CATO institute.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The reason FDR cut off oil and scrap metal sales to Japan was because Japan was waging war in China, an ally of the US.

I am saying that is a naive position.

Japan and the US were two imperial powers that clashed.

Two big dogs that were going to fight because they were both expansionist.

Hawaii was just a part of US imperialism.

Really? What other territories have we secured since Hawaii?

 

[Bronzeage]

The reason FDR cut off oil and scrap metal sales to Japan was because Japan was waging war in China, an ally of the US.

I am saying that is a naive position.

Japan and the US were two imperial powers that clashed.

Two big dogs that were going to fight because they were both expansionist.

Hawaii was just a part of US imperialism.

That's an impressive dance. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion and it's not my job to convince you of the error of your thinking.

 

[barbos]

I think the point that Japan has to start apologizing first is a good one. But it seems in their culture they don't apologize and don't expect apologies. In my opinion Nagasaki was not necessary, US should have given more time to Japanese to realize what happened in Hiroshima.

By the way, aren't you supposed to cut your finger or something when you apologize in Japan?

 

[untermensche]

I am saying that is a naive position.

Japan and the US were two imperial powers that clashed.

Two big dogs that were going to fight because they were both expansionist.

Hawaii was just a part of US imperialism.

Really? What other territories have we secured since Hawaii?

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

 

[barbos]

Really? What other territories have we secured since Hawaii?

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Well, Japanese still have most of it. Diego Garcia, on the other hand, was taken and population deported.

 

[untermensche]

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Well, Japanese still have most of it. Diego Garcia, on the other hand, was taken and population deported.

Yes. The outposts of empire.

Following WWII the US discovered that it was just as possible to exploit a population and it's resources through economic imperialism.

And if it didn't take the territory it didn't have to care about the rights of the people or their working conditions.

So territorial imperialism was replaced by the cheaper and more profitable economic imperialism.

In case after case the US goes into a nation, disrupts it's political situation and gets a US puppet to take over. Marcos in the Philippines. Diệm in Vietnam. Suharto in Indonesia and many more.

Then the exploitation begins and the profits come rolling in.

And the US government does not have to care one bit about the conditions of the people in these nations as it profits off their misery.

Modern economic imperialism.

Which now has moved to just bribing the totalitarian government for access to people to exploit. Like in China.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Really? What other territories have we secured since Hawaii?

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

We occupied the island after the war. We still have leases on bases which have never been popular with many of the inhabitants.

I was stationed on Okinawa during the occupation period and you won't find me defending the US military when it comes to these matters. When I was on Okinawa there were over 100,000 American servicemen there, and there were literally thousands of nightclubs that employed prostitutes. These were girls who were "purchased" from their families to work in the clubs, giving the families money to purchase a home or whatever. This servitude was well known by the military brass that ran the island.

Down thread someone mentions Diego Garcia-I won't defend our treatment of the inhabitants there either. They weren't indigenous but had still lived there for generations. Our treatment and relocation of the inhabitants of the Islands we tested the hydrogen bombs was also shitty.

 

[untermensche]

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

We occupied the island after the war. We still have leases on bases which have never been popular with many of the inhabitants.

I was stationed on Okinawa during the occupation period and you won't find me defending the US military when it comes to these matters. When I was on Okinawa there were over 100,000 American servicemen there, and there were literally thousands of nightclubs that employed prostitutes. These were girls who were "purchased" from their families to work in the clubs, giving the families money to purchase a home or whatever. This servitude was well known by the military brass that ran the island.

Down thread someone mentions Diego Garcia-I won't defend our treatment of the inhabitants there either. They weren't indigenous but had still lived there for generations. Our treatment and relocation of the inhabitants of the Islands we tested the hydrogen bombs was also shitty.

I too was stationed in Okinawa. Many years after the war, in 1979. In the Marine Corps.

And we in effect own the land. They have no mechanism to get rid of us.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize the part of the war with the most civilian deaths was the Japanese invasion of China?

How is that relevant to US atrocities in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

1) You're trying to deflect blame with the eu tu game.

2) The Japanese atrocities in China exceed everything that happened in the Vietnam war.

 

[untermensche]

How is that relevant to US atrocities in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

1) You're trying to deflect blame with the eu tu game.

2) The Japanese atrocities in China exceed everything that happened in the Vietnam war.

That's not what I'm doing.

I'm making the logical conclusion that atrocities are not what drive US policy since the US gladly carries out it own atrocities as soon as it has the power to do so.

 

[Tristan Scott]

World War II and Viet Nam have two completely different geo-political mindsets.

In WWII the USSR was an American ally in every sense of the term. Roosevelt and Stalin trusted one another all the way through Yalta in spite of Churchill's misgivings. Until then the Roosevelt administration knew full well that the Soviets were doing the heavy lifting. The distrust among our governments slowly began after Yalta when Stalin began to renege on his promises regarding Poland, and then through the end of the war everything began to unravel until by the end of the year it became clear that the Soviets wanted eastern Europe under their influence.

During the war, through the OSS, deals were made with Ho Chi Minh that if he helped us fight the Japanese we would encourage France to end their colonization of his country. After the war we not only reneged, but helped supply the French in fighting Ho's communists.

Prior to WWII it was US policy to encourage all Western countries to give up their colonial holdings. After the war, mostly because of the "red scare", the US completely changed the dynamic of her diplomacy. Our record in South America has been horrendous. During the 50's we would back the most brutal of fascist dictators if the were anti-communist. We essentially made Cuba a communist country.

Anyway, to say our geo-political mindset was the same during WWII as it was after is completely inaccurate.

 

[untermensche]

World War II and Viet Nam have two completely different geo-political mindsets.

In WWII the USSR was an American ally in every sense of the term. Roosevelt and Stalin trusted one another all the way through Yalta in spite of Churchill's misgivings. Until then the Roosevelt administration knew full well that the Soviets were doing the heavy lifting. The distrust among our governments slowly began after Yalta when Stalin began to renege on his promises regarding Poland, and then through the end of the war everything began to unravel until by the end of the year it became clear that the Soviets wanted eastern Europe under their influence.

During the war, through the OSS, deals were made with Ho Chi Minh that if he helped us fight the Japanese we would encourage France to end their colonization of his country. After the war we not only reneged, but helped supply the French in fighting Ho's communists.

Prior to WWII it was US policy to encourage all Western countries to give up their colonial holdings. After the war, mostly because of the "red scare", the US completely changed the dynamic of her diplomacy. Our record in South America has been horrendous. During the 50's we would back the most brutal of fascist dictators if the were anti-communist. We essentially made Cuba a communist country.

Anyway, to say our geo-political mindset was the same during WWII as it was after is completely inaccurate.

What didn't change was the post war mindset.

The idea that the US would set the order to the greatest extent possible.

That was Vietnam.

The US was going to determine the kind of economy and government the people of Vietnam had, at least by that time what South Vietnam would have.

And this post-war mindset begins with the dropping of the bombs on Japan to show the world we would not hesitate to use them under some circumstances.