Here's one of those picnics you might be interested in.
Nanking Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Pearl Harbor was deception.
- Thread starter Nabuchodonosor
- Start date
Here's one of those picnics you might be interested in.
Nanking Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
Quote from acronym:
you seem to be ignoring the fact Japan had occupied parts of china in an ongoing expansionist military campaign since around 1910, or earlier. Not to mention historical claims on korea.
Well, Japanese expansionism into China was a natural reaction to weaking British influence in the region. Had the Japanese not invaded China, the British would have continued to eradicate the Chinese by the massive Opium trade they had established in that nation, propably exterminating just as much civilians as the Japanese did.
Quote from chuck.ells:
Here's one of those picnics you might be interested in.
Nanking Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
I actually mentionned that one in one of my previous posts, but it's nothing compared to the mass butchery committed by Mao (70+ million). Without opportunistic Japanese imperialism in China, Mao or the British might very well have killed even more.
By the way, the US reaction to Pearl Harbor was rather rough and a lot worse than the Nanking massacre. But that's war, it's hard to complain about that.
The British were occupying half the world at that time and Roosevelt didn't care one bit. Yet, he ought necessary to provoke the Japanese in every possible way just so that he could enter the war against Germany, allowing half of Europe to be occupied by the Soviets.
Quote from chuck.ells:
Here's one of those picnics you might be interested in.
Nanking Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
Thanks very much for the link. Well appreciated.
Quote from Nabuchodonosor:
The British were occupying half the world at that time and Roosevelt didn't care one bit. Yet, he ought necessary to provoke the Japanese in every possible way just so that he could enter the war against Germany, allowing half of Europe to be occupied by the Soviets.
What was FDR supposed to do? Attack half the world? (British).
The US entered the war after being attacked on US soil by Japan.
Hitler was a freak that needed to be taken out. Live with it.
Someone brought forth the argument that Roosevelt's craftiness was justified because he intended to stop Chinese bloodletting, which is questionable for a man who didn't seem to care too much about killing civilians in Germany, Italy, and Japan.Quote from version77:
What was FDR supposed to do? Attack half the world? (British).
I was unaware of that.The US entered the war after being attacked on US soil by Japan.
Hitler was a freak that needed to be taken out. Live with it. [/B]
That's debatable, but do you honestly believe that Stalin was less of a "freak"? It's indisputable that Stalin was responsible for a lot more suffering than Hitler, even if you believe that the latter was a pure incarnation of evil (see official Democide statistics). The Soviet Union under Stalin was the most totalitarian place that ever existed, save perhaps China under Mao. (mostly Jewish) Commissars were able to deport anyone to Syberia for 20, 30 years for the most minor flaws imaginable. Stalin was slaughtering millions en masse as early as the 20s without any confidentiality, nor aversion from the side of FDR and the likes.
Quote from Nabuchodonosor:
That's debatable, but do you honestly believe that Stalin was less of a "freak"? It's indisputable that Stalin was responsible for a lot more suffering than Hitler
Just becasue Stalin was a freak doesn't make Hitler less of a freak.
If Hitler wasn't stopped he would of made Stalin look like a choir boy.