Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Germany VS Japan, post WWII

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 2:54:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There was nothing to the scale that happened to the Nazis after WWII in their judgment and punishment. There were the Nuremburg trials and a very large exposure of the Nazi death camps by the allied forces. There was a huge condemnation of the German people that took place after the war that did not take place with the Japanese. It is important to know that the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese in the war were not that far away in intensity and barbarism to the Nazis, but there was nothing to the scale of post war punishment that happened to the Germans.

Now, my understanding is that the US allowed them to get off more than the Germans because we wanted them in our camp, and post WWII Japan was the US creating a new Japan that would essentially heel to the US government, and more importantly not be in the Soviet camp.

Japanese history books are fairly revisionist when it comes to their role in the war, and few remark to the horrors of the rape of Nanking, and most every other territory that they occupied.

I'm interested in hearing theories or actual factual reasons why the Japanese were less accountable for what they did in WWII versus the Germans.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 3:37:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:54:01 PM, innomen wrote:
There was nothing to the scale that happened to the Nazis after WWII in their judgment and punishment. There were the Nuremburg trials and a very large exposure of the Nazi death camps by the allied forces. There was a huge condemnation of the German people that took place after the war that did not take place with the Japanese. It is important to know that the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese in the war were not that far away in intensity and barbarism to the Nazis, but there was nothing to the scale of post war punishment that happened to the Germans.

Now, my understanding is that the US allowed them to get off more than the Germans because we wanted them in our camp, and post WWII Japan was the US creating a new Japan that would essentially heel to the US government, and more importantly not be in the Soviet camp.

Japanese history books are fairly revisionist when it comes to their role in the war, and few remark to the horrors of the rape of Nanking, and most every other territory that they occupied.

I'm interested in hearing theories or actual factual reasons why the Japanese were less accountable for what they did in WWII versus the Germans.

I don't know if it makes sense to argue that the Japanese were less accountable than the Germans. Certainly the crimes they committed in Nanking and in other parts of China were downright horrifying - and a war crime is a war crime whether one is Japanese or German. Regardless, there were numerous war crimes tribunals that dealt with Japanese war criminals leading to hundreds of executions. You're certainly right though, from a political standpoint it didn't make sense to demonize either of these countries given the inevitable struggle with the USSR.

Although the crimes of the Germans and the Japanese are comparable, I'd say the intentions and worldview of the Germans was absolutely on its own level in terms of evil. I'm speaking in terms of a vision here - the Nazi worldview was utterly horrifying, much more so than the Japanese one. By the end of the war after the Nazi atrocities were revealed the German people certainly acknowledged this, and unlike in the case of the Japanese many of the German crimes were directed towards their own citizens. While both the Germans and Japanese committed enormous atrocities, the organization and systemization of the Nazi vision put it on its own level.

There's also the issue of the atom bomb, which elicited some sympathy for the Japanese and left a permanent mark on Japanese culture. Again, many of the Japanese crimes occurred in China far away from your typical Japanese civilian. I'm sure Roy could give you some really good insight into Japanese culture, but one more aspect I'll mention but not really elaborate on is the sense of pride and masculinity the 1930s gave Japan in that it truly put them on par with the western countries. I hope that answered your question.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 3:49:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hitler killed himself when the allies came close and so the Nazi's and Germany were at the mercy of the allies after the war, we could do whatever we want and punsih them as we pleased. The Japanese on the other hand were still putting up a hell of a fight, war weariness was growing, and an invasion on their homeland hadnt even been launched yet. Japan had a lot left to fight with and we couldnt have our way with them like we did Germany once we were done with them....

On the other hand, we did nuke them and we might have felt bad about it enough to not crucify them after the war happened.

On the other hand, it wasnt Japan who killed 6 million Jews for no good reason.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:33:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 3:37:06 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:54:01 PM, innomen wrote:
There was nothing to the scale that happened to the Nazis after WWII in their judgment and punishment. There were the Nuremburg trials and a very large exposure of the Nazi death camps by the allied forces. There was a huge condemnation of the German people that took place after the war that did not take place with the Japanese. It is important to know that the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese in the war were not that far away in intensity and barbarism to the Nazis, but there was nothing to the scale of post war punishment that happened to the Germans.

Now, my understanding is that the US allowed them to get off more than the Germans because we wanted them in our camp, and post WWII Japan was the US creating a new Japan that would essentially heel to the US government, and more importantly not be in the Soviet camp.

Japanese history books are fairly revisionist when it comes to their role in the war, and few remark to the horrors of the rape of Nanking, and most every other territory that they occupied.

I'm interested in hearing theories or actual factual reasons why the Japanese were less accountable for what they did in WWII versus the Germans.

I don't know if it makes sense to argue that the Japanese were less accountable than the Germans. Certainly the crimes they committed in Nanking and in other parts of China were downright horrifying - and a war crime is a war crime whether one is Japanese or German. Regardless, there were numerous war crimes tribunals that dealt with Japanese war criminals leading to hundreds of executions. You're certainly right though, from a political standpoint it didn't make sense to demonize either of these countries given the inevitable struggle with the USSR.

Although the crimes of the Germans and the Japanese are comparable, I'd say the intentions and worldview of the Germans was absolutely on its own level in terms of evil. I'm speaking in terms of a vision here - the Nazi worldview was utterly horrifying, much more so than the Japanese one. By the end of the war after the Nazi atrocities were revealed the German people certainly acknowledged this, and unlike in the case of the Japanese many of the German crimes were directed towards their own citizens. While both the Germans and Japanese committed enormous atrocities, the organization and systemization of the Nazi vision put it on its own level.


Couple things I don't buy: The distance thing. I don't think that the distance of the atrocities were a factor, where most of the worst of the German atrocities happened outside of Germany proper. I also don't think that the sympathy over the bomb was as much of a factor, except in that the subject of this thread is concerned. The inherent bias that we've developed as a result of the uneven punishment of the Germans is a factor of how we are posting in this thread. You know much more about the Nazi vision than you do the Japanese vision, and it's because of the level of sensationalism that has resulted in their post war penance. The Japanese had similar visions of superiority to that of the Germans, but perhaps less codified and less integrated into the driven purpose of the Japanese war maching. I also wonder if the fact that the Japanese were mostly victimizing little yellow people versus the Europeans that the Germans were killing.

There's also the issue of the atom bomb, which elicited some sympathy for the Japanese and left a permanent mark on Japanese culture. Again, many of the Japanese crimes occurred in China far away from your typical Japanese civilian. I'm sure Roy could give you some really good insight into Japanese culture, but one more aspect I'll mention but not really elaborate on is the sense of pride and masculinity the 1930s gave Japan in that it truly put them on par with the western countries. I hope that answered your question.

I don't see the connection in the masculine pride and the OP.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:34:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 3:49:33 PM, imabench wrote:
Hitler killed himself when the allies came close and so the Nazi's and Germany were at the mercy of the allies after the war, we could do whatever we want and punsih them as we pleased. The Japanese on the other hand were still putting up a hell of a fight, war weariness was growing, and an invasion on their homeland hadnt even been launched yet. Japan had a lot left to fight with and we couldnt have our way with them like we did Germany once we were done with them....

Not a bad point, and probably a factor, but the end of the war had them completely at our mercy. It may have been some allowance of saving face to the leaders that would be needed in rebuilding.

On the other hand, we did nuke them and we might have felt bad about it enough to not crucify them after the war happened.

On the other hand, it wasnt Japan who killed 6 million Jews for no good reason.....
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2013 4:49:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sometimes I look at what you people write and I can simply not belive that we have the same history =O

Yes, germany had the Nuremberg trials where close to 2000 germans where tried for their war crimes, but in Asia there where the Tokyo trials where twice as many where put on trial and 1000 people where sentenced to death for stuff like: mass killing of pows, eating prisoners, burying people alive, mass rape etc. Of course it is hard to estimate, but historians belive that the japanese killed betwen 3-10 million civilianse in occopied areas and some belive that it may have been even more.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 1:28:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Couple things I don't buy: The distance thing. I don't think that the distance of the atrocities were a factor, where most of the worst of the German atrocities happened outside of Germany proper. I also don't think that the sympathy over the bomb was as much of a factor, except in that the subject of this thread is concerned. The inherent bias that we've developed as a result of the uneven punishment of the Germans is a factor of how we are posting in this thread. You know much more about the Nazi vision than you do the Japanese vision, and it's because of the level of sensationalism that has resulted in their post war penance. The Japanese had similar visions of superiority to that of the Germans, but perhaps less codified and less integrated into the driven purpose of the Japanese war maching. I also wonder if the fact that the Japanese were mostly victimizing little yellow people versus the Europeans that the Germans were killing.

I think the distance made a considerable difference in psychologically connecting the German people to the crimes as opposed to the Japanese. Many of them recall having Jewish neighbors torn out from the neighborhood and herded into ghettos not to mention the slow process of alienating them from the community through discriminatory legislation and social pressures. These occurred for years prior to the outbreak of the war. The Japanese had none of this to my knowledge.

I know much more about the Nazi vision because a) I'm Jewish and b) I've studied some of the thinkers behind it. There were numerous fascist regimes during the 30's that had these grandiose visions of world conquest or restoring Rome, but I do believe the Nazi vision was historically on its own level.

I don't know, perhaps if I were asian I'd have taken more of an interest in Japanese war crimes and ideology. We also clearly have more cultural ties to Europe than Japan. I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese and China focused more on Sino-Japanese relationships because it's simply more relevant to their culture. I don't fault them for this. The question of ancestral ties in attaching importance can't be overlooked.
artemis.rafti
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 1:23:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In international affairs, Germany posed a much bigger dilemma to peace than Japan did. If one were to take a casual look at European affairs since the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) up until the end of WWII, one can see that Germany was either too weak or too strong for the peace in Europe.

After the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648, the Holy Roman Empire (basically a Germanic Empire) became divided into 300 sovereigns, each with independent foreign policies. A fragmented Holy Roman Empire meant that surrounding powers (particularly France) would exploit this region to achieve goals of expansion. As a result, Central Europe was where most of the brutal and destructive wars occurred in Europe. In these times, the Germanic world was too divided, and it unfortunately became the victim of repeated attempts of conquests by its neighbors.

But in the 1870s, Otto von Bismarck finally unified the Germanic world into a single country and the concept of German nationalism was brought to life. Once this occurred, the tide in Europe has turned. Prior to German unification, the peripheral powers in Europe exerted pressure towards the center of the continent (Russia from the east, France from the west etc.). After German unification, there was finally a large nation in Central Europe that proved to be too powerful, and from then on, pressure was exerted from Central Europe towards the peripheral powers. Germany proved to be too powerful to be contained by other powers and eventually adopted an aggressive policy of expansion (as the other European powers have done for the past 200+ years). This has inevitably lead to 2 World Wars.

So the lesson in history has been clear. When Germany was divided and weak (pre-1870s), it allowed its neighbors attempts of expansion, which led to many wars. After Germany was unified, it was the opposite as Germany sought to conquer Europe. Germany was simply either too weak or too powerful for the peace in Europe. This is why after WWII, Germany again was divided into blocs by the Allied Powers and the Soviet Union. It was really THE central problem of European affairs. I suspect this is why the Allied Powers were more concerned about post-WWII Germany than Japan. I think the Nazi ideology was a part of it, but definitely not the whole story...not even close.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 2:01:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It may be insignificant but I think there a few different in principle of the atrocity commit by Japanese and Nazi Germany.

1. The Japanese rape and cruel medical experiment is not an ethnic genocide. They may treat their subject of war more or less like an animal but they never have an intention of wiping them from the face of the earth like what the Nazi did.

2. The Nazi start the war, the Japanese simply followed that opportunity to snap eastern colony from the western power. If I am remember correctly, in term of diplomacy, that should resulted in lower level of punishment or something.

3. Japanese surrender is not unconditional. The US agreed on the term that the Japanese monarch will not be touched. That mean many of the war criminals who are in the imperial family are immune.

Of course most of the crimes are neglected because of the political reason but even if that is not the case I believe the crimes committed in WW2 still need to be differed from Nazi Germany, in purely legal sense.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:23:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think this thread is pointless. It doesn't matter which countries subtracted more util, public opinion and punishment for those crimes are based on political and pragmatic needs rather than justice. That's how these things go. The reason Holocaust deniers aren't as influential or mainstream as Armenian Genocide deniers is because after the war Holocaust denial was forbidden and the German public was ingrained with it. Japan remained unoccupied and its war crimes were committed in foreign countries, so it makes sense that many Japanese people downplay the scale of the atrocities.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:28:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:23:58 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I think this thread is pointless. It doesn't matter which countries subtracted more util, public opinion and punishment for those crimes are based on political and pragmatic needs rather than justice. That's how these things go. The reason Holocaust deniers aren't as influential or mainstream as Armenian Genocide deniers is because after the war Holocaust denial was forbidden and the German public was ingrained with it. Japan remained unoccupied and its war crimes were committed in foreign countries, so it makes sense that many Japanese people downplay the scale of the atrocities.

I don't buy that whole thing about it being done in a foreign country, so the Japanese don't bear much burden. The US has had to live out the legacy of Vietnam, and although the intensity has subsided now, there have been decades of horrible guilt within our country.

The point is that there is some far reaching ramifications that result from the guilt resulting from their atrocities. There is a massive guilt within the German people as a result of what happened in WWII. This has had a real impact on the German psyche, not just for those of past generations, but of more current generations, whereas this is not the case for the Japanese, their society has had massive influences as a result of WWII, but mostly in positive ways, and the people themselves appear to have no lasting societal guilt of what happened.

I'm not necessarily an advocate of this sort of generational guilt, in fact I don't believe in the concept of 'sins of the father', but it is important to remember history and what happened so that such horrors won't happen again (even though it will likely happen again).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 9:54:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 4:33:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/7/2013 3:37:06 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/7/2013 2:54:01 PM, innomen wrote:
There was nothing to the scale that happened to the Nazis after WWII in their judgment and punishment. There were the Nuremburg trials and a very large exposure of the Nazi death camps by the allied forces. There was a huge condemnation of the German people that took place after the war that did not take place with the Japanese. It is important to know that the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese in the war were not that far away in intensity and barbarism to the Nazis, but there was nothing to the scale of post war punishment that happened to the Germans.

Now, my understanding is that the US allowed them to get off more than the Germans because we wanted them in our camp, and post WWII Japan was the US creating a new Japan that would essentially heel to the US government, and more importantly not be in the Soviet camp.

Japanese history books are fairly revisionist when it comes to their role in the war, and few remark to the horrors of the rape of Nanking, and most every other territory that they occupied.

I'm interested in hearing theories or actual factual reasons why the Japanese were less accountable for what they did in WWII versus the Germans.

I don't know if it makes sense to argue that the Japanese were less accountable than the Germans. Certainly the crimes they committed in Nanking and in other parts of China were downright horrifying - and a war crime is a war crime whether one is Japanese or German. Regardless, there were numerous war crimes tribunals that dealt with Japanese war criminals leading to hundreds of executions. You're certainly right though, from a political standpoint it didn't make sense to demonize either of these countries given the inevitable struggle with the USSR.

Although the crimes of the Germans and the Japanese are comparable, I'd say the intentions and worldview of the Germans was absolutely on its own level in terms of evil. I'm speaking in terms of a vision here - the Nazi worldview was utterly horrifying, much more so than the Japanese one. By the end of the war after the Nazi atrocities were revealed the German people certainly acknowledged this, and unlike in the case of the Japanese many of the German crimes were directed towards their own citizens. While both the Germans and Japanese committed enormous atrocities, the organization and systemization of the Nazi vision put it on its own level.


Couple things I don't buy: The distance thing. I don't think that the distance of the atrocities were a factor, where most of the worst of the German atrocities happened outside of Germany proper. I also don't think that the sympathy over the bomb was as much of a factor, except in that the subject of this thread is concerned. The inherent bias that we've developed as a result of the uneven punishment of the Germans is a factor of how we are posting in this thread. You know much more about the Nazi vision than you do the Japanese vision, and it's because of the level of sensationalism that has resulted in their post war penance. The Japanese had similar visions of superiority to that of the Germans, but perhaps less codified and less integrated into the driven purpose of the Japanese war maching. I also wonder if the fact that the Japanese were mostly victimizing little yellow people versus the Europeans that the Germans were killing.

I think this is probably very close to the truth. I'm not very familiar with the degree of the war crimes tribunals held in either country, but I do know that the racism exhibited by Nazi Germany was not uncommon for any country during the time, to include the US - the main difference in degree may have been unique to the squalor surrounding pre-Nazi Germany and the desperation inside Germany proper that Hitler was able to advantage himself of. Also, the a-bombs may have made any moral high ground for the US less justifiable in the case of Japan. Finally, US influence would have been harder to project across the Pacific than across the Atlantic. This may have also been a factor in the level of relative appeasement.

There's also the issue of the atom bomb, which elicited some sympathy for the Japanese and left a permanent mark on Japanese culture. Again, many of the Japanese crimes occurred in China far away from your typical Japanese civilian. I'm sure Roy could give you some really good insight into Japanese culture, but one more aspect I'll mention but not really elaborate on is the sense of pride and masculinity the 1930s gave Japan in that it truly put them on par with the western countries. I hope that answered your question.

I don't see the connection in the masculine pride and the OP.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 10:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You cant forget that the treaty tied the two together plus the us base at Okinawa.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 10:10:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 10:05:39 PM, lannan13 wrote:
You cant forget that the treaty tied the two together plus the us base at Okinawa.

We also have Ramstein in Germany. Although, looking at this list, seems Ramstein might just be the tip of the iceberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Same for Japan:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:52:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 10:10:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/15/2013 10:05:39 PM, lannan13 wrote:
You cant forget that the treaty tied the two together plus the us base at Okinawa.

We also have Ramstein in Germany. Although, looking at this list, seems Ramstein might just be the tip of the iceberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Same for Japan:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just out of pure curiosity, do you think the US, if given a chance would willing to break any agreement they had with the Japanese government and dethroned the Emperor (Hirohito) to punish him and the rest of the war criminal existed in royal family?

Assume that the Soviet is not a threat and the only thing stand in the way is Japanese term of agreement.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 2:56:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/7/2013 2:54:01 PM, innomen wrote:
There was nothing to the scale that happened to the Nazis after WWII in their judgment and punishment. There were the Nuremburg trials and a very large exposure of the Nazi death camps by the allied forces. There was a huge condemnation of the German people that took place after the war that did not take place with the Japanese. It is important to know that the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese in the war were not that far away in intensity and barbarism to the Nazis, but there was nothing to the scale of post war punishment that happened to the Germans.

Now, my understanding is that the US allowed them to get off more than the Germans because we wanted them in our camp, and post WWII Japan was the US creating a new Japan that would essentially heel to the US government, and more importantly not be in the Soviet camp.

Japanese history books are fairly revisionist when it comes to their role in the war, and few remark to the horrors of the rape of Nanking, and most every other territory that they occupied.

I'm interested in hearing theories or actual factual reasons why the Japanese were less accountable for what they did in WWII versus the Germans.

I'll be frank in that I know very little about Japanese history and comparatively less about Asia in WWII than I do about Europe and Africa. Blame my western education.

That said however, I don't hold (or think it is fair to hold) German (or Austrian) citizens accountable for the atrocities of the Third Reich. It makes little sense to argue that they could have revolted, because they were largely ignorant of what was actually transpiring in Nazi death camps. Those who did know were not necessarily in a position to affect change. That is not to say that they are innocent, only that they are not necessarily guilty.

We celebrate those figures who resisted, however, because of their placing themselves in a position to resist. Dietrich Boenhoeffer, Claus von Stauffenberg, etc. These were German heroes -but they are not the metric by which we evaluate guilt of innocence of the whole of the German people.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 3:13:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:52:27 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/15/2013 10:10:16 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/15/2013 10:05:39 PM, lannan13 wrote:
You cant forget that the treaty tied the two together plus the us base at Okinawa.

We also have Ramstein in Germany. Although, looking at this list, seems Ramstein might just be the tip of the iceberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Same for Japan:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just out of pure curiosity, do you think the US, if given a chance would willing to break any agreement they had with the Japanese government and dethroned the Emperor (Hirohito) to punish him and the rest of the war criminal existed in royal family?

Assume that the Soviet is not a threat and the only thing stand in the way is Japanese term of agreement.

It would depend on the ostensible reasons for doing so. Why would they pursue this?

A similar line of reasoning in my mind is that the US could declare martial law upon its citizens at any time. However, there's no question that the ostensible reasons for doing so would be very important.

IMHO, it's not a matter of whether or not the US would be "willing", but whether or not it can. That was determined during WWII, and the answer was yes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 7:25:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:28:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:23:58 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I think this thread is pointless. It doesn't matter which countries subtracted more util, public opinion and punishment for those crimes are based on political and pragmatic needs rather than justice. That's how these things go. The reason Holocaust deniers aren't as influential or mainstream as Armenian Genocide deniers is because after the war Holocaust denial was forbidden and the German public was ingrained with it. Japan remained unoccupied and its war crimes were committed in foreign countries, so it makes sense that many Japanese people downplay the scale of the atrocities.

I don't buy that whole thing about it being done in a foreign country, so the Japanese don't bear much burden. The US has had to live out the legacy of Vietnam, and although the intensity has subsided now, there have been decades of horrible guilt within our country.

I didn't say that...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 7:35:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 7:25:51 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:28:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:23:58 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I think this thread is pointless. It doesn't matter which countries subtracted more util, public opinion and punishment for those crimes are based on political and pragmatic needs rather than justice. That's how these things go. The reason Holocaust deniers aren't as influential or mainstream as Armenian Genocide deniers is because after the war Holocaust denial was forbidden and the German public was ingrained with it. Japan remained unoccupied and its war crimes were committed in foreign countries, so it makes sense that many Japanese people downplay the scale of the atrocities.

I don't buy that whole thing about it being done in a foreign country, so the Japanese don't bear much burden. The US has had to live out the legacy of Vietnam, and although the intensity has subsided now, there have been decades of horrible guilt within our country.

I didn't say that...

Your sig should say "ghost of Tsar Nicholas II" not "Tsar Nicholas II."
Tsar of DDO