• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Most Americans don't seem to understand that WWII was an inter-imperial war"

Hitler's Lebensraum is often considered a form of imperialism.

Link
 
It's 2022, not WWII.

Yet you made a thread about WW2.

During WW2 was it right for countries to use military force to defend themselves when attacked by hostile militarist countries?
 
It's 2022, not WWII.

Okay, let's talk about 2022 then. In 2022, hostile militarist Russia launched a war of aggression against the Ukrainians. Are the Ukrainians right in using military force to defend themselves from that attack?

Or should they not fight back and surrender?
 
After the Japanese were defeated, the Vietnamese adopted a 'declaration of independence' modeled on ours, and asked us to support their not having France return. We did the opposite of what our 'values' say. And maybe a couple million people were killed simply because we pointlessly abused power. We were worse than Putin.
Not worse than Putin. Vietnam was one of the ideological wars of the period of the 20th century Cold War. Ukraine for Putin is simply a war of conquest, also popular in the 20th century.

France threatened to leave its Southeast Asian colonies to the Communists and the US, somewhat inspired by the Domino Theory (a racist theory if there ever was one) bought into the idea that all of Southeast Asia would fall to the Communists. Hence Vietnam was a 20th century ideological war fought within the context of the Cold War.

WWI, a war of conquest begat WWII, another war of conquest. Wars of conquest are based in greed not ideology. "I want your shit and I am willing to wipe you off the planet to get it." Putin is fighting a 20 century war of conquest in Ukraine. He wants Ukraines shit (assets, treasure and territory) and thought he would have a walkover taking it. WHOOPS!!!

Now Vlad is stuck in a true 20th century war of conquest complete with destruction of an entire Peoples and its culture to take what would be left of its territory and its assets after the smoke clears. It appears that he can't or won't back out because he does not think he can. Better for Vlad to destroy Ukraine than admit to defeat and go home with his tail between his legs no matter how many people parish in the process. If anybody thinks he will be satisfied with the Donbas as a consolation prize, think again. It won't be enough to offset Russia's tremendous losses in personal and prestige and treasure.
 
Last edited:
Hoo boy.

Now the allies were the bad guys.

lol
 
Hoo boy.

Now the allies were the bad guys.

lol
There are posters here that are simply incapable of separating their Socialist nirvana desires from the actual history. Thus EVERYTHING is the fault of capitalism. Clearly I am straining credibility to make a point. However, unfortunately I am not far off in my analysis.
 
Antiwar's entire worldview boils down to "America is evil and therefore whoever is against America must be the good side".
He certainly does spend a lot of time here expressing that same basic message throughout most, if not all, of his threads.

Also, I notice that @Antiwar has not responded to your repeated question of what he thinks America should have done when we were attacked by the Japanese.
 
For the record, WWI became a World War when Germany sent the Goeben and the Breslau up the Mediterranean into the Black Sea and gave them to Turkey who promptly began shelling Russian war ships and ports with them. That is the very moment that WWI became a World War. Germany was fighting a war of conquest in WWI. Russia was fighting for survival and everybody else was just caught in the backwash. The US for its part was never allied with anybody in WWI. We came in late as a belligerent. We came In to insure that the side we wanted to win did in fact win which it did.

WWII was another war of conquest with Germany again fighting for conquest and to right the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany and Russia had been sharpening sabres, one for the other's back for virtually all of the 1920's and 1930's while covertly building their WWII war machines TOGETHER!!!!! That was a classic example of hold your friends close and your enemies closer. Germany simply pulled the trigger before Russia did.
 
Video link is in #6.

Starting from 1:00- "The United States was, has always been, and continues to be an empire rooted in white supremacy."

Woo doggies, this historian doesn't mess around.
 
Video link is in #6.

Starting from 1:00- "The United States was, has always been, and continues to be an empire rooted in white supremacy."

Woo doggies, this historian doesn't mess around.
Which does not make it responsible for even half the stuff you appear to claim. Though they are both to be avoided, ideological wars at least pit ideologies against each other. Wars off conquest are based in pure greed.
 
The way the Japanese treated those it occupied really wasn’t comparable though. The Japanese were on a whole other level of brutality.....far worse than any previously experienced.

They were less brutal when people stopped resisting, which is not to minimize what they did, but Japan did not seek to exterminate an entire race or culture as the Germans did. At the same time, there were absolutely efforts to destroy cultural heritage, which in itself is a pretty wicked thing to do. They did this in Korea and the Marianas, and I'm sure they did it to some degree or another elsewhere. But again, ironically, the very nation Japan colonized, China, is now doing the same in Western China. So history repeats itself, I guess.

What I do think gets almost always lost in the West is the real reason that Japan militarized in the first place. In 1854 the Japanese were largely an isolated feudalist backwater, which was then confronted and threatened with gunboats to open up its ports to Western (American) trade, or suffer a crushing military defeat and potential occupation. Japan wasn't stupid. They knew that China and other parts of the world had been occupied by European powers. So they signed a treaty and began a period of modernization for the express purpose of being able to compete militarily, economically, and politically with Western powers.
 
He certainly does spend a lot of time here expressing that same basic message throughout most, if not all, of his threads.

Also, I notice that @Antiwar has not responded to your repeated question of what he thinks America should have done when we were attacked by the Japanese.
I too note that @Antiwar has dodged this question multiple times now.
 
They were less brutal when people stopped resisting, which is not to minimize what they did, but Japan did not seek to exterminate an entire race or culture as the Germans did. At the same time, there were absolutely efforts to destroy cultural heritage, which in itself is a pretty wicked thing to do. They did this in Korea and the Marianas, and I'm sure they did it to some degree or another elsewhere. But again, ironically, the very nation Japan colonized, China, is now doing the same in Western China. So history repeats itself, I guess.

What I do think gets almost always lost in the West is the real reason that Japan militarized in the first place. In 1854 the Japanese were largely an isolated feudalist backwater, which was then confronted and threatened with gunboats to open up its ports to Western (American) trade, or suffer a crushing military defeat and potential occupation. Japan wasn't stupid. They knew that China and other parts of the world had been occupied by European powers. So they signed a treaty and began a period of modernization for the express purpose of being able to compete militarily, economically, and politically with Western powers.
The Japanese were never "less brutal". In their culture of the time if you "stopped resisting" you were lower than cow dung....not worth shit and that is how they treated you. Better that you commit ritual suicide than stop resisting.
 
They were less brutal when people stopped resisting, which is not to minimize what they did, but Japan did not seek to exterminate an entire race or culture as the Germans did. At the same time, there were absolutely efforts to destroy cultural heritage, which in itself is a pretty wicked thing to do. They did this in Korea and the Marianas, and I'm sure they did it to some degree or another elsewhere. But again, ironically, the very nation Japan colonized, China, is now doing the same in Western China. So history repeats itself, I guess.

What I do think gets almost always lost in the West is the real reason that Japan militarized in the first place. In 1854 the Japanese were largely an isolated feudalist backwater, which was then confronted and threatened with gunboats to open up its ports to Western (American) trade, or suffer a crushing military defeat and potential occupation. Japan wasn't stupid. They knew that China and other parts of the world had been occupied by European powers. So they signed a treaty and began a period of modernization for the express purpose of being able to compete militarily, economically, and politically with Western powers.

Uh....yes, they absolutely did. For example, the Japanese actively sought to stamp out Korean culture and subjugate the people there entirely. Japanese actions from China to Indonesia and the Philippines to Vietnam were overwhelmingly and psychotically brutal.

And no, they were never really “less brutal”. If anything, they were MORE brutal when the fighting stopped. Just look how they treated POWs.
 
After the Japanese were defeated, the Vietnamese adopted a 'declaration of independence' modeled on ours, and asked us to support their not having France return.

This is correct, as I recall.

We did the opposite of what our 'values' say.

Agreed.

And maybe a couple million people were killed simply because we pointlessly abused power. We were worse than Putin.

Disagree. We didn't deliberately shell cities and try to make Vietnam unlivable - that would have been total nonsense considering we were trying to help pro-Western Vietnam (South Vietnam) win a civil war. If the U.S. had wanted to lay waste to Vietnamese cities, that could have been done. It wasn't.
 
12:40- "Anarchism, which really competed with communism, as a critique of communism, really becomes a critical element of anti-colonial movements, anti-colonial thought."
 
The Japanese were never "less brutal". In their culture of the time if you "stopped resisting" you were lower than cow dung....not worth shit and that is how they treated you. Better that you commit ritual suicide than stop resisting.

That's how they treated soldiers, yes. Surrender was an act of cowardice, which was held with contempt. How they treated civilians is complex. I certainly won't argue that they were benevolent overlords, but they didn't slaughter everyone in sight either. I suppose they treated other Asians the way many colonial European powers did, or maybe how the U.S. treated Native and Black Americans - probably no worse than that.
 
Uh....yes, they absolutely did. For example, the Japanese actively sought to stamp out Korean culture and subjugate the people there entirely. Japanese actions from China to Indonesia and the Philippines to Vietnam were overwhelmingly and psychotically brutal.

And no, they were never really “less brutal”. If anything, they were MORE brutal when the fighting stopped. Just look how they treated POWs.
You can read my post #46, which I think addresses the above
 
That's how they treated soldiers, yes. Surrender was an act of cowardice, which was held with contempt. How they treated civilians is complex. I certainly won't argue that they were benevolent overlords, but they didn't slaughter everyone in sight either. I suppose they treated other Asians the way many colonial European powers did, or maybe how the U.S. treated Native and Black Americans - probably no worse than that.

They literally abused the civilian populace so badly everywhere they went that even those most devoted to fighting against European colonialism quickly realized how much worse the Japanese were.

For example, in Burma…

“The resulting hardships and Japanese militaristic attitudes turned the majority Burman population against the Japanese. The insensitive attitude of the Japanese Army extended to the BNA. Even the officers of the BNA were obliged to salute low-ranking privates of the Imperial Japanese Army as their superiors. Aung San soon became disillusioned about Japanese promises of true independence and of Japan's ability to win the war. As the British General in the Burma Campaign William Slim put it:

"It was not long before Aung San found that what he meant by independence had little relation to what the Japanese were prepared to give—that he had exchanged an old master for an infinitely more tyrannical new one. As one of his leading followers once said to me, "If the British sucked our blood, the Japanese ground our bones!"[41
 
15:12- "The United States was really committed to keeping the racial and colonial order of the world."
 
I think I see a tendency in this thread for treating acts of cultural theivery as being specific to one type of war than another.

Wiping out an opponent's culture is all about beating the opponent. Wiping out their cultural heritage or at the least absconding with the cultural icons that represent a culture is all about winning, trying to diminish the opponent's moral and robbing from them the very things they believe they are fighting to protect and maintain.

Some countries at war will avoid destroying an opponent's culture based on some set of morals or ethics. Others will go after it with a vengeance.
 
Back
Top Bottom