Enola Gay?

So Japan bears no responsibility for its own actions? Or that the sufferings of the Chinese, the Koreans, and the Vietnamese just prior to WWII should be ignored?

Yes and no.

Japan was acting in its perceived national self interest, just as each and every other nation acts in its perceived national self interest. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, but its the winners that judge. I would go so far as to argue that japans actions in Asia were no different thatn ours in Vietnam, but hey to the victors go the spoils

WildpracticalAlaska
 
I would go so far as to argue that japans actions in Asia were no different thatn ours in Vietnam, but hey to the victors go the spoils

Please show any action in Vietnam that was equivalent to Nanking.
 
Japan was acting in its perceived national self interest, just as each and every other nation acts in its perceived national self interest. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, but its the winners that judge. I would go so far as to argue that japans actions in Asia were no different thatn ours in Vietnam, but hey to the victors go the spoils
You and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that victory = right. I would hope that displays like Enola Gay, along with a discussion of the history involved, including the events of 1853's "opening of Japan," should be taught so that we can learn from our mistakes. (For the record, and an aside for which I don't have the time to debate the issues, I do not disagree with the decisions to A-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and neither did my two uncles who were part of the proposed invasion force.)

And while it's the winners that judge, I would hope that judging with a wise eye would also direct us to a better course.

As for Japan's actions in Asia being no different than ours in Vietnam, my Vietnamese wife (born in Vietnam, not the US) and her family have a much more favorable view of US involvement than I commonly encounter in the media. Some of her family members old enough to have experienced both the Japanese and US involvements with Vietnam would dispute you.
 
"Japan was acting in its perceived national self interest, just as each and every other nation acts in its perceived national self interest."

Now here's where we differ. That's slipping into the "history as moral equiviliency" camp.

Japanese atrocities during the War are well documented.

What are less well documented are the Japanese atrocities stretching back into the early years of the 20th century, especially in its occupation of Korea.

You think American expansionism was rough?

Think again.
 
> Japan was acting in its perceived national self interest

Tell that to the people of Nanking, or the "comfort women" in Manchuria. Or, for that matter, the descendants of those who died in Corregidor, Bataan, and Mandalay.

US Imperialism, while real, was a drop in the bucket compared to the actions of Japan in the first half of the 20th Century. Nor would it excuse those actions even if it was anywhere near as bad.

Stick to selling guns, and leave America-bashing to those with at least a plausible-sounding argument.
 
Tell that to the people of Nanking, or the "comfort women" in Manchuria. Or, for that matter, the descendants of those who died in Corregidor, Bataan, and Mandalay.

Tell that to the Filipinos, the Sioux, the Cheyenne, the folks at Hiroshima, Tokyo and Nagasaki. Tell that to some of the Japanese Generals (not all, but some) hanged as war criminals. Tell that to the Germans held in US POW camps. Tell that to the folks at Mai Lai......

NO ONE in war has a lock on barbarity, there are only winners and losers and its alwys the winners who decide what is a war crime or not.

US Imperialism, while real, was a drop in the bucket compared to the actions of Japan in the first half of the 20th Century. .

That shows an astonishing lack of depth in history. And by the ways, this debate is not to EXCUSE anyone, we, as human beings, all suck. All of us.

Stick to selling guns, and leave America-bashing to those with at least a plausible-sounding argument.

O gee thats so mature. Didnt know this was the playground.

WildanonwegoAlaska
 
Now here's where we differ. That's slipping into the "history as moral equiviliency" camp.

No its not Mike. There is a difference between the actions of the nation state and the actions of those who serve it.

By the way, are you familiar with the actions of the Japanese army in the Russo Japanese war.

WildloveshistoryAlaska
 
Tell that to the Filipinos, the Sioux, the Cheyenne, the folks at Hiroshima, Tokyo and Nagasaki. Tell that to some of the Japanese Generals (not all, but some) hanged as war criminals. Tell that to the Germans held in US POW camps. Tell that to the folks at Mai Lai......

NO ONE in war has a lock on barbarity
There's a difference between government programs and policies of stuffing Jews into ovens (Nazis) or working prisoners to death on the Burma Railway or enslaving "comfort women" (Japanese) and Mai Lai (US).

I served with Filipino sailors and officers out in WESTPAC. Each of them had some harsh things to say about the US relationship with the Philipines, but they all joined the USN so they could become US citizens. And each of them despised the Japanese. I'm not saying they are right for feeling that way. The war ended a long time ago, and many of the Japanese living now are of a different mindset. However, while those sailors and officers had some issues with the US, they all had hatred for Japan. Seems like they believed that not all barbarities are the same.

EDITTED TO ADD: Just for the record, I worked with a Japanese ASW exchange team--once--and found them intelligent, professional, and strong allies. The current generation is NOT the old one.
 
There's a difference between government programs and policies of stuffing Jews into ovens (Nazis) or working prisoners to death on the Burma Railway or enslaving "comfort women" (Japanese) and Mai Lai (US).

Good. We agree.

So do the Cheyenne and Sioux.

However, while those sailors and officers had some issues with the US, they all had hatred for Japan. Seems like they believed that not all barbarities are the same.

Historically thats worthless. Maybe they are all too young to remember 1898

"We bombarded a place called Malabon, and then we went in and killed every native we met, men, women, and children. It was a dreadful sight, the killing of the poor creatures. The natives captured some of the Americans and literally hacked them to pieces, so we got orders to spare no one."

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/58

WildletyewhoiswithoutsincastthefirststoneAlaska
 
I think wildalaska is smoking what he is growing. No body is that removed from reality, are they? Or as the song says do you get down from that ivory tower anytime?:cool:
 
yeah, thats some potent toe-jam he's smoking.

For giggles, talk to him about his Japanese wifes opinions on Koreans and Chinese and Filipinos. If you're real brave, and ever get the chance, simply ask her if she'd like to buy a Kia.
 
Why? Because I tell it like it is? You think that WE somehow have an ublemished past?

or do you prefer ad hominem to debate...:rolleyes:

WildtakingtheeasywayoutareweAlaska
 
Historically thats worthless. Maybe they are all too young to remember 1898
Worthless to you, maybe, but it didn't seem worthless to them. I did, after all, say that they also had issues with the US.

Having never sat in on their history classes as taught to them in Filipino schools, I can't report on what they were taught, so I don't know what they did or did not learn about 1898 or any other year. Unless you sat in on their history classes, neither can you. So neither you nor I know what they learned of 1898 or what they think about it.
WildletyewhoiswithoutsincastthefirststoneAlaska
Some stones are stones, some are boulders, some are pebbles. Like sins, they are not all the same.
 
For giggles, talk to him about his Japanese wifes opinions on Koreans and Chinese and Filipinos. If you're real brave, and ever get the chance, simply ask her if she'd like to buy a Kia.

Spiff is correct...my sweet wife that wouldnt hurt a fly is about as rascist as you can get (or is it ethnocentric)..

WildbutthenagainarentweallAlaska

PS except me :)
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You obviously have not seen his location of "own little world".

Mostly I think he does it to be contrary or to generate discussion. Buisness must be slow. That or he wants to impress us with his superior knowledge. Either way I must admit it is fun to watch him twist the tails of others.

Back on track. I recall high school when I took AP US History. Our final exam included a data based question. We were asked a question and and had to pick sides using documents from the era(provided) to prove our point. Our question was if the bomb was used to make Japan surrender or if it was just a point being made to the Russians. I determined that while the shock value was great towards the Soviets, the more immediate threat was Japan, who due to their culture were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child until the emperor said "uncle". I still belive that today.
 
Bullpucky...wrong is wrong...some wrongs may be JUSTIFIED...but who decides...???
So if I commit the sin of stealing, that's the equivalent to the sin of murdering someone?

Wow, that's some pretty impressive moral equivalency.
 
Back
Top