Boy did this thread derail or what?
Ah, so you would rather the Japanese live under the iron fisted rule of a militaristic imperialist state? Or that they continue to oppress those living in occupied Korea, China, and the rest of South East Asia?
Well for one Japan had always been an Imperial (not imperialist) state since it's recorded existence, and under one form of military rule or the other since the Kamakura era (sans Meiji and Taisho era)
Just as you assume occupation would exist today, one can just as easily assume the regime and occupational forces would've collapsed under their own weight.
Nevermind that your original statement discredits the social reform and democratic efforts of the Meiji government...
That would be MOST interesting archie4oz...Personally I didn't believe it before, but this proves that at least some Japanese nationals haven't accepted that Japan was wrong in WWII and apologise to the rest of the world for it.
"This" does? And what would "this" be? As for Japanese nationals accepting being "wrong", those that do disagree probably don't see it as a case of right and wrong rather as a case of being the loser in the big game global geopolitics...
I guess i am left to assume to things: A. Arch is japaese and B. you're asserting he's a facist sympathizer.
And such an assumption would be wrong as I am not Japanese, in ethnicity or nationality (although I may naturalize in the future)...
Japan began to flex its muscle in the South East, the US placed sanctions on it accordingly, and thus you had Pearl Harbor. Who was 'right' is subjective, but my original point stands:
Ermmm... Japan wasn't the only nation occupying territories, flexing it's muscles in the region.
Democracy, or militaristic imperialist state?
WWII was a tragedy for both sides, but the Japanese owe the freedom and quality of life they have today in part to their defeat at Midway.
Sure, they could also owe their freedom and quality of life to the efforts of the Meiji goverment in order to prevent the nation from becoming a subjugated colony like so many others in the region...
This is totally laughable.
Yes, your elementary school history book take on said events are indeed laughable...
The US had every right to place sanctions on Japan.
Indeed it did. And indeed the US should've realized the consequences of such actions (in fact there were those who did argue that embargo meant war, e.g. undersecretary Welles and the Naval officials). One could also say the stipulations of the sanctions seemed rather hypocratic as the US itself was a colonial power in the region. Nevermind it would essentially entail giving up gains of almost a decade of conflict in China (of which the Japanese government had never desired)...
And Japan had no right to attack Pearl Harbor to shock the US into negotiating to allow Japan to control the S. Pacific. Yamamoto was a fool to think that America would back down if they attacked the Pacific base in Hawaii.
"Rights" (as you put it) don't exactly exist when talks have reached a state of "negotiations by other means"... As for Yamamoto, what choice did he have? By then the US had already taken sides, pretty much everyone involved believed the US would enter the war against Japan if it moved against the Dutch East Indies and Singapore to secure oil resources. That coupled with the military buildup in the Philipines and moving the Pacific fleet to Pearl Harbor didn't exactly endear the US as a nation sitting idly by... The Army was going on with it's plans, thus he had to concieve of some strategy to deal with the US fleet. I can only assume he hoped to achieve the same results that Togo had at the Yalu and Tsushima... In the end, the primary goal wasn't achieved and Yamamoto knew it, what else was there left to do?
Instead they got the're asses whooped by the Americans all the way back to their homeland.
You shouldn't discount the efforts of the Chiang and Mao to tie up considerable resources in China and the British and the Vietnamese in French-Indochina/Burma...
And don't cry over the dropping of the Atomic bombs.
Who's crying? I do believe they were unecessary with regards to ending the war. However I believe it was more of an effort by Truman to make a demonstration of power to the Soviet Union...
The US would have launched a massive invasion into the Japanese mainland instead and the death toll would have been alot larger.
And those estimates were based largely on the results at Okinawa, which could've been easily taken in late '44. Instead, the US wasted time, men, material and went south to liberate the Philipines (and further MacArthur's political career). For that matter, Okinawa could've been easily bypassed and offered little tactical value (the US Navy had effectively cut shipping routes from the East Indies and Formosa). B-29s from the Marianas and China were for the most part leveling any industry that was left (the Tokyo fire bombing cause far more damage and casualties than the atomic bombings, sans the later radiation deaths)... Besides there were already surrender negotiations going on since June, it was simply a matter of time...
Legion, didn't you notice that archie4oz claims he/she works for Square. The only place with an studio open is in Japan. There used to be one California. That's been closed down, and so has the one in Hawaii.
Worked... And there still is a studio in CA... As for the Hawaii one, I think we all know why that one was shut down...
As for the whole Israel thingy, I didn't think many of the problems really started until the First Zionist Congress of 1897 and/or the Balfour Declaration of 1917...? But what do I know...
