Japan's Gotoda Masaharu describes Japan as a "vassal state".
The following is where the quote is from. I've never heard of him before
and don't know enough Japanese to read more elsewhere.
Thoughts on this...?
...therefore dependence on the US was structurally determined. The economic rewards for Japan in this arrangement have been huge, but the political costs slowly mount. Bureaucrats in Tokyo who have always given absolute priority to following the United States are today torn between that commitment and the wish to be actively involved in the emerging "Commonwealth of East Asia". Today, even one of Japan's most distinguished elder statesmen (Gotoda Masaharu) describes Japan as a "vassal state" (zokkoku) of the US.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/rewriting-an-ugly-past/2005/08/14/1123957950490.html
Given your statements, I can only assume your perspective is that the United States is a greedy warmongering nation that has only acted out of its own devious and maniacal self-interest throughout its entire history.
My perspective of the US is indeed different than yours.
I was talking about the tsunami. Oh, by the way, I noticed that nobody donated anything to the Hurricane Katrina relief fund. Except Americans, that is. Huh. Evil imperialists. We give money to victims of a disaster half a world away, and nobody even gives us so much as a cent when we suffer from one.
I have to agree here that I found it very weird that reactions on this terrible disaster were very limited.
Invading Iraq has been wreaking havoc on our economy. Prices keep rising, but our wages don't. Gas keeps going up, but our expendible capital doesn't. In addition, the people screaming the loudest for our invasion of Iraq are the Iraqi-Americans and Iraqi immigrants. (Iranian-Americans and Iranian immigrants are also screaming at the top of their lungs for us to clean Iran's clock, too).
The invasion of Iraq has put a lot of pressure on the economy indeed. However, in the long-term, when the fight over these scarce resources get fiercer, the US will probably profit from it. I hope so anyway for the people of the US because now it looks like there is no end to the fighting and the negative economic consequences.
If we did, would you support us? Or would you sneer and say that it was a neo-colonial imperialist attempt to create a new market for American firms?
Good question. I would surely support it if the regime in Nigeria is overthrown and oil market is given back to the Nigerians, monitored by other countries. It is not only the US that could do this job though, I am honestly ashamed that Royal Dutch Shell is the biggest exploiter of oil in Nigeria. The Dutch government could do something to fix the problem too.
And my point is that you, and everyone else, underestimate it. You'd assign an ulterior motive to every single action we've taken since we were formed as a nation. And you also expect Americans to shut up and take it, hang our heads, and say, "What horrible little children we've been."
Maybe I do underestimate it, I don't know. The truth is "the truth" is nothing more than a interpretation of the facts. A Dutch saying goes "the truth lies in the middle", and I think all we can do is to agree to disagree here. we obviously have other sources of information, in a completely different environment, we were raised differently and told different versions of stories and facts. I do not think that the American people should be apologising for what the troops are doing, or rather what the government wants the troops to do, because that is outside their scope of control. But I do think that people do need to realise that not everything the US does is interpreted the way the US leaders want people to believe.
Well, if caster51 is allowed to get away with believing that there was no Rape of Nanking (I notice you and a few others were strangely silent on that one), then I must ask why Americans must be constantly confronted with our evils and never praised for what good we've done? We do confront our evils.
I have been silent on that one indeed, because the topic was very extensive to begin with and did not have time to react to that too. I do believe that Caster51's view of the historical facts are very very distorted, and it honestly disturbs me. Every country should come to terms with its past, how bad it may be.
I have reacted the way I have because I am simply sick and tired of it. I know that no nation in history has acted purely out of altruism, but I also disagree with those who would refuse to believe that altruism plays no role in any of the actions of the United States, such as rebuilding Europe and Japan, the Berlin Airlift, getting shot at trying to feed people in Mogadishu '92, or Tsunami relief.
I am glad we agree on the fact that no nation acts purely out of altruism. I can imagine that you are sick of US-bashing, or in any case what you experience as US-bashing. It wasn't my intention to "bash" the US as I do realise that we owe many things to the US especially because of their participation in WW2.
If there is anything I get "sick" of, that is the US constantly polices the world and tries to uphold an image of being the Mother Theresa of modern history. For example the bringing down of a statue of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was staged for the purpose of propaganda. I don't mind some great nation being the leader of the world, because there will always be a nation at the number 1 spot, but it is rather the propaganda machine that I hate. For that reason whenever I hear anyone say how great one nation is I have the urge to highlight the darker side of that nation, in this case the subject happens to be the US.
It wasn't my intention to portray the US as an evil empire, but it is certainly not the land of the free, home of the brave, greatest country in the world. (I am not saying that you are saying that it is though) With regards to many subjects I like to stir up some critical thinking and healthy discussions. I didn't realise that it would have such an impact, and I do realise that I could have worded some statements differently.
Your words have touched me though, GodEmperorLeto, and this intensive discussion has changed my view somewhat on some things. Thank you.
To be fair. The problem is not in Japan. It is in the States.
It seems those in US governments, and perhaps more than that,
have thought they know what is best for others.
Japan didn't have to try to conquer China and Southeast Asia.
The United States is not the first, nor the last, empire to have client states. And as empires go, historically speaking, we have been the kindest empire in human history. I don't recall the British, French, or Romans funneling billions of dollars into countries throughout Africa to feed starving people, for example. And the U.S. doesn't demand financial tribute from its "vassals" as empires have been wont to do throughout history. Nor have any other empires provided 75% of the United Nations' finances, an organization full of member-states who are constantly waving their index fingers at us.
As for knowing what is best for others, perhaps we should have just sat back and let Europe rebuild itself after World War II? Or hell, maybe we shouldn't have gotten involved at all and stayed isolationist? Like Athens of the 5th century, whose wars with the Mede gained her an empire, the United States of the 20th century acquired imperial power across the globe, power that gave it prosperity. No nation, state, or empire in human history would willingly surrender the prosperity of its citizenry like you are implying we should, and don't bullshit me and pretend that they would.
Besides, there are plenty of East Asians who prefer Japan to be a client state of the U.S., especially the Koreans. The Second World War is still fresh in their minds, and they have yet to start trusting Japan again. To simply let Japan go and say, "Oh, gee, all of our European and Pacific-basin critics with centuries and centuries of blood on their hands are totally right about our cruel and exploitive empire, and we are so dumb for thinking we know what is best for the world", would be the height of foolishness. This is something that needs to be worked out slowly, and right now, honestly, we are too worried about North Korea to have the time and energy to worry about another situation in the northwestern Pacific. The socio-political situation there is much too tenuous.
As a side note, the Japanese military has been expanding beyond the limits set by the U.S.-Japan postwar treaty. The talk of remilitarizing has been met with indifference by U.S. citizens, many of which think it is time to let them alone (including me, believe it or not). It is primarily the Koreans (with many Chinese and Taiwanese as well) who are complaining. Yeah, fine, maybe they just want their proverbial "pound of flesh", but as I said before in another thread, the most Americans were subjected to the "tender mercies" of Japanese military overlordship was the Bataan Death March; we weren't at Nanking.
http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1122683012.jpg
http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1112530454.jpg
Why was not Russia able to land on Hokkaido?
because there was a last fighting èŽç“‡–h‰qí after 1945 8/15 Japan vs russian
http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~nippon/jogbd_h13/jog203.html
The Russian said.
The day(1945 Aug 18th) was a day of sadness for Russia.
Russian tried to land on Hokkaido at that time.
and Japan had already surrendered to USA.
However the Japanese amy in Northern territories fought against Russia though ended the war 8/15
Russian troops' damage at that time was so huge.
In exchange for the fight
Joseph Stalin finally gave it up to land.
After that.....
the Japanese government has ordered the japanese soldiers surrender to Russian
all of them were sent Siberia .
Hokkaido might be a Russian territory if there was no this Defense against Rassia afther 8/15
http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%C0%EA%BC%E9%C5%E7%CB%C9%B1%D2&fr=top&src=top&search.x=15&search.y=13
http://www.chickenhead.co.jp/cgi-bin/goodslist.cgi?mode=view_detail&this_num_genre=&this_num_goods=31&genre_id=00000026&goods_id=00000125&sort=
WHAT WAR MEANS....ŠO‘l–ÚáÏ”V“úŒR–s
‘–¯“}’†‰›é“`•”‘Ûé“`ˆHìŠT—vv1941(‘ä–kE“}Ž jŠÙŠ‘ )
according this , Nanking incident é“`‘‚Æ‚µ‚Ä•ÒWˆóü
‘Ûé“`ˆˆ’·‘]‹•”’‚̉ñ‘z‹Lw‘]‹•”’Ž©“`(ãW)x
we(kmt) paid Harold John Timperley money to make writing two books about nanking incident as propaganda.
Looking Back at the Occupation -- The US and Japan over 60 Years ::
Supporting the foreign community in Japan - and all those who graciously put has even used the word zokkoku, vassal state, to describe the relationship,
http://www.japanaddicted.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=237HOME |
Mike Lidgley: March 2007::
Today, even one of Japan's most distinguished elder statesmen(Gotoda Masaharu) describes Japan as a "vassal state" (zokkoku) of the US.
http://mikelidgley.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.htmlHOME |
I'll start here.
I would also like to say that it is completely unnecessary to use words like "bullshit", "rotten bastards" and multiple *** to make your point. I feel offended that you not only misinterpret my words you also make personal offences.
Well, now that I've had some time to sleep on it, I can honestly say some of what I said was unwarranted, such as the all of the ad hominem attacks. If I misrepresented or misinterpreted your posts, I apologize. I reacted the way I did because I was deeply offended. People are screaming at each other here in the United States almost as badly as they were before the U.S. Civil War over what is going on in Iraq, let alone everything else. I, personally, am sick and tired of all of the anti-American sniping that happens on these (and other) forums.
Was Jim Crow acceptable in European terms? I cannot speak for the rest of Europe, but Holland does not have a history of lynching and segregation. Holland had its colonies and slave trade for sure, but the discrimination did not continue till deep into the 20th century.
No, Holland has no history of lynching, but that is because Holland is much more homogeneous than the United States. The slave-trade was begun under the Europeans. The United Kingdom did not outlaw slavery until the early 19th century. And the doctrines of Aryanism and Social Darwinism were born in Europe, and Jim Crow is acceptable under both philosophies.
As for Jim Crow, northerners were not happy about it. The moment blacks began to protest during the 1960s, white northerners (especially college students) began to march and protest with them. Groups like the Freedom Riders would travel to the southern states and attempt to protect blacks attempting to vote.
The thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, made immediately after the U.S. Civil War, guaranteed full citizenship and the right to vote to all persons born in the United States, regardless of color. Jim Crow is a product of the southern Democrat politics. The north never advocated it. The reason it wasn't stamped down on with both feet is because we didn't want to fight another war, and also because Abraham Lincoln was dead, and his successors had sucked the marrow from the bones of the south instead of attempting to heal the breach, like Lincoln wanted. Jim Crow was allowed in order to heal the wounds and give the southerners an olive branch.
I was just merely expressing my opinion that saying that "And as empires go, historically speaking, we have been the kindest empire in human history" is a statement that is a bit biased and overlooks some darker pages and footnotes of American history.
Find any better ones. And please, don't try to apply anachronistic morality on them. Just find a better one.
The US has done good things and bad things; I believe that we agree on the facts, it is just that our perspectives on things differ.
Given your statements, I can only assume your perspective is that the United States is a greedy warmongering nation that has only acted out of its own devious and maniacal self-interest throughout its entire history.
This would totally ignore the fact that there are millions of liberal Democrat Americans waving signs screaming that we aren't altruistic enough and need to donate more money to starving people worldwide.
There is a possibility that oil is a major factor in the invasion of Iraq.
I was talking about the tsunami. Oh, by the way, I noticed that nobody donated anything to the Hurricane Katrina relief fund. Except Americans, that is. Huh. Evil imperialists. We give money to victims of a disaster half a world away, and nobody even gives us so much as a cent when we suffer from one.
Molding Iraq into a democratic country and installing lots of US firms there would be very good for the US economy wouldn't it? Do you believe that it is an act of altruism?
Invading Iraq has been wreaking havoc on our economy. Prices keep rising, but our wages don't. Gas keeps going up, but our expendible capital doesn't. In addition, the people screaming the loudest for our invasion of Iraq are the Iraqi-Americans and Iraqi immigrants. (Iranian-Americans and Iranian immigrants are also screaming at the top of their lungs for us to clean Iran's clock, too).
I mean, similar dictatorial regimes exists in Sub-Saharan countries, but why doesn't America send its troops there?
If we did, would you support us? Or would you sneer and say that it was a neo-colonial imperialist attempt to create a new market for American firms?
By the way, under Clinton's administration, we had troops in Sub-Saharan countries. After he botched Somalia, as well as a few other incidents, we've pretty much pulled out of there. Our lack of support in those areas from the UN (who sent us there in the first place) pretty much went to show how worthwhile that organization is.
Now if the US would care so much about democracies it would end the dictatorial regime by force and try and fine the companies involved wouldn't it? Maybe the US government does not care about democracies or dictatorial regimes if they can still get their hands on the things they want: oil.
First you attack us for conquering the world and having our fingers in everyone's pies, and then you attack us for not having our fingers in enough pies? Or, rather, the pies that you would approve of?
Yes, oil is incredibly important to our economy. Everything hinges on it. The rising prices of gasoline and diesel have hit the American trucking industry between the legs. Because of that, transportation of goods is more expensive, making those goods more expensive. People have way less disposable income.
But, like I said, we are apparently not getting oil from Iraq. Despite the war, and despite our "victory" our gas prices are still 3x that what they used to be. And despite what the newspapers say, the average American isn't getting his wallet emptied at the pump. He's getting hit in the grocery store, because bread and milk prices are still rising.
However, in assessing America's motives in the past and present concerning intervention in foreign countries, you might overestimate altruism.
And my point is that you, and everyone else, underestimate it. You'd assign an ulterior motive to every single action we've taken since we were formed as a nation. And you also expect Americans to shut up and take it, hang our heads, and say, "What horrible little children we've been." Well, if caster51 is allowed to get away with believing that there was no Rape of Nanking (I notice you and a few others were strangely silent on that one), then I must ask why Americans must be constantly confronted with our evils and never praised for what good we've done? We do confront our evils. You apparently have never heard about the constant anti-war protests that have been going on since 2003. You haven't read the American textbooks that paint General Custer as a murderer. You haven't watched movies like Dances With Wolves that portray the Native Americans as victims of white aggression. We know what we've done. We know how much of it was right, and how much of it was wrong. We don't need people from other countries waving their fingers at us when they fail to come to terms with their own bloody pasts.
You don't mention the philippine-american war?
The US got the philippines from the Spanish, without consulting any filipinos. The filipinos were fighting for their independece against the Spanish, and they already declared their independence before the American troops occupied their land. Estimates say that 250,000 to 1,000,000 filipino civilians died of war and after-effects of the war. The US took away their independence.
The United States gave them their independence after fighting against the rebellion. Period. They got their independence. I will reapeat that one more time, in case you didn't read it. THE UNITED STATES GAVE THE PHILIPPINES THEIR INDEPENDENCE.
A quote from Wikipedia:
Some Americans, notably William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and other members of the American Anti-Imperialist League, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines. Other Americans mistakenly thought that the Philippines wanted to become part of the United States. Anti-imperialist movements claimed that the United States had betrayed its lofty goals of the Spanish-American War by becoming a colonial power, merely replacing Spain in the Philippines. Other anti-imperialists opposed annexation on racist grounds. Among those who opposed annexation were individuals such as Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina, who feared that annexation of the Philippines would lead to an influx of non-white immigrants, thus undermining white racial purity in America. As news of atrocities committed in subduing the Philippines arrived in the United States, support for the war flagged.
Mark Twain famously opposed the war by using his influence in the press. He felt it betrayed the ideals of American Democracy by not allowing the Filipino people to choose their own destiny.
"There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it -- perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands -- but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector -- not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation." [22]
Some later historians, such as Howard Zinn, cite the Philippine-American War as an example of American imperialism.
Except for racist Southern leaders (South Carolina is a Southern state), most of the reasoning against the war was simply because many of us believed it ran contrary to our goals.
In 1916, less than three years after the revolt was squashed (i.e. the evil US empire won), we gave them self-government and promised them independence. After we reconquered them from the Japanese, we gave the Philippines their independence in 1946.
BTW, "sixty years after capturing Korea"? Japan didn't annex Korea for such a long time.
Yeah, in the 1880s.
You like to compare who is more evil, who is more kinder, but what's the point?
You apparently missed it. The point is simply that everyone thinks its cool to hate on the United States, while forgetting their own pasts, their own histories, and their own atrocities. It isn't comparing. It's realizing that when you point your index finger at someone, you've got three other fingers pointing right back at you.
Let's assume that the US was not as worse as any other country. Say you killed 10 people, and i killed 20 people, and you were not as worse as me, so you can get away with it? Where does that sense of moral superiority come from?
I dunno, you tell me. You are the one saying I'm horrible and deserve punishment for killing 10 people while forgetting that you have the blood of 20 on your hands.
Is that all? I heard that 90% of American schools do not teach vietnam? Is it true?
No. It is in American textbooks. It is part of the educational curriculum. And it is a huge part of American popular culture. Dozens of anti-war movies center on Vietnam, and the horrors of the war. Many of those movies paint U.S. soldiers as victims of a heartless American government who sent them there to die, while many others portray many American soldiers as cruel and sadistic, like Casualties of War.
If we are educated about the Vietnam War, it is from a definite bias against our government and ourselves.
They did issue a number of apologies, although most of them were not accepted.
This is new to me. If you can give me a few sources, I'll give them some thought. I'm not challenging you on this, but I would definitely like to see some facts for future reference.
-----
It doesn't feel good to have someone throw the gauntlet down against your country, does it? I've noticed that no Americans here post scathing criticism of other countries, especially Japan. Considering our two countries fought a bitter war with millions of corpses between us, we might have a lot of reason to hate one another, yet I haven't seen any Americans on this forum attempt to spit in the face of the Japanese.
I have, however, seen people from everywhere throw mud on the United States. Comments about Americans being stupid, evil, imperialist, and treacherous keep getting thrown about nonchalantly, as if nobody is ever going to be offended by it, and everyone simply accepts that Americans are black-hearted scum.
I don't know how any of the other Americans think about this. Some have been indoctrinated by our far-left-wingers into thinking that we are the root of the world's evil and deserve to be destroyed. Other, more moderate Americans on these forums are strangely silent whenever someone sees fit to provoke or criticise us.
I have reacted the way I have because I am simply sick and tired of it. I know that no nation in history has acted purely out of altruism, but I also disagree with those who would refuse to believe that altruism plays no role in any of the actions of the United States, such as rebuilding Europe and Japan, the Berlin Airlift, getting shot at trying to feed people in Mogadishu '92, or Tsunami relief. I don't blame the Japanese for Nanking any more than I blame Germans for Hitler or Britain for Dresden. But I find it disheartening when, although I will not level judgement upon them, I find that the hammer of judgement is gleefully slammed down upon my head by others. Ever since I was in Middle School, I've been taught that the United States is evil, that it is a greedy, selfish, and sinister empire, and that the rest of the world is comprised of its victims, and there is no redemption for any American except to hate his own country. And I have a big problem with that.
Japan didn't have to try to conquer China and Southeast Asia.
How can you be such a hypocrite? The US didn't have to conquer the Philippines, for example. No matter how hard you try to portray the US as an altruist, the US also did and does act as a perpetrator in many countries around the globe. American crimes are not limited to the indian wars, slavery, relocation of japanese americans, etc. (Besides, these things are mainly domestic.)
I think you guys are terrible....
A-bomd is the easiest weapon for massacre indiscriminately.
to protect from commies? that is the funniest excuse..
I think you misread my post there; there is no excuse for using the A-bomb. I think it should never have happened.
‚±‚̃XƒŒ‚Á‚Ä’Þ‚èH :clueless:
If this is towards me, I was actually hoping people familiar with said Japanese politician or the ideas he espouses would be chime in on what they thought on what he said.
I've not often heard of similar ones coming from Japan.
And probably because my language skills are so horrible I would not be described as a functioning literate and could not look up alternate views.
Oh ..... presenting youtube.com propaganda videos here !
It's Japanese despicable politicians' self performed on-going mouth-piece propaganda,there was no " Nanking Massacre " as in massive killings.
I don't believe this bullshit. And that's what it is: bullshit. First of all, we fought a damn civil war to free African-Americans. Second of all, Jim Crow was a product of southern (i.e. Confederate, i.e. the losing side of the civil war) politics, not northern, and if you have a problem with it, take it up with Mike Cash. Thirdly, the philosophies behind American racism were founded in Europe, and touted by the likes of V. Gordon Childe and Gustaf Kossina. Racism wasn't born in America, it was imported along with European colonialism. Fourthy, if you read about the history of the U.S. Constitution, you'll read how plenty of northern delegates argued heatedly with southerners against slavery, citing that "all men are created equal".
Discrimination is not an European or American product. Although frowned upon nowadays it is human nature to discriminate and consider your own group as superior. However, African-Americans were second grade citizens during WW2. Although the Civil War ended in 1865, it wasn't until 1965 that the so-called Jim Crow laws were outlawed, wasn't it?
I am not saying that trying to defeat Communism was the only reason to enter WW2, but it did play a role for sure. Regarding the America's participation as a 100% act of altruism is wrong in my perspective. If America were so altruistic then America wouldn't have stayed isolationistic for so long.
You rotten bastards wouldn't even have your own damn countries if it wasn't for us. You'd be speaking German. And guaging from your comments, it would serve you right if you were. Who bombed Rotterdam? And who rebuilt it? Where did that goodwill go, and whose fault is that?
I wonder why it would serve me right if I'd speaking German. What are you tring to imply?
To the UN? We don't owe anything to the UN, we have been sinking billions of dollars into the UN, and we don't get anything from it. We are the biggest debtor among UN nations, yes. But we are also the biggest spender, and all of the other UN countries' expenditures into the UN don't even amount to half of what the US spends.
What's the UN-US conflict about then? Sure, the US does pay a great amount of contributions, but if you calculate the ratio according to the scale of their economies (Nominal GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)) it is on the low side, and the debt (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/un-us-06.htm) still exists.
You are so full of ****. American people independently gave more money to the tsunami relief than you Europeans did. On top of that, our government gave more money to tsunami relief than any European country's government did.
Again the US did indeed contribute 950 million dollars (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/tsunami/). Holland, barely bigger than 5% of the US economy, contributed 200 million euros (http://www.indonesia-relief.org/mod.php?mod=publisher&op=viewarticle&cid=35&artid=1284).
Yes we are kinder. And that "time frame" argument is a load of crap. When an empire existed is of no consequence, it does not absolve them of any actions. You cannot apply anachronistic morals. You claim that the Mongols were cruel, but common in contemporary terms, and then lambast us for Jim Crow (which was acceptable to both Americans and Europeans at the time). You imply that we were worse than our contemporaries in the early 20th century, but forget the French in Indochina, and the British in India and Burma. Either we were the same, better, or worse. Make up your mind.
Was Jim Crow acceptable in European terms? I cannot speak for the rest of Europe, but Holland does not have a history of lynching and segregation. Holland had its colonies and slave trade for sure, but the discrimination did not continue till deep into the 20th century.
I am tired of all this "Americans were bad" and "Europeans are good" and "Communism wasn't so bad" logic. If you think that I think that Americans are bad and Communism wasn't that bad, please re-read my posts and tell me why you think that. I think America is a great country, and I have serious doubts concerning Communism. I was just merely expressing my opinion that saying that "And as empires go, historically speaking, we have been the kindest empire in human history" is a statement that is a bit biased and overlooks some darker pages and footnotes of American history.
The truth is that, although the United States has done bad things, we are no worse than anyone else, and in plenty of ways we are better.
The US has done good things and bad things; I believe that we agree on the facts, it is just that our perspectives on things differ.
If we were so interested in dominance and exploitation, explain why we'd be concerned with the well-being of Muslims halfway across the world that we don't even know.
There is a possibility that oil is a major factor in the invasion of Iraq. Resources are getting scarcer with the minute, and every country is doing its best to get what he can to get his hands on energy-sources. Molding Iraq into a democratic country and installing lots of US firms there would be very good for the US economy wouldn't it? Do you believe that it is an act of altruism? I mean, similar dictatorial regimes exists in Sub-Saharan countries, but why doesn't America send its troops there? There are dictatorial countries that have a lot of oil and many companies are exploiting that, without interfering too much with the regimes. An example is Nigeria (ias.berkeley.edu/africa/Events/OilHR/Nigeria%20Factsheet.pdf), the involved foreign companies being: British Gas, BP, ChevronTexaco, Conoco, Deminex, ENI/Agip, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Royal Dutch/Shell, Statoil, Sun Oil, Tenneco, TotalFinaElf. Now if the US would care so much about democracies it would end the dictatorial regime by force and try and fine the companies involved wouldn't it? Maybe the US government does not care about democracies or dictatorial regimes if they can still get their hands on the things they want: oil.
The same can be said for other countries from which the involved companies come, Holland being one of them with Royal Dutch/Shell. I would therefore like to stress that I am not saying that only America is the root of all evil. However, in assessing America's motives in the past and present concerning intervention in foreign countries, you might overestimate altruism.
I would also like to say that it is completely unnecessary to use words like "bullshit", "rotten bastards" and multiple *** to make your point. I feel offended that you not only misinterpret my words you also make personal offences. I have always enjoyed reading your posts, you seem like a very educated man, but I havn't anticipated this kind of reaction and I can say that I am somewhat disappointed.
I think you guys are terrible....
A-bomd is the easiest weapon for massacre indiscriminately.
to protect from commies? that is the funniest excuse..
I believe people in the United States tend to take it personally when we criticize the US gov't. People all over the world realize there is a difference there. And that gov'ts often do things without the knowledge of their populations or despite their opinions. Whatever they can get away with.
That's why they gov'ts love secrecy so
Rape of Nanking is not Chinese propaganda, and any attempts to paint it as such are just as falsely revisionist as attempts to show the Holocaust wasn't true. It really happened
I dont think so.
http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1147098808.jpg
http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1122683525.jpg
http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1122683489.jpg
http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1122683375.jpg
everybody knows the japanese soldier killed many chinese for battles
about nanking..., it was a just fighting as a battle.
that is the chinese propaganda
trurh in Nanking
Wrong, buddy. I'm sorry, but the Rape of Nanking is not Chinese propaganda, and any attempts to paint it as such are just as falsely revisionist as attempts to show the Holocaust wasn't true. It really happened. And they weren't civilians caught in the crossfire, they were deliberately murdered during occupation.
Nevertheless, I don't blame the current generation of Japanese for what was done. I do, however, feel the heavy burden of guilt for the massacres and rapes my own country has perpetrated against the Sioux, Cherokee, Apache, and other Native American nations when we were at war with them, despite the fact that my ancestors weren't even in America at the time. We don't pretend it didn't happen. It's on television shows, movies, and documentaries. Despite what Europeans (who weren't even here when it happened) may tell you, Americans do not excape the horrible truth and the guilt about what we did.
I don't see why other people should be able to.
And as for Japan being a vassal state, I'll say it again. I believe the United States and Japan should officially re-evaluate their relationship. But since Japan was the aggressor against Korea, China and Taiwan, amongst other nations, they have a right in voicing their opinions regarding the rearming of the Japanese people, and the reduction of the military base in Okinawa. Every single Korean, Taiwanese, and Chinese person I know (and I know dozens) believes that they are owed an apology, and if they get one, it could go a long way in smoothing things over between all four nations.
You do realise that Britain wasn't the only nation bombing Dresden don't you?
Yes, but the British were the primary advocates of hitting it, as revenge for the bombing of Coventry. The Americans went along with it. Eisenhower did a lot compromising to keep the British happy; he was a better diplomat than a general. Honestly, you guys were half the reason we would have ever wanted into that war in the first place. I've noticed Anglophones do a lot of sticking together when faced with external threats, despite their differences.
Besides, I didn't bring it up in order to crucify England. I am trying to show how faulty some people's arguments are, especially when they judge the United States for dropping atomic weapons but acting as if the actions of other nations are only marginally bad. They seem to think that the United States wontonly drops nuclear weapons on anyone they don't like with all of the enthusiasm of an 8-year-old sticking M80s in the mailboxes of people he doesn't like. Currently I'm scratching my head wondering why Tehran and Pyongyang aren't craters if that is the case.
I dont think so.
I do. And I can link articles too. As well as books.
http://www.tribo.org/nanking/background.html
NEW DATA PROVIDES CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
NEARLY 370,000 CHINESE WERE MURDERED IN NANKING MASSACRE
The Rape of Nanking is an innovative and credible work on modern Chinese history, according to Princeton University history professor Ying-shih Yü, who adds, "It is a solid and original study that maintains all the important standards of modern historiography."
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140277447/103-8962532-1013464?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813327180/ref=pd_sim_b_4/103-8962532-1013464?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
From http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Sept2003/reviewthree0903.html:
Chinese researcher Lee En-Han explores gthe Sino-Japanese controversy over the factual number of massacred victimsh and he is similarly disinclined to take a broad comparative approach to his subject. Sun rightfully laments the efforts of those whom he calls the gtotal deniers,h such as Tanaka Masaaki, and the gpartial deniers,h of whom historian Hata Ikuhiko is the most notorious, to guse every possible tactic to resist the figures.h If Sun had compared the numbers issue in the Nanking massacre with American war atrocities throughout Indochina, as symbolized most notoriously by the My Lai massacre, he too might have helped us to see how stubbornly most Americans, not just the Japanese, seek to vindicate their young men in uniform, even when some of them are revealed in a court of law to have been war criminals fighting imperialist battles.
That book by Masaaki has been torn apart by historians in journals worldwide. Any refusal to accept the Naking Massacre happened is like an American denying that anyone was killed in the Tokyo firebombings.
‚±‚̃XƒŒ‚Á‚Ä’Þ‚èH :clueless:
America's participation in WW2 for example, fighting Nazi's in Europe while African-Americans were second grade citizens in their own country; the only reason to free Europe was because the US was afraid that the commies would influence Europe too much.
I don't believe this bullshit. And that's what it is: bullshit. First of all, we fought a damn civil war to free African-Americans. Second of all, Jim Crow was a product of southern (i.e. Confederate, i.e. the losing side of the civil war) politics, not northern, and if you have a problem with it, take it up with Mike Cash. Thirdly, the philosophies behind American racism were founded in Europe, and touted by the likes of V. Gordon Childe and Gustaf Kossina. Racism wasn't born in America, it was imported along with European colonialism. Fourthy, if you read about the history of the U.S. Constitution, you'll read how plenty of northern delegates argued heatedly with southerners against slavery, citing that "all men are created equal".
Us racing to Berlin against the Commies and our entire involvement being an attempt to halt the advance of Communism is bullshit because we were isolationist before the war. We didn't want to get involved at all. We figured the fascists and commies could blow the rest of Europe to hell and back. If Hitler hadn't declared war against the U.S., we would have focused all of our energy against Japan. If you read the December 8, 1941 newspapers, Japan is all over them, not Germany.
If we were so damn scared of Commies as to require using the A-bomb to intimidate them, why wouldn't we have joined the Nazis and supported Franco in the Spanish Civil War against the Communists? Our fear of Communism explains why we allied with them? Guess what, guys, if we didn't land in France, the Soviets wouldn't have reached Berlin. Rudolph Hess, before Operation Barbarrossa, flew to England for the purpose of securing a peace with the British against the Communists. Winston Churchhill's Britain was so scared of the Communists that he told Hess to "piss off" and stayed allied with the Commies? That doesn't make sense. We weren't as scared of Communism as you'd like to paint us to be. Stalin started gobbling up Eastern Europe and it turned out that Stalin had lied to Roosevelt at Yalta about Eastern European freedom. Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, were all democracies before the war. After the war, they were Soviet puppets with communist regimes. I guess you'd like to imply that we had nothing to be afraid of, huh?
The rebuilding of Europe and Japan was only logical to breed goodwill amongst the peoples and keep the countries controllable. They did a better job at forming the former enemy Japan to an ally than breeding goodwill amongst the European people, but that's beside the point.
I'm insulted. So damn insulted I can barely enunciate it. More Americans died in Europe than any other nation except for Russia. What do you think about the bridge at Arnhem? Breeding goodwill amongst Europeans? You rotten bastards wouldn't even have your own damn countries if it wasn't for us. You'd be speaking German. And guaging from your comments, it would serve you right if you were. Who bombed Rotterdam? And who rebuilt it? Where did that goodwill go, and whose fault is that?
As for the UN-US relationship, the US is the biggest debtor to the UN.
To the UN? We don't owe anything to the UN, we have been sinking billions of dollars into the UN, and we don't get anything from it. We are the biggest debtor among UN nations, yes. But we are also the biggest spender, and all of the other UN countries' expenditures into the UN don't even amount to half of what the US spends.
I can't stand it if people portray the US as being altruistic; the US bases its actions on self-interest, like any other country would. And the US is not "kinder" than the Roman Empire, the Mongols, the Dutch or any other world power from the past. Sure the leaders from the past have been doing some heavily cruel things, but in the time frame of their situation they were just as self-centered and aggressive as the US is our time frame.
You are so full of ****. American people independently gave more money to the tsunami relief than you Europeans did. On top of that, our government gave more money to tsunami relief than any European country's government did.
Yes we are kinder. And that "time frame" argument is a load of crap. When an empire existed is of no consequence, it does not absolve them of any actions. You cannot apply anachronistic morals. You claim that the Mongols were cruel, but common in contemporary terms, and then lambast us for Jim Crow (which was acceptable to both Americans and Europeans at the time). You imply that we were worse than our contemporaries in the early 20th century, but forget the French in Indochina, and the British in India and Burma. Either we were the same, better, or worse. Make up your mind.
Here's a case study for you. An 80-year-old German woman I know hates the European (especially English) soldiers because they shot at her and her sister, who were non-combatants, during the war. She loved Americans because they gave her chocolate bars and asked her to dance. Now you tell me who the ******* in this case study is?
You happily compare the United States to horrific empires, but you fail to show one that is better in any way, shape, or form, just as I challenged you to do. Your dubiousness about our "kindness" is met with a claim that our government owes money, but you fail to challenge our financial charity.
The US didn't have to conquer the Philippines, for example. No matter how hard you try to portray the US as an altruist, the US also did and does act as a perpetrator in many countries around the globe.
1) We got them from the Spanish, we didn't "conquer" them.
2) They have their independence. I seriously doubt Japan was going to let all that territory in their "Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" just go after they conquered it. Sixty years after the Spanish American War, the Phillipines are an independent democracy. Sixty years after capturing Korea, the Japanese were still firmly in control of it.
You also fail to confront how American dollars, food, and medicinals donated freely to people throughout poor countries is not altruistic. In fact, none of you can contest that. Americans are, by far, more generous than our contemporaries.
The title of one American history textbook: Triumph of the american nation. All you want to know is victor's history, blind patriotism, and a flag waving story of american achievement.
So, you are implying that Americans should all hate themselves and hang their heads for the horrible crimes they've committed? You people would paint a picture of the entire history of the United States as one of savagery, hatred, exploitation, and conquest, with no redeeming factors at all.
By the way, I've got four different American history textbooks, and they all admit the atrocities that we committed against the Native Americans. They all discuss the strife and problems caused by the south's refusal to relenquish slavery. And the US government has issued a formal apology to the Japanese Americans who it interned during the war.
The Japanese government won't even let its own schoolchildren know about Nanking. And they for sure haven't issued any apologies to Korea and China.
I think you misread my post there; there is no excuse for using the A-bomb. I think it should never have happened.
Next time you have a choice between letting a million of your own people die in a meatgrinder amphibious landing and being forced by the defenders to commit genocide because they are charging at you with bamboo spears, or dropping one or two bombs and killing only a few thousand, let me know. I hope you hold yourself to the former, rather than committing the latter.
I think you guys are terrible....
A-bomd is the easiest weapon for massacre indiscriminately.
We didn't use it indiscriminately. The Japanese government was arming its own citizens with bamboo spears with orders to resist the invading Americans. And we were planning to invade in order to end the war like we (as well as England and Russia) had in Germany. The civilian casualties were projected to have been in the tens of millions.
Oh, and by the way, we never dropped the bomb on another country. In fact, Truman fired MacArthur before he could use the bomb on China during the Korean War.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki together claimed less lives than the British bombing of Dresden (which had no strategic significance whatsoever). And it claimed less lives than the Japanese did during the Rape of Nanking. Now, whose terrible?
As for Sukotto, you are so misinformed, I don't even know where to begin.
Later I learned that that wasn't exactly the reason for joining WW2, and most of the fighting in Europe was left for the Russians.
Where did you hear this? Are you implying that because more Russians died that the U.S. didn't fight as hard as they did? And you would, in fact, compare us to them? Half of the Russian soldiers didn't have weapons, and were ordered to arm themselves by cannibalising their dead "comrades". If they retreated, they were shot by their commissars.
Any opinion that the primary reason Truman had dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviets is revisionist garbage. Besides, you are linking debates, which means these topics are far from being settled.
As for disarming after the war, we did. We sent millions of men home. We started demobilizing as soon as we had won in Germany, even before we finished with Japan. As for maintaining a strong military presence, Truman didn't need to stir up Cold War fears, it wasn't America who blockaded Berlin. Nor was it an American who coined the term "Iron Curtain". And the Berlin Airlift is the definition of altruism. Americans died flying coal, chewing gum, and food to keep the Berliners from freezing and starving to death. So much for "just being a plain jerk" with a quote from a (then) isolationist Harry Truman.
And citing articles about Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky shows that you are about as biased against your own country as Goebels was against the Jews.
Maybe everbody would have just appreciated the US not getting involved in WWII. Then what kind of world would we have today?
GEL makes a great point there about that....like it or not...thanks to the good old U.S. of A. a lot of people's lives today are a whole hell of a lot better thanks to the US's generosity.
Thanks, Hachiro. And that generosity is very unappreciated by a great many people.
If we were so evil and manipulative, we wouldn't have given Mercedez-Benz and BMW back to the Germans, two companies that fueled the German war machine. We did the same thing with Mitsubishi and Fuji Heavy Industries. Mitsubishi is the company that built the Zero, which is the symbol of Japanese aggression in World War II. These were companies that killed Americans. And British. And Russians.
It's so wrong to be afraid of the commies. Explain Berlin in '53, Hungary in '56, the Berlin Wall in '61, Prague in '68, solidarity in '80?
I am tired of all this "Americans were bad" and "Europeans are good" and "Communism wasn't so bad" logic. It is just an excuse to hate on the United States. It is America-bashing just to bash away at something. And if the United States wasn't the "big bad empire" but somebody else was, people would be hating on them. There aren't any Americans who run around these forums bashing foreign nations, leveling the finger of judgement on the imperial histories of countries from across the globe. In fact, many Americans, like Sukotto, have been brainwashed into thinking we are all-bad and that there that we have nothing positive to offer.
The truth is that, although the United States has done bad things, we are no worse than anyone else, and in plenty of ways we are better. Like I said, we gave more money to the tsunami relief than anyone else, both from our government and from our own pockets. If we were so interested in dominance and exploitation, explain why we'd be concerned with the well-being of Muslims halfway across the world that we don't even know.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki together claimed less lives than the British bombing of Dresden (which had no strategic significance whatsoever). And it claimed less lives than the Japanese did during the Rape of Nanking. Now, whose terrible?
You do realise that Britain wasn't the only nation bombing Dresden don't you?
To be fair. The problem is not in Japan. It is in the States.
It seems those in US governments, and perhaps more than that,
have thought they know what is best for others.
Kinoo no Mainichi shimbun Daily News
CIA gave secret funds to pro-U.S. Japanese politicians in '50s-'60s (http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/archive/news/2006/07/19/20060719p2a00m0na017000c.html)
is but one example ot that.
And as empires go, historically speaking, we have been the kindest empire in human history.
As for knowing what is best for others, perhaps we should have just sat back and let Europe rebuild itself after World War II?
I question what you define as being "kind".
America's participation in WW2 for example, fighting Nazi's in Europe while African-Americans were second grade citizens in their own country; the only reason to free Europe was because the US was afraid that the commies would influence Europe too much. The race to Berlin was to get there before the Russians did. The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to show off to Russia that the US is a force to be reckoned with. Everything they did in WW2 was to be better than Russia, better than communism which the US feared so much.
The rebuilding of Europe and Japan was only logical to breed goodwill amongst the peoples and keep the countries controllable. They did a better job at forming the former enemy Japan to an ally than breeding goodwill amongst the European people, but that's beside the point.
Since WW2 America has had a gigantic "defense" industry, and to keep the industry going they have been waging wars through the years. The best way to praise a product is to show it in real action, so wars are fought with the best of technologies, to make other countries buy the product, and thus keeping the industry alive. Heck, America's defense budget is disproportionally big (http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1223483) (the figures in the article are from 2000, the budget has grown even further since), compared to other countries.
As for the UN-US relationship, the US is the biggest debtor (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/info/usdebt.htm) to the UN. The leaders of the US don't make it a priority paying it back though, as they can even start wars without the world's most important NGO's consent. And we all know why the US attacked Iraq, it's not to protect freedom or whatever, it's oil and molding a strategically interesting ally.
It is a bit off-topic I know, and I apologize for that, but I can't stand it if people portray the US as being altruistic; the US bases its actions on self-interest, like any other country would. And the US is not "kinder" than the Roman Empire, the Mongols, the Dutch or any other world power from the past. Sure the leaders from the past have been doing some heavily cruel things, but in the time frame of their situation they were just as self-centered and aggressive as the US is our time frame.
Of-course,a vassal state is subjected to " the wills " of the Great Power.
Korea surely didn't honorably begged China to grant the kingdom as " vassal state " status for nearly 1500 years ended in 1910 with annexation of the peninsula by Japan Empire.
The Japanese government won't even let its own schoolchildren know about Nanking.
everybody knows the japanese soldier killed many chinese for battles
about nanking..., it was a just fighting as a battle.
that is the chinese propaganda
trurh in Nanking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ttonLoAhg&search=nanking
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fsearch%3Dnanking%26v%3Duq1ZEdp9-VM
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=truth+nanking&search_type=search_videos
According to japanese official document, most of school in nanking started until 1938 summer. some elemntary school satrted in Feb 1938.
They did issue a number of apologies, although most of them were not accepted.This is new to me. If you can give me a few sources, I'll give them some thought. I'm not challenging you on this, but I would definitely like to see some facts for future reference.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%88%A6%E4%BA%89%E8%A C%9D%E7%BD%AA%E7%99%BA%E8%A8%80%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7
A list of "apologies/remorse" issued by Prime Minister/Emperor/Foreign Minister/Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan.
I think you guys are terrible....
A-bomd is the easiest weapon for massacre indiscriminately.
to protect from commies? that is the funniest excuse..
Please exuse me.
I'm not saying it was right.
Just that is the conclusion above historians came to.
This Japanese poster " yuuteya " @ yellowworld.org simply wrote in one post recently,Japanese have been truthfully taught about the " Nanking Massacre " for it's historial fact,just to let fellow Chinese forumers know beforehand not to question local Japanese about it when visiting his home country Japan.
Japan is absolutely a " vassal state " of US in the so-called Japan/US alliance,it's comparable parallel is China and Korea peninsula of ancient times.
Both cases,the vassal state benefitted economically and culturally.
There is another term for it ... " lap dog "
I'm going to stop right ...there. (and go back reading later)
There is no honor in empire.
Empire means others are subjegated.
And that is slavery of one form or another.
So very sorry. I just wanted to add some.
I used to think the US was so grand and what not.
Could do no harm. Afterall, the US was a democracy.
Freedom and all that. It almost seemed like the US was the
ONLY democracy. Back then, before I found out contrary.
Plus the US came to the rescue of the Jews and defeated the Nazis.
Opposing fascism, how right.
Later I learned that that wasn't exactly the reason for joining WW2,
and most of the fighting in Europe was left for the Russians.
And former US president Truman, besides dropping the a-bombs on Japan to intimidate the Russians. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm or a debate on the topic http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm
creating the national security state
As Gore Vidal observed, the United States government changed decisively after Japan surrendered at the end of World War II. "The United States was faced with a choice," he wrote. "Either disarm, as we had done in the past, and enjoy the prosperity that comes from releasing so much wealth and energy into the private sector, or maintain ourselves on a full military basis." President Truman decided not to disarm. Senator Arthur Vandenburg warned Truman that in order to get all those weapons and the tax revenue necessary to pay for them, he'd have to "scare hell out of the American people." Hence the beginning of the Cold War, circa 1950.
http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1995/102695/noam.html
or just being a plain jerk
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible." --Harry S Truman, in 1941, after the Germans invaded Russia.
http://a4a.mahost.org/quote1.html
Then the CIA created much shinanigans throughout the world on behest of various post-war presidents: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II. (http://members.aol.com/Bblum6/American_holocaust.htm)
It is sad. I wish it were not so.
But it is the way things look like to me.
The good thing - war is not the only way,
nor inevitable. Just because something has seemingly
always been, does not mean it always has to be.
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." - Arundhati Roy
I did not mean to sound rude in leaving no more after just four lines,
but I didn't feel like typing more then.
Agree or disagree, everyone has their own opinion on this matter and in regards to history;
Hindsight is 20/20.
Maybe everbody would have just appreciated the US not getting involved in WWII. Then what kind of world would we have today?
GEL makes a great point there about that....like it or not...thanks to the good old U.S. of A. a lot of people's lives today are a whole hell of a lot better thanks to the US's generosity.
The title of one American history textbook: Triumph of the american nation:blush:
All you want to know is victor's history, blind patriotism, and a flag waving story of american achievement.
.
1) We got them from the Spanish, we didn't "conquer" them.
2) They have their independence. I seriously doubt Japan was going to let all that territory in their "Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" just go after they conquered it. Sixty years after the Spanish American War, the Phillipines are an independent democracy. Sixty years after capturing Korea, the Japanese were still firmly in control of it.
You also fail to confront how American dollars, food, and medicinals donated freely to people throughout poor countries is not altruistic. In fact, none of you can contest that. Americans are, by far, more generous than our contemporaries.
You don't mention the philippine-american war?
The US got the philippines from the Spanish, without consulting any filipinos. The filipinos were fighting for their independece against the Spanish, and they already declared their independence before the American troops occupied their land. Estimates say that 250,000 to 1,000,000 filipino civilians died of war and after-effects of the war. The US took away their independence.
I'm not saying that the US is all evil, they can be generous, but they didn't do any good to the ones that they haved killed and injured. You give out the food and money. So? Did they bring the dead come back?
BTW, "sixty years after capturing Korea"? Japan didn't annex Korea for such a long time.
You like to compare who is more evil, who is more kinder, but what's the point? Let's assume that the US was not as worse as any other country. Say you killed 10 people, and i killed 20 people, and you were not as worse as me, so you can get away with it? Where does that sense of moral superiority come from?
By the way, I've got four different American history textbooks, and they all admit the atrocities that we committed against the Native Americans. They all discuss the strife and problems caused by the south's refusal to relenquish slavery. And the US government has issued a formal apology to the Japanese Americans who it interned during the war.
Is that all? I heard that 90% of American schools do not teach vietnam? Is it true?
The Japanese government won't even let its own schoolchildren know about Nanking. And they for sure haven't issued any apologies to Korea and China.
Bullshit.
They did issue a number of apologies, although most of them were not accepted. Do your research. I doubt you ever read what's written in the Japanese textbook.
 I Am a Sinner – What About You?
 Global Sourcing and Supplier Online by Dylan
|
Japan as a "vassal state" (zokkoku)