Churchill war criminal, says German historian

[Myrddin]

It's your government - if you don't like it, change it

[David Floyd]

You still haven't explained how that constitutes valid cause for war.

Never claimed it did. But war would not have happened without that and a couple of other things (such as forward deploying the US fleet, etc.).

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Fine, but you are missing the point. If we hadn't acted immorally originally, Japan could not have acted immorally against us.

Besides which, it was wrong for the government to restrict free trade with Japan.

Maybe. Still doesn't bother me any. We don't have to feel any wrong here when they attacked us.

[Myrddin]

But war would not have happened without that and a couple of other things

I assume you mean war with the US - Japan had been at war in China for much longer and would have attacked much of SE Asia anyway

[David Floyd]

Although we aren't responsible for the attacks, we could have morally prevented them, by not provoking Japan or not restricting the freedom of Americans - two things that we should have been doing anyway.

[David Floyd]

I assume you mean war with the US - Japan had been at war in China for much longer and would have attacked much of SE Asia anyway

Yes, that's what I meant - what Japan does in Asia is of no real concern to the US, or at least it shouldn't be.

[DinoDoc]

Actually about the only valid part of your arguement from a Japanese POV is the part about the embargo. The rest of it is pure bollocks on your part. Sorry.

[David Floyd]

In what way is it bollocks?

Japan physically could not have attacked if we were not present in the Pacific, and we should not have been present in the Pacific because our major presence their was dependant upon aggressive wars against other nations.

[TCO]

I think Floyd blames Kitty Genovese as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We aren't. But the US government has a moral obligation not to infringe upon the freedom of Americans (including American businesses) to trade with whomever they want.

What moral obligation? One you just made up?

The US Constitution makes clear that the Federal government has the sole power over US foreign policy, and that includes trade with foreign nations.

Businesses, American or otherwise, are not natural entities. They are solely creations of law, and as such, they have no more or no less "rights" than those granted them by law.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
In what way is it bollocks?

Japan physically could not have attacked if we were not present in the Pacific, and we should not have been present in the Pacific because our major presence their was dependant upon aggressive wars against other nations.

Hawaii?

Yep, yer right though, we should have stuck to the original 13 colonies.

[David Floyd]

The US Constitution makes clear that the Federal government has the sole power over US foreign policy, and that includes trade with foreign nations.

Just because the Constitution says something doesn't make it right. People - including people who own businesses - ought to be able to do whatever they want with their property, provided they aren't hurting anyone. And trade, by definition, is not a harmful act - quite the opposite, in fact.

Businesses, American or otherwise, are not natural entities. They are solely creations of law, and as such, they have no more or no less "rights" than those granted them by law.

I'm not talking about businesses - businesses can't do anything without the people who own and operate them. And the rights of those people are what I'm concerned with.

[David Floyd]

Hawaii?

You're saying that our acquisition of Hawaii was NOT imperialistic?

Yep, yer right though, we should have stuck to the original 13 colonies.

I have no problem with buying or trading for land, but if there was no moral way to acquire land outside the 13 colonies, then we should have stayed with those original 13.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just because the Constitution says something doesn't make it right.

That's something I never thought that I would see a libertarian post!

[TCO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You're saying that our acquisition of Hawaii was NOT imperialistic?

It's irrelevant.

[TCO]

If Spain has an imperial prescence in Florida are we justified in seizing it?

[Myrddin]

I have no problem with buying or trading for land, but if there was no moral way to acquire land outside the 13 colonies, then we should have stayed with those original 13.

... and the land for the original 13 colonies was no doubt morally acquired?

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yes, that's what I meant - what Japan does in Asia is of no real concern to the US, or at least it shouldn't be.

David, I did some research on this issue a few months back and came to the conclusion that American efforts in the Far East were more of the "mediator" brand of intervention until Japan signed up with the AXIS. We then began to demand that Japan pull out of the AXIS, pull out of Indochina and pull out of China.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Just because the Constitution says something doesn't make it right. People - including people who own businesses - ought to be able to do whatever they want with their property, provided they aren't hurting anyone. And trade, by definition, is not a harmful act - quite the opposite, in fact.

Trading with an enemy under economic sanctions is harmful to the nation. This is almost like selling nuclear secrets to the Russians.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You're saying that our acquisition of Hawaii was NOT imperialistic?

OUR imperialism is Manifest Destiny, and good.

THEIR imperialism is the EVIL EMPIRE, and bad.

Right?

[Wernazuma III]

Sorry to interrupt, but regarding your posts and the thread title: Don't you think it's time to have an own thread for this?

[Ned]

Wernazuma, the Brits and probably most Americans on this forum believe that firebombing German cities was justified. I personally do not agree and think we owe Germany, the German people and the people who actually suffered or their descendants an apology.

Declaring Churchill a war criminal, though, may be a bit much.

What do you think?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, my apologies.

The earlier Nazi terror bombing was specifically intended to cause early surrender, not so? However, since the British terror bombing had gone on since 1940, one could reasonably conclude, could they not, that the terror bombing would not hasten a Germans surrender. It was therefor justifiable, if at all, only because it was effective in winning the war.

But, as time went on and German war production continued to climb, could one not also conclude that the terror bombing was ineffective in winning the war?

At some point during the war, reasonable people should have realized that the terror bombing campaign was not militarily justified.

Yet it continued.

1. The British did not have an accurate idea of how German indiustrial output was effected by bombing until after the war and the data became available to them. Prior to the summer of 1945 they had guesses and conclusions based on incomplete and sometimes inaccurate data. Which leads into 2...

The main idea of British night bombing was to disrupt German industry by attacking the workers in that industry. The RAF was not able to put up the forces required for day light precision bombing, so they opted for night time area bombing. They would hit factories as well as the areas around them (to disrupt the work force).

As far as the Brits knew, this was a successful way to interfere with the productive abilities of the Germans. It was too, as their own experiences with trying to run an economy under attack demonstrated; but not to the degree they thought prior to the end of the war.

Thus, yes, it was to win the war. By slowing down German production through attacks on both the industrial targets and the work forces of those targets. There were some other motivations and objectives, but what I outlined was the main focus.

Such practices were not considered immoral at the time, although the raids on Hamburg and Dresden were questioned by some among the British themselves at the time of them happening.

I can dig up some sources later if you wish and if I have time.

[Chris 62]

Floyd, what "Natural right" did Japan have to Manchuria?
Korea?
Formosa?
Okinawa?
Indochina?
Mainland China?

They had taken these places BEFORE the US moved any forces to Hawaii.
In 1941, how many Hawiians considered themselves "victims" of imperial agression?

In fact, the only protest goes back to the 1890s, when the "queen" objected to being tossed by the US, and managed to gather a handful of followers, that amounted to zilch.
The Hawiians were happy to be rid of her.

Now, how many Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese were happy with Japan?

What right did Japan have to to take them over?

According to you, everybody has "natural human rights".
Why aern't you outraged that Japan over-turned these"rights"?
Or is it because they aern't Americans, so they don't have rights?

Saying the US "provoked" Japan into war is like saying Russia "provoked" Germany in 1941.
It doesn't make sense and it isn't true.

And spare me the riff about the poor civilians of Japan, where is your moral outrage for the Chinese that Japan used as cannon fodder?
Or the Phillipenoes?
Or the Indonesians?
Or the Vietnamese?
Or the Burmese?
Or the Thais?

Guess they don't rate.

[Kontiki]

Only personal morals matter to libertarians.

[Ned]

As I noted in the Libertarian thread, it appears that Libertarians believe it is immoral to take action against the immoral, with perhaps the sole exception being self defense.

Only by compromising their core beliefs can they even agree to live in a society with law and law inforcement, or in a world where the strong and good protect the weak against oppression.

[Tripledoc]

Re. Natural right to colonies.
So Japan had no right in territorial expansion. However, whether, the creation of the Japanese co-prosperity sphere was an attempt to liberate the Vietnamese from the French, the Phillipinos from the US, the Burmese, Malayans, Hong Kong Chinese and Indians from the British, and the Indonesians from the Dutch - or it was simply just mean conquest is an irrelevant issue, since the very war in itself meant that all these colonies became free from Western domination - which they obviously were not very happy with in the first place.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Re. Natural right to colonies.
So Japan had no right in territorial expansion. However, whether, the creation of the Japanese co-prosperity sphere was an attempt to liberate the Vietnamese from the French, the Phillipinos from the US, the Burmese, Malayans, Hong Kong Chinese and Indians from the British, and the Indonesians from the Dutch - or it was simply just mean conquest is an irrelevant issue, since the very war in itself meant that all these colonies became free from Western domination - which they obviously were not very happy with in the first place.

Utter rubbish. Your agenda blinds you to the glaringly obvious- the phrase 'Co-prosperity Sphere' was a complete lie, since the only prosperity was Japanese, at the expense of the occupied territories.

Remind me- which European power colonised Korea, after a coup d'etat?
Oh, yes, the little known European power of Japan.

An example of the 'prosperity' enjoyed by Japanese occupied Korea:
Korean production of rice doubled during Japanese domination, but this was at the expense of the Koreans, since their overlords saw to it that the amount of rice available to Koreans dropped by half.
All in all, Japanese exploitation was worse than European economic colonialism, since when it came to trade, the Japanese had no interest in rewarding the providers of the raw materials it plundered so readily, and there was no grounding of this exchange in international trade. Whilst oil, iron ore, rubber, quinine, foodstuffs such as sugar, tea, coffee, rice and salt and valuable metals such as magnesium, bauxite, manganese and nickel flowed to Japan, the occupied territories could expect in return, arbitrary punishments, mass killings, widespread human rights abuses and slave labour.

The figures for economic soldiers (slave labour) sent to the Home islands of Japan (or eslewhere) amount to:

800 000 Koreans

300 000 from the Dutch East Indies

1 000 000 Chinese

100 000 Malays.

It goes without saying, that the welfare of these workers was not of paramount importance to the racist Japanese. These figures leave out the numbers of women impressed into army brothels against their will, and repeatedly raped to satisfy the Imperial Japanese Army.

And which colonial power invaded, occupied and destroyed large swathes of China hitherto uncolonised by other European powers? Yes, that's right- Japan.
An example of the 'prosperity' enjoyed by the Chinese under Japanese occupation:

http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/...tory/rape.html

Filipino opposition to Japanese occupation was not only Communist inspired- there were also Filipino patriots who were not communists who wanted rid of the murderous Japanese invaders. Of course, they had to fight not only the occupying forces of the aggressor nation, Japan, but also the avowedly anti-imperialist Huk communist guerillas too- who were at least as interested in seeing off their Filipino compatriots.

In Burma, the Japanese were opposed not only by Aung San's Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League, but by the Karen, Kachin and Chin peoples (who also of course faced oppression from the Burmese).

In the Dutch East Indies, whilst the Japanese enjoyed some success in creating a collaborationist Javanese power bloc, they and the Javanese were opposed by Timorese and Sumatran and Borneo based groups.

In Malaya, the Japanese began their era of 'co-prosperity' by executing 5 000 Chinese and their families after the brutal occupation of Singapore.

In French Indo-China, the Japanese launched a pre-emptive attack on the Franco-Vietnamese army in March of 1945, believing it might soon attack the Japanese aggressors. This led to the involvement of a now well-known figure of resistance- Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh.

Seems an odd way to go about encouraging nationalist movements- killing huge numbers of the people who might be expected to support these 'anti-colonialist' groupings.