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

Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
A prerequisite for being on the left is having successfully completed the moonbat initiation period.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
And a prerequisite for your posting is to make inaccurate trolling comments such as this. Please stop, now.
 
Alex Libman said:
I guess he'd call me a "Holocaust Denier" as well, just because I believe in unlimited free speech rights and pursue an objective view of history without any government bias. A lot of lies were spread for Roosevelt's and especially for Stalin's benefit, and a lot of Soviet atrocities were blamed on Germany instead.

Many other things we are taught about World War II are total lies - that the Japanese initiated aggression against USA first, that nuking them was necessary, that Hitler wanted to exterminate all Jews no matter what, that his suspicions about a communist "fifth column" in Germany were unfounded, etc, etc, etc. :(
Click to expand...
Let's be accurate.

The main reason we dropped the bomb on Japan was to save the hundreds of thousands of American (and Japanese) lives that would have been lost in a ground invasion. Of course, it was politically expedient to demonstrate to the Soviets that we had this weapon, but the actual reason was to save lives. As odd as it seems.
 
The Jovial One said:
Let's be accurate.

The main reason we dropped the bomb on Japan was to save the hundreds of thousands of American (and Japanese) lives that would have been lost in a ground invasion. Of course, it was politically expedient to demonstrate to the Soviets that we had this weapon, but the actual reason was to save lives. As odd as it seems.
Click to expand...

Japan didn't start that war, and they were always in pursuit of a way of finishing it, especially as the pathetic remains of their navy were being blown to smithereens by 1945. They had only one major condition for their surrender: let them keep their emperor, which they thought was essential for social stability in their culture / religion. But the U.S. won't hear of it, nooo - we wanted to show Uncle Joe our shiny new toy in action, to get an unconditional surrender, supposedly. And then we left the emperor anyway.
 
Alex Libman said:
Japan didn't start that war, and they were always in pursuit of a way of finishing it, especially as the pathetic remains of their navy were being blown to smithereens by 1945. They had only one major condition for their surrender: let them keep their emperor, which they thought was essential for social stability in their culture / religion. But the U.S. won't hear of it, nooo - we wanted to show Uncle Joe our shiny new toy in action, to get an unconditional surrender, supposedly. And then we left the emperor anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. What revisionist source are you getting your information from that identifies that the US started the war against Japan?
 
This is strictly an assumption, but I assume that he is referring to the fact that Japan didn't start WWII. They were on the side of the Germans and so, in a way, had to bomb Pearl Harbor. The risk was if they did not, then the US could potentially interfere in the war and dominate. If they did, they could potentially knock out the US Pacific fleet. Of course, that stirred up a hornet's nest and we knew where that went.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
This is strictly an assumption, but I assume that he is referring to the fact that Japan didn't start WWII. They were on the side of the Germans and so, in a way, had to bomb Pearl Harbor. The risk was if they did not, then the US could potentially interfere in the war and dominate. If they did, they could potentially knock out the US Pacific fleet. Of course, that stirred up a hornet's nest and we knew where that went.
Click to expand...

I would agree that Japan did not start WWII. However, this is what he said:

Alex Libman said:
Many other things we are taught about World War II are total lies - that the Japanese initiated aggression against USA first,
Click to expand...

His comment is not about WWII, but about the initiating of aggression between Japan and the US. I would like to see some substantiation for his position.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
This is strictly an assumption, but I assume that he is referring to the fact that Japan didn't start WWII. They were on the side of the Germans and so, in a way, had to bomb Pearl Harbor. The risk was if they did not, then the US could potentially interfere in the war and dominate. If they did, they could potentially knock out the US Pacific fleet. Of course, that stirred up a hornet's nest and we knew where that went.
Click to expand...

Japan wanted an empire, regardless of what Germany was doing. They cared very little for Hitler's ambitions, their national ego left no room for the aspirations of Germans. Pearl Harbor was an effort to buy time by knocking out the American navy, and it worked. There was no "WW2" until Japan attacked, just a war in Europe. Nobody started WW2, everyone joined the party until it became a World War.
 
WillRockwell said:
Japan wanted an empire, regardless of what Germany was doing. They cared very little for Hitler's ambitions, their national ego left no room for the aspirations of Germans. Pearl Harbor was an effort to buy time by knocking out the American navy, and it worked. There was no "WW2" until Japan attacked, just a war in Europe. Nobody started WW2, everyone joined the party until it became a World War.
Click to expand...

Actually I'll put a bit of a twist on this. Japan, who was our ally during and after World War I had aspirations that were very much like that of their Western allies. Japan occupied Manchuria as a buffer zone of sorts when civil war engulfed China. Back then this was not unheard of and the west had set the example for expansionism and empire building. In 1937 they launched a full scale invasion of China. Japan was doing to China what Britain did to India more or less.

When the French surrendered in 1940 Japan sent forces into French Indochina. We put an embargo of steel and scrap metal against them. Then when Hitler attacked Russia they moved forces into Southern Indochina and we froze all their assets.

FDR never intended to cut off oil to Japan because he knew that would place their nation in a state of crisis and most likely trigger a move on the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies, and also be viewed as an act of economic warfare. However Dean Acheson wrote up the sanctions so that they did in fact prohibit Japanese purchase of U.S. oil. FDR was too politically leveraged at that point to retract the sanctions.

So, what did Japan do? They went for the Dutch East Indies and made a move to eliminate the one force that they felt threatened their venture. The U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The rest is history.

You had a large multi-front war in Europe and you had Japan seizing territory at break neck speed in the far east. Without a doubt these forces had to be checked lest they should engulf the entire world at some point anyway.

I believe you had World War in progress with the different participants starting at different times. The U.S. would have gotten involved had Japan not attacked, I truly believe this.
 
Alex Libman said:
I guess he'd call me a "Holocaust Denier" as well, just because I believe in unlimited free speech rights and pursue an objective view of history without any government bias. A lot of lies were spread for Roosevelt's and especially for Stalin's benefit, and a lot of Soviet atrocities were blamed on Germany instead.
Click to expand...

Stalin was democidal as well.

Many other things we are taught about World War II are total lies - that the Japanese initiated aggression against USA first,
Click to expand...

They did, engaging in an economic boycott is not an act of aggression nor an act of war it is the right of every sovereign nation. Would the U.S. have been justified in responding to the Arab oil embargo through military force?

that nuking them was necessary,
Click to expand...

It was, the planned invasion would have cost far far more lives both Japanese and American, the Japanese still hadn't surrendered even after the first bomb was dropped nor after the fire bombings which killed far more Japanese.

that Hitler wanted to exterminate all Jews no matter what,
Click to expand...

I suggest reading the text of the Wannsee Conference.

He did that his suspicions about a communist "fifth column" in Germany were unfounded, etc, etc, etc. :(
Click to expand...

That there was a Jewish plot to undermine Germany was certainly unfounded.
Click to expand...
 
Alex Libman said:
Japan didn't start that war,
Click to expand...

Yes they did actually, it's called Pearl Harbor you may have heard of it.

and they were always in pursuit of a way of finishing it, especially as the pathetic remains of their navy were being blown to smithereens by 1945. They had only one major condition for their surrender: let them keep their emperor,
Click to expand...

That is a complete load of crap they wanted to maintain the rule of the military class completely debunked by historical documents:

A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan, the military increasingly determined to fight despite all costs and odds and the civilian leadership seeking a way to negotiate an end to the war. Further complicating the decision was the fact that no cabinet could exist without the representative of the Imperial Japanese Army. This meant that the Army and the Navy could veto any decision by having its Minister resign, thus making it the most powerful posts on the SWC. In early August 1945 the cabinet was equally split between those who advocated an end to the war on one condition, the preservation of the Kokutai, and those who insisted on three other conditions : leave disarmament and demobilization to Imperial General Headquarters, no occupation and delegation to Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals[31] The "hawks" consisted of General Korechika Anami, General Yoshijiro Umezu and Admiral Soemu Toyoda and were led by Anami. The "doves" consisted of Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Naval Minister Mitsumasa Yonai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Shigenori Togo and were led by Togo.[28] Under special permission of the Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito), the president of the Privy council, Kiichiro Hiranuma, was also a member of the imperial conference. For him, the preservation of the Kokutai implied not only that of the Imperial institution but also the continuation of the emperor's reign.[32]

It has sometimes been argued that Japan would have surrendered if simply guaranteed that the Emperor would be allowed to continue as formal head of state. However, Japanese diplomatic messages regarding a possible Soviet mediation — intercepted through Magic, and made available to Allied leaders — have been interpreted by some historians to mean that "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled."[29] They also faced potential death sentences in trials for Japanese war crimes if they surrendered.[11] This was also what occurred in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other tribunals.

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm curious. What revisionist source are you getting your information from that identifies that the US started the war against Japan?
Click to expand...

It takes two governments to start a war - and that's two more than there should be. In absence of governments (all governments, including any would-be warlords or mafia bosses trying to fill the power vacuum), self-interest would drive individuals to empower themselves, thus causing for the power vacuum to be filled by property owners who find it in their best interest to not initiate aggression against each-other. Natural rights emerge naturally, with no centralized force being necessary.

It's no wonder that the nation that has suffered the least amount of damage during World War II -- Switzerland -- was also the most decentralized and had the highest rate of individual firearm ownership. If Hitler couldn't even invade his tiny mountain neighbor, the notion of anyone being able to successfully invade North America is downright laughable! Every war the United States has ever fought in was a premeditated expansionist tactic, and its involvement in WW2 is no exception.

Some might claim that America first initiated aggression against Japan when its warships entered the Tokyo harbor in 1853 and threatened to come back with a lot more warships unless the Japanese do what they're told. I personally would like to err on the site of the Americans in that dispute - many Japanese people wanted to trade with the Americans, but their tyrannical government stood in their way, so the Americans were merely protecting their business interests. (Too bad we don't do this anymore - the same philosophy would have toppled the likes of Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il overnight.)

Some might also claim that the West's aggression against China and its imperialism over the Philippines, Hawaii, and many other Asian nations gave Japan a moral right to become a colonial power in Asia, sort of like the "I can steal your dog if I'll treat it better" mentality, and many people in those countries looked favorably on that possibility. I don't see that as an invitation for Japanese imperialism - two wrongs don't make a right. In China, Japan's crimes against civilians are very well documented, but the same can be said about the British involvement in India (and many of their crimes have escaped the scrutiny of history, because, well, you know - "history is written by the victors"). Japan was a part of the Eight-Nation Alliance, and as its economy grew it was able to take a bigger slice - that didn't make it any more or any less moral than any other colonial power. America itself didn't grow from sea to shining sea by respecting human rights ya know!

Japan was very successful in its colonization of its Asian neighbors, in part due to effective use of soft power (i.e. it was more popular than its European competitors), and by the mid-1920s America was becoming quite jealous, supporting anti-Japanese resistance whenever and wherever it could, like secretly supplying American planes and American pilots to help them. The situation continued to intensify, with American assets covertly carrying out terrorist operations against Japanese targets in China / Manchuria. But apparently that doesn't count as an act of war, just more imperial hanky-panky.

America has positioned itself for war, never missing an opportunity to provoke their one Asian competitor for the military dominance of Asia. As Smedley Butler wrote in his book: "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

Then came the American act of war that I cannot rationalize - the oil embargo against Japan. America just reached half-way across the world and prevented one nation from trading with all others! That left Japan with only two options: defend its empire or grind to a screeching halt!

And when America had dropped its breeches and left itself wide open in Pearl Harbor - how could Japan possibly resist?
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Stalin was democidal as well.
Click to expand...

He was a pragmatist acting in his government's (but not the people's) interest, no different from Hitler or FDR. In fact, one could argue that FDR & Co has caused more damage to humanity than Hitler or Stalin, because the latter two have much less on-going impact on history, while FDR's legacy continues to kill to the present day.

FDR has prolonged the Great Depression, and his legacy has led to his mistakes now being repeated with the Bailout Bubble - all that economic loss will shave off quite a bit of time from the life expectancy of every human being on earth, often making the difference between life and death!


Agent Ferris said:
They did, engaging in an economic boycott is not an act of aggression nor an act of war it is the right of every sovereign nation. Would the U.S. have been justified in responding to the Arab oil embargo through military force?
Click to expand...

You're spinning so hard that plugging you up to a generator would cut the world-wide electricity costs in half!

The word "boycott" is used to describe one's individual choices as a consumer, while what the U.S. government did was a use of the armed forces to initiate aggression against a specific nation and/or its trading partners. You try to sell oil to Japan - boom, you're dead! To say that's not war is like saying murder by strangulation isn't murder because you've merely deprived your victim of air!

And the 1967 Oil Embargo is something entirely different - that conflict started in the 19th century and has reached total war after the "the Catastrophe of 1948". There's no question that the Zionists / Israel are the aggressor in that war.


Agent Ferris said:
It was, the planned invasion would have cost far far more lives both Japanese and American, the Japanese still hadn't surrendered even after the first bomb was dropped nor after the fire bombings which killed far more Japanese.
Click to expand...

Yes, Japan must be under the total control of the United States, no other option is acceptable. Manifest Destiny, right, I get it. It's even written into the Declaration of Independence - "oceans be damned, everything to the West belongs to us"! Simply leaving other peoples alone is not an option! :roll:


Agent Ferris said:
I suggest reading the text of the Wannsee Conference.
Click to expand...

I have. I know that Germany has exterminated millions of Jews, including some of my relatives. But that conference didn't take place in 1933; it took place in 1942, after America has entered the war, and the invasion of the Soviet Union started showing proof that Germany's optimism for a quick victory was very much unwarranted.

Hitler wanted a "racially pure" Germany free of "undesirable" cultural influences, and it makes a whole lot more economic sense to ransom the "undesirables" out rather than just kill them. He initially thought the Jewish prisoners would be an asset, a bargaining chip for their wealthy and politically-influential relatives abroad, but if other nations weren't willing to pay to rescue them, they became a liability - keeping millions of prisoners alive while the nation is being invaded from both sides and suffers fuel and food shortages is not easy.

America's unwillingness to rescue those Jews, even turning back ships filled with refugees, are some of the things that mainstream historians have been trying to de-emphasize. Some stories get through (ex. MS St Louis), while most do not. The reality is that the U.S. government has contributed to the Holocaust more than it has helped end it.


Agent Ferris said:
That there was a Jewish plot to undermine Germany was certainly unfounded.
Click to expand...

Just as there was no Communist plot to undermine Czarist Russia. Oops. :3oops:

Sure, not all Jews were Communists, but a large fraction of the leading Communists were Jews. And not all Japanese Americans were loyal to the emperor either - except of course there were fewer of them, and America had the economic resources to lock them up more humane conditions than the German equivalent.


Agent Ferris said:
Yes they did actually, it's called Pearl Harbor you may have heard of it.
Click to expand...

Ah, right, typical American public school education. "Before Pearl Harbor, which no one could have seen coming, America was just sitting there in Hawaii, one of the 13 original colonies, and minding its own business, not even thinking about colonizing anyone half a world away"... :roll:


Agent Ferris said:
That is a complete load of crap they wanted to maintain the rule of the military class completely debunked by historical documents:
Click to expand...

"Have been interpreted by some historians" my foot, Japan was never a threat to the United States, and the U.S. could have ended that war at any time - or not have started it in the first place. Little nations don't attack big nations out of the blue, they only do it in self-defense!
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
It takes two governments to start a war - and that's two more than there should be. In absence of governments (all governments, including any would-be warlords or mafia bosses trying to fill the power vacuum), self-interest would drive individuals to empower themselves, thus causing for the power vacuum to be filled by property owners who find it in their best interest to not initiate aggression against each-other. Natural rights emerge naturally, with no centralized force being necessary.

It's no wonder that the nation that has suffered the least amount of damage during World War II -- Switzerland -- was also the most decentralized and had the highest rate of individual firearm ownership. If Hitler couldn't even invade his tiny mountain neighbor, the notion of anyone being able to successfully invade North America is downright laughable! Every war the United States has ever fought in was a premeditated expansionist tactic, and its involvement in WW2 is no exception.

Some might claim that America first initiated aggression against Japan when its warships entered the Tokyo harbor in 1853 and threatened to come back with a lot more warships unless the Japanese do what they're told. I personally would like to err on the site of the Americans in that dispute - many Japanese people wanted to trade with the Americans, but their tyrannical government stood in their way, so the Americans were merely protecting their business interests. (Too bad we don't do this anymore - the same philosophy would have toppled the likes of Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il overnight.)

Some might also claim that the West's aggression against China and its imperialism over the Philippines, Hawaii, and many other Asian nations gave Japan a moral right to become a colonial power in Asia, sort of like the "I can steal your dog if I'll treat it better" mentality, and many people in those countries looked favorably on that possibility. I don't see that as an invitation for Japanese imperialism - two wrongs don't make a right. In China, Japan's crimes against civilians are very well documented, but the same can be said about the British involvement in India (and many of their crimes have escaped the scrutiny of history, because, well, you know - "history is written by the victors"). Japan was a part of the Eight-Nation Alliance, and as its economy grew it was able to take a bigger slice - that didn't make it any more or any less moral than any other colonial power. America itself didn't grow from sea to shining sea by respecting human rights ya know!

Japan was very successful in its colonization of its Asian neighbors, in part due to effective use of soft power (i.e. it was more popular than its European competitors), and by the mid-1920s America was becoming quite jealous, supporting anti-Japanese resistance whenever and wherever it could, like secretly supplying American planes and American pilots to help them. The situation continued to intensify, with American assets covertly carrying out terrorist operations against Japanese targets in China / Manchuria. But apparently that doesn't count as an act of war, just more imperial hanky-panky.

America has positioned itself for war, never missing an opportunity to provoke their one Asian competitor for the military dominance of Asia. As Smedley Butler wrote in his book: "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

Then came the American act of war that I cannot rationalize - the oil embargo against Japan. America just reached half-way across the world and prevented one nation from trading with all others! That left Japan with only two options: defend its empire or grind to a screeching halt!

And when America had dropped its breeches and left itself wide open in Pearl Harbor - how could Japan possibly resist?
Click to expand...

This is all well written and very interesting. It does not, however, show how the US initiated aggression with Japan.
 
That the Americans are far from saints in the matter is certain, although it is often avoided, but I still think it was Japan that started expanding first and Japan that ultimately made the first strike.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
That the Americans are far from saints in the matter is certain, although it is often avoided, but I still think it was Japan that started expanding first and Japan that ultimately made the first strike.
Click to expand...

Japan has started expanding in 1592 and was finished seven years later. There is a Korean TV series about it. Highly recommended. It's probably the greatest historical drama in the history of world television, bar none!

Anyways, then Japan sat tight for the next 261 years, giving the rest of the world a chance to learn to bathe daily. Then Mathew Perry came a-knockin' from some place called アメリカ, guns drawn...


CaptainCourtesy said:
I read it. Irrelevant. Japan started the violence and aggression towards the US.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what was I thinking, going up against The Divine Axiom Of American Exceptionalism with mere historical evidence and logic... We're Americans, right? Our poop doesn't stink! Any evidence to the contrary is automatically irrelevant! :doh


CaptainCourtesy said:
Also, the McCollum Memo is circumstantial and there is no evidence that it was used to create the situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was all a massive coincidence... :roll:
 
Alex Libman said:
Yeah, what was I thinking, going up against The Divine Axiom Of American Exceptionalism with mere historical evidence and logic... We're Americans, right? Our poop doesn't stink! Any evidence to the contrary is automatically irrelevant! :doh




Yeah, it was all a massive coincidence... :roll:
Click to expand...

Don't get all up in arms about it. You dropped a document and proclaimed it was FDR's 8 point plan for provoking Japan to war. You better substantiate that claim if you want to be taken seriously. Thus far you have not.
 
Anyone know of a book that describes the treatment of German soldiers captured and imprisoned by the Russians? About 90+% never returned after the war's end.
 
Lerxst said:
That wasn't FDR's plan. That was a naval intelligence officers memo that was floated up the chain. Where is the evidence that FDR actually embraced this idea?
Click to expand...

FDR is just one figurehead, as were Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. I see the government as one evil system, regardless of departments, parties, and even national boundaries.

All kings are foes of all the men they rule!
 
Alex Libman said:
FDR is just one figurehead, as were Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. I see the government as one evil system, regardless of departments, parties, and even national boundaries.

All kings are foes of all the men they rule!
Click to expand...

Okay I understand that. You said it was FDR & Friends plan. Please, be more specific in your allegation. Which "friends?" Who was it exactly, besides FDR, that embraced this 8 step plan? What kind of citations can you present that will substantiate this claim? Or is this more of a conspiratorial speculation, you know..."too many things lined up, too many things didn't make sense, too many people did too many things that didn't make sense for things just to line up like they did...etc., etc.
 
Alex Libman said:
FDR is just one figurehead, as were Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. I see the government as one evil system, regardless of departments, parties, and even national boundaries.

All kings are foes of all the men they rule!
Click to expand...

So... you are an anarchist?

(thats the vibe im getting, I may be wrong though :p )
 
Alex Libman said:
Japan has started expanding in 1592 and was finished seven years later. There is a Korean TV series about it. Highly recommended. It's probably the greatest historical drama in the history of world television, bar none!

Anyways, then Japan sat tight for the next 261 years, giving the rest of the world a chance to learn to bathe daily. Then Mathew Perry came a-knockin' from some place called アメリカ, guns drawn...
Click to expand...

OK.


Yeah, what was I thinking, going up against The Divine Axiom Of American Exceptionalism with mere historical evidence and logic... We're Americans, right? Our poop doesn't stink! Any evidence to the contrary is automatically irrelevant! :doh
Click to expand...

No, but when you quote conspiracy theory stuff that only connects the dots when you turn lines into pretzels and call that historical evidence, don't expect others to buy into it.

Yeah, it was all a massive coincidence... :roll:
Click to expand...

When you have some direct evidence, you might garner a bit more interest in this. Currently, you have posted none.
 
Alex Libman said:
FDR is just one figurehead, as were Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito. I see the government as one evil system, regardless of departments, parties, and even national boundaries.

All kings are foes of all the men they rule!
Click to expand...

And your belief system is no substitute for substantiation. Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom