I said that I might start a thread about Imperial Japan.

Britain and the U.S. had zero right to keep telling Imperial Japan what it was going to do, and not going to do, in its own backyard. Is America or Britain geographically close to the Far East? Nope. What if Japan told America what it should and shouldn't do in, say, Mexico? How would that be received by America? Bwa-ha-ha! Not well, that's how.

The U.S. - and Britain - deliberately alienated Imperial Japan. The U.S. meddled in China against Japan. Even before Pearl Harbor, commie-symp FDR planned to attack Japanese troops in China via the Flying Tigers. FDR even 'wink-wink' threatened Japan way back in 1937 in his about-face Quarantine speech. [Churchill also threatened Japan in Aug. 1941, before Pearl Harbor; so did FDR again, in Nov. 1941]. So much for 'isolationism.' Those were threats against Japan before Pearl Harbor.

Forget U.S. and British 'interests' in the Far East. They had no business there. FDR and the British pushed and pushed Japan re: the Far East. Then they were 'shocked' when Japan attacked their outposts in the Pacific and the Far East. A shocker, it was!

America could have done the proper thing and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Germany in 1936. Did they? Nooo. That would have made sense. Can't have that on FDR's watch. But ya could have lotsa Soviet communism served up half-baked! Mmmmmm, yummy! [munch, munch].

Imperial Japan acted in a very predictable way against the U.S. and Britain in the Pacific. In fact, Japan showed major 'balls' all through WWII. Tough little guys, they were. And yes, they were brutal at times.

FDR wanted war with Japan to lead to war with Germany, which it did. Britain likely wanted the same thing to happen.

The above does not 'excuse' Pearl Harbor. But the burden of Pearl Harbor is on FDR, not on Japan.


----

Is America or Britain geographically close to the Far East?

Forget U.S. and British 'interests' in the Far East. They had no business there. FDR and the British pushed and pushed Japan re: the Far East. Then they were 'shocked' when Japan attacked their outposts in the Pacific and the Far East. A shocker, it was!

These kind of quotes illustrate very well who's side you're on. What makes Japan's expansionist designs on the Pacific legitimate and the British/American/Australian's illegitimate? Do you oppose American involvement in places like The Philippines, Guam and Hawaii too? Or what about the British in Malaysia and Hong Kong, are they not allowed to have interests there either?

I said that I might start a thread about Imperial Japan.

Britain and the U.S. had zero right to keep telling Imperial Japan what it was going to do, and not going to do, in its own backyard.


Actually we never did. We simply told the Japanese that if they were going to continue murdering children, butchering men, and raping women, they could no longer expect the United States to continue to trade with them.

Does Japan have a RIGHT to American steel? Does it have a RIGHT to Dutch oil? Does it have a RIGHT to American rubber?

What right does Japan have to tell the US and Western Europe who it must trade with? :p


Is America or Britain geographically close to the Far East?


Yeah.


Nope. What if Japan told America what it should and shouldn't do in, say, Mexico? How would that be received by America? Bwa-ha-ha! Not well, that's how.


If the United States was engaged in a program to massacre Mexican populations, enslave them, and create a military power capable of threatening Japan the Japanese would have every right to tell us we shouldn't do that and threaten to cut off trade with us.

Every right in the world.


The U.S. - and Britain - deliberately alienated Imperial Japan.


The US and Britain forced Japan to violate every agreement it made with the West, butcher innocents, and make outrageous territorial demands without any basis?


The U.S. meddled in China against Japan.


You know that China was a nation.....not a Japanese stomping ground....correct?


Even before Pearl Harbor, commie-symp FDR planned to attack Japanese troops in China via the Flying Tigers. FDR even 'wink-wink' threatened Japan way back in 1937 in his about-face Quarantine speech.


There was no possible way the United States could attack the Japanese without provocation. The American political system wouldn't have tolerated it.


[Churchill also threatened Japan in Aug. 1941, before Pearl Harbor;


LOL Yeah, Britain was a huge threat to Japan in 1941.


Forget U.S. and British 'interests' in the Far East. They had no business there.


The United States and Britain had AS MUCH RIGHT to interests in China as the Japanese did. Physical proximity to an object doesn't denote property rights.


FDR and the British pushed and pushed Japan re: the Far East.


"Pushed" them by denouncing their barbarism? You know, you fascists seem like the most delicate bunch I've ever seen. "I murdered that guy because he looked at me as though he disapproved of me."

LOL


Then they were 'shocked' when Japan attacked their outposts in the Pacific and the Far East. A shocker, it was!


Considering no one had taken military action against that crowd, and there was no political support for doing so, yeah, it was a bit of a shock.

But then again, the United States is apparently a NPC bank, which owes your little Nazi feudal states our money and aid. :p



America could have done the proper thing and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Germany in 1936.


ROFLMAO Why would that have been the 'proper' thing?

Britain and the U.S. had zero right to keep telling Imperial Japan what it was going to do

I don't think its very proper to employ morality in the defense of a state whos troops baynoted babies for fun.

Britain and the U.S. had zero right to keep telling Imperial Japan what it was going to do

I don't think its very proper to employ morality in the defense of a state whos troops baynoted babies for fun.


Yes, the Japanese went a little overboard at times. Asians can be high-strung people. But that changes nothing re: my post.


----

Britain and the U.S. had zero right to keep telling Imperial Japan what it was going to do, and not going to do, in its own backyard. Another bizarre example of Francothink. The U.S. has no business telling Japan what it should do but Franco can tell the U.S. to join the Anti-Comitern Pact.Is America or Britain geographically close to the Far East? Nope.Britain and the United States have long had substantial interests in East Asia. They still do.The U.S. - and Britain - deliberately alienated Imperial Japan. The Japanese intentionally went out of their way to thwart American interests in China. The British made a conscious decision to side with the United States in the dispute, a very wise decision, at it later paid off for them in WW2.Even before Pearl Harbor, commie-symp FDR planned to attack Japanese troops in China via the Flying Tigers. FDR was not a Communist. His goal was to save capitalism by reforming it. He was ultimately successful in that effort. The Japanese had been planning to attack the U.S. for years as well, not that I suspect that would concern you.FDR even 'wink-wink' threatened Japan way back in 1937 in his about-face Quarantine speech. Japan had been threatening the United States for years before its attack on Pearl Harbor. It was also Japan who started the war, not the United States.[Churchill also threatened Japan in Aug. 1941, before Pearl Harbor; so did FDR again, in Nov. 1941]. So much for 'isolationism.' Those were threats against Japan before Pearl Harbor.I don't subscribe to what is called 'isolationism', which is in my view a naive, untenable, and discredited theory. We have substantial strategic and economic interests abroad now that did not exist in the 1790s.What if Japan told America what it should and shouldn't do in, say, Mexico? How would that be received by America? Bwa-ha-ha! Not well, that's how.The President of the United States answers to no one, much less the pretentious little dictator that once governed Nazi Germany. The United States does not take orders from Japan either.Forget U.S. and British 'interests' in the Far East.Its easy to forget American and British interests in the Far East (or Europe, for that matter) when they are none of your concern. Yet you should be reminded that those of us who are proud to be Brits and Americans (e.g., the majority of your contemporaries) tend to take such things into consideration on occasion.They had no business there.False. The United States and Great Britain had been doing plenty of business there for years before World War 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy

Although the Open Door is generally associated with China, it also received recognition at the Berlin Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference) of 1885 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1885), which declared that no power could levy preferential duties in the Congo basin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River).
In 1898 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898), the United States became an East Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian) power through the acquisition of the Philippine Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Islands), and when the partition of China by the European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) powers and Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) seemed imminent, the U.S. government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._government) strove to preserve equal industrial and commercial privileges. Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State) John Hay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hay) sent (1899 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899)) notes to the major powers (France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Japan, and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)), asking them to declare formally that they would uphold Chinese territorial and administrative integrity and would not interfere with the free use of the treaty ports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_ports) within their spheres of influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence) in China. In replying, each nation evaded Hay's request, taking the position that it could not commit itself until the other nations had complied. However, in March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March) 1900 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900), Hay announced that the powers had granted consent to his request. Only Japan challenged this declaration, and the Open Door became an international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International) policy.

After the Boxer Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Uprising) , Hay dispatched (1900 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900)) a similar circular note.

Two years later, the U.S. government protested that Russian encroachment in Manchuria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria) was a violation of the Open Door. When Japanese replaced Russian influence in Southern Manchuria after the Russo-Japanese War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War) (1904 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1904)-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905)) the Japanese and U.S. governments pledged to maintain a policy of equality in Manchuria. In finance, American efforts to preserve the Open Door led (1909 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1909)) to the formation of an international banking consortium through which all Chinese railroad loans would be made. The United States withdrew in 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913), asserting that the consortium violated Chinese administrative integrity.

The next violation of the Open Door policy occurred in 1915 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915), when Japan presented to China the Twenty-one Demands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-one_Demands). That incident led (1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917)) to another exchange of notes between the United States and Japan in which there were renewed assurances that the Open Door would be respected, but that the United States recognized Japan's special interests in China. The Open Door principle had been further weakened by a series of secret treaties (1917) between Japan and the Allies, which promised Japan the German possessions in China.

The increasing disregard of the Open Door was a main reason for the convocation of the Conference on the Limitation of Armament (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conference_on_the_Limitation_of_Armament&action=edit) (1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921)-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922)) in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.) As a result of the conference, the Nine-Power Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine-Power_Treaty&action=edit), guaranteeing the integrity and independence of China and reaffirming the Open Door principle, was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy, the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands), Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal), China, and Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium). With the Japanese seizure (1931 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931)) of Manchuria and the creation of Manchukuo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo), however, the Open Door received its greatest reverse.

After World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), China's position as a sovereign state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state) was recognized. No nation, therefore, had the right or capacity to carve out spheres of influence or to attempt to exclude other states from trade. With the rise to power of the Communist Party of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China), the Open Door Policy was rejected until the late-1970's in which Deng Xiaoping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping) committed China to adopting policies which promote foreign trade and economic investment. Since the late-1970's, the government of the People's Republic of China has maintained a policy of encouraging foreign trade.FDR and the British pushed and pushed Japan re: the Far East. Lets throw some light on this.

"Japan, which had begun to intimidate and conquer Asian countries for half a century prior to its attack on the United States, had clearly established a continuous, brutal expansionism, so that the United States had no excuse for being caught unawares or for thinking it was untouchable."

Alan Schom, The Eagle and the Rising Sun: The Japanese-American War, 1941-1943 (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2004), p.xviiThen they were 'shocked' when Japan attacked their outposts in the Pacific and the Far East. A shocker, it was!This false. The United States was well aware that war with Japan was imminent before the attack on Pearl Harbor.America could have done the proper thing and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Germany in 1936. That would have been a ridiculous blunder on their part. Nazi Germany was by far more of a potent threat to Britain and the United States than the Soviet Union was in 1936. Nazi Germany was an industrial and military powerhouse with an axe to grind against the West. The Soviet Union was a relatively backwards and remote dictatorship that could not even break the back of the Poles.Did they? Nooo. That would have made sense.The British and the French should have cooperated with the elements in the German military who wanted to overthrow Hitler before Munich. That would have made sense.Can't have that on FDR's watch.Franco has an a rather interesting double standard, wouldn't you say? The United States was the last Western nation to recognize the Soviet Union and was the principal enemy of that country during its entire existence. And even then, it was primarily because the U.S. was mired in the Great Depression and FDR's priority was getting Americans back to work. On the other hand, Germany had been engaging in extensive trade with the Soviet Union since the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922. So did Nazi Germany. That is what it was doing when it was bombing the living shit out of Rotterdam and London. But all of this is irrelevant because none of this really matters to Franco. Franco has one standard for Nazis, another standard for everyone else. Is this not obvious?But ya could have lotsa Soviet communism served up half-baked! Mmmmmm, yummy! [munch, munch].More hypocrisy from Franco. It was Nazi Germany that cooperated with the Soviet Union to destroy Poland and that Baltic States. It was also Germany that was the primary culprit in industrializing the USSR in the 20s. It was Nazi Germany which cut a deal with Stalin for it could be free to throw full force of its military against the West.Imperial Japan acted in a very predictable way against the U.S. and Britain in the Pacific. Japan aspired to become a hegemon in the Far East. So you are right. Its not really surprising that it eventually found itself at war with Britain and the United States.In fact, Japan showed major 'balls' all through WWII. By doing what? Raping women and using biological warfare against the Chinese?Tough little guys, they were. And yes, they were brutal at times.I don't suppose any of this really bothers you. You seem to have a lot of admiration for some of the most disgusting, repulsive, bloodthirsty tyrannies of modern times.FDR wanted war with Japan to lead to war with Germany, which it did.The U.S. had been on collision course with Japan for years before FDR came to power. This was the primary reason that British chose not renew the Anglo-Japanese Treaty.Britain likely wanted the same thing to happen.Are you crazy? Do you actually think British miltiary planners wanted to deal with Nazi Germany in Europe, Fascist Italy in the Mediterranean and North Africa, and Imperial Japan in the Far East simultaneously?The above does not 'excuse' Pearl Harbor. I really don't see why you would have a problem with Pearl Harbor.But the burden of Pearl Harbor is on FDR, not on Japan.How is FDR responsible for an aggressive Japanese attack on Americans on American soil?

I don't suppose any of this really bothers you. You seem to have a lot of admiration for some of the most disgusting, repulsive, bloodthirsty tyrannies of modern times.


Not true. But U.S./British alienation of both Japan and Germany did a lot to make them thuggish. Way before WWII, America and Britain were doing their best to alienate Japan and Germany -- and to get other countries to alienate them, too. All the while embracing the Soviets.

In fact, the American embracing of the Soviets made the Soviet terror-state 'legitimate' to the world, and opened them up to loans and credit in a way that did not exist before. In fact, America may well have saved the Soviet Union from collapse. The Soviets then went on to communize many other countries via their agents in other countries.


-----

Not true.


LOL Your name is Franco, you're a Nazi....defending Imperial Japan. :p


But U.S./British alienation of both Japan and Germany did a lot to make them thuggish.


I'm curious, when you say we 'alienated' them, was this before or after we basically fogave Germany's war debt or allowed Japan to have the third largest fleet on Earth?


Way before WWII, America and Britain were doing their best to alienate Japan and Germany


By investing in German industry to help them recover from depression or by inviting Japan to sit in judgement of Germany at Versailles? :p


-- and to get other countries to alienate them, too. All the while embracing the Soviets.


Hmmm.....you know, I don't remember the United States or Great Britain signing a non-aggression pact with the USSR before WWII. I do recall BOTH Germany and Japan doing so, however.

And before Hitler decided to break his word and betray his Communist friends, he was engaged in economic dealings with the Soviets as well.


In fact, the American embracing of the Soviets made the Soviet terror-state 'legitimate' to the world


LOL What are you talking about? There would never have been a treaty with the USSR if Germany hadn't declared war on the US and the USSR at the same time.

LOL What are you talking about? There would never have been a treaty with the USSR if Germany hadn't declared war on the US and the USSR at the same time.

What are you talking about? The U.S. recognized the Soviets in 1933. Did Hitler declare war on the U.S. in 1933? Not that I know of.

Why on earth did FDR recognize the criminal Soviet state, which was not elected into power?


----

after we basically fogave Germany's war debt

What war debt? You mean WWI? Germany didn't start WWI. Germany mobilized for war third, after the others, if memory serves. That is not starting a war.


----

USA /GB didn't make Japan thuggish, japans attitude and treatment of the population of China and Korea had to do with Japan and its racist ideas , nothing to do with the USA / Gb.
French colonial empire was taken over by Japan , why ?
Gb a threat to Japan , with what ?
GB was already up to its eyes with Germany it was over stretched enough , at what point do you see this threat being a mortal danger to Japan ?
FDR wanting war with Japan so it would mean war with Germany ?
This would only be reality if Germany declared war with America , war with Japan did not have to mean war with Germany , that was Hitlers mistake.
If this was FDR's intention why did Germany not see it ?
Wishful thinking Franco based on outcomes , not intentions.
Imperial Japan was waging war in China long before war took place in Europe.
Japan was an aggresive power seeking to expand, war in Europe created opportunity which Japan took advantage off.
War was the result of Japans opportune adventures , the responsibility is Japans not Americas or GB's.
You seek to make an excuse for Japanese aggression , in fact there is none .

I despise Japan's avoidance of responsibility for the brutal, barbaric crimes it committed in and before WWII. No country that did such things and has not even said "Yup, we did 'em" in a committed fashion should be considered civilised.

Japan's entry (Hell, they entered first, they made the fucking door) into the war (before it was WWII) was pure, unvarnished avarice. The Germans had at least some claim to Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, etc. The Japanese had none on China, the East Indies, French Indochina, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, etc.

I despise Japan's avoidance of responsibility for the brutal, barbaric crimes it committed in and before WWII. No country that did such things and has not even said "Yup, we did 'em" in a committed fashion should be considered civilised.

Japan's entry (Hell, they entered first, they made the fucking door) into the war (before it was WWII) was pure, unvarnished avarice. The Germans had at least some claim to Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, etc. The Japanese had none on China, the East Indies, French Indochina, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, etc.


America was denying Japan oil. And America seized Japanese assets. And canceled important treaties with Japan. America pushed for war. And Britain also threatened Japan [Churchill did, in a radio speech] about the Far East.

The allies created the conditions that led to WWII. Japan responded to that.




----

So Japan invaded Manchuria due to the machinations of the US and Britain?

America was denying Japan oil. And America seized Japanese assets. And canceled important treaties with Japan. America pushed for war. And Britain also threatened Japan [Churchill did, in a radio speech] about the Far East.

I wouldn't want a major military power that thought all non Japanese were total subhumans and bayoneted babies forming on my Eastern flank either, sorry bye bye oil shipments.

and bayoneted babies


Isolated instances. That was not the norm.


----

Okay lets discuss norms, any Western woman they came across gang raped( averaging in the high double digits) and then ussually killed.

What war debt?


After Germany lost the first world war, it was ordered to pay reparations by French and British. The United States intervened on behalf of Germany to alleviate the burden on the German economy.

Anything else you want to learn feel free to ask. There is no such thing as a stupid question.

After Germany lost the first world war, it was ordered to pay reparations by French and British. The United States intervened on behalf of Germany to alleviate the burden on the German economy.

Anything else you want to learn feel free to ask. There is no such thing as a stupid question.


The Versailles Treaty was Jew-Jewy farce [1]. Germany didn't start WWI, so why did they need to pay 'reparations?'




[1] http://wsi.matriots.com/Versailles.html


----

Germany didn't start WWI, so why did they need to pay 'reparations?'

They lost, Franco.

And by the way, why do you start threads which are obviously intended to turn into prolonged debates and then not address anyone's responses?

They lost, Franco.

And by the way, why do you start threads which are obviously intended to turn into prolonged debates and then not address anyone's responses?


I wasn't aware that I started threads and then did not answer questions.


---

The Versailles Treaty was Jew-Jewy farce


Not true. The Versailles Treaty was quite real, and since "Jew-Jewy" is a childish sing-song slur to bolster your Nazi spirit, I'll just ignore it. :)

Which was the Jew, the President of France or the Prime Minister of England?


[1]. Germany didn't start WWI :) , so why did they need to pay 'reparations?'



Because they lost the first world war. Like I said, there's no such thing as a stupid question. :D

America was denying Japan oil.


LOL This goes back to the point you can't respond to. Why do we OWE Japan oil? We're free to sell or not to sell whatever we please to WHOMEVER we please.

You didn't respond to that because its inarguable.


And America seized Japanese assets.


Rightfully so, since the Japanese were expanding into Southeast Asia.


And canceled important treaties with Japan.


You mean like the Naval agreements Japan had already violated?


America pushed for war.


How many Japanese ships did the United States fire on? What was the Panay incident?

I wasn't aware that I started threads and then did not answer questions.


---
Check post #2. Sulla has asked you several questions as well to which you've yet to reply.

Not true. But U.S./British alienation of both Japan and Germany did a lot to make them thuggish.Ah yes. The alienation of Japan. :|

"Germany's former colonial empire, too, required dismemberment, but the dominions strongly opposed -- in vain -- the handover of Berlin's Far Eastern island possessions to Japan. The "Yellow Peril" that had so raised the fears and hackles of the Wets in the first years of the new century continued to cause grave disquiet, especially in the Antipodes. The two "white islands" of Australia and New Zealand were isolated in a "yellow sea," thousands of miles from Europe, protected only by a very thin line of Royal Navy warships. And yet Japan, as a loyal ally during World War I -- its navy having escorated these very Australians and New Zealanders in their transports to Europe -- was demanding payment for services rendered, and thus German islands in the western Pacific effectively passed into Japanese hands at Versailles, over all objections."

Alan Schom, The Eagle and the Rising Sun: The Japanese-American War, 1941-1945 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), p.14

Japan was compensated at Versailles with German possessions over the protests of the Australians. The British also went out of their way to appease Germany in the 20s and the 30s.Way before WWII, America and Britain were doing their best to alienate Japan and Germany -- and to get other countries to alienate them, too.What are you talking about, Franco? Chamberlain's entire foreign policy viz Germany was premised upon placating German ambitions. Franco also shows amazing concern here that Germany and Japan not be "alienated." He does not show the same regard for the millions of people murdered in their aggressive wars.All the while embracing the Soviets. America and Britain did not embrace the Soviets at all. That was Nazi Germany.In fact, the American embracing of the Soviets made the Soviet terror-state 'legitimate' to the world, and opened them up to loans and credit in a way that did not exist before. Franco tirelessly repeats points that have already been dispensed with in his debate. The United States was the last Western nation to officially recognize the Soviet Union. Germany had already done so years before. None of this bothers Franco though.In fact, America may well have saved the Soviet Union from collapse. The Soviets then went on to communize many other countries via their agents in other countries.Six years prior the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union signed the Treaty of Rapallo. In this manner Germany broke away from the rest of Europe and recognized the USSR as a legal government, and by opening trade with Germany it was possible for Russia to set up legitimate business organizations as a cover for espionage. However, there were included in the treaty a number of covert clauses in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty that allowed Russia to assist Germany in rebuilding its army, navy and air force. Orlov’s job was supervision of the technical and procurement contracts between Germany and Russia. The illicit trading in arms gave Stalin the upper hand and made it possible to penetrate Germany with a vast influx of spies.

The first 5-year plan to industrialize the Soviet Union had recently been announced. The goals set by Stalin were well beyond the ability of Soviet industry to achieve without technical and productive assistance. Germany was the logical source for scientific and technical expertise. At the time that Orlov arrived in Germany the Soviet Union was already contracting legally with Germany to buy machinery and industrial patents. German engineers were signing on to go to the Soviet Union to train Soviet workers. Of course, all of this was costly so Stalin instructed the OGPU agents to steal patents and inventions wherever possible. Orlov used his network of spies to recruit engineers and technicians to infiltrate technical institutions with "Communist sympathizers". Orlov’s agents stole chemical technology from I.G. Farben, steel-making formulas from Krupp, electrical blueprints from Siemens and much else. According to a report by German Industry in 1930 and as stated by Costello and Tsarev, "the estimated annual losses by the end of the decade amounted to over 800 million marks or one quarter of a billion dollars per year". However, when one compares these losses to those experienced by the Russians at the hands of the invading German Army during WWII, it is difficult to feel very much sympathy for these same German corporations who were soon employing slave labor to their death for profit.

http://www.bigelowconsulting.com/CRAweb/essay21.htm

This "blame-the-victim" stuff is ridiculous. Japan wanted things. Japan reached out and took them. Japan then tried to take more. That's the story right there.

Franco still won't tell us why he is critical of British and American imperialism in the Pacific, but not the Japanese.

Franco still won't tell us why he is critical of British and American imperialism in the Pacific, but not the Japanese.

My point is simple. America and Britain, as White countries, really had no business telling Asians what to do in Asia. It is bad enough that America and Britain meddle in other White countries all over the world. Even worse is when they meddle in areas where, racially speaking, they have no business.

----

Why do they have no business telling Asians what to do in Asia? What makes the situation more legitimate because both Japanese and Pacific Islanders happen to be of predominant Mongoloid composition?

And you understand of course, that part of the Axis deal was that the Japanese would be end up in a position to dominate and colonise the Australian continent - somewhere they should have had no business according to you, "racially speaking".

What right did japan have to expand beyond the Sea of Japan and why did she withdraw from the League of nations when presence and conduct in China was denounced ?

Japan was an aggressive Imperialist power which was being driven t war not by America of Great Britain but by the japanese Army which held power within the goverment of the day.
"6 Months of Victory" , almost to the day.
Her murder of civilian populations and of POW's was not an isloated occurance it was general behaviour.

Imperial Japan as a victim , someone has been reading the paper thin japanese history of WW2 , we didn't start it , we didn't kill anyone and we got bombed.

Why do they have no business telling Asians what to do in Asia? What makes the situation more legitimate because both Japanese and Pacific Islanders happen to be of predominant Mongoloid composition?

And you understand of course, that part of the Axis deal was that the Japanese would be end up in a position to dominate and colonise the Australian continent - somewhere they should have had no business according to you, "racially speaking".


Granted, the Australia matter was odd.

But an important question would be: when did the Japanese develope an idea to possibly colonize Australia? Before or after the allies began threatening Japan in speeches and in policy? I admit that, re: Australia/Japan, I do not know, exact-date-wise. In other words, which came first, the chicken or the egg?


----

Granted, the Australia matter was odd.

But an important question would be: when did the Japanese develope an idea to possibly colonize Australia? Before or after the allies began threatening Japan in speeches and in policy? I admit that, re: Australia/Japan, I do not know, exact-date-wise. In other words, which came first, the chicken or the egg?


----
It doesn't matter. You should not support such an idea under any circumstance.

My point is simple. America and Britain, as White countries, really had no business telling Asians what to do in Asia. It is bad enough that America and Britain meddle in other White countries all over the world. Even worse is when they meddle in areas where, racially speaking, they have no business.

----

So then you wouldn't object to, say, an American or Russian occupation of Europe since Americans and Russians share broad racial traits as Europeans? :p

And you would object to China cutting off trade to the US or Russia in such an event? :p

I said that I might start a thread about Imperial Japan.

Britain and the U.S. had zero right to keep telling Imperial Japan what it was going to do, and not going to do, in its own backyard. Is America or Britain geographically close to the Far East? Nope. What if Japan told America what it should and shouldn't do in, say, Mexico? How would that be received by America? Bwa-ha-ha! Not well, that's how.

Last I checked the Americans were not shooting thousands of Mexicans and raping their women en masse, nor forcing their women into brothels for the joy of American infantrymen.

The U.S. - and Britain - deliberately alienated Imperial Japan. The U.S. meddled in China against Japan. Even before Pearl Harbor, commie-symp FDR planned to attack Japanese troops in China via the Flying Tigers. FDR even 'wink-wink' threatened Japan way back in 1937 in his about-face Quarantine speech. [Churchill also threatened Japan in Aug. 1941, before Pearl Harbor; so did FDR again, in Nov. 1941]. So much for 'isolationism.' Those were threats against Japan before Pearl Harbor.

FDR and Churchill weren't unwilling to sit on their hands while Japan marched its way across Asia annihilating every nation that enjoyed its own existence.

Forget U.S. and British 'interests' in the Far East. They had no business there. FDR and the British pushed and pushed Japan re: the Far East. Then they were 'shocked' when Japan attacked their outposts in the Pacific and the Far East. A shocker, it was!

America could have done the proper thing and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Germany in 1936. Did they? Nooo. That would have made sense. Can't have that on FDR's watch. But ya could have lotsa Soviet communism served up half-baked! Mmmmmm, yummy! [munch, munch].

What makes Communism worse than annihilating entire nations, Franco? Japan was hellbent on violent genocidal expansionism. The Japanese view of the Chinese was that they weren't worthy of the soil they lived on. There's a slight difference between that and dismembering Communist Governments. Tell me where and how the Japanese Government made a decent effort at attacking the USSR, the core of geopolitical Communism at the time. That's right, they didn't really give a shit.

Imperial Japan acted in a very predictable way against the U.S. and Britain in the Pacific. In fact, Japan showed major 'balls' all through WWII.

Tell that to my grandfather who watched Dutch women crying with their dead children in their arms while he evacuated whites from Indonesia. The Japanese were savages and they deserved Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Tough little guys, they were. And yes, they were brutal at times.

Takes a lot of balls to murder thousands of civilians, doesn't it Franco?

FDR wanted war with Japan to lead to war with Germany, which it did. Britain likely wanted the same thing to happen.

And? The problem with half-nazified white nationalists like you is that whenever you're confronted with facts that are recognised as almost universally morally repulsive (except, perhaps, to African natives to whom it's a fact of life) comitted by your side of the ideological divide, you excuse it as 'realpolitik', and then use moralism to argue against Western retaliation.

The above does not 'excuse' Pearl Harbor. But the burden of Pearl Harbor is on FDR, not on Japan.

----

So you're denying the Japanese responsibility for killing thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbour? What stopped the Japanese from withdrawing from China, Franco? As Sulla pointed out, how is the West obligated to trade with a bunch of genocidal savages?

Tell that to my grandfather who watched Dutch women crying with their dead children in their arms while he evacuated whites from Indonesia. The Japanese were savages and they deserved Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


As tragic as that was, I think it is best not to use emotional arguments to make a point.

Sure, there were horrors committed by Japan in WWII, just as there were horrors committed by the allies in WWII, e.g. the firebombing of entire cities such as Dresden, when the allies knew full well that those cities contained only civilians. Or, Operation Keelhaul, in which the allies aided mass murder committed by Stalin.

So each side of WWII committed horrible acts. [The allies actually killed more civilians than the Axis, e.g. Hiroshima, Dresden, Operation Keelhaul, the handing-over of Eastern Europe to Stalin, the arming of the Soviets via Lend-Lease, etc.].


-----

Haha, disgust for the indiscriminate killing of white people qualifies as an emotional and invalid argument in your eyes, Franco? What kind of white nationalist are you?

Haha, disgust for the indiscriminate killing of white people qualifies as an emotional and invalid argument in your eyes, Franco? What kind of white nationalist are you?

A fair White nationalist.

Europeans are for Europe, not for the Far East. Let Asians worry about the Far East.


----

Are Australia and Siberiai part of this "Far East" you speak of?

A fair White nationalist.

Bullshit. Hitler didn't give a damn about white Australians and neither do you, all he gave a shit about was the glory of Germany. Why don't you go live in Germany where their democratically elected Government can throw you in prison?

Europeans are for Europe, not for the Far East.

No, here's where we disagree. This country I live in, Australia, was a white British Australia, not target practice for those Japanese savages, and they DID deserve Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Let Asians worry about the Far East.

So you're defending a nation of savages that mauled China and Korea, raped hundreds of white nurses after they took Singapore, executed French colonists in Vietnam and enslaved entire civilian populations, systematically abused POW's - you're defending these animals against white Americans, Australians and New Zealanders who fought, killed and died to defend their countries?

you're defending these animals against white Americans, Australians and New Zealanders who fought, killed and died to defend their countries?


NO.

I suggest that you stop guessing as to what I believe.


-----

Oh, really? Go ahead and state what you believe.

A fair White nationalist.

Europeans are for Europe, not for the Far East. Let Asians worry about the Far East.

This is basically carte blanche for the Japanese to keep doing what they did. Why are you defending the Japs again?

Oh, really? Go ahead and state what you believe.



This is basically carte blanche for the Japanese to keep doing what they did. Why are you defending the Japs again?

If I was feeling really ambitious, I'll bet that I could surf the web and find that Australia sided with the empire of evil by default [the Soviet Union], on the "allied" side, before Japan was poised to invade Australia. That would mean that Australia was in a state of war with Japan before Japan was poised to invade.

If so, the moral of that story would be: if you don't want Japan to invade your country, don't declare war on Japan [assuming that a formal declaration of war was made].

But I'm too lazy to look it up now. Maybe later.

But if I had to choose between Asians and Whites, of course I would choose Whites over Asians.


----

My point is simple. America and Britain, as White countries, really had no business telling Asians what to do in Asia. It is bad enough that America and Britain meddle in other White countries all over the world. Even worse is when they meddle in areas where, racially speaking, they have no business.

----

I agree with that Franco...personally, I couldn't give a frank about what the Chinese experience at the hands of Japan. I'd have left them alone. As far as America signing the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1936, as much as I wish now that it would have happened, I wonder what a Father Coughlin Administration would have done in the place of a Roosevelt Administration.

Given America's traditional foreign policy of non-intervention, I would have been satisfied, at the time, with a status of "friendly neutral" toward the Axis. I would have definitely wished the Germans, Italians, Romanians et al. well, but I'm not completely convinced yet that American troops belong in Europe fighting on any side. Of course, that's in the context of the time...but knowing what I know today about how the world turned out since then, I'm more inclined to say fine, sign the damn thing and help knock out the commies in Moscow, install some "puppet governments," bring the "fratricidal war" to a quicker conclusion and then let Europe be clean and fertile on its upward path under its new organization.

And? The problem with half-nazified white nationalists like you is that whenever you're confronted with facts that are recognised as almost universally morally repulsive (except, perhaps, to African natives to whom it's a fact of life) comitted by your side of the ideological divide, you excuse it as 'realpolitik', and then use moralism to argue against Western retaliation.

Actually, that arrangement seems perfectly fitting to me...after all, it's you "rational, democratic" types that speak the language of moralism, so why not throw it back in your faces? How's it feel to fight with one hand tied behind your back while you whine about norms and fairness and logic in the face of "organic passion?" You could always come over to the "dark side" and take the same liberties. Remember, White Man, you hold the key to your own prison...put it in the lock and turn it. You feel no temptation to leave aside that quaint bourgeois morality?....

As NeoNietzsche once remarked elsewhere, what is it that keeps you from wearing the boot? Scruples?

Actually, that arrangement seems perfectly fitting to me...after all, it's you "rational, democratic" types that speak the language of moralism, so why not throw it back in your faces?


Because its totally insincere coming from a Nazi, and thus meaningless.

I agree with that Franco...personally, I couldn't give a frank about what the Chinese experience at the hands of Japan. I'd have left them alone.


Why? If you 'don't care', then why do you care enough to oppose an embargo?




Given America's traditional foreign policy of non-intervention, I would have been satisfied, at the time, with a status of "friendly neutral" toward the Axis.


I would have been satisfied with dropping the atomic bomb on Berlin.

An old German proverb says " he who sups with the Devil had better have a long spoon".
And just what would you be saying to the Japanese when they might have said " You don't really need Midway Island do you , we need it to defend our Empire , not against America of course".

Why did Japan leave the League of Nations ?
Why did Hitler take Germany out of the League of Nations ?

Why was Japan in China anyway ?
Why was Germany in Poland or Prague , or Austria , or Paris , or Amsterdam , or Denmark , or Oslo ?
Who asked them in and who would wnat to turn the clock back ?

America gave Japan a choice , she took war. End of the story.
If you are suggesting that America should have traded with the Axis you are sitting at the table with the Devil, sooner or later you end up on the plate yourself. ( This was the experience of others who did likewise, Stalin included).

Why? If you 'don't care', then why do you care enough to oppose an embargo?

To take "active steps" in foreign policy such as an embargo on the basis of "standing up for human rights" is a foolish abuse of foreign policy. America is better off with a non-interventionist foreign policy, and not just in the context of Japan in WW2.

I would have been satisfied with dropping the atomic bomb on Berlin.

The atomic bomb used on the Japs isn't a huge deal to me. I wouldn't have provoked them to war in the first place, but I'm not among the people who think that the use of the A-bomb on the Japs was some "horrible crime." However, using the A-bomb on Whites is something I know the Jews would have rubbed their hands in glee over, so welcome to their club. Today Israel plans to use its nuclear weapons on Europe if parties like the Vlaams Belange come to power. You might get your wish after all.

To take "active steps" in foreign policy such as an embargo on the basis of "standing up for human rights" is a foolish abuse of foreign policy. America is better off with a non-interventionist foreign policy, and not just in the context of Japan in WW2.
Am embargo is not an intervention...

I would have been satisfied with dropping the atomic bomb on Berlin.

In terms of regional support for the nazis... Berlin was the last place in Germany that deserved nuking. Munich otoh...

Am embargo is not an intervention...

Even today embargoes are commonly advocated as tools of foreign policy by politicians who want to pressure other nations over policies they disagree with. Of course, it's not as activist a form of intervention as the use of military force.

Actually we never did. We simply told the Japanese that if they were going to continue murdering children, butchering men, and raping women, they could no longer expect the United States to continue to trade with them.

Does Japan have a RIGHT to American steel? Does it have a RIGHT to Dutch oil? Does it have a RIGHT to American rubber?

What right does Japan have to tell the US and Western Europe who it must trade with?

My, how brightly does your sanctimony shine today. Why would a nation that happily incinerates "women and children" at Hiroshima or Nagasaki care so much about Chinese women and children killed by the Japanese? The real reason for the trade blockade had nothing to do with "women and children" ("human rights" are a convenient sugarcoat to sell cynical realpolitik to the cattle) and everything to do with FDR's desire to provoke a Japanese attack.

Furthermore, while America does have the right not to sell its steel to the Japanese, it has NO right to impose a trade blockade to stop Japan from purchasing resources from those nations that want to trade with it. What FDR instituted was more than a trade embargo that kept US goods out of Japanese hands, it was an outright blockade of Japanese trade routes that guaranteed that no nation's goods reached Japanese shores. It was nothing short of an economic stranglehold that guaranteed that the Japanese would at some point retaliate.

My, how brightly does your sanctimony shine today. Why would a nation that happily incinerates "women and children" at Hiroshima or Nagasaki care so much about Chinese women and children killed by the Japanese? The real reason for the trade blockade had nothing to do with "women and children" ("human rights" are a convenient sugarcoat to sell cynical realpolitik to the cattle) and everything to do with FDR's desire to provoke a Japanese attack.

Why would FDR want to allow a country that bayonets babies to form a huge Empire on his Eastern Flank? Realpolitik says keep your neighbors too weak to attack and morality cannot be employed as a defense of Imperial Japan one of histories most brutal conquerors.


Furthermore, while America does have the right not to sell its steel to the Japanese, it has NO right to impose a trade blockade to stop Japan from purchasing resources from those nations that want to trade with it. What FDR instituted was more than a trade embargo that kept US goods out of Japanese hands, it was an outright blockade of Japanese trade routes that guaranteed that no nation's goods reached Japanese shores. It was nothing short of an economic stranglehold that guaranteed that the Japanese would at some point retaliate.

We have the right to take any action with a long term view of defending ourselves.

I would have been satisfied with dropping the atomic bomb on Berlin.

In terms of regional support for the nazis... Berlin was the last place in Germany that deserved nuking. Munich otoh...


All the Bavarian Nazis were governing Germany from Berlin. :p

To take "active steps" in foreign policy such as an embargo on the basis of "standing up for human rights" is a foolish abuse of foreign policy.


Really? Why? Is it not America's perogative to decide whom it trades with? Yes or no?


The atomic bomb used on the Japs isn't a huge deal to me.


Ok.


However, using the A-bomb on Whites is something I know the Jews would have rubbed their hands in glee over, so welcome to their club.


Glad to be there, I have no problem with Jews. And I would have supported using the atomic bomb on Germany twice, if necessary. Though I doubt it would have been. By the end of the war the Germans were no where near as interested in fighting as the Japanese.

My, how brightly does your sanctimony shine today. Why would a nation that happily incinerates "women and children" at Hiroshima or Nagasaki care so much about Chinese women and children killed by the Japanese?


Because it actually isn't the same thing.


The real reason for the trade blockade had nothing to do with "women and children" ("human rights" are a convenient sugarcoat to sell cynical realpolitik to the cattle) and everything to do with FDR's desire to provoke a Japanese attack.


:rolleyes:

Tell you what. Lets exchange first hand speeches, statements, and sources regarding our respective positions. Lets pretend, for a moment, that internet supposition is worthless and lets operate off of legitimate scholarly material.

Then we'll see who runs out first.


Furthermore, while America does have the right not to sell its steel to the Japanese, it has NO right to impose a trade blockade to stop Japan from purchasing resources from those nations that want to trade with it.


You might be referring to the closure of the Panama canal to ships that were bringing goods to the Japanese, which I assume means that American property is the public property of the world. Japan HAS A RIGHT to use an American made canal. :p

Because it actually isn't the same thing.

Americans killing Japanese civilians isn't the same thing as Japanese killing Chinese civilians? I guess this boils down to a grade-schoolers view of history, i.e. "We're the good guys, and what the good guys do is always good. They're the bad guys, and when they do the same things that we do, they're still bad."



:rolleyes:

Tell you what. Lets exchange first hand speeches, statements, and sources regarding our respective positions. Lets pretend, for a moment, that internet supposition is worthless and lets operate off of legitimate scholarly material.

Then we'll see who runs out first.

Those speeches are of course worthless. In public speeches, Senate Hearings, etc, political hacks love to insert rhetorical sugar-coats about "human rights." Their real motives are not revealed to the public. FDR was elected on an anti-intervention platform, would he and his circle be stupid enough to say in public speeches that they're strangling Japan economically to provoke an attack? Of course not. Like the political hacks of today, they instead feed the cattle the usual pablum of "human rights" rhetoric.



You might be referring to the closure of the Panama canal to ships that were bringing goods to the Japanese, which I assume means that American property is the public property of the world. Japan HAS A RIGHT to use an American made canal. :p

Add to that America's bullying of other Western nations until they too stopped trading with Japan.

Americans killing Japanese civilians isn't the same thing as Japanese killing Chinese civilians?


The American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not the same thing as the Rape of Nanking.

Oh, let me guess, you don't 'understand' the difference between prosecuting a war against an aggressive power with the greatest haste and enacting a program of butchery, rape, and pillage for the sake of pleasure and whimsy.

You don't understand why that is different? Well, that sure is a peek into some of your fundamental flaws.



Those speeches are of course worthless.


Ah, of course. Well then, I guess we'll have to rely on your crystal ball then. That makes sense.



Add to that America's bullying of other Western nations until they too stopped trading with Japan.

LOL I like how you glossed over the salient point. Answer this question: Did Japan have a RIGHT to use the Panama Canal?

Sulla is santimonious and illogical sometimes but I would say he is pwning antiyuppie here.

When you try to defend Imperial Japan on moral grounds... you are just going to lose.

Really? Why? Is it not America's perogative to decide whom it trades with? Yes or no?

It is, and I wish that were exercised today to stop the deindustrialization of this country. But it went beyond just America "not trading"--I refer you back to AY's comment re: the blockade.

Glad to be there, I have no problem with Jews. And I would have supported using the atomic bomb on Germany twice, if necessary. Though I doubt it would have been. By the end of the war the Germans were no where near as interested in fighting as the Japanese.

The persistent Japanese spirit is quite admirable.

As far as your "glad to be there" comment, does that mean you also support Israel using nuclear weapons on European capitals in the near future, should political parties that Israel disagrees with come to power in Europe? The Japan Times Online, ironically enough to our discussion, ran a piece where an Israeli professor hints (http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?eo20031002a1.htm) precisely at nuking Europe in the present day.

If I was feeling really ambitious, I'll bet that I could surf the web and find that Australia sided with the empire of evil by default [the Soviet Union], on the "allied" side, before Japan was poised to invade Australia. That would mean that Australia was in a state of war with Japan before Japan was poised to invade.

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement.

- Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies, 3 September 1939.

Good luck with that, Franco.

On a side note, Australia entered into war with Japan on the 7/8th of December 1941 with the Japanese invasion of Malaya.

If so, the moral of that story would be: if you don't want Japan to invade your country, don't declare war on Japan [assuming that a formal declaration of war was made].

But I'm too lazy to look it up now. Maybe later.

Good luck with that :rolleyes:

But if I had to choose between Asians and Whites, of course I would choose Whites over Asians.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Actually, that arrangement seems perfectly fitting to me...after all, it's you "rational, democratic" types that speak the language of moralism, so why not throw it back in your faces?

Ok.

How's it feel to fight with one hand tied behind your back while you whine about norms and fairness and logic in the face of "organic passion?"

Could you explain how our hands are tied behind our backs? Because we have no inclination to impale babies on bayonets or rape women?

You could always come over to the "dark side" and take the same liberties. Remember, White Man, you hold the key to your own prison...put it in the lock and turn it. You feel no temptation to leave aside that quaint bourgeois morality?....

As NeoNietzsche once remarked elsewhere, what is it that keeps you from wearing the boot? Scruples?

Virtue?