The U.S. entered WWI primarily because of the Zimmerman Telegram. German tried to convince Mexico to attack (not long after Pancho Villa had made numerous border attacks) and promised to help them get back Texas, California, etc. despite the postwar propaganda, Britain did not trick us into the war. America's eyes were pretty much wide open.

Wilson made all kinds of terrible mistakes & has authoritarian abuses during the war have been properly compared to those of later fascist regimes. But the declaration of war was something different.

Japan certainly felt they had their reasons but they were not justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.

Historical trivia side note: today is the anniversary of Hiroshima.

historian said:

---

Japan certainly felt they had their reasons but they were not justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.

---

Japan was not justified in attacking Pearl Harbor; however strategically and politically they had few better options.

historian said:

---

Historical trivia side note: today is the anniversary of Hiroshima.

---

A great day.

Saved the lives of possibly one million US servicemen and tens of millions of Japanese civilians.

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Japan certainly felt they had their reasons but they were not justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.

---

Japan was not justified in attacking Pearl Harbor; however strategically and politically they had few better options.

---

Well, once Tojo was in power the die was cast.

historian said:

---

The U.S. entered WWI primarily because of the Zimmerman Telegram. German tried to convince Mexico to attack (not long after Pancho Villa had made numerous border attacks) and promised to help them get back Texas, California, etc. despite the postwar propaganda, Britain did not trick us into the war. America's eyes were pretty much wide open.

Wilson made all kinds of terrible mistakes & has authoritarian abuses during the war have been properly compared to those of later fascist regimes. But the declaration of war was something different.

---

The sinking of Lusitania got us into WWI. Which was completely within rights for the German Empire to sink because the US was attempting to bypass a blockade with a civilian ship carrying armaments for the allies.

Titus and Titus said:

---

historian said:

---

The U.S. entered WWI primarily because of the Zimmerman Telegram. German tried to convince Mexico to attack (not long after Pancho Villa had made numerous border attacks) and promised to help them get back Texas, California, etc. despite the postwar propaganda, Britain did not trick us into the war. America's eyes were pretty much wide open.

Wilson made all kinds of terrible mistakes & has authoritarian abuses during the war have been properly compared to those of later fascist regimes. But the declaration of war was something different.

---

The sinking of Lusitania got us into WWI. Which was completely within rights for the German Empire to sink because the US was attempting to bypass a blockade with a civilian ship carrying armaments for the allies.

---

That is incorrect. It was one event in a series and the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare certainly angered Americans. But it was not the reason. That is a common myth.

The Germans had every right to sink it snd even published a warning in the New York newspaper. But it was a British ship & it was they who ignored the submarine risk. The captain sailed full steam ahead, refusing to take basic precautions such as using a zig-zag route across the ocean.

The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The U.S. declared war on Germany in April 1927, almost 2 years later. There is no direct causal relationship.

historian said:

---

Titus and Titus said:

---

historian said:

---

The U.S. entered WWI primarily because of the Zimmerman Telegram. German tried to convince Mexico to attack (not long after Pancho Villa had made numerous border attacks) and promised to help them get back Texas, California, etc. despite the postwar propaganda, Britain did not trick us into the war. America's eyes were pretty much wide open.

Wilson made all kinds of terrible mistakes & has authoritarian abuses during the war have been properly compared to those of later fascist regimes. But the declaration of war was something different.

---

The sinking of Lusitania got us into WWI. Which was completely within rights for the German Empire to sink because the US was attempting to bypass a blockade with a civilian ship carrying armaments for the allies.

---

That is incorrect. It was one event in a series and the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare certainly angered Americans. But it was not the reason. That is a common myth.

The Germans had every right to sink it snd even published a warning in the New York newspaper. But it was a British ship & it was they who ignored the submarine risk. The captain sailed full steam ahead, refusing to take basic precautions such as using a zig-zag route across the ocean.

The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The U.S. declared war on Germany in April 1927, almost 2 years later. There is no direct causal relationship.

---

Thank you for the information.

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquered the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

Then FDR decided to play the moral high card when Japan did the same. No doubt racism played a big part in it. The 'White Man's Burden' apparently did not apply to the Japanese.

The United States had zero strategic intersts in what occurred in China, Korea or Mongolia during FDR's presidency. And despite a US victory in WW2 ( at the cost of 500,000 US dead ) stopping Japanese expansion in those regions certainly has not worked out for US intersts in 2023.

And I strongly disagree that spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine is in US strategic intersts.
Ukraine has been dominated by Russia for centuries. Stalin intentionally starved to death millions of Ukranians prior to WW2 and executed tens of thousands of Ukranians after WW2 was won. And the US didn't care a bit.

Now however we are spending billions of dollars the US simply doesn't possess and risking WW3 on a daily basis.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR would have approved.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

Then FDR decided to play the moral high card when Japan did the same. No doubt racism played a big part in it. The 'White Man's Burden' apparently did not apply to the Japanese.

The United States had zero strategic intersts in what occurred in China, Korea or Mongolia during FDR's presidency. And despite a US victory in WW2 ( at the cost of 500,000 US dead ) stopping Japanese expansion in those regions certainly has not worked out for US intersts in 2023.

And I strongly disagree that spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine is in US strategic intersts.
Ukraine has been dominated by Russia for centuries. Stalin intentionally starved to death millions of Ukranians prior to WW2 and executed tens of thousands of Ukranians after WW2 was won. And the US didn't care a bit.

Now however we are spending billions of dollars the US simply doesn't possess and risking WW3 on a daily basis.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR would have approved.

---

How do you survive each day? Are you in a state of constant self-flagellation over our Nation's past issues? You make Obama look proud of the US!

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

Then FDR decided to play the moral high card when Japan did the same. No doubt racism played a big part in it. The 'White Man's Burden' apparently did not apply to the Japanese.

The United States had zero strategic intersts in what occurred in China, Korea or Mongolia during FDR's presidency. And despite a US victory in WW2 ( at the cost of 500,000 US dead ) stopping Japanese expansion in those regions certainly has not worked out for US intersts in 2023.

And I strongly disagree that spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine is in US strategic intersts.
Ukraine has been dominated by Russia for centuries. Stalin intentionally starved to death millions of Ukranians prior to WW2 and executed tens of thousands of Ukranians after WW2 was won. And the US didn't care a bit.

Now however we are spending billions of dollars the US simply doesn't possess and risking WW3 on a daily basis.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR would have approved.

---

How do you survive each day? Are you in a state of constant self-flagellation over our Nation's past issues? You make Obama look proud of the US!

---

!. I 'survive' very well. A wonderful wife and solid investments help considerably.
2. Not remotely in a 'state of constant self flagellation over our Nation's past issues ' or anything else. However it is impossible to fully comprehand our current geo politcal situation from a jr high history class and naive faith in our various administrations.
3. Amusing you would mention Obama. Much of our current international mess can be laid at his doorstep.

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

Then FDR decided to play the moral high card when Japan did the same. No doubt racism played a big part in it. The 'White Man's Burden' apparently did not apply to the Japanese.

The United States had zero strategic intersts in what occurred in China, Korea or Mongolia during FDR's presidency. And despite a US victory in WW2 ( at the cost of 500,000 US dead ) stopping Japanese expansion in those regions certainly has not worked out for US intersts in 2023.

And I strongly disagree that spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine is in US strategic intersts.
Ukraine has been dominated by Russia for centuries. Stalin intentionally starved to death millions of Ukranians prior to WW2 and executed tens of thousands of Ukranians after WW2 was won. And the US didn't care a bit.

Now however we are spending billions of dollars the US simply doesn't possess and risking WW3 on a daily basis.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR would have approved.

---

How do you survive each day? Are you in a state of constant self-flagellation over our Nation's past issues? You make Obama look proud of the US!

---

!. I 'survive' very well. A wonderful wife and solid investments help considerably.
2. Not remotely in a 'state of constant self flagellation over our Nation's past issues ' or anything else. However it is impossible to fully comprehand our current geo politcal situation from a jr high history class and naive faith in our various administrations.
3. Amusing you would mention Obama. Much of our current international mess can be laid at his doorstep.

---

I know you survive very well, which is why I can give you a hard time! (Compliment)

We do agree on this post.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

---

Oh totally.

War stopped being "fun" at least by the 1860s when you were getting killed with musket balls flying from across the battlefield without even being able to see the enemy yet.

By World War I no one could really keep up the illusion that modern warfare is anything but horror.

Human males are made for short term physical conflict (boxing and football prove this)...not years long trench warfare.

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

---

Oh totally.

War stopped being "fun" at least by the 1860s when you were getting killed with musket balls flying from across the battlefield without even being able to see the enemy yet.

By World War I no one could really keep up the illusion that modern warfare is anything but horror.

Human males are made for short term physical conflict (boxing and football prove this)...not years long trench warfare.

---

Civil War era was last of the "Gentlemen Wars". After that weapons outpaced.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

---

Oh totally.

War stopped being "fun" at least by the 1860s when you were getting killed with musket balls flying from across the battlefield without even being able to see the enemy yet.

By World War I no one could really keep up the illusion that modern warfare is anything but horror.

Human males are made for short term physical conflict (boxing and football prove this)...not years long trench warfare.

---

Civil War era was last of the "Gentlemen Wars". After that weapons outpaced.

---

The Civil War was no gentleman's war.

Snipers, canister shot, lead musket balls ( resulting in gangrene infested wounds ) made such a designation impossible.

Murdering prisoners, burning civilian's homes and crops, utilizing Native Americans against settlers made such a designation impossible .

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I think it was primarily for moral reasons: the U.S. refused to continue supplying the Japanese war machine. Especially when the results were so barbaric.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

---

Oh totally.

War stopped being "fun" at least by the 1860s when you were getting killed with musket balls flying from across the battlefield without even being able to see the enemy yet.

By World War I no one could really keep up the illusion that modern warfare is anything but horror.

Human males are made for short term physical conflict (boxing and football prove this)...not years long trench warfare.

---

Civil War era was last of the "Gentlemen Wars". After that weapons outpaced.

---

The Civil War was no gentleman's war.

Snipers, canister shot, lead musket balls ( resulting in gangrene infested wounds ) made such a designation impossible.

Murdering prisoners, burning civilian's homes and crops, utilizing Native Americans against settlers made such a designation impossible .

---

Commanders still waived to one another. Honor was the word of the day. Loyalty to.the dirt of Virginia. The results may not have been gentlemanly, but the combatants leaders were. Grant's command being the exception. He outright wanted to destroy the Army wherever it was.

Excellent point, and the China comparison.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

---

Oh totally.

War stopped being "fun" at least by the 1860s when you were getting killed with musket balls flying from across the battlefield without even being able to see the enemy yet.

By World War I no one could really keep up the illusion that modern warfare is anything but horror.

Human males are made for short term physical conflict (boxing and football prove this)...not years long trench warfare.

---

Civil War era was last of the "Gentlemen Wars". After that weapons outpaced.

---

The Civil War was no gentleman's war.

Snipers, canister shot, lead musket balls ( resulting in gangrene infested wounds ) made such a designation impossible.

Murdering prisoners, burning civilian's homes and crops, utilizing Native Americans against settlers made such a designation impossible .

---

The Civil War had some gentlemen (ie Robert E. Lee) fighting a total war (comparable to both world wars) with the illusion of it being a "gentleman's war". That has always been an illusion. William T. Sherman said it best, "War is hell."

Warfare in general makes it impossible.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

---

Oh totally.

War stopped being "fun" at least by the 1860s when you were getting killed with musket balls flying from across the battlefield without even being able to see the enemy yet.

By World War I no one could really keep up the illusion that modern warfare is anything but horror.

Human males are made for short term physical conflict (boxing and football prove this)...not years long trench warfare.

---

Civil War era was last of the "Gentlemen Wars". After that weapons outpaced.

---

The Civil War was no gentleman's war.

Snipers, canister shot, lead musket balls ( resulting in gangrene infested wounds ) made such a designation impossible.

Murdering prisoners, burning civilian's homes and crops, utilizing Native Americans against settlers made such a designation impossible .

---

Commanders still waived to one another. Honor was the word of the day. Loyalty to.the dirt of Virginia. The results may not have been gentlemanly, but the combatants leaders were. Grant's command being the exception. He outright wanted to destroy the Army wherever it was.

---

Grant understood at some level what modern warfare had become: total war. To win, you have to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. Sherman understood this as well. Burning Atlanta followed by the March to the Sea illustrate this extremely well.

To my mind, the perfect illustration of total war is the photo reviewing new recruits in 1945. When your army needs children to fight your war then you've already lost.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I think it was primarily for moral reasons: the U.S. refused to continue supplying the Japanese war machine. Especially when the results were so barbaric.

---

Moral reasons, barbaric ?

Firebombing Dresden resulting in over 45,000 civilians killed with Germany obviously beaten and victory only weeks away ?

Firebombing Tokyo resulting in over 100,000 Japanese civilians incinerated in a single night ?

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

If their goal was conquering east Asia including mass murder and terrorizing entire populations, then yes they had reasons. Those are not goals that anyone else should be expect to accept. True, they were doing what every other major power has done throughout history but they were very brutal for modern times and that's no justification. No one else was under any obligation to support them. Their main weakness was their dependence on the U.S. for oil & scrap metal.

---

Japanese goals were little different than the goals of US imperialism, though more brutal.

In effect the US went to war with Japan over its actions in China, Korea and Mongolia.

None of which were in US strategic interests.

---

I disagree, they were exactly that - Strategic Interests.

Japan showed no hesitation to be aggressive and take what they could (like China today). Allowing them to take more resources, more territory and control more population put the US at a strategic disadvantage. An Japan controlling more shipping lanes, more markets, and more resources was definitely a strategic interest.

I do agree that it was not a tactical interest as the Pacific Ocean is a great insulator. But strategically, US couldn't let them keep rolling. Sorry if it is seen as semantics, but I think it is an important point that does not get discussed - the difference between tactical and strategic interests especially with Ukraine. I consider Ukraine a strategic interest.

---

The US conquerored the Philippines for similiar reasons. Thousands of civilians died as a result. Our hands are not clean either.

Japan was doing in China, Korea and Mongolia exactly what they had witnessed the French, Dutch, British and Americans do throughout the Pacific and Far East. Imperialism plain and simple.

---

Imperialism does not need much excuse making.

Well unless you have a liberal over class that needs intellectual fantasy and to have its naked application of force hidden under a veneer of "humanitarian" concern.

Human individuals and human tribes since the beginning have been reward for aggression and expansion. Tribes that monopolized the hunting grounds and food supply survived...those that did not ended up exterminated.

Nations are just large tribes.....which is probably a good reason why multi-cultural/multi-racial States don't survive in the long run (but that is a discussion for another time)

Israel does not need a reason to take over the West Bank and settles it people there.

Russia does not need a reason to take over Donbas/Crimea and incorporate them into its State.

USA does not need a reason to drive out the horse warrior Indian tribes on the plains and settle the area with tax paying citizens.

Britain did not need a reason to take control of India and get the surplus of goods and spices flowing from the Sub-Continent.

Japan did not need an excuse to do the same thing but to China.

The excuse is only need for modern political reasons or to convince yourself that you are in the right....but the impulse is all to natural.

Even not very advanced peoples would just conquer and they need little excuse. The Huns were often just honest with people and explained that they conquered and killed because it was fun and profitable.

---

With biological and nuclear weapons available; I suggest it is only a matter of time before the human race discovers that killing is no longer 'fun' nor profitable.

---

Oh totally.

War stopped being "fun" at least by the 1860s when you were getting killed with musket balls flying from across the battlefield without even being able to see the enemy yet.

By World War I no one could really keep up the illusion that modern warfare is anything but horror.

Human males are made for short term physical conflict (boxing and football prove this)...not years long trench warfare.

---

Civil War era was last of the "Gentlemen Wars". After that weapons outpaced.

---

The Civil War was no gentleman's war.

Snipers, canister shot, lead musket balls ( resulting in gangrene infested wounds ) made such a designation impossible.

Murdering prisoners, burning civilian's homes and crops, utilizing Native Americans against settlers made such a designation impossible .

---

Commanders still waived to one another. Honor was the word of the day. Loyalty to.the dirt of Virginia. The results may not have been gentlemanly, but the combatants leaders were. Grant's command being the exception. He outright wanted to destroy the Army wherever it was.

---

Grant understood at some level what modern warfare had become: total war. To win, you have to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. Sherman understood this as well. Burning Atlanta followed by the March to the Sea illustrate this extremely well.

To my mind, the perfect illustration of total war is the photo reviewing new recruits in 1945. When your army needs children to fight your war then you've already lost.

---

If you really want to get into it, if you wanted WWI, put Longstreet in command and it would have been France 50 years earlier. Longstreet vs Grant would have been a blood bath.

I'm not saying it was entirely justified but yes, moral reasons were probably part of the calculations.

Dresden was mostly a British operation. The U.S. only participated in one if the four waves. As for the costliness of Dresden, Tokyo, & numerous other German & Japanese cities bombed into oblivion (some air raids in Germany consisted of over 1,000 planes), that's the total war mentality. It's a 20th century version of Grant & Sherman beating the enemy into submission. With Germany, all of their major cities lay in ruins & the country was in a shambles but they kept fighting. Finally, on April 30 Hitler committed suicide (hours after marrying Eva Braun) and the country still did not surrender until a week later. The Germans had inflicted similar damage on London, Manchester, Warsaw, & many other Allied cities and they kept the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc going around the clock until the Red Army approached. To be honest, the Nazis barbarism justified this approach.

In the Pacific, the Japanese were even more brutal (Rape of Nanking, Shanghai, Bataan Death March, & many other examples throughout east Asia) and still fought on stubbornly. Their Samaria code prevented them from surrendering most of the time. I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but yesterday was the anniversary of Hiroshima and this Wednesday is the anniversary of Nagasaki. It took those two horrific bombings, plus the unprecedented intervention of the emperor, before they finally surrendered. Despite the high death toll, both were justified. The alternative was an invasion which likely would have cost 300,000 American lives and over 1 million Japanese. Those estimates might be low.

This is what is meant by total war and it's the main reason Europe has been consumed with pacifism ever since. It's also the reason all wars since WWII have been relatively small scale with deliberate efforts to avoid extremes but also mostly unsatisfactory outcomes even for the victors.


EDIT: I should add that the estimates for deaths in these dramatic attracts are all over the place and difficult to assess. I don't know if 100k were killed in a single night. Then again, Tokyo was a densely populated city then and many of the buildings weee constructed of highly flammable materials. It's certainly possible. This is what total war means.

While the US was far from perfect during WW2, the known atrocities by both Hitler's Nazis and the Taisei Yokusankai under Tojo were so horrific that stopping them was an absolute need for the world in general. On the Allied side, only Stalin was comparably evil.

Oldbear83 said:

---

While the US was far from perfect during WW2, the known atrocities by both Hitler's Nazis and the Taisei Yokusankai under Tojo were so horrific that stopping them was an absolute need for the world in general. On the Allied side, only Stalin was comparably evil.

---

LOL

Only Stalin ?

After WW2 was over German POW's were held in makeshift prison camps for up to THREE YEARS where thousands died of malnutrition, exposure and disease.

These camps were administered by the Americans, British and French.

The French in particular killed a disproportionate number of German POW's .

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

While the US was far from perfect during WW2, the known atrocities by both Hitler's Nazis and the Taisei Yokusankai under Tojo were so horrific that stopping them was an absolute need for the world in general. On the Allied side, only Stalin was comparably evil.

---

LOL

Only Stalin ?

After WW2 was over German POW's were held in makeshift prison camps for up to THREE YEARS where thousands died of malnutrition, exposure and disease.

These camps were administered by the Americans, British and French.

The French in particular killed a disproportionate number of German POW's .

---

I don't consider that an institutionally planned act like Unit 731 or the Einsatzgruppen.

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

While the US was far from perfect during WW2, the known atrocities by both Hitler's Nazis and the Taisei Yokusankai under Tojo were so horrific that stopping them was an absolute need for the world in general. On the Allied side, only Stalin was comparably evil.

---

LOL

Only Stalin ?

After WW2 was over German POW's were held in makeshift prison camps for up to THREE YEARS where thousands died of malnutrition, exposure and disease.

These camps were administered by the Americans, British and French.

The French in particular killed a disproportionate number of German POW's .

---

German POWs tended to be treated very well in American camps. They were scattered across most of the 48 state with several here in Texas. From my limited research on the subject, their biggest problem was the Nazi fanatics in their midst.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

While the US was far from perfect during WW2, the known atrocities by both Hitler's Nazis and the Taisei Yokusankai under Tojo were so horrific that stopping them was an absolute need for the world in general. On the Allied side, only Stalin was comparably evil.

---

LOL

Only Stalin ?

After WW2 was over German POW's were held in makeshift prison camps for up to THREE YEARS where thousands died of malnutrition, exposure and disease.

These camps were administered by the Americans, British and French.

The French in particular killed a disproportionate number of German POW's .

---

German POWs tended to be treated very well in American camps. They were scattered across most of the 48 state with several here in Texas. From my limited research on the subject, their biggest problem was the Nazi fanatics in their midst.

---

Not referring to German POW camps in the US.

Rather ad hoc camps established on the European continent by Eisenhower to handle the hundreds of thousands of Germans who surrendered at wars end.

Such POW's died by the thousands from malnutrition and exposure.

Good thing the Allies won the war or those responsible for this tragedy would have been tried as war criminals.

However the winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have .

polk.