Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

Do you think the United States was actually concerned about the Soviets invading Japan? They dragged their feet and didn't even declare war until one of the very last days of the war...I think Stalin understood that this was an American fight that the USSR had nothing realistically to gain.

Also, another thing that people forget is that Japan was secretly trying to negotiate a peace settlement with the United States but Truman stuck to Roosevelt's notion of unconditional surrender. Just throwing that out there.

Japan was not attempting to negotiate, one official who had no authority to enter into any agreement was. And he was attempting to do it through the USSR, who had no interest in brokering a deal.

 

[Puddles]

I still believe a better solution would have been to just not invade Japan at all. IMO, the choice between invading or dropping the bombs was a false dichotomy. We didn't need an unconditional surrender. We also could have maintained an embargo with minimal loss of life.

 

[dschalter]

I still believe a better solution would have been to just not invade Japan at all. IMO, the choice between invading or dropping the bombs was a false dichotomy. We didn't need an unconditional surrender. We also could have maintained an embargo with minimal loss of life.

it was much better for japan in multiple ways that the surrender was complete (no soviet presence, forced transition to a non-terrible system of government). and of course the whole point of an embargo/blockade is to starve people into submission, so i don't know what the minimal loss of life angle you're going for is (certainly would not caused non-minimal suffering at the very least).

 

[KHarvey16]

I still believe a better solution would have been to just not invade Japan at all. IMO, the choice between invading or dropping the bombs was a false dichotomy. We didn't need an unconditional surrender. We also could have maintained an embargo with minimal loss of life.

More civilians die in that scenario. People starve and the USSR continues through Manchuria.

 

[Blackace]

Do you think the United States was actually concerned about the Soviets invading Japan? They dragged their feet and didn't even declare war until one of the very last days of the war...I think Stalin understood that this was an American fight that the USSR had nothing realistically to gain.

Also, another thing that people forget is that Japan was secretly trying to negotiate a peace settlement with the United States but Truman stuck to Roosevelt's notion of unconditional surrender. Just throwing that out there.

actually yes, the US was very concerned with having to share Japan with Russia. They already had claim to Germany and had had long ties with China. The US had very little influence in Asia pacific. No one forgot that Japan was trying to surrender, especially me, but the US called for an unconditional surrender and even after Hirohito did so, many tried to stop it..

Truman was the one who called Japan his unsinkable aircraft carrier in the pacific so that should tell you his mindframe for Japan

 

[Blackace]

I still believe a better solution would have been to just not invade Japan at all. IMO, the choice between invading or dropping the bombs was a false dichotomy. We didn't need an unconditional surrender. We also could have maintained an embargo with minimal loss of life.

invading Japan kills far more on both sides.. plus the carpet bombings of Tokyo has way more deaths than the two bombs. An invasion would certainly had brought Russia to the island as well.. something that Japan would have hated.

the unconditional surrender bit was a lame considering we turned around and did most of what they wanted..

 

[Puddles]

More civilians die in that scenario. People starve and the USSR continues through Manchuria.

Or we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender while keeping a bit of their national dignity.

I hate these all or nothing scenarios.

 

[Blackace]

I hate these all or nothing scenarios.

a lot of WWII was that

 

[MrPing1000]

Any book recommendations on Montgomery?

I'd quite like to know more about why everyone hated him.

 

[dschalter]

Or we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender while keeping a bit of their national dignity.

I hate these all or nothing scenarios.

the idea of completely and totally crushing the axis was an entirely reasonable one i would say, for multiple reasons (to set an example and force reforms in those countries most of all).

 

[Jimothy]

Or we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender while keeping a bit of their national dignity.

I hate these all or nothing scenarios.

In return for their national dignity, the US gave them a half century of unbridled economic growth. Fair trade, imo.

 

[Puddles]

the idea of completely and totally crushing the axis was an entirely reasonable one i would say, for multiple reasons (to set an example and force reforms in those countries most of all).

While I get what you're saying and partially agree with it, this was awful.

 

[KHarvey16]

Or we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender while keeping a bit of their national dignity.

I hate these all or nothing scenarios.

That government deserved many things, but retaining its dignity was certainly not one of them.

 

[Norml]

While I get what you're saying and partially agree with it, this was awful.

It was awful and probably could have just used it out in sea just to show the power,but it did need to be tested/used.

 

[Blackace]

In return for their national dignity, the US gave them a half century of unbridled economic growth. Fair trade, imo.

the US didn't give them anything of the such.. As soon as Japan became an international country they did very good business, which is one of the reasons they were in the position they were in for WWII..

imo Japan played America perfectly, and their economic growth can only be credited to them.. it isn't like America planned to have Japan crush them in the global market in the late 70s and 80s...

That government deserved many things, but retaining its dignity was certainly not one of them.

This we can agree on...

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

this is a myth. command economies are not particularly good at waging war, because morale is absolutely key to fighting- people have to be enthusiastic and willing to fight and produce for their country and that kind of spirit is lacking in a command economy. the utter shambles that soviet military was in is a reasonable reflection of this; it was only because germany's aims were so grandiose that national spirit kicked in that the soviet union was able to win. nazi germany which was not a command economy was quite good at fighting as well.

Is a command economy good with anything?

 

[jambo]

Another book recommendation is The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia

Thanks for the recommendation, just grabbed the e-book off Amazon, it's only $8!

I always loved reading about the rise of Hitler and Stalin in high school history so I'm sure to get a kick out of this.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Economically how right or left was Nazi Germany compared to the rest of the world? Also how right or left were they economically compared to today?

 

[Kabouter]

Or we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender while keeping a bit of their national dignity.

I hate these all or nothing scenarios.

Then nothing would have changed. The best thing the allies did was realize that the defeated powers needed to feel their defeat, to prevent a situation like post-WW1 Germany, where everyone believed they were still winning.

 

[Puddles]

Then nothing would have changed. The best thing the allies did was realize that the defeated powers needed to feel their defeat, to prevent a situation like post-WW1 Germany, where everyone believed they were still winning.

I think this could have been avoided. There was no need to demand war reparations from Japan. The reparations demanded of Germany after WWI were a stinging reminder of their defeat and probably enabled Hitler's rise to power.

It's hard to believe that there were literally no alternatives besides mainland invasion and A-bomb.

 

[Kabouter]

I think this could have been avoided. There was no need to demand war reparations from Japan. The reparations demanded of Germany after WWI were a stinging reminder of their defeat and probably enabled Hitler's rise to power.

It's hard to believe that there were literally no alternatives besides mainland invasion and A-bomb.

I'm not talking about reparations, I am talking about the fact that the Axis needed to truly be defeated, and the population needed to realize that. It's asking for trouble to start again, especially with a historically hyper-aggressive nation like Japan, if they believe they were just done in by cowardly military commanders.

 

[dschalter]

the US didn't give them anything of the such.. As soon as Japan became an international country they did very good business, which is one of the reasons they were in the position they were in for WWII..

imo Japan played America perfectly, and their economic growth can only be credited to them.. it isn't like America planned to have Japan crush them in the global market in the late 70s and 80s...


This we can agree on...

they did give them a very reasonable constitution and the no military clause, though unpopular, was probably quite good for economic growth.

Is a command economy good with anything?

a command economy can be very good at making "stuff." during the cold war, the soviet union claimed that its GDP was quite near that of america, a claim that, while somewhat the product of exaggeration, also wasn't entirely wrong. soviet heavy industry could churn out tons of iron and electricity and it was pretty good at churning out harder to make things like steel. the problem of course is that it did an atrocious job of making what people actually wanted, hence people are not particularly happy. now, to get to the relevant part, you might think that the command economy structure of making "stuff" is better for war- its well suited to churning out tanks, planes, guns, right? that is true, but the non-command economies have the advantage of flexibility- they can turn their economies into partial command economies and force, through a mix of laws and 'moral pressure' people and industries to turn their economy activity towards supporting the war effort. interestingly enough, nazi germany was very poor at this- it didn't really get on a war footing in the economic until albert speer became armaments minister.

Economically how right or left was Nazi Germany compared to the rest of the world? Also how right or left were they economically compared to today?

i would say that its hard to classify nazi germany economically because of hitler's changeability. as someone animated by a racialized form of nationalism that he held to firmly and without deviating, he was quite flexible on other issues and willing to change his position if it resulted in the furthering of his true goals. generally speaking, he was pro-government intervention in theory, as he wanted the economy of 'serve' his greater goals, but in practice he wasn't especially interventionist.

I think this could have been avoided. There was no need to demand war reparations from Japan. The reparations demanded of Germany after WWI were a stinging reminder of their defeat and probably enabled Hitler's rise to power.

another factor in enabling hitler's rise to power was the "stab in the back" myth which stated that the german army, though undefeated, had been betrayed by a mix of jews and cowardly politicians, a myth drew its credibility from the fact that the allied armies didn't conquer germany- the armistice came when they had retaken the territory lost in the previous years of the war. the knowledge that a belief in non-defeat had contributed to the rise of hitler weighed quite heavily on the minds of allied leaders at the time and it was one of the reasons that they insisted on unconditional surrender.

 

[CommonSense]

Actually the Panzers were really good tanks...it was the rushed Tigers that sucked, they were made during the war tho...

The problem with German armor was that every part on every tank was hand made. No field swapping/no expedited alterations.

Meanwhile the US and Russia were paint by numbering large amounts of indentical tanks daily.

Logistics> everything else....period.

 

[Steeven]

I'm not talking about reparations, I am talking about the fact that the Axis needed to truly be defeated, and the population needed to realize that. It's asking for trouble to start again, especially with a historically hyper-aggressive nation like Japan, if they believe they were just done in by cowardly military commanders.

There's some truth into this, seeing the effects of the 'Stab-in-the-back' legend after WW1.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

a command economy can be very good at making "stuff." during the cold war, the soviet union claimed that its GDP was quite near that america, a claim that, while somewhat the product of exaggeration, also wasn't entirely wrong. soviet heavy industry could churn out tons of iron and electricity and it was pretty good at churning out harder to make things to get like steel. the problem of course is that it did an atrocious job of making what people actually wanted, hence people are not particularly happy. now, to get to the relevant part, you might think that the command economy structure of making "stuff" is better for war- its well suited to churning out tanks, planes, guns, right? that is true, but the non-command economies have the advantage of flexibility- they can turn their economies into partial command economies and force, through a mix of laws and 'moral pressure' people and industries to turn their economy activity towards supporting the war effort. interestingly enough, nazi germany was very poor at this- it didn't really get on a war footing in the economic until albert speer became armaments minister.



i would say that its hard to classify nazi germany economically because of hitler's changeability. as someone animated by a racialized form of nationalism that he held to firmly and without deviating, he was quite flexible on other issues and willing to change his position if it resulted in the furthering of his true goals. generally speaking, he was pro-government intervention in theory, as he wanted the economy of 'serve' his greater goals, but in practice he wasn't especially interventionist..

Awesome. Thanks for the replies. I'm just surprised that a command economy lasts so long. I also wonder if there was a way for them to build higher quality stuff with their economic model.

 

[DeSo]

I think you should add Dan Carlin's epic 4 part podcast on the Eastern Front of World War 2 to the OP. The Ghosts of the Ostfront is amazing and certainly worth a download and a listen.

This was bloody incredible, thank you so much Neogaf.

 

[SomeDude]

To russian GAF: Do you feel that the lend lease act did a lot to help?

 

[Guileless]

Awesome. Thanks for the replies. I'm just surprised that a command economy lasts so long. I also wonder if there was a way for them to build higher quality stuff with their economic model.

Humorist P.J. O'rourke had a great line: "Communism fell because nobody wanted to buy Bulgarian shoes."

 

[Aquavelvaman]

This is my in my top 5 favorite wars

 

[War Peaceman]

Well Fascism gets stuff done. Gotta give them credit where its due. Germans dont mess around.

Germany vastly underproduced in the start of the war - it wasn't until Speer became Minister for War (I think that was his title) that the war production became pretty efficient. But by then it was too late.

i would say that its hard to classify nazi germany economically because of hitler's changeability. as someone animated by a racialized form of nationalism that he held to firmly and without deviating, he was quite flexible on other issues and willing to change his position if it resulted in the furthering of his true goals. generally speaking, he was pro-government intervention in theory, as he wanted the economy of 'serve' his greater goals, but in practice he wasn't especially interventionist.

Yeah, Hitler chose (to the chagrin of some of the sensible politicians) both Guns and Butter and nearly overheated the economy before the war started. He was not a consistent man in most regards (particularly after his drug addictions and his cancer scare) - his interest was popularity, I've always seen it. He wanted to be the person who restored German power and continued to improve quality of life for domestic Germans.

But, if his economic policy (or rather what was implemented rather than intentions) were to be categorised as anything, I'd call it corporatist.

 

[relaxor]

this is a myth. command economies are not particularly good at waging war, because morale is absolutely key to fighting- people have to be enthusiastic and willing to fight and produce for their country and that kind of spirit is lacking in a command economy. the utter shambles that soviet military was in is a reasonable reflection of this; it was only because germany's aims were so grandiose that national spirit kicked in that the soviet union was able to win. nazi germany which was not a command economy was quite good at fighting as well.

Well thought out thread. I take issue with this however.

Firstly, I believe the Soviet people were enthusiastic about defending their country. This is not played out in most depictions of the Soviet military, with the few guns etc problems. The Soviet people had been told since the end of the Civil War that they were essentially preparing for another war from the West. Remember that the Soviet Union experienced the Great Depression different than the USA, UK. While the West had a stagnant economy for much of the 30's the Soviets suffered several great collectivization disasters in 29 and 32 but altogether fared better than the rest of the capitalist-intertwined world. Stalin's purges created paranoia and fear in all levels of Soviet society, but could be read at the same as the possibly legal precursors to World War II.

My point is that I believe the Soviets were well equipped both physically and emotionally for the German attack. The old Red Army was torn to shreds in the summer of 41 - like the old battleships at Pearl Harbor. But Stalin stayed in Moscow during the invasion and the Germans failed to take the city. Besides the fact that the Red Army was the world's largest force of its kind, the USSR and the Russian people were built to guerrilla resist an invading army.

Anyways, I believe the Soviets had plenty of national spirit. Also Nazi Germany most certainly was a command economy, it just used corporations instead of nationalized entities.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Watching "The World at War" now and it just blows my mind how insane the German military was. How did a defeated nation become so powerful?

 

[Kabouter]

Watching "The World at War" now and it just blows my mind how insane the German military was. How did a defeated nation become so powerful?

Young population, strong industry, war was fought entirely on foreign soil, state devoted first and foremost (although not totally) to warfare etc.

Anyway, why I'm posting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17390290
Interesting link, "The British general who planned to arm Vichy France"
It's a bit long for quoting entirely here, but well worth reading.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

So if I got this right.

Western Europe vs Axis= Germany would probably have won.

Western Europe, Soviet Union or Western Europe, America vs Axis= Germany probably wouldn't have won but still could have.

Allies (Western Europe, Soviet Union, America) vs Axis = No way Germany could have won in short of a miracle.

 

[Puddles]

So if I got this right.

Western Europe vs Axis= Germany would probably have won.

Western Europe, Soviet Union or Western Europe, America vs Axis= Germany probably wouldn't have won but still could have.

Allies (Western Europe, Soviet Union, America) vs Axis = No way Germany could have won in short of a miracle.

Western Europe vs Axis? Germany basically did win. They overran France quickly, and Spain was a non-factor. It would have just been UK vs Germany. The UK wasn't any threat to invade Germany on its own, but it had a superior air force and navy, so it could have defended itself quite well. The UK could have forced a stalemate in its best-case scenario. This is assuming the US and USSR don't enter the war.

 

[Loxley]

Hey guys, I have a question for you. Last year, we were cleaning out my grandparent's old house that my uncle purchased from them. My mom got this chest that her parents apparently owned before she was even born.

Anyway, once we brought it back to our house, we opened it up to see what was inside, and among a lot of really old photos and random odds and ends, we found this, it was my grandfather's - he was an infantryman in the Pacific theater (I removed his last name):






(Sorry for the sort-of blurry photo, this thing had likely been rolled up in that chest for at least 40 years, so getting it to lay flat while taking a picture of it was a bit of a challenge.)

My question is...what exactly is it? When I came across this I was really fascinated by it, is it just some typical enlistment form? It seems surprisingly elaborate to be something ordinary. Either way I'm planning on getting it framed at some point, it really is a beautiful looking document in person.

 

[weekend_warrior]

It's a Navy Shellback certificate. It's a tradition that a sailor get one for crossing the equator the first time. You can see on the document that it says "0000 latitude and 153 degrees east longitude", he crossed in the Philippines. You should definitely get it framed, it's a fantastic piece of memorabilia.

 

[Blackace]

they did give them a very reasonable constitution and the no military clause, though unpopular, was probably quite good for economic growth.

Sure it was a factor, but the US hardly decided to create them into a powerhouse economically. In fact the US was a few decisions away from basically destroying Japanese culture with the occupation. There wasn't any super good intentions at the end of the war. Anything Japan accomplished in the 70s and 80s was due to them flipping a situation into a gold mine. Japan played the US quite well during the occupation, and made moves that protected their interest, a no military clause doesn't make a country rich...

 

[Castor Krieg]

I still believe a better solution would have been to just not invade Japan at all. IMO, the choice between invading or dropping the bombs was a false dichotomy. We didn't need an unconditional surrender. We also could have maintained an embargo with minimal loss of life.

Yes, we did. Times were different, WWII was really good vs. evil. Japanese butchered millions of people in Asia, much more than Nazi Germany did. It is still a disgrace how US white-washed Japan after the WWII.

 

[Blackace]

Yes, we did. Times were different, WWII was really good vs. evil. Japanese butchered millions of people in Asia, much more than Nazi Germany did. It is still a disgrace how US white-washed Japan after the WWII.

No, we really didn't... Japan played the US against Communism I can suggest a really eye opening book about the occupation if anyone wants it.

And the evil vs good thing is true to a degree... Japan went nuts in China and Korea..but in the rest of Asia they were actually fairly civil.. This doesnt excuse anything or say that they were animals just thought it should be brought up

 

[Kabouter]

No, we really didn't... Japan played the US against Communism I can suggest a really eye opening book about the occupation if anyone wants it.

And the evil vs good thing is true to a degree... Japan went nuts in China and Korea..but in the rest of Asia they were actually fairly civil.. This doesnt excuse anything or say that they were animals just thought it should be brought up

No, they weren't.

Experience of the Japanese occupation of Indonesia varied considerably, depending upon where one lived and one's social position. Many who lived in areas considered important to the war effort experienced torture, sex slavery, arbitrary arrest and execution, and other war crimes. Many thousands of people were taken away from Indonesia as forced laborers (romusha) for Japanese military projects, including the Burma-Siam Railway, and suffered or died as a result of ill-treatment and starvation. Between four and 10 million romusha in Java were forced to work by the Japanese military. About 270,000 of these Javanese laborers were sent to other Japanese-held areas in South East Asia, Only 52,000 were repatriated to Java, meaning that there was a death rate of 80%

During the World War II occupation, tens of thousands of Indonesians were to starve (Japanese force confiscated people's rice), work as slave labourers, or be forced from their homes. In the National Revolution that followed, tens, even hundreds, of thousands (including civilians), would die in fighting against the Japanese, Allied forces, and other Indonesians, before Independence was achieved. A later United Nations report stated that four million people died in Indonesia as a result of famine and forced labor during the Japanese occupation, including 30,000 European civilian internee deaths.

 

[Blackace]

No, they weren't.

I guess I should restate what I meant.. once they were fucked everyone under their "rule" was more fucked... but they didn't run nuts like they did in China and Korea early in the war..

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

A little prewar history, one of my coins from mass inflation post-ww1 Germany:

Also my Arisaka rifle (made late in the war, you can tell from the ball on handle of the action)

 

[A Black Falcon]

Or we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender while keeping a bit of their national dignity.

I hate these all or nothing scenarios.

Japan started a war that killed tens of millions of people. Why should we have believed that they deserved so much dignity in their surrender? All the controversy over the nuclear bombing often seems to ignore the fact that it only happened because Japan started a horrible war and killed tens of millions of people in the process. They needed to be stopped and far too much of the Japanese leadership was dedicated to fighting to the last man to believe that they were just going to surrender without further violence. It wasn't until after the nuclear bombings that the peace faction gained the strength to resist them.

And anyway, we didn't even force the Emperor to resign. All we did was say "we won't guarantee that the Emperor will be left in power" and then ended up keeping him in power. That is, we didn't agree to their condition, but fulfilled it anyway... and that was a real mistake in my opinion, you simply can't fail to punish the top war criminal and expect people to be as remorseful as they should have been.

Also, yes, the quick surrender certainly saved many lives, thanks to both the averted invasion and the food aid they so desperately needed.

While I get what you're saying and partially agree with it, this was awful.

Indeed it was, but far worse would have been the bodycount had there been an invasion of Japan, or even if we'd sat back and did nothing -- the famine coming that next winter would have been very severe. Even with the huge amounts of American food aid we sent in after the surrender, there was still a significant food shortage and famine... it's have been far, far worse without it. Is dying of starvation so much better than dying of the nuclear bomb?

It was awful and probably could have just used it out in sea just to show the power,but it did need to be tested/used.

They didn't think the Japanese government would take it seriously otherwise, and that they didn't surrender until after the second bombing lends some credence to that -- they did consider the other alternatives, but thought that this one would bring the quickest and most likely surrender. It was certainly a horrible choice, but if the non-city option wouldn't have worked, then what would we have done? We didn't have more bombs ready right away after those two, it'd have taken a little while to make more. But also, yes, deterring the Soviets was a factor as well, for sure. But even this is a defensible reason -- the Russians would quite possibly have invaded Japan in the interim, and taken Hokkaido. And we all know that Stalin would never have given it back.

I can't say that the nuclear bombing of cities was right, but also, I can't come up with an alternative that had the same likelihood to work and would have ended the war nearly as quickly, unfortunately.

No, we really didn't... Japan played the US against Communism I can suggest a really eye opening book about the occupation if anyone wants it.

And the evil vs good thing is true to a degree... Japan went nuts in China and Korea..but in the rest of Asia they were actually fairly civil.. This doesnt excuse anything or say that they were animals just thought it should be brought up

The Japanese were fairly civil outside of China and Korea? Don't tell that to the Burmese, or Filipinos, or Indonesians... that's just not true at all. They went into those nations proclaiming that they were freeing them from the Western imperialist oppressors, but then proceeded to force them to learn Japanese in school and act pretty much the same as the last imperialists had because they similarly believed in their cultural superiority. And then in the war, they killed civilians in huge numbers. Millions and millions of civilians died...

They were much less bad in Taiwan, but that seems to have pretty much been an exception. Even in Vietnam, where they weren't physically violent, they did take all the food they could find late in the war and help set off a famine that killed a million people. (Because of the looming starvation at home that only ended with the aforementioned American food aid.)

I guess I should restate what I meant.. once they were fucked everyone under their "rule" was more fucked... but they didn't run nuts like they did in China and Korea early in the war..

They didn't control most of those areas early in the war, and as I said, even the places where they were "nicer" throughout -- Taiwan, basically -- they still acted like imperial overlords and had no intention of freeing any of the peoples they conquered.

 

[Kabouter]

I guess I should restate what I meant.. once they were fucked everyone under their "rule" was more fucked... but they didn't run nuts like they did in China and Korea early in the war..

Well, sure, but on the other hand, those other areas weren't taken by the Japanese until Dec. 1941 or 1942 and onwards. That would still mean most (if not all) of the occupation of those territories consisted of them running nuts. Japan consistently showed an incredible disregard for human lives, wherever her armies went.

 

[Blackace]

Well, sure, but on the other hand, those other areas weren't taken by the Japanese until Dec. 1941 or 1942 and onwards. That would still mean most (if not all) of the occupation of those territories consisted of them running nuts. Japan consistently showed an incredible disregard for human lives, wherever her armies went.

No real defending Japan's actions during WWII in any way, but I guess the whole pure evil vs pure good concept never really sits with me well, since all major parties in WWII were in it for their own self serving reasons..

 

[Jimothy]

No, we really didn't... Japan played the US against Communism I can suggest a really eye opening book about the occupation if anyone wants it.

And the evil vs good thing is true to a degree... Japan went nuts in China and Korea..but in the rest of Asia they were actually fairly civil.. This doesnt excuse anything or say that they were animals just thought it should be brought up

I'm pretty sure people in the Philippines and the Allied soldiers who survived years of hell as POWs under the Japanese disagree.

The Japanese government has been incredibly arrogant about apologizing for their war crimes. It's probably why so many Chinese and Koreans still hate them. There was never a real recognition on the part of the Japanese about the damage they inflicted. The Yasukuni Shrine is a testament to this. They literally enshrined their war criminals. That would be like Germany creating a monument honoring the SS and just saying "Deal with it, millions of people we brutally victimized and gassed to death."

I think Japan gets a pass for a lot of the shit they did because of all the cool tech shit that comes out of the country. People just refuse to accept the country that created Nintendo is guilty of crimes on par with the Holocaust.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Germany vastly underproduced in the start of the war - it wasn't until Speer became Minister for War (I think that was his title) that the war production became pretty efficient. But by then it was too late.

This is true but I wasn't really referring to the war but rather the efforts of the Germans to restore themselves in the 30's. Its true that Germany didnt take up a policy of total war until it was much too late.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Goddamn Japan! Why don't we hear more about Japan's evils during the war?

Fuck.

Japan - The last real player of fedualism
Nazi Germany - Facism in the worst sense
Soviet Union - "Communism" or as I like to call it totalitarian govermentism

The 1900's were fucked up.

 

[CommonSense]

This guy....man this guy was something else.