The Nanking Massacre and Iris Chang's Book The Rape of Nanking

[Unkotare]

Of course commie Joe will “go with” the discredited author.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I have just read the Wikipedia article about Ms. Chang's life.

If one reads between the lines very carefully, it is clear why some people may feel that the figure of 300,000 may be inaccurate.

Well, she was a very troubled person. She suffered from paranoia, at one point fearing that the CIA was involved in a conspiracy to recruit her without her knowing it.

Anyone who has studied the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Nanking Massacre can quickly spot some serious issues in her book. Some of her statements about the war are so distorted and erroneous as to equal saying that McGovern beat Nixon in the 1972 presidential election. She wrote about the IMTFE as if it was an honest, credible, fair tribunal instead of the shameful kangaroo court that it was. She severely misrepresented what the primary sources say about the massacre--basically, she ignored anything that didn't fit her gigantic-massacre scenario. And, we have known for some time that nearly all of her supposed "photographic evidence" was misleading and in some cases outright doctored.

 

[mikegriffith1]

But I've already pointed out to you that Rabe, Smythe, Fitch, and Espy knew that Nanking's population had been 1 million before the mass exodus began. Fitch referred to "the remaining 200,000 of Nanking's population of one million." Rabe specified that "800,000" of the "original population of one million" had fled. Smythe, of course, knew that the city's population had been 1 million, and he mentioned this fact in his survey report. Espy specified that "four-fifths" of the population had fled the city, leaving about 200,000 behind. So your argument just won't work.

Here's the problem with that... you keep trying to pretend that Chinese killed outside the city limits don't count.. like some Chinese pulling a rickshaw with all his worldly possessions was really going to be able to outrun Japanese motorized columns...

Huh? When have I ever said that killings outside the city limits don't count? I've said no such thing. On the contrary, I have pointed out to you (1) that Smythe's survey was not confined to the Nanking city limits but also included Xiaguan and other areas outside the city limits, and (2) that Bates and other Western residents said that the part of the city outside the Safety Zone was practically deserted, that nearly all of the remaining residents had fled to the Safety Zone (which, by the way, agrees with the accounts of many Japanese soldiers who were in Nanking).

But by 1944, Timperly's book was well known and the Chinese had begun to peddle the story that anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 people had been killed in Nanking. Yet, the War Department, in a film designed to make the Japanese look like monsters, rejected those numbers and went with a figure supported by most of the primary sources.

Uh, check out propaganda about the Nazis during World War II. They had no idea how bad the holocaust was until they liberated the camps.

LOL! Good grief. Where did you get your history degree again? It wasn't that we didn't know about the Holocaust by 1944; it was that your buddy FDR and his Democratic cronies did not want to make the plight of the Jews a war issue. By mid-July 1943, the U.S. Government absolutely knew that massive numbers of Jews were being killed by the Nazis. You might read the following books:

The Jews Should Keep Quiet (2019), by Holocaust scholar Rafael Medoff. Here's a free large excerpt from the book: https://jps.org/wp-content/uploads/...-Only-He-Would-Do-Something-for-My-People.pdf.

The Abandonment of the Jews (2007 edition), by David Wyman. Here's a good review of this book and two others: The Abandonment of the Jews, by David S. Wyman; The Jews Were Expendable, by Monty Noam Penkower; A Refuge From Darkness, by Nao - Commentary.

I just knew you would be ignorant of the facts about General Homma. General Homma did not orchestrate the Bataan Death March and had no idea that some Japanese soldiers were killing prisoners during the march, and his conviction for that war crime is now widely recognized as a travesty of justice. General Homma spent many years in the West as a military attache, was very pro-Western, and was one of the Japanese generals who always called for moderate and tolerant rule and for following the rules of war. Sheesh, for once educate your brainwashed brain:

Homma was shot for murdering 80K Americans and Filipinos... Obviously, you have never been in the military. "I had no idea my men were doing that" is never, ever an excuse for command responsibility. Every leader from Sergeant to General realizes that he is responsible for the conduct of the troops under his command.

That's a gross perversion of the idea of command responsibility, especially given the Japanese military's command structure and operation. I spent 21 years in the U.S. Army. A commander's responsibility for his troops' conduct is not carte blanche and unlimited, even in the U.S. Army. Any honest judicial inquiry will take into account the circumstances, such as communications, operations, subordinate commanders, and the orders that were issued prior to the operation. That's why the battalion and division commanders of soldiers who were convicted of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were not punished.

Homma was a good and decent man, and the lynch-mob court that convicted him is a stain on American military justice.

The debate about the Nanking Massacre is nothing like the debate about the Holocaust. Only a small handful of fringe pseudo-scholars openly question the Holocaust, and there is undeniable photographic and documentary evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

There is photographic evidence because the Allies caught the Nazis in the Act... (Also, the Germans were proud of what they were doing and documented it.) Also, whenever anyone dares question the Holocaust, you get the usual chorus of survivors screaming and dragging out the picture of poor grandpa who got turned into a lampshade. We need a similar level of shame for Nanking deniers.

More of your ignorant silliness. According to your slavish adherence to Iris Chang's myth, you should be shaming all the authors of the Wikipedia article on the Nanking death toll, which you cited, since they say that the scholarly consensus is that the most reliable information puts the death toll at no more than 200,000 and as low as 40,000.

How about some shaming of people who get on public forums and praise Mao Tsetung as someone who brought prosperity, stability, and progress to China?

Yeah, and you can thank teachers in our high schools and universities who are anti-Israeli bigots like you for such a pathetic polling result. Go read that poll and see the age group with the largest number of doubters: Millennials. It is your side of the political spectrum, the Far Left, that is increasingly turning against Israel, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, excusing the crimes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and even calling for boycotting Israel.

Guy, calling the Zionist entity on it's crimes is hardly excusing the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is not an excuse for what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinian people, any more than a man who was abused as a child has an excuse for abusing his own children.[/QUOTE]

Pew! And you have the nerve to accuse others of being pro-Nazi?! The only people who use this kind of language to describe Israel and the Jews are neo-Nazis, Muslim terrorists, and anti-Israeli liberals.

You are as ignorant about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the state of Israel as you are about the Nanking Massacre and the Sino-Japanese War. How would you describe what the Palestinians have done to the Israelis since 1947? How would you compare the state of basic rights in Gaza as opposed to the state of basic rights in Israel--you know: things like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law, a credible judicial system, etc.?

Most of the Holocaust deniers are on the far right and wear MAGA hats.

What?! Hogwash! What planet do you live on? Neo-Nazis bash Trump as an Israeli/Jewish tool. They attack him because one of his daughters is Jewish. They attack him for his long-time support of Israel. They attack him for his long-time friendship with prominent Israelis and for his close ties to NYC's Jewish community.

Furthermore, look at all the videos of BDS rallies--you surely won't see any MAGA hats. It is liberals, not conservatives, who are increasingly bashing Israel, calling for anti-Israeli boycotts, and excoriating Israel every time she defends herself against Palestinian terrorism. And to this day, you have textbooks and other history books in Islamic nations that deny or minimize the Holocaust and that praise Hitler.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, she was a very troubled person. She suffered from paranoia, at one point fearing that the CIA was involved in a conspiracy to recruit her without her knowing it.

Anyone who has studied the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Nanking Massacre can quickly spot some serious issues in her book.

Yeah, for all you guys who idolize the Japanese and wank off to Hentai, she made the Japanese look REALLY BAD.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! Good grief. Where did you get your history degree again? It wasn't that we didn't know about the Holocaust by 1944; it was that your buddy FDR and his Democratic cronies did not want to make the plight of the Jews a war issue. By mid-July 1943, the U.S. Government absolutely knew that massive numbers of Jews were being killed by the Nazis. You might read the following books:

Here you go attacking our greatest president again.. .are you sure you are an American?

The reason why no one made a big deal about the Holocaust was NOBODY LIKED THE JEWS. The Holocaust was the end result of 2000 years of anti-Jewish propaganda called "Christianity".

Now, story my dad told me. During WWII, his best buddy was a Jewish guy. They were medics with the First Army. Their CO was also Jewish, and gave them this long speech about how this was personal for him and Dad's buddy. Dad's Buddy said, "I was driving my cab in LA and Hitler wasn't bothering me a bit."

You are as ignorant about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the state of Israel

No, I don't buy the LIE of Zionism. The underlying LIE of Zionism is "A land without a people for a people without a land."

THIS IS A FUCKING LIE. There were people there. They were displaced.

At my heart I am an anti-Imperialist, and Zionism is another form of western imperialism.

Furthermore, look at all the videos of BDS rallies--you surely won't see any MAGA hats. It is liberals, not conservatives, who are increasingly bashing Israel, calling for anti-Israeli boycotts, and excoriating Israel every time she defends herself against Palestinian terrorism.

You mean actually insisting the Zionists act decently? The Zionists are not the good guys here. They are as bad as the Nazis or the Japanese or our 19th Century Americans who slaughtered the Native Americans.

 

[mikegriffith1]

LOL! Good grief. Where did you get your history degree again? It wasn't that we didn't know about the Holocaust by 1944; it was that your buddy FDR and his Democratic cronies did not want to make the plight of the Jews a war issue. By mid-July 1943, the U.S. Government absolutely knew that massive numbers of Jews were being killed by the Nazis. You might read the following books:

Here you go attacking our greatest president again.. .are you sure you are an American?

The reason why no one made a big deal about the Holocaust was NOBODY LIKED THE JEWS. The Holocaust was the end result of 2000 years of anti-Jewish propaganda called "Christianity".

Now, story my dad told me. During WWII, his best buddy was a Jewish guy. They were medics with the First Army. Their CO was also Jewish, and gave them this long speech about how this was personal for him and Dad's buddy. Dad's Buddy said, "I was driving my cab in LA and Hitler wasn't bothering me a bit."

You are as ignorant about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the state of Israel

No, I don't buy the LIE of Zionism. The underlying LIE of Zionism is "A land without a people for a people without a land."

THIS IS A LIE. There were people there. They were displaced.

At my heart I am an anti-Imperialist, and Zionism is another form of western imperialism.

Furthermore, look at all the videos of BDS rallies--you surely won't see any MAGA hats. It is liberals, not conservatives, who are increasingly bashing Israel, calling for anti-Israeli boycotts, and excoriating Israel every time she defends herself against Palestinian terrorism.

You mean actually insisting the Zionists act decently? The Zionists are not the good guys here. They are as bad as the Nazis or the Japanese or our 19th Century Americans who slaughtered the Native Americans.

Well, I don't think I need to say much in response to your rather astonishing statements. I think you have made it very clear in your reply (1) that you are an anti-Israeli bigot whose viewpoint on Israel and the Jews closely resembles the Neo-Nazi/Stormfront/radical Muslim viewpoint, (2) that although you claim not to be anti-Semitic, every time you talk about Israel and the Jews, you sound like a Neo-Nazi or a radical Muslim, (3) that your political ideology seems very pro-totalitarian and anti-Western, and (4) that you have done no serious research on the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the Nanking Massacre, on FDR's abandonment of the Jews, on the degree of Soviet/Communist penetration and influence in FDR's administration (and in Truman's), and on the Second Sino-Japanese War.

I know this is probably a waste of time, but if you ever decide to educate yourself on the Arab-Israeli conflict, here are some good sources you should read:

Myths & Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Myths And Facts - The Conflict

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I don't think I need to say much in response to your rather astonishing statements. I think you have made it very clear in your reply (1) that you are an anti-Israeli bigot whose viewpoint on Israel and the Jews closely resembles the Neo-Nazi/Stormfront/radical Muslim viewpoint, (2) that although you claim not to be anti-Semitic, every time you talk about Israel and the Jews, you sound a like a Neo-Nazi or a radical Muslim

You do realize that Neo-Nazis and Muslim sound nothing alike.

Here, let me help you out.

Neo Nazi - "We hate Jews because they killed Jesus and they aren't Aryan".

Muslim - "We hate the Zionists because they stole our land and kill out children".

Happy to have cleared that up for you, you looked a little dopey.

(3) that your political ideology seems very pro-totalitarian and anti-Western, and

No, it's anti-imperialist. You see, Imperialism is a bad thing.. in case you missed the whole bloody history of the 19th and 20th centuries... when the west slaughtered millions fighting over the right to control people of color.

(4) that you have done no serious research on the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the Nanking Massacre, on FDR's abandonment of the Jews, on the degree of Soviet/Communist penetration and influence in FDR's administration (and in Truman's), and on the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Again, buddy, all your pro-fascist revisionism would get you laughed out of a serious history department. Go to a University, they are pretty anti-Zionist.

I know this is probably a waste of time, but if you ever decide to educate yourself on the Arab-Israeli conflict, here are some good sources you should read:

Hey, I we get enough Zionist propaganda. A bunch of Jews from Europe stole someone else's land. They weren't keen on going back before WWII... but after WWII, they were all for it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

After seeing numerous glowing reviews and positive references to Dr. Franco David Macri’s book Clash of Empires in South China: The Allied Nations' Proxy War with Japan, 1935-1941 (University Press of Kansas, 2012), a few days ago I decided it was time to get and read this book—this incredible, ground-breaking, amazing book. I heartily agree with the following endorsements of the book (one of which, you’ll notice, is written by Dr. Edward Drea):

“Sophisticated, pioneering, and a significant contribution to the field of World War II studies. Macri’s research is meticulous, exhaustive, and well balanced; his writing is cogent and smooth. An admirable work.” — Miles Maochun Yu, author of The Dragon’s War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China

“Massively researched and splendidly narrated, this is the best available international history of Hong Kong during the China-Japan war.” — Akira Iriye, author of China and Japan in the Global Setting

“Outstanding. Sweeping in scope and illuminating.” — Edward J. Drea, author of Japan’s Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall

“An impressive addition to the literature of the Pacific War.” — Xiaobing Li, author of A History of the Chinese Army​

It is hard to know where to begin to describe this astounding book. Macri is Canadian. After serving in the Canadian army, he earned his doctorate in history at the University of Hong Kong. He is currently a senior research fellow at St. John’s College in Hong Kong. Using previously untouched British sources, among other sources, Macri provides a new and intriguing perspective on the Second Sino-Japanese War. Although he focuses on the southern theater of the war, he also discusses the war in general and the events that led to it. Here are some of the points that Macri makes:

* The Japanese government never had any intention of annexing China. Even the worst of the most militant generals did not envision annexing China as a colony of Japan. Even most of Japan’s senior military leaders merely wanted the retention of Japan’s state in Manchuria and the temporary stationing of troops in a few small areas in northern China to protect Japanese communities and interests in those areas—again, with the understanding that those troops would be withdrawn once it became clear that there was no longer a threat to Japanese citizens and interests in those few areas.

* The British, the Soviets, and the Americans intervened to prevent the Nationalists from accepting any of the repeated Japanese peace offers. To a significant extent, British policy was influenced by highly/strategically placed Soviet/Communist agents and pro-Soviet sympathizers in the British government.

* In December 1938, the Japanese made a peace offer that was so conciliatory that the British and American governments (i.e., Neville Chamberlain and FDR) felt compelled to quickly provide huge loans to Chiang Kaishek to keep him from accepting the offer.

* Many officials in the British government and the army objected to this intervention and did not want British policy to support Soviet policy goals in China, but they were eventually overruled.

* The Japanese army’s conduct in southern China was far better than it was in Shanghai and Nanking, and in fact in some places in the south the army’s conduct was so good that it caused many Chinese to either stop supporting the Nationalists or to become indifferent about the Nationalist cause.

* Hong Kong was the main conduit for arms and supply shipments to the Nationalists. If the British had refused to allow arms and supplies to be shipped via Hong Kong, the Nationalists would have collapsed relatively quickly, even with the large amount of Soviet aid they were getting.

* The Burma Road was a waste of blood, treasure, and time. Its impact was minimal and did not justify the cost in lives, supplies, and money.

* If more Japanese forces had behaved the way that General Ando’s army did in southern China, many more Chinese would have abandoned the Nationalists and embraced the pro-Japanese Chinese government in northern China.

* Macri does not come out and say this, but he definitely seems to hint that China and the Chinese people would have been better off if Chiang had accepted one of the peace offers that the Japanese made between July 1938 and December 1938. At one point, Macri says that the British refusal to halt the flow of weapons to the Nationalists through Hong Kong squandered an opportunity to mediate a “useful peace agreement” in the fall of 1939 (p. 175). Macri seems to go out of his way to point out that Soviet, British, and American policy did not want or welcome peace between the Nationalists and the Japanese, and that dragging out the war was a major Soviet policy goal.

 

[JoeB131]

After seeing numerous glowing reviews and positive references to Dr. Franco David Macri’s book Clash of Empires in South China: The Allied Nations' Proxy War with Japan, 1935-1941

More white people telling yellow people to "get over it." Lovely.

* The British, the Soviets, and the Americans intervened to prevent the Nationalists from accepting any of the repeated Japanese peace offers. To a significant extent, British policy was influenced by highly/strategically placed Soviet/Communist agents and pro-Soviet sympathizers in the British government.

Yup... getting the Chinese to oppose murder and mass rape was a total Commie Plot. They'd have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling Commies and their stupid dog.

* The Japanese army’s conduct in southern China was far better than it was in Shanghai and Nanking, and in fact in some places in the south the army’s conduct was so good that it caused many Chinese to either stop supporting the Nationalists or to become indifferent about the Nationalist cause.

Yeah... 30 million dead Chinese... that's some wonderful conduct. Oh, wait, they were now busy raping Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc.... There's a reason why the Japanese are hated across Asia even 80 years later, and the whole region objects if they even put a flight deck on a destroyer.

Most people don't like when foreigners invade their country... it's why after the war, they all rallied to the Communists.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Macri’s book Clash of Empires in South China is so packed with important information that it would take two or three more posts just to summarize it. Here are some more points made in the book:

* The Chinese Communists rarely engaged the Japanese army. The only major offensive the Communists launched against the Japanese was the One Hundred Regiments Campaign in northern China, and the only reason the Communists launched that campaign was to keep the Nationalists from making peace with the Japanese because Nationalist morale was so low that the Communists feared the Nationalists were about to halt their war effort and make a deal (pp. 226-227).

* When Japanese generals met with Western officials in China, they frequently explained that they were very concerned about keeping communism from spreading in China, and that if England and America did not stop aiding and supplying Chiang Kaishek, China might end up being “bolshevized” (see, for example, pp. 113-115, 157-158).

* The conduct of the Japanese troops who took Canton, Kwantung Province, was so strikingly different from, so much better than, the conduct of the troops who took Shanghai and Nanking that Commander Sturgeon believed there must have been an official change in policy (pp. 112-115). He reported the following to the War Office in late November 1938:

That the Japanese authorities must have taken particular care in their selection of troops for operations in Kwangtung in borne out by many facts:​

(1) Nearly all the Gendarmerie appear to be reservists. They are certainly of a type superior to the normal infantry. Many are well educated, pleasant mannered, and a very reasonable proportion speak either English or Cantonese.​

(2) The infantry, who are of a lower type (many cannot read) are not allowed into Canton City. This is in the interests of avoiding trouble.​

(3) Many Formosans are to be found among the troops, both of the Gendarmerie, and of those infantry permitted to enter the city. These are very similar to the Chinese in character, and nearly all speak Chinese. The writer has seen several groups of Chinese and Japanese sitting and chatting in the most friendly manner.​

(4) The first Japanese officer to appear at the British concession was the former manager of M.B.K. in Shameen. He greeted warmly the Superintendent of Police who met him.​

(5) There had not been, up until 11/15/38, even a suggestion of any “incident,” and all foreigners are impressed by the good manners of Japanese sentries.

(6) The writer, on several official tours of the city, has never met with anything but courtesy and politeness. . . .​

Whatever the reason, it is an extremely pleasant surprise, and this policy is already having its effect in Canton where the Chinese populace is responding, and is learning the trust the Japanese, and where every day sees welcome signs of changes towards normal life. (pp. 114-115)​

* The Japanese pilot who was most responsible for causing the Lo Wu Incident in Hong Kong in February 1939 was court martialed and imprisoned (p. 117). In addition, the Japanese government paid $20,000 to compensate for the damage done, amount that the British viewed as reasonable.

* Nazi Germany supplied the Nationalists with huge amounts of arms and supplies. In March 1939 alone, notes Macri,

32,000 tank shells and 80 million rounds of small-arms ammunition originating from Germany passed through Hong Kong to Rangoon [the second major British conduit for arms and supplies to the Nationalists], followed in July by another 10 million rounds labeled as machine accessories. (p. 132)​

It is often overlooked that one reason the Japanese joined the Axis was to get Germany to stop supplying arms and supplies to the Nationalists. The Japanese rejected joining the Axis in 1939, but as German arms and supplies continued to flow to the Nationalists, the Japanese changed their minds and, as a result of joining the Axis, got the Nazis to stop the flow of German aid to the Nationalists. Even so, many Japanese leaders opposed joining the Axis, but even those who supported entering the Axis did not agree with many German policies. For example, the Japanese refused to hand over or harm the Eastern European Jews who fled to Japan.

* By 1944, in “many parts of China” there was a de facto peace. These were areas where the Japanese curbed their aggression and as a result life largely returned to normal; indeed, in these areas there was considerable trade between the Chinese and the Japanese (p. 134).

* “Stalin’s first concern in Asia,” notes Macri, “was to maintain the proxy war in China by reassuring the Chinese of his continued support” (p. 144). Macri continues:

As the battle was heating up, U.S. Army Captain Edwin Sutherland reported on Soviet objectives in Mongolia: “The aim of the Soviets in this war is to give the Chinese just enough aid and encouragement to keep them from accepting any Japanese peace proposals. . . . The Russian military attache, Combrig Ivanov, indicated this.” (pp. 144-145)​

* The American Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was “thoroughly compromised by the Soviet NKVD” (p. 157).

* The Nationalists were operating assassination squads out of Hong Kong (pp. 160-161). One of their missions was to drive a wedge between the Japanese and the British.

* In the fall of 1939, the Chinese expressed to the British a desire to make peace with Japan; but, the anti-Japanese/pro-Soviet elements in the British government, including in the military, prevented a policy shift toward mediation and succeeded in maintaining the flow of military aid to the Nationalists via Hong Kong (p. 163).

* Even after the Sino-Japanese war began, there were areas, including the province of Kwangsi, that would not allow Nationalists soldiers to enter, and many warlords continued to maintain their own private armies (p. 179).

* The Nationalists did a commendable job of vastly expanding the networks of roads in southern China (p. 171).

* Chinese Communist forces committed “periodic atrocities” (p. 199). In June 1949, the Communists buried 500 farmers alive in Hopei for failing to comply with their demands.

* In a report to the U.S. government in March 1941, LTC David Barrett, a U.S. Army attache in Chunking (then the Nationalist capital), warned that the British diplomats in Chunking, including the ambassador and the press secretary, were decidedly pro-Communist (pp. 224-225). “The Chunking representatives of the British government,” he said, “appear definitely in sympathy with the Communists” (p. 225).

* Several key members of the House of Commons (the British legislative body) and Foreign Office officials were so pro-Soviet that they supported Soviet policy goals even during the Hitler-Stalin pact. “Several significant individuals in the House of Commons, such as Labour’s Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as Foreign Office officials, such as Ambassador Clark Kerr,” notes Macri, “were still determined to be supportive of Soviet actions, despite Stalin’s alliance with Hitler” (p. 224).

* FDR and various British and Canadian officials wanted to keep the Sino-Japanese War going for the express purpose of helping the Soviet Union (pp. 210-280).

* FDR and various British and Canadian officials understood that imposing draconian sanctions on Japan would provoke Japan to war with the Allies (pp. 248-289). In mid-1942, Lord Halifax explained to Foreign Minister Anthony Eden that the Allies had provoked Japan to war and that most Americans still believed that the Japanese had stabbed America in the back at Pearl Harbor because they were unaware of how severe the Allied sanctions against Japan had been:

That the United States Government had, in fact, imposed a total blockade upon Japan by an adroit exploitation of its freezing order was scarcely appreciated by the general public. It is worth recording that the governments of the British Commonwealth and of the Netherlands East Indies followed the United States’ lead in this forward policy without asking for any prior military guarantee. The United States public do not to this day understand how severe were the measures of economic pressure imposed on Japan, and still believe implicitly in the official doctrine of the Japanese “stab in the back” at Pearl Harbor. (pp. 271-272)​

Of course, we should also note that the Japanese knew that FDR was helping to supply the Nationalists with weapons and supplies, not to mention huge loans, which any nation would view as a provocation. If anything, the Japanese showed an amazing amount of patience in responding to the massive aid that the British, the Soviets, and the Americans were providing to the Nationalists, even though the Nationalists were the ones who had started the war by attacking the Japanese in Shanghai.

 

[JoeB131]

Macri’s book Clash of Empires in South China is so packed with important information that it would take two or three more posts just to summarize it. Here are some more points made in the book:

* The Chinese Communists rarely engaged the Japanese army. The only major offensive the Communists launched against the Japanese was the One Hundred Regiments Campaign in northern China, and the only reason the Communists launched that campaign was to keep the Nationalists from making peace with the Japanese because Nationalist morale was so low that the Communists feared the Nationalists were about to halt their war effort and make a deal (pp. 226-227).

So, you claim this, and you wonder why the Communist won.

Okay, so you have choices between two leaders.

One who actually fought the raping, murdering Jap Bastards.
And one who was willing to make peace with them after they STOLE half your country.

Hmmmm... Which one are you going to support.

So long, Peanut!!!!

* Several key members of the House of Commons (the British legislative body) and Foreign Office officials were so pro-Soviet that they supported Soviet policy goals even during the Hitler-Stalin pact. “Several significant individuals in the House of Commons, such as Labour’s Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as Foreign Office officials, such as Ambassador Clark Kerr,” notes Macri, “were still determined to be supportive of Soviet actions, despite Stalin’s alliance with Hitler” (p. 224).

Interesting school of thought, from crazy people. It kind of sounds like Joe McCarthy the Drunk's list of 55 Card Carrying Communists at the State Department.

Here's one I heard from Leftist professors during my time in college. The West never had any intent on really opposing Hitler. They wanted him to take on Stalin. That's why they turned a blind eye to the Anchluss, sold out Czechoslovakia at Munich, and only conducted a "Phony War" when Poland was overrun. They were all secretly hoping Hitler would take on Stalin for them.

Let's keep in mind, that Rudolf Hess did his flight to the UK because he really thought after everything, he could talk the UK into going along with their War against the USSR.

Now, personally, I don't buy into this theory. I think that the West was basically clueless about the Axis intentions until the wolf was at their doorstep.

The reality is, the west needed the Communists to defeat the Fascists, and then bemoaned that the Communists took their fair share of the spoils in Europe and Asia.

* FDR and various British and Canadian officials understood that imposing draconian sanctions on Japan would provoke Japan to war with the Allies (pp. 248-289). In mid-1942, Lord Halifax explained to Foreign Minister Anthony Eden that the Allies had provoked Japan to war and that most Americans still believed that the Japanese had stabbed America in the back at Pearl Harbor because they were unaware of how severe the Allied sanctions against Japan had been:

Again, by your logic, you've just rationalized Iran Nuking New York. I want to make sure that you think that Sanctioning a country for it's bad behavior is a justification for war. It isn't.

The Japanese did a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor because that's what they did in their War with Russia in 1904 and both times they went to War with China. It's like asking a snake to not be a snake.

Of course, we should also note that the Japanese knew that FDR was helping to supply the Nationalists with weapons and supplies, not to mention huge loans, which any nation would view as a provocation. If anything, the Japanese showed an amazing amount of patience in responding to the massive aid that the British, the Soviets, and the Americans were providing to the Nationalists, even though the Nationalists were the ones who had started the war by attacking the Japanese in Shanghai.

Mean old FDR, helping a country that was being invaded and raped by a foreign power.. HOW DARE HE!!!

 

[JoeB131]

They made a cartoon about people like Mikey during WWII.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If anyone wants to read the transcripts of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, aka the IMTFE, here's a link to the entire collection:

ICC Legal Tools

You have to set the search date range to something like 01.01.1946 to 30.12.1949. There will be other transcripts in the results, but the majority will be the IMTFE transcripts.

In spite of the unethical limitations that the IMTFE placed on the defense lawyers, they still managed to put on a very good defense, sometimes a superb defense. Some of the defense attorneys were Americans; others were Japanese. A number of the American attorneys commented later that when they began their assignment, they harbored a strong anti-Japanese bias and viewed the assignment with disgust, but that after they examined the evidence, they came to see that much of what they had been told about the war in China and the Pacific War was either false or severely incomplete and misleading.

One of those attorneys was Owen Cunningham. Below is the two-part interview that he gave on his experiences at the IMTFE. After the trial, Cunningham became an outspoken critic of the tribunal. His interview is both fascinating and troubling. Here it is:

Trial of Tojo: interview with Owen Cunningham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (For the first four or five minutes, the audio skips occasionally, but plays normally after that.)

Trial of Tojo: interview with Owen Cunningham : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[JoeB131]

If anyone wants to read the transcripts of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, aka the IMTFE, here's a link to the entire collection:

The only tragedy of the IMTFE is that Hirohito wasn't in the dock with the rest of the war criminals, all of whom got exactly what they deserved.

 

[JoeB131]

Holy shit, I just visited Mikey's Website, and found out he's a Mormon.

This explains everything....

He actually thinks that Joseph Smith (dum-dum-dum-dum-dum) was talking to God.

This is going to raise the fun to a whole new level.

 

[JoeB131]

Holy shit.. visiting Mikey's website.

Sticking up for the Racist Confederacy in the Civil War.
Claiming OJ was innocent.
Mormon Propaganda

The usually pro-Axis fascist rantings we see here.

It's like a smorgasbord of crazy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Macri’s book Clash of Empires in South China is so packed with important information that it would take two or three more posts just to summarize it. Here are some more points made in the book:

* The Chinese Communists rarely engaged the Japanese army. The only major offensive the Communists launched against the Japanese was the One Hundred Regiments Campaign in northern China, and the only reason the Communists launched that campaign was to keep the Nationalists from making peace with the Japanese because Nationalist morale was so low that the Communists feared the Nationalists were about to halt their war effort and make a deal (pp. 226-227).

So, you claim this, and you wonder why the Communist won.

It is not a "claim." It is a fact. The Communists engaged the Japanese far, far fewer times than did the Nationalists. Indeed, the Communists helped the Japanese cause by frequently attacking the Nationalists. As I've pointed out to you several tiems already, these facts are well documented.

Okay, so you have choices between two leaders. One who actually fought the raping, murdering Jap Bastards. And one who was willing to make peace with them after they STOLE half your country. Hmmmm... Which one are you going to support. So long, Peanut!!!!

More baseless, bigoted ignorance. As I've already documented for you, it was Chiang, not Mao, who fought the Japanese the most, by far. I'm still waiting for you to cite a single non-Communist source that supports your absurd claim that the Communists fought the Japanese as much as, or more than, the Nationalists did.

And, by the way, in case you ever want to deal with facts, even at the height of their success in China, the Japanese never occupied anything close to "half" of China ("half your country"). Just FYI. Again, if you care about facts, which, of course, you don't.

* Several key members of the House of Commons (the British legislative body) and Foreign Office officials were so pro-Soviet that they supported Soviet policy goals even during the Hitler-Stalin pact. “Several significant individuals in the House of Commons, such as Labour’s Sir Stafford Cripps, as well as Foreign Office officials, such as Ambassador Clark Kerr,” notes Macri, “were still determined to be supportive of Soviet actions, despite Stalin’s alliance with Hitler” (p. 224).

Interesting school of thought, from crazy people. It kind of sounds like Joe McCarthy the Drunk's list of 55 Card Carrying Communists at the State Department.

Did you just beam into 2020 from the 1960s? I mean, the degree of Communist penetration into the American and British governments during and immediately after WWII has been documented beyond all dispute. Have you heard of the Venona Decrypts, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers, etc.? I know you don't like to read, and I'm guessing your PRC handlers won't let you even glance at this book, but you might start to educate yourself by reading Hebert Romerstein and Eric Briendel's massive work The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors (2000).

And, just FYI, "McCarthy's list" of Communists and pro-Communists in the State Department turned out to be disturbingly accurate, as M. Stanton Evans has documented in painstaking detail in his definitive book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. And that list, by the way, was based largely on the Lee List, and McCarthy only raised it at the request of senior officials in the FBI who were disturbed that no action had been taken on the list.

The reality is, the west needed the Communists to defeat the Fascists

That's utter Communist hogwash. For one thing, as is now well known (except by you, of course), there was a powerful German resistance that was willing to kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, and give up all the territory that Hitler had occupied, if only FDR would renounce unconditional surrender and allow them to set up a non-Nazi, pro-Western government. For someone who supposedly has a degree in history, you are ignorant of an amazing amount of commonly known information. You can start with this article by historian Thomas Fleming:

FDR Writes a Policy in Blood

The Soviet Union was a far greater threat to world peace, and a more brutal regime, than was Nazi Germany, as bad as Nazi Germany was. And Communism was a far greater threat to world peace than was fascism. Some of the governments that were considered fascist were nothing like Nazi Germany and would have gladly abandoned Nazi Germany early in the war if they could have done so.

, and then bemoaned that the Communists took their fair share of the spoils in Europe and Asia.

Oh my goodness. Did you really just say that in a public forum? Eee-gads, you really are, no kidding, a Communist, aren't you? You see, over here in the civilized world, we recognize that the Communist tyranny in Russia and Eastern Europe and the Communist tyranny in China, North Korea, and North Vietnam were brutal, tragic, and catastrophically deadly. They killed tens of millions of innocent people, wrongly imprisoned millions of others, and forced millions of people to work in forced-labor camps like slaves. Nobody but a Communist whack job would say that Eastern Europe, China, North Vietnam, and North Korea were a "fair share" for the Communists.

* FDR and various British and Canadian officials understood that imposing draconian sanctions on Japan would provoke Japan to war with the Allies (pp. 248-289). In mid-1942, Lord Halifax explained to Foreign Minister Anthony Eden that the Allies had provoked Japan to war and that most Americans still believed that the Japanese had stabbed America in the back at Pearl Harbor because they were unaware of how severe the Allied sanctions against Japan had been:

Again, by your logic, you've just rationalized Iran Nuking New York. I want to make sure that you think that Sanctioning a country for it's bad behavior is a justification for war. It isn't.

I've already dealt with your bogus logic and arguments on this point, and you just repeating your talking point and ignoring the factual information that refute them.

The Japanese did a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. . . .

Here, too, I've already debunked this nonsense, but you just keep repeating it. Are you aware that even the blood-thirsty, grossly biased IMTFE felt compelled to admit that the Japanese did not intend the Pearl Harbor attack to be a sneak/surprise attack?

And, of course, there's also the mountain of evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor several days before the attack occurred.

Even if one ignores all this evidence, it has been documented beyond dispute that by no later than 9:00 AM on 7 December 1941, several hours before the attack, FDR, Stark, and Marshall knew from the decrypted 14-part Japanese diplomatic cable that an attack was likely going to occur at around sunrise in Hawaii, and they did not use a scrambler phone to call the commanders in Hawaii to warn them. If FDR, or Admiral Start, or General Marshall had used one of the readily available scrambler phones to call Hawaii, the commanders in Hawaii would have had several hours to get ready for the attack.

Of course, we should also note that the Japanese knew that FDR was helping to supply the Nationalists with weapons and supplies, not to mention huge loans, which any nation would view as a provocation. If anything, the Japanese showed an amazing amount of patience in responding to the massive aid that the British, the Soviets, and the Americans were providing to the Nationalists, even though the Nationalists were the ones who had started the war by attacking the Japanese in Shanghai.

Mean old FDR, helping a country that was being invaded and raped by a foreign power.. HOW DARE HE!!!

Blah, blah, blah. You just keep repeating this myth and refuse to deal with the facts that refute it. And, again, why didn't FDR sanction and provoke the Soviets after they began killing millions of Russians, after they gobbled up a chunk of Mongolia, after they attacked tiny Finland, etc., etc., etc.? But, oh no, he was willing to ignore all of these crimes, and many others, and bent over backwards to befriend the murderous Soviet regime, but he took a very different approach toward the anti-Communist, pro-free enterprise Japanese.

 

[JoeB131]

It is not a "claim." It is a fact. The Communists engaged the Japanese far, far fewer times than did the Nationalists. Indeed, the Communists helped the Japanese cause by frequently attacking the Nationalists. As I've pointed out to you several tiems already, these facts are well documented.

Actually, the Nationalist proved they couldn't be trusted, willing to sell their country out to the Japs at any opportunity.

that' why the Communists won.

Here, too, I've already debunked this nonsense, but you just keep repeating it. Are you aware that even the blood-thirsty, grossly biased IMTFE felt compelled to admit that the Japanese did not intend the Pearl Harbor attack to be a sneak/surprise attack?

You're kidding, right? You send Ambassadors over to pretend to negotiate for peace, and then send six aircraft carriers to attack your naval base. the only reason why their plan of having the attack happen AFTER a "formal declaration of war" was because the decryption machine broke down, but the bastards knew EXACTLY what they were up to.

And, of course, there's also the mountain of evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor several days before the attack occurred.

Is that right next to the mountain of evidence that OJ was innocent or the mountain of evidence that Joseph Smith was talking to God? Is there any crazy conspiracy theory you won't embrace? Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

Even if one ignores all this evidence, it has been documented beyond dispute that by no later than 9:00 AM on 7 December 1941, several hours before the attack, FDR, Stark, and Marshall knew from the decrypted 14-part Japanese diplomatic cable that an attack was likely going to occur at around sunrise in Hawaii, and they did not use a scrambler phone to call the commanders in Hawaii to warn them.

The only thing they knew from the cable was that Japan was going to declare war. The thing was, no one really thought that an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible. It was too far away. They thought there might be attacks on the Philippines or Guam. (Which they attacked, too.)

Blah, blah, blah. You just keep repeating this myth and refuse to deal with the facts that refute it. And, again, why didn't FDR sanction and provoke the Soviets after they began killing millions of Russians, after they gobbled up a chunk of Mongolia, after they attacked tiny Finland, etc., etc., etc.?

Uh, a chunk of desert no one lives in, or a chunk of icy wasteland that was rightfully theirs? The thing was, we didn't sanction the USSR because we barely had any economic relationship with them to start with. Pretty much broke off relations with them after their revolution and they reneged on all the Tsar's bad debts.

What you leave out of your little discussion about the USSR is how the Western Powers backed the Whites and invaded in 1918 after the USSR got out of that collective bit of human stupidity called World War I.

But, oh no, he was willing to ignore all of these crimes, and many others, and bent over backwards to befriend the murderous Soviet regime, but he took a very different approach toward the anti-Communist, pro-free enterprise Japanese.

The Japanese were murdering millions of Chinese... that was the thing.

Again, the reason why the Axis got away with shit all through the 30's is they played on western fears they were penning in the nasty, evil commies. The official name of the "Axis" was the "Anti-Comintern Pact". So the west kind of turned a blind eye to what they were doing. We didn't sanction Japan when they put Puyi's worthless fag ass on the throne of Manchuko, we didn't sanction them when they murdered all those people at Nanking.

We sanctioned them when they officially threw in with Hitler.

You seem to really love America's enemies. The Confederates, the Axis... but then again, you belong to a cult that is anti-American at its core.

Incidentally, our position toward China was the same it had been all along. We opposed any attempts by other powers to infringe on Chinese sovereignty and favored an Open Door Policy.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you just beam into 2020 from the 1960s? I mean, the degree of Communist penetration into the American and British governments during and immediately after WWII has been documented beyond all dispute. Have you heard of the Venona Decrypts, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers, etc.? I know you don't like to read, and I'm guessing your PRC handlers won't let you even glance at this book, but you might start to educate yourself by reading Hebert Romerstein and Eric Briendel's massive work The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors (2000).

I've heard of them, they aren't that big of a deal. McCarthyism was a offense against everything this country stands for, it's why he's still shunned.

Oh my goodness. Did you really just say that in a public forum? Eee-gads, you really are, no kidding, a Communist, aren't you? You see, over here in the civilized world, we recognize that the Communist tyranny in Russia and Eastern Europe and the Communist tyranny in China, North Korea, and North Vietnam were brutal, tragic, and catastrophically deadly.

Compared to what? British Genocide in Australia? American genocide of the indigenous population. Belgian genocide in the Congo? I'm wondering when all this civilization is going to start. Did you know the US Killed half a million Filipinos in 1899-1910? Of course you don't. History books don't talk about it.

Human beings as a group generally suck. When shit gets bad, we act badly. It's really not about any particular economic or political system.

But just keep saying that Communism and Islam bad, Capitalism and Jesus are good. I know you really need to beleive that buddy. That and Joseph Smith wasn't a two-bit con man who wanted to fuck little girls.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is not a "claim." It is a fact. The Communists engaged the Japanese far, far fewer times than did the Nationalists. Indeed, the Communists helped the Japanese cause by frequently attacking the Nationalists. As I've pointed out to you several tiems already, these facts are well documented.

Actually, the Nationalist proved they couldn't be trusted, willing to sell their country out to the Japs at any opportunity. that' why the Communists won.

Actually, I've already refuted every statement you just made. You just keep repeating your talking points and refuse to deal with contrary evidence.

Here, too, I've already debunked this nonsense, but you just keep repeating it. Are you aware that even the blood-thirsty, grossly biased IMTFE felt compelled to admit that the Japanese did not intend the Pearl Harbor attack to be a sneak/surprise attack?

You're kidding, right? You send Ambassadors over to pretend to negotiate for peace, and then send six aircraft carriers to attack your naval base.

No, you must be kidding. The ambassadors were not "pretending" to negotiate for peace but were trying to achieve peace. Here, again, we've covered this ground, and you just keep ignoring evidence repeating your talking points.

the only reason why their plan of having the attack happen AFTER a "formal declaration of war" was because the decryption machine broke down, but the bastards knew EXACTLY what they were up to.

Ah, so you admit, albeit tacitly and with propaganda, that the Japanese did intend to provide notice. And, no, the ambassadors had no idea about the Pearl Harbor attack. This has been established for decades. Where, again, did you get your history degree?

And, of course, there's also the mountain of evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor several days before the attack occurred.

Is that right next to the mountain of evidence that OJ was innocent or the mountain of evidence that Joseph Smith was talking to God? Is there any crazy conspiracy theory you won't embrace? Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

No, it's right next to your mountain of dishonest straw-man arguments and evasions. I see you don't like the fact that I'm a Mormon. Ok, so you're an anti-Mormon bigot as well.

I take it that you're not going to address any of the evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance?

Even if one ignores all this evidence, it has been documented beyond dispute that by no later than 9:00 AM on 7 December 1941, several hours before the attack, FDR, Stark, and Marshall knew from the decrypted 14-part Japanese diplomatic cable that an attack was likely going to occur at around sunrise in Hawaii, and they did not use a scrambler phone to call the commanders in Hawaii to warn them.

The only thing they knew from the cable was that Japan was going to declare war. The thing was, no one really thought that an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible. It was too far away. They thought there might be attacks on the Philippines or Guam. (Which they attacked, too.)

Oh, boy. Just more and more ignorance. Every one of your statements here has been debunked, especially the howler that "no one really thought an attack on Pearl Harbor was possible." FYI, we had war-gamed for an attack on Pearl Harbor. Months before the attack, Ambassador Grew has passed along intelligence that Japan was considering an attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR knew from the bomb-plot messages that the Japanese were gathering intelligence on ship positions and grid locations in Pearl Harbor, information that they were not gathering about any other American base. And on and on and on we could go.

Blah, blah, blah. You just keep repeating this myth and refuse to deal with the facts that refute it. And, again, why didn't FDR sanction and provoke the Soviets after they began killing millions of Russians, after they gobbled up a chunk of Mongolia, after they attacked tiny Finland, etc., etc., etc.?

Uh, a chunk of desert no one lives in, or a chunk of icy wasteland that was rightfully theirs? The thing was, we didn't sanction the USSR because we barely had any economic relationship with them to start with. Pretty much broke off relations with them after their revolution and they reneged on all the Tsar's bad debts.

Yikes! You have no clue what you're talking about.

What you leave out of your little discussion about the USSR is how the Western Powers backed the Whites and invaded in 1918 after the USSR got out of that collective bit of human stupidity called World War I.

Yes, and it's a shame that the Whites did not overthrow the Communists. And, uh, the USSR only "got out of" WWI because they had no alternative after the Germans smashed their main army to pieces.

But, oh no, he was willing to ignore all of these crimes, and many others, and bent over backwards to befriend the murderous Soviet regime, but he took a very different approach toward the anti-Communist, pro-free enterprise Japanese.

The Japanese were murdering millions of Chinese... that was the thing.

No, they were not, but the Soviets did in fact murder millions of people, in fact tens of millions of people.

A

Again, the reason why the Axis got away with shit all through the 30's is they played on western fears they were penning in the nasty, evil commies. The official name of the "Axis" was the "Anti-Comintern Pact". So the west kind of turned a blind eye to what they were doing. We didn't sanction Japan when they put Puyi's worthless fag ass on the throne of Manchuko, we didn't sanction them when they murdered all those people at Nanking.

Uh, no one claimed that FDR sanctioned them during that period. Are you sure your "degree" was not in How to Make Evasive Straw-Man Arguments"?

We sanctioned them when they officially threw in with Hitler.

Phew! Oh, yeah, FDR "sanctioned" them all right, but nothing like what he did to the Japanese.

You seem to really love America's enemies. The Confederates, the Axis... but then again, you belong to a cult that is anti-American at its core.

Umm, actually, you are the one who seems to love America's enemies, not I.

Incidentally, our position toward China was the same it had been all along. We opposed any attempts by other powers to infringe on Chinese sovereignty and favored an Open Door Policy.

LOL! Ok, yeah! How about the American, German, French, and British holdings in China, hey?! You are a clown.

FDR didn't give a hoot about handing over Eastern Europe to Stalin. Indeed, he saved Stalin's murderous regime and forced the Nationalists to let the Communists in the door.