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

[Unkotare]

I don't start threads,....

Then shut the fuck up about "contributing," you fucking fraud.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I just tell the truth about the Zionists.

Uh-huh. Funny how your "truth" about "Zionists" parrots what the Nazis said on the subject, and parrots what neo-Nazis, ISIS, Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah say on the subject. Very curious.

As for my opinion of Mao, I probably have a less favorable opinion of him than 1.5 billion Chinese, who see him as a national hero.

I've already answered this absurd argument, but, as usual, you've ignored contrary facts and just repeated your argument.

So why are you an Axis apologist all the time?

LOL! You bet. Hey, I'm not the one who parrots neo-Nazi talking points about Jews. You are.

You can burn a body with just some gasoline. That's what they did to Hitler and Eva Braun (no doubt a sad day for you.)

They said they buried the bodies, not burned them.

The point was, that you admit that the legitimate aid agencies claimed to have buried 260K bodies. I just submit some bodies never were found. Buried in places they weren't found, etc.

Once again you simply ignore contrary facts and repeat your erroneous argument. Or, while wiping the foam from your mouth, did you just miss the part where I proved that the 260K burial figure is impossible and that even the IMTFE rejected it?

How could I not? YOu claimed that it was okay that Japan executed Chinese soldiers who had shed their uniforms.

Uh-huh. You're lying again. You said I said it was okay that the Japanese executed POWs. I replied by noting that they were not POWs because they had shed their uniforms and were no longer entitled to POW status under the Geneva Convention. So, you dishonestly move your goal post and pretend you didn't falsely accuse me of excusing the execution of POWs.

In short, people who were no longer fighting and were just seeking to escape. (Given most of the Nationalist Army was unwitting conscripts who were given little to no training, it was an understandable instinct. Um, that;s not the case at all.
If they abandon their uniforms and weapons, they are no longer combatants.

Umm, yes, Mao Jr., it is most certainly the case that if you remove your uniform and try to pose as a civilian, you can be executed on the spot if caught--under the Geneva Convention, and also under several treaties. Do a little reading on the standard, accepted rules of war.

Axis Mikey, I'm just mocking you at this point.

No, actually, you're just proving what a royal juvenile, jerk, and liar you are. I guess my repeated mentioning of your parroting of Nazi, neo-Nazi, and ISIS/Hamas/Iranian propaganda about Jews and Israel is starting to sting, so you resort to the comical tactic of accusing me, of all people, of being "pro-Axis." You only discredit yourself with such nonsense.

Just remember. Iris Chang got three books published.

Iris Chang was a fraudulent, paranoid nutcase who got caught using a bunch of phony photos in her book, whose slipshod research has been decimated by numerous Asia scholars, not to mention that she got checked into a mental facility by one of her own aides, that she believed she was being followed and monitored by the CIA/U.S. intelligence, and that she eventually killed herself after her fraudulent book was exposed.

You are a crank who posts manifestos on the Internet and can't keep your links working.

Ah, there's that word "crank" again. I'll just recall that you recently claimed that all the leading scholars on Custer and the Last Stand are "cranks." Why? Because they disagree with your ignorant, long-debunked 19th-century-Republican version of the Last Stand. Just a reminder that every recognized, reputable scholar/historian who has published about book Custer and the Little Big Horn in the last 20 years has rejected your view on the subject.

At least you haven't claimed that all those Custer scholars are controlled by Jews along the lines of your nutcase claim that Jews somehow prevented the USS Liberty Navy Court of Inquiry from recording or publishing evidence that the Israeli jets were unmarked and that Israeli gunboats machine-gunned American life rafts in the water. I'm still waiting for you to provide a scenario of how that astonishing suppression of evidence could have occurred.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh-huh. Funny how your "truth" about "Zionists" parrots what the Nazis said on the subject, and parrots what neo-Nazis, ISIS, Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah say on the subject. Very curious.

The Nazis critiiczed Zionist actions in Palestine? Really? Seems you are confused on your timeline.

Here's a hint. The Zionists ARE the Nazis now. They are like abused children who grew up to abuse someone else.

I've already answered this absurd argument, but, as usual, you've ignored contrary facts and just repeated your argument.

Because you didn't really answer it, you repeated some sad Bircher nonsense about Mao being a meany-head. Chinese would beg to differ.

Once again you simply ignore contrary facts and repeat your erroneous argument. Or, while wiping the foam from your mouth, did you just miss the part where I proved that the 260K burial figure was impossible and that even the IMTFE rejected it?

IMFTE was more concerned with American objectives, so they didn't really care that much about their atrocities in China. Or not as much as they should have. There was a member of the Imperial Family, Prince Yasuhiko, who was probably more culpable in Nanking than Matsui was, but we gave the whole corrupt House of Yamato a pass.

Uh-huh. You're lying again. You said I said it was okay that the Japanese executed POWs. I replied by noting that they were not POWs because they had shed their uniforms and were no longer entitled to POW status under the Geneva Convention. So, you dishonestly move your goal post and pretend you didn't falsely accuse me of excusing the execution of POWs.

Um, no, guy executing civilians is wrong. Executing POW's is wrong. Executing enemy deserters is wrong.

If the Japanese executed POW's, that was a war crime.

Umm, yes, Mao Jr., it is most certainly the case that if you remove your uniform and try to pose as a civilian, you can be executed on the spot if caught--under the Geneva Convention, and also under several treaties. Do a little reading on the standard, accepted rules of war.

Please cite the exact part of the Geneva Convention that says that. Thanks.

Iris Chang was a fraudulent, paranoid nutcase who got checked into a mental facility by one of her own aides, who believed she was being followed and monitored by the CIA/U.S. intelligence, and who eventually killed herself.

Yes, she had a mental breakdown due to the horror she documented.

Not that the CIA isn't capable of some truly nasty shit.

Ah, there's that word "crank" again. I'll just recall that you recently claimed that all the leading scholars on Custer and the Last Stand are "cranks." Why? Because they disagree with your ignorant, long-debunked 19th-century-Republican version of the Last Stand. Just a reminder that every recognized, reputable scholar/historian who has published about book Custer and the Little Big Horn in the last 20 years has rejected your view on the subject.

Custer was a racist idiot who got killed by his own stupidity. Too bad he took so many other people with him. he slaughtered indiginous people, there was nothing "noble" about him.

At least you haven't claim that all those Custer scholars are controlled by Jews ala your nutcase claim that Jews somehow prevented the USS Liberty Navy Court of Inquiry from recording or publishing evidence that the Israeli jets were unmarked and that Israeli gunboats machine-gunned American life rafts in the water. I'm still waiting for you to provide a scenario of how that astonishing suppression of evidence could have occurred.

Jews own our government. Shit, we are deporting college students for saying shit they don't like.

Now, imagine if China demanded we deport college students or Richard Gere over criticism of Tibet or Hong Kong. You'd be shitting yourself if our government complied.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Moving on from JoeB131's latest Maoist/Chinese Communist polemic on the Nanking Massacre.

For those who are interested in responsible, scholarly research on the Nanking Massacre, here are links to three articles on the subject by Dr. David Askew, professor of history at Asia Pacific University and Monash University.

"New Research on the Nanjing Incident"

New Research on the Nanjing Incident - Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus

[…]

apjjf.org

This is a great article for newcomers to the subject because it covers the history of the Nanking Massacre debate and the major schools of thought on the subject. Dr. Askew noted that even in the early 2000s, the scholarly tide turned against Iris Chang's ridiculous figure of 300,000 civilian deaths:

The debate in Japan underwent a sea change as the full implications of John Rabe’s diary were digested (Hata Ikuhiko among others speaks of the ‘Rabe effect’) and as Iris Chang’s book was absorbed. Although the flood of publications continues, there are signs of an emerging consensus. Rabe has clearly destroyed much of the basis for the more extreme casualty estimates of the Great Massacre School, but also makes it absolutely clear that he was convinced that the Japanese army was responsible for looting, arson, rape and the execution of thousands of men identified as ‘ex-soldiers’. He has thus been most vigorously denounced by members of the Illusion School.

However, it must be said that the greatest impact in the long term will probably be felt among the ranks of the Great Massacre School, members of which have already begun to revise their numbers downwards. For instance, in the recent English translation of his The Nanjing Massacre, the ‘corpse maximiser’ Honda Katsuichi has significantly reduced his estimate of the scale of the Japanese atrocities in and around Nanjing. As Frank Gibney notes in his introduction, Honda now believes that ‘a bit over 100,000’ is the true figure for the scale of the massacre during the Nanjing Incident.

Kasahara derives a similar figure based on Rabe’s estimate of 50,000 to 60,000 for both civilians and soldiers, including soldiers killed in action, to which is then added a second figure of 80,000 soldiers (this assumes that 90,000 soldiers died, of whom 10,000 died in action, and 80,000 were executed). In other words, at least some members of the Great Massacre School appear to have accepted Rabe’s estimate, but use it for civilians only, despite the fact that Rabe clearly states that at least 30,000 of this estimate were soldiers killed in combat, and despite the fact that his estimate of the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy was ‘thousands’.

"The Nanjing Incident: An Examination of the Civilian Population"

https://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf

This 19-page article debunks the Iris Chang school's mythology about the size of Nanking's population when the Japanese army arrived. Says Dr. Askew,

The conclusion drawn from the various primary sources is that the civilian population of Nanjing was 200,000 in the weeks leading up to the fall of the city; that it remained 200,000 for the first 4 weeks of the occupation; and that it increased to 250,000 by January 10, 1938.This paper will also argue that the closest estimate of the population that can be made is 224,500 as of December 24, 1937 to January 5, 1938.

"Defending Nanking: An Examination of the Capital Garrison Forces"

https://chinajapan.org/articles/15/askew15.148-173.pdf

This 26-page essay addresses the size and composition of the Chinese forces that defended Nanking. Dr. Askew establishes that Chinese forces defending the city totaled between 73,000 and 82,000, a formidable army that was at least equal in size to the approaching Japanese army.

 

[JoeB131]

Moving on from JoeB131's latest Maoist/Chinese Communist polemic on the Nanking Massacre.

For those who are interested in responsible, scholarly research on the Nanking Massacre, here are links to three articles on the subject by Dr. David Askew, professor of history at Asia Pacific University and Monash University.

Wow, more white people.

Tell you what, Axis Mikey, why don't you find some Non-western/Japanese sources to back up your claims.

 

[Unkotare]

Wow, more white people.

Tell you what, Axis Mikey, why don't you find some Non-western/Japanese sources to back up your claims.

Racist ^^^

 

[JoeB131]

Racist ^^^

So now I'm racist against white people.

(Checks color of pasty-white skin)

Interesting.

 

[Unkotare]

So now I'm racist against white people.

(Checks color of pasty-white skin)

Interesting.

You seem to be racist against anyone it suits you to be. You are a broad-scale bigot.

 

[JoeB131]

You seem to be racist against anyone it suits you to be. You are a broad-scale bigot.

So if I don't like anyone, it means I'm an equal opportunity disliker.

I criticize people (regardless of race, religion, or occupation) when they deserve to be criticized. I'll rip on left-leaning posters when tehy say stupid stuff as happily as I do on right-wing posters.

Anyone who says "I read a JoeB131 post and my feelings were hurt" is like someone going to a Denny's and saying "The food wasn't very good!"

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wow, more white people.

Oh, another racist comment. Well, thanks for sharing. I mean that sincerely. I am glad you are open about your racism. I am also glad that you do not seem to care that posting racist comments discredits you.

Tell you what, Axis Mikey,

Please feel free to keep discrediting yourself by addressing me by your "Axis Mikey" nickname, but people who read my threads and replies are going to see the nickname as proof that you are dishonest and juvenile. I mean, you realize that I was raised Jewish for part of my childhood and that I am well known for being ardently pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli, right? You realize that two of my websites--"The Case for Israel" and "The Holocaust"--praise and defend Israel and present evidence of the Holocaust and of Hitler's other crimes, right?

If you're going to try to attack me with a nickname, you might try using one that doesn't make you look like a total fool. It's as if I were to starting calling you "MAGA Joe" or "GOP Joe" or "Reagan-loving Joe." I would look like an idiot to anyone who read just a few of your replies.

Sometimes I address you with the nicknames "Jihad Joe" and "Mao-loving Joe," for example, because you frequently repeat Hamas/ISIS/Iranian propaganda about Jews and Israel, and because you parrot the Chinese Communist whitewash of mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung.

why don't you find some non-western/Japanese sources to back up your claims.

I have done this, in this very thread, but, as usual, you ignore facts and repeat your lies.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

Numerous scholars acknowledge the evidence that the Chinese Nationalists started the war in China, that the Japanese did not instigate the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, that the Japanese did not want war with the Chinese, that the Japanese had no intention of occupying China, and that the Japanese in fact were willing to withdraw from China in exchange for tacit recognition of their state in Manchuria. The list of scholars who acknowledge these facts would fill more lines than a USMB reply can hold. Here are a few of them:

I'll start with three Asian scholars, to accommodate your racist mindset:

-- Minoru Kitamura, a graduate in history from Kyoto University and a professor of humanities at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. He is also a member of the Japan Association for Nanjing Studies and an associate researcher at the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals. His book, The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War, co-authored with Chinese scholar Siyun Lin and published by the University Press of America in 2014, is one of the best available books on the subject.

-- Siyun Lin, a Chinese scholar who graduated from Nanking University. As mentioned, Lin and Kitamura co-authored the book The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War. Lin wrote his own book on the Nanking Massacre: The Battle in Defense of Nanking and the Massacre in Nanking (2011).

-- Radhabinod Pal, the Indian judge on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) and a member of the UN’s International Law Commission from 1952-1966. Justice Pal’s famous massive dissent to the IMTFE’s kangaroo-court decisions is one of the most methodical destructions of the IMTFE-Chinese Communist version of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and the Second Sino-Japanese War ever written. Here is Pal’s dissent: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/65_S4.pdf.

Here are some of the many other scholars who reject the Chinese Communist/FDR version of the Pacific War:

-- John Toland, a renowned historian whose book on WWII-era Japan, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, won a Pulitzer Prize (let me guess: you’re going to say that all the Pulitzer Prize committee members were “fascists” or “pro-fascist,” right?).

-- Dick Wilson, an Oxford graduate and a professor of history at the University of California. Wilson was the editor of The China Quarterly at one time. His book on the Second Sino-Japanese War, When Tigers Fight: The Story of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945, is one of the most balanced and objective works on the subject. I’m guessing you’ve never ever heard of the book.

-- James Crowley, a professor of history at Yale University. His 1966 book Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930-1938, which I have quoted in replies to you, is considered a “seminal” work on the Sino-Japanese War because, among other things, it refuted the long-held belief that the Japanese caused the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Even most Western scholars who are harshly critical of Imperial Japan now acknowledge, based on Crowley’s research, that Japan did not instigate the incident.

-- Peter Harmsen, a graduate in history from National Taiwan University and a foreign correspondent in the Far East for two decades. Harmsen is currently the bureau chief for the French News Agency in Taiwan. His 2018 book Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, which I have quoted in replies to you, is another one of the fairest, most objective studies on Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China.

-- Joshua Fogel, a professor of history at York University in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Fogel has been honored with visiting professorships at the School of Historical Studies of the Institute for Advanced Study (2001-2003) at Princeton, the British Inter-University China Centre, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As you might remember, Dr. Fogel has said that accepting the NMT-Iris Chang story of the 100-man killing contest “requires a leap of faith that no balanced historian can make.”

-- Richard Minear, a graduate in history from Harvard University and a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts. If your PRC handlers will ever let you read the other side of the story, you really should start with Dr. Minear’s book Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, published by Princeton University Press in 1971 (let me guess: you’re going to say that Princeton University Press is a “fascist” or “pro-fascist” publishing company, right?!).

-- Mark Peattie, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts and a research fellow at Stanford University. Peattie co-edited the excellent and balanced book The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, published by Stanford University Press in 2010.

-- Edward Drea, a military historian who specializes in the Imperial Japanese Army. Drea earned in doctorate in Japanese history from the University of Kansas. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945. In 2009, the University of Kansas Press published his superbly fair study of the Japanese army titled Japan’s Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall, 1853–1945.

-- Hans van de Ven, a professor of modern Chinese history at Cambridge University. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945.

-- Niall Ferguson, “one of Britain’s most renowned historians” and a professor of history at Harvard University and a senior research fellow at Stanford University. Ferguson’s 2006 book The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West includes a balanced, objective treatment of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China, as well as of the Pacific War and the factors that led to it.

-- Dayle Smith, a prominent Australian attorney who spent years studying the IMTFE. Smith focused on the IMTFE’s chief judge, William Webb, who was Australian. As part of his research into the IMTFE, Smith studied at the University of Queensland Library where Sir William Webb’s personal papers were lodged, at the Australian War Museum in Canberra, in Japan at the library of the Japan Times, at the Tokyo Diet Library, at the Supreme Court of Japan’s vault in Tokyo that houses many of the defense documents that the IMTFE would not allow into evidence, and at the Imperial War Museum in London. Smith presented a 15,000-word paper on the Tokyo War Crimes Trial to the Law faculty of the University of New England in Australia and made a similar presentation to the Supreme Court in Brisbane. The paper was later included in the book Queensland Judges on the High Court, published by the Supreme Court Library of Queensland in 2003. Smith’s massive study on the IMTFE, titled Judicial Murder? Macarthur and the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, was published in 2013.

-- Harold Vinacke, professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. His book 1952 book The United States and the Far East 1945-1951 acknowledges that Japan did not intend to conquer Asia in the same way or to the same degree that Nazi Germany intended to conquer Europe and Russia, and that Japanese colonial rule was not always brutal or totalitarian.

-- Edwin P. Hoyt, a renowned scholar on WW II. A graduate of the University of Oregon, Hoyt lectured at the University of Hawaii on the Pacific War. He spoke fluent Japanese and wrote numerous best-selling books on WW II. During the war, Hoyt served as the director of the Domestic Branch of the Office of War Information. His book Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict, 1853 to 1952 (McGraw, 1986) provides a fair and balanced analysis of Japan’s motives and actions in China and in the Pacific.

-- Dr. F. C. Jones (Francis C. Jones). Dr. Jones earned his Ph.D. in history at Harvard and taught history at the University of Bristol in England. He specialized in Asian history and wrote several books on Imperial Japan and China. His two books on Japan’s involvement in China, Japan’s New Order in East Asia 1937-1945 (1954) and Manchuria Since 1931 (1949), both published by Oxford University Press, received wide praise from scholars all over the world—but not from scholars in Red China, of course.

Dr. Jones’ book Japan’s New Order in East Asia lays out in painstaking detail the numerous Chinese provocations and Chinese rejections of Japanese peace offers that led to the Second Sino-Japanese War. Dr. Ralph Braibanti, in his review of Jones’ book in the University of Chicago’s Journal of Politics, said that it was “one of the most significant works on Japan to appear in recent years” and that it “merits careful attention also because of the new documentary sources” that it included (Journal of Politics, February 1955, p. 136).

Dr. Jones’ book Manchuria Since 1931 is a devastating refutation of the Chinese Nationalist-Communist-inspired myths about Japan’s involvement in Manchuria. Dr. Jones pointed out that the Japanese gave the Manchurians more autonomy than they would have been given by the Communists (p. 68). Dr. Jones examined every aspect of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria—legal, military, cultural, and economic. Now, mind you, Jones did not say that the Japanese state in Manchuria was a progressive, tolerant, pluralistic democracy, but he did argue that it was not nearly as repressive or authoritarian as the Chinese claimed it was, and that Japanese economic investment and industrial development greatly improved economic conditions in the state.

Dr. W. S. Toller said the following in the journal International Affairs in his review of Manchuria Since 1931:

More space than is available would be needed to do justice to this valuable work. . . . Dr. Jones describes the evolution of Manchukuo [the Japanese state in Manchuria] during the fifteen years of its existence. . . .

Dr. Jones’s masterly record is a mine of information. . . . He shows himself entirely judicial and dispassionate; he doubts the truth of the allegation that “the Japanese higher authorities deliberately spread the use of drugs to render the Chinese population more docile” (p. 134), and he gives them credit for the benefits that they conferred on the country by vocational training, by currency reform, and by the development of hydro-electric and thermal power plants. (International Affairs, October 1949, p. 549)

 

[mikegriffith1]

Huh, some of the titles in the list of sources in my previous reply did not get italicized, either because I hit the "I" button too quickly or overlooked them. This snafu is corrected below.

Wow, more white people.

Oh, another racist comment. Well, thanks for sharing. I mean that sincerely. I am glad you are open about your racism. I am also glad that you do not seem to care that posting racist comments discredits you.

Tell you what, Axis Mikey,

Please feel free to keep discrediting yourself by addressing me by your "Axis Mikey" nickname, but people who read my threads and replies are going to see the nickname as proof that you are dishonest and juvenile. I mean, you realize that I was raised Jewish for part of my childhood and that I am well known for being ardently pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli, right? You realize that two of my websites--"The Case for Israel" and "The Holocaust"--praise and defend Israel and present evidence of the Holocaust and of Hitler's other crimes, right?

If you're going to try to attack me with a nickname, you might try using one that doesn't make you look like a total fool. It's as if I were to starting calling you "MAGA Joe" or "GOP Joe" or "Reagan-loving Joe." I would look like an idiot to anyone who read just a few of your replies.

Sometimes I address you with the nicknames "Jihad Joe" and "Mao-loving Joe," for example, because you frequently repeat Hamas/ISIS/Iranian propaganda about Jews and Israel, and because you parrot the Chinese Communist whitewash of mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung.

why don't you find some non-western/Japanese sources to back up your claims.

I have done this, in this very thread, but, as usual, you ignore facts and repeat your lies.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

Numerous scholars acknowledge the evidence that the Chinese Nationalists started the war in China, that the Japanese did not instigate the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, that the Japanese did not want war with the Chinese, that the Japanese had no intention of occupying China, and that the Japanese in fact were willing to withdraw from China in exchange for tacit recognition of their state in Manchuria. The list of scholars who acknowledge these facts would fill more lines than a USMB reply can hold. Here are a few of them:

-- Minoru Kitamura, a graduate in history from Kyoto University and a professor of humanities at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto. He is also a member of the Japan Association for Nanjing Studies and an associate researcher at the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals. His book, The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War, co-authored with Chinese scholar Siyun Lin and published by the University Press of America in 2014, is one of the best available books on the subject.

-- Siyun Lin, a Chinese scholar who graduated from Nanking University. As mentioned, Lin and Kitamura co-authored the book The Reluctant Combatant: Japan and the Second Sino-Japanese War. Lin wrote his own book on the Nanking Massacre: The Battle in Defense of Nanking and the Massacre in Nanking (2011).

-- Radhabinod Pal, the Indian judge on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) and a member of the UN’s International Law Commission from 1952-1966. Justice Pal’s famous massive dissent to the IMTFE’s kangaroo-court decisions is one of the most methodical destructions of the IMTFE-Chinese Communist version of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and the Second Sino-Japanese War ever written. Here is Pal’s dissent: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/65_S4.pdf or https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2a3d21/pdf.

-- John Toland, a renowned historian whose book on WWII-era Japan, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, won a Pulitzer Prize.

-- Dick Wilson, an Oxford graduate and a professor of history at the University of California. Wilson was the editor of The China Quarterly at one time. His book on the Second Sino-Japanese War, When Tigers Fight: The Story of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945, is one of the most balanced and objective works on the subject.

-- James Crowley, a professor of history at Yale University. His 1966 book Japan’s Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930-1938, which I have quoted in replies in this thread, is considered a “seminal” work on the Sino-Japanese War because, among other things, it refuted the long-held belief that the Japanese caused the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Even most Western scholars who are harshly critical of Imperial Japan now acknowledge, based on Crowley’s research, that Japan did not instigate the incident.

-- Peter Harmsen, a graduate in history from National Taiwan University and a foreign correspondent in the Far East for two decades. Harmsen is currently the bureau chief for the French News Agency in Taiwan. His 2018 book Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, which I have quoted in replies in this thread, is another one of the fairest, most objective studies on Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China.

-- Joshua Fogel, a professor of history at York University in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Fogel has been honored with visiting professorships at the School of Historical Studies of the Institute for Advanced Study (2001-2003) at Princeton, the British Inter-University China Centre, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As you might remember, Dr. Fogel has said that accepting the Chinese-Iris Chang story of the 100-man killing contest “requires a leap of faith that no balanced historian can make" ("The Nanking Atrocity and Chinese Historical Memory," in Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, editor, The Nanking Atrocity 1937–1938, Berghahn Books, 2007, p. 280).

-- Richard Minear, a graduate in history from Harvard University and a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts. Anyone who wants to read the other side of the story on Japan and China in WWII should start with Dr. Minear’s book Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, published by Princeton University Press in 1971).

-- Mark Peattie, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts and a research fellow at Stanford University. Peattie co-edited the excellent and balanced book The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, published by Stanford University Press in 2010.

-- Edward Drea, a military historian who specializes in the Imperial Japanese Army. Drea earned in doctorate in Japanese history from the University of Kansas. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945. In 2009, the University of Kansas Press published his superbly fair study of the Japanese army titled Japan’s Imperial Army: Its Rise and Fall, 1853–1945.

-- Hans van de Ven, a professor of modern Chinese history at Cambridge University. He co-edited the excellent and balanced book The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945.

-- Niall Ferguson, “one of Britain’s most renowned historians” and a professor of history at Harvard University and a senior research fellow at Stanford University. Ferguson’s 2006 book The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West includes a balanced, objective treatment of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria and China, as well as of the Pacific War and the factors that led to it.

-- Dayle Smith, a prominent Australian attorney who spent years studying the IMTFE. Smith focused on the IMTFE’s chief judge, William Webb, who was Australian. As part of his research into the IMTFE, Smith studied at the University of Queensland Library where Sir William Webb’s personal papers were lodged, at the Australian War Museum in Canberra, in Japan at the library of the Japan Times, at the Tokyo Diet Library, at the Supreme Court of Japan’s vault in Tokyo that houses many of the defense documents that the IMTFE would not allow into evidence, and at the Imperial War Museum in London. Smith presented a 15,000-word paper on the Tokyo War Crimes Trial to the Law faculty of the University of New England in Australia and made a similar presentation to the Supreme Court in Brisbane. The paper was later included in the book Queensland Judges on the High Court, published by the Supreme Court Library of Queensland in 2003. Smith’s massive study on the IMTFE, titled Judicial Murder? Macarthur and the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, was published in 2013.

-- Harold Vinacke, professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. His book 1952 book The United States and the Far East 1945-1951 acknowledges that Japan did not intend to conquer Asia in the same way or to the same degree that Nazi Germany intended to conquer Europe and Russia, and that Japanese colonial rule was not always brutal or totalitarian.

-- Edwin P. Hoyt, a renowned scholar on WW II. A graduate of the University of Oregon, Hoyt lectured at the University of Hawaii on the Pacific War. He spoke fluent Japanese and wrote numerous best-selling books on WW II. During the war, Hoyt served as the director of the Domestic Branch of the Office of War Information. His book Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict, 1853 to 1952 (McGraw, 1986) provides a fair and balanced analysis of Japan’s motives and actions in China and in the Pacific.

-- Dr. F. C. Jones (Francis C. Jones). Dr. Jones earned his Ph.D. in history at Harvard and taught history at the University of Bristol in England. He specialized in Asian history and wrote several books on Imperial Japan and China. His two books on Japan’s involvement in China, Japan’s New Order in East Asia 1937-1945 (1954) and Manchuria Since 1931 (1949), both published by Oxford University Press, received wide praise from scholars all over the world—but not from scholars in China, of course.

Dr. Jones’ book Japan’s New Order in East Asia lays out in painstaking detail the numerous Chinese provocations and Chinese rejections of Japanese peace offers that led to the Second Sino-Japanese War. Dr. Ralph Braibanti, in his review of Jones’ book in the University of Chicago’s Journal of Politics, said that it was “one of the most significant works on Japan to appear in recent years” and that it “merits careful attention also because of the new documentary sources” that it included (Journal of Politics, February 1955, p. 136).

Dr. Jones’ book Manchuria Since 1931 is a devastating refutation of the Chinese-inspired myths about Japan’s involvement in Manchuria. Dr. Jones pointed out that the Japanese gave the Manchurians more autonomy than they would have been given by the Communists (p. 68). Dr. Jones examined every aspect of Japan’s involvement in Manchuria—legal, military, cultural, and economic. Now, mind you, Jones did not say that the Japanese state in Manchuria was a progressive, tolerant, pluralistic democracy, but he did show that it was not nearly as repressive or authoritarian as the Chinese claimed it was, and that Japanese economic investment and industrial development greatly improved economic conditions in the state.

Dr. W. S. Toller said the following in the journal International Affairs in his review of Manchuria Since 1931:

More space than is available would be needed to do justice to this valuable work. . . . Dr. Jones describes the evolution of Manchukuo [the Japanese state in Manchuria] during the fifteen years of its existence. . . .

Dr. Jones’s masterly record is a mine of information. . . . He shows himself entirely judicial and dispassionate; he doubts the truth of the allegation that “the Japanese higher authorities deliberately spread the use of drugs to render the Chinese population more docile” (p. 134), and he gives them credit for the benefits that they conferred on the country by vocational training, by currency reform, and by the development of hydro-electric and thermal power plants. (International Affairs, October 1949, p. 549)

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, another racist comment. Well, thanks for sharing. I mean that sincerely. I am glad you are open about your racism. I am also glad that you do not seem to care that posting racist comments discredits you.

Wow, so a white person who admits white people have done some awful shit is racist. Interesting. And it comes from a guy who belongs to a deranged cult that taught until 1978 that black people were cursed by God with dark skin and couldn't be full members of their cult. (Not that a lot were signing up after 1978, for some reason.)

Talk about your white fragility made manifest.

Please feel free to keep discrediting yourself by addressing me by your "Axis Mikey" nickname, but people who read my threads and replies are going to see the nickname as proof that you are dishonest and juvenile. I mean, you realize that I was raised Jewish for part of my childhood and that I am well known for being ardently pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli, right? You realize that two of my websites--"The Case for Israel" and "The Holocaust"--praise and defend Israel and present evidence of the Holocaust and of Hitler's other crimes, right?

Frankly, other than the obligatory condemnation of the Holocaust (because it was white people getting killed, not Asians) you seem to spend a lot of time rationalizing what the Axis did, especially the Japanese.



So you praise Israel AFTER they start engaging in the kind of awful, racist shit that other white people engage in. Given their history, you'd think they'd know better.

If you're going to try to attack me with a nickname, you might try using one that doesn't make you look like a total fool. It's as if I were to starting calling you "MAGA Joe" or "GOP Joe" or "Reagan-loving Joe." I would look like an idiot to anyone who read just a few of your replies.

You look like an idiot most of the time, anyway. But you are a Mormon, years of brainwashing will do that.

Sometimes I address you with the nicknames "Jihad Joe" and "Mao-loving Joe," for example, because you frequently repeat Hamas/ISIS/Iranian propaganda about Jews and Israel, and because you parrot the Chinese Communist whitewash of mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung.

I actually understand Chinese history and Mao's role in it. Again, have a conversation with some Chinese people who grew up in China, and how they feel about Mao. It might change your perspective. They see him who took a country that was regularly humiliated by foreign powers and made it independent and strong.

I'll criticize Mao for the things he did wrong. The Great Leap Forward was a clusterfuck that got millions killed (although western sanctions and natural disasters made that worse.) The Cultural Revolution never should have gone as far as it did.

Oh, hey, here's a good place for you to start with understanding China better. Stop using Wade-Giles Romanizations for Chinese names. The proper spelling now is "Mao Zedong," which is much closer to how a Chinese person would pronounce it. Same thing with Nanking. Proper Romanization is "Nanjing".

I have done this, in this very thread, but, as usual, you ignore facts and repeat your lies.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

Numerous scholars acknowledge the evidence that the Chinese Nationalists started the war in China, that the Japanese did not instigate the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, that the Japanese did not want war with the Chinese, that the Japanese had no intention of occupying China, and that the Japanese in fact were willing to withdraw from China in exchange for tacit recognition of their state in Manchuria. The list of scholars who acknowledge these facts would fill more lines than a USMB reply can hold. Here are a few of them:

Wow. Just fucking wow.

I mean, seriously WHAT THE FUCK!!! This is why you get the nickname "Axis Mikey".

First and foremost, the Japanese never should have been in Manchuria to start with. Their 1931 invasion had been condemned by the League of Nations (after which Japan just walked out.) Second, the Japanese crossed the Border with China on military maneuvers. Then, they looked for one of their soldiers who had gotten drunk and gone to a brothel.

I'll start with three Asian scholars, to accommodate your racist mindset:

So you came up with

1) A Japanese.
2) A Taiwanese who collaborated with the Japanese to engage in apologism
3) And an Indian Judge who was criticized by his fellow jurists at the Tokyo Trial for doing some virtue signalling about British Imperialism. (Not that I disagree. The worst thing you can say about Japan is that they emulated the British and their bad behavior.)

And then you list a whole bunch of white people who say, "hey, that wasn't so bad, it wasn't like they were killing white people".

And this is the problem with genocides in general. We hear all day about the Holocaust because- guess what, white people. But we don't hear nearly enough about Japanese genocide in China or Belgian genocide in the Congo, because, hey, not white people, or Turkish genocide of the Armenians, because, hey, not white people.

In fact, when Hitler was planning the Holocaust, he said

Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

 

[Unkotare]

More proof that Joeblow is an irrational, biased, racist bigot (as if any further evidence was needed).

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wow, so a white person who admits white people have done some awful shit is racist. Interesting. And it comes from a guy who belongs to a deranged cult that taught until 1978 that black people were cursed by God with dark skin and couldn't be full members of their cult. (Not that a lot were signing up after 1978, for some reason.)

Talk about your white fragility made manifest.

Umm, yeah, okay. #fringe_rantings.

Frankly, other than the obligatory condemnation of the Holocaust (because it was white people getting killed, not Asians) you seem to spend a lot of time rationalizing what the Axis did, especially the Japanese.

LOL! Well, there you have it, folks. A new low has been reached in abject silliness and falsehood. Only to you, JoeB131, does it "seem" that I spend "a lot of time rationalizing what the Axis did." Only you could make such a surreal statement.

Anyone who reads my writings on WWII will wonder what planet you're living on to reach such a bogus conclusion. They will see that my website on the Holocaust goes far beyond an "obligatory condemnation of the Holocaust." While they're on my homepage, they'll notice my "The Case for Israel" website as well and will further wonder how you could make such a ludicrous claim about my views on the Axis.

Your "especially the Japanese" amplifier is revealing. You make the erroneous assumption that I approve/defend everything the Japanese did in the Pacific War, and then you use that assumption as the basis for your silly "Axis Mikey" pejorative.

One problem is that I condemn the majority of what Japan did in the Pacific War. Go read my book The Real Infamy of Pearl Harbor, for starters.

The other problem is that the Axis was deeply divided. Japan and Germany were at bitter odds over Germany's military aid to the Chinese Nationalists. Japan's alliance with Germany was hotly debated in the Japanese government and was strictly an alliance of convenience. The anti-Tripartite Alliance officials in Japan's government may have been able to block the alliance if FDR had not increased his anti-Japanese rhetoric and had not continued to misrepresent the situation in China. Japan ignored Germany's demand that it imprison Jews who lived in Japan and in Japanese-controlled areas in China. The Japanese were well aware that the Nazis viewed them as an inferior race.

Your argument is about as silly as if you were to accuse someone of being "pro-Soviet" because they defend the Allied cause in WWII.

So you praise Israel AFTER they start engaging in the kind of awful, racist *&^%^ that other white people engage in. Given their history, you'd think they'd know better.

You again repeat neo-Nazi/Hamas/ISIS/Iranian propaganda about Israel. You have no clue what you're talking about because you only consult anti-Israeli sources.

You look like an idiot most of the time, anyway.

Uh-huh. I'm not the one who openly expresses anti-Semitic bigotry, anti-Japanese bigotry, and anti-religious bigotry. I'm not the one who posits a vast international Jewish/Zionist conspiracy that has allegedly controlled the U.S. Government for decades, to name just one of your fringe views.

But you are a Mormon, years of brainwashing will do that.

Yet another display of your anti-religious bigotry.

I actually understand Chinese history and Mao's role in it. Again, have a conversation with some Chinese people who grew up in China, and how they feel about Mao. It might change your perspective. They see him who took a country that was regularly humiliated by foreign powers and made it independent and strong.

You know little about Chinese history. You've already proved that in this thread. And, as I've told you before, one of my sons has a Chinese national as a wife, and her parents live with them. We've had several conversations about China and Mao. They view Mao as a thug and a murderer.

I'll criticize Mao for the things he did wrong. The Great Leap Forward was a *&^&% that got millions killed (although western sanctions and natural disasters made that worse.) The Cultural Revolution never should have gone as far as it did.

Uhhh. . . . Just a second ago, in your preceding paragraph, you said Chinese people view Mao as someone who made China "independent and strong." In point of fact, Mao decimated China's economy with his extreme socialism and oppression. He put China years behind First World nations in economic and industrial development. He also wasted over a million Chinese lives in ghastly human-wave attacks in the Korean War. He murdered thousands of Chinese intellectuals. Etc., etc., etc.

You admit Mao "got millions killed" but then add that Western sanctions made things worse. You also admit the Cultural Revolution "should not have gone as far as it did" without explaining just how far it went. Yet, even this weasel-worded, milk-toast admission of Mao's brutality is quite a change in tune from your previous replies on the subject. In your previous replies, you painted Mao as a wonderful, tolerant leader who brought peace and prosperity to China, and you even claimed that he was less oppressive than Chiang Kai-Shek.

Oh, hey, here's a good place for you to start with understanding China better. Stop using Wade-Giles Romanizations for Chinese names. The proper spelling now is "Mao Zedong," which is much closer to how a Chinese person would pronounce it. Same thing with Nanking. Proper Romanization is "Nanjing".

Huh, well, your hero, the suicidal and paranoid nutcase Iris Chang, wrote "Nanking," e.g., her book The Rape of Nanking. Anyway, yes, I'm aware that Mao Zedong is the new standard spelling of the name. I just prefer the traditional Mao Tse-Tung, as do some other authors.

Wow. Just &*^&^% wow.

I mean, seriously WHAT THE &*&^%^ !!! This is why you get the nickname "Axis Mikey".

LOL! This is your response to the partial of list of scholars who reject your version of the Pacific War?! Are you actually saying that those scholars were/are pro-Axis???! Are you really saying that??!! It says volumes that you would equate documenting Chinese aggression against the Japanese and that the Japanese were not always the aggressors with endorsing the Axis.

First and foremost, the Japanese never should have been in Manchuria to start with. Their 1931 invasion had been condemned by the League of Nations (after which Japan just walked out.) Second, the Japanese crossed the Border with China on military maneuvers. Then, they looked for one of their soldiers who had gotten drunk and gone to a brothel.

Another blah, blah, blah repetition of the Chinese Communist/pro-FDR version of events. If you would ever bother to read any of the sources I cited, you'd learn that your version is fiction, and that even some Chinese officials later admitted that in key cases the Chinese, not the Japanese, were the aggressors.

So you came up with

1) A Japanese.
2) A Taiwanese who collaborated with the Japanese to engage in apologism
3) And an Indian Judge who was criticized by his fellow jurists at the Tokyo Trial for doing some virtue signalling about British Imperialism. (Not that I disagree. The worst thing you can say about Japan is that they emulated the British and their bad behavior.)

Ah, okay. So when you said you wanted to see Asian sources, you meant you only wanted to see Asian sources that follow the Chinese Communist version of events. Got it.

And it is mighty odd to see someone like you attacking Justice Pal and citing his fellow jurists on the Tokyo Tribunal. But, of course, you can't bring yourself to support Justice Pal because, though fiercely anti-colonialist and pro-Asian, he refused to go along with the Tokyo Tribunal's anti-Japanese propaganda.

And then you list a whole bunch of white people who say, "hey, that wasn't so bad, it wasn't like they were killing white people".

Only you could reach such a bizarre conclusion about those scholars and then have the nerve, or foolishness, to actually post it in a public forum.

And this is the problem with genocides in general. We hear all day about the Holocaust because- guess what, white people. But we don't hear nearly enough about Japanese genocide in China or Belgian genocide in the Congo, because, hey, not white people, or Turkish genocide of the Armenians, because, hey, not white people.

Yeah, I won't bother answering this racist reading of history. I'm just glad you're letting people see your racist mindset.

In fact, when Hitler was planning the Holocaust, he said, Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

Oh my, so you're quoting Hitler to support your racist reading of history. Umm, okay. Yeah. Go for it.

Just a reminder: Hitler said all kinds of hateful things about the Jews that you have parroted. You also frequently parrot neo-Nazi/ISIS/Hamas/Iranian views about Jews and Israel. I'm guessing this is one reason you've resorted to the odd tactic of nicknaming me "Axis Mikey," i.e., so as to divert attention from your rather long record of repeating Nazi, neo-Nazi, and radical Muslim slanders about Jews and Israel.

Finally, I'll just note that you did not lay a finger on the evidence discussed by the esteemed, recognized scholars and their books that I listed. You merely once again posted another collection of ignorant, racist rants and ad hominem attacks while merely repeating the same Chinese Communist/pro-FDR version of history that you've been peddling from the outset.

 

[JoeB131]

OL! Well, there you have it, folks. A new low has been reached in abject silliness and falsehood. Only to you, JoeB131, does it "seem" that I spend "a lot of time rationalizing what the Axis did." Only you could make such a surreal statement.

Anyone who reads my writings on WWII will wonder what planet you're living on to reach such a bogus conclusion. They will see that my website on the Holocaust goes far beyond an "obligatory condemnation of the Holocaust." While they're on my homepage, they'll notice my "The Case for Israel" website as well and will further wonder how you could make such a ludicrous claim about my views on the Axis.

Yes, now that the Israelis are acting like other shitty white people, you are al lfor them.

My point stands. You excuse Pearl Harbor. you downplay the Rape of Nanjing, and you seem to think that the ruthless bastards who got hanged for killing 30 million people got a raw deal in court.

Your "especially the Japanese" amplifier is revealing. You make the erroneous assumption that I approve/defend everything the Japanese did in the Pacific War, and then you use that assumption as the basis for your silly "Axis Mikey" pejorative.

That you make excuses for ANYTHING they did is the problem, Axis Mikey.

The other problem is that the Axis was deeply divided. Japan and Germany were at bitter odds over Germany's military aid to the Chinese Nationalists. Japan's alliance with Germany was hotly debated in the Japanese government and was strictly an alliance of convenience. The anti-Tripartite Alliance officials in Japan's government may have been able to block the alliance if FDR had not increased his anti-Japanese rhetoric and had not continued to misrepresent the situation in China. Japan ignored Germany's demand that it imprison Jews who lived in Japan and in Japanese-controlled areas in China. The Japanese were well aware that the Nazis viewed them as an inferior race.

Bullshit, the Japanese were of the same cloth as the Nazis. If the Chinese ran Hollywood instead of the Jews, you'd know this.

Now, you almost find a nut like a blind squirrel in that the Nazis themselves debated whether to continue helping China (which they had been working with since the 1920s) or to throw in with Japan. It wasn't quite as simple as you think. The Guomindang had a lot in common with the Nazis in that they were both fascist movements. Also, given Hitler's ultimate goal of taking out Stalin, people like von Ribbontrop thought China would be a more natural ally.

Of course, when it turned out Peanut was as incompetent as he was, Japan seemed like a better ally.

You again repeat neo-Nazi/Hamas/ISIS/Iranian propaganda about Israel. You have no clue what you're talking about because you only consult anti-Israeli sources.

No, I just have been watching the Zionists murder Arab children since the 1980s. What turned me against the Zionist Entity was the Shatila and Shabra massacre of 1982.

The fundamental lie of Zionism is "A land without a people for a people without a land." It's a Lie. There were people there, and they were ethnically cleansed.

Uhhh. . . . Just a second ago, in your preceding paragraph, you said Chinese people view Mao as someone who made China "independent and strong." In point of fact, Mao decimated China's economy with his extreme socialism and oppression. He put China years behind First World nations in economic and industrial development. He also wasted over a million Chinese lives in ghastly human-wave attacks in the Korean War. He murdered thousands of Chinese intellectuals. Etc., etc., etc.

Are you fucking kidding me?

When Mao took over in 1949, China was one of the poorest countries in the world with an infant mortality rate of 25%. By the time he carked it in 1976, it had dropped to 7%. The literacy rate in China in 1949 was 20%. When he passed in 1976, it was up to 70% and is up to 98% today. (Again, simplifying the written Hanzi language was a big help in that.)

You admit Mao "got millions killed" but then add that Western sanctions made things worse. You also admit the Cultural Revolution "should not have gone as far as it did" without explaining just how far it went. Yet, even this weasel-worded, milk-toast admission of Mao's brutality is quite a change in tune from your previous replies on the subject. In your previous replies, you painted Mao as a wonderful, tolerant leader who brought peace and prosperity to China, and you even claimed that he was less oppressive than Chiang Kai-Shek.

Chiang was an asshole and a fascist. That's why everyone dropped their weapons and didn't fight for him.

Mao was totally brutal... but he was effective, that's the point.

As opposed to your hero Trump, who is brutal and incompetent.

 

[JoeB131]

Huh, well, your hero, the suicidal and paranoid nutcase Iris Chang, wrote "Nanking," e.g., her book The Rape of Nanking. Anyway, yes, I'm aware that Mao Zedong is the new standard spelling of the name. I just prefer the traditional Mao Tse-Tung, as do some other authors.

Wow, just listen to the Misogyny and Racism there. How dare this woman of color have AN OPINION the esteemed Axis Mikey doesn't approve of.

LOL! This is your response to the partial of list of scholars who reject your version of the Pacific War?! Are you actually saying that those scholars were/are pro-Axis???! Are you really saying that??!! It says volumes that you would equate documenting Chinese aggression against the Japanese and that the Japanese were not always the aggressors with endorsing the Axis.

I'm saying that they are full of shit. The only one I read was Toland (Both his book on Hitler and his history of the Pacific War) and frankly, the guy was a Pro-Axis Toady, who was praised by Pat Buchanan.

Another blah, blah, blah repetition of the Chinese Communist/pro-FDR version of events. If you would ever bother to read any of the sources I cited, you'd learn that your version is fiction, and that even some Chinese officials later admitted that in key cases the Chinese, not the Japanese, were the aggressors.

Again, the only way the Chinese were the AGGRESSORS is if they hit the beaches of Honshu. Crossing over from Manchuko (Illegally occupied by Japan) to Beijing makes the Japanese the aggressors.


JAPAN HAD NO FUCKING BUSINESS BEING IN CHINA TO START WITH!!!!

Is this clear enough for you, Axis Mikey?

Ah, okay. So when you said you wanted to see Asian sources, you meant you only wanted to see Asian sources that follow the Chinese Communist version of events. Got it.

And it is mighty odd to see someone like you attacking Justice Pal and citing his fellow jurists on the Tokyo Tribunal. But, of course, you can't bring yourself to support Justice Pal because, though fiercely anti-colonialist and pro-Asian, he refused to go along with the Tokyo Tribunal's anti-Japanese propaganda.

Except we weren't talking about his "Fellow Jurists". His fellow Jurists got it right and hanged the bastards. The mistake was inviting Pal to start with, because he came in with the attitude that he was going to acquit as a big Fuck You to the British.

Only you could reach such a bizarre conclusion about those scholars and then have the nerve, or foolishness, to actually post it in a public forum.

Hmmm... no, the problem is that Western Historians tend to take a Euro-Centric view of the world.

Yeah, I won't bother answering this racist reading of history. I'm just glad you're letting people see your racist mindset.

Translation- Axis Mikey is fine with Genocide, as long as it isn't white people.

Oh my, so you're quoting Hitler to support your racist reading of history. Umm, okay. Yeah. Go for it.

Um, no, I'm pointing out that Hitler thought he could get away with genocide because all those PAST genocides against non-White people went largely unpunished.

I'm going to go one further. Do you know where Dolphie got his inspiration for Concentration Camps? American Indian Reservations! Our own country's little contribution to the insane.

Finally, I'll just note that you did not lay a finger on the evidence discussed by the esteemed, recognized scholars

because they were all shit.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[JoeB131]

Unkotard, still nothing to add to the conversation.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotard, still nothing to add to the conversation.

Ready to compare threads started, big mouth?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Of course, we have known for many years that FDR had several advisers who were Soviet agents or operatives. He berated anti-communist Japan for every real and imagined sin but excused or ignored Soviet brutality and aggression. He also routinely parroted Soviet and Chinese propaganda about Japanese actions in the war in China.

For example, when the Japanese took China’s largest city, Shanghai, the Soviets and FDR and his allies in the American press condemned Japan for its supposed “aggression.” However, the Japanese were not the aggressors in that battle.

The Japanese did not want to attack Shanghai. The Japanese had been trying to defuse the tense situation in Shanghai when the Nationalists attacked a small Japanese garrison because they thought they could easily overrun the garrison before the Japanese could get reinforcements to the area. But, the 2,000-man garrison fought with unbelievable courage and held off the 30,000-man Chinese army that attacked it just long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

However, this incident did not lead to an all-out battle for Shanghai. A compromise was reached, and Shanghai returned to some sense of normalcy.

But, this situation changed when Chiang Kai-Shek, commanding general of the Chinese forces, decided to attack the Japanese section of Shanghai with two elite divisions. The Japanese brought in more reinforcements and an enormous battle ensued, ending with the Nationalist forces being expelled from Shanghai and the Japanese taking control of the city.

Chiang Kai-Shek’s reasons for picking a fight with the Japanese at Shanghai remain a subject of debate. Peter Harmsen:

Chiang may have genuinely thought that by concentrating his best troops in a shock attack on the meager Japanese garrison in Shanghai, he would be able to score a quick, dramatic victory that could rally the nation.

Japan, on the other hand, only entered the battle reluctantly. The army already felt overstretched in the north of China, and for the wrong reasons. Many Japanese generals considered the Soviet Union to be the main threat and the one that most resources had to be directed towards. The Chinese themselves understood this was the case, and on occasion admitted so in public. “Japan had no wish to fight at Shanghai,” Chinese General Zhang Fakui, one of the top field commanders during the struggle for the city, said in a post-war interview. “It should be simple to see that we took the initiative.” (Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, Casemate Publishers, 2018, Kindle version, loc. 1453)

Yet, FDR and his allies in the press, parroting the Soviet line, blamed the Japanese and cited their capture of Shanghai as another alleged example of Japanese "aggression."