I wasn't even talking specifically about Laos, I didn't even mention the country. I was referring to Indochina as a whole. Now getting to reality, knowing what we know now, do you believe America was justified getting involved in Indochina?
Hating corrupt governments has been around for a long time it's good that it's becoming more popular imperialism and butchering civilians shouldn't be praised. Claiming high estimations as fact is also intellectually dishonest especially when those estimations are extremely questionable just like those 1 million+ dead Iraqis. Both countries exploited extreme hatred and yes it was much more indoctrinated in Japan but that doesn't pardon the American government's own history. Such as it's past imperialist efforts like the Philippine genocide of an estimated 400,000 or the long genocide of native Americans. Japan was simply the new imperialist power on the block they made some stupid choices and attacked America a country that was still in recession and needed a good war to kick it's economy into overdrive. Japan lost and became a vassal. Nukes weren't used out of necessity, they were used for experimentation, and intimidation. This "modern perspective" you keep talking about has existed well before the war refusing to acknowledge it makes you the one who looks ignorant.
Actually the mentality and propaganda justifying Japan's imperialism is quite similar to that of the US, particularly Bush II's invasion of Iraq. This isn't the opinion of "America-haters", rather from people who have intellectual integrity. After all, its American top academics themselves that back up this parallel. Take for example, historian John Dower: "The occupation of Japan offers no model whatsoever for any projected occupation of Iraq. On the contrary, it should stand as a warning that we are lurching toward war with no idea of what we are really getting into. What is presented as hard-nosed realism by the advocates of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is really - what? I have concluded after much thought that our so-called realism is simply a terrible hubris. But to an historian of the United States and Japan and World War II there are also terrible ironies in these recent developments. Part of the irony is that Americans - certainly Americans in the current administration - have no sense of irony. 'September 11' has become our terrible new 'Pearl Harbour', and at the very same time we are touting 'pre-emptive strikes' as a moral and practical modus operandi. In the name of curbing weapons of mass destruction we have embarked on a massive program of producing new arsenals of mass destruction and have announced that we may resort to first-use of nuclear weapons. We express moral repulsion and horror at the terror-bombing of civilians, and rightly so; and then an endless stream of politicians and pundits explains how this is peculiar to Islamic fundamentalists who do not value human life as we do. But 'terror-bombing' has been everyone's game since World War II. This is the term historians routinely use to describe the U.S. bombing campaign against Japan that began with the destruction, in a single air raid, of fourteen square miles of downtown Tokyo in March 1945 and continued through Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is nothing cultural or religious or unique about this. There is one 'lesson' from my own field of Japanese history that I find increasingly difficult to put out of mind these days, and that concerns the road to war that began in the early 1930s for Japan and only ended in 1945. Until recently, historians used to explain this disaster in terms of Japan's 'backwardness' and 'semi-feudal' nature. The country had all these old warrior traditions. It wasn't a democracy - and, of course, democracies don't wage aggressive war. More recent studies, however, cast Japan's road to war in a different and more terrifying light. Why 'terrifying'? First, much recent scholarship suggests that it was the modern rather than 'backward' aspects of Japanese society and culture that enabled a hawkish leadership to mobilize the country for all-out war. Modern mass communications enabled politicians and ideologues to whip up war sentiment and castigate those who criticized the move to war as traitors. Modern concerns about external markets and resources drove Japan into Manchuria, China, and Southeast Asia. Modern weaponry carried its own technological imperatives. Top-level planners advanced up-to-date theories about mobilizing the entire resources of the country (and surrounding areas) for 'total war'. Sophisticated phrasemakers pumped out propaganda about defending the homeland and promoting 'coexistence and co-prosperity' throughout Asia. Cultures of violence, cultures of militarism, cultures of unquestioning obedience to supreme authority in the face of national crisis - all of this was nurtured by sophisticated organs of propaganda and control. And, in retrospect, none of this seems peculiarly dated or peculiarly 'Japanese' today. The other aspect that is so terrifying to contemplate is that virtually every step of the way, the Japanese leaders who concluded that military solutions had become unavoidable were very smart and very proud of their technical expertise, their special knowledge, their unsentimental 'realism' in a threatening world. Many of these planners were, in our own phrase, 'the best and the brightest'. We have detailed records of their deliberations and planning papers, and most are couched in highly rational terms. Each new escalation, each new extension of the empire, was deemed essential to the national interest. And even in retrospect, it is difficult to say at what point this so-called realism crossed the border into madness. But it was, in the end, madness. April 2003 Originally published in the February/March 2003 issue of Boston Review." http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-10.html#terrible More often than not, US foreign policy is madness.
Thousands had to be nuked because Japan had "started it" and because we couldn't allow them to set terms? Terms that they got to have after the bombings and subsequent surrender anyway, mind you. I should also think that any reasonable nation would have surrendered upon being hit by such a holocaust - America was a terrorist nation when it dropped those bombs, just as Britain was a terrorist nation by firebombing German cities. I'm not anti-American, but I am certainly critical of my country and its leadership, same as any citizen of a free country ought to be. You're inviting the exact same kind of trouble Germany and Japan got when you shrug and let your government do whatever it pleases.
Right now, at this very moment in time, I could give a (*)(*)(*)(*) less, but I will indulge. Yes, from the realist perspective, yes, we were justified as our interests were threatened. The Cold War was a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and the conflicts around SE Asia have scars to prove it. I don't think you quite understand WWII history very well.
Let me say this again; WHEN YOU START A WAR AND LOSE YOU DON'T GET TO SET THE TERMS OF SURRENDER! You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yeah, you're right, my 10 million estimate was off. It was TOO conservative. The official government estimate is 20 million dead. Almost all reputable historians and sources have numbers of AT LEAST 20,000,000 dead. How is Japan doing now? They've had their independence for decades and are a thriving democracy. Every major power on earth has committed some very questionable acts in their history. The U.S. Army certainly committed atrocities in the Philippines, but the majority of the estimated 34,000 to 1 million civilian deaths were the result of cholera and other diseases, not systematic genocide as you claim. Again, you take history out of context. What were the Germans, British, Russian, French, Dutch, Chinese, etc. doing at the very same time? In many cases, much worse things. The U.S. was most certainly the most "tame" of all the powers during the imperial age. They were also usually the first to relinquish their claims. Show me a world power at the turn of the 20th century that treated its territories better.
Whenever I read statements by people who believe that way, it makes me sad. And I can't say it any better then 2 other giants. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. If you haven't found something worth dying for, you aren't fit to be living.
For crying out loud, why? Two cities + worth of people had to be outright killed or burned and irradiated simply because of some axiom about what surrendering nations get to do or not do? Preserving lives matters more than making a stupid political/military point IMO. America and the UK both became monstrous in their desire to win the war, and people are still denying it today, making up excuses and pretending that only the Nazis were bad.
More civilians were killed during the incendiary bombing raids over Tokyo than the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most houses in Japan were made of paper and wood.. and Tokyo was literally a smoldering city after these raids. The Japanese were not going to surrender unconditionally...in fact a ground invasion of American troops was in the planning stages. The A-bombs were also a show of force to the Soviets, we possessed the know-how to produce such a weapon...but regardless of what the pacifists say...Japan was not going to surrender unconditionally without a ground invasion prior to the A-bombs.
Because the surrendering nations were responsible for starting the war which costs the lives of millions. They lost, they do as they are told as we would like to prevent ANOTHER world war from happening. It would be like letting a criminal determine his own jail sentence.
And even more were killed by the Japanese in the "Rape of Nanking". Including an orgy of violence in which 2 Japanese Officers had a contest to see who would be the first to behead 100 individuals with their swords. It was a big event in Japan, reported in the newspapers as if it was a sporting event. And when they passed 100 with scores to close to call, it went into "Extra Innings". This is the problem with revisionist history. They see the culture of Japan today, and refuse to consider the Japanese culture of that time period. And in fact, they still do not see the culture of Japan today. Without a doubt the most xenophobic nation in the world. For example, good luck finding much information on becoming a citizen of Japan. You can be a "Resident", even a "Permanent Resident" (if you have a skill they badly need), but becoming a citizen? Good luck, almost never happens. And no, they were not going to surrender, Bushido would not let them. This has been covered in here countless times, but the revisionists do not have a clue.
Ugh can just say whose estimate that is? At first i thought you were referring to R. J. Rummel's but now it seems like your referring to Werner Gruhl's who admits most of the deaths relate to famine or Chalmers Johnson who going by his writing is extremely opinionated and misleading. I do agree Japanese imperialism probably contributed to the 30 million+ dead but to say all of those deaths were part of a genocide is misleading just like saying America committed a genocide that killed 400000 in the Philippines. Now onward yes Japan is doing pretty well today by the normal standards and yes many other countries that made imperialistic moves committed far worse atrocities then America I'm surprised you didn't mention Belgium honestly. America's worst atrocities were committed before the 19th century the country had the resources it needed so there was little need to go out and conquer foreign land so why debate it. America resumed those early 20th century policies post war just like Russia, China, and Britain.
Fighting is not exclusive to war not even close. Many countries and people are incapable of fighting a war and winning it. Waging war would result in a much worse scenario for them then other alternatives. War isn't an option for Chechnya, Tibet, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, Bahrain, the Congo and many others especially peoples who don't even have a country. They cant take the easy way out of kill and break their stuff, no they have to fight through smarter means or they fail.
In most of these cases, how about not fighting the war in the first place? The cause of most wars generally falls into 2 areas. Either the failure of one nation to negotiate, or to negotiate in good faith. Then you have the last, where there was never any chance for negotiation in the first place. Tibet never had a chance, because China did not negotiate, it siezed. After all, it had the dialectic on it's side. Germany did not negotiate because they were the "Master Race". And in a lot of these situations, that is what treaties are for. Smaller nations (Poland) form treaties with bigger nations (UK, France), in the hopes that the other countries would be enough to keep the wolves at bay (Germany). Sometimes it works (South Korea, Kuwait), sometimes it does not (South Vietnam). But these alliances often times do keep other nations from being more agressive. The best way to "fight smarter" is to never have to fight in the first place. After all, that was the very idea behind NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Be big and bad with your alliances, and hopefully the other side will never attack you.
You're WAY WAY off basis in comparing Japanese atrocities in the second Sino-Japanese war (WW2) with the Philippines campaign. The fact that you can write off the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese so easily is rather disturbing. The Japanese planned and committed a MASSIVE genocide. The goal of the Japanese was to kill as many Chinese as they could. In the Philippines, the U.S., while fighting a brutal counter-insurgency, had terrible rules of engagement and committed atrocities in the midst of battle.
Peace through superior firepower. The U.S. Navy's main purpose today in the 21st Century is not to fight wars, it's to prevent them. What with China bulking up it's military, Navy ships, subs and carriers patrolling the Pacific rim should make China think twice about invading Taiwan..or N. Korea attacking S. Korea and Japan. China's leaders are at least somewhat sane...N. Korea is run by mad men..they scare me and are stupid enough to instigate a tactical nuclear war.
You know despite the peaceniks, pacifists and vehemently anti-war people... These United States have been a beacon of freedom since we've become a Super Power.. Mistakes have been made, hubris has gotten the better of us...but this would be a different World had the U.S. not emerged from WWII as a Super Power. People take our freedoms for granted...and do not realize how many regimes, on a global level...have no respect for life, have no respect for liberty, and have no respect for peace. A perfect World would be where no standing armies, navies and air force are needed...we all desire peace...but it takes two to tango...and more often than not it's the bad guys who desire conflict.
People tend to forget these atrocities. It's horrifying to think that less than 70 years ago two "first world" nations carried out genocide and ethnic cleansing that killed at minimum 30,000,000 civilians. The terms that used to be reserved for these blemishes on human history, words like genocide, human atrocity, and war crime, are now used recklessly in reference to 2 or 3 civilians accidentally killed by errant missile strikes. It's a grave disservice to the world to not put things in perspective. People forget just what human beings are capable of; especially people who live in wealthy westernized "nanny" states that protect them from the real world. Some 20 year old college student who's never seen a dead body isn't in a great position to understand the harsher realities of conflict. The western world (and even the third world) has made great strides in being more "humane" in the last few decades. Before so vehemently criticizing the status quo, people need to realize that in humanity, just below kumbaya and world peace, words like torture, death camps, and mass famine lurk.
It most definitely puts things in perspective when you investigate those atrocities then you hear people say how the USA is the devil because a few prisoners were embarrassed, or soldiers peed on some dead bodies. While I have a vehement distaste for those actions, and believe they should be punished, it is pale in comparison.
You don't allow one of the most brutal, genocidal, expansionist empires in history retain the "core" of its society and motivation in a conditional surrender. Japan's massive territorial holdings in Korea, Vietnam, China and other places were also still intact. The U.S. wasn't going to allow their empire to remain, especially when tens of millions were being killed.
As alluded to by Mushroom, a gentlemen more knowledgeable than I on the specifics of Japanese history... The Bushido code permeated Imperialist Japanese culture. Defeat was considered dishonorable and death was preferable to dishonor. Ask any Marine or soldier who fought in the Pacific theater during WWII. Okinawa, Tarawa, Iwo Jima...though out-numbered and out-gunned, the Japanese fought fiercely to the last man. Surrender was not an option. The U.S. sought unconditional surrender to change the very foundation of Japanese culture. Total defeat was required...and indeed today, we see Japan as an ally.
