sad thoughts on poly posters

[Ned]

Che, I agree that most Americans today would and do justify the war against Hitler on the basis that his regime was barbaric and had to be terminated, citing the Holocost. But, prior to Pearl Harbor, I believe the majority of Americans did not want to get involved in the European war. True Hitler was a racist megalomanic. But Stalin was a butchering totalitarian. France had fallen, but France had declared war on Germany. England was holding its own, barely; but England too had declared war on Germany. Moreover, Germany had repeatedly indicated that it wanted to stop the war, but it was England that refused.

Trying to look at it solely from the knowledge of an American in 1941, it was not clear that we should intervene on the side of England and the SU. There was no real strong case, at that time, of this being a "just" war.

As to Chiang Kai-Shek, he may have been a brutal leader, but was he really a dictator? It was my impression that we viewed China as being a democratic country after Sun Yat-sen's overthrow of the Imperial goverment. Of course, since he waged war on Mao, Chiang may be viewed as a dictator to communists. Still, he had to have been democratically elected. (What is the history on this.)

If Chiang were as barbaric as you describe him, I fail to understand why we took sides with Chiang against Japan in the late 30's.

(Just to prove my point: Assume that Poland had negotiated a peaceful settlement with Hitler so that England and France do not declare war. Then Hitler invades Russia in 1941. Would we have intervened in that war on the side of Stalin? Of course not - the reason being that Stalin was viewed at the time as a brutal dictator, probably far more brutal than Hitler.)

[DarkCloud]

guess I was a bit rude yesterday. I'm sorry. Don't take it so hard.

Thank you. Apology accepted.
I was wrong on the Napoleon point.
I'll try to do thorough research before posting my memories of bygone historical readings Hopefully, after rereading the rest of this thread I'll rejoin again

[David Floyd]

I'll summarize - serb waves his flag, I quote hard numbers and statistics

Just kidding, it's an interesting thread, both sides make good points...

[GeneralTacticus]

As to Chiang Kai-Shek, he may have been a brutal leader, but was he really a dictator?

Yes.

It was my impression that we viewed China as being a democratic country after Sun Yat-sen's overthrow of the Imperial goverment.

Whether the US views a nation as democratic has absolutely nothing to do with whether it actually is.

Of course, since he waged war on Mao, Chiang may be viewed as a dictator to communists.

Not just to communists. His secret police also destroyed the Chinese Democratic Party, which the americans hoped might be able to provide a democratic government for China.

Still, he had to have been democratically elected. (What is the history on this.)

Chiang was never elected; he was given the Kuomintang dictatorship as Sun Yat-sen's successor.

[Ned]

GT, Now this is becoming really bizzare. If Chiang was a brutal dictator, why in the world did we support the SOB at all? This would be like supporting Hitler against England.

Were those movies, I believe, pre-WWII, showing the American Flying Tigers bravely helping the noble Chinese pure propaganda? (Of course, you will say yes.) Perhaps, then, it was Hollywood that got America into WWII?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
GT, Now this is becoming really bizzare. If Chiang was a brutal dictator, why in the world did we support the SOB at all? This would be like supporting Hitler against England.

Were those movies, I believe, pre-WWII, showing the American Flying Tigers bravely helping the noble Chinese pure propaganda? (Of course, you will say yes.) Perhaps, then, it was Hollywood that got America into WWII?

Well Stalin was worse than Chiang and he was a "good guy"

It was all done on the enemy of my enemy proinciple

[Q Classic]

If Chiang was a brutal dictator, why in the world did we support the SOB at all?

ned... america supported the marcos regime in the philippines. america supported the pak chung hee regime in skorea, then following that, the chun doo hwan and roh tae woo regimes.

small note: chun doo hwan was responsible for a brutal massacre of several thousand in the city of kwangju because they protested, wanting more democracy.

the us supported noriega in the beginning. and saddam before he turned on us. we supported the mujahideen against the soviets.

we were joyous when tito broke away from the warsaw pact. we loved some of those two-bit african dictators when they were on our side against communism. we liked pinochet for a brief period, when we were against communism.

enough examples?

ned, we've supported some real bastards in the past. chiang, if anything, was not as bad as most.

[Ned]

Of course, WHEN war breaks out, allying ones self to the devil may be understandable if that is what it takes to win the war. During the Cold War, we apparently were indifferent to the barbarities of leaders so long as they were on our side.

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

I clearly understand that Japan was a direct threat against English, Dutch and French interests in China and SE Asia. But does that justify our attacking Japan? We were not then allies of any of these countries.

The more we talk about this the more "confusing" it gets.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Of course, WHEN war breaks out, allying ones self to the devil may be understandable if that is what it takes to win the war. During the Cold War, we apparently were indifferent to the barbarities of leaders so long as they were on our side.

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

I clearly understand that Japan was a direct threat against English, Dutch and French interests in Japan and SE Asia. But does that justify our attacking Japan? We were not then allies of any of these countries.

The more we talk about this the more "confusing" it gets.

Since when did the US start the war with Japan

[Ned]

The embargo, coupled with demands that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, was an act of war.

The embargo was the final act in an increasing series of hostile acts by the United States.

[Q Classic]

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

China wasn't so much a dictatorship as a military junta which wanted to be a democracy, but was too corrupt and under foreign attack to. that's why we allied ourselves with them. that Democracy word, buried in all of that other technicality stuff.

that, and nobody likes those dirty japs, so even chinks are better.

The embargo, coupled with demands that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, was an act of war.

The embargo was the final act in an increasing series of hostile acts by the United States.

you could say everything the japanese did in asia in the early 20th as an act of war on every single asian people outside of japan...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
Of course, WHEN war breaks out, allying ones self to the devil may be understandable if that is what it takes to win the war. During the Cold War, we apparently were indifferent to the barbarities of leaders so long as they were on our side.

But, in the 1930s, if Japan was a constitutional monarchy and China was a dictatorship, I don't understand why we aligned ourselves with China against Japan.

I clearly understand that Japan was a direct threat against English, Dutch and French interests in China and SE Asia. But does that justify our attacking Japan? We were not then allies of any of these countries.

The more we talk about this the more "confusing" it gets.

You're right -- we should have just politely asked for an apology from Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor, and then just continue on, minding our own business.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

you could say everything the japanese did in asia in the early 20th as an act of war on every single asian people outside of japan...

Can anyone give me even one example of the Japanese threatening America during the 1930s?

And of course, in response to other posts about the "clarity" of evilness of the Japanese that justified our intervention into the Sino-Japanese war, Hirohito was clearly the eptome of evil - so much so that he continued to rule Japan with our consent 'til just recently.

[MrFun]

Ned, you never heard of Pearl Harbor??

THAT was when Japan attacked United States -- in 1941, not the 1930's.

[Q Classic]

Can anyone give me even one example of the Japanese threatening America during the 1930s?

threatening america? how about expansion? americans, hating the japs, thought that any increasing power from them should be met with suspcion and preemptive political maneuvering.
whether this is a valid reason or not, america did want to cement its power in the pacific, and japan did stand in that way, because they were trying to expand their own evil empire.

And of course, in response to other posts about the "clarity" of evilness of the Japanese that justified our intervention into the Sino-Japanese war, Hirohito was clearly the eptome of evil - so much so that he continued to rule Japan with our consent 'til just recently.

ned, don't try and whitewash what the japanese did. or what the allies accepted to pacify the japanese. hirohito was probably just as aware of the scope of the atrocities as tojo-- but since he wasn't the one calling the shots, so to speak, he could hide behind a curtain of plausible deniability.

no, japan was evil. if not for pearl harbot, than for everything they did in korea, in taiwan, in manchuria.