historical myths people somehow still believe

[LightSpectra]

Is there any dispute that Europeans viewed themselves superior to Asians in that era? Not at all.

Were they treated any worse than the Europeans treated each other? Nope. You make concessions to get allies, and you try to extract as much as possible from everybody else; it's a basic law of business, and it applies just as much to international politics. What you're doing is dwelling on the times Japan got the short hand of the stick while ignoring all of the instances in which Japan immensely benefited from European connections.

Even if that weren't the case, and Japan was simply "bullied" by the Great Powers: is that any justification for decades of conquest and oppression? Absolutely not, because nothing is. Therefore, the U.S. was acting humanitarian by giving Japan an embargo during their invasion of continental China, and Japan was under no moral righthood to attack the U.S. for it. I might be a tad sympathetic if there was a tower of evidence to suggest if Japan didn't become a Great Power that they'd be subjugated by a Great Power; in which case, as wrong as it still is, at least there's the understandably logical motive. But not even that. Japan's actions are utterly indefensible by anybody but an imperialism apologist.

Another thing I must object to is your personification of Japan of a guy that's been bullied snapped one day. Utter tripe. Japan is a country, and its governments were made up of groups of people who had to make good decisions for their people over a long course of time. If they failed to do that, there's no psychological excuse, unless you're also suggesting that there was a communicable mental illness that infected every politician of the era. Generally, when one says that a person is pushed to the edge and "snaps," he makes a momentary bad decision fueled by passion. Japanese militarism took place over the course of decades, and not many people regretted it until after WWII.

 

[aronnax]

Lightspectra, I read your post, and understand your points. but I just edited another my last post like two mins before you posted this one. I feel like it helps build my case, could you read it and then tell me if you have the same or different view before I reply to you?

Is there any dispute that Europeans viewed themselves superior to Asians in that era? Not at all.

Were they treated any worse than the Europeans treated each other? Nope. You make concessions to get allies, and you try to extract as much as possible from everybody else; it's a basic law of business, and it applies just as much to international politics. What you're doing is dwelling on the times Japan got the short hand of the stick while ignoring all of the instances in which Japan immensely benefited from European connections.

Even if that weren't the case, and Japan was simply "bullied" by the Great Powers: is that any justification for decades of conquest and oppression? Absolutely not, because nothing is. Therefore, the U.S. was acting humanitarian by giving Japan an embargo during their invasion of continental China, and Japan was under no moral righthood to attack the U.S. for it. I might be a tad sympathetic if there was a tower of evidence to suggest if Japan didn't become a Great Power that they'd be subjugated by a Great Power; in which case, as wrong as it still is, at least there's the understandably logical motive. But not even that. Japan's actions are utterly indefensible by anybody but an imperialism apologist.

I'm not defending Japan's record as an imperial aggressor. I'm saying that their attack of Manchuria or China or the situation of their country made the war in anyway, a justifiable sense.

But I object to the very common view that Japan was asking for war. In 1931, it had no intention to invade SEA, to invade further into China's south, to declare War of America. I find this makes Japan different from say Germany. Because in 1933, Hitler was intent on invading U.S.S.R. He was preparing Germany to conquer all of Europe. Japan's invasion of North China, I would agree is exactly like Hitler, a clearly well-thought out goal for the conquest of a region to serve a certain purpose. But the rest of their aggression was unplanned. I would better akin Japan's invasion of SEA and attacking America more to the British invading Iceland or the British-Soviet Invasion of Iran than to Germany attacking Europe.
It was aggression they didn't plan but aggression they chose out of circumstantial necessity.

Another thing I must object to is your personification of Japan of a guy that's been bullied snapped one day. Utter tripe. Japan is a country, and its governments were made up of groups of people who had to make good decisions for their people over a long course of time. If they failed to do that, there's no psychological excuse, unless you're also suggesting that there was a communicable mental illness that infected every politician of the era. Generally, when one says that a person is pushed to the edge and "snaps," he makes a momentary bad decision fueled by passion. Japanese militarism took place over the course of decades, and not many people regretted it until after WWII.

Japan as a 'snapped' person was just an analogy. Of course Japan was made of many people who have made good decision over so on so forth. What I am suggesting and comparing is that. Resentment against the West was slowly building in Japan. Hyper nationalism was increasing as well. The effects of the Great Depression were driving more and more people in Japan to consider war and invade Manchuria(essentially pushing Japan to the edge). Japan 'snapping' wasn't relating to all of Japan suddenly going insane, but rather the actions of the Kwantung Army officers and generals. All the resentment, the effects of the Great Depression and the hyper nationalism culminated when a group of Army men decided that the Kwangtung army would invade Manchuria without approval from Tokyo (essentially, if all of Japan was one represented by one person, Tokyo was the common sense and the Kwantung Army the rising tide of the aforementioned effects that cut connection with Tokyo, Japan 'snapped').

Is that explained better?

 

[LightSpectra]

You're not going to win any arguments about Japan being in the right unless you can somehow demonstrate that it was legitimate self-defense, which is impossible.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, I long thought the same about the Pacific as Aronnax did, and his point is basically that Pearl Harbor was a natural culmination of American blockade of Japan and aid to Japan's enemies, much like 9/11 was believed to be a reaction to American interference in the Middel-East.

On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate Japan was planning to conquer the USA (indeed, that was just impossible).
Still, I think that Asia (and indeed the world) would be worse off without US entry into WWII.

 

[aronnax]

You're not going to win any arguments about Japan being in the right unless you can somehow demonstrate that it was legitimate self-defense, which is impossible.

I'm not saying Japan was right in its invasion!

Okay, let me compare it this way.

Was British and Soviet Invasion of Iran right?

Was British and American occupation of Iceland right?

Was the Bombing of French ships at Mers-el-Kébir right?

Of course not. All of them were in their own right an aggressive war or move against another sovereign nation.

Why did they invade them that?
Because out of pure necessity of circumstantial pragmatism. Respectively, deprive Iran of German influence and secure oil supplies.
Secure Iceland against a possible German landing and to bolster Allied defence
Ensure that the French fleet did not end in German hands and used against them.

Did Britain, USA and U.S.S.R wanted to invade these countries in the first place? No. In 1939, none of them were thinking of such invasions. They only did it because the situation required them to do so.

Compare to Japan.

Was invading Manchuria right?

Was the invasion of South East Asia right?

Was the bombing of Pearl Harbour right?

Was the campaign in South China right?

Of course not. It was due once again to circumstantial pragmatism. Respectively,
To ease the effects of the Great Depression
To secure much needed raw resources to ensure Japan's continued survival.
To give the Imperial Army and Navy time and sea supremacy to capture SEA and build a defense against what they believed was an inevitable American attack,
To force Chiang Kai Shek into a peace and stop American bombing of Japanese-Occupied China

Did Japan wanted to invade these countries in the first place? No. In 1931, they were not thinking of such invasions. They only did it because the situation required them to do so.


Was Japan's actions right? No. A hundred times no. But were they acting for the sake of aggression or conquest? No, they were just trying to survive the war.

And I consider this entirely different from Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
Fascist Italy wanted a Greater Germany and Rule Europe. Italy wanted to recreate the Roman Empire. That has been their goal all along since coming to power.

The best thing Japan had that was comparable was the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and that was a concept that initially meant An Asia free of Western influence and control with Japan being the leader. Akin to NATO and America being the leader. It was only relaunched in the 1940 as an official foreign policy to control Asia through puppets.

 

[LightSpectra]

Okay, let me compare it this way.

Was British and Soviet Invasion of Iran right?

Was British and American occupation of Iceland right?

Was the Bombing of French ships at Mers-el-Kébir right?

Of course not. All of them were in their own right an aggressive war or move against another sovereign nation.

There's quite a difference between utilitarianism and ultranationalism as motives for war. Utilitarianism, as ridiculous for an ethical standard it is, at least considers the public good to be the end. Japanese militarism benefited nobody, except the pride and careers of the emperor, the diet, and the general staff.

 

[aronnax]

The British, French and Soviets were just as much fighting for their own survival as Japan was. It just happens that the Allies make up a whole lot more people than Japan. And it still doesn't matter who they were fighting were.

Japanese militarism benefited nobody, except the pride and careers of the emperor, the diet, and the general staff.

Their methods might have been wrong, but its ridiculous to say that the militarist Japanese Government were fighting for their own benefit rather than for Japan. You know, hyper-Nationalism and all that.

My point is, which you frustratingly haven't touched is that, it is false thinking to view Japanese Aggression in WWII in the same way one views German/Italian Aggression in WWII, seeing that the former was doing it out of pragmatism rather than design and the other out of long-term established, very intended and published attempt of conquest.

 

[LightSpectra]

The British, French and Soviets were just as much fighting for their own survival as Japan was. It just happens that the Allies make up a whole lot more people than Japan. And it still doesn't matter who they were fighting were.

Yeah, so the Russo-Japanese War made it quite evident that the only way Japan was going to get colonized was if they themselves blundered into a losing total war, which is what their militarism accomplished; as opposed to sitting back as a modernizing Asian country, which might've been bad for pride but excellent for not murdering and dying.

My point is, which you frustratingly haven't touched is that, it is false thinking to view Japanese Aggression in WWII in the same way one views German/Italian Aggression in WWII, seeing that the former was doing it out of pragmatism rather than design and the other out of long-term established, very intended and published attempt of conquest.

You can say anything evil in history is "pragmatic." 'The Holocaust is pragmatic because the Jews might eventually hijack our economy,' for instance.

 

[Masada]

Apologising for Imperial Japan is as bad as apologising for Nazi Germany.

 

[aronnax]

Yeah, so the Russo-Japanese War made it quite evident that the only way Japan was going to get colonized was if they themselves blundered into a losing total war, which is what their militarism accomplished; as opposed to sitting back as a modernizing Asian country, which might've been bad for pride but excellent for not murdering and dying.

I don't think its entirely fair to judge the values of 1900 with the values of 2011. We don't condemn the Romans for being an Imperial Aggressive power. I think that when we say what is wrong and right, we need to see it through the context of the time and modern day as well. Saying that, the Russo-Japanese War wasn't just an act of aggression. The R-J war was essentially fought over Manchuria and Korea, both of them vital to the interest of Russia and Japan. However, victory in the R-J war meant a lot more to Japan than it did to Russia. Russia was in it for purely economics and prestige. Japan was in it for economics, for imperial prestige and most importantly, national survival. Korea was literally described by Japanese politicians as a "sword that pointed straight to the heart of Japan". It was essential that Korea became Japanese territory because if it fell into another power, it could be used against them in the future. Remember that Japan was right next to China. Remember what the Western powers did to China. Securing Korea was Japan's way of making sure they didn't become like China.

Sure, it was still aggression and Japanese colonisation of Korea is not a pleasant thing. But you have to remember that this is 1905. Colonisation and Imperialism was encouraged! Empires were celebrated as strength! And if you didn't have an Empire and have the great misfortune of not being a member of the white race, you better be prepared to either becoming a defacto dependency of Europeans (China), give in to alot of concessions (Thailand, Afghanistan) or be extremely unimportant (Saudi Arabia).

In the modern context, Japanese aims to fight Russia and colonise Korea was wrong and contemptible. However, there is a reason there was no noise made by the West when Korea was annexed.
In the context of 1905, it was a very brutal, unfortunate and needed fight for sovereignty and independence.

You can say anything evil in history is "pragmatic." 'The Holocaust is pragmatic because the Jews might eventually hijack our economy,' for instance.

But the difference was that the Germans already intended for a very long time to do all those acts of aggression. The persecution of Jews was something Hitler intended for Germany and Europe long before he came to power. It wasn't as if one day in 1940 he realised that the Jews had to be oppressed or else Germany would be in trouble.

In contrast, invading SEA and attacking America was never seriously suggested by anyone in the Japanese Government until at least 1939 - 1940. I mean the Japanese tried for months to come to some sort of agreement with the Americans to stop embargoment and only resorted to attacking said places when it seemed as if war was the only possible option. You said it yourself. Japan+North China was at best a 2nd-rate Power. The Japanese government clearly understood it could never win a one-on-one war with America. They only decided that war with America was a viable option because it was the only action left.

Apologising for Imperial Japan is as bad as apologising for Nazi Germany.

For the last time, I am not apologising for Imperial Japan! I am not saying that Japanese actions were right or justifiable. I am not saying that they are not aggressors and I am not saying what they did wasn't terrible. I am saying that Japan, with the exception of the invasion of Northern China, that in 1931, Japan had the desire and wanted to invade SEA, attack America and invade South China. There decisions to do all those things only occured when they had no more viable option to take.
I am saying their actions are driven more by pure pragmatism of the situation, like the Britain and U.S.S.R when invading IranIs no one reading my posts????

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't think its entirely fair to judge the values of 1900 with the values of 2011. We don't condemn the Romans for being an Imperial Aggressive power.

I do.

I think that when we say what is wrong and right, we need to see it through the context of the time and modern day as well.

Oh cultural relativism -- how useful you are in justifying anything, at the expense of reason.

Russia was in it for purely economics and prestige. Japan was in it for economics, for imperial prestige and most importantly, national survival. Korea was literally described by Japanese politicians as a "sword that pointed straight to the heart of Japan". It was essential that Korea became Japanese territory because if it fell into another power, it could be used against them in the future.

All oppressions in history have been justified with "I pity them, but better they suffer it than us."

Remember that Japan was right next to China. Remember what the Western powers did to China. Securing Korea was Japan's way of making sure they didn't become like China.

Yeah, well by that logic, anything America and Europe did to Japan was for their own survival, so there's really no points to be earned for sympathy whatsoever. If it's okay to toss people under the bus for "survival", Imperial Japan simply didn't make the cut and there's no reason to be arguing.

Sure, it was still aggression and Japanese colonisation of Korea is not a pleasant thing. But you have to remember that this is 1905. Colonisation and Imperialism was encouraged!

You don't have to worry, I'm not the one that is in charge of who gets into Heaven or Hell. Bearing that in mind, since I vehemently dislike imperialism, I also vehemently dislike its practitioners, and I see no reason contrariwise. Yes, they lived in their own era with rabid cultural biases. What's it to them if I'm hypercritical?

In the modern context, Japanese aims to fight Russia and colonise Korea was wrong and contemptible. However, there is a reason there was no noise made by the West when Korea was annexed.
In the context of 1905, it was a very brutal, unfortunate and needed fight for sovereignty and independence.

It wasn't needed. That's a ridiculous self-justification. The only real danger Japan was in was being invaded by foreigners, but it was far too powerful for that to happen. So everything beyond that was nationalism.

But the difference was that the Germans already intended for a very long time to do all those acts of aggression. The persecution of Jews was something Hitler intended for Germany and Europe long before he came to power. It wasn't as if one day in 1940 he realised that the Jews had to be oppressed or else Germany would be in trouble.

You're telling me that the various governments of Japan from 1870 to 1941 made all of its critical errors due to snap judgments?

In contrast, invading SEA and attacking America was never seriously suggested by anyone in the Japanese Government until at least 1939 - 1940. I mean the Japanese tried for months to come to some sort of agreement with the Americans to stop embargoment and only resorted to attacking said places when it seemed as if war was the only possible option. You said it yourself. Japan+North China was at best a 2nd-rate Power. The Japanese government clearly understood it could never win a one-on-one war with America. They only decided that war with America was a viable option because it was the only action left.

They could've abandoned their wars in China, but that would've made the emperor shed a tear of inconvenience. If I was alive then, I'd've had my tiny violin ready.

For the last time, I am not apologising for Imperial Japan! I am not saying that Japanese actions were right or justifiable. I am not saying that they are not aggressors and I am not saying what they did wasn't terrible. I am saying that Japan, with the exception of the invasion of Northern China, that in 1931, Japan had the desire and wanted to invade SEA, attack America and invade South China. There decisions to do all those things only occured when they had no more viable option to take.
I am saying their actions are driven more by pure pragmatism of the situation, like the Britain and U.S.S.R when invading IranIs no one reading my posts????

You've done nothing to show how they aren't aggressions. Actually, your very point was that by the standards of the era, it didn't have to be self-defense because "Colonisation and Imperialism was encouraged" (sic). Yes, we're reading your posts. Just because you're arguing an unwinnable point doesn't mean we're all dense.

 

[say1988]

My point is, which you frustratingly haven't touched is that, it is false thinking to view Japanese Aggression in WWII in the same way one views German/Italian Aggression in WWII, seeing that the former was doing it out of pragmatism rather than design and the other out of long-term established, very intended and published attempt of conquest.

But the Germans (at least the leadership) honestly believed that getting rid of the Jews and securing Lebensraum was essential for the survival of Germany. Just like the Japanese military leaders believed that China was essential for the future of Japan (and everything else was done to support the invasion of China). There really is no difference.

 

[aronnax]

Okay. Lightspectra, I don't think I can continue to argue this with you. We are starting to splinter off into separate topics, some of them where I actually agree with you. Anyway you seem to think that I am:

1) Justifying Japanese Aggression in WWII
2) Arguing that Japanese actions in WWII are not aggressions.


I think this is because, as you said, you condemn the Romans for their Imperialism, you put modern day values into the previous eras. I don't see the point of that when you are studying history. I'm not going to go into that.

Firstly, I'm going to state again. Quoting you, I do not want to either:
1) "show how they aren't aggressions" meaning Japanese actions in WWII
2) "justifying anything" Japanese actions all together.

I condemn the action of Imperialism all across the board. And if Japan or the Romans or any other state tries to do what they did in their respective time of history, I would be against it whatsoever.

My whole few posts are not why Japan's actions in WWII are justifiable, or less justified or that they are not aggressions. Japanese actions in WWII are unjust, many of them crimes against humanities and are completely acts of aggressions.

This is what I dispute:

There is a tendency for a lot of people to believe that during Japan's Asia-Pacific campaigns aka 1931, 1936-1945, that Japan's military government wanted to, at the very start of their governments, conquer the whole of East Asia and attack America.

I dispute this. I say that the Japanese military governments never wanted to invade the following areas: South China, South East Asia, Pacific region and never wanted to be at war with America. At best they wanted only Manchuria and North China.
From 1931-1940ish, they never planned, intended, wanted or desired to take the whole of East Asia and attack America.

The only reason why Japan eventually did attack those places and carrying out those acts of aggression was because they needed those areas for pragmatic reasons, the continued survival of their nation. I'm not saying these reasons are just. I'm not saying that initial foreign policy of taking North-east China and Korea only was just as well.

Had America not embargoed Japan, Japan would not have attacked America or invade the rest of South China and South East Asia. Or at least in 1931, they had no plans to do so.

I say, because of this very reason. During WWII, they were not like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Nazi Germany had a clear desire to expand since 1933 and Italy wanted to recreate a Roman Empire. Both of them had clear intended nature to expand. This was something that Japan did not have, they only invaded SEA, EA and attacked America because the situation forced them to.

You're telling me that the various governments of Japan from 1870 to 1941 made all of its critical errors due to snap judgments?

No, I am telling you that the various MILITARY governments of Japan from 1931 to 1941 made all the decision for the invasions. (I wouldn't use the word 'snap', it makes it sound like they decided to invade America one afternoon. It was more like, unwanted but forced by the situation to make the decision)

 

[aronnax]

But the Germans (at least the leadership) honestly believed that getting rid of the Jews and securing Lebensraum was essential for the survival of Germany. Just like the Japanese military leaders believed that China was essential for the future of Japan (and everything else was done to support the invasion of China). There really is no difference.

I admit that, yes the long term goal was China was vital to Japan and their invasion of China and Manchuria and Korea for the future of Japan is comparable to the invasion of Poland and the Munich Agreement for Nazi Germany in terms of planned intention.

But while invading the U.S.S.R and ruling over almost all of Europe was a Nazi-planned goal in 1933 as in 1940 and invading Greece and taking British Egypt to recreate the Roman Empire was also planned for Italy years before WWII, Japan had no intention to do the same thing.

Aside from North China (I'll admit to that) Japan didn't planned on or wanted to invade SEA, South China and attacking America as essential for Japan's future until in 1940-1941 where they were pressed with no choice but to attack.

<AGAIN! I DON'T THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PLAN FOR IT AT FIRST, IT MEANT THAT IT WAS JUSTIFIED. I JUST MEAN THAT THAT UNLIKE NAZI GERMANY, THEY DIDN'T PLAN SUCH A THING>

 

[LightSpectra]

Okay. Lightspectra, I don't think I can continue to argue this with you. We are starting to splinter off into separate topics, some of them where I actually agree with you. Anyway you seem to think that I am:

1) Justifying Japanese Aggression in WWII
2) Arguing that Japanese actions in WWII are not aggressions.

Your intention is not (1), but that's what you're doing incidentally. You explicitly said you're doing (2) repeatedly. This was from your original post:

"Anyone who thinks that Japanese Actions towards America in WWII was an act of aggression needs to rethink the war from the Japanese point of view."

I think this is because, as you said, you condemn the Romans for their Imperialism, you put modern day values into the previous eras. I don't see the point of that when you are studying history.

This is a bit off-topic now, but natural law is not "modern day values." Natural law is the consistent reality human beings live in, and anything that is harmful by nature is harmful, no matter how it's justified or what time period engulfs it. Ethics is about right and wrong, whereas history is only concerned with what people believed to be right and wrong in the past; both are relevant to this question.

This is what I dispute:

There is a tendency for a lot of people to believe that during Japan's Asia-Pacific campaigns aka 1931, 1936-1945, that Japan's military government wanted to, at the very start of their governments, conquer the whole of East Asia and attack America.

Did they "want" that? Probably, since all the world is subject to the emperor, according to Japanese ultra-nationalism. Did they make elaborate plans in which to achieve this end? No, not really. Anybody who knows a lick of history knows why Japan chose to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941: because the U.S. embargo had effectively made the ultimatum for Japan of either militarily forcing the U.S. to continue trading oil, or to unilaterally end their ambitions for East Asia. They chose the former.

The only reason why Japan eventually did attack those places and carrying out those acts of aggression was because they needed those areas for pragmatic reasons, the continued survival of their nation.

This is where you're completely wrong. Japanese militarists may have justified to themselves that the conquest of Korea and China was a matter of "us or them," but that was certainly not the case whatsoever; the real motive, which is plain and obvious, was the expansion of Japanese influence and power.

I say, because of this very reason. During WWII, they were not like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Nazi Germany had a clear desire to expand since 1933 and Italy wanted to recreate a Roman Empire. Both of them had clear intended nature to expand. This was something that Japan did not have, they only invaded SEA, EA and attacked America because the situation forced them to.

The motives are not at heart any different. The Nazis thought to deprive the Slavs and Jews of their rights in order to provide lebensraum to those more deserving of it; "us or them." The Italians wanted to deprive the Ethiopians and Albanians of their rights in order to give it to those more deserving; "us or them."

No, I am telling you that the various MILITARY governments of Japan from 1931 to 1941 made all the decision for the invasions. (I wouldn't use the word 'snap', it makes it sound like they decided to invade America one afternoon. It was more like, unwanted but forced by the situation to make the decision)

They were never forced to do anything. They could have chosen to end the Second Sino-Japanese War and co-operate with the U.S. to continue the oil trade. The Japanese ultra-nationalists found this end to be unacceptable because it sapped them of the pride and power they demanded.

 

[Tahuti]

BTW, I'm curious why some people still believe in Aryanism (Aryans are better than everyone else).

Aside from the fact it is very debatable who those Aryans are supposed to be (for example I know Finnish people and even Jews can visually appear to be Aryan "superman", without their ancestors speaking an Indo-European language, while dark-eyed, dark-haired coloured Indians do), I find it curious why people think "Aryans" are superior to anyone else.

After all, yellow Chinese are poised to overtake the US, the foundations of Western religious life were laid by Semitic Jews and Mesopotamia - which was inhabited by; surprise surprise... Semitic peoples - was the cradle of Civilization. Of course, there are also the Egyptians, who aren't Aryan either.

Good thing Aryanism died mostly with WWII. Bad thing some jackasses still believe it.

 

[Phrossack]

BTW, I'm curious why some people still believe in Aryanism (Aryans are better than everyone else).

Aside from the fact it is very debatable who those Aryans are supposed to be (for example I know Finnish people and even Jews can visually appear to be Aryan "superman", without their ancestors speaking an Indo-European language, while dark-eyed, dark-haired coloured Indians do), I find it curious why people think "Aryans" are superior to anyone else.

After all, yellow Chinese are poised to overtake the US, the foundations of Western religious life were laid by Semitic Jews and Mesopotamia - which was inhabited by; surprise surprise... Semitic peoples - was the cradle of Civilization. Of course, there are also the Egyptians, who aren't Aryan either.

Good thing Aryanism died mostly with WWII. Bad thing some jackasses still believe it.

Indeed, by the white supremacist's definitions of "racial superiority", the Jews must be the master race, as they have thrived and had disproportionate levels of success despite being scattered and persecuted.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Indeed, by the white supremacist's definitions of "racial superiority", the Jews must be the master race, as they have thrived and had disproportionate levels of success despite being scattered and persecuted.

The usual line is that the Jews are successful, but immoral, and are undermensch in a moral and spiritual sense.

 

[LightSpectra]

How Nazis defined (and neo-Nazis define) "Aryan" is bizarrely complicated. I can't really explain it, but it's politicized in such a way that it's not merely white supremacism; since their definition of "Aryan" included the Japanese.

 

[Plotinus]

you condemn the Romans for their Imperialism, you put modern day values into the previous eras.

People condemned Roman imperialism at the time of the Romans too. Moral thinking is not a modern invention. People in antiquity were quite capable of recognising that violent expansion and aggressive domination of other countries is a bad thing too.

Anyway, it looks like it's time to close this thread and start a new one.

Moderator Action: Thread closed. New thread here.