Punching Nazis

[Archon_Wing]

This is not why the US intervened in World War II.

Japanese sneak attack = war. How is it not self-defense?

It worked - temporarily.

Haven't noted fascists running Germany and Japan anymore though.

 

[stinkubus]

LOL Roosevelt baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor to force Congress' hand in declaring on the axis powers.

 

[Berzerker]

wow, a neo-Nazi was surrounded by scumbags and it wasn't at a rally... Cant say that often.

 

[Archon_Wing]

LOL Roosevelt baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor to force Congress' hand in declaring on the axis powers.

Ah, yes the poor Japanese Empire. Needing more fuel to murder even more civilians. The Americans forced Japan to attack them by not giving them what they wanted?

 

[stinkubus]

The Japanese war machine was about to grind to a halt because the US was taking steps to cut off their supply of oil.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The Japanese war machine was about to grind to a halt because the US was taking steps to cut off their supply of oil.

That's what I suggested. But what are you getting at? It's somehow the US"s fault for not giving the Japan oil to kill people , or that Japan was somehow defending themselves?

 

[stinkubus]

That the decision to cut off their oil was not made on humanitarian grounds but rather to provoke an attack which would leave the US no choice but to enter the hostilities.

 

[Archon_Wing]

That the decision to cut off their oil was not made on humanitarian grounds but rather to provoke an attack which would leave the US no choice but to enter the hostilities.

They did have a choice. They could disarm and stop expansion. I gather that it's not a choice that was desirable. Sure, it wasn't exactly a humanitarian decision, but they put the choice in the hands of the Japanese, and there it went.

But that is an aside; allowing the Japanese to have oil would be the same as supporting them.

 

[Lexicus]

Japanese sneak attack = war. How is it not self-defense?

As stinkubus points out, the US had been making aggressive moves against Japan for years before the Pearl Harbor attack. The underlying reason was that Japanese aggression in the far east threatened US access to China's markets, the ultimate prize in Asia. It was less self-defense and more a straightforward clash of imperial interests.

Ah, yes the poor Japanese Empire. Needing more fuel to murder even more civilians. The Americans forced Japan to attack them by not giving them what they wanted?

You say this as a joke, but moralizing aside (the US murdered plenty of civilians too) of course the US oil embargo meant essentially that Japan had two choices: the first would be to halt its aggression and be content with the Home Islands and its other small possessions - this was about as acceptable to the Japanese leadership in the 1940s as a similar suggestion would be to the US leadership today. The other was the option was what happened - the Pearl Harbor attack was seen as an essential prelude to any Japanese operations in the southwest Pacific, because the US was the only power capable of challenging Japan in that area. Japanese war aims were strategically defensive - secure the resources we need for self-sufficiency.

That the decision to cut off their oil was not made on humanitarian grounds but rather to provoke an attack which would leave the US no choice but to enter the hostilities.

That's a step too far. I think that US policymakers understood this was a likely outcome, but the core reason was that Japanese aggression in China was seen (correctly) as threatening US interests there.

Similarly, the reason we prosecuted the war against Nazi Germany was because a victorious Germany turning the European continent into a closed economic system, cut off from access by US corporations, was unacceptable to the US (and moreover, iirc, the US was the main creditor for Germany's adversaries, so that interest alone may have been enough to drag us into the European war against Germany sooner or later).

 

[Archon_Wing]

As stinkubus points out, the US had been making aggressive moves against Japan for months before the Pearl Harbor attack. The underlying reason was that Japanese aggression in the far east threatened US access to China's markets, the ultimate prize in Asia. It was less self-defense and more a straightforward clash of imperial interests.

Not disputing that. All countries are going to put themselves first. But that's still not the same as war. Poltiics has always been a pissing contest to some degree, yes, and the US's intent was not pure which is why it took them so long to join the war, but I speak of the collective allied effort rather than whatever individual members people might have had.

ou say this as a joke, but moralizing aside (the US murdered plenty of civilians too) of course the US oil embargo meant essentially that Japan had two choices: the first would be to halt its aggression and be content with the Home Islands and its other small possessions - this was about as acceptable to the Japanese leadership in the 1940s as a similar suggestion would be to the US leadership today. The other was the option was what happened - the Pearl Harbor attack was seen as an essential prelude to any Japanese operations in the southwest Pacific, because the US was the only power capable of challenging Japan in that area. Japanese war aims were strategically defensive - secure the resources we need for self-sufficiency.

Basically, living space. I think it's proper for any power to aggressively defend against it. And while all major powers committed many attrocities, it's quite hard to top what Japan did in China. I mean, when you have Nazis trying to save people from what you're doing, well....

 

[stinkubus]

USA #1's genocide of its native population and practice of slavery would give imperial Japan a run for their money any day. There's still over one billion Chinese people on this planet. How many descendants of native American tribes are still around?

 

[Lexicus]

Basically, living space.

No, not living space, afaik they weren't trying to clear the way for settlers from Japan, they just wanted to exploit the resources (mainly oil and rubber).

it's quite hard to top what Japan did in China.

Well, in my view the Nazis hit this one out of the park, but yes, you're right, the Japanese were not well-behaved in China or anywhere else they occupied, really.

I speak of the collective allied effort rather than whatever individual members people might have had.

Well, I mean, it's not that you're wrong so much as self-defense isn't the whole story. How does one justify the Allied conquest of Germany on self-defense grounds? Or the ruthless campaign the US pursued against Japan in 1944-45? Allied prosecution of the war went over and above the needs of self-defense.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to claim some sort of moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies - I think it's excellent that the Allies won and we are better off now than we would be had the other side won - but I think there is a definite element of hypocrisy in viewing the US intervention in World War II uncritically while pearl-clutching when people punch Nazis, particularly given that the war effort against Germany involved the killing of large numbers of innocent people and people who had at most minimal responsibility for the crimes of the regime (this argument obviously goes double for Japan). I mean, in most cases the hypocrisy boils down to what Chomsky calls "officials say" (ie, state violence is presumed to be legitimate while violence by individuals is presumed to be illegitimate), but it's still there and amusing.

 

[Archon_Wing]

USA #1's genocide of its native population and practice of slavery would give imperial Japan a run for their money any day. There's still over one billion Chinese people on this planet. How many descendants of native American tribes are still around?

Now really, are we really holding up Americans in the 1940s to what their ancestors did over a century ago accountable vs their contemporaries in the Japanese? But hey, nothing compares to that smallpox the Spanish brought.

Oh, and Japan couldn't kill all the Chinese, mainly because China was so big, and honestly that seemed to be the only reason. The Chinese also survived killing each other as well, so I am quite thankful for that as I would not be here otherwise. But glad to see that since there's still people of Chinese descent today, all those atrocities are chump change to others. Nice to know.

 

[Lexicus]

Now really, are we really holding up Americans in the 1940s to what their ancestors did over a century ago accountable vs their contemporaries in the Japanese?

In the 1940s Americans were presiding over a brutal system of racial segregation that was still enforced by lynchings.

 

[Archon_Wing]

No, not living space, afaik they weren't trying to clear the way for settlers from Japan, they just wanted to exploit the resources (mainly oil and rubber).

Oh, was more of a reference to the lebensraum, that an empire needs a certain part of land for its growth and development. That was one of the main goals for Hitler, so Japan was doing the same thing.

Now, I see Pearl Harbor as a strategical gamble, more than anything else. The idea that it might have been a gamble on both ends is fine, but the it kind of reminds me of Trump's constant both sides.

Well, in my view the Nazis hit this one out of the park, but yes, you're right, the Japanese were not well-behaved in China or anywhere else they occupied, really.

War consists of the bad guys and the people that win.

Well, I mean, it's not that you're wrong so much as self-defense isn't the whole story. How does one justify the Allied conquest of Germany on self-defense grounds? Or the ruthless campaign the US pursued against Japan in 1944-45? Allied prosecution of the war went over and above the needs of self-defense.

Consider it was more of an occupation than a conquest. The allies did not annex Germany or Japan, and after some rebuilding they more or less became their independent powers with some degree of influence from the US (Okay, West Germany....). But if we look at what happened to say, Japan, the story is a bit different from your average broken and subjugated country. Compared to what happened in say, Iraq....

But the best comparison is Ww1 and WW2. The allies wanted to punish Germany in WW1, and pretty much sought to disgrace and destroy it, and this is typical far for conquering stuff. What happened in World War 2 was a desire to not let history repeat itself again.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to claim some sort of moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies - I think it's excellent that the Allies won and we are better off now than we would be had the other side won - but I think there is a definite element of hypocrisy in viewing the US intervention in World War II uncritically while pearl-clutching when people punch Nazis, particularly given that the war effort against Germany involved the killing of large numbers of innocent people and people who had at most minimal responsibility for the crimes of the regime (this argument obviously goes double for Japan).

Well, I guess that depends on who you ask, as many do question it. After all, no matter how justified something, it is still a horrific event and the violence involved was forced. When we are not faced with imminent danger, I think it would be a bit disrespectful to those that lost lives if we were to use violence a bit more casually.. I mean would we also be willing to reducate Nazis after punching, for example? Denazification was needed.

Which is why I brought up Iraq earlier. Certainly Saddam wasn't a good person by any means, but it the US's unilaterial action that caused a lot of trouble (and also unintended consequences). So I feel for me, as a person, to just decide these things unilaterally has a lot of consequences.

There are many, many reasons to punch someone in the face, of course. The likelihood of a Nazi being punchable is probably higher, but I'd rather it be of something they did.

In the 1940s Americans were presiding over a brutal system of racial segregation that was still enforced by lynchings.

That is most certainly true. But at least a good half of them were getting away from it.... the other half, well.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh, was more of a reference to the lebensraum, that an empire needs a certain part of land for its growth and development.

I recognized the reference, but the lebensraum concept specifically referred to exterminating the people of Eastern Europe and replacing them with ethnically German settlers. The Japanese weren't doing that.

. the other half, well.

The other half had kids who had kids who voted for Trump.

but I'd rather it be of something they did.

To me wearing a swastika armband is enough. And I also consider punching people in the face to be relatively low-stakes violence although it can cause TBI or even kill people as Perfection pointed out upthread. If the discussion was about whether/when we kill Nazis, the moral reasoning would look different.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hm... I really am not seeing how you can applaud this. What if the punch would result to his death?

The implication being that, if our hero had gone for the gut rather than the face, you'd drop the objection?

I, for one, am prepared to endorse that historic compromise.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I recognized the reference, but the lebensraum concept specifically referred to exterminating the people of Eastern Europe and replacing them with ethnically German settlers. The Japanese weren't doing that.

Yea it wasn't perfect, though I do believe the Japanese were trying to wipe out those they considered inferior, which definitely has a Hitler influence.

To me wearing a swastika armband is enough. And I also consider punching people in the face to be relatively low-stakes violence although it can cause TBI or even kill people as Perfection pointed out upthread. If the discussion was about whether/when we kill Nazis, the moral reasoning would look different.

Well, fortunately or unfortunately society has dictated that to not be acceptable to assault people. I would not, but hey, if you do it, I have pretty poor eyesight, so I didn't see anything.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, fortunately or unfortunately society has dictated that to not be acceptable. I would not, but hey, if you do it, I have pretty poor eyesight, so I didn't see anything.

I probably wouldn't either, because I'm not very good at punching people (I don't have much practice). But I think wearing a swastika armband is less acceptable than punching someone with a swastika armband in the face, and would be willing to take an assault charge as the price for holding that opinion.

 

[Archon_Wing]

That I actually can understand.