[Changleen]

Your just lucky New Zealand didnt end up a Japanese Colony....

Yup. Now I have to wait three years before I get the 'latest technology', public transport is only 'good' and public toilets are dirty.

thanks to the U.S........

Yeah, cheers...

 

[sanjuro]

No matter how many people died during the WW2 it dosent justify nukes. But of course.....that could be the next excuse if some president wants to nuke some state he dosent like.... "They have weapons of mass destruction"....."we have to nuke them".....

Let's not confuse the decision to invade Japan with the one to invade Iraq.

Again, considering the stiff resistence the Danish put up against the Nazis, I understand how you might feel Japan had no choice but to surrender.

The American mindset in 1945 is that Japan would never surrender, and only total slaughter would work. There is the revenge factor as well, but considering the friendly relations we have had with Japan, it was a good move not to invade.

 

[Reactor]

This is another funny one. Considering we have not had an American nuclear power accident in 20 years, there is some discussion by environmentalists to use more nuclear power.

I know, remember former nuclear engineer here. Most environmentalists gloss over the fact that most coal powered power plants, in addition to all their other problems, also add more radioactivity to the environment. I've read the classified reports on TMI. The accident was handled by the keystone cops of the nuclear industry. To prevent damage to a million dollar pump (from cavitation) they shut it down started a chain reaction caused the loss a billion dollar plant. Since the plant was running at 2000 megawatts, the fission daughter decay heat once shut down was 140 megawatts. With no pump to cool the core, An one point in the causality computer controlled instruments were giving indications were running 45 minutes behind reality. The commercial nuke industry learned what the military did from SL-1, operators have the exhaustively trained and their primary overriding concern has to be safety.

I think everyone can agree than nuclear bombs are a bad idea. Since there has not been one used in warfare since 1945, I think the lesson has been learned.

I wish I could say the same. As long as it's possible for people to use nuclear weapons, it is probable someone will. There will always be someone who is willing to push the boundaries to expand their power and the temptation with nuclear weapons is great.

 

[Changleen]

You have no clue. If it wasnt for the US and the RAF you would have grown up in a different, more frightening world..

Which administration is pushing the fear agenda these days, exactly? People like you have no imagination. America is not the 'only way to live'. Who are you to judge what is/could have been best? What if Japan somehow won WWII and presided over over a new technological age, free of the BS of religion and the shortsightedness we see today? Let's face it the cold war was a huge waste of time in terms of moving humanity forward. Sure we got some great technology spin offs, but who is to say which of these would happened anyway? Most of them are pretty logical progressions.

Don't get me wrong, for me personally (and you I guess) things have worked out fairly well, but you cannot presume that a different result would have been 'worse'. It all depends where you place your stick in the mud. What's so wrong with being Japanese?

 

[Msisle Dad]

Which administration is pushing the fear agenda these days, exactly? People like you have no imagination. America is not the 'only way to live'. Who are you to judge what is/could have been best? What if Japan somehow won WWII and presided over over a new technological age, free of the BS of religion and the shortsightedness we see today? Let's face it the cold war was a huge waste of time in terms of moving humanity forward. Sure we got some great technology spin offs, but who is to say which of these would happened anyway? Most of them are pretty logical progressions.

Don't get me wrong, for me personally (and you I guess) things have worked out fairly well, but you cannot presume that a different result would have been 'worse'. It all depends where you place your stick in the mud. What's so wrong with being Japanese?

You are so off... Do you realize that if Japan took NZ, there is a high probability that you wouldnt exist, and that your elders may have suffered greatly at their hands? Take a good look at how people of occupied lands faired.

Also dont fool yourself regarding Japan's growth in their economy& technology. That was assisted by US investment, based on a plan by the created by a US Army Air Corp General.

And for the cold war. That was happening no matter what. Just ask yourself what would have happened if the axis powers were successful? What about Russia? You just think anti american. You are not looking the whole picture.....

 

[Msisle Dad]

No matter how many people died during the WW2 it dosent justify nukes.

Read below and see if the victims of the axis powers would agree with you.

"It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers — and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 per cent chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 per cent."

 

[Msisle Dad]

Maybe you are the one with no clue ! Try to look beyound all your american heroes, your pride and your nukes..... there is also a world on the other side of the ocean.

The world on the other side of the ocean wouldnt exist as you know them if it hadnt been for the allied forces, including my Dad who retired from the RAF in 1945 after serving for 5.5 years.

 

[MikeD]

I used to be very in the camp of the "imagine what would've happened if we hadn't dropped the Bomb" camp...envisioning massive casualties from invading mainland Japan, etc. etc., fighting the same people who'd driven women and children off cliffs to avoid capture, etc. etc. Defiinitely would've sucked.

Then, I started reading...and there's a lot of truth to the points that Japan might have fallen without the use of the atom bomb. I'm pretty sure they even shook off signals that the enemy might be ready to capitulate. And we did it to scare the Russians, for sure.

And you know what? You know what you do when you're in a war to the death and you have a superior weapon?? You use it! More people were killed by conventional firebombs over Tokyo than we killed with a single atom bomb, but for some reason, no one seems to care. It's just the fact that it was a single bomb rather than an armada of bombers which seems to affect people so greatly. I say the effects matter, not necessarily the device.

No one in 1945 knew for sure what the effects after the bomb would be, and justifiably didn't care. The Japanese wouldn't have been very merciful if they had the Bomb, nor would the Germans have been. They wouldn't have debated its effects beyond its ability to kill and awe the enemy's civilian population, which they would have employed as soon as possible. The Russians would've used it to end the war in Europe and entrench a Soviet style hegemony just as we used it to cement what we thought was a better world order.

While there are many more aspects to the debate other than saving American lives in the Pacific theatre (certainly a valid point, however not the only one), it's fruitless and disingenuous to try and apply an after-the-fact morality to the situation.

And in the end, if we'd leveled Nagasaki and Hiroshima with incendiaries and HE, just like we did with Dresden and Tokyo, they'd be a minor footnote to what would have been a longer war with a possibly more tragic ending and less-stable cold war situation.

Hindsight can suck my left nut, basically. Whether it was the best thing to do (for America, for Japan, or for the world) is really irrelevant anyway...it was done, with good enough reason, and that's that.

MD

Edit: By the way, this isn't to say that morality doesn't matter, or that hindsight isn't a great way to frame the decisions you make in the future. I just believe in evaluating decisions (in and of themselves, in terms of their 'quality') based on the knowledge available at the time and in the light of the given situation, not in the sterile, removed environment of the present, with precise knowledge of the after-effects.

 

[Reactor]

I'm much more concerned with the future. As the number of countries with the bomb grows so do the opportunities for usage. What's the chance for a coup in a smaller country (Pakistan, Iran et al.) putting someone in charge that would be willing to use a bomb?

Israel has the Bomb, which to be honest is why the Arabs have left them alone for quite a while now. If Syria or Iran were to get the Bomb the middle east could erupt into open warfare, possibly nuclear warfare. Even if it were completely confined to the Middle East it would be disastrous.

Lack of any coherent energy policy has left the US, china, and most of the rest of the world extremely vulnerable to any disruption in the oil supply. Imagine what is going to happen if the oil supply in the middle east is disrupted, possibly permanently? How much of a temptation is it going to be for a heavy oil importing country to invade an oil rich neighbor?

 

[The Amish]

You are so off... Do you realize that if Japan took NZ, there is a high probability that you wouldnt exist.

Stop making it sound like a good thing. It's disrespectful.

 

[Changleen]

You are so off... Do you realize that if Japan took NZ, there is a high probability that you wouldnt exist, and that your elders may have suffered greatly at their hands? Take a good look at how people of occupied lands faired.

Well, actually I'm English, but what does it matter if this particular person doesn't exist? It's only by a similarly unlikely set of circumstances we all exist. That's a pretty dumb argument.

Also dont fool yourself regarding Japan's growth in their economy& technology. That was assisted by US investment, based on a plan by the created by a US Army Air Corp General.

Yup, and the second you stopped helping they fell on their faces...
Again, if the situation had been different they may have been the ones helping out the yanks. You need to stop 'fooling' yourself that the US is the only country that can achieve anything.

You just think anti american. You are not looking the whole picture.....

I'M not looking at the whole picture?

 

[JRogers]

I used to be very in the camp of the "imagine what would've happened if we hadn't dropped the Bomb" camp...envisioning massive casualties from invading mainland Japan, etc. etc., fighting the same people who'd driven women and children off cliffs to avoid capture, etc. etc. Defiinitely would've sucked.

Then, I started reading...and there's a lot of truth to the points that Japan might have fallen without the use of the atom bomb. I'm pretty sure they even shook off signals that the enemy might be ready to capitulate. And we did it to scare the Russians, for sure.

And you know what? You know what you do when you're in a war to the death and you have a superior weapon?? You use it! More people were killed by conventional firebombs over Tokyo than we killed with a single atom bomb, but for some reason, no one seems to care. It's just the fact that it was a single bomb rather than an armada of bombers which seems to affect people so greatly. I say the effects matter, not necessarily the device.

No one in 1945 knew for sure what the effects after the bomb would be, and justifiably didn't care. The Japanese wouldn't have been very merciful if they had the Bomb, nor would the Germans have been. They wouldn't have debated its effects beyond its ability to kill and awe the enemy's civilian population, which they would have employed as soon as possible. The Russians would've used it to end the war in Europe and entrench a Soviet style hegemony just as we used it to cement what we thought was a better world order.

While there are many more aspects to the debate other than saving American lives in the Pacific theatre (certainly a valid point, however not the only one), it's fruitless and disingenuous to try and apply an after-the-fact morality to the situation.

And in the end, if we'd leveled Nagasaki and Hiroshima with incendiaries and HE, just like we did with Dresden and Tokyo, they'd be a minor footnote to what would have been a longer war with a possibly more tragic ending and less-stable cold war situation.

Hindsight can suck my left nut, basically. Whether it was the best thing to do (for America, for Japan, or for the world) is really irrelevant anyway...it was done, with good enough reason, and that's that.

MD

Edit: By the way, this isn't to say that morality doesn't matter, or that hindsight isn't a great way to frame the decisions you make in the future. I just believe in evaluating decisions (in and of themselves, in terms of their 'quality') based on the knowledge available at the time and in the light of the given situation, not in the sterile, removed environment of the present, with precise knowledge of the after-effects.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. You even note that Japan might have been ready to fold and the US ignored those signals. Isn't that the point, the justification for thinking that dropping the bomb was an unnecessary action? That's not after the fact. There were indications that Japan would have been done well before the US invaded the mainland. Whether the Germans or Japanese would have used the bomb if they had it is immaterial. The destruction that might have been caused by the conventional bombing of these cities is immaterial. Personally, I'm not so sure that using that the bomb would have been used if the (government supported) racism against the Japanese had not been so strong.

 

[MikeD]

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. You even note that Japan might have been ready to fold and the US ignored those signals. Isn't that the point, the justification for thinking that dropping the bomb was an unnecessary action?

See, that IS my point. Just because Japan might have been ready to capitulate, or even was ready to capitulate, it hadn't capitulated. And while I hear a lot of people basically saying we should have been easing up on Japan because it was weak and backed into a corner, that's simply wrong. When your enemy is weak is when you should strike hardest; it ends the conflict most expeditiously and decisively.

The other part of thinking the Bomb was unneccesary is that it's somehow immoral that we wanted to scare Russia. I think it showed responsibility and foresight to show Russia that we were powerful and unafraid to use the instrument of our power. Tests of the bomb would only show that we were hesitant to use it...one bomb could have been dismissed as a ruse. Two bombs showed we meant business. Without that gesture, the cold war wouldn't have been cold for very long.

That's not after the fact. There were indications that Japan would have been done well before the US invaded the mainland.

Unless we somehow dropped the bomb after Japan's unconditional surrender, I don't see your point. We were at war, and they could have surrendered at any time.

They could have surrendered after the first bomb, even. Did they? Hell, if they hadn't, I'd have been all for a third bomb.

Whether the Germans or Japanese would have used the bomb if they had it is immaterial. The destruction that might have been caused by the conventional bombing of these cities is immaterial.

Actually, what the other side might have done is very material insofar as it helps us understand the enemy and the character of the conflict. When you're faced with people who only understand the language of force...people who have eggrandized themselves as the master race(s) of their hemispheres who have a manifest destiny to conquer all others, a show of indominable force does a lot to show them the error of their ways. Breaking their spirit in a 100% irrefutable fashion in fact paved the way for not only surrender, but their own ability to overcome the past. (just a neat side effect, not our obligation to do...but I'd say that modern Japan is better off for having had its ancestral racism proven to be less than desirable.)

The fact that the bombs were atomic rather than conventional is the basis for us having this discussion at all, so how is that immaterial? Again, if they were conventional, the people would still be as dead, but you wouldn't be so particularly outraged by it.

Personally, I'm not so sure that using that the bomb would have been used if the (government supported) racism against the Japanese had not been so strong

I'm not going to say there wasn't racism...there patently was lots of it...but do you think we wouldn't have a-bombed the snot out of Hitler and a few million good Aryans if we'd have had the chance?

Not to mention that there was some racism against the old 'huns' and 'krauts,' too. We melted a lot of them in Dresden...more than we killed in either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. But we wouldn't have done that with an atom bomb if one had been available? The A-bomb project was begun as a counter to Hitler's nuke program in the first place!

MD

 

[The Amish]

. When your enemy is weak is when you should strike hardest; it ends the conflict most expeditiously and decisively.

Thats all you really had to say. You would think that most people with any common sense at all could understand this very easy. Why we try to be humane warriors I will never understand. Once its decided that war is the only option, I think the gloves should come off, and it should be a totaly raw, two lions fighting to the death to be king of the jungle, kind of affair. . Either way, theres no grey areas in war. Your the winner or your the loser end of story, its not like you'll be lining up a the 50 yard line to shake hands when its over, so why even try to pretend its civilized. A street fight rarely lasts more than 3 min. Wars should be the same.

 

[Silver]

Thats all you really had to say. You would think that most people with any common sense at all could understand this very easy. Why we try to be humane warriors I will never understand. Once its decided that war is the only option, I think the gloves should come off, and it should be a totaly raw, two lions fighting to the death to be king of the jungle, kind of affair. . Either way, theres no grey areas in war. Your the winner or your the loser end of story, its not like you'll be lining up a the 50 yard line to shake hands when its over, so why even try to pretend its civilized. A street fight rarely lasts more than 3 min. Wars should be the same.

We've done that part just fine.

It's the part after that we aren't very good at. I hate to say I told you so, but I ****ing did tell you so.

Not my fault you didn't listen at the time.

 

[enkidu]

Just because Japan might have been ready to capitulate, or even was ready to capitulate, it hadn't capitulated. . .

Wasn't the Japanese government already asking the Russians to intercede for surrender, which was intentionally ignored by Russians and United States for various political reasons? One of which being the desire to show off the new Bomb? That is almost like . . .

we somehow dropped the bomb after Japan's unconditional surrender. . .

When you're faced with people who only understand the language of force...people who have eggrandized themselves as the master race(s) of their hemispheres who have a manifest destiny to conquer all others. . .

The combination of Japanese Militarism, Ultranationalism and political oppression within the country from about 1925 all the way up to WWII was the cause of the problem. It would not be factual to characterize the whole nation and every single Japanese as "people who only understand the language of force...people who have eggrandized themselves as the master race(s) of their hemispheres who have a manifest destiny to conquer all others". There were many Internationalists and Realists, whose voices were repressed towards the beginning of WWII. Does it sound a little like USA TODAY? NO?

(just a neat side effect, not our obligation to do...but I'd say that modern Japan is better off for having had its ancestral racism proven to be less than desirable.)

You may call it "ancestral racism", but some might just take it as the "respect and love for parents and their parents and . . . all the way to the source of LIFE". This sentiment undoubtedly is shared by ALL humankind, including yours, MikeD!

 

[Msisle Dad]

Well, actually I'm English, but what does it matter if this particular person doesn't exist? It's only by a similarly unlikely set of circumstances we all exist. That's a pretty dumb argument.

Your English? Do you understand the suffering of your countrymen during WWII? The Luftwaffe bombings of London, Coventry etc?

It's not about a particular person. It's about what the Axis did to innocent civillians.. Millions of them, both by the Germans & the Japanese

 

[N8 v2.0]

And the US had good reason to fear Stalin. Where Hitler was responsible for 6 million Jewish dead, Stalin was responsible for 10-50
million dead in his own country.

 

[Changleen]

Your English? Do you understand the suffering of your countrymen during WWII? The Luftwaffe bombings of London, Coventry etc?

It's not about a particular person. It's about what the Axis did to innocent civillians.. Millions of them, both by the Germans & the Japanese

No, It's about what people did to other people. On both sides. You're not the 'good guys' you know. There's no such thing. You're just one side. Your blinkered stance is vain and arrogant, and is exactly the sort of attitude that ensures that more wars are likely in the future. Contrary to what you seem to think, you are not 'better' than other people.

 

[Westy]

If N8 was lucky he would have gotten to talk to the Greatest American Hero.

 

[The Amish]

. Contrary to what you seem to think, you are not 'better' than other people.

Im better than terrorist that would blow up a building killing thousands of innocent people any day of the week. Im also better than camel hummpers that can saw a mans head of while he's still alive just to prove a point, as well as a crazy little korean who would starve his own people to build up his millitary in a desperate attempt to hold onto his power. Its good to know you think your a piece of sh#t, but speaking atleast for myself. I know my own worth, I'm certainly one of the good guys, and I'm definetly better than them

 

[Changleen]

Since when were racist biggots the 'good guys' in anyone's book?

 

[The Amish]

there a difference between racism and honesty. Do I realy need to post the video of the aaaarab humpin the camel.

 

[Msisle Dad]

No, It's about what people did to other people. On both sides. You're not the 'good guys' you know. There's no such thing. You're just one side. Your blinkered stance is vain and arrogant, and is exactly the sort of attitude that ensures that more wars are likely in the future. Contrary to what you seem to think, you are not 'better' than other people.

We were the good guys - we (the allied forces) put down murderous tyranny.. And you, your nothing but a revisionist idiot

 

[Changleen]

We were the good guys - we (the allied forces) put down murderous tyranny.. And you, your nothing but a revisionist idiot

By murdering millions... OK, little Timmy, off to bed for you now. Too many Hollywood movies today! Sheesh.

You are ****ing retarded to think that either side can call themselves 'good'. Both sides bombed civilians, firebombed, used whatever means at their disposal to anihilate the other side. But you had 'god on your side' and you happened to win, so you're the good guys?

Wow. How self-centred can you get? You've bought into the American dream hook, line and sinker eh? Sucker. Wake up and look around you. People have always done horrifically nasty things to other people in the name of their religion, state, or whatever. Believing your ideals of 'right' are better than someone else's is sure grounds for a fall, and to perpetuate the cycle of death. But being the shortsighted fool you apparantly are I guess you've never picked up a history book. You're nearly as dumb as 'the amish' to believe in absolute right and wrong.

 

[Reactor]

And the US had good reason to fear Stalin. Where Hitler was responsible for 6 million Jewish dead, Stalin was responsible for 10-50
million dead in his own country.

You finally said something I can agree with. Hitler was a hate-mongering vile excuse for a human being, but he was second fiddle to Stalin. Stalin was a stone cold killer.

 

[Msisle Dad]

By murdering millions... OK, little Timmy, off to bed for you now. Too many Hollywood movies today! Sheesh.

You are ****ing retarded to think that either side can call themselves 'good'. Both sides bombed civilians, firebombed, used whatever means at their disposal to anihilate the other side. But you had 'god on your side' and you happened to win, so you're the good guys?

Wow. How self-centred can you get? You've bought into the American dream hook, line and sinker eh? Sucker. Wake up and look around you. People have always done horrifically nasty things to other people in the name of their religion, state, or whatever. Believing your ideals of 'right' are better than someone else's is sure grounds for a fall, and to perpetuate the cycle of death. But being the shortsighted fool you apparantly are I guess you've never picked up a history book. You're nearly as dumb as 'the amish' to believe in absolute right and wrong.

I suppose you blame the Americans for killing Japanese when US Navy anti-aircraft gunners shot them down over Pearl Harbor.

I suppose you think the Chinese civilians of Nanking deserved their beheading by the swords of Japanese Soldiers.

Oh how the poor Axis powers suffered at our hands..

I could go on and on. I'm done wasting my time with you.

 

[Msisle Dad]

Changleen- one more thing.

Explain this

 

[Changleen]

I suppose you blame the Americans for killing Japanese when US Navy anti-aircraft gunners shot them down over Pearl Harbor.

I suppose you think the Chinese civilians of Nanking deserved their beheading by the swords of Japanese Soldiers.

Oh how the poor Axis powers suffered at our hands..

I could go on and on. I'm done wasting my time with you.

Wow, you really do appear to have a severe case of blinkered arrogance. Did you not read my posts? You certainly didn't understand them.

Look, both sides commited horrible attrocities in the war. We could trade individual events until the cows come home, but the fact is that at the end of the day millions of civilians on both sides dies in horrible, horrible ways. You trying to claim that us killing them is somehow more OK then them killing us, and even that we were 'the good guys' is frankly retarded, and plain wrong. It was 'good' that we firebomed, nuked and otherwise killed millions of innocent humans?

It was just two groups of people killing each other. There was no ****ing 'good' involved. Idiot. We happened to win. Bully for us. It doesn't make us right, or in any way good. It just makes us the more effective killers.

Neither side had an actual 'moral superiority' other than in their own damn heads. If you really wanted to get picky, you could say that most of the time at least the axis powers had the balls to look their enemy in the eyes before murdering them, whereas the west favoured remote, impersonal methods of slaughter. It doesn't matter. Millions of people died. Do you understand why that is bad?

 

[Msisle Dad]

I read your posts. Sure millions died. We didnt start it did we? Trade individual attrocities? Are you kidding?
Do 10mm Chinese and Indonisians civilians equal 700k Japanese civilians to you? How about 19.5mm European civilians versus 1.8mm German civilians
We responded the best way we could considering the situation.

We ended the oppression of the Axis aggressor.

Thank God we had real leaders who had the courage to commit forces.

 

[fluff]

I read your posts. Sure millions died. We didnt start it did we? Trade individual attrocities? Are you kidding?
Do 10mm Chinese and Indonisians civilians equal 700k Japanese civilians to you? How about 19.5mm European civilians versus 1.8mm German civilians
We responded the best way we could considering the situation.

We ended the oppression of the Axis aggressor.

Thank God we had real leaders who had the courage to commit forces.

Germans are European too. Albeit rather short ones.

 

[Msisle Dad]

Germans are European too. Albeit rather short ones.

Germans are European, as for being short, Not the ones I know.

Regarding the #'s "European Civilians" Includes the Germans who were sent to concentration camps.

 

[fluff]

Germans are European, as for being short, Not the ones I know.

Regarding the #'s "European Civilians" Includes the Germans who were sent to concentration camps.

1.8mm?

What would also be revealing is whether those figures take into account the Russian, Ukrainian and Polish civilians killed by Stalin.

 

[Changleen]

We responded the best way we could considering the situation.

We ended the oppression of the Axis aggressor.

That's more like it. Not 'We were the forces of good battling evil'. That's simply childish.

 

[Damn True]

Chang you never fail to amuse, apall, disgust and you manage at the same time to make me feel deeply and profoundly sorry for you.

 

[Changleen]

Chang you never fail to amuse, apall, disgust and you manage at the same time to make me feel deeply and profoundly sorry for you.

It's mutual dude

 

[Toshi]

I read your posts. Sure millions died. We didnt start it did we? Trade individual attrocities? Are you kidding?

one could argue (and it has been done - visit the library some time ) that u.s. foreign policy, especially wrt oil, essentially forced the japanese hand. the u.s. does not have as lily-white of a record as you seem to think.

 

[Reactor]

one could argue (and it has been done - visit the library some time ) that u.s. foreign policy, especially wrt oil, essentially forced the japanese hand. the u.s. does not have as lily-white of a record as you seem to think.

I'm convinced after researching it, that access to resources was the primary reason for pacific WWII. The Japanese thought (probably rightly so) that they were being cut off from resources by the European powers, just at the moment their society was finally transitioning to an industrial power. To them, with a burgeoning population and poor home resources it started to look like a matter of survival.

 

[Msisle Dad]

one could argue (and it has been done - visit the library some time ) that u.s. foreign policy, especially wrt oil, essentially forced the japanese hand. the u.s. does not have as lily-white of a record as you seem to think.

Ive, spent a good deal of my life reading about WWII , US foreign policy toward Japan was a factor in their aggression, However it wasnt their motive. I think you are looking at it in the wrong way.

Japan's aggression began much earlier than Pearl Harbor. Japan's first modern day aggressions toward China happened in Sept 1931.The first major massacre "The Rape of Nanking" occured between Dec 37 and March of 38. It is estimated the 370k civilians and pows were murdered during this period.

 

[Msisle Dad]

1.8mm?

What would also be revealing is whether those figures take into account the Russian, Ukrainian and Polish civilians killed by Stalin.

I have to check but I do not believe these #'s include Stalins actions.
I will message back later