Why the Japanese Empire should have stuck around

Wolfpaw

Banned
THANK YOU!

that's all anyone had to say.
Wait, are you seriously saying that you needed somebody to tell you the basic reason any partisan group fights anywhere ever in order to understand (only one of) the facets of Japanese brutality? Or did you need somebody to say that "the Japanese had a harsh occupation policy" to see how monstrous the Japanese occupations were?

Or is this yet another joke?:confused::confused::confused:

Honestly, this thread makes me feel like I've stepped through the looking glass.
 

Keenir

Banned
after gathering my thoughts, here is my explanation:

I posted an absolute truth (that if the Empire was run by sane guys, Cambodia and the wars in Korea and Vietnam would not have happened)...

...and I did it as a retaliation for how, in every Pacific thread I post, the only answer I get is always "Japan will get curbstomped. even if Japan surrenders before Pearl Harbor, Japan will be crushed." and sometimes "because Japan was evil back then."

my grandparents were lined up to invade the Japanese Home Islands, and I know what the Japanese did to soldiers, so don't give me a "you have no idea."
 

Keenir

Banned
Wait, are you seriously saying that you needed somebody to tell you the basic reason any partisan group fights anywhere ever


no, I was asking if they shot partisans because the partisans were shooting at them, (sarcasm) or if they shot partisans so the Americans wouldn't feel like they were getting all the Japanese attention (/sarcasm)


in order to understand (only one of) the facets of Japanese brutality? Or did you need somebody to say that "the Japanese had a harsh occupation policy" to see how monstrous the Japanese occupations were?

I could only understand a limited amount if someone said "the Japanese raped and killed locals" - it doesn't tell me why, or what % of the J.Navy or anything...or even if the Japanese did it just because they'd just landed (as opposed to after a squadmate was shot by a local)
 

Keenir

Banned
If that is the case, then your joke fell extremely flat. Nowhere did I (or anybody else, it seems) pick up on your so-called "hippie joke."


I kinda noticed.


I'm really going to hope that this is just another one of your poorly communicated "hippie jokes."

no, it was my sarcastic reply to the Hitler comment.
 
In order to have the Japanese Empire still here in 2010, whe have to have a POD sometime around the end of WW1. [I like - Japan not sending the Troops to Siberia in response to the US request for help]

No War of the Wall, Japan in Manchuria remains in the South [Mountains], eventually adding this small bit of Manchuria to Korea. The Rest of Manchuria remains under the Official [except for the Warlords] control of China
and Japanese Extra Territoriality is ended at the same time all the European ET in China ends.

With No Japanese Pacific War, All those Deaths You are talking about the Japanese Doing --Never Happen.

However while there is no Korean War, Whe have the Indonesian War of Independence to take it's place.
And the Viet/French war still takes place about on Schedule.

The Cambodian Massacre all depends on the outcome of TTL's Vietnam War.

As for the HIPPIES :confused: ---- Better the Hippies :D ---- than the Beatniks :eek:
 
Nobody sane condemns anyone for being anti-fascist.

What's wrong with being anti-Communist?

I consider myself both anti-communist and anti-fascist. What I have a problem with is people who are so stridently ideological that they distort history or advocate needless deaths. When i refer scathingly to "anti-communists", I mean people who would have invaded the USSR in 1945 and condemned hundreds of British boys to death, to say nothing of all those fried Soviets, for the sake of an ideological grudge (or, more to the point, people who'd support the Imperial Japanese nuthouse in Asia over any indigenous communist regime, even though some of them have actually done pretty well depsite adverse circumstances, eg: Vietnam).

I'd have similar distaste for anyone who advocated invading a fascist regime when it would have done everybody more harm than good; OTL just isn't rich with these. Imagine, say, an imaginary scenario where Mussolini stayed in our corner: I wouldn't agree with people against accepting his collaboration just because he was a murderous fascist. In a real-world example, I'm against Shi'ite quasi-theocracy with a hearty dose of thuggery, but I don't agree with people who want to attack Iran.

The fact is that, when it comes to my criticism of a school of history popular on the American (and British) right-wing, the central issue is the Great Patriotic War, in which people want to let millions of Soviets die for reasons of strident ideology. A stridently ideological communist may say that deporting the Kalmyks was necessary or justified to defeat the fascist menace, which is disgusting, but its peanuts compared to things like what Pat Buchanan writes; and this is why I usually criticise "anti-communism". But make no mistake, I consider the hardline communist just as wrong as the hardline anti-communist.

My historical philosophy is a kind of very cynical utilitarianism. I don't believe in anything. I try never to make a value judgement that doesn't pertain to the welfare of ordinary folks.
 
Sorry, this is not for the squeamish, but when you have to make a point...

The region would be more peaceful, after all.

The problem in OTL was that the military got power-hungry (and full of themselves from constant victories)...but lets assume cooler heads prevail.

Well, ask yourself, if Japan hadn't given up its control over all that land, what might we have avoided?
  1. Cambodian Genocide
  2. Vietnam War*
  3. Korean War
  4. Governmental problems (with Japan breathing down their necks, would anyone in the Philippines** or Indonesia do anything stupid?)
and how many others?

The Chinese Civil War?...well, its possible that, minus the US/Japan war, Japan might have convinced both sides to stop fighting. Though, ultimately, this might be the lone exception.

** = The Philippines may be forced into a "be Neutral or be ours" by this Japan, not wanting to invite American attacks for invading their ally.

* if it takes place, Vietnam might have been more Japan-vs-China than USSR-vs-US in who the backers are.

And with no Vietnam or Korean Wars, then there will be no hippies - and that can only be a good thing.

200508240064_47927.jpg
Bayonetcommunist.jpg
ba.gif
china2-9650.jpg
495_l.jpg
images

japan+war+crime1.jpg
810.gif



Yup! Letting the Japanese Empire stick around would have been a good idea, and while were at it, maybe the Third Reich could have led to a more peaceful and stable Europe and maybe we should have let those guys stick around too!
 
Top