Japan Was Not An Aggressor In World War 2

[michael94]

Sources from Sdh-Fact.com and Toshi Tamogoshi's Essay

==Sino-Japanese Conflict==

1. Japan was stationed in Korea and Manchuria based on signed treaties, not a unilateral invasion
2. A united China as we know it did not exist in the 1930s, but rather was divided into competing factions with regional ethnic differences, not excluding Manchuria.
3. Korea and Manchuria's populations starkly increased under Japanese rule and the Japanese readily accepted native Koreans into the universities they built as well as their army ( while retaining their Korean last names ).
4. Japan poured over a billion dollars into developing Manchuria. Prior to Japanese influence in the region it was a sparsely populated and bandit infested territory.
5. The accusation against the Japanese Military of having Comfort Women in Korea ( forcibly taken sex slaves ) is false. In fact, it was Korean pimps who were guilty of misleading young women into prostitution and stealing their wages. While I am not a fan of paid prostitution, this was very commonplace for ALL militaries at that time.
6. The Second Sino-Japanese War began with Chiang Kai Shek's military and Chinese communists violently trying to force Japan's hand into waging war.
7. Prior to provocations against the Japanese Military stationed in Manchuria, The Chinese Nationalist Government and Chinese Communists had been bitterly fighting. In July, 1935, the Seventh Comintern ( Communist International ) Congress took place in Moscow which pointed to Germany and Japan as external threats. The aftermath of this in China was Comintern Agents convincing Chiang Kai Shek to end hostilities with the Chinese Communists and turn their attention towards the Japanese on the mainland.
8. China's sudden attack on Japanese Forces in Shanghai on August 13, 1937 was the beginning of the Second-Sino Japanese War.
9. As part of the Japanese response, the Japanese Army occupied the then Chinese Nationalist Capital Nanking/Nanjing on December 13, 1937.
10. Contrary to the findings of the Tokyo Trials and Mainstream Historians, the so called "Rape of Nanking" never happened, and all evidence points to the Japanese having been humane in Nanking.


==Japanese-American Conflict==

1. FDR ( American President ) refers to Japan as a plague which needs to be stopped, despite having campaigned as an anti-war president.
2. The United States, along with Great Britain, enacts a complete industrial embargo against Japan ( Coal, Iron, Oil ). They also freeze all overseas assets of Japan in their countries.
3. In March of 1941 ( long before Pearl Harbor ) the United States signs the Lend Lease Act which is an agreement to supply to the Chinese, Soviet Union and Western Allies with War Material. In other words, supplying Germany and Japan's enemies while claiming to be neutral.
4. The United States sends the Flying Tigers squadron of over 100 planes to China in support of Chiang Kai Shek.
5. Up to 1 and a half months prior to Pearl Harbor the United States begins covert air attacks against Japan on the Chinese mainland.
6. All of this had been unprovoked, in a war in which Japan was defending its interests in Manchuria against Chinese aggression.
7. Also prior to Pearl Harbor, the United States moved the vast majority of it's Navy to Hawaii and Southeast Asia.
8. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor in response to all of these factors, and so begins America's involvement in World War 2. Germany declares war on America as a formality, as America was actively scouting German ships in the Atlantic for the British and supplying all of Germany's Enemies.

Source Material:
The Buildup to the ‘Greater East Asian War’ from the Japanese Perspective | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Japan’s Annexation of Korea | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
An Inquiry into the Truth of the Sino-Japanese Incident | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
How China Started the Second Sino-Japanese War: Why Should Japan Apologize to China? | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Behind The Comfort Women Controversy: How Lies Became Truth | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

http://ronbun.apa.co.jp/images/pdf/2008jyusyou_saiyuusyu_english.pdf
Flying Tigers - Wikipedia

Interview on the alleged Nanking Massacre and the Beginnings of the Sino-Japanese War
http://archive.is/n7q9R

 

[tankasnowgod]

1. FDR ( American President ) refers to Japan as a plague which needs to be stopped, despite having campaigned as an anti-war president.
/QUOTE]

Need to look at this thread when sober, but no question in my mind that FDR was one of the worst dictators this planet has ever seen.

 

[SonOfEurope]

Thank You.

 

[lvysaur]

An alternate line of logic here is to realize that all the worst war crimes tend to always be committed by the losers of a war. Quite a big coincidence.

 

[DMF]

More historical (hysterical?) revisionism.
Another way of seeking perspectives (facts?), is to talk to those who lived in those very places during those very times.
There are fewer and fewer as time passes by, and it's interesting to see the uptick in revisionists as they die off.
I've heard Franco being described as some kind of "good fascist" only because he/his Spain didn't play an active part in WWII,
when now, his victims are being excavated in record numbers.
I like Japanese culture very much, but they, like every other culture, had their shadow side. May I reccomend "The Human Condition"
directed by Masaki Kobayashi.

 

[burtlancast]

Another way of seeking perspectives (facts?), is to talk to those who lived in those very places during those very times.

+1

Couldn't agree more.

I'll go even one step further than you; i'll love to talk to these people, in a court of law and under penalty of perjury.

That's where the most interesting things take place, believe me.

 

[Kvothe]

Sources from Sdh-Fact.com and Toshi Tamogoshi's Essay

==Sino-Japanese Conflict==

1. Japan was stationed in Korea and Manchuria based on signed treaties, not a unilateral invasion
2. A united China as we know it did not exist in the 1930s, but rather was divided into competing factions with regional ethnic differences, not excluding Manchuria.
3. Korea and Manchuria's populations starkly increased under Japanese rule and the Japanese readily accepted native Koreans into the universities they built as well as their army ( while retaining their Korean last names ).
4. Japan poured over a billion dollars into developing Manchuria. Prior to Japanese influence in the region it was a sparsely populated and bandit infested territory.
5. The accusation against the Japanese Military of having Comfort Women in Korea ( forcibly taken sex slaves ) is false. In fact, it was Korean pimps who were guilty of misleading young women into prostitution and stealing their wages. While I am not a fan of paid prostitution, this was very commonplace for ALL militaries at that time.
6. The Second Sino-Japanese War began with Chiang Kai Shek's military and Chinese communists violently trying to force Japan's hand into waging war.
7. Prior to provocations against the Japanese Military stationed in Manchuria, The Chinese Nationalist Government and Chinese Communists had been bitterly fighting. In July, 1935, the Seventh Comintern ( Communist International ) Congress took place in Moscow which pointed to Germany and Japan as external threats. The aftermath of this in China was Comintern Agents convincing Chiang Kai Shek to end hostilities with the Chinese Communists and turn their attention towards the Japanese on the mainland.
8. China's sudden attack on Japanese Forces in Shanghai on August 13, 1937 was the beginning of the Second-Sino Japanese War.
9. As part of the Japanese response, the Japanese Army occupied the then Chinese Nationalist Capital Nanking/Nanjing on December 13, 1937.
10. Contrary to the findings of the Tokyo Trials and Mainstream Historians, the so called "Rape of Nanking" never happened, and all evidence points to the Japanese having been humane in Nanking.


==Japanese-American Conflict==

1. FDR ( American President ) refers to Japan as a plague which needs to be stopped, despite having campaigned as an anti-war president.
2. The United States, along with Great Britain, enacts a complete industrial embargo against Japan ( Coal, Iron, Oil ). They also freeze all overseas assets of Japan in their countries.
3. In March of 1941 ( long before Pearl Harbor ) the United States signs the Lend Lease Act which is an agreement to supply to the Chinese, Soviet Union and Western Allies with War Material. In other words, supplying Germany and Japan's enemies while claiming to be neutral.
4. The United States sends the Flying Tigers squadron of over 100 planes to China in support of Chiang Kai Shek.
5. Up to 1 and a half months prior to Pearl Harbor the United States begins covert air attacks against Japan on the Chinese mainland.
6. All of this had been unprovoked, in a war in which Japan was defending its interests in Manchuria against Chinese aggression.
7. Also prior to Pearl Harbor, the United States moved the vast majority of it's Navy to Hawaii and Southeast Asia.
8. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor in response to all of these factors, and so begins America's involvement in World War 2. Germany declares war on America as a formality, as America was actively scouting German ships in the Atlantic for the British and supplying all of Germany's Enemies.

Source Material:
The Buildup to the ‘Greater East Asian War’ from the Japanese Perspective | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Japan’s Annexation of Korea | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
An Inquiry into the Truth of the Sino-Japanese Incident | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
How China Started the Second Sino-Japanese War: Why Should Japan Apologize to China? | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Behind The Comfort Women Controversy: How Lies Became Truth | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

http://ronbun.apa.co.jp/images/pdf/2008jyusyou_saiyuusyu_english.pdf
Flying Tigers - Wikipedia

Interview on the alleged Nanking Massacre and the Beginnings of the Sino-Japanese War
Nanking Massacre: Interview with Arimasa Kubo and Moteki Hiromichi (P…

Your love for fascism and attempts to disprove historical facts with ridiculous sources are quite amusing. Nanking massacre never happened! Source? The Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (seriously, lol). You would guess that people on this forum are capable of critically evaluating the quality of a source, but I guess some people just always need to adopt the opposite position of the accepted consensus, mainly because they vastly overestimate their own importance or intelligence.

An alternate line of logic here is to realize that all the worst war crimes tend to always be committed by the losers of a war. Quite a big coincidence.

The explanation is quite easy. On the level of society, there is a clear relationship between stupidity and indoctrination on one side, and violence and mindless obedience on the other side. Stupid nations tend to loose wars, and both Germany and Japan were mind-boggling stupid. Hitler and his buddies thought the Soviet Union would be beaten in 4 weeks, and declared war on the U.S. because they thought them no serious threat The Axis were so thoroughly indoctrinated with their own racial propaganda, and delusional ideology that they thought themselves able to win the war on the basis of their racial superiority. They lacked even the most basic level of strategic intelligence, while the Allies were clever enough to understand how a war is won through material production, strategic coherence, and mutual support.

 

[lvysaur]

Stupid nations tend to loose wars, and both Germany and Japan were mind-boggling stupid.

I actually agree with this, and it doesn't debunk any of what I said. The Axis was indeed stupid thinking it could overcome the juggernaut of Russia + Britain + China + US.

At the same time, "war crimes" are a purely political instrument. Germany's crimes agains the Jews, Romani, etc were no worse than the US's towards the Natives, or Britains towards the Bengalis, Pakistanis, Kenyans etc et. al. In fact the raw amount of human suffering caused by the Axis is orders of magnitude lesser than was caused by the Allies. And yet popular western thought implicates the Axis as if they were the worst villains to ever exist--this is due to indoctrination, and the fact that "the winners write history" (ironically uttered by Churchill)

Even if 6 million Jews died (I'm not making any claims on what statistics are accurate, but let's assume a worst case scenario) that would still be dwarfed by the various colonialist-induced famines and genocides committed by the UK alone.

 

[Kvothe]

I actually agree with this, and it doesn't debunk any of what I said. The Axis was indeed stupid thinking it could overcome the juggernaut of Russia + Britain + China + US.

At the same time, "war crimes" are a purely political instrument. Germany's crimes agains the Jews, Romani, etc were no worse than the US's towards the Natives, or Britains towards the Bengalis, Pakistanis, Kenyans etc et. al. In fact the raw amount of human suffering caused by the Axis is orders of magnitude lesser than was caused by the Allies. And yet popular western thought implicates the Axis as if they were the worst villains to ever exist--this is due to indoctrination, and the fact that "the winners write history" (ironically uttered by Churchill)

Even if 6 million Jews died (I'm not making any claims on what statistics are accurate, but let's assume a worst case scenario) that would still be dwarfed by the various colonialist-induced famines and genocides committed by the UK alone.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Of course, Great Britain was responsible for a lot of suffering and death through its' colonial history. But the same is true for all major European powers, including Germany who commited genocide and countless atrocities in their African colonies. I trust that you see the difference between the numbers describing the victims of hundreds of years of colonialism and the systematic and planned murder of millions within a few years. It's simply a different order of magnitude during a time in which nations like Britain had already overcome much of their worst barbarism.
Anyways, it's true and important to point out that there are seldom good guys in history, and that countries like GB or the U.S. have to be held accountable for their crimes. I just think it's abstruse trying to create an alternate history in which Germany and Japan were somehow innocent victims defending themselves against the allies. Germany and Japan were as bad as humanity gets, and their aggression not an act of self defense.

 

[lvysaur]

Of course, Great Britain was responsible for a lot of suffering and death through its' colonial history. But the same is true for all major European powers, including Germany who commited genocide and countless atrocities in their African colonies.

The point is that Germany committed about 50x less of that stuff than the English/French. And yet Germany is labeled the "bad guys" while England are the "good guys", in popular discourse.

So much so that with respect to this recent trend of "deposing statues of slave owners", many white liberals were complaining when some leftists wanted to tear down Winston Churchill's statue.

Same story in US: Nobody hates Confederate dixie because they were doing bad things, they hate them because they lost. If they had won, then we'd live in an alternate reality where we swallowed propaganda against the northern Union, and hated them instead.

Any genocides that happened in German Namibia and Cameroon are far less important than the same in Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, Botswana, South Africa, all of India (a continent not a country), Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar, all of North America, New Zealand, and Australia. And that's just Britain's colonialism, we can talk about the French and Spanish and Portuguese and Dutch as well. Germany committed fewer atrocities than any of these, but is remembered much more harshly.

My central point is this: Any narrative will tend to favor the rich and resourced. Thus, the majority of narratives you hear (assuming you are an English speaker) are going to be pro-western, pro-Anglo, pro-white, and pro-establishment when all the things are weighed. Thus it's worthwhile to be more critical of such narratives whenever they pop up.

 

[Kvothe]

The point is that Germany committed about 50x less of that stuff than the English/French. And yet Germany is labeled the "bad guys" while England are the "good guys", in popular discourse.

So much so that with respect to this recent trend of "deposing statues of slave owners", many white liberals were complaining when some leftists wanted to tear down Winston Churchill's statue.

Same story in US: Nobody hates Confederate dixie because they were doing bad things, they hate them because they lost. If they had won, then we'd live in an alternate reality where we swallowed propaganda against the northern Union, and hated them instead.

Any genocides that happened in German Namibia and Cameroon are far less important than the same in Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, Botswana, South Africa, all of India (a continent not a country), Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar, all of North America, New Zealand, and Australia. And that's just Britain's colonialism, we can talk about the French and Spanish and Portuguese and Dutch as well. Germany committed fewer atrocities than any of these, but is remembered much more harshly.

My central point is this: Any narrative will tend to favor the rich and resourced. Thus, the majority of narratives you hear (assuming you are an English speaker) are going to be pro-western, pro-Anglo, pro-white, and pro-establishment when all the things are weighed. Thus it's worthwhile to be more critical of such narratives whenever they pop up.

I think we are more or less in agreement as far the major points are concerned, yet I think that isn't useful to say things like the German genocides were less important. Also, the German crimes from 1933-1945 have a totally different character. It was a deliberate attempt to exterminate people that they deemed unworthy. The actively sought to kill as many jews, slavs, sinti, and other groups of people as they could. The British empire killed and subjugated people where and when they needed to in order to establish and maintain their rule, but they didn't systematically exterminate.
How exactly do you come up with a number like 50x? The Germans murdered around 6 million Jews and killed around 37 million people during their Russian campaign alone. I doubt that any colonial power directly and intentionally killed that many people. For example, when you look at the huge number of people that died in Congo under Belgian rule you can't just say that the Belgians murdered 5-10 million people. Historians agree that only a "tiny" fraction died as a direct result of violence. Most died due to imported diseases or starvation. The great Bengal famine is another example. Yes, the British contributed to, or exacerbated the problems by continuing to export food, but the famine was caused mainly by other factors such as failed harvests, natural disasters, antiquated land distribution systems, and the political situation in South-East Asia at the time. Colonialism was, of course, involved in the structural problems contributing to these problems, but famines had ravished India or Africa before colonial rule, and I will maintain that you can't equate colonial rule, as horrific as it might have been, with the systematic murder machine of the Nazis.

 

[DaveFoster]

I actually agree with this, and it doesn't debunk any of what I said. The Axis was indeed stupid thinking it could overcome the juggernaut of Russia + Britain + China + US.

Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War - Wikipedia

 

[schultz]

They lacked even the most basic level of strategic intelligence, while the Allies were clever enough to understand how a war is won through material production, strategic coherence, and mutual support.

That's because Hitler was an idiot. He should have let his generals make the strategic decisions but he was irrational and the people close to him were scared of him and scared to question or disagree with him. There is a 10 part documentary on Netflix called Hitler's Circle of Evil that sort of goes over this.

 

[Whichway?]

I will maintain that you can't equate colonial rule, as horrific as it might have been, with the systematic murder machine of the Nazis.

So how does the supposed systemic murder machine of the Nazis compare to that used in Russia and China? They both killed orders of magnitude more. Some estimates are over 100 million deliberately killed and disappeared. Yet why are they not constantly tagged with the same vitriol that Nazi's are?

Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War - Wikipedia

It's only in the internet age that anybody gets much exposure to some of these different viewpoints.

 

[Kvothe]

That's because Hitler was an idiot. He should have let his generals make the strategic decisions but he was irrational and the people close to him were scared of him and scared to question or disagree with him. There is a 10 part documentary on Netflix called Hitler's Circle of Evil that sort of goes over this.

This is a common myth with a little truth to it. The German generals weren't strategists, there were great tacticians. They knew how to win battles, but not how to win wars. The only exception might have been van Manstein, who was both a great tactician (maybe the GOAT), and understood Germany's strategic position to some degree. In sum, however, most of them were utterly short sighted. In the years following the war, they all claimed that they would have won the war against the Soviets, had they not delayed their attack on Moscow, in 1941. This is of course false. Even if the Germans had captured Moscow, it would have achieved nothing. Ironically, even though he had many flaws, Hitler had at least some strategic understanding and knew that the Germans were doomed, if they didn't manage to capture the Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus, in 1942.
Ultimately, the Germans lost in Russia because everybody was following their own plan. Hitler wanted to prioritize the South and North, Halder, his chief of staff, wanted to go to Moscow, generals like Guderian wanted to win their own battles rather than work as one part of a whole, and all of them were clueless about the real dimension of the Red Army.
The German army was so successful in the early period of the war because its' Generals and officers were educated in the Prussian tradition that emphasized independent thinking and permitted freedom of decision on almost every level when it came to making decisions how the strategic goals were to be achieved. Prussian military thinking was the exact opposite of the fanatic Nazi approach that was adopted after Stalingrad. Thus, they were successful despite Nazi ideology, but even these Prussians didn't understand that a war against a giant like the Soviet Union could not be won by winning battle after battle, when the enemy had almost unlimited resources and manpower.

I can highly recommend David Stahels books on Operation Barbarossa. You can get the for free on libgen.

 

[michael94]

More historical (hysterical?) revisionism.
Another way of seeking perspectives (facts?), is to talk to those who lived in those very places during those very times.
There are fewer and fewer as time passes by, and it's interesting to see the uptick in revisionists as they die off.
I've heard Franco being described as some kind of "good fascist" only because he/his Spain didn't play an active part in WWII,
when now, his victims are being excavated in record numbers.
I like Japanese culture very much, but they, like every other culture, had their shadow side. May I reccomend "The Human Condition"
directed by Masaki Kobayashi.

Only a few points are Revisionist ( i.e. whether the Nanking Massacre actually happened against civilians ). The other points are simply not well known. In America we are taught that Japan was spreading a reign of terror over Asia and then attacked Pearl Harbor which forced FDR to enter WW2. We dont learn about everything FDR was doing in the lead up to then (December 1941)

That's because Hitler was an idiot. He should have let his generals make the strategic decisions but he was irrational and the people close to him were scared of him and scared to question or disagree with him. There is a 10 part documentary on Netflix called Hitler's Circle of Evil that sort of goes over this.

Sabotage played a huge role, which is not discussed as much in English

Conspiracy and Betrayal Around Hitler (Review)

 

[michael94]

Your love for fascism and attempts to disprove historical facts with ridiculous sources are quite amusing. Nanking massacre never happened! Source? The Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (seriously, lol).

English isn't their native language so you have to forgive if they come off a little cringe. All of the photos the Chinese used to pass off as evidence of the Nanking Massacre turned out to be of other events and re-captioned ( same for Unit 731, see below ), or deliberately faked. I think there was 130 or so in total that Japanese researchers dug into to see if they were really proof of an incredible atrocity by Japan.

I am aware that just because there are not photos of a massacre, it still could have happened, but it should at least draw interest into the veracity of these claims.

There is more though, the main witnesses to the Nanking Massacre all had direct ties or financial interests with the Chinese National Government. John Rabe was working for Siemens AG ( Germany ) and was involved in industrial dealings with China. Harold J. Timperley who wrote "What War Means: Japanese Terror in China" worked for the Chinese Nat'l Government Propaganda arm, this is admitted even on his wikipedia page. Miner S. Bates helped ghostwrite portions of this book. He is the one who broke the story about Japanese terror to the New York Times in December 1937. Lewis Smythe was another witness paid by the Chinese National Government.

Also, in the letters the Safety Committee wrote to the Japanese Embassy about Japanese conduct in Nanking, they only mentioned a small amount of murders ( see picture attached ), and this was all hearsay also, only one was actually witnessed and it was a legitimate execution. So if during this time the Japanese were killing over 7,000 people per day ( according to 300,000 Chinese numbers over 6 weeks ), why is there nothing mentioned about this in Letters from these Westerners to the Japanese embassy?

The Rape Of Nanking Fact Or Fiction : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Nanking Massacre: Interview with Arimasa Kubo and Moteki Hiromichi (P…

The explanation is quite easy. On the level of society, there is a clear relationship between stupidity and indoctrination on one side, and violence and mindless obedience on the other side. Stupid nations tend to loose wars, and both Germany and Japan were mind-boggling stupid. Hitler and his buddies thought the Soviet Union would be beaten in 4 weeks, and declared war on the U.S. because they thought them no serious threat The Axis were so thoroughly indoctrinated with their own racial propaganda, and delusional ideology that they thought themselves able to win the war on the basis of their racial superiority. They lacked even the most basic level of strategic intelligence, while the Allies were clever enough to understand how a war is won through material production, strategic coherence, and mutual support.

The United States had already been delivering destroyers to Britain, helping scout German ships in the Atlantic, and escorting British ships all before Lend Lease was even signed. That was Spring of 1941 when Lend Lease became law. After that, the USA began making deliveries to the Soviet Union before Barbarossa, and actually started attacking German ships in late 1941 ( before Pearl Harbor ).

 

[Kvothe]

English isn't their native language so you have to forgive if they come off a little cringe. All of the photos the Chinese used to pass off as evidence of the Nanking Massacre turned out to be of other events and re-captioned ( same for Unit 731, see below ), or deliberately faked. I think there was 130 or so in total that Japanese researchers dug into to see if they were really proof of an incredible atrocity by Japan.

I am aware that just because there are not photos of a massacre, it still could have happened, but it should at least draw interest into the veracity of these claims.

There is more though, the main witnesses to the Nanking Massacre all had direct ties or financial interests with the Chinese National Government. John Rabe was working for Siemens AG ( Germany ) and was involved in industrial dealings with China. Harold J. Timperley who wrote "What War Means: Japanese Terror in China" worked for the Chinese Nat'l Government Propaganda arm, this is admitted even on his wikipedia page. Miner S. Bates helped ghostwrite portions of this book. He is the one who broke the story about Japanese terror to the New York Times in December 1937. Lewis Smythe was another witness paid by the Chinese National Government.

Also, in the letters the Safety Committee wrote to the Japanese Embassy about Japanese conduct in Nanking, they only mentioned a small amount of murders ( see picture attached ), and this was all hearsay also, only one was actually witnessed and it was a legitimate execution. So if during this time the Japanese were killing over 7,000 people per day ( according to 300,000 Chinese numbers over 6 weeks ), why is there nothing mentioned about this in Letters from these Westerners to the Japanese embassy?

The Rape Of Nanking Fact Or Fiction : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Nanking Massacre: Interview with Arimasa Kubo and Moteki Hiromichi (P…

Again, learn to critically evaluate sources. No one other than Japanese fascists utter such blatant lies and stupid propaganda that is rejected by any serious historian on the planet. The Japanese liars are even more ridiculous and despicable than German holocaust deniers. There are still thousands of them claiming that Japan never committed any war crimes, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are allied fairy tales, that unit 731 never existed, or that Japan never attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.

Only a few points are Revisionist ( i.e. whether the Nanking Massacre actually happened against civilians ). The other points are simply not well known. In America we are taught that Japan was spreading a reign of terror over Asia and then attacked Pearl Harbor which forced FDR to enter WW2. We dont learn about everything FDR was doing in the lead up to then (December 1941)

The United States had already been delivering destroyers to Britain, helping scout German ships in the Atlantic, and escorting British ships all before Lend Lease was even signed. That was Spring of 1941 when Lend Lease became law. After that, the USA began making deliveries to the Soviet Union before Barbarossa, and actually started attacking German ships in late 1941 ( before Pearl Harbor ).

You try to make it sound like FDR's help for the Allies before the official entry of the U.S. into the war is some unknown secret that someone tries to hide from the public - it's common knowledge and nobody denies it. FDR delivered huge amounts of resources to the Allies, tried to isolate, and prevent the delivery of any war-important materials to Japan, and was more or less directly trying to provoke a declaration of war. He saw that the two largest, fascist powers had to be stopped from taking over the world, and so he tried everything he could to get the justification for a war the American public didn't really want before the end of 1941.

 

[michael94]

You try to make it sound like FDR's help for the Allies before the official entry of the U.S. into the war is some unknown secret that someone tries to hide from the public - it's common knowledge and nobody denies it. FDR delivered huge amounts of resources to the Allies, tried to isolate, and prevent the delivery of any war-important materials to Japan, and was more or less directly trying to provoke a declaration of war. He saw that the two largest, fascist powers had to be stopped from taking over the world, and so he tried everything he could to get the justification for a war the American public didn't really want before the end of 1941.

You were highlighting Germanys stupidity for declaring War on the USA... I am pointing out that America was already waging war against them

 

[Kvothe]

You were highlighting Germanys stupidity for declaring War on the USA... I am pointing out that America was already waging war against them

No, they weren't, and FDR would have had a hard time selling Americans another war in Europe. Luckily for him, Hitler was nice enough to hand it to him. With the declaration of war coming from Germany, FDR was even able to establish a "Europe first" policy, while the American public were mainly calling for retribution against the "Japs". There are many documented statements from high-ranking Nazi officials at the time, sneering at the U.S., declaring that American businessmen don't have the guts to fight, or that America could never convert their economy into a proper war economy. Every half-sane person would have done absolutely everything to keep the U.S. out of a war that couldn't be won even as it was. Many people that had been to the U.S. described their almost limitless capacity to produce tanks, aircraft, ships, and the stunning degree of motorization of their whole army. Yet, even right before the first major defeat of army group center in front of Moscow, the Nazis thought America just another nuisance that would be dealt with after they had mopped up the remainders of the crumbling red army. Hitler was absolutely delusional, and lost the remainder of his sanity between 1941 and the defeat at Stalingrad, in 1942.

According to his personal assistant, Hitler himself said this after the declaration of war:

“Hitler leaned right back and poured out his contempt for the Americans. He pointed out that an American car had never won an international tournament; that American aircraft looked fine, but their motors were worthless. This was proof for him that the much-lauded industries of America were terribly overestimated.”​

Source: David Stahel, Retreat from Moscow