The allied forces have long exterminated an entire continent, namely Africa. Entire tribes have been wiped from the face of this earth, tribes that lasted for over 40.000 years.
Same cleansing still continues today with the Aboriginal Australians. Same thing happened with colonial England in Southeast Asia where tribes where also obliterated as "Savages".
The world would not be so different. Things change btu do so marginaly based on current politics determined by specific enviromental factors. For example you could have said that given the view of the States in the early 1900's women would never have had rights and blacks would remain slaves. Hitler would be dead much like Nixon and Roosvelt and things would take a new course. Gays would still exist so it would be impossible to eradicate them completely. Same thing applies to Jews.
Hitler may remind you had women equal to men before even US even thought about giving them rights. Similar respect was hold towards animals.
So as you can see your argument cannot hold. It is a post-hoc argument that can only be made after a situation was formed over the course of a century.
I can't emphasize enough how little our "victorious" books allow us to know.
The "allied forces" only operated in the North of Africa and didn't bother the local population much. I see you have looked up what a "straw man" is, because you have just left the scope of your original arguement to move to pre-war Africa, well away from the Japanese internment.
And if the "entire continent" was "exterminated", who are all these Africans living there today? Atrocities were committed, wars were waged against the unarmed, and many people perished, which is a disgrace. The goal, however, wasn't extermination, but control; once in control, most killing stopped. Fundamentally different from what the Germans did in WWII; once in control, the killing started. Try again.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@ocrdu @pinoytravel
I am talking with colonialism long before the war. They were still the same countries.
again. in case you missed it.
nagasaki
hiroshima
native americans.
"And if the "entire continent" was "exterminated", who are all these Africans living there today? "
The tribes were exterminated dude. The tribes. there are thousands of tribes.
"Fundamentally different from what the Germans did in WWII; once in control, the killing started. "
they controlled japan. look what they did. they controlled native americans. look wha they did.
go to bed.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You avoided the question about the USA's intention to kill all internees to make it comparable to what the Germans did.
So, they exterminated all tribes without exterminating all people? Interesting. I must read up on how they went about it.
I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the dropping of the atomic bombs was militarily unnecessary and therefore a war crime. Fact is, however, the USA didn't control Japan until after the surrender, and however much the Japanese were hated, few were intentionally killed after the surrender, once under control.
When they had the native americans under control, most killing stopped. Very un-Nazi-like.
Your comparisons still don't hold up.
I am far to old to go to bed at this time, but I'm starting to suspect you're not.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You see not all peoples on this planet belong to countries. Some belong to tribes and they are separated from one another.
"Control" can be many different things. USA controlled Japan. They just wanted to show power—much like Hitler, Mao, Lenin, you name it.
The comparisons are just fine. You are still avoiding the wiki page like the plaque. :)
intellectual dishonesty at its best yet from another "murica" man
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am removing my upvote from your post for this. You wrote an interesting article and gave good "food for thought", plus you did a good job defending your position. This last comment though is a personal attack directed at someone who is trying to present an alternative point of view, and is disrespectful and mean.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't see you answering to any of my point while I dismantled yours...and now you are finding an excuse to abandon ship?
same applies to your friends. check the wiki page, open a book. something. i treat the WWII ally-war crime deniers much like i do the holocaust deniers.
sigh. pathetic human beings...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Replying to your last comment here, due to the nesting level.
I thought you made good points, and I had no counter argument. I upvoted your post after you posted your reply to my comment.
Me removing my upvote has nothing to do with the arguments you made or whether your position is right or wrong. It is because of the way you are treating people who are responding to your post.
Good bye.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
At least I am treating them linguistically...they deny war crimes.
i have no respect for people who are this ignorant
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've watched the Valkyrie Movie and what I saw there is Africa during WW2 was also under the Germany Regime. And I am talking about partially, the whole continent.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
there there now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit