Totally lost respect for: Tom Hanks

[PeterMP]

Yes.

http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

The English conquered many land and fought many wars, including WWII which they won. Do you really want to argue that the English ever did anything like this?

As usual, Bang gets it in one.

You are talking about a government that fought a war (the English) to sell a narcotic to a country so they could buy tea.

So now while I don't know of any individual thing they did worse than that any claims of moral superiorty ring hollow in my ears.

And of course you can't point to a case where the Japanese did the same (or other things the British did in building their empire that we'd now consider "evil").

[DCSaints_fan]

I think it is also harder to portay the Japs. They made the Germans look like gentlemen. You could actually give yourself up to the Germans. From what I gather, giving up to the Japs was as good as a death note. I think they brought on alot of hatred on themselves. That battle in the Pacific looks like such a different war. Europe looked almost romantic compared to the animalistic fighting that went on in the Pacific.

Maybe on the western front, but certainly not on the east.

[PeterMP]

What happened in WWII was essentially two countries that didn't have empires (Germany and Japan) decided they wanted to have an empire and were told by other countries that did have empires that they weren't allowed to do so.

Obtaining and mantaining an empire takes brutal actions and the Germans and Japanese were willing to carry out such actions (that weren't significantly different than what the English and French had a few centuries before) for essentially many of the same reasons that the English and French did.

And while we hold that what the Germans and Japanese did was wrong, the British didn't give up their imperial holding after the war and the French attempted to reclaim theirs (and did so in some cases).

We (the US sided) with the French and the English largely because the status quo at the time was deemed to be to our advantage.

[Henry]

You are talking about a government that fought a war (the English) to sell a narcotic to a country so they could buy tea.

So now while I don't know of any individual thing they did worse than that any claims of moral superiorty ring hollow in my ears.

And of course you can't point to a case where the Japanese did the same (or other things the British did in building their empire that we'd now consider "evil").

While I do know of numerous massacres of Chinese civilians at the hands of the Japanese military in the 30s and 40s, any claims of moral equivalence rings hollow in my ears. You simply cannot equate economic exploitation over the course of a century to the rape and murder of MILLIONS over the course of a decade and change.

And for all the talk of British exploitation of the Chinese, all you have to do is look at Hong Kong, under British control for 100 years and compare it to the rest of China when Hong Kong was given back to the Chinese in 1997. The British were imperialists, and as such they did questionable things during their time as a word power, but that is not equitable in any way to the collateral damage the Japanese were willing to mete out in their attempts to forge their own empire.

What happened in WWII was essentially two countries that didn't have empires (Germany and Japan) decided they wanted to have an empire and were told by other countries that did have empires that they weren't allowed to do so.

Baloney. Both the Japanese and Germans were allowed to swallow up plenty of other nations and build up rather large empires before anyone suggested they back off.

Obtaining and mantaining an empire takes brutal actions and the Germans and Japanese were willing to carry out such actions (that weren't significantly different than what the English and French had a few centuries before) for essentially many of the same reasons that the English and French did.

Oh are we going back centuries? Well, you might remember that the US did fight a few wars against the British in response to their imperial designs. And there was also this thing I like to call The Monroe Doctrine, which also was in direct response to European Imperialism. Let's not pretend the US was all cool with any imperial power grabbing up territories within our sphere of influence. The British and French knew better by the 20th century.

And while I agree that all world powers (yes, even the US) tend to step on small powers in order to further their own self-interests, not all world powers are equal in the amount of damage they are willing to do. There is a difference between taking control of colonies and attempting to wipe out entire populations in order to replace them with your own kind.

And while we hold that what the Germans and Japanese did was wrong, the British didn't give up their imperial holding after the war and the French attempted to reclaim theirs (and did so in some cases).

What are you basing that claim upon? The British Empire was pretty much gone by 1947. By 1970 it was completely finished. The French did try and hold on a little longer, but failed miserably. Is that somehow proof that they were as bad as the Nazis or Imperial Japan?

We (the US sided) with the French and the English largely because the status quo at the time was deemed to be to our advantage.

I find it a little scary that you equate the what the British and French did as world powers to wonton murder of the tens of millions of innocent civilians, both home and abroad, that the Germans and Japanese perpetrated in a very very small fraction of the time. If you want to criticize the US for an alliance of convenience, bring up the USSR. I think we can all agree that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, which is why the second WWII ended, we were locking horns with them.

[Henry]

If the economic measures were the ONLY thing the US was doing, you'd actually have a point, but realistically the US was involved in the war in both theatres well before Perl Harbor and by any reasonable measure US involvement would be considered an act of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Volunteer_Group

(Japan, clearly, made a bad decision when bombing Perl Harbor though.)

An American group of 60-odd planes that didn't go into action until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor would be considered an act of war?

I agree that by the time Pearl Harbor occurred it was obvious that if we entered the war, it would be on the side of the allies. But before Pearl Harbor the country was 95% in favor of staying out of it. Without Pearl Harbor, and the subsequent declaration of war on the US by Germany, we wouldn't have been involved in the fighting, at least for a while longer.

Again, to say we caused the war in the Pacific, because of economic sanctions and 60 aircraft that were never used, reeks of an unhealthy level of moral equivalency.

[PeterMP]

While I do know of numerous massacres of Chinese civilians at the hands of the Japanese military in the 30s and 40s, any claims of moral equivalence rings hollow in my ears. You simply cannot equate economic exploitation over the course of a century to the rape and murder of MILLIONS over the course of a decade and change.

Why not?

Is killing a person because you think they are inherentilly inferior to you really different than killing a person because you believe they are inherentily inferior to you AND you want what they have?

And for all the talk of British exploitation of the Chinese, all you have to do is look at Hong Kong, under British control for 100 years and compare it to the rest of China when Hong Kong was given back to the Chinese in 1997. The British were imperialists, and as such they did questionable things during their time as a word power, but that is not equitable in any way to the collateral damage the Japanese were willing to mete out in their attempts to forge their own empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_Amherst,_1st_Baron_Amherst#Pontiac.27s_Rebellion

"Amherst is best known as one of the victors of the French and Indian War, when he conquered Louisbourg, Quebec City and Montreal. He was also the first British Governor General in the territories that eventually became Canada. Numerous places and streets are named for him, both in Canada and the United States."

"In response to the 1763 uprising known as Pontiac's Rebellion, Colonel Henry Bouquet wrote to Amherst, his commanding officer, with the suggestion that the British distribute smallpox-infected blankets to Indians. Amherst approved the plan and expressed his willingness to adopt any "other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."[8]

post-WWII much of the world changed how it looked at human life. If anything as shown by their efforts to mantain their empires, the French and English were slow to change. Do you really want to claim that things would have substantially different for Hong Kong post-WWII if it had been Japan or Germany that was administering it?

Baloney. Both the Japanese and Germans were allowed to swallow up plenty of other nations and build up rather large empires before anyone suggested they back off.

The German and Japanese possesions together were not equal to French or English possesions.

The reason people suggested they stopped was because people were worried they might start and take their stuff.

Oh are we going back centuries? Well, you might remember that the US did fight a few wars against the British in response to their imperial designs. And there was also this thing I like to call The Monroe Doctrine, which also was in direct response to European Imperialism. Let's not pretend the US was all cool with any imperial power grabbing up territories within our sphere of influence. The British and French knew better by the 20th century.

If you think the Monroe Doctrine actually had anything to do with imperialism, I have a bridge to sell you. It was tied directly to American security.

I didn't know that China or Eastern Europe were in our zone of influence prior to WWII.

What are you basing that claim upon? The British Empire was pretty much gone by 1947. By 1970 it was completely finished. The French did try and hold on a little longer, but failed miserably. Is that somehow proof that they were as bad as the Nazis or Imperial Japan?

Japan and Germany also failed, does that make their actions okay?

I think we can all agree that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, which is why the second WWII ended, we were locking horns with them.

This is laughable. I guess Gorbachev was worse than the people in charge of China during the Tienamen square, which is why we did nothing post-Tienamen square.

[PeterMP]

An American group of 60-odd planes that didn't go into action until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor would be considered an act of war?

I agree that by the time Pearl Harbor occurred it was obvious that if we entered the war, it would be on the side of the allies. But before Pearl Harbor the country was 95% in favor of staying out of it. Without Pearl Harbor, and the subsequent declaration of war on the US by Germany, we wouldn't have been involved in the fighting, at least for a while longer.

Again, to say we caused the war in the Pacific, because of economic sanctions and 60 aircraft that were never used, reeks of an unhealthy level of moral equivalency.

Well, I never said we caused the war in the Pacific. The war in the Pacific was underway before Perl Harbor. And most wars can never be boiled down to an event or reason.

I said your post was incomplete because it only considered our economic actions against the Axis (i.e. Japan) and not direct assistance to whom they were fighting (e.g. China) of which the planes and pilots of the AVG is one example (as another China was also part of the lend lease program).

[Henry]

The German and Japanese possesions together were not equal to French or English possesions.

The reason people suggested they stopped was because people were worried they might start and take their stuff.

I'll be happy to address the rest of your post when I have more time, but this one is so laughable I can't pass it up.

People were worried they 'might take their stuff'? Seriously?

No, people were worried they might invade and conquer them. Which, of course they did, or at least tried to do.

The Germans, you might remember, invaded Poland. Then the Germans invaded Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Then France and the UK, Yugoslavia and Greece. Then they invaded the USSR. Then they declared war on us, after one of their allies launched a surprise attack on one of our ports and then systematically attacked our holdings in the pacific. I can't believe anyone could possibly suggest that any of the allied powers were interested in fighting a total war against Germany, whereas Germany and to a lesser extent Japan were clearly ... CLEARLY interested in a total war against them.

By 1938 Germany had a greater population, a stronger economy, a more powerful military and a much stronger industrial base than either France or England. I don't know anyone who would suggest that they were somehow on the outside of the world stage, being held back by stronger powers with huge empires. Well, I know one or two people who would, but they're dead now.

[Ryman of the North]

anyone arguing that the war was moral by pointing at the rape of nanking needs to look at the rape of the ussr and of china BY their own governments (that we were allied to) War is war and frankly both sides had issues.

[Henry]

anyone arguing that the war was moral by pointing at the rape of nanking needs to look at the rape of the ussr and of china BY their own governments (that we were allied to) War is war and frankly both sides had issues.

Oh no no no. We aren't arguing that the Soviets were good or bad. We're debating whether or not England and France, since they were imperial powers and did bad things as recently as 1850, were on the exact same moral plane as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1940.

The only person who has brought up the Soviet Union was me. And I already said Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. That was an obvious case of my enemy's enemy is my friend, and it was why the Cold War started immediately after WWII ended.

"Both sides had issues" is NOT the same thing as "both sides were on equal moral footing." No side in any war is completely innocent or completely guilty. But you cannot automatically extrapolate that to mean that both sides are always equal in that respect. And I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread.

(Oh, and as far as Tom Hanks goes. I don't care what he said. The man makes good movies. That's his job.)

[Jumbo]

I see very little difference between Hanks and Stalin. And likely the same could be said about Hitler and Ron Howard. Maybe Hirohito and Andy Griffith. Mussolini and Jerry Lewis?

[Dan T.]

I see very little difference between Hanks and Stalin. And likely the same could be said about Hitler and Ron Howard. Maybe Hirohito and Andy Griffith. Mussolini and Jerry Lewis?

Wrong. Charles de Gaulle and Jerry Lewis.

[The 12th Commandment]

I see very little difference between Hanks and Stalin.

Ahhh! You saw Big! The rest of your post I don't get. :ninja:

[Jumbo]

Wrong. Charles de Gaulle and Jerry Lewis.

I was being contrarian. Otherwise I would have said Mussolini and Dean Martin.

[PeterMP]

I'll be happy to address the rest of your post when I have more time, but this one is so laughable I can't pass it up.

People were worried they 'might take their stuff'? Seriously?

No, people were worried they might invade and conquer them. Which, of course they did, or at least tried to do.

The Germans, you might remember, invaded Poland. Then the Germans invaded Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Then France and the UK, Yugoslavia and Greece. Then they invaded the USSR. Then they declared war on us, after one of their allies launched a surprise attack on one of our ports and then systematically attacked our holdings in the pacific. I can't believe anyone could possibly suggest that any of the allied powers were interested in fighting a total war against Germany, whereas Germany and to a lesser extent Japan were clearly ... CLEARLY interested in a total war against them.

By 1938 Germany had a greater population, a stronger economy, a more powerful military and a much stronger industrial base than either France or England. I don't know anyone who would suggest that they were somehow on the outside of the world stage, being held back by stronger powers with huge empires. Well, I know one or two people who would, but they're dead now.

Germany and Japan both had issues with respect to natural resources, which the English and to a lesser extant the French had addressed through their empires. As an example, Germany had limited access to oil, while the British essentially controlled the flow of oil to Britian via Iran (and to a lesser extant France from colonies in Africa).

Germany had little to no interest in the West outside of preventing them from interefering with them taking land (and the relevant resources) in the East. It wasn't Germany that declared war on Britian and France, but the other way around.

The Japanese in particular wanted to land that were other countries colonies, which of course was an issue for the countries that had those colonies.

I'm not saying that given no limitations that Germany or Japan wouldn't have continued to expand their empire after their initial objectives were taken, but if France and Britian had not declared war on Germany and had essentially turned a blind eye to the Germans attacks to the east WWII would not have happened on the time frame it did.

I will further point out that I think essentially the samething is true for most empires, including the French and the British empire (and later the Soviet "empire" (i.e. their initial objectives were met via a "buffer" in Eastern Europe and Asia, but even without a strong western presence their need for a buffer would not have been satisfied and with no real "penalty" for expaning it, they would have.))

The French and English were fighting the Germans with respect to their long term security possibily, but there is no real evidence of that. Just speculation. With respect to Japan, the only credibile issue was their colonies and the stuff that their colonies had.

[DCSaints_fan]

The Germans, you might remember, invaded Poland. Then the Germans invaded Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Then France and the UK, Yugoslavia and Greece. Then they invaded the USSR. Then they declared war on us, after one of their allies launched a surprise attack on one of our ports and then systematically attacked our holdings in the pacific. I can't believe anyone could possibly suggest that any of the allied powers were interested in fighting a total war against Germany, whereas Germany and to a lesser extent Japan were clearly ... CLEARLY interested in a total war against them.

I wouldn't say so. Japan was hope to carve out a section of the Pacific for their own, they never imagined invading the lower 48, much less marching troops up constitution avenue, which is what a "total war" against the US would entail. They knew they didn't have the resources, but they were hoping that our will to fight to save a few possessions far away from home was lacking. Same went for Germany - they wanted a land empire in Europe, primarily at the expense of the Soviet Union and the satellites (and also Alsace-Lorraine back from the French). In fact, Hitler even considered the possibility of allying with the UK. Even when after the UK declared war on him, Hitler was holding out hope that it would be a "sham war" to save face, and that he could negotiate with them. Schleier devoted a section of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

By 1938 Germany had a greater population, a stronger economy, a more powerful military and a much stronger industrial base than either France or England. I don't know anyone who would suggest that they were somehow on the outside of the world stage, being held back by stronger powers with huge empires. Well, I know one or two people who would, but they're dead now.

I don't know about the population numbers or the exact industrial output in 1938, but France and the UK had colonial possessions, the Germans lost all theirs after WWI.

[PeterMP]

I wouldn't say so. Japan was hope to carve out a section of the Pacific for their own, they never imagined invading the lower 48, much less marching troops up constitution avenue, which is what a "total war" against the US would entail.

They didn't even have plans to actually invade Hawaii. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have changed their minds after winning the initial war and being able to further build their military.

[Ryman of the North]

Oh no no no. We aren't arguing that the Soviets were good or bad. We're debating whether or not England and France, since they were imperial powers and did bad things as recently as 1850, were on the exact same moral plane as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1940.

The only person who has brought up the Soviet Union was me. And I already said Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. That was an obvious case of my enemy's enemy is my friend, and it was why the Cold War started immediately after WWII ended.

"Both sides had issues" is NOT the same thing as "both sides were on equal moral footing." No side in any war is completely innocent or completely guilty. But you cannot automatically extrapolate that to mean that both sides are always equal in that respect. And I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread.

(Oh, and as far as Tom Hanks goes. I don't care what he said. The man makes good movies. That's his job.)

it depends, if you are of the opinion that your allies actions reflect on you then we were no better. I do agree that in WW2 we had the moral imperative but then im not Japanese.

I would also suggest that before Germany turned the Reich into a jew killing machine that they were actually not seen to be that bad, many prominent americans and brits were germanophiles. The same with Japan, as a matter of fact there are documents that show america negotiating with them to attack Russia when Russia was still allied with germany, imagine how different that war would have been had not Hitler jumped the gun with barbarossa.

[Rocky21]

Glad the light is being shown on this hack.

[Madison Redskin]

Oh no no no. We aren't arguing that the Soviets were good or bad. We're debating whether or not England and France, since they were imperial powers and did bad things as recently as 1850, were on the exact same moral plane as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1940.

The only person who has brought up the Soviet Union was me. And I already said Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. That was an obvious case of my enemy's enemy is my friend, and it was why the Cold War started immediately after WWII ended.

"Both sides had issues" is NOT the same thing as "both sides were on equal moral footing." No side in any war is completely innocent or completely guilty. But you cannot automatically extrapolate that to mean that both sides are always equal in that respect. And I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread.

(Oh, and as far as Tom Hanks goes. I don't care what he said. The man makes good movies. That's his job.)

My thoughts exactly. Good post.

[zoony]

Ive run into quiter a few people that think the best thing would have been a land invasion of Japan. lots more lives lost thta way i think

That's a given- not even debatable.

But that's not really my point. My point is that the atom bomb gave the Japanese a way to surrender without losing face. Which is very important in Japanese culture.

It also- and perhaps most importantly- satiated the need for revenge among the American people. Had we invaded them and lost 1-5 million American lives, Japan would be a 5th world country today. We would have been absolutely brutal...

As it was, we sent one of our best generals with a blank checkbook courtesy of the American taxpayer in to rebuild the country and we happily purchased their exports.

Ironically, the atom bomb was the best thing to happen to Japan in WWII.

.....

[matty dread]

Hanks is not racist... I think some are totally missing his point.

[grhqofb5]

I cant disagree on that point... but not the sole reason.

My Uncle was a WWII vet - saw some serious action and had the night terrors, etc... After what he saw/experienced - lets just say he was not a fan of Japan.

I remember talking with my Uncle last year about my grandfather, his experiance as a WWII vet in Okinawa, etc. I told my Uncle that I remembered my grandfather as really hating the japanese.

My Uncle's response was "well, they tried to kill him, so that should come as no surprise."

Edit: BTW- I think I've now seen just about every apologist argument known to man.

Edit: Actually, I'm still waiting for the child molester apologists to rear their heads. It's just a disease after all. Or is it?