Not surprising, let's be honest the Japanese during WW2 probably didn't have the best reputation (cough Unit 731, Rape of Nanjing, treatment of Allied POWs) that would lead to them wanting to have these former psychopaths have guns again.
Which ironically led to them getting rid of their entire military, replacing it with a self defence force and having to have the US stationed there permanently which built up resentment thanks to some of the actions of soldiers stationed there.
I think they did the same to Germans too if memory serves right, only thanks to the Berlin Airlift happening so quickly after, it made them backtrack quickly to Germany NEEDS a military again.
I've visited the museum in the titular city, and it's clear they're trying hard to turn it into a grift similar to the Holocaust grift.
They can talk about how horrible it was though literally six months later, after losing months-long battle at Xuzhou, the KMT military intentionally broke the levees on part of the Yellow River to flood large sections of land. It caused at least twice as many deaths as the agreed-upon Nanjing massacre death toll over the course of the flood's existence. Sure, it stopped the Japanese from reaching China's military core and reusing the transit systems but it's a mildly poor justification for the damage it caused.
Oh the Nationalist military in China were WOEFULLY bad, their self inflicted body count was massive, the main reason why the commies gained enough support after the war to take over.
Plus they can try with the Rape of Nanjing but then you'll have to also mention that thousands were saved thanks to foreign emissaries especially a Nazi party member
Personally I feel like Nanjing grift is more the CCP trying to deflect how much damage they've done to the country themselves. Because thinking about all the things under Mao could practically dwarf the amount of slaughtering Imperial Japan did.
And also having a longstanding deathwish against Japan
You know that the Allied powers were disarming not just the Japanese military but the Japanese CIVILIANS right? i thought you would understand that the civilians are not the military nor the government. The whole argument over civilians having the right to have guns is so that they can fight the government is it not? and yet the Allied powers obviously didnt believe in that as they disarmed the Japanese civilians
Yeah the 'victorious side' was retarded with that belief, it's only fortunate America had it written centuries earlier as the 2nd ammendment and even THEN there's been constant gun grabs.
You only need to look up the Battle of Okinawa to see why they wouldn't trust CIVILIANS with weapons either.
They had the same issue in Germany too that led to the 'werwolf' paranoia for a while not to mention there were still a few legitimate traps placed for allied soldiers by resentful Germans after WW2.
It was stupid not to repeal it all later though when it was confirmed they wouldn't want to murder you all when they got their guns and swords back as that stifled having more home grown experience with weapons.
What SHOULD have happened was they were converted culturally and then had rights restored,
So basically "we will only allow you weapons once we've brainwashed you to think the way we want you to think"
Gee i wonder if that doesn't set any bad precedence. Like i dont know.... Leftists taking away guns from right wingers and deciding to only give the guns back after they've brainwashed right wingers to become leftists
I think the problem is you're assuming all cultures are equal and hence deserve the same constitutional rights. Nah. I wouldn't trust quite a few nationalities to freely own guns
Not surprising, let's be honest the Japanese during WW2 probably didn't have the best reputation (cough Unit 731, Rape of Nanjing, treatment of Allied POWs) that would lead to them wanting to have these former psychopaths have guns again.
Which ironically led to them getting rid of their entire military, replacing it with a self defence force and having to have the US stationed there permanently which built up resentment thanks to some of the actions of soldiers stationed there.
I think they did the same to Germans too if memory serves right, only thanks to the Berlin Airlift happening so quickly after, it made them backtrack quickly to Germany NEEDS a military again.
I've visited the museum in the titular city, and it's clear they're trying hard to turn it into a grift similar to the Holocaust grift.
They can talk about how horrible it was though literally six months later, after losing months-long battle at Xuzhou, the KMT military intentionally broke the levees on part of the Yellow River to flood large sections of land. It caused at least twice as many deaths as the agreed-upon Nanjing massacre death toll over the course of the flood's existence. Sure, it stopped the Japanese from reaching China's military core and reusing the transit systems but it's a mildly poor justification for the damage it caused.
Oh the Nationalist military in China were WOEFULLY bad, their self inflicted body count was massive, the main reason why the commies gained enough support after the war to take over.
Plus they can try with the Rape of Nanjing but then you'll have to also mention that thousands were saved thanks to foreign emissaries especially a Nazi party member
Personally I feel like Nanjing grift is more the CCP trying to deflect how much damage they've done to the country themselves. Because thinking about all the things under Mao could practically dwarf the amount of slaughtering Imperial Japan did.
And also having a longstanding deathwish against Japan
Yep, they're pulling a North Korea.
You know that the Allied powers were disarming not just the Japanese military but the Japanese CIVILIANS right? i thought you would understand that the civilians are not the military nor the government. The whole argument over civilians having the right to have guns is so that they can fight the government is it not? and yet the Allied powers obviously didnt believe in that as they disarmed the Japanese civilians
Most of the allied powers don't believe in civilians having the right to have guns in the first place.
Yeah the 'victorious side' was retarded with that belief, it's only fortunate America had it written centuries earlier as the 2nd ammendment and even THEN there's been constant gun grabs.
Exactly my point
Yes that's what I was inferring
You only need to look up the Battle of Okinawa to see why they wouldn't trust CIVILIANS with weapons either.
They had the same issue in Germany too that led to the 'werwolf' paranoia for a while not to mention there were still a few legitimate traps placed for allied soldiers by resentful Germans after WW2.
It was stupid not to repeal it all later though when it was confirmed they wouldn't want to murder you all when they got their guns and swords back as that stifled having more home grown experience with weapons.
The Allied powers claim "we're freeing them from authoritarian rule" and "we're fighting for freedom" whilst banning the civilians from having guns .
I mean Japanese women were killing their babies and bundling them up in blankets with live grenades and explosive devices
It's 1/2 dozen vs 6 in this case, they couldn't be trusted with weapons but technically every free man has a right to defend themselves.
What SHOULD have happened was they were converted culturally and then had rights restored, but that's fairy land where government isn't crooked
So basically "we will only allow you weapons once we've brainwashed you to think the way we want you to think"
Gee i wonder if that doesn't set any bad precedence. Like i dont know.... Leftists taking away guns from right wingers and deciding to only give the guns back after they've brainwashed right wingers to become leftists
I think the problem is you're assuming all cultures are equal and hence deserve the same constitutional rights. Nah. I wouldn't trust quite a few nationalities to freely own guns
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Intentional Falsehoods
I don't see why.