Japan...has committed the most war crimes in the world, and that they are still covering it up.
Unironically better than cucking.
Yes, Japan committed major atrocities, on a level rarely seen, and it was evil. No, I don't absolve them of that. But very few people alive today took part in that, and those atrocities shouldn't mandate the destruction and bastardization of current Japanese people or their culture. Which is largely great, and distinct.
Good for Japan for not bowing and scraping for their past evils. It says a lot that Japan retained more of their culture than the winners like Britain and America, or the other losers like Germany.
Not to mention that America, Russia, and various other winners also committed massive atrocities.
As the joke (that flies over the head of all normies) goes: It's amazing that the Good Guys won every conflict in history.
I'm so tired of all this bullshit. Sure, if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it, but if you blame people who weren't even alive for what their ancestors did, you're dooming them to destruction, and that's also evil. I really don't care what anyone did in WW2 at this point, especially with how inconsistently the winners and the losers have been treated.
My own country and people are having atrocities - albeit "softer" - committed against us right now...and using WW2 as justification. People who share a skin color with me, who came before me, fought and died against the Nazis, but because the Nazis also shared a skin color with me, I share the blame for that as well. Fuck that. It's just all bullshit, and if you look at it for a second it's incredibly obvious.
Fuck FDR. Worst president in US history, war-bothering socialist faggot that set the nation on the path to ruin.
You could argue that Lincoln or Wilson also did, but it was FDR that had 4 terms to stack the supreme court full of goblins that spat on the constitution.
I would argue that Wilson is worse due to the 19th Amendment, which basically gave the Democrats a permanent voter stronghold, the creation of the Federal Reserve which has royally fucked us, the IRS and income tax, which steals from the citizens, and of course the league of nations and dragging us into WWI, which was the start of the globalist bullshit we are dealing with today.
FDR was terrible too, and arguably much more authoritarian than Wilson, but he might not have been able to get elected into office, much less do half the shit he did, if Wilson hadn't laid the foundations for it.
Yes, Japan committed major atrocities, on a level rarely seen, and it was evil.
Only that the WW2 narrative is flooded with atrocity propaganda. So it is quite difficult to get a grip on what is actually true and what is just fairy tales of the psychological warfare department of the "good guys".
You can believe me or not, but war actually sucks a lot of ass. Far too many people, who have lived their entire lives in bubble wrap, don't seem to understand this point and tempt fate for petty grudges or base desires, thinking that it can't possibly happen here.
I'm not pretending that anyone had a white vest during the war. I'm very much aware of the reality of war. But historiography of WW1&2 is a cesspool of lies, half truths, omissions, agenda and the most outrageous deliberate propaganda.
It's one thing to say "Bad shit happened!", another to say "Those were the most evilest evil guys and we only fought the war to save the world!".
The soviets should be remembered no better than the nazis. WW2 was the consequences of leftism let in control of major powers. Trying to claim nazis are right wing and cover up the crimes of the soviets is a shit joke, because WW2 was godless faggot leftists on all sides doing what they do best, destroying their own nations.
It led to the takeover of the US by the criminal cabal through the military industrial complex. The US becoming the world superpower was terrible for both the US citizenry and every nation the CIA fucked. The consequences of WW2 have devastated every nation involved.
Britain? Cucked to death by socialists. Soviets? Generations of hell under communists. Germany? Cucked to death by socialists - they got rid of the nationalism and kept the vomitous tyrannical rot. They turned all of the useless bitch spite of hitler on the German people instead of everyone else as it had been.
To keep on topic with this, I think if other nations in history had committed atrocities akin to what Unit 731 did, we would have heard about it already, especially if they were in white nations. I’m not going to hate Japan over it at all, but that’s just my opinion.
I mean you believe the holohoax happened so you aren't exactly the most unbiased source . Coincidently it was Soviets that were the first to report on the Holohoax AND also the first to report on the "Rape on Nanking" which makes things even more suspicious. Did it happen? Probably but it was also probably exaggerated by more agenda driven forces (especially by CCP because we know that commies lie).
Just because I believe the Nazis when they say they did exactly what they did, and their rationale for it, and the physical evidence of it, doesn't mean your attempts at slander have any legitimacy.
Coincidently it was Soviets that were the first to report on the Holohoax AND also the first to report on the "Rape on Nanking" which makes things even more suspicious.
Okay, these are the things that make Holocaust Denial the most retarded conspiracy theory. All other conspiracy theories work off of low information, and then trying to follow up on it. The good ones actually follow the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself (like Pfizer's contract with Albania). The worst ones (like "moon is a hologram"), go down a rabbit hole of assumptions after a small amount information. You idiots operate off of no information. It's just motivated reasoning backed up by nothing. You don't want it to make your cause look retarded (even if you think it's a good thing and want to participate in the next one), so you just make shit up. You just 'say words' and hope for the best.
No, it was not the Soviets that reported the holocaust first, it was the witnesses, followed by the victims, followed by the aggressors. The Soviets, like Americans, got their information from those sources, down the line, as it slowly reached them by people who could communicate to them. That's how the Soviets would have found out about any of it, in any situation. You are literally ignorant of information gathering. You aren't equipped to have this conversation.
The first reports of the Rape of Nanking, came from the victims who fled the city, and Japanese officers who admitted that they had lost all control of their own men, and were unable to restore order. It's in their reports to their commanding officers, from the day. They don't admit that they ordered it, but they do admit that it happened. As with the Holocaust, it's their sources.
It's true that Communists lie. But so do Race Communists, also known as National Socialists.
The first reports of the Rape of Nanking, came from the victims who fled the city, and Japanese officers who admitted that they had lost all control of their own men, and were unable to restore order.
The Nazi German ambassador also had reports, since he was there trying to get closer ties with the Chinese and used his power as an ambassador to shelter as many people as he could stuff into his quarters.
You know you done fucked up when a Nazi is writing to Hitler telling him to break off relations with the Japanese because [paraphrased] "It would be a stain on our reputation to be associated with such barbarians."
He's considered a hero in Chinese history. The problem is China doesn't teach its history passed a certain point. So he got a statue and some speeches every now and then.
To that end, I wonder if they do anything for him in Taiwan. Considering they are the descendants of the Nationalist government who would have worked with him.
That's actually pretty funny. I think it's a combination of their racism, and the fact that it was a political alliance of convenience that the Nazis really weren't prepared to cover up for most Japanese actions.
Didn't the same German ambassador corps in China try to rescue refugees who were being bombed as well?
Yeah, they did. At least from the things I remember reading, there was actually a pretty heavy split in the Nazi leadership over if they should side with China or Japan (to the point they were actively arming and training both sides before 1939). A lot of the pro-China ones wanted to do it because they felt it was an ancient nation of strong people that would fit greatly with their beliefs around Aryanism, as well as many of them being drawn to Chinese Legalism thought. But Hitler and his pro-Japan faction knew that China was also on friendly relations with the US, and they had long since realized they would need to go to war with America at some point and so wanted the "also growing hostile to America" Japan as an ally.
Every time we talk about anything involving ww2 or jews you need to write a wall of text don't you? Also who did the victims report to? they had to report to someone right? The first reporters of "the rape of Nanking" were Agnes Smedley, Harold John Timperley, and Edgar Snow.
・Agnes Smedley was a spy for the USSR. She and Edgar Snow are close friends. She is a subordinate of Richard Sorge, a USSR spy. She is in frequent contact with USSR spy Osaki Hotsumi, and Osaki and Smedley were lovers.
・Harold John Timperley is hired by Tse-ven Soong (Madame Chiang Kai-shek is a sister of Tse-ven Soong.) He wrote "What War Means : the Japanese Terror in China".
・Edgar Snow is a communist. He wrote "The Battle for Asia".
Also i didn't say it didn't happen i personally think it happened but it was exaggerated.
I write a wall of text because you're that fucking stupid. I have to break shit down to the smallest component because you know literally nothing. Go read the Japanese accounts of the atrocity and cry.
No, you want to intentionally conflate it with the Holocaust and make more excuses for crimes you want to see committed.
But surely the awesome eyewitness testimony of the Kapos would have told the totes legit holocaust historians what the actual doors looked like, so they would have installed a mock-up of something reasonable.
I suspect, like most holofrost believers, you have no idea how the actual jews claimed that the holofrost happened. You can't possibly, since you seem to have done some real work in your life, so a quick glance at the setup is all you need to prove the lie.
Come on now, you can use wooden doors to make a sufficiently airtight chamber to poison people. You can use gaskets and the chamber doesnt have to be an airlock to poison people. That is far from the strongest argument against the holocaust.
The steel man for the holocaust being a hoax is that the numbers are way too high in a short amount of time, and that the method of gassing are over-stated. Most just starved to death, gas chambers were probably a small percentage and they lump regular casualties from collateral damage because of the total war bombing tactics into the overall figure.
Wooden doors is an incredibly weak argument, as is the ovens thing as many mass graves were discovered.
Here's why it's a weak argument. We can explain why wooden doors can be used on gas chambers where the point is to poison people, not do some chemical reaction that needs a precise mixture or something, and you jump to stuff that is obviously fake like human soap.
See, lead with the shit people already find hard to believe, don't lead with the stuff that has reasonable explanations.
Most is a tricky thing, too. Most... per raw count? I thought Germany's 10 million incidents would drive that count lead. Most per capita? It's a well-known meme that Canada considers them the Geneva Suggestions. Most... by diversity of victim group? I think the USA had that one covered, just by breadth of deployment, but it might have also been Italy just due to geographic location.
People who share a skin color with me, who came before me, fought and died against the Nazis, but because the Nazis also shared a skin color with me, I share the blame for that as well.
White people are to blame for anything bad any white person ever did, but they don't deserve any credit for anything good any white person ever did.
People of privileged colors are not to blame for anything people of their color did, and they do deserve credit for the good things that their color did.
"Have you heard Mansa Musa was rich? SHUT UP, I don't care that he owned slaves, I just want to take credit for the fact that he was rich."
For the record, I think it's good to criticize the bad things that your country did. Unfortunately, it does seem to be almost necessarily the case that you 'cuck' as you put it. Both of these are products of pathological nationalism, where the state is identified with the people - either you cannot criticize the state's actions, even in the past, because that supposedly reflects negatively on your people, OR you have to 'cuck' for the same reason. Actually, I think rightist Americans get it exactly right - they criticize the state's actions while being intensely patriotic and nationalistic, which is how I think everyone should be. On the other hand, Europeans get it exactly wrong, they have no nationalism or patriotism as a general rule, but they do have the pathological form in spades.
The real american nationalists (not the wehraboo socialist maggots) have it right because of the unique nature of our history. Our government was explicitly set up with restrictions and pages and pages of historical writings telling the citizens that government is evil, and must be kept in check or violently deposed. That, enshrined in our constitution and founders writings, has made american nationalists loyal to ideals, not leaders.
Even the oath of enlistment for our military is to the constitution of the united states rather than whichever chucklefuck is running the show.
Yep, "war crimes" as a term were popularized to justify WWII as you can see when it started being used. It's a weaponized word which is essentially the same as racist, sexist, bigot, equality, etc.
More like only the losing side can be punished for war crimes. The only real rule of war is vae victus, war crime trials are simply a thin candy shell of modern civilization placed over that ancient principle. This is why the atrocities of the winners are irrelevant.
I agree with this much more, but there's some nuance left out of it. Clausewitz has the best explanation:
War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. Force, to counter opposing force, equips itself with the inventions of art and science. Attached to force are certain self-imposed, imperceptible limitations hardly worth mentioning, known as international law and custom, but they scarcely weaken it. Force - that is, physical force, for moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state and the law - is thus the means of war; to impose our will on the enemy is it's object. To secure that object we must render the enemy powerless; and that, in theory, is the true aim of warfare. That aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something not actually part of the war itself.
War crimes are a self-imposition, since a true enemy already rejects the moral force of his opponent.
However, to be clear, the reason for this self-imposition is both political and spiritual. Atrocities unquestionably cause demoralization among a people claiming morality, because the crimes are so taboo and counter to the self-image of the people can be extinguished. We know of the "Melian Dialogue" in the first place because the Athenians were so appalled that their navy had genocide Melos without a pre-existing war, or even a warning to anyone, even on their own side. This demoralization creates the delegitimization of the people conducting the atrocity.
Further, mercy is inherently an act of strength. It pre-supposes that you are strong enough to grant that mercy in the first place, and that it is towards a defeated enemy. It effectively does the opposite of an atrocity. It legitimizes the power of the victor, as a benevolent ruler, showing that the war itself is inherently illegitimate because the fear of the victor's will is unfounded. It additionally moralizes the people by reinforcing their moral framework. It subversively tells the defeated that they are already conquered by the will of the merciful, and that all they need to do is relent.
This is also why false mercy is an atrocity in and of itself: a fake surrender, the execution of prisoners, rebuking an agreed peace deal, etc. It's admission by the person doing it: "I was never legitimate".
Exactly. You just reminded me of when Nietzsche pointed out how laughable it is when people without the capacity for effective violence consider themselves virtuous for being non-violent.
How do you explain Dresden? Who got put on trial for literal tornadoes of fire and liquid asphalt burning civilians alive? Who got sentenced for piloting the planes the next day that gunned down the survivors fleeing into the woods?
If you win the war then whatever atrocities you committed aren't war crimes. We nuked two cities for god's sake.
You are not this retarded Gizortnik, so I can only conclude that you are willfully refusing to understand reality because it would cause you massive cognitive dissonance.
Sherman's doing was worse than anything because he was doing that to Americans. Going and massacring foreigners is a thing. I think greater hate is rightly reserved for those who commit atrocities back home.
I don't even understand your complaint. I'm literally saying both victors and the defeated can commit war crimes. As for how war crimes actually exist, read my exchange with Beefy Belisarius in this thread. I quoted from Clausewitz who goes over the concept quite quickly and simply.
That being said, I also agree with The Fat Electrician in that "It's not a war crime the first time".
That's basically what both governments agreed to. We kinda got everyone back for every atrocity they committed when we dropped two nukes on them, firebombed every major city, and killed nearly 100,000 people in one night in Tokyo.
So what if the Japanese state committed war crimes between 1931 and 1945? How many people who are responsible for that are even alive? The people who say that generally live in countries that are committing the greatest number of war crimes at the very moment.
Raw numbers like that scale with time. Something like 300,000 slaves were brought into the US, total. Somewhere on the order of 50 million black people live in the country, most of them descended of slaves.
And the US isn't close to the biggest country. If 0.1% of China and India are slaves, that's still 2 million-ish slaves.
Judge in Chyna ruled that Japanese atrocities are so well known, no proofs required, grants rest of Asia another 80 years of eternal victim status, it is also now illegal to question the Japanese atrocities and the deaths of 60 million asians by the Japanese
I don't know what the world policy on Holocaust games is. I mean is it like "never forget" or do they get upset when you simulate it? I of course mean to construct an accurate simulation where the goal is to exterminate and hide the 6 million before the allies get there.
Super amazing and convenient that two of the most powerful factions opposed to the globalist central-banking conglomerate of WW2 were also the only perpetrators of absolutely comically outlandish torture and experiments done specifically to genocide a certain group of people and the reports of them doing so were conveniently found in detail and disseminated to the public in a way to maximize shock and hatred against these two power blocs and also super amazing and convenient that to this day these two nations are still paying the price for these deeds with cultural annihilation. Good thing the good guys always win in the end!!!!!!
The issue isn't presence or absence of atrocity. War itself is an atrocity. The issue is the word "most". The poster is proposing that Japan did more war atrocities than killing of millions of civilians and non-combatants with nuclear bombs, more war atrocities than the holocaust, more war atrocities than Stalin's cannibal soldier legions.
The UN, in the modern day, has people admitting they or their cohort committed war atrocities, in the modern era, present day, present time. Which I am sure is true, at least one did something. We ain't arguing presence-or-absence. We are arguing degree: "Most". Number 1. Gold medal. First place at being bad. And alongside that, the merits and morals of championing/lionizing a nation which, 100 years ago, all people involved there victim and offender now dead and gone, did Bad Things. The twitter twit's argument is Japan is not deserving of accolades or respect because 100 years ago Bad Things happened, and that in terms of people doing Bad Things 100 years ago, Japan did the objectively speaking majority of them.
So given your slant, answer this: Did those limited examples of Japanese troops admitting it outnumber, "most", the entirety of the holocaust, nukes, purposeful famines, concentration camps, slavery, "war brides", science experimentation, that the rest of the world committed? If yes, WOW, I'd love some proof. If no, then shut up, because you're being purposefully disingenuous about the core conversational topic.
Unironically better than cucking.
Yes, Japan committed major atrocities, on a level rarely seen, and it was evil. No, I don't absolve them of that. But very few people alive today took part in that, and those atrocities shouldn't mandate the destruction and bastardization of current Japanese people or their culture. Which is largely great, and distinct.
Good for Japan for not bowing and scraping for their past evils. It says a lot that Japan retained more of their culture than the winners like Britain and America, or the other losers like Germany.
Not to mention that America, Russia, and various other winners also committed massive atrocities.
As the joke (that flies over the head of all normies) goes: It's amazing that the Good Guys won every conflict in history.
I'm so tired of all this bullshit. Sure, if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it, but if you blame people who weren't even alive for what their ancestors did, you're dooming them to destruction, and that's also evil. I really don't care what anyone did in WW2 at this point, especially with how inconsistently the winners and the losers have been treated.
My own country and people are having atrocities - albeit "softer" - committed against us right now...and using WW2 as justification. People who share a skin color with me, who came before me, fought and died against the Nazis, but because the Nazis also shared a skin color with me, I share the blame for that as well. Fuck that. It's just all bullshit, and if you look at it for a second it's incredibly obvious.
I care very much about what a certain man in a wheelchair did to drag my country into a conflict it should never have been involved in.
Finally someone I agree with.
Fuck FDR. Worst president in US history, war-bothering socialist faggot that set the nation on the path to ruin.
You could argue that Lincoln or Wilson also did, but it was FDR that had 4 terms to stack the supreme court full of goblins that spat on the constitution.
I would argue that Wilson is worse due to the 19th Amendment, which basically gave the Democrats a permanent voter stronghold, the creation of the Federal Reserve which has royally fucked us, the IRS and income tax, which steals from the citizens, and of course the league of nations and dragging us into WWI, which was the start of the globalist bullshit we are dealing with today.
FDR was terrible too, and arguably much more authoritarian than Wilson, but he might not have been able to get elected into office, much less do half the shit he did, if Wilson hadn't laid the foundations for it.
If not acknowledging their past crimes is a bulwark against children being taught to hate themselves and their country then I'm ok with.
1000%.
Only that the WW2 narrative is flooded with atrocity propaganda. So it is quite difficult to get a grip on what is actually true and what is just fairy tales of the psychological warfare department of the "good guys".
You can believe me or not, but war actually sucks a lot of ass. Far too many people, who have lived their entire lives in bubble wrap, don't seem to understand this point and tempt fate for petty grudges or base desires, thinking that it can't possibly happen here.
I'm not pretending that anyone had a white vest during the war. I'm very much aware of the reality of war. But historiography of WW1&2 is a cesspool of lies, half truths, omissions, agenda and the most outrageous deliberate propaganda.
It's one thing to say "Bad shit happened!", another to say "Those were the most evilest evil guys and we only fought the war to save the world!".
The soviets should be remembered no better than the nazis. WW2 was the consequences of leftism let in control of major powers. Trying to claim nazis are right wing and cover up the crimes of the soviets is a shit joke, because WW2 was godless faggot leftists on all sides doing what they do best, destroying their own nations.
It led to the takeover of the US by the criminal cabal through the military industrial complex. The US becoming the world superpower was terrible for both the US citizenry and every nation the CIA fucked. The consequences of WW2 have devastated every nation involved.
Britain? Cucked to death by socialists. Soviets? Generations of hell under communists. Germany? Cucked to death by socialists - they got rid of the nationalism and kept the vomitous tyrannical rot. They turned all of the useless bitch spite of hitler on the German people instead of everyone else as it had been.
To keep on topic with this, I think if other nations in history had committed atrocities akin to what Unit 731 did, we would have heard about it already, especially if they were in white nations. I’m not going to hate Japan over it at all, but that’s just my opinion.
I'm not even sure that Japan committed the most atrocities. That's quite a hard thing to measure.
Unfortunately for the Japanese, most of their atrocities are quite well documented.
I mean you believe the holohoax happened so you aren't exactly the most unbiased source . Coincidently it was Soviets that were the first to report on the Holohoax AND also the first to report on the "Rape on Nanking" which makes things even more suspicious. Did it happen? Probably but it was also probably exaggerated by more agenda driven forces (especially by CCP because we know that commies lie).
Just because I believe the Nazis when they say they did exactly what they did, and their rationale for it, and the physical evidence of it, doesn't mean your attempts at slander have any legitimacy.
Okay, these are the things that make Holocaust Denial the most retarded conspiracy theory. All other conspiracy theories work off of low information, and then trying to follow up on it. The good ones actually follow the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself (like Pfizer's contract with Albania). The worst ones (like "moon is a hologram"), go down a rabbit hole of assumptions after a small amount information. You idiots operate off of no information. It's just motivated reasoning backed up by nothing. You don't want it to make your cause look retarded (even if you think it's a good thing and want to participate in the next one), so you just make shit up. You just 'say words' and hope for the best.
No, it was not the Soviets that reported the holocaust first, it was the witnesses, followed by the victims, followed by the aggressors. The Soviets, like Americans, got their information from those sources, down the line, as it slowly reached them by people who could communicate to them. That's how the Soviets would have found out about any of it, in any situation. You are literally ignorant of information gathering. You aren't equipped to have this conversation.
The first reports of the Rape of Nanking, came from the victims who fled the city, and Japanese officers who admitted that they had lost all control of their own men, and were unable to restore order. It's in their reports to their commanding officers, from the day. They don't admit that they ordered it, but they do admit that it happened. As with the Holocaust, it's their sources.
It's true that Communists lie. But so do Race Communists, also known as National Socialists.
The Nazi German ambassador also had reports, since he was there trying to get closer ties with the Chinese and used his power as an ambassador to shelter as many people as he could stuff into his quarters.
You know you done fucked up when a Nazi is writing to Hitler telling him to break off relations with the Japanese because [paraphrased] "It would be a stain on our reputation to be associated with such barbarians."
He's considered a hero in Chinese history. The problem is China doesn't teach its history passed a certain point. So he got a statue and some speeches every now and then.
To that end, I wonder if they do anything for him in Taiwan. Considering they are the descendants of the Nationalist government who would have worked with him.
There's nothing I know about. There was a slight push by some people I know in history circles, but has come of it.
That's actually pretty funny. I think it's a combination of their racism, and the fact that it was a political alliance of convenience that the Nazis really weren't prepared to cover up for most Japanese actions.
Didn't the same German ambassador corps in China try to rescue refugees who were being bombed as well?
Yeah, they did. At least from the things I remember reading, there was actually a pretty heavy split in the Nazi leadership over if they should side with China or Japan (to the point they were actively arming and training both sides before 1939). A lot of the pro-China ones wanted to do it because they felt it was an ancient nation of strong people that would fit greatly with their beliefs around Aryanism, as well as many of them being drawn to Chinese Legalism thought. But Hitler and his pro-Japan faction knew that China was also on friendly relations with the US, and they had long since realized they would need to go to war with America at some point and so wanted the "also growing hostile to America" Japan as an ally.
Now, there's a fuckin crazy what-if scenario.
Dafuq happens if China allies itself with the Axis, and Japan is isolated by both factions? I'd have to think about that, that'd be some crazy shit.
That's some straight up HOI4 bullshit.
Every time we talk about anything involving ww2 or jews you need to write a wall of text don't you? Also who did the victims report to? they had to report to someone right? The first reporters of "the rape of Nanking" were Agnes Smedley, Harold John Timperley, and Edgar Snow.
・Agnes Smedley was a spy for the USSR. She and Edgar Snow are close friends. She is a subordinate of Richard Sorge, a USSR spy. She is in frequent contact with USSR spy Osaki Hotsumi, and Osaki and Smedley were lovers.
・Harold John Timperley is hired by Tse-ven Soong (Madame Chiang Kai-shek is a sister of Tse-ven Soong.) He wrote "What War Means : the Japanese Terror in China".
・Edgar Snow is a communist. He wrote "The Battle for Asia".
Also i didn't say it didn't happen i personally think it happened but it was exaggerated.
I write a wall of text because you're that fucking stupid. I have to break shit down to the smallest component because you know literally nothing. Go read the Japanese accounts of the atrocity and cry.
No, you want to intentionally conflate it with the Holocaust and make more excuses for crimes you want to see committed.
Also in regards to the Holohoax.... lol no i don't think that happened at all. two words. Wooden doors.
The ones installed after the war, you stupid faggot? There's also no swimming pools or roller coasters, idiot.
But surely the awesome eyewitness testimony of the Kapos would have told the totes legit holocaust historians what the actual doors looked like, so they would have installed a mock-up of something reasonable.
I suspect, like most holofrost believers, you have no idea how the actual jews claimed that the holofrost happened. You can't possibly, since you seem to have done some real work in your life, so a quick glance at the setup is all you need to prove the lie.
They have the fucking schematics that the Germans used to build them. The doors aren't mock-ups, because there are no mock-ups.
Yes I do have the knowledge of the testimony of survivors. Go to bed idiot.
The holocaust didn't happen, but if it did it would have been a good thing.
That's your opinion, right? Just admit you want to genocide the jews already.
You can't prove the holocaust didn't happen soooo....
???
two words:
Wooden doors.
Come on now, you can use wooden doors to make a sufficiently airtight chamber to poison people. You can use gaskets and the chamber doesnt have to be an airlock to poison people. That is far from the strongest argument against the holocaust.
The steel man for the holocaust being a hoax is that the numbers are way too high in a short amount of time, and that the method of gassing are over-stated. Most just starved to death, gas chambers were probably a small percentage and they lump regular casualties from collateral damage because of the total war bombing tactics into the overall figure.
Wooden doors is an incredibly weak argument, as is the ovens thing as many mass graves were discovered.
Here's why it's a weak argument. We can explain why wooden doors can be used on gas chambers where the point is to poison people, not do some chemical reaction that needs a precise mixture or something, and you jump to stuff that is obviously fake like human soap.
See, lead with the shit people already find hard to believe, don't lead with the stuff that has reasonable explanations.
You don't need 100% gas to kill a human. A mixture is fine, so a bit of leaking is fine.
Proves nothing
Most is a tricky thing, too. Most... per raw count? I thought Germany's 10 million incidents would drive that count lead. Most per capita? It's a well-known meme that Canada considers them the Geneva Suggestions. Most... by diversity of victim group? I think the USA had that one covered, just by breadth of deployment, but it might have also been Italy just due to geographic location.
People commit the atrocities. They have nowhere near the most people. So I think Sus. It's probably the Chinese. They have the most people.
White people are to blame for anything bad any white person ever did, but they don't deserve any credit for anything good any white person ever did.
People of privileged colors are not to blame for anything people of their color did, and they do deserve credit for the good things that their color did.
"Have you heard Mansa Musa was rich? SHUT UP, I don't care that he owned slaves, I just want to take credit for the fact that he was rich."
For the record, I think it's good to criticize the bad things that your country did. Unfortunately, it does seem to be almost necessarily the case that you 'cuck' as you put it. Both of these are products of pathological nationalism, where the state is identified with the people - either you cannot criticize the state's actions, even in the past, because that supposedly reflects negatively on your people, OR you have to 'cuck' for the same reason. Actually, I think rightist Americans get it exactly right - they criticize the state's actions while being intensely patriotic and nationalistic, which is how I think everyone should be. On the other hand, Europeans get it exactly wrong, they have no nationalism or patriotism as a general rule, but they do have the pathological form in spades.
The real american nationalists (not the wehraboo socialist maggots) have it right because of the unique nature of our history. Our government was explicitly set up with restrictions and pages and pages of historical writings telling the citizens that government is evil, and must be kept in check or violently deposed. That, enshrined in our constitution and founders writings, has made american nationalists loyal to ideals, not leaders.
Even the oath of enlistment for our military is to the constitution of the united states rather than whichever chucklefuck is running the show.
Really activates the almonds...
Specifically, that name just says "Nihon jin," "Japanese person." It's almost perfectly dumb and obvious.
"Herro, ferrow nihonjin."
War crimes aren't real, and even if they were, they're only inflicted upon the losers by the winners.
Yep, "war crimes" as a term were popularized to justify WWII as you can see when it started being used. It's a weaponized word which is essentially the same as racist, sexist, bigot, equality, etc.
So losers can't commit war crimes? That's retarded.
It's typically committed by people who don't think they will be held to account for doing them.
More like only the losing side can be punished for war crimes. The only real rule of war is vae victus, war crime trials are simply a thin candy shell of modern civilization placed over that ancient principle. This is why the atrocities of the winners are irrelevant.
I agree with this much more, but there's some nuance left out of it. Clausewitz has the best explanation:
War crimes are a self-imposition, since a true enemy already rejects the moral force of his opponent.
However, to be clear, the reason for this self-imposition is both political and spiritual. Atrocities unquestionably cause demoralization among a people claiming morality, because the crimes are so taboo and counter to the self-image of the people can be extinguished. We know of the "Melian Dialogue" in the first place because the Athenians were so appalled that their navy had genocide Melos without a pre-existing war, or even a warning to anyone, even on their own side. This demoralization creates the delegitimization of the people conducting the atrocity.
Further, mercy is inherently an act of strength. It pre-supposes that you are strong enough to grant that mercy in the first place, and that it is towards a defeated enemy. It effectively does the opposite of an atrocity. It legitimizes the power of the victor, as a benevolent ruler, showing that the war itself is inherently illegitimate because the fear of the victor's will is unfounded. It additionally moralizes the people by reinforcing their moral framework. It subversively tells the defeated that they are already conquered by the will of the merciful, and that all they need to do is relent.
This is also why false mercy is an atrocity in and of itself: a fake surrender, the execution of prisoners, rebuking an agreed peace deal, etc. It's admission by the person doing it: "I was never legitimate".
Exactly. You just reminded me of when Nietzsche pointed out how laughable it is when people without the capacity for effective violence consider themselves virtuous for being non-violent.
Yes, weakness as a virtue.
How do you explain Dresden? Who got put on trial for literal tornadoes of fire and liquid asphalt burning civilians alive? Who got sentenced for piloting the planes the next day that gunned down the survivors fleeing into the woods?
If you win the war then whatever atrocities you committed aren't war crimes. We nuked two cities for god's sake.
You are not this retarded Gizortnik, so I can only conclude that you are willfully refusing to understand reality because it would cause you massive cognitive dissonance.
Gen. Sherman burning and raping the South was reduced to a quirky joke.
Win the war, write yourself as the moral side, and silence witnesses to your so-called "war crimes" as crazy conspiracists and sore losers.
The ONLY crime is losing the war. Everything else is a humiliation ritual. Vae victis.
Sherman's doing was worse than anything because he was doing that to Americans. Going and massacring foreigners is a thing. I think greater hate is rightly reserved for those who commit atrocities back home.
I don't even understand your complaint. I'm literally saying both victors and the defeated can commit war crimes. As for how war crimes actually exist, read my exchange with Beefy Belisarius in this thread. I quoted from Clausewitz who goes over the concept quite quickly and simply.
That being said, I also agree with The Fat Electrician in that "It's not a war crime the first time".
We hit them back with the biggest experiment ever, so I’d say we’re even
That's basically what both governments agreed to. We kinda got everyone back for every atrocity they committed when we dropped two nukes on them, firebombed every major city, and killed nearly 100,000 people in one night in Tokyo.
Really weird that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the largest concentrations of Christian's in Japan at the time. Hmmmmmm.
So what if the Japanese state committed war crimes between 1931 and 1945? How many people who are responsible for that are even alive? The people who say that generally live in countries that are committing the greatest number of war crimes at the very moment.
Raw numbers like that scale with time. Something like 300,000 slaves were brought into the US, total. Somewhere on the order of 50 million black people live in the country, most of them descended of slaves.
And the US isn't close to the biggest country. If 0.1% of China and India are slaves, that's still 2 million-ish slaves.
Judge in Chyna ruled that Japanese atrocities are so well known, no proofs required, grants rest of Asia another 80 years of eternal victim status, it is also now illegal to question the Japanese atrocities and the deaths of 60 million asians by the Japanese
Indonesia, 'Manchuria', Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Burma, India.
There is quite the list.
Quick! Someone release a holocaust game in Japan!
I don't know what the world policy on Holocaust games is. I mean is it like "never forget" or do they get upset when you simulate it? I of course mean to construct an accurate simulation where the goal is to exterminate and hide the 6 million before the allies get there.
Factorio, but randomly the Allies bomb the shit out of your logistics line.
Here I am trying to feed all these Jews and Gypsies (so they can be healthy before I gas them), and Americans be blockading our food sources.
Super amazing and convenient that two of the most powerful factions opposed to the globalist central-banking conglomerate of WW2 were also the only perpetrators of absolutely comically outlandish torture and experiments done specifically to genocide a certain group of people and the reports of them doing so were conveniently found in detail and disseminated to the public in a way to maximize shock and hatred against these two power blocs and also super amazing and convenient that to this day these two nations are still paying the price for these deeds with cultural annihilation. Good thing the good guys always win in the end!!!!!!
It is documented, Japanese are fucked in the head when it comes to war prisoners.
This isn't debatable. They had Japanese soldiers admit to doing it.
The issue isn't presence or absence of atrocity. War itself is an atrocity. The issue is the word "most". The poster is proposing that Japan did more war atrocities than killing of millions of civilians and non-combatants with nuclear bombs, more war atrocities than the holocaust, more war atrocities than Stalin's cannibal soldier legions.
The UN, in the modern day, has people admitting they or their cohort committed war atrocities, in the modern era, present day, present time. Which I am sure is true, at least one did something. We ain't arguing presence-or-absence. We are arguing degree: "Most". Number 1. Gold medal. First place at being bad. And alongside that, the merits and morals of championing/lionizing a nation which, 100 years ago, all people involved there victim and offender now dead and gone, did Bad Things. The twitter twit's argument is Japan is not deserving of accolades or respect because 100 years ago Bad Things happened, and that in terms of people doing Bad Things 100 years ago, Japan did the objectively speaking majority of them.
So given your slant, answer this: Did those limited examples of Japanese troops admitting it outnumber, "most", the entirety of the holocaust, nukes, purposeful famines, concentration camps, slavery, "war brides", science experimentation, that the rest of the world committed? If yes, WOW, I'd love some proof. If no, then shut up, because you're being purposefully disingenuous about the core conversational topic.
Tldr, I know my facts sorry.