I was thinking more along the lines of Hitler aligning with the Chiang Kai-shek.
The State Department was already filled with Socialists, so they would have been favorable to Mao, but siding with the Nationalists in China might have broken Japanese relations. Weirdly, there's a chance that Nationalist troops don't stop the war with Mao because of anti-Communism of the Germans. But then, what if Hitler sees it as a better opportunity to just have the Nationalists open up a southern front against the USSR instead of fighting with Mao, and leaving Mao to fight the Japanese alone.
Even if the Japanese still bomb Pearl Harbor, without an alliance with Japan, the US can't justify going to war with Europe, especially if Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini come out condemning Japanese aggression.
Obviously Chinese Nationalists aren't going to march on Moscow, but an early Sino-Soviet conflict with an invading German Army, and no involvement with the Americans... does that turn the war? Does Hitler actually get to the Caucuses if the Soviets have to fight a war in the South-East without direct American economic support? I get the feeling they might. It was really close as it was, and the USSR wouldn't have made it without major US involvement.
Depending on who wins the war, God only knows how this plays out in the Cold War. If the Germans lose, do you get a Pro-Mao USA? Does Taiwan and Hong Kong cease to exist? Do you get a fully communist Korea? Are the Russians facing a pro-USA Communist China? Or, does Mao (as crazy ideological as he is) betray the US anyway? If the Germans win... Well, fuck if I know. What do you do if the Soviet Union breaks up into a dozen states, but Japan still gets conquered by the USA? Does the Chinese Civil War now become a major front for a Fascist v. Democratic Socialist west? Does the US ever invade Europe? Does the use of nuclear weapons become normalized in China to defeat both fronts having armies of hundreds of thousands?
I don't fuckin' know. But it would be a fun Alternate History novel.
Such a belligerent neighbor that they had similar levels of aggression as the rest of Eastern and Central Europe.
What you're looking at is the inherent flaw of Progressive Nationalism. The claim that a government has an inherent obligation to represent all of an ethnic group, wherever that group may lie. If they are a majority of a region, then that land should fall under the control of a government. If they are a minority, then the government should step in to protect them. They may even offer duel citizenship to the ethnos within that political boundary, then claim that "discrimination" gives them the right to invade across that political boundary and claim it for themselves. Germany did all the same shit. As you noticed, sometimes in the same place at the same time.
Poland's rush for land and power after having come into existence is what it is, but it's also not too different from what happens when any other countries emerge from the collapse of empires, and it also not an excuse to start making ridiculous claims that Germany was the international dindu nuffin.
If you really want to argue that Progressive Nationalism is the problem, then fine, but blame Progressive Era Leftism and Woodrow Wilson.
Like I already stated Germany was incapable of doing anything at the time. The economy was in the toilet, the military basically non-existent, partially occupied and was actively being bled dry by the Treaty of Versailles.
You're crying about the scramble for territory with the fall of the Russian Empire, and you ignore Germany's aggression for it's German unification movement, along with the Bolsheviks invasion of all of Eastern Europe, and you ignore the major German military effort in response to that very action because "Germany was incapable of doing anything". idiocy.
Germany has never been incapable of doing anything. That's actually kind of the problem with them.
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.
LMAO! You actually blamed Poland!
They were literally invaded by the Bolsheviks, fought with German troops to defend their border, defeated the Red Army at the Battle of The Vistula, then had issues with Germany refusing to leave. It was such an enemy to it's neighbors that all of it's neighbors that weren't Russia and Germany signed a mutual non-aggression treaty called the Warsaw Accord. Finland didn't sign the treaty because Germany pressured them not to, because even prior to the Nazis, Germany didn't want peace breaking out in Eastern Europe.
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?
They were covering him because it was our chemical weapons.
This is why I always had a problem with people just asserting that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Of course there were. They were our WMDs. It was Rumsfeld who sold it to him!
Lo and Behold, we found them, covered it up, and let several NBC servicemen get injured and be uncompensated for trying to dispose of the weapons in a safe manner. The NBC guys were eventually helped after the federal courts had to step in and stop the VA from covering up the injuries.
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.
Well, you forget the part that actually reinforces your point:
The judiciary created expeditious trials, the prosecutors threatened to throw the book at them, and the court-appointed attorneys told people to plead guilty on things that were literally not crimes.
They are also on record of not wanting to do mouth-to-mouth
Okay, now we know why he's ACTUALLY being charged. The NYPD and EMT's don't want to admit they accidentally let a guy die from Cardiac Arrest.
This is literally the same shit that happened to Eric Garner back in the day. A blood choke was applied to a resisting suspect who weighed damn near 500 lbs. He stopped breathing after the choke was released, after he was hand cuffed, and after the cops got off of him. However, the EMT's, basically let him lie on the ground for several minutes, preforming zero life-saving efforts to him in any way. They saw he was unconscious and that his chest wasn't moving so they just stood and looked at him until he went into cardiac arrest and died.
The cops didn't kill Eric Garner, the EMT's did.
With this guy, what the EMT's didn't want to do mouth-to-mouth despite having multiple ways of getting air into a patients lungs without putting their lips on him.
This was obviously the case in the moment. He clearly let the choke go loose when the guy complied / stopped fighting. Since his military service record is being used as a weapon against him by the prosecutor, his basic combatives training would have taught him to do exactly that by mere repetition with training partners.
This is why applying a blood-choke to someone should not be considered potentially deadly force simply because it's being applied. It could become that, but it isn't necessarily that.
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".