Tibet

Your arguments,which makes sense,Grieg, is why i like debating with you.

Anyway, the JO were different from the JH(Jewish Holocaust).If given a choice,i would not want wars and the JO either.But the fact was the JO did some nation alot of good,like Indonesia while it did alot of bad(like China).

JH on the other hand was the systematic massacre of an entire group of human beings whose fault was to have existed in Hitler's opinion.

 

On the subject on tibet....you would be surprised that tibet,i think, had always been making trouble throughout Chinese history.Of course,the invasion,in my opinion should not have happened on moral grounds.

 

kaiser, i had no idea that asians occupied by the japanese considered that time in a positive light ..the japanese were actually liberating them from the brutal british ,dutch and yankee masters......this is not the way ive usually heard it, i know back in the 70s when i lived in asia ,it was still quite unsafe for japanese tourists to travel in the very countries they had liberated...mabey because they would be hugged to death by grateful maylays or phillipinos.....?

 

Of course the Chinese and Filippinos would "hug" them to death. But the Malays,Thais,Burmese and Indonesians?I beg to differ. Those people really believed in liberation from their colonial masters.After all,to them,except the Chinese and Filippinos, the myth of the all invincible colonial masters were shattered.The Japanese also helped trained up the Burmese National Army as well as the Indonesian counterpart.Efforts were made to ensure that the natives participated in governance.These were in stark difference to colonial rule.

Perhaps you have no idea of the facts that i presented,but that doesn't mean it is not true. Read any book on the impact of JO and you would
find that it is true.

Majorwoody,Facts don't lie.

 

i see your point kaiser ..but why was the jo benevolent to some asians and so brutaly harsh with some others...were there no jo atrocities in the thai ,burma ,indonesia spheres of control..?

 

2 points:

1) In many nations - like Burma - the Japanese forces were generally welcomed by fair-sized chunks of the population as liberators, much as the Gerans were in te Ukraine. Sadly, the parallel continues, as the actions of the Japanese towards the 'liberated' peoples fairly often turned them against their new masters.

2) The Burmese & Indian armies created by the Japanese were small, crappy, and (for the Burmese only) did not actually fight anybody. (happy to be corrected, with proof)


And a less serious one:

Grieg, it has long been said that the Blitz did more for slum clearance in London that any British politician

 

i wonder why the japs had such a hardon for the chinese and filippinos...

 

For everybody, really. Ideas of racial superiority are a nasty thing to have.

 

Well there were,but it is negligible.

The reason why the Chinese were so hated was because everywhere outside of China,Chinese were donating money,rations and war materials to the war effort against the Japs.So that's why they hated the Chinese to the core.Even during the occupation of Malaya and Singapore,The Chinese continued the resistance which continued to be effective to varying degrees.As for the Filippinos, they have a very strong sense of independence...

 

Ricky, in instances in Burma and indonesia,nationalist leader like Aung San and Sukarno were really opportunists.The people only turned against the Japs towards the end of the war where it is clear who was winning and who was not.

The Burmese National Army caused quite a nuisance to the English if i remembered.The Indonesians caused more than annoyances.The INA well,were defeated.
But they were anything but small