RelexCryo said:
Razada said:
RelexCryo said:
Ih8pkmn said:
You might be a redneck if....
...you blame a society we are at peace with for something that happened 70 years ago-which the current leaders have no control over- and think that a natural disaster is "payback".
Even if this was the 1940's, this would still be idiotic. You can't blame the peasants who are enslaved by an evil emperor for what that emperor does.
I question the word "Peasant" (Used wrongly) and "Evil".
No Japanese soldier would consider himself a peasant, the soldier caste is well above the peasant caste. Nor would I consider the Emperor to be evil. If anything, he did not have that much control over his Army, the genrals were more powerful then he was.
The ruler of a country is not evil if he is militaristic. By your standards is Honest Abe evil? How about Wintson Churchill, George Bush, Woodrow Wilson, hell, any leader who leads a nation in a time of war?
Even though this is slightly off topic...
The use of the word peasant in this context is insulting, when one thinks peasant one thinks "Stupid farmhand", a peasant is only one step above a serf. Also, considering that Japan was industrailised, it is wildly innaccurate. Finally I would ask you why you are referring to the Emperor as someone who was "Evil", I would ask you to state exactly WHY he was evil.
The Emperor supported the act of invading other countries for purely selfish reasons and mass murdering innocent people. Japan murdered more than 30 million people- several times more than Nazi Germany.
Peasant does not imply a lack of intelligence or education- it is a term used regardless of education to refer to economic/political power. An example: Leonardo Da Vinci's mother was a peasant, and so originally was he. One of the smartest, most well educated men of all time was a peasant.
Abraham Lincoln actually fought a defensive war- in self defense- as the south attacked first. Same for Winston Churchill. There is a difference between self defense- or fighting to overthrow a regime that murders innocent people- and the act of invading other countries for selfish reasons and/or murdering innocent people.
The Japanese caste system dictates that the soldiers were not peasants and had more economic and political power then the farmers (Peasants), it is just a question of semantics, I guess. Unlike in other nations, the Soldier's were a cut above normal citizens.
And I would argue that whilst the Emperor was the spiritual head of the Japanese people, the army had more control then the emperor over what it was doing, hence the Manchurian crisis. The government (And the emperor) tried to stop the army, the army ignored them. I would not call the Emperor and evil man. A crass, powerless man, yes. But evil? No.
Men like Stalin and Hitler were evil, without a doubt. The Emperor? Not so much. Cultural considerations must be made.
Plus Winston Churchill allowed the murder of thousands of innocents during his "Defensive" war.
And as for Abe Lincoln, well, He was not fighting a defensive war, he was fighting a war to prevent the south from seperating. One could argue that fighting to preserve the Union was a selfish war, a war to assure the dominance of the north over the continent. If he was merely trying to defend the north there would still be the Confederate States of America as he would not have retaken the territory which had been lost.
Let it be noted that I am not trying to state that the Japanese were innocent of committing War Crimes, merely that the Emperor was not an evil man, merely a powerless man with a title, controlled by the army. Think the Queen of England (Although he had much more power then she does) she cannot be blamed for what Parliament does.