>killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is...

yup, germans always ruined europe, america just used a free opportunity the stupid germans gave them on a silver platter.

>lol
Yeah, entire being of muttgroid encapsulated
It shall be blind and deaf and moronic until expiration date.

>dude trust me japs were already begging to surrender before the nukes dropped, it came to me in a dream
ok.

america could kill 10,000,000 by slowly roast cooking them every single day with carpet bombing.
>america showed pity and mercy on the enemy and dropped 2 nukes on them instead
: )

>lol
Yeah, entire being of muttgroid encapsulated
It shall be blind and deaf and moronic until expiration date.

Well ... Americans dropped them, but they had German (israeli) refugees build them. So in a way, German israeli scientists are responsible for it, by the same logic that means German israeli (and communist/socialist) slave workers in ammunition factories were responisble for every allied soldier shot by a nazi footsoldier on the battlefield.

>starvation
Where? Or you think that if Russians don't eat transdogshit means that they starving?
>alcoholism
Will be always better than self mutilationism

>muttgroid posting mutt propaganda
Enjoy shlomos cum inside your neo vegana, I guess

Enjoy bum towns in the middle of your bootifeel first world cities while coping with it using internet muttgroid memes you "queen"

Only in your mutt dreams or delusions
Literally imagine having cracks in the hole in The "richest" city ever known by everyone in the world because of capeshit and have cracks in the ground where you can see what's happening in subway (that looks like absolute dogshit btw)
Or certain parts of this city literally Indistinguishable from dirtiest town somewhere in a fricking Thailand

Only possible in USA

I am absolutely clean and only ever had sex with biological women, don't project on me your hobbies you muttgroidgayBlack person troony!
Thanks for funny meme btw

Another delusion from troonygroid.
Honestly it's really no surprise and literally follows

Tfw mutts are literally brainwashed to accept this psychopath thinking
No wonder you castrate yourself right now at an alarming rate 1% turned into 25% within fricking 5 years
2020 taught the world : leave mutt alone in his home for 1 year and watch how it becomes a "she"
Meanwhile you can't even take responsibility, instead blaming KGB brainwashing and whatever the frick.
moronic children the "nation"
Truly, truly.

to the letter
Which is the truth. And fun thing about truth is that it will be so either way, no matter someone's delusions.

Yes more muttgroid propaganda, sure, I am very starving right now

No matter how much trade and support we were doing for their enemies, they attacked a navy base hoping to completely wipe out our naval power in the west, and they failed, and that surviving navy came and destroyed them. So what. They knew what was going to happen right when they failed

>I don't consider America not selling Japan oil to be "starting" an armed conflict.
>No matter how much trade and support we were doing for their enemies
It's cute how Americans nowadays think that America's conflict with Japan started in the 20th century over some oil.

>you aren't saying

>Japan attacked america because we’re ancestral enemies
Just say what america did that makes you think we started the fight with Japan

>ancestral enemies
Case in point. You guys have not the slightest idea what bullshit imperialist policies of yours literally turned the Pacific into the powder keg that exploded in WW2.

>in the 1940s
Do you even read the posts you reply to, imbecile?

You still haven't said anything. You're just acting like a sperg

My best guess is he is either trolling , stupid or genuinely might be thinking of when the USA coerced Japan into opening itself up to the world in the mid 1940s.

My best guess is he is either trolling , stupid or genuinely might be thinking of when the USA coerced Japan into opening itself up to the world in the mid 1940s.

If that is what anon means, it’s just not an innocent reason to your new empire to make retaliatory strikes over past offenses.

>retaliatory strikes for past offenses
American education, everyone. Thinking that stuff just happens in isolation, then is done and immediately becomes a "past offence" rather than an ongoing dependency.
That's why Americans literally don't understand why the whole middle east is a powder keg, despite them retracting their armies from there and only occasionally order a drone strike or air raid.

You still haven't said anything. Just some trite platitudes about how history doesn't occur in a vacuum. Grow some balls and just say you think America deserved it for the Perry expedition and encroaching in East Asia

I've said everything I needed to say already, and you keep ignoring it: It was the USA that set up the very playing field for WW2 in East Asia. The US basically gained control over all of East Asia economically, and kept explointing ALL parties, not just Japan. The US did not "get dragged" into WW2, as the popular claim is, but instead tried playing the conflict for their own gain, all the while maintaining heavy military presence in the area to enforce their own economic interests. In other words, they didn't just refuse to trade with Japan, but due to historical precedents and control of the area, also made sure that trading with anyone else was basically impossible for Japan. And at the same time the US tried to play China and make them their vassal. Just to play the victim when one of their own MILITARY BASES IN THE PACIFIC was attacked. Unprovoked, they said.

None of this is true, btw.

Most gains in human life expectancy and world popuatlion are because of America and the West lmao.

Another 9/11 will happen as soon as our government thinks its time to cook another one up.

>Country uses non-violent means to gain strategic advances in an region its not even part of
They literally used the thread of (naval) warfare to establish their position in the region in the 19th century. How is that non-violent?
>Native country chimps out and murders people out of jealousy
It has nothing to do with jealousy and nobody "chimped out". In fact, Japan kept their cool about it for almost a century, until the US started exploting its economical power to play political games and tried to rob Japan of any agency.

>I can just pull out of my conflict in China and accept my status as a major regional player
>instead I'll double down and start conflicts with every single other regional power as well
>you forced us to do this

They tried and failed to make an empire in the 1590s. They tried and failed again in the 20th century. God willed for them to be stuck on that island.

>What gives Americans the right to dictate to another country which conflicts (some of which predate American meddling in the region by centuries) it is allowed to have?
What gives the Japs the right to inflict total war on neighboring states for the sake of expansionism?

>It was not about the US having trade relations, it was about the US forcing or blocking trade unilaterally.
The US cant force other Western oil producers to deny an agressor an important strategic resource.

>There basically only were two regional powers
Except for multiple Allied powers and their colonial holdings.

>You cannot use continuous military threat and then claim to be non-agressive.

Yes they can

>9/11
>an operation carryout by middle easterners
Lol

LMAO Even by this moron's clown logic the US did nothing that Japan themselves and basically every nation throughout human history didn't also do, Japan STILL started it, and they deserved everything they got. This man has overdosed on "muh murrica bad" propaganda so hard his brain broke.

>First, look up what "total war" means.
Not an argument. Bombing civilian targets, execution of POWs and mass reprisals against civilians are pretty indicative of total war lol

>Nice job proving that you do not understand pre-globalist trading and trade routes.
Nice non argument. Show me where the US coerced other powers into signing an embargo

>You said "regional". Not my fault you narrowed the point to those native in the region rather than outside players.
Imagine being wrong and pedantic at the same time. Just because Paris isn't in Cambodia doesn't mean they lacked interests in the region.

>I repeat: You do not understand trade routes.
Enlighten me then. Did the US coerce the Dutch and British with an embargo of their own? You're not actually making an argument.

>Imagine insisting on calling France a "regional power" of Asia.
They absolutely were during the period they maintained large colonial interests there you imbecile

>You. Do. Not. Understand. Trade. Routes
And you keep saying this but haven't actually explained anything. Tell me in no uncertain terms how the US enforced cooperation in a strategic embargo.

>Let's just agree that we disagree about the meaning of the word "regional", where I think it means "in the region" and you mean it means "anywhere".
You're a massive fricking moron. The capital and homelands of your nation doesn't have to be in a region to maintain interests there you absolute fricking mouthbreather.

>actually have. In the only line of my posts that you omitted from your quote.
Lol no, you're jsut trying to draw a vague connection between global trade in a modern conflict with trade in pre-war Asia, and hoping I'll do it for you.

>Tell me in no uncertain terms how Russia enforces Africa's "cooperation" right now in a "strategic embargo" on Ukrainian goods that African nations actually want and desperately need.
See above.

>Having interests makes one "regional" then. Good to know if I ever want to sell regional produce in, say, a Texan supermarket
If a large colonial empire with millions kf people doesn't qualify as an interest than I really don't know what else to tell you.

I'm not asking you to keep flailing with shitty analogies. Did US trade relationships allow them to coerce oil embargo cooperation with other states? Is that the claim you're trying to make? Or do you think they coerced the Dutch and British into it with some sort of veiled military threat? The next post you write should be specifically about the nature of global markets in the 1930s. The real answer is that the US didn't unilaterally enforce an embargo, during a time where only a handful of powers exported oil. The Dutch and British rightfully recognized the growing theat to their colonial holdings just like the Americans did.

>muh supermarkets
Apples and oranges. I think you know this but will argue disingenuously and stick to your guns because you can't stand being wrong.

>Seriously though: We're arguing about
what the word "regional" means
Idiot. It's about what qualifies as a regional interest in terms of geopolitics.

>No, it didn't. That's the whole point about the US trade policy established in the Pacific in the 19th century was to control trade routes.
Yes most nations with interests abroad want to prevent piracy and create commercial security. The USN does thus still today all over the world.

>Nice job proving that you do not understand pre-globalist trading and trade routes.
Just explain what you meant by this. This was in response to me claiming the US can't unilaterally force cooperation in an embargo, and you seem to think the USN protecting maritime trade means something. If you use another Star Wars analogy I will fricking castrate you. Articulate your point clearly instead of fellating your intellect with unrelated shit about global stock markets.

What? I don't even get what you're trying to argue now. No one is talking about justifying violence against anyone. So leave your identity politics back on reddit or /misc/ or wherever you come from.

>No one is talking about justifying violence against anyone.
This whole thread is about a weeb justifying Pearl Harbor as a righteous response to Western influence so he can cry and wring his hands about how mean the nukes and firebombs were

Yeah, you're terminally American. Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum. 9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. Oh, and October 7th also didn't happen in a vacuum.
You have caused everything that has ever happened to you. Directly. You are the agressor. That doesn't justify violence, but it explains it. And that a violent reaction isn't justified does not in turn mean that your own violence is.

>if they didn't start a war they couldn't win?
Japan didn't start any war with the US. That's the point.

>If that was simply you're argument from the beginning, everyone would have been in agreement and we wouldn't have needed to bump the thread. Instead you claimed Japan didn't start the Pacific conflict
Classic motte and bailey. And not even a good one.

>and has no reason to be involved in
Everything you're admonishing the US for in defense of Pearl Harbor can be applied to Imperial Japan. They imposed themselves in the Chinese conflict as a third party for the sake of realpolitik. You have no consistent beliefs. You're like a woman, basically.

>Japan was active and agressive, I have never denied that, but so was the US from the very beginning. That is my point.

Because you're trying to remove any sort of culpability from Imperial Japan. You don't give a frick that you're being a hypocrite and crying about American politicking while softly conceding that Japan did the same. If you think an oil embargo and growing competing hegemony is grounds for a first strike then that's fine, but to compare overt military aggression directly to economic coercion is disingenuous at best. In your world Japs are merely a battered wife caught up in someone else's struggle for power.

>US not being innocent.
So what did the US do to japan anon? Embargo some oil because they weren't too fond of mass murder, invading foreign countries, and imperialism at the time?

You still haven't said shit to prove whatever you're trying to prove. Just keep in mind this entire time Japan was have peace talks with the US while they secretly expanded their war efforts.

>Nobody is saying the US is innocent or didn't frick around with internal Japanese politics or spheres of influence
There were literal posts in here that did, right at the beginning. See

None of this is true, btw.

. That's the first reply I got for listing historical facts that you now claim nobody denied.
And it's basically from here where no only two completely mental US patriots attacked me, but also people who, like you say that I'm compltely right, but also, for some reason, accuse me of portraying Japan as completely innocent when I never did (and even outright named Japan as an agressor in the Pacific conflict).

>I'm saying your an apologist and hypocrite
Which is funny, considering that I never claimed that Japan was innocent, only that the US wasn't either.
So apparently not having double standards makes me a hypocrit, while you can go around acting as if the US never did any wrong and was never to blame for anything in WW2 and all is dandy. Funny how that works.

>ackshually Japan didn't start the war
Did you even read the fricking post you replied to?
Because it says the exact opposite.
At this point I have to assume you're not just stupid, you're strawmanning with intent.

>The US is innocent though.
Case in point. The US can do whatever it wants and insert itself into conflicts, even under military threat, and still is innocent in the minds of American idiots.
But if you even dare to point out that such behaviour is effectively an aggression, you immediately get labeled an appologist for the opposing side. This is why no one can stand US Americans.

>insert itself into conflicts
trying to prevent war, not expand them. Or again, should Japan just be able to do whatever the frick it wants including crimes against humanity? American didn't want to trade with the empire of japan because they were fricking awful and tried to peacefully as they could end their hostilities by cutting off their resources.

Japan could have just not continued it's expansion in the pacific but instead they chose war.

>The US did not try to prevent a war back in WW2
What are embargos on Japan and constant peace talks. Japan and America were in peace talks DURING pearl harbor as part of the deception of the attack.

The US even planned on giving Japan access to oil until intelligence discovered that Japan was bullshitting during the peace talks and were amassing troops for another foreign invasion.

>The US has never really tried to prevent any war anywhere.
The US didn't even want to join ww2. What the frick are you talking about.

maybe you shouldn't discuss American history because you have no idea what the frick you are talking about.

>Kek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_note

They even cover the peace talks in the movie Pearl Harbor for frick's sake. It's incredibly well known that Japan was using diplomacy as a ruse for their war efforts.

>Yeah, that's what they teach you in American schools nowadays.
Because it's true you fricking moron.

>The US never was an aggressor
Again, they weren't. They put an embargo on Japan after they invaded yet another foreign country. A country ruled by an American ally.

And again, read the wiki article you dense tard. It explains in detail the various peace talks the US and Japan were having. Even though japan was lying the entire fricking time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_note

How can you be this dense? The facts are right in front of you, all you have to do is fricking read them.

>Yeah, I get your point. US = totally innocent.
As far as the conflict with Japan during WWII goes, yeah.

>willing to accept limited proposal and give up some oil in return
>Japan lying about it the entire time and was planning on invading another country anyways.

Right, america was the unreasonable ones.

>it's Japan's god given right to murder civilians and invade foreign powers with absolutely no repercussions.

>Japanese military units occupied southern French Indochina, violating a gentlemen's agreement. Japanese bombers quickly moved into bases in Saigon and Cambodia, from which they could attack British Malaya. As a result, the US government imposed trade sanctions on Japan, including the freezing of Japanese assets in the United States; this effectively created an embargo of oil exports, as Japan did not have the necessary currency with which to buy American oil

DIS IS BULLSHIT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BOMB WHOEVER WE PLEASE

Those were me. And you cannot read:
>didn't start any war with the US
Doesn't mean they didn't start anything with anyone ever. Just that they did not start any war with the US in particular. I maintain that point, and have never claimed that they did not, for example, start a conflict with China.
But apparently you cannot tell that difference.

>So how exactly did Japan NOT start the war with the US
Trade routes or something

>Things were looking good between the US and Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, you launch one little sneak attack on someone and kill a few thousand of their citizens on their own soil and suddenly they treat you like you're some kind of butthole. Weird, right?

>Wrong. It wasn't "soft power tactics
It is 100% the excercise of soft power. Coercion isnt equal to direct military strikes against other military targets.

>To attack US soldiers (not civilians) in a military base, on Hawaii,
Citizen ≠ civilian, moron

>let's not talk about how the US acquired that one
Yeah the Japanese would never use military means to annex islands in the Pacific

>using economic power, ensured by military presence
how do you think embargos work anon. They are harsh measures meant to punish a nation. That's the fricking point. The US wasn't found of Japan's mass murdering of chinese civilians, war crimes, and invading all of it's neighbors so they decided to not support them anymore.

You're ignoring what Japan was doing to earn those embargos.

They could have also ceased hostilities and ended their imperialistic expansion. But instead they chose war. because Japan was just the fricking worst at the time.

>nor did you present the history in a way that was new.
Didn't stop one guy going full moron and screaming "none of that is true btw" as his first reaction to me listing historical facts.
Face it: Your compatriots aren't the brightest candles in this room, and if they didn't learn anything from what I wrote, it's not because they already knew, it's because they refuse to accept it.

lmao I thought you were just a low IQ troll but you actually believe this and are no longer being coy but actually throwing your shit arguments out there.

>What gives Americans the right to dictate to another country which conflicts (some of which predate American meddling in the region by centuries) it is allowed to have?

Economic coercion is nothing new in the world of realpolitik. If you want to sit at a table with the superpowers you can't cry foul when they're just playing the game

>What gives any country that right?
Nothing. That's the point. America didn't have that right, and no other country did. So what they did was itself an act of unlawful meddling, of aggression if you will. Inserting itself into a conflict. That's all there is to that point.
Nowadays, we do have a semi-regular way of assessing conflicts from the outside, that's the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg and the International Court of Justice in The Hague. But neither of those is a country, and neither can effectively enforce any of its rulings.

You know where the term "gunboat diplomacy" comes from?

>to invade Manchuria
Oh? Didn't know that was part of the US back then.

Most gains in human life expectancy and world popuatlion are because of America and the West lmao.

>Most gains in human life expectancy
>because of America
Then why do the United States have such a low life expectancy?

>how was invading Manchuria, Taiwan, and Korea a selfless display of pan-Asian resistance against the US?
No one ever claimed there was any "pan-Asian" resistance.
But apparently, according to you, the US had every right to occupy all of Western Europe in the 19th century as well and force France to give up its economic autonomy. Afterall, France had ongoing conflicts with Spain, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands and Belgium. There were lots of intra-european conflicts, and the continent was far away from having any kind of shared policy or representation.

>You're claiming Japan was forced to engage in conquest to counteract American influence in the region.
No. Are you actually too stupid to read or just strawmanning hard?
>while handing out economic aid
Kek. What "economic aid" is that?
>waged total war
PLEASE look up what "total war" means. It's not something you wage on others, it concerns war economy in your own country and society. Basically, it describes the complete restructuring of a country's means of production for the sake of war, and nothing but the sake of war.

>Google "Marshall Plan"
Not related to any Asian countries, or to any point before 1945.
>I can't recall any widespread American influence in 19th century Europe.
You know that we're still discussing the American economic interest in the Pacific, Japan, China and some smaller countries in the region, right? That I only brought up Europe to illustrate how demented it is to think that jsut because some countries are at war with one another, a third party can come in an try to subdue them.
>You ABSOLUTELY can escalate a war into total war from small, low-grade conflicts
Not what "total war" means. I think I'm arguing with completely illiterate toddlers here. I literally gave you the definition and you still act as if "total war" means something along the lines of escalating war. And your own link agrees with me:
>includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilises all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs.
I.e.: the complete restructuring of a country's means of production for the sake of war, and nothing but the sake of war.

>You were speaking on American involvement in Europe.
See literally the next line of what I wrote: I brought up a hypothetical scenario in 19th century Europe to showcase how aggressive American influence in the Pacific at the same time actually was. Because you wouldn't defend it HAD the US treated France like they actually DID treat Japan.
>But everyone cries when it doesn't work out for them.
No. The US cries when people strike back against them. That's the only difference. Japan didn't "cry" when the US forced them to open their borders to a trade relationship that unduely benefitted only one side. They just made the best of it. Only when the US kept pushing them did they retaliate, in a very limited fashion. It was the US that then played the victim, and does to this day.
>And you're wrong
Too bad that you cannot provide any sources that disagree with me, but your own sources disagree with you.
>Now read about the OTHER facets of total war
I did. Both I and the article you linked gave a short definition first and foremost. Both of those were in agreement. Nothing in that article disagrees with my definition, and nothing even just implies yours (which is already a very vague one).
>If you think Imperial Japan didn't possess a war economy
It did. But that doesn't change the fact that "total war" is not something you wage on others, as you expressed it, or minor conflicts excalating and growing into larger ones, it's a description of a country's interal structure.
Japan might as well have been in total war mode (I'd say it was) - but that doesn't mean it forced Korea or China into total war. Korea, in particular, was always more of a victim of both Japan and China anyway, rather than an active war party. So saying that they ever were in a state of "total war" is laughable.

>the Meiji Reformation would've been impossible without international exchange of goods and ideas.
The Meiji Reformation wasn't anything Japan wanted back then, so presenting it as a good thing in retrospect isn't really doing it justice.
Yes, Japan did ultimately profit from it, but they never were given the change to do so on their own terms. We don't know when they would have opened their borders if left alone back then, nor how well they'd have done, whom they'd have tried to trade with, which conflicts would have gotten reignited (although I'd argue that the China one was ultimately unavoidable due to the historical rivalry). So that's pure speculation.
>what you said about Japan not engaging in it
I never said that it didn't engage in the conflict. Not sure where you think I did when I repeatedly spoke about Japan and China being at war.
>You're trying desperately to reduce it to that
I'm "desperately" trying to use words describing an academic concept in a way that is consistent with said academic concept.
You're "desperately" trying to use them in a way that has nothing to do with any of that, like escalations of a conflict's scale on the outside.
Factually, we even agree on what happened. I just wish you wouldn't insist on calling those facts by the wrong name and then pretend that we disagree on the facts (which, again, we do not) just because I correct you on your misnaming.

>You didn't correct anybody
Then what do you think I did when I gave you a (correct) definition of the terminus technicus that you had used (incorrectly)?
>if you're going to wage total war
See, that is your problem. You keep using it the wrong way. You simply cannot let go of your misconceptions even after we've already been over the formal definition, have both provided formal defiitions that agree to a high degree, and have also found out that we agree on the facts regardless of said terminus technicus. And yet you insist on using it incorrectly.
Well, so be it then. Keep using it wrong. Since we don't actually disagree about anything but nomenclature, there's nothing left to discuss about this point.

>post a single source (anything vaguely academic) that describes total war singularly as a form of wartime economic organization
You literally gave a linkl to a wikipedia article that did. You even admitted that it agreed with the definition I had given. And now you link another website that agrees with me:
>directing almost all aspects of life including industry, finance, labor, and food production toward military purposes.
See, same definition right there.
>I can go all day.
Please do. But, please, also point out where exactly all of your sources agree with my definition, so that I don't have to do it every single time.

Oh, and:
>You're blaming Japanese imperialism on American involvement in the region.
No, you fricking moron, I'm not. And I never was.
I'm blaming America getting involved in WW2 on Americans involving themselves in conflicts in the region. No one forced you to try to play both Japan and China, and no one even forced you to take sides when Manchuria was ultimately occupied (which wasn't really a new conflict, by the way, but just the continuation of a claim that Japan had held from the sino-japanese war at the beginning of the century, a war that the US hadn't cared about all that much).

> The US basically gained control over all of East Asia economically
l'mao

>Americans literally don't understand why the whole middle east is a powder keg
Americans don't care and would rather not be there. The American government maintains their activities there to make certain people rich and that's always been the objective and they have always been successful. They aren't ignorant of shit and that's why its the most evil government entity in the world.

>have enormous Asian inferiority complex due to the white pigs mogging you with their empires
>hey we can do that too!
>get held down and ass fricked by America
>actually you started it by making us jealous!

Japanese have always been a violent rape culture. Even before the USA existed they were butchering millions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%931598)

right and america is starting ww3 by issuing embargos and sanctions against russia.

You're a fricking idiot.

>The US has very little influence in that region.
What is NATO

Frick off homosexual.

>a group of nations with enough power to stop russia from invading all of it's neighbors

Sounds like a pretty strong influence in the area to me. Poland is just daring russia to start shit. More than 30 countries have sanctions against russia right now.

Which NATO country was that?

Too dumb to read, anon?
No one is talking about NATO countries. This is a conflict between two non-NATO-countries. Hence why NATO effectively does not care. Putin knew that. Zelensky knew as well, which is why he panicked and wanted nothing more than to join NATO.
That's why you bringing up NATO as a potential influence on the region (eastern Europe) was ridiculous to begin with. NATO doesn't involve itself into Russia attacking its neighbours as long as those aren't themselves part of NATO.

>except for the embargos and sanctions they put in place.
NATO did not put any embargo or sanction in place. You seem to be confusing NATO for individual countries which might or might not be part of NATO. Or maybe you're confusing it with the EU, which did put some sanctions in place? Or maybe you're confusing it with the UN, which tried to officially condemn the attack (didn't happen due to Russia's veto) but couldn't sanction anyone even if it wanted.

You know that the guy you accuse of arguing that "Japan can do whatever it wants to other countries" (which I never did) is me, whom you're responing to now, right?
And that the "NATO can influence Russia with sanctions" guy has been arguing against me the whole time and actually one of your fellow Americans on your side of this moronic argument (so, yes, probably a "brownoid")?
You seem to have lost the orientation about which side made which argument between all your strawmen in here.

>You did though.
Still strawmanning, still not able to actually point out any post where I supposedly did. Instead you're using allcaps and ridiculous overstatements of things no one ever said in greentext.

Why the frick are you quoting me you moron. I'm the one posting the peace talks in support of America, not Japan.

Huh, that’s actually a good point

Dunno man, thinking about geopolitics isn’t exactly what puts bread on my table nor my interest

I thought of the words and typed them. It’s actually not difficult to do if you know what you’re talking about.

>They even think Springsteen's Born in the USA was an unironic celebration of their country, and that one's in English.

I don’t think that’s true at all. People like Born in the U.S.A. and Springsteen in general because it feels quintessentially American. Being “born down in a dead man’s town,” “living in the shadow of the penitentiary.” In Born to Run, “baby this town rips the bones from your back; it’s a death trap, it’s a suicide rap; we’ve gotta get out while we’re young.” The song Glory Days is about people whose glory days are over.

It’s a view of life best summed up by the song Thunder Road. Our lives aren’t great, we aren’t great, this town is for losers, but we can just hit the road, ride out to the promised land, that highway will take us anywhere, we can find what we want, or we can ride the rest of our lives. That’s the experience a lot of people have living in America. Disappointments, dead ends, but there is something magic and quintessentially American about hitting the road to try and find something better. I mean, you can wake up in Texas, drive all day on the interstate, until you go to sleep at night, still in Texas. There’s a whole giant country out there, you can get in the car, drive 2,500 miles and start over again. You listen to Born in the U.S.A. so No Surrender hits harder. “A wide open country in my eyes, and these romantic dreams in my head.”

And he’s right, too.

Hence the "not as singular event calamities".
The evil of firebombing campaigns wasn't the number of victims or the propery damage it did, it was the cruelty of the method and the intentional terror and suffering it caused for those who had to endure them. (I am not arguing that the nuclear strikes were any better in this regard, but I have seen people argue that those at least were quick to kill in most cases ... if we ignore radiation damages).

Like I said, I'm not arguing that the nukes were more humane (in the direct impact zones) for being quick killers. Just that I've seen people argue that.
In my personal estimation, the nukes were significantly worse than even the most suppressive longest-lasting firebombing/carpetbombing.

You must be new here, then.

>not as if Japan was in any position to take back territory if the Russia figured nobody would say they couldn't keep it
Neither was Germany. Granted, Germany had the support of the EEC (which it was part of and which later became the EU), and of the US (which wanted the cold war to be done with at that point). Japan had no such support in the 20th century. But had Japan been divided and become a frontier of the cold war in Asia, the US at the very least would have supported a reunification (under capitalism/democracy).