@AKATSUKI9911 No. It's the "Battle of Austerlitz", taken place in 1805 during the "War of the Third Coalition". It was during the Napoleonic Wars. [1805 - 1815]
To everyone who says you need to be European to understand this song, you're a faggot. I listened to this song two years ago and I knew nothing, but now that I'm in 8th grade I learned almost ALL of europe's history.I know almost everything this song talks about(the school year isn't over yet). AND I'm only in 8th grade(sorry, I felt like I should emphasize that more)!!!
I cry just a little bit when they mention the March on Rome... I can never picture such a horrid thing as North Italy turning on South Italy. I hope true fans of "History" know what I'm talking about. ( =.=,) ~Vee
@electragoob That's nothing, think of the Spanish sack of Rome that allowed Spain to take South italy as part of the Spanish empire. History class amde me cry that day D: Not even pasta would've helped.
@electragoob History class, along with being amusing, makes me sad a lot D: Like contrary to popular fandom comics, South italy didn't want unification.
Europa in one minute :- Darkness>>> science from the Muslims>>>terrorism against them (in Spain)>>>translated books of science (of Muslims)>>>burnt them>>>sent armies to Americas,Africa and Asia>>> decades of STEALING and KILLING>>> wow we are a great continent!
...Some of the comments here are terrible. Trust me, I get that history is important, but not when it's used like this. Using history as a way to degrade and put blame on another country is wrong. History SHOULD be used as a way to help correct past mistakes and make the world a BETTER place.
History analogy: During the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was blamed and punished for WW1. All it did was help lead to WW2. So why are we still pointing fingers when we could be moving forward?
...I just realized that America (or rather Americans) have just as many ties to these events as actual Europeans. Most Americans come from European descent, so it's just as likely that one of my ancesors fought at Waterloo as it would a Frenchman's ancestor...(Well not really because my family's from Hungary--but hopefully you get the concept). It's an interesting idea...In the least it makes me feel better about not being born in Europe :P I have European blood in me, close enough.
I find it sickening that people use a song this epic and adrenaline-rushing as a chance to complain about how sucky they think America is. This song is about Europe and it should be kept at that.
@TLSoulDude Unfortunately, it seems impossible these days to like/prefer something without disliking the other. Btw, I didn't bring America up, but I can't help to reply whenever I have something to say.
I'm American, I love my country as much as anyone else loves their home country, and I fully acknowledge that America is far from perfect. However, I would like to point out that no country is perfect. Every single one falls short of perfection because humans will be humans.
Still, a flame war over America in a song about wars in EUROPE, which is ACROSS THE FREAKIN' ATLANTIC seems nonsensical, out of context, and kind of childish.
@TLSoulDude And I'm not against any patriotism. Though I myself actually prefer other nations... But that's something else. Anyway, I'm the first one to agree - no creature can ever be perfect.
Well, historically, both are linked too much: the last century's three major conflicts France, the UK and America stood side by side. And it were European colonists who founded America. That's why we always compare 'creators to creation'.
Don't forget the fact that most Americans are Europeans. Some are half Europeans, half Africans, but only a rare American is a true American. Sad, because the greatest of the human kind (in my opinion) are Americans.
Man, the U.S. education system is worse than I thought... I'm in college and I've only heard of half this stuff. A lot of epic moments in history have been edited out of our textbooks to make more room for government propaganda and social engineering. It's particularly sad that they don't teach us about Rome in its' glory days. Awesome song, though! Its' the European version of Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire"
@Daemon6437 You do realize history has always been the "expendable" subject, mathematics and sciences are what is neccessary for the youth if we are going to maintain our position within the world. Europe can keep its "yesterday", we have today and tommorow. As Orwell said, "He who controls the past commands the future, yet he who controls the future CONQUERS the past"
@siant666 He was in a letter from Michael Moore to His Excellency President Obama (thank goodness America at least has a decent leader; now, there's a partner I'd like to make deals with) and trust me, it didn't make him look like a nice guy. Evil and brilliant rarely go together, and when they do, they spin lies.
@JustFlemishMe As Winston Churchill once said "History is written by the winners".....there's a reason why your country and the rest of Europe slipped into obscurity after WW2..... the reason is because America was the only country left with a stable infarstructure and economy.....I find it strange that your leaders are criticizing our policies NOW rather than back when you had to rebuild your nations. I guess giving a little kindness makes lions out of cowards huh?
@siant666 Well, you're getting better - now you take pbetter people's quotes. Anywayut honour victory is meaningless. So may I die without any god or friend if I ever consider the outcome of W.W. II an American victory. And that's not hard, if you've bombed all the rest. We now have a lot motre to criticize - and we have more ethic sense. The country of 'the brave and the free' doesn't like others to criticize them BRAVELY AND FREELY? Cynical, is it not?
@JustFlemishMe You know what....why don't you try criticizing us when you NEED our help?
Say what you want about the U.S, but at least we return our favours and fight our own battles. During WW1, when America joined the fray...the battle cry of the Americans who landed in France was "Lafayette!Lafayette! We're coming Lafayette!!". Amazing how Europeans love to pick and choose their history...preferring to remember all their high points but conveniently forgetting their low points....
@siant666 Sure let me know when Europe - a united Europe; together as one, united for all time - needs the USA again. You go ahead, wage your wars, but we didn't ask you to. (Actually, no one did.)
Have we not proven ourselves loyal allies? But we are no longer your puppets, and of course we are insulted when any one suggests we are. And the last bit: that's probably a cultural difference. Yes, we started slave trade. We hardly ever talk about that. Why? Because we're embarrased.
@JustFlemishMe You think we're not embarrased with our treatment of Native Americans and blacks? The reason why you never talk about it is not because your "embarassed" it's because you don't want to have to own up to your responsability in fucking up the world just as bad as we did (if not worse)..... we acknowledge and admit our past, we our ashamed of it, but we at least teach our youth the lessons of history, while you believe that saving face is more important than repeating history...
@siant666 I didn't say that. I said we don't like talking about things we're embarrased about. That's the cultural difference. Go to any German secundary school and I bet they'll teach about the accursed Ausländer who thought his way (Nazism) was Germany's path. But talk to any German and I bet he won't like to talk about Nazism. Well, we tried to make it right (decolonization) and try to move on. The shame lingers, but we must proceed. We don't forget, but why waste time on talking?
@JustFlemishMe So that's Europe's great solution? Pack up and leave the colonies after milking their resources dry? No wonder the Middle East, Africa, and India have so many problems....Say what you want about America, but we had never left any place we had entered, ever. From Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, Panama (all of which are much more stable than the European colonies)
@siant666 Actually, you weren't even doing that poorly until you brought up Germany and Japan. You simply took the nations you could take, no difference with European colonialism. Deutschland and Nippon-koku both were great nations. You came along, bombed them, rebuild and left.... great nations. That's about the whole story. Our one big mistake was introducing the need for riches.But we also made infrastructure where there never had been. Better job than the US in Germany or Japan, I'd say.
@JustFlemishMe We "left" Germany and Japan huh? You think you're some intellectual by not using english exonyms but you're ignorant of the fact that we still have working military bases in both countries, and Panama, and the Phillipines.The modern Japanese Constitution was created by us, aswell as their modern navy, we could have done things the "euro" way by blaming & humiliating them but we didn't because that was what caused anti-allied sentiment in the first place....
@siant666 Oh, by 'left' I meant 'ended the occupation of'. Just thought I'd be more to the point. And Belgium has an army base in Germany as well. And let me tell you: it hasn't yet occurred that I woke up, got the newspapers and read 'Belgian platoon assists German Police in dismantling criminal organisation'. What do you guys do helping the Germans? Not like they need it... As for Japan, surely an American should agree imposing a Constition is unjust - even if it were a righteous Constitution.
@JustFlemishMe So you're criticizing us for not helping enough (we're not helping the Germans with the base) AND criticizing us for helping too much? (the Japanese military and constitution) You are what I call a strawman. As for nuetering the Japanese military, all we told them was they can't start wars of CONQUEST, we didn't say they couldn't have the right to protect themselves. We never told them to downsize their military and weapons like the british and french did to Germany in WW1
@siant666 You merely gave the impression you were helping die Bundesrepublik, and I pointed out this was false. I didn't even say the Germans need any help - they seem to be doing quite alright. And imposing a constitution isn't really my idea of helping at all. Neither is creating a more midern army and in said constitution forbid them to use it. There is no honour in eliminating an oponent by other means than 'durch Eisen und Blut' - 'through iron and blood'.
@JustFlemishMe To give you an idea on how f*****d up your posting have been I'll just go through in order of what I've found disturbing.
1) "There is no honour in eliminating an opponent by other means than...."iron and blood" [[When the lives of countless soldiers and civilians rest in the balance, "playing fair" and "making costly sacrifices" isn't really what goes through the mindset, war's not a game, it's a desperate scenario and a matter of life and death!]]
@siant666 My apologies for taking a while; comments pages have been funny lately.
Anyway:
In war as it should be, in which there is honour, which is decided 'through iron and blood', battles are fought on a front with (more or less) equal weapons, not in cities with atomic bombs or phosphorous bombs - Dresden, Tokio, Hiroshima-Nagasaki,... An invasion would have given me a reason to have the slightest respect for your 'valiant combattants' who decided a war the US caused.
@JustFlemishMe There is no honour in war, there never has been. Like I said before, war isn't a game, its a matter of life or death. But you actually think an "invasion of Japan" would have been the best thing? Let me give you a scenario, your father died in the invasion of Japan, you discover that the armed forces have a weapon that would have ended the war then and there yet chose not to use it for your reasoning. What would you have done? Would any of that honor BS bring your father back?
@siant666 Yes, there has. Long ago, there were brave warriors, giving their lives for their nation and their Kings and Emperors. In fact, I'd like warfare to return to medieval - but swords aren't as easily mass-produced as guns or bombs. Today, war is indusrty - a thought I hate. It would have been the valiant and more honourable of the two. And they wouldn't have invented it if they didn't intend to use it. No, it wouldn't. But it would assure me that if I live by honour too, we'd meet again.
@JustFlemishMe You do realize you don't speak for the rest of the world right? No one today except for you wants to return to the time where war was a matter of "honor". Incase you haven't realized, the reasoning for wars in the 20th century have gone from the stupid and trivial reasonings of the earlier centuries to a matter of seriousness and national security. We don't fight wars nowadays to "preserve our honor" we fight them to defend our countires...that's it.
@siant666 I am painfully aware of that, thank you. If millions of people would agree to me, I wouldn't have a reason to be so openly idealist. Stupid and trivial? When France tried to annex Aquitaine, was it 'stupid' of the English to fight back? Was it stupid of the Scots to fight against the arrogant English who massacred their fathers, brothers and children? Now, we fight for riches, even more than for power. War has become industry. And I dislike that idea. You can lose money, but not honour
@JustFlemishMe "You can lose money, but not honour".... You can't live on honor you idiot..... If someone was going to give you a ridiculously large sum of money to go against your principles you would probably consider it at least. Everyone has a price and everyone can be bought. Moreover, your concept of "honour" is just archaic "warrior mentality" bullshit, have fun preaching how "unfair" modern warfare is you Internet Warrior.....
@siant666 No, you can't live ON honour, butit's equally impossible to live FOR money. If it isn't to you, I should actually pity you. I may consider it, but I'll very likely refuse. We aren't honourable by nature, but we can make ourselves. There were times when not everyone was. I for me have to believe some things never change. Otherwise, I'd doubt if this life and the world themselves are necessary. 'Modern' is overrated. Fools, all of them industrialists. And probably you.
@siant666 You think yourselves modern? I see no diiference with ancient Rome. Panem et circensem. Peasants consoled by a piece of bread a day, so they put up with anything. Honour in warfare IS the ancient warrior mentality. And I'd have much more fun NOT HAVING TO 'preach' how unfair it is. Now, I find myself grieving the old virtues, burried under 'modernism', 'individuality' (yeah, right) and 'liberty' (of which I think I spoke earlier).
@JustFlemishMe There is no honour in war, there never has been. Like I said before, war isn't a game, its a matter of life or death. But you actually think an "invasion of Japan" would have been the best thing? Let me give you a scenario, your father died in the invasion of Japan, you discover that the armed forces have a weapon that would have ended the war then and there yet chose not to use it for your reasoning. What would you have done? Would any of that honor BS bring your father back?
@JustFlemishMe 2)"You merely gave the impression you were helping..... and I pointed out this was false" [[Really? When?]]
3)"I didn't even say the Germans need any help-they seem to be doing quite alright." [[Yeah, now let's go back 70 years and take away all that reconstruction money we sent overseas and see how they would have been able to rebuild their economy so quickly?]]
@siant666 2) Well, quoting you: "We "left" Germany and Japan huh?... we still have working military bases in both countries". How am I supposed to interpret if not as if you were helping our German brethren?
3) No one would have needed rebuilding so much if war had been only a matter of weapons. Air raids, huh! Despicable to the core. Btw, if I had been referring to 70 years earlier, I would have said: "I didn't even say the Germans ever needed any help."
@JustFlemishMe 3) Are you stupid? Do you think war only takes place on open fields of grassland? Hell no! It takes place in cities, in towns, it doesn't matter. There's no such thing as a "gentleman's war" anymore. There's no army in the world that ever wants to lose a fight if their homes and family depend on it, why should they risk their country, their wives and children just to give the bastard who's trying to shoot them a "fighting chance"?
@siant666 No, I'm not - maybe a little 'overly idealist'. I know it doesn't. The thought makes me sad. Where are the days of honour, valour, skill, even discipline? And why? Because that'd make them warriors, not murderers payed from taxes. If some madman kills 8 people with a bomb, people are shocked. All over the world. If you drop half a million bombs with the Air Force, you're a 'hero'. Burn in Hell, all who bombed the homes of women and children. Even death is too mild here.
@siant666 No, you didn't 'downsize' it - you deformed it so it wasn't a real army anymore. Which is better? Sure, the French and British ways were - are - far from perfect. Each nation has an army - even Deutschland, Russia and the Balkan nations. One exception: Nippon. Why everyone else, and not that one country? And according to your next comment, sometimes conquest is necessary... Contradictory with this one. If North-Korea attacks them, how will they fight back if they can't go to them?
@JustFlemishMe 4) "...you deformed it so it wasn't a real army anymore" [[Tell me...what's your definition of a "real army"? The function of all armed forces are to defend the people of their nation, not to conquer other nations for economic or political gain. Furthermore, you want to know what was in our "unfair" Constitution about war? "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes"-
@siant666 4) Well, I cannot name 1 modernized, accepted country which doesn't have an army not entitled operate abroad - apart from the noble Empire, that is. Even my country - the only thing that IS, as you (subtly) put it, 'f*****d up' about me - has bases in Germany (I wish THEY'd train our military) and sent soldiers to Afghanistan (idiots) and airplanes to Libya (to do something vague). Our army is worthless. Actually, if they wanted to, the Japanese could annex us (fine with me).
@JustFlemishMe You cannot name 1 modernized, accepted country but I can, Costa Rica, a country in Central America that is usually first on the Happy Planet Index and had abolished its own military. And the Japanese couldn't annex you because that would imply maluse of their NJDF and a breach of its "defence only clause".
@siant666 Fine, yet another reason to change your own Constitution. Well, I suggest we just offer His Majesty another piece of land - it'll be such a relief finally being governed efficiently. Anyway, my point was: the Belgian Army couldn't even stand up to the Japanese forces.
@JustFlemishMe the Belgian Army doesn't NEED to stand up to the Japanese forces because the point of the JSDF doesn't need to operate outside the pacific. Both countries armed forces are two continents apart, what possible logistic reasoning do you have to justify why the JSDF has to defend itself from Belgium all the way in Europe? the JSDF operates in Korea and performs humanitarian missions in East Asia but that's it. The point of armies is to defend, not conquer.
@siant666 We are worth less, and yet have more rights. That sounds a little odd to me. Would you think it's normal that you wouldn't be allowed to use e.g. phosphorous bombs and we would? It's about that, actually. And I didn't say Japan would even WANT Belgium. Why would they? All it does get you is a lot of trouble. I merely said their military strength is greater than ours.
@JustFlemishMe Tell me, do you know the only country in the world that had used nuclear weapons in warfare? India....not the U.S., not the Soviets but the Indians aswell as the Pakistani's. THAT'S why we are place sanctions on other countries who are not developed enough to deserve them. The only reason we have so many is due to our need to protect ourselves incase we have a really dire threat.
@siant666 Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Atomic bombs. Sounds like nuclear weapons to me. What a laugh! Weapons lead to violence. Here, I believe a child can tell you that.
@siant666 Ah, how was it in your own defence to intrigue against Dai-Nippon Teikoku? To invade Iraq, more recently? To invade Afghanistan? To invade Vietnam? Well then, gens, since you agree, go ahead and change the US Constitution and assure us you won't ever go into battle ever again. If this had been a proper proposal from the Government and had been accepted by the Diet in a democratic, SOVEREIGN JAPANESE voting, I would have accepted it. Now, I see a great nation denied in its right.
@JustFlemishMe Let's see, there was Pearl Harbor, the reason why we went to war with Japan in the first place. There was 9/11 which had caused massive panic and hysteria that we had to respond quickly as possible to that threat. As for Vietnam we didn't start that war it was the North Vietnamese who attacked their Southern neighbors, but I do agree that we shouldn't have meddled with them because that little country in Asia was no threat to us by itself, just the threat of Communism was scary.
@siant666 Pearl Harbor was a direct attack against the US Navy. In Tokio, 4 year old children lost their lives. And now I'm not even talking about Dresden... Plus, America challenged Japn's fundamental decisions. There was to be war, Japan only determined the time. I agree that the terrorists know no honour and have no place in serving any god, nation or ruler. You know as well as I do that the Communists were more popular than the Southern dictator you supported (in hopes of making it democracy
@JustFlemishMe Please...don't play the "4 year old children lost their lives in Tokyo" card, how exactly do those children dying different from the wholesale slaughter of children in Korea, China, and East Asia by the Japanese? And yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack against the U.S. Navy, ergo we had the moral leeaway to declare war upon them. And yes, the Communists were more popular, but that is only because they killed anyone who disagreed with them.
@siant666 Oh, I can. The Japanese may not have been saints, but at least they had the courage to take the risk of falling for the country. People make mistakes, and maybe some Generals thought 'total war' would be the grand solution. An attack which you provoked. For goodness' sake, just SAY what your problem with a nation is to the Congress, let them vote and send a declaration of war if it passes! The Communists were more popular, because your southern friends hated their dictator.
@JustFlemishMe "at least they had the courage to take the risk of falling for the country"? What the hell? What did you think we where doing there? I'd like to see you call an American GIs who spent months fighting in Asia against the Japs a "coward", or the British chindits who fought in the jungles of Burma. And tell me something, if the southern Vietnamese hated the U.S. so much, how come many imigrated here after their war and take up American names?
@siant666 What you were doing there? Dropping bombs. Did you get famous for huge battles or for invasion? No, we know you from Tokio being bombed, from the atomic bombs on major cities,... The southern Vietnamese only hated the dictator you supported. Probably many didn't see the link. And most won't have really cared anymore, being afraid of the Communists. They'd emigrate anywhere. And if there's one country Communist-free...
@JustFlemishMe Yeah.....so you expect us to let the same people we where fighting against in the most bloodiest conflict in human history to decide if they want to accept the terms of surrender? You really don't understand the concept of "unconditional surrender" do you? Did Japan give Korea, China, and Burma a vote if they wanted to be attacked and have their resources stripped?
@siant666 Yes. I expect you to respect the rights of every nation - an own constitution, for example. Gaijin have no business with Japanese law. I do. But I say this: the only two options are: either you conquer a country (through iron and blood, not nuclear weapons) or you leave it be. If I were in the Imperial Army, I'd probably have shouted at the arrogant idiots who came to occupy something like: "Obyukmono! ('Cowards!') Fight and earn your right to rule!"
@JustFlemishMe You expect us to respect the rights of every nation? Even though the nations in question DON'T respect the rights of other nations? Tell me where in God's name do you get this whole "law" of conquering a nation "fair and square:blood &iron bullshit"? It's obvious you don't understand the principles behind modern warfare. Tell me, is Imperial soldiers attacking small unarmed villages just as "unfair" as dropping a bomb to end a war?
@siant666 I do. Yes. Otherwise, you're no better than the one you condemn. Let's say it's something I made of Otto von Bismarck's views how great nations are made. Combined with what I call 'the Law of Arms': a leader who doesn't have the power to protect his power is not worthy to be their leader. If they include making an indusrty out of massacre, killing innocent people, little children, then I refuse to understand them. Only if they are fully aware that there isn't a single soldier.
@JustFlemishMe "Otherwise, you're no better than the one you condemn". War isn't black and white you can't take the moral high road all the time. And we don't live in the prehistoric age where might makes right so your "Law of Arms" philosophy is archaic bullshit. The leaders of the modern world are chosen due to their ability to inspire rather than to command.
@siant666 Tell me how you can condemn a country while doing the same. It's like a murderer being tried with another murderer being the judge. Oh, you can - just look at each case. Then make your decision. The Law of Arms was the ancient way of settling disputes. At least matters were permanently decided. WE have been talking for 540 days in my country, and onoly after that we managed to solve 40 year old disputes. A leader is chosen to command a nation, not for pretty talking.
@siant666 And by the way, guess that's how Hitler managed to get power. He was an idiot, worthless when it came to leading his armies, sending hundreds of thousands of valiant Germans willing to die for their beloved country to defeat and certain death. Rather dying than losing, fine, but the combination of both sounds horrible. But he could 'inspire' wu-ith his speeches!
@JustFlemishMe -we didn't say anything about self-defense, which is why Japan doesn't have an "army", they have the "Japanese Self-Defense Force" which is divided into the "ground SDF" "maritime SDF" and "air SDF". They operate just like any other army in the modern world except for a couple outlined conditions (such as defense-ONLY policy, civilian control of the military, and no nuclear weapons clause) honestly, for someone who likes using the word "Nippon" you sure no little about them]]
@siant666 Why, now I'm hurt. Just kidding. My knowledge is historical and cultural of nature. But anyhow, if your policy is determined by Yosomono, gaijin ('strangers', as in 'different' (negative) and 'foreigners (negative connotation)), how can you be merely loyal to your nation? Maybe it's fine they don't engage anywhere, but I would have liked THEM having the choice. (Btw, I'm more of a linguist than a politician.)
@JustFlemishMe Ohhh I see you're just a fanboy of Imperial Japan..... So you're not a military historian nor even a politician and you're trying to say how things SHOULD have went?
@siant666 Actually, I prefer pre-Imperial Japan - long live the Samurai! Well, I suppose the Divine Emperor Meiji knew what he was doing... Though I regret his decision. Anyhow, I'm 17. And I have spend over half my life so far studying history, and thinking about and discussing ethics. So I do think I can try to say how I think it should've went. Thinking, you see, is what I do best.
@JustFlemishMe You're 17....you're still a little shithead.....you don't know shit about how the world works. You're living in a fairy tale right now if you think you're mature enough to handle the understand the reasons why men fight and kill eachother. Believe me, you'll grow up one day and look back at all these bullshit comments with shame. You're not unique, many teenage boys find facist regimes as appealing due to the smoke & fluff, aswell immature nature of said regimes.
@siant666 Tell me, then: what does it say about you that a 'little shithead' does manage to remain calm and stick to a) facts and b) ethics while you think it necessary to make it personal. Well, on my HONOUR, if you won't, I won't. I know exactly how the world works - founded on blood money. Outrageous. A world were 'loyalty' can be bought. Where 'individualty' and 'liberty' are used to justify crimes. An era I hope will know a swift, bitter end. I know one movie quote stating it.
@JustFlemishMe You know what your problem is, you keeping using the word "ethics" the wrong way. You think ethics is subjective to every person, well its not. Virtues and Vices only have one difference no matter where you are brought up, virtues take acts in moderation whereas vices take acts in excess. In ethics any belief taken in excess is considered a vice, you have "honour" yet taking that to the extreme leads to "pigheadedness"
@siant666 You know nothing of who I am. I know the way I think. There are several cultures and even more of personalities. Sure, some things are universal - "Don't kill women or children"; "It's wrong to torture"; "Never betray your people"; "Help your relatives"... These principles can only be undone by another. But for example, in Bushido and Stoa, suicide was considered most honourable, while Christians condemn it. Pig-headedness comes from over-confidence and will always lead to failure.
@JustFlemishMe The problem is that you THINK you're sticking to facts when you're really just interpretting them in your own skewed version of history in order to suit your own agenda. History is a story of power, plain and simple, those who have it and those who don't. However, people who are sometimes dissaffected by the actuality of that time due to their post-modern upbringing tend to forget about the moral subject. Believe me, 70 years later, some punk kid like you will (1)
@siant666 be defending the Taliban and Al'quada's "divine retribution" against America the same way you're defending Imperial Japan. Believe me when I say this, you're NOT unique....you're just a lowly demagogue from Europe.... (2)
@siant666 they PRETEND to defend. Holy War doesn't even exist in Islam. I'm a mere student and I know it; a follower of the religion should know it, too. Oh, believe ME: I AM unique. As are you, undoubtedly despite your best efforts. Trust me, if I wanted to be popular and fit in, I'd only have to spread industrialist lies about how the best you can do is ensuring your money.
@siant666 I have heard of many versions. "What is history if not a story everyone agrees about?" (Napoleon Bonaparte I) Of course there'll always be a version of history I prefer to believe. Don't say you don't have one favourite version. Vengeance, retribution, attacking those who tried and denied you in your right - that's honour, hardly power. Ah, if I find said 'punk kid', I'll be happy to tell him personally there's no honour in the terrorists' ways and that they at against the religion
@siant666 "I see 50,000 men, come to fight for one man's greed." Trust me, if I look back when I'm over 20, I'll only be all the more bitter. My world is long gone. Honour, loyalty... They're no longer valued. I know. But that doesn't mean I cannot live by them. I have ethics. If I'm the only one, so be it. A shame, but that's how it must be. And I hate Nazis. They thought Germany's glory was not as important as their 'races' theories'. Curses upon all of them; may they burn in eternal flames.
@JustFlemishMe and when you have "loyalty" which leads to blind obedience. There's an old saying, "evil happens not because evil men commit it, but good men stand bye". Only a child would believe in black & white portrayals of the world without any moderation. Believe me, you're not an intellectual you're just some punk teenager who is going through a phase in life where he's overtly critical about everything due to your oversized ego telling you that you're better than this world
@siant666 Blind obedience prevents crimes. People have a dishonourable nature. By loyalty, you can more eaily place another's well-being before your own - honour. I study the Classic subjects, I looked up so much history I used an anecdote once to start a conversation, I've been thinking for many years about 'What is the right thing to do?"... And do try to deny this: It is right to criticize a right when currency is the currency of the realm, where what was once good is all openly destroyed?
@siant666 You don't need to have a US Army base IN Japan, you need to allow Japan to have an actual army of its own. To use that 'modern navy' of yours. The old Imperial Navy succeeded in defeating Russian flets. Not bad, is it? If anything, the modern Nippon-Koku as you created is less politically powerful than Dai-Nippon Teikoku, the Empire. Which America lowly betrayed in diplomacy in 1905, when they grew powerful thanks to Russia's defeat. At least, Japan is loyal in friendship and enmity.
@JustFlemishMe I'm not denying that it is less powerful but so what. We destroyed their empire in self-defense. Japan only fought on the allies side during WW1 to gain Germany's colonies. None of the facist countries had a shred of "loyalty" to anyone other than their own twisted agendas. Japan only joined Germany due to the fact they wanted Britain's colonies in the Pacific.
@siant666 Ah, this one will be fun. 1: I was told America knows all too well it's 'modern Rome'. Well, did Rome destroy the Empire of Carthage 'out of self-defence'? No; they felt - without reason, since it wasn't such an agressive nation - Carthage was a threat and provoked war against them. Same story with the US and the Empire of Japan. You saw Dai-Nippon Teikoku as a threath from 1905 on, betrayed them in diplomacy and finally provoked war by cutting off their gas supplies.
@JustFlemishMe "1:I was told America knows all too well it's 'modern Rome'" [[Really? First I've ever heard of it.......please enlighten me how we are apparently "modern Rome"]]
"from 1905 on, betrayed them in diplomacy...." [[If by "betray" you mean pacify the Japanese government by screwing over the Czarist Russian state by forcing them to give up Manchuria to Japan to end that pointless war....then yes.....we "betrayed" them royally]]
@siant666 Well, 2 Republics, most important (and best-known) nations of the world, spreading their culture, and forged by their (successful) wars. If I may advice? Adrian Goldsworthy's 'The Fall of Rome' (at least, I hope that's the original title).
You made Japan drop the payments Russia owed the Divine Emperor. The most important deal. After being pro-Japan. Having the arrogance to threaten His Majesty with a 'unified West'. Treason to me.
@JustFlemishMe Except for one major difference, Rome wanted to be a superpower, we didn't. We just wanted to remain isolationist, but seeing the state of the world around us and self-defence dragged us out of the shell.
As for Russia's payments, why do they need them? They already got Manchuria, the reason they started the whole f**king war! Hell maybe being attacked by a stronger army back then would have prevented WW2, breaking the Japanese's haughty arrogance and putting them in their place.
@siant666 You don't just 'become' a superpower. If you were all peaceful and wanted to have nothing to do with the rest of the world, you might have made treaties with the Sioux and Cheyennes, instead of massacring them.
The war had been heavy for Japan; it had cost them a lot. So they were relying on the money YOU denied them. 2 mistakes: 1) You can't pretend you could've united the entire West against Japan. 2) Japan arrogant? They felt threatened by Russia (and they were right). Just cause.
@JustFlemishMe Really? So explain this to me...it's okay for you to condemn us for annexing lands around 150 years ago for which we are deeply apologetic to its Native people to this day. Yet, its okay for you to forget about your country annexing the Congo around the same time and showing little to no sympathy towards them to this day?
@siant666 Yes, it is. I didn't forget about it. But after they got independent - something I cannot say about the Sioux, Iroquois, Cheyenne,... Nations - their first order of business was to say they didn't want us and hardly needed our help. Fine. They want us to go, so go we do. That's it.
@JustFlemishMe The indigenous people are granted autonomy over their tribal areas, the problem is that there are so few left due to disease and wars in that it would be downright impossible to grant them entire provinces of the Country. However, the Natives nowadays have learned to forgive and forget the passed transgressions, the people of the Congo however, still hate you. Mostly due to the fact that unlike us, your government hasn't make any attempts to officially apologize.
@JustFlemishMe You clearly don't have any idea about the Russo-Japanese war do you? Let me explain, Russia being a minor colonial power in the pacific, its only fleet in the pacific was stationed in Port Arthur. The Japanese launched a sneak attack against them (real "honorable" BTW) and decimated their fleet in the Pacific, it was so bad that the Russians actually had to sail their entire fleet from St. Petersburg to Port Arthur only to be destroyed again.....
@siant666 I do, thanks. Japan was threatened in its economical development and its political power. The Imperial Government of the Divine Emperor Meiji made it a point to answer immediately to the Russians, they let the Nihon-ji wait for weeks. The Japanese patience had come to an end, so it was time for more direct means. And they took Port Arthur - granting civilians safe passage back to Russia, and officers the choice of evacuation on condition of no more fighting or captivity.
@JustFlemishMe I find it hilarious that while you justify Japan's attack on Russia, you conveniently leave the part out on how they technically committed a sneak attack against them, forcing them to sail across Africa & Asia with their second fleet only to get destroyed when they came back, so where's all your honor Bullshit now? If Japan at its most successful didn't abide by your concept of "honor" why are you trying to convince yourself otherwise?
@siant666 As I recall, the Russians got a chance to either evacuate or capitulate. They got a warning - a close one, but they got one. Captain Rudnev of the Warjag decided to attack. And he was rewarded for his bravery with the Japanese 'Order of the Rising Sun'. That's what I call respect for your enemy's bravery. I see how humane they were in treating their captives (many Russians actually declared they were better off as captives of the Imperial Army than as soldiers in their own).
@siant666 2: You were lucky Japan didn't agree to the proposal of His Majesty Emperor Wilhelm I of Germany to attack the United States. Probably His Imperial Majesty Meiji - I believe he still was in charge at the time - realized the Germans only wanted to have better chances themselves. Nihon-ji attacking the Germans was righteous wrath. 3: Japan was just fiercely nationalist. Not fascist. Don't compare His Majesty the Emperor to Hitler, Musolini and Franco.
@JustFlemishMe "You were lucky Japan didn't agree to the proposal of His......realized the Germans only wanted a better chances themselves." [[Yeah....and I doubt the German pacific colonies that were ripe for conquest didn't have anything to do with that decision-making.Seriously, every country is out for their own interest, even us, but at least we conduct our matters in a far more benevolent way]]
@siant666 If the gods grant you an opportunity to achieve a reward for (and through) fighting for a just cause, there is no disgrace, only foolishness in refusing the chance. Well, you're only out for your own interests so obviously, you'd be fools to deny so. Btw, Japanese officers once had Russian wounded treated along with the Japanese injured in battle.
@JustFlemishMe A "just cause"? Killing noncombatents, raping women, slaughtering children? You call that a just cause?! All for what? Just because your island nation gets a good deal on prime realestate on the mainland?!!! And I know you're BSing me with Japanese treating Russian wounded, the Japanese army was bloodthirsty, because of their bushido concept, anyone who surrendered went from a "subhuman mongrel" to a "cowardly subhuman mongrel", hell they would euthanize their own soldiers need be
@siant666 I was referring to WW I. And you described incidents during the war (of which, obviously, YOU are innocent), not the cause. The cause was: 'punishing those who tried to use us to save themselves'. And there actually were plans for sending maybe 100.000 Imperial soldiers to France. Am not. Bushido had, alas, been forgotten by the time of WW II. But the humane spirit still was there. And if you're captured due to injury, you couldn't really help it, right?
@JustFlemishMe "Japan was just fiercely nationalist. Not fascist." [Look up the word fascist and tell me what you find]]
"I think His Majesty and Hitler only found each other on the US "black list' of nations to be distrusted It's not like they could afford to be selective with their allies" [[You do realize you're talking about Adolf "backstab Stalin by breaking the nonaggression pact to invade Russia" Hitler right?]]
@siant666 I can give some major differences. Hitler, Musolini and Franco actually reigned themselves. In Japan, the Generals (multiple men) were most important. And they got power by doing well, not by dismay at others' incompetence.
I do. And he hadn't even made that pact in 1936, I believe. Had His Majesty only known principles only meant that much to Hitler... He was not to be trusted, but there really wasn't much of a choice.
@JustFlemishMe You do realize you're being a hyppocrite right? First you are saying that Hitler reigned himself and then you're saying he didn't even make the nonaggression pact? Hitler, Musolini, Franco, the Japanese High Command, are all the same, on the world level, they where just a bunch of bullies who picked on those weaker than them. There's only to defeat a bully, you stand up to him and fight back.
@siant666 Tell me... What's unclear about "Hitler hadn't signed that pact IN 1936?" He did in 1939, but things had already evolved too far to turn back. The Japanese Imperial Army merely intended to give the Emperor what he deserved in their eyes. Your Soviet friends did some nice work as well - an unprovoked attack against a nation battling China and the US already. Disgrace. Stalin should've killed himself - as should have Roosevelt. (Oh well, Roosevelt was under immense pressure, admitted.)
@JustFlemishMe intended to give the Emperor what he deserved in their eyes? Or was it just the Imperial High Command just wanting to gain more resources to satesfy their own greed?
@siant666 The Emperor was descendant to the gods in the eyes of the Japanese. They wouldn't dare deny him - and they would have to if they wanted all for themselves. His Majesty probably sincerely believed it was the best for everyone if he could rule Asia - a son of the gods at the lead might mean eternal good fortune. The Japanese obeyed, since they were LOYAL. An underestimated quality I do not see reflected in certain other people I'd rather not mention.
@JustFlemishMe Really? Well how about the Taliban and Al'quada? They are also fanatics who believe that the Middle East and parts of Central Asia would be better if THEY ruled it. They are also loyal to the death, they will & have taken their own life to further their cause. But I know you wouldn't dare to idolize them because they're committing attrocities here and now, rather than back then. So you can't warp your immature logic when the attrocities are in front of you.
@siant666 I cannot respect them since they use terrorist strikes instead of open battles. They hide in their mountains, lie about their religion, care nothing for the troubles of others only conduct sneak attacks. Not much of a worthy army. More SS than Wehrmacht to me.
@siant666 4: Japan believed it had a 'divine right' to be Asia's leading power (since His Majesty was considered a descendant of the gods). I won't say if they were right; such questions are not to be answered by anyone but the gods. But, point being: they believed it was right. 5: I think His Majesty and Hitler only found each other on the US 'black list' of nations to be distrusted. It's not like they could afford to be selective with their allies.
@JustFlemishMe "Japan believed it had a 'divine right' to be.... But point being: they believed it was right." [[Yeah and they also apparently believed said "divine right" gave them the right to pillage, rape,& slay all the "mongrel races" of China, Korea, and Indonesia with impunity, what's your point? Just because you believe something is right doesn't make it ethically or morally sound. Seriously, get over your "villian crush" and grow up]]
@siant666 My point is - as I stated before - they were right to ensure 'divine justice' if other nations didn't agree. What you described merely was a sign of declining military. China and Korea and all refused to accept Japan's right. They wouldn't give what belonged to them - so they would have to take it. That was their view when invading China. Would you mind explaining what exacty 'villian crush' (sic) would be? That way, I can at least remain quite reasonable here.
@JustFlemishMe No other nation has the right to impose its will on another nation without that nation's consent or unless the first nation's safety is in jeopardy, that is modern thought... Japan had the right to live within its own borders and believe in their "divine right" BS all they wanted, but when you go to foreign lands you can't just do whatever you want, even the imperialists respected the lives of their subjects.
@siant666 So you agree with me condemning the Constitution imposed on Nippon-koku. There's no good in believing in a right but not defending it. I should think it dishonourable. Yes, of course... Millions of people died in Colonial Wars and rebellions and all.
@siant666 Yet they can be forgiving if lasting wrath is unnecessary and will only bring harm - today, they're one of the US' most loyal allies. They've been allies of Korea for years, and even now they support South-Korea. Ans still, they're not exactly close friends with either Moscow or Beijing - traditional allies.
And btw, I'm merely a Fleming with a huge interest in languages and the idea I owe peoples the respect to call them by their own names. Germany in German, Japan in Japanese.
@JustFlemishMe Another thing, unlike Europeans OUR way of dealing with occupied nations doesn't involve humiliating, belittling, or forcing them to pay outrageous sums of money as "war damage". Due to the fact 1)that we don't feel any pleasure in having to destroy a foreign country and 2)if we act like pricks we will probably be resented and more bloodshed would be caused later on.
unfortunately,yes,we are their puppets.I was following last events about Serbia candidature for European Union.We arrested Mladic and Karadzic,but there is now a new request-accept a stolen part of your county as an independent state.And guess who declared independence breaking every possible rule..And now Germany says "stop" Serbia to EU becouse of Kosovo,why should they give a rats ass about Kosovo anyway?!
@siant666 Good point, but if we're going to thrive in the future we need to learn from the past. The U.S. education system falsely gives the impression that we are safe. The truth is that the world has been in a constant state of flux since the dawn of civilization and those societies which fail to adapt die out quickly. History repeats under the same circumstances, and I can already recognize some of the problems that brought down Rome and Greece right here in the U.S.
shudnt it be aushcwitz
AKATSUKI9911 1 day ago
@AKATSUKI9911 No. It's the "Battle of Austerlitz", taken place in 1805 during the "War of the Third Coalition". It was during the Napoleonic Wars. [1805 - 1815]
dungeonlordsfan323 1 day ago
I never thought there would be Hetalia fans in here...
I'M SO STUPID OTL
CuteRueChan 2 days ago
To everyone who says you need to be European to understand this song, you're a faggot. I listened to this song two years ago and I knew nothing, but now that I'm in 8th grade I learned almost ALL of europe's history.I know almost everything this song talks about(the school year isn't over yet). AND I'm only in 8th grade(sorry, I felt like I should emphasize that more)!!!
donkits1 3 days ago
The grammar on the french kills my brain slowly, although I ador ethe rest of the song~
foreverwithoutyou 1 week ago
Came here thanks to Hetalia. Again :D
FemaleAyase 1 week ago 2
สุดยอด
Korn704 1 week ago
I cry just a little bit when they mention the March on Rome... I can never picture such a horrid thing as North Italy turning on South Italy. I hope true fans of "History" know what I'm talking about. ( =.=,) ~Vee
electragoob 2 weeks ago 16
@electragoob Nooo....... I can't believe he'd do that to Romano....
DLTKDWLSTKD 2 weeks ago
@DLTKDWLSTKD *High fives Fellow hetalia fan*
TheLFanboy 1 week ago
@DLTKDWLSTKD *High fives Fellow hetalia fan*
TheLFanboy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DLTKDWLSTKD (High fives Fellow hetalia fan)
TheLFanboy 1 week ago
@electragoob ohmigod he did that D8 !!!
feli why'd you attack your fratello ='(
*quarter from southern italy*
101Miacat 1 week ago
@electragoob That's nothing, think of the Spanish sack of Rome that allowed Spain to take South italy as part of the Spanish empire. History class amde me cry that day D: Not even pasta would've helped.
foreverwithoutyou 1 week ago
@foreverwithoutyou Oh gosh!!!! Spain!!!!!! WHY YOU DO THAT?!?!?!?!?!! D'X I think I just died a little...
electragoob 5 days ago
@electragoob History class, along with being amusing, makes me sad a lot D: Like contrary to popular fandom comics, South italy didn't want unification.
foreverwithoutyou 3 days ago
@electragoob I always knew our little Feliciano had a dark side..... 0_o
fma3040 6 days ago
@electragoob Yeah.. "History"...
TheMissingVocaloid 5 days ago
globus europa + escape de craig amstrong what else !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Baudouin44 2 weeks ago
l00k 1 c4n u53 numb3r5
xXxmodzrangerxXx 2 weeks ago in playlist U.S.A.
mmmm maybe now amerika knows more of our history:D europe:D
rolandcool1 2 weeks ago
nice
MrRussianProud 3 weeks ago
Love the song, listen to it while playing an RTS....epicness.
AryaWolf24 3 weeks ago
this is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrBudzik001 1 month ago
Now I know a lot of european battles:D
Runningmaniac1996 1 month ago 23
This song makes me feel epic!!!!
brainbox132 1 month ago 2
This was just played on robot chickens 100th episode :D
PotatoesandBacon 1 month ago 4
@PotatoesandBacon a shame >.> this song is so epic and awesome
Lukefonfabre9 1 month ago
THIS SONG IS AMAZING!!!!!!
rockdude782 1 month ago 2
03:00 Descendents of the dispossessed...return with bombs strapped to their chest...
This is Anti-islam...what has got islam got to do with the terrorists? for goodness sake...
DrakyGordon 1 month ago
amazing :D
Daveblackfalcon 1 month ago
WOAH! JUSTFLEMISHME AND SIANT666!
You guys are taking up our comment space ;(
ZessXX 1 month ago
@ZessXX My apologies. Maybe we'll leave some subjects, so it gets shorter.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
Europa in one minute :- Darkness>>> science from the Muslims>>>terrorism against them (in Spain)>>>translated books of science (of Muslims)>>>burnt them>>>sent armies to Americas,Africa and Asia>>> decades of STEALING and KILLING>>> wow we are a great continent!
elgazar99 2 months ago
Africa is the best!
elgazar99 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...Some of the comments here are terrible. Trust me, I get that history is important, but not when it's used like this. Using history as a way to degrade and put blame on another country is wrong. History SHOULD be used as a way to help correct past mistakes and make the world a BETTER place.
History analogy: During the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was blamed and punished for WW1. All it did was help lead to WW2. So why are we still pointing fingers when we could be moving forward?
Starfallz095 2 months ago
Comment removed
Starfallz095 2 months ago
...I just realized that America (or rather Americans) have just as many ties to these events as actual Europeans. Most Americans come from European descent, so it's just as likely that one of my ancesors fought at Waterloo as it would a Frenchman's ancestor...(Well not really because my family's from Hungary--but hopefully you get the concept). It's an interesting idea...In the least it makes me feel better about not being born in Europe :P I have European blood in me, close enough.
Starfallz095 2 months ago
When will Europeans realize they are nothing more than extension of US since WW2?
Only European country that can stand up to US and that did stand up to US is Russia, and that'll probably change once Putin goes down.
Animanijak017 2 months ago
Remember your ancestors, America.
Europe.
BritXtreme 2 months ago
Hetalia brought me here ^_^
vazcougerAPW9 2 months ago
i want to kill who ever invented guns with my shotgun
xboxz720z 2 months ago
I find it sickening that people use a song this epic and adrenaline-rushing as a chance to complain about how sucky they think America is. This song is about Europe and it should be kept at that.
TLSoulDude 2 months ago
@TLSoulDude Unfortunately, it seems impossible these days to like/prefer something without disliking the other. Btw, I didn't bring America up, but I can't help to reply whenever I have something to say.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe
I'm American, I love my country as much as anyone else loves their home country, and I fully acknowledge that America is far from perfect. However, I would like to point out that no country is perfect. Every single one falls short of perfection because humans will be humans.
Still, a flame war over America in a song about wars in EUROPE, which is ACROSS THE FREAKIN' ATLANTIC seems nonsensical, out of context, and kind of childish.
TLSoulDude 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TLSoulDude And I'm not against any patriotism. Though I myself actually prefer other nations... But that's something else. Anyway, I'm the first one to agree - no creature can ever be perfect.
Well, historically, both are linked too much: the last century's three major conflicts France, the UK and America stood side by side. And it were European colonists who founded America. That's why we always compare 'creators to creation'.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
Now we face the rising tide
MsNick991 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to kill who ever invented guns with my shotgun!
xboxz720z 2 months ago
Don't forget the fact that most Americans are Europeans. Some are half Europeans, half Africans, but only a rare American is a true American. Sad, because the greatest of the human kind (in my opinion) are Americans.
ThatTrollGuyAgain 2 months ago
I just died XD
AlienHospitality 2 months ago
It sounds like European History sang!!
vickytaspartan 2 months ago
Man, the U.S. education system is worse than I thought... I'm in college and I've only heard of half this stuff. A lot of epic moments in history have been edited out of our textbooks to make more room for government propaganda and social engineering. It's particularly sad that they don't teach us about Rome in its' glory days. Awesome song, though! Its' the European version of Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire"
Daemon6437 2 months ago
@Daemon6437 You do realize history has always been the "expendable" subject, mathematics and sciences are what is neccessary for the youth if we are going to maintain our position within the world. Europe can keep its "yesterday", we have today and tommorow. As Orwell said, "He who controls the past commands the future, yet he who controls the future CONQUERS the past"
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 I dare defy you. And the US themselves, for that matter.
THE history nation is Japan to me; their ancient traditions are unmatched - definitely by a nation with only 200 years of history (and what history!).
America is more or less lost. Afghanistan, Irak,... Didn't do much good.
Europe is where history (experience) and present (technology) meet up. Trust me, when we get out of this crisis, we'll make a match for the USA.
Btw, first heard of Orwell today - in my Dutch exam.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@siant666 He was in a letter from Michael Moore to His Excellency President Obama (thank goodness America at least has a decent leader; now, there's a partner I'd like to make deals with) and trust me, it didn't make him look like a nice guy. Evil and brilliant rarely go together, and when they do, they spin lies.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe As Winston Churchill once said "History is written by the winners".....there's a reason why your country and the rest of Europe slipped into obscurity after WW2..... the reason is because America was the only country left with a stable infarstructure and economy.....I find it strange that your leaders are criticizing our policies NOW rather than back when you had to rebuild your nations. I guess giving a little kindness makes lions out of cowards huh?
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 Well, you're getting better - now you take pbetter people's quotes. Anywayut honour victory is meaningless. So may I die without any god or friend if I ever consider the outcome of W.W. II an American victory. And that's not hard, if you've bombed all the rest. We now have a lot motre to criticize - and we have more ethic sense. The country of 'the brave and the free' doesn't like others to criticize them BRAVELY AND FREELY? Cynical, is it not?
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe You know what....why don't you try criticizing us when you NEED our help?
Say what you want about the U.S, but at least we return our favours and fight our own battles. During WW1, when America joined the fray...the battle cry of the Americans who landed in France was "Lafayette!Lafayette! We're coming Lafayette!!". Amazing how Europeans love to pick and choose their history...preferring to remember all their high points but conveniently forgetting their low points....
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 Sure let me know when Europe - a united Europe; together as one, united for all time - needs the USA again. You go ahead, wage your wars, but we didn't ask you to. (Actually, no one did.)
Have we not proven ourselves loyal allies? But we are no longer your puppets, and of course we are insulted when any one suggests we are. And the last bit: that's probably a cultural difference. Yes, we started slave trade. We hardly ever talk about that. Why? Because we're embarrased.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe You think we're not embarrased with our treatment of Native Americans and blacks? The reason why you never talk about it is not because your "embarassed" it's because you don't want to have to own up to your responsability in fucking up the world just as bad as we did (if not worse)..... we acknowledge and admit our past, we our ashamed of it, but we at least teach our youth the lessons of history, while you believe that saving face is more important than repeating history...
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 I didn't say that. I said we don't like talking about things we're embarrased about. That's the cultural difference. Go to any German secundary school and I bet they'll teach about the accursed Ausländer who thought his way (Nazism) was Germany's path. But talk to any German and I bet he won't like to talk about Nazism. Well, we tried to make it right (decolonization) and try to move on. The shame lingers, but we must proceed. We don't forget, but why waste time on talking?
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe So that's Europe's great solution? Pack up and leave the colonies after milking their resources dry? No wonder the Middle East, Africa, and India have so many problems....Say what you want about America, but we had never left any place we had entered, ever. From Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, Panama (all of which are much more stable than the European colonies)
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 Actually, you weren't even doing that poorly until you brought up Germany and Japan. You simply took the nations you could take, no difference with European colonialism. Deutschland and Nippon-koku both were great nations. You came along, bombed them, rebuild and left.... great nations. That's about the whole story. Our one big mistake was introducing the need for riches.But we also made infrastructure where there never had been. Better job than the US in Germany or Japan, I'd say.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe We "left" Germany and Japan huh? You think you're some intellectual by not using english exonyms but you're ignorant of the fact that we still have working military bases in both countries, and Panama, and the Phillipines.The modern Japanese Constitution was created by us, aswell as their modern navy, we could have done things the "euro" way by blaming & humiliating them but we didn't because that was what caused anti-allied sentiment in the first place....
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 Oh, by 'left' I meant 'ended the occupation of'. Just thought I'd be more to the point. And Belgium has an army base in Germany as well. And let me tell you: it hasn't yet occurred that I woke up, got the newspapers and read 'Belgian platoon assists German Police in dismantling criminal organisation'. What do you guys do helping the Germans? Not like they need it... As for Japan, surely an American should agree imposing a Constition is unjust - even if it were a righteous Constitution.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe So you're criticizing us for not helping enough (we're not helping the Germans with the base) AND criticizing us for helping too much? (the Japanese military and constitution) You are what I call a strawman. As for nuetering the Japanese military, all we told them was they can't start wars of CONQUEST, we didn't say they couldn't have the right to protect themselves. We never told them to downsize their military and weapons like the british and french did to Germany in WW1
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 You merely gave the impression you were helping die Bundesrepublik, and I pointed out this was false. I didn't even say the Germans need any help - they seem to be doing quite alright. And imposing a constitution isn't really my idea of helping at all. Neither is creating a more midern army and in said constitution forbid them to use it. There is no honour in eliminating an oponent by other means than 'durch Eisen und Blut' - 'through iron and blood'.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe To give you an idea on how f*****d up your posting have been I'll just go through in order of what I've found disturbing.
1) "There is no honour in eliminating an opponent by other means than...."iron and blood" [[When the lives of countless soldiers and civilians rest in the balance, "playing fair" and "making costly sacrifices" isn't really what goes through the mindset, war's not a game, it's a desperate scenario and a matter of life and death!]]
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 My apologies for taking a while; comments pages have been funny lately.
Anyway:
In war as it should be, in which there is honour, which is decided 'through iron and blood', battles are fought on a front with (more or less) equal weapons, not in cities with atomic bombs or phosphorous bombs - Dresden, Tokio, Hiroshima-Nagasaki,... An invasion would have given me a reason to have the slightest respect for your 'valiant combattants' who decided a war the US caused.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe There is no honour in war, there never has been. Like I said before, war isn't a game, its a matter of life or death. But you actually think an "invasion of Japan" would have been the best thing? Let me give you a scenario, your father died in the invasion of Japan, you discover that the armed forces have a weapon that would have ended the war then and there yet chose not to use it for your reasoning. What would you have done? Would any of that honor BS bring your father back?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Yes, there has. Long ago, there were brave warriors, giving their lives for their nation and their Kings and Emperors. In fact, I'd like warfare to return to medieval - but swords aren't as easily mass-produced as guns or bombs. Today, war is indusrty - a thought I hate. It would have been the valiant and more honourable of the two. And they wouldn't have invented it if they didn't intend to use it. No, it wouldn't. But it would assure me that if I live by honour too, we'd meet again.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe You do realize you don't speak for the rest of the world right? No one today except for you wants to return to the time where war was a matter of "honor". Incase you haven't realized, the reasoning for wars in the 20th century have gone from the stupid and trivial reasonings of the earlier centuries to a matter of seriousness and national security. We don't fight wars nowadays to "preserve our honor" we fight them to defend our countires...that's it.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 I am painfully aware of that, thank you. If millions of people would agree to me, I wouldn't have a reason to be so openly idealist. Stupid and trivial? When France tried to annex Aquitaine, was it 'stupid' of the English to fight back? Was it stupid of the Scots to fight against the arrogant English who massacred their fathers, brothers and children? Now, we fight for riches, even more than for power. War has become industry. And I dislike that idea. You can lose money, but not honour
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe "You can lose money, but not honour".... You can't live on honor you idiot..... If someone was going to give you a ridiculously large sum of money to go against your principles you would probably consider it at least. Everyone has a price and everyone can be bought. Moreover, your concept of "honour" is just archaic "warrior mentality" bullshit, have fun preaching how "unfair" modern warfare is you Internet Warrior.....
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 No, you can't live ON honour, butit's equally impossible to live FOR money. If it isn't to you, I should actually pity you. I may consider it, but I'll very likely refuse. We aren't honourable by nature, but we can make ourselves. There were times when not everyone was. I for me have to believe some things never change. Otherwise, I'd doubt if this life and the world themselves are necessary. 'Modern' is overrated. Fools, all of them industrialists. And probably you.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 You think yourselves modern? I see no diiference with ancient Rome. Panem et circensem. Peasants consoled by a piece of bread a day, so they put up with anything. Honour in warfare IS the ancient warrior mentality. And I'd have much more fun NOT HAVING TO 'preach' how unfair it is. Now, I find myself grieving the old virtues, burried under 'modernism', 'individuality' (yeah, right) and 'liberty' (of which I think I spoke earlier).
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JustFlemishMe There is no honour in war, there never has been. Like I said before, war isn't a game, its a matter of life or death. But you actually think an "invasion of Japan" would have been the best thing? Let me give you a scenario, your father died in the invasion of Japan, you discover that the armed forces have a weapon that would have ended the war then and there yet chose not to use it for your reasoning. What would you have done? Would any of that honor BS bring your father back?
siant666 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe 2)"You merely gave the impression you were helping..... and I pointed out this was false" [[Really? When?]]
3)"I didn't even say the Germans need any help-they seem to be doing quite alright." [[Yeah, now let's go back 70 years and take away all that reconstruction money we sent overseas and see how they would have been able to rebuild their economy so quickly?]]
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 2) Well, quoting you: "We "left" Germany and Japan huh?... we still have working military bases in both countries". How am I supposed to interpret if not as if you were helping our German brethren?
3) No one would have needed rebuilding so much if war had been only a matter of weapons. Air raids, huh! Despicable to the core. Btw, if I had been referring to 70 years earlier, I would have said: "I didn't even say the Germans ever needed any help."
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe 3) Are you stupid? Do you think war only takes place on open fields of grassland? Hell no! It takes place in cities, in towns, it doesn't matter. There's no such thing as a "gentleman's war" anymore. There's no army in the world that ever wants to lose a fight if their homes and family depend on it, why should they risk their country, their wives and children just to give the bastard who's trying to shoot them a "fighting chance"?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 No, I'm not - maybe a little 'overly idealist'. I know it doesn't. The thought makes me sad. Where are the days of honour, valour, skill, even discipline? And why? Because that'd make them warriors, not murderers payed from taxes. If some madman kills 8 people with a bomb, people are shocked. All over the world. If you drop half a million bombs with the Air Force, you're a 'hero'. Burn in Hell, all who bombed the homes of women and children. Even death is too mild here.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 No, you didn't 'downsize' it - you deformed it so it wasn't a real army anymore. Which is better? Sure, the French and British ways were - are - far from perfect. Each nation has an army - even Deutschland, Russia and the Balkan nations. One exception: Nippon. Why everyone else, and not that one country? And according to your next comment, sometimes conquest is necessary... Contradictory with this one. If North-Korea attacks them, how will they fight back if they can't go to them?
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe 4) "...you deformed it so it wasn't a real army anymore" [[Tell me...what's your definition of a "real army"? The function of all armed forces are to defend the people of their nation, not to conquer other nations for economic or political gain. Furthermore, you want to know what was in our "unfair" Constitution about war? "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes"-
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 4) Well, I cannot name 1 modernized, accepted country which doesn't have an army not entitled operate abroad - apart from the noble Empire, that is. Even my country - the only thing that IS, as you (subtly) put it, 'f*****d up' about me - has bases in Germany (I wish THEY'd train our military) and sent soldiers to Afghanistan (idiots) and airplanes to Libya (to do something vague). Our army is worthless. Actually, if they wanted to, the Japanese could annex us (fine with me).
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe You cannot name 1 modernized, accepted country but I can, Costa Rica, a country in Central America that is usually first on the Happy Planet Index and had abolished its own military. And the Japanese couldn't annex you because that would imply maluse of their NJDF and a breach of its "defence only clause".
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Fine, yet another reason to change your own Constitution. Well, I suggest we just offer His Majesty another piece of land - it'll be such a relief finally being governed efficiently. Anyway, my point was: the Belgian Army couldn't even stand up to the Japanese forces.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe the Belgian Army doesn't NEED to stand up to the Japanese forces because the point of the JSDF doesn't need to operate outside the pacific. Both countries armed forces are two continents apart, what possible logistic reasoning do you have to justify why the JSDF has to defend itself from Belgium all the way in Europe? the JSDF operates in Korea and performs humanitarian missions in East Asia but that's it. The point of armies is to defend, not conquer.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 We are worth less, and yet have more rights. That sounds a little odd to me. Would you think it's normal that you wouldn't be allowed to use e.g. phosphorous bombs and we would? It's about that, actually. And I didn't say Japan would even WANT Belgium. Why would they? All it does get you is a lot of trouble. I merely said their military strength is greater than ours.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Tell me, do you know the only country in the world that had used nuclear weapons in warfare? India....not the U.S., not the Soviets but the Indians aswell as the Pakistani's. THAT'S why we are place sanctions on other countries who are not developed enough to deserve them. The only reason we have so many is due to our need to protect ourselves incase we have a really dire threat.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Atomic bombs. Sounds like nuclear weapons to me. What a laugh! Weapons lead to violence. Here, I believe a child can tell you that.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 Ah, how was it in your own defence to intrigue against Dai-Nippon Teikoku? To invade Iraq, more recently? To invade Afghanistan? To invade Vietnam? Well then, gens, since you agree, go ahead and change the US Constitution and assure us you won't ever go into battle ever again. If this had been a proper proposal from the Government and had been accepted by the Diet in a democratic, SOVEREIGN JAPANESE voting, I would have accepted it. Now, I see a great nation denied in its right.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Let's see, there was Pearl Harbor, the reason why we went to war with Japan in the first place. There was 9/11 which had caused massive panic and hysteria that we had to respond quickly as possible to that threat. As for Vietnam we didn't start that war it was the North Vietnamese who attacked their Southern neighbors, but I do agree that we shouldn't have meddled with them because that little country in Asia was no threat to us by itself, just the threat of Communism was scary.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Pearl Harbor was a direct attack against the US Navy. In Tokio, 4 year old children lost their lives. And now I'm not even talking about Dresden... Plus, America challenged Japn's fundamental decisions. There was to be war, Japan only determined the time. I agree that the terrorists know no honour and have no place in serving any god, nation or ruler. You know as well as I do that the Communists were more popular than the Southern dictator you supported (in hopes of making it democracy
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Please...don't play the "4 year old children lost their lives in Tokyo" card, how exactly do those children dying different from the wholesale slaughter of children in Korea, China, and East Asia by the Japanese? And yes, Pearl Harbor was a direct attack against the U.S. Navy, ergo we had the moral leeaway to declare war upon them. And yes, the Communists were more popular, but that is only because they killed anyone who disagreed with them.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Oh, I can. The Japanese may not have been saints, but at least they had the courage to take the risk of falling for the country. People make mistakes, and maybe some Generals thought 'total war' would be the grand solution. An attack which you provoked. For goodness' sake, just SAY what your problem with a nation is to the Congress, let them vote and send a declaration of war if it passes! The Communists were more popular, because your southern friends hated their dictator.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe "at least they had the courage to take the risk of falling for the country"? What the hell? What did you think we where doing there? I'd like to see you call an American GIs who spent months fighting in Asia against the Japs a "coward", or the British chindits who fought in the jungles of Burma. And tell me something, if the southern Vietnamese hated the U.S. so much, how come many imigrated here after their war and take up American names?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 What you were doing there? Dropping bombs. Did you get famous for huge battles or for invasion? No, we know you from Tokio being bombed, from the atomic bombs on major cities,... The southern Vietnamese only hated the dictator you supported. Probably many didn't see the link. And most won't have really cared anymore, being afraid of the Communists. They'd emigrate anywhere. And if there's one country Communist-free...
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Yeah.....so you expect us to let the same people we where fighting against in the most bloodiest conflict in human history to decide if they want to accept the terms of surrender? You really don't understand the concept of "unconditional surrender" do you? Did Japan give Korea, China, and Burma a vote if they wanted to be attacked and have their resources stripped?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Yes. I expect you to respect the rights of every nation - an own constitution, for example. Gaijin have no business with Japanese law. I do. But I say this: the only two options are: either you conquer a country (through iron and blood, not nuclear weapons) or you leave it be. If I were in the Imperial Army, I'd probably have shouted at the arrogant idiots who came to occupy something like: "Obyukmono! ('Cowards!') Fight and earn your right to rule!"
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe You expect us to respect the rights of every nation? Even though the nations in question DON'T respect the rights of other nations? Tell me where in God's name do you get this whole "law" of conquering a nation "fair and square:blood &iron bullshit"? It's obvious you don't understand the principles behind modern warfare. Tell me, is Imperial soldiers attacking small unarmed villages just as "unfair" as dropping a bomb to end a war?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 I do. Yes. Otherwise, you're no better than the one you condemn. Let's say it's something I made of Otto von Bismarck's views how great nations are made. Combined with what I call 'the Law of Arms': a leader who doesn't have the power to protect his power is not worthy to be their leader. If they include making an indusrty out of massacre, killing innocent people, little children, then I refuse to understand them. Only if they are fully aware that there isn't a single soldier.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe "Otherwise, you're no better than the one you condemn". War isn't black and white you can't take the moral high road all the time. And we don't live in the prehistoric age where might makes right so your "Law of Arms" philosophy is archaic bullshit. The leaders of the modern world are chosen due to their ability to inspire rather than to command.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Tell me how you can condemn a country while doing the same. It's like a murderer being tried with another murderer being the judge. Oh, you can - just look at each case. Then make your decision. The Law of Arms was the ancient way of settling disputes. At least matters were permanently decided. WE have been talking for 540 days in my country, and onoly after that we managed to solve 40 year old disputes. A leader is chosen to command a nation, not for pretty talking.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 And by the way, guess that's how Hitler managed to get power. He was an idiot, worthless when it came to leading his armies, sending hundreds of thousands of valiant Germans willing to die for their beloved country to defeat and certain death. Rather dying than losing, fine, but the combination of both sounds horrible. But he could 'inspire' wu-ith his speeches!
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 I wasn't done there just yet. Only if they'd actually attack, not just occupy. And why bother? Bombs are always to be disliked.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe -we didn't say anything about self-defense, which is why Japan doesn't have an "army", they have the "Japanese Self-Defense Force" which is divided into the "ground SDF" "maritime SDF" and "air SDF". They operate just like any other army in the modern world except for a couple outlined conditions (such as defense-ONLY policy, civilian control of the military, and no nuclear weapons clause) honestly, for someone who likes using the word "Nippon" you sure no little about them]]
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Why, now I'm hurt. Just kidding. My knowledge is historical and cultural of nature. But anyhow, if your policy is determined by Yosomono, gaijin ('strangers', as in 'different' (negative) and 'foreigners (negative connotation)), how can you be merely loyal to your nation? Maybe it's fine they don't engage anywhere, but I would have liked THEM having the choice. (Btw, I'm more of a linguist than a politician.)
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Ohhh I see you're just a fanboy of Imperial Japan..... So you're not a military historian nor even a politician and you're trying to say how things SHOULD have went?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Actually, I prefer pre-Imperial Japan - long live the Samurai! Well, I suppose the Divine Emperor Meiji knew what he was doing... Though I regret his decision. Anyhow, I'm 17. And I have spend over half my life so far studying history, and thinking about and discussing ethics. So I do think I can try to say how I think it should've went. Thinking, you see, is what I do best.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe You're 17....you're still a little shithead.....you don't know shit about how the world works. You're living in a fairy tale right now if you think you're mature enough to handle the understand the reasons why men fight and kill eachother. Believe me, you'll grow up one day and look back at all these bullshit comments with shame. You're not unique, many teenage boys find facist regimes as appealing due to the smoke & fluff, aswell immature nature of said regimes.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Tell me, then: what does it say about you that a 'little shithead' does manage to remain calm and stick to a) facts and b) ethics while you think it necessary to make it personal. Well, on my HONOUR, if you won't, I won't. I know exactly how the world works - founded on blood money. Outrageous. A world were 'loyalty' can be bought. Where 'individualty' and 'liberty' are used to justify crimes. An era I hope will know a swift, bitter end. I know one movie quote stating it.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe You know what your problem is, you keeping using the word "ethics" the wrong way. You think ethics is subjective to every person, well its not. Virtues and Vices only have one difference no matter where you are brought up, virtues take acts in moderation whereas vices take acts in excess. In ethics any belief taken in excess is considered a vice, you have "honour" yet taking that to the extreme leads to "pigheadedness"
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 You know nothing of who I am. I know the way I think. There are several cultures and even more of personalities. Sure, some things are universal - "Don't kill women or children"; "It's wrong to torture"; "Never betray your people"; "Help your relatives"... These principles can only be undone by another. But for example, in Bushido and Stoa, suicide was considered most honourable, while Christians condemn it. Pig-headedness comes from over-confidence and will always lead to failure.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe The problem is that you THINK you're sticking to facts when you're really just interpretting them in your own skewed version of history in order to suit your own agenda. History is a story of power, plain and simple, those who have it and those who don't. However, people who are sometimes dissaffected by the actuality of that time due to their post-modern upbringing tend to forget about the moral subject. Believe me, 70 years later, some punk kid like you will (1)
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 be defending the Taliban and Al'quada's "divine retribution" against America the same way you're defending Imperial Japan. Believe me when I say this, you're NOT unique....you're just a lowly demagogue from Europe.... (2)
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 they PRETEND to defend. Holy War doesn't even exist in Islam. I'm a mere student and I know it; a follower of the religion should know it, too. Oh, believe ME: I AM unique. As are you, undoubtedly despite your best efforts. Trust me, if I wanted to be popular and fit in, I'd only have to spread industrialist lies about how the best you can do is ensuring your money.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 I have heard of many versions. "What is history if not a story everyone agrees about?" (Napoleon Bonaparte I) Of course there'll always be a version of history I prefer to believe. Don't say you don't have one favourite version. Vengeance, retribution, attacking those who tried and denied you in your right - that's honour, hardly power. Ah, if I find said 'punk kid', I'll be happy to tell him personally there's no honour in the terrorists' ways and that they at against the religion
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 "I see 50,000 men, come to fight for one man's greed." Trust me, if I look back when I'm over 20, I'll only be all the more bitter. My world is long gone. Honour, loyalty... They're no longer valued. I know. But that doesn't mean I cannot live by them. I have ethics. If I'm the only one, so be it. A shame, but that's how it must be. And I hate Nazis. They thought Germany's glory was not as important as their 'races' theories'. Curses upon all of them; may they burn in eternal flames.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe and when you have "loyalty" which leads to blind obedience. There's an old saying, "evil happens not because evil men commit it, but good men stand bye". Only a child would believe in black & white portrayals of the world without any moderation. Believe me, you're not an intellectual you're just some punk teenager who is going through a phase in life where he's overtly critical about everything due to your oversized ego telling you that you're better than this world
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Blind obedience prevents crimes. People have a dishonourable nature. By loyalty, you can more eaily place another's well-being before your own - honour. I study the Classic subjects, I looked up so much history I used an anecdote once to start a conversation, I've been thinking for many years about 'What is the right thing to do?"... And do try to deny this: It is right to criticize a right when currency is the currency of the realm, where what was once good is all openly destroyed?
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 You don't need to have a US Army base IN Japan, you need to allow Japan to have an actual army of its own. To use that 'modern navy' of yours. The old Imperial Navy succeeded in defeating Russian flets. Not bad, is it? If anything, the modern Nippon-Koku as you created is less politically powerful than Dai-Nippon Teikoku, the Empire. Which America lowly betrayed in diplomacy in 1905, when they grew powerful thanks to Russia's defeat. At least, Japan is loyal in friendship and enmity.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe I'm not denying that it is less powerful but so what. We destroyed their empire in self-defense. Japan only fought on the allies side during WW1 to gain Germany's colonies. None of the facist countries had a shred of "loyalty" to anyone other than their own twisted agendas. Japan only joined Germany due to the fact they wanted Britain's colonies in the Pacific.
siant666 2 months ago
@siant666 Ah, this one will be fun. 1: I was told America knows all too well it's 'modern Rome'. Well, did Rome destroy the Empire of Carthage 'out of self-defence'? No; they felt - without reason, since it wasn't such an agressive nation - Carthage was a threat and provoked war against them. Same story with the US and the Empire of Japan. You saw Dai-Nippon Teikoku as a threath from 1905 on, betrayed them in diplomacy and finally provoked war by cutting off their gas supplies.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe "1:I was told America knows all too well it's 'modern Rome'" [[Really? First I've ever heard of it.......please enlighten me how we are apparently "modern Rome"]]
"from 1905 on, betrayed them in diplomacy...." [[If by "betray" you mean pacify the Japanese government by screwing over the Czarist Russian state by forcing them to give up Manchuria to Japan to end that pointless war....then yes.....we "betrayed" them royally]]
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Well, 2 Republics, most important (and best-known) nations of the world, spreading their culture, and forged by their (successful) wars. If I may advice? Adrian Goldsworthy's 'The Fall of Rome' (at least, I hope that's the original title).
You made Japan drop the payments Russia owed the Divine Emperor. The most important deal. After being pro-Japan. Having the arrogance to threaten His Majesty with a 'unified West'. Treason to me.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Except for one major difference, Rome wanted to be a superpower, we didn't. We just wanted to remain isolationist, but seeing the state of the world around us and self-defence dragged us out of the shell.
As for Russia's payments, why do they need them? They already got Manchuria, the reason they started the whole f**king war! Hell maybe being attacked by a stronger army back then would have prevented WW2, breaking the Japanese's haughty arrogance and putting them in their place.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 You don't just 'become' a superpower. If you were all peaceful and wanted to have nothing to do with the rest of the world, you might have made treaties with the Sioux and Cheyennes, instead of massacring them.
The war had been heavy for Japan; it had cost them a lot. So they were relying on the money YOU denied them. 2 mistakes: 1) You can't pretend you could've united the entire West against Japan. 2) Japan arrogant? They felt threatened by Russia (and they were right). Just cause.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Really? So explain this to me...it's okay for you to condemn us for annexing lands around 150 years ago for which we are deeply apologetic to its Native people to this day. Yet, its okay for you to forget about your country annexing the Congo around the same time and showing little to no sympathy towards them to this day?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Yes, it is. I didn't forget about it. But after they got independent - something I cannot say about the Sioux, Iroquois, Cheyenne,... Nations - their first order of business was to say they didn't want us and hardly needed our help. Fine. They want us to go, so go we do. That's it.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe The indigenous people are granted autonomy over their tribal areas, the problem is that there are so few left due to disease and wars in that it would be downright impossible to grant them entire provinces of the Country. However, the Natives nowadays have learned to forgive and forget the passed transgressions, the people of the Congo however, still hate you. Mostly due to the fact that unlike us, your government hasn't make any attempts to officially apologize.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 We believe words easily lie. Actions don't. So we admitted we didn't do the right thing by annexing Congo in action: we undid the conquest.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe You clearly don't have any idea about the Russo-Japanese war do you? Let me explain, Russia being a minor colonial power in the pacific, its only fleet in the pacific was stationed in Port Arthur. The Japanese launched a sneak attack against them (real "honorable" BTW) and decimated their fleet in the Pacific, it was so bad that the Russians actually had to sail their entire fleet from St. Petersburg to Port Arthur only to be destroyed again.....
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 I do, thanks. Japan was threatened in its economical development and its political power. The Imperial Government of the Divine Emperor Meiji made it a point to answer immediately to the Russians, they let the Nihon-ji wait for weeks. The Japanese patience had come to an end, so it was time for more direct means. And they took Port Arthur - granting civilians safe passage back to Russia, and officers the choice of evacuation on condition of no more fighting or captivity.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe I find it hilarious that while you justify Japan's attack on Russia, you conveniently leave the part out on how they technically committed a sneak attack against them, forcing them to sail across Africa & Asia with their second fleet only to get destroyed when they came back, so where's all your honor Bullshit now? If Japan at its most successful didn't abide by your concept of "honor" why are you trying to convince yourself otherwise?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 As I recall, the Russians got a chance to either evacuate or capitulate. They got a warning - a close one, but they got one. Captain Rudnev of the Warjag decided to attack. And he was rewarded for his bravery with the Japanese 'Order of the Rising Sun'. That's what I call respect for your enemy's bravery. I see how humane they were in treating their captives (many Russians actually declared they were better off as captives of the Imperial Army than as soldiers in their own).
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 2: You were lucky Japan didn't agree to the proposal of His Majesty Emperor Wilhelm I of Germany to attack the United States. Probably His Imperial Majesty Meiji - I believe he still was in charge at the time - realized the Germans only wanted to have better chances themselves. Nihon-ji attacking the Germans was righteous wrath. 3: Japan was just fiercely nationalist. Not fascist. Don't compare His Majesty the Emperor to Hitler, Musolini and Franco.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe "You were lucky Japan didn't agree to the proposal of His......realized the Germans only wanted a better chances themselves." [[Yeah....and I doubt the German pacific colonies that were ripe for conquest didn't have anything to do with that decision-making.Seriously, every country is out for their own interest, even us, but at least we conduct our matters in a far more benevolent way]]
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 If the gods grant you an opportunity to achieve a reward for (and through) fighting for a just cause, there is no disgrace, only foolishness in refusing the chance. Well, you're only out for your own interests so obviously, you'd be fools to deny so. Btw, Japanese officers once had Russian wounded treated along with the Japanese injured in battle.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe A "just cause"? Killing noncombatents, raping women, slaughtering children? You call that a just cause?! All for what? Just because your island nation gets a good deal on prime realestate on the mainland?!!! And I know you're BSing me with Japanese treating Russian wounded, the Japanese army was bloodthirsty, because of their bushido concept, anyone who surrendered went from a "subhuman mongrel" to a "cowardly subhuman mongrel", hell they would euthanize their own soldiers need be
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 I was referring to WW I. And you described incidents during the war (of which, obviously, YOU are innocent), not the cause. The cause was: 'punishing those who tried to use us to save themselves'. And there actually were plans for sending maybe 100.000 Imperial soldiers to France. Am not. Bushido had, alas, been forgotten by the time of WW II. But the humane spirit still was there. And if you're captured due to injury, you couldn't really help it, right?
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe "Japan was just fiercely nationalist. Not fascist." [Look up the word fascist and tell me what you find]]
"I think His Majesty and Hitler only found each other on the US "black list' of nations to be distrusted It's not like they could afford to be selective with their allies" [[You do realize you're talking about Adolf "backstab Stalin by breaking the nonaggression pact to invade Russia" Hitler right?]]
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 I can give some major differences. Hitler, Musolini and Franco actually reigned themselves. In Japan, the Generals (multiple men) were most important. And they got power by doing well, not by dismay at others' incompetence.
I do. And he hadn't even made that pact in 1936, I believe. Had His Majesty only known principles only meant that much to Hitler... He was not to be trusted, but there really wasn't much of a choice.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe You do realize you're being a hyppocrite right? First you are saying that Hitler reigned himself and then you're saying he didn't even make the nonaggression pact? Hitler, Musolini, Franco, the Japanese High Command, are all the same, on the world level, they where just a bunch of bullies who picked on those weaker than them. There's only to defeat a bully, you stand up to him and fight back.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 Tell me... What's unclear about "Hitler hadn't signed that pact IN 1936?" He did in 1939, but things had already evolved too far to turn back. The Japanese Imperial Army merely intended to give the Emperor what he deserved in their eyes. Your Soviet friends did some nice work as well - an unprovoked attack against a nation battling China and the US already. Disgrace. Stalin should've killed himself - as should have Roosevelt. (Oh well, Roosevelt was under immense pressure, admitted.)
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe intended to give the Emperor what he deserved in their eyes? Or was it just the Imperial High Command just wanting to gain more resources to satesfy their own greed?
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 The Emperor was descendant to the gods in the eyes of the Japanese. They wouldn't dare deny him - and they would have to if they wanted all for themselves. His Majesty probably sincerely believed it was the best for everyone if he could rule Asia - a son of the gods at the lead might mean eternal good fortune. The Japanese obeyed, since they were LOYAL. An underestimated quality I do not see reflected in certain other people I'd rather not mention.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe Really? Well how about the Taliban and Al'quada? They are also fanatics who believe that the Middle East and parts of Central Asia would be better if THEY ruled it. They are also loyal to the death, they will & have taken their own life to further their cause. But I know you wouldn't dare to idolize them because they're committing attrocities here and now, rather than back then. So you can't warp your immature logic when the attrocities are in front of you.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 I cannot respect them since they use terrorist strikes instead of open battles. They hide in their mountains, lie about their religion, care nothing for the troubles of others only conduct sneak attacks. Not much of a worthy army. More SS than Wehrmacht to me.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 4: Japan believed it had a 'divine right' to be Asia's leading power (since His Majesty was considered a descendant of the gods). I won't say if they were right; such questions are not to be answered by anyone but the gods. But, point being: they believed it was right. 5: I think His Majesty and Hitler only found each other on the US 'black list' of nations to be distrusted. It's not like they could afford to be selective with their allies.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe "Japan believed it had a 'divine right' to be.... But point being: they believed it was right." [[Yeah and they also apparently believed said "divine right" gave them the right to pillage, rape,& slay all the "mongrel races" of China, Korea, and Indonesia with impunity, what's your point? Just because you believe something is right doesn't make it ethically or morally sound. Seriously, get over your "villian crush" and grow up]]
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 My point is - as I stated before - they were right to ensure 'divine justice' if other nations didn't agree. What you described merely was a sign of declining military. China and Korea and all refused to accept Japan's right. They wouldn't give what belonged to them - so they would have to take it. That was their view when invading China. Would you mind explaining what exacty 'villian crush' (sic) would be? That way, I can at least remain quite reasonable here.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@JustFlemishMe No other nation has the right to impose its will on another nation without that nation's consent or unless the first nation's safety is in jeopardy, that is modern thought... Japan had the right to live within its own borders and believe in their "divine right" BS all they wanted, but when you go to foreign lands you can't just do whatever you want, even the imperialists respected the lives of their subjects.
siant666 1 month ago
@siant666 So you agree with me condemning the Constitution imposed on Nippon-koku. There's no good in believing in a right but not defending it. I should think it dishonourable. Yes, of course... Millions of people died in Colonial Wars and rebellions and all.
JustFlemishMe 1 month ago
@siant666 Yet they can be forgiving if lasting wrath is unnecessary and will only bring harm - today, they're one of the US' most loyal allies. They've been allies of Korea for years, and even now they support South-Korea. Ans still, they're not exactly close friends with either Moscow or Beijing - traditional allies.
And btw, I'm merely a Fleming with a huge interest in languages and the idea I owe peoples the respect to call them by their own names. Germany in German, Japan in Japanese.
JustFlemishMe 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe Another thing, unlike Europeans OUR way of dealing with occupied nations doesn't involve humiliating, belittling, or forcing them to pay outrageous sums of money as "war damage". Due to the fact 1)that we don't feel any pleasure in having to destroy a foreign country and 2)if we act like pricks we will probably be resented and more bloodshed would be caused later on.
siant666 2 months ago
@JustFlemishMe
unfortunately,yes,we are their puppets.I was following last events about Serbia candidature for European Union.We arrested Mladic and Karadzic,but there is now a new request-accept a stolen part of your county as an independent state.And guess who declared independence breaking every possible rule..And now Germany says "stop" Serbia to EU becouse of Kosovo,why should they give a rats ass about Kosovo anyway?!
MsNick991 2 months ago
@siant666 You say that as if America doesn't pick and choose it's history as well.
sorrelsil 2 months ago
@siant666 ANd honestly I think America should go die in a fiery pit of despair... After I leave
sorrelsil 2 months ago
@siant666 Good point, but if we're going to thrive in the future we need to learn from the past. The U.S. education system falsely gives the impression that we are safe. The truth is that the world has been in a constant state of flux since the dawn of civilization and those societies which fail to adapt die out quickly. History repeats under the same circumstances, and I can already recognize some of the problems that brought down Rome and Greece right here in the U.S.
Daemon6437 2 months ago