Is it OK for the USA to occupy Japan as long as the occupation is "incredibly mild"? Especially if the occupation turns out to genuinely be temporary (which one of course cannot take for granted)?
And what about the other parts I write about?
EDIT: Though, of course, Japan did very much attack the USA, which was not the case with Denmark. But then there are other examples historically. And an incredibly mild occupation, especially if in practice temporary and short, is much better than a brutal occupation, especially if permanent.
What about the bombing of Rotterdam to get neutral Netherlands to concede defeat? What about the starving of occupied Netherlands in the winter of 1944?
See it more as 2 lions attacking each other, there doesn't have to be a good guy who did nothing wrong. like the mongols killing muslims, they can both be bad. why are you trying to whitewash hitler of all people lmao
Schmidt used the threat of destroying Rotterdam to attempt to force Colonel Scharroo to surrender the city. Rotterdam, the largest industrial centre in the Netherlands and of major strategic importance to the Germans, was to be bombed. Scharroo refused and stretched out negotiations. The start of the air raid had been set for 13:20 [Dutch time, MET – 1 hr 40].[21][22][23]
Schmidt relented and issued a second ultimatum of 16:20.[24][25] However, it was already too late and just as the Dutch negotiator was crossing the Willemsbrug to relay this information, the drone of bombers was heard: a total of 90 bombers from Kampfgeschwader 54 were sent over the city.[26]
Schmidt radioed to postpone the planned attack. When the message reached KG 54's command post, the Kommodore, Oberst Walter Lackner, was already approaching Rotterdam and his aircraft had reeled in their long-range aerials.
[...] German forces on the Noordereiland fired flares[28] to prevent friendly fire — after three aircraft of the southern formation had already unloaded, the remaining 24 craft in the southern bomber formation under Oberstleutnant Otto Höhne aborted their attack. The larger formation came from the north-east. Unable to see the red flares launched from the southern area of the city, they proceeded with their attack. Fifty-four He 111s dropped low to release 97 tonnes (213,848 lb) of bombs, mainly in the centre of the city.[29] Rotterdam Blaak railway station and Laurenskerk
Why the formation did not receive the order to abort sooner remains a subject of some controversy. [...]
Reg.:
What about the starving of occupied Netherlands in the winter of 1944?
I do not know enough about that, there are at least indications that the horrible famine there was not planned or intentional, and Germany likewise ended up in famine later (though Germany could possibly have done much, much more to avoid the famine in the Netherlands - but I do not know enough about those famines):
By the time the embargo was partially lifted in early November 1944, allowing restricted food transports over water, the unusually early and harsh winter had already set in. The canals froze over and became impassable for barges.
Food stocks in the cities in the western Netherlands rapidly ran out. The adult rations in cities such as Amsterdam dropped to below 1000 calories (4,200 kilojoules) a day by the end of November 1944 and to 580 calories in the west by the end of February 1945.[7] Over this Hongerwinter ("Hunger winter"), a number of factors combined to cause starvation in especially the large cities in the West of the Netherlands. The winter in the month of January 1945 itself was unusually harsh prohibiting transport by boat for roughly a month between early January 1945 and early February 1945. Also, the German army destroyed docks and bridges to flood the country and impede the Allied advance. Thirdly, Allied bombing made it extremely difficult to transport food in bulk, since Allied bombers could not distinguish German military and civilian shipments. As the south-eastern (the Maas valley) and the south-western part of the Netherlands (Walcheren and Beveland) became one of the main western battlefields, these conditions combined to make the transport of existing food stocks in large enough quantities nearly impossible.
Reg.:
See it more as 2 lions attacking each other, there doesn't have to be a good guy who did nothing wrong. like the mongols killing muslims, they can both be bad. why are you trying to whitewash hitler of all people lmao
I am not seeking to whitewash anyone, and you are well aware of that. I do seek accuracy among other aspects.
there was plenty of food, the Germans stopped the transport to the cities. If you want to gaslight people into saying hitler did nothing wrong, you have to wait longer. There are people who had grandparents who lived through it, so waiting 75 years isn't long enough. Maybe try again at the 100 year mark.
So now you begin to lie, manipulate, attack strawmen, distract, among other tricks and tactics, to the absolute extreme. And you also seem to shift focus away from the many millions of ethnic Europeans that the early Soviet Union genocided, including long before WW2.
Is it OK for the USA to occupy Japan as long as the occupation is "incredibly mild"? Especially if the occupation turns out to genuinely be temporary (which one of course cannot take for granted)?
And what about the other parts I write about?
EDIT: Though, of course, Japan did very much attack the USA, which was not the case with Denmark. But then there are other examples historically. And an incredibly mild occupation, especially if in practice temporary and short, is much better than a brutal occupation, especially if permanent.
What about the bombing of Rotterdam to get neutral Netherlands to concede defeat? What about the starving of occupied Netherlands in the winter of 1944?
See it more as 2 lions attacking each other, there doesn't have to be a good guy who did nothing wrong. like the mongols killing muslims, they can both be bad. why are you trying to whitewash hitler of all people lmao
I do not know much about the bombing of Rotterdam, but it seems to have had a very weird course. For instance from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_bombing_of_Rotterdam#Bombing :
Reg.:
I do not know enough about that, there are at least indications that the horrible famine there was not planned or intentional, and Germany likewise ended up in famine later (though Germany could possibly have done much, much more to avoid the famine in the Netherlands - but I do not know enough about those famines):
Reg.:
I am not seeking to whitewash anyone, and you are well aware of that. I do seek accuracy among other aspects.
Do you have any answers to the other questions and arguments I came with in https://thedonald.win/p/HEpylNaw/x/c/16bPj6X2yn ?
there was plenty of food, the Germans stopped the transport to the cities. If you want to gaslight people into saying hitler did nothing wrong, you have to wait longer. There are people who had grandparents who lived through it, so waiting 75 years isn't long enough. Maybe try again at the 100 year mark.
So now you begin to lie, manipulate, attack strawmen, distract, among other tricks and tactics, to the absolute extreme. And you also seem to shift focus away from the many millions of ethnic Europeans that the early Soviet Union genocided, including long before WW2.
Again: Do you have any answers to the other questions and arguments I came with in https://thedonald.win/p/HEpylNaw/x/c/16bPj6X2yn ?