Of Japan and the USA

THE FOLLOWING IS A DIALOG STEMMED BY OTHERS

CITATION

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12226-the-strike-on-nigeria/#findComment-78966

 Happy 2026 all

@ProfD 

3 hours ago, ProfD said:

Those nations were stable before the US & NATO started protecting them.

 

Japan jumped into some sh8t they had no business during WWII.

 

As a consolation for dropping them thangs (nuclear bombs), the US felt obligated to rebuild and make Japan an ally.

 

The relationship between the US & Japan has been fruitful for many decades now. I'm sure brotha @richardmurray would disagree.

@Pioneer1 is correct that the cold war alliance the usa made with japan/western european countries/ or others was based on a strategy, the usa provides financial assistance while said countries international allegiance went to the usa's militaristic agenda and not the soviet union's especially in the last century.

But he is wrong to suggest the USA protects these countries, the USA didn't and doesn't. We have the hindsight of history to see the truth. The Soviet Union was never an external actor. The soviet union never had the resources to make a grand push against the usa's seven fleets. But the soviet union always had potential philosophical allies in various countries in the world. Nippon was actually not going to be rebuilt by the usa until japanese communist not financially supported by the soviet union were gaining or had the majority of popular momentum in japan and the usa feared if china + japan go communist then the USA wouldn't have an early strike position. So the usa then did what it did everywhere in humanity at the end of the second white european imperial war SWEIW, commonly called world war 2, and that is support the various financial wealthy  caste in a country to keep the fiscal poor in said country down and not communist. you see this everywhere. The usa knew it could work cause that is what happened after the end of the war between the states. The truth is, like the rich japanese/germans/french/italians/argentineans/chinese who became the taiwanese/and others who were all financially broken after the SWEIW and were able to quell fiscally poor japanese/germans/french/italians/argentineans and others who had huge non fiscal capitalistic movements. the rich whites of the south after the war between the states were broken and the usa government supported southern fiscally wealthy whites to lord over the black southern populace, which at that time was over 90% of the black populace of the usa which also had a non fiscal capitalistic philosophy in it. 

As miyazaki correctly points out in "Grave Of The Fireflies" fiscally poor japanese who suffered in nippon during the war and had to deal with white statian bullying after then watched from the rubble as the fiscally wealthy japanese who were the primary supporters of the japanese imperial machine and were broke were funded by the usa to keep down the popular socialist movement in japan which besides being socialist was more importantly, anti usa. And this was done everywhere, in france/italy/nigeria/congo- poor lumumba whose crime wasn't opposing fiscal capitalism but wanting to actually run a country on even fiscal capitalistic principles which the usa could never allow/argentina/brasil/a long list. So to suggest the usa protected other countries is an insult to history. None of what I just said is fantasy. We talk of the vietnam war but again, what really happened. Ho chi minh won the election , people forget this. Ho chi minh didn't talk about attacking the usa or france, but he wasn't going to be an ally of the usa like a mobuto or suharto or the rest of the cronies all throughout humanity whom the usa militaristically supported by killing their rivals and providing them money just so the masses of people under them can be fiscally poor and suffer, thus aiding usa dominance. So the usa then attacked vietnam and the very profitable vietnam war happened, which damaged vietnam in many ways, far beyond money. So... the usa is not a protector and it is a historical insult to suggest it. 

As for greatness, I don't think pioneer or me or you have a decent definition to what makes any government great. Western Europe and Japan were arguably more stable or self sufficient before the SWEIW. From a militaristic perspective all were greater before SWEIW. As for "ideal" well, Pioneer is speaking in the 250th anniversary of the usa as a member of GI Joe. Saying another country is ideal when it is enslaved to the one you live in is... well... I don't communicate like that. I have always hoped even as a child that Nippon be free of the usa. If I was from Nippon I would hate that another country has a massive military base in my country. You are not free until you can defend yourself. It is that simple. 

Profd I concur to you, I do not oppose your first position concerning stability. 

But I oppose your position about japan's activities during the SWEIW. All governments of power would and will reach to conquer, it is the way of power, to want more. It is inevitable. Nippon's flaw wasn't getting into SWEIW, it was pearl harbor, and the greater overreach. Before pearl harbor Nippon had taken over, Korea/northern China/northern pacific islands/coast of southern china, had half of sakhalin island. JApan had tripled its size. Like Germany in Europe, before the usa got in the war, each had achieved a massive growth in territory absent the bureaucracy or management to handle. Nippon's problem like all empires, including the usa,  is not knowing when to let go. When to realize you don't need to keep going. Napoleon did this. Napolean lost against haiti or kemet before his european adventures. So he knew about lost, but after taking over all of Europe outside england and european russia and european ottoman empire  he chose to make a grand campaign to russia which was overreach and like all other empires met his inevitable doom. Japan didn't know when to stop, bullies rarely do. Temujin, Genghis Khan , knew when to stop, so it can happen, but it is rare. 

And as I said the USA didn't rebuild Nippon for the nuclear bombs, it is historical fact the usa had no plans on rebuilding Nippon until the people of Nippon went philosophically opposed to the usa and the usa needed a big military base to contain the communist world so to speak, it was not out of consolation. 

Well... I concur and oppose the relationship between the usa and japan has been fruitful. It is both answers. The relationship is bearing positive fruit concerning the usa's needs. the usa in japan got a very willing financial ally, Remember, even thought white european western europe as a region has wealth, japan as a single country was wealtheir than any country in western europe including germany. That says a lot. The japanese sinfully accepted that terrible financial deal of making cars in the usa to sell to the usa market, which was great for the usa cause it allowed the usa labor market, which was being failed by domestic firms,  to get boost of labor that shouldn't be in the usa. 

And this is why I say, it was barren, a negative fruit, concerning Japan's needs. Japan didn't do anything wrong being financially efficient. The USA has over ninety percent market lead in the automotive/electronics/agricultural  global markets at the end of the SWEIW, commonly called WW2. Why did the usa lose these things? Wasn't black peoples fault. white people control all industries in the usa. The big firms in the usa all employ graduates to all the ivy league schols, supposedly the best of the best, so why lose market share? why? cause the ivy league schools are educationally as important as social networking important. The firms in the usa have such a long history of abusing black people and taking advantage of native americans that in any even financial setting they fail, and thus germany/japan/china/russia/italy/brasil all overcame huge market disadvantages with efficiency true quality.  But, the USA made Japan pay terribly for each success. Japan should had called in that debt they bought years ago. and I argue never have bought it in the first place. Japan should never have derailed their earned domestic labor growth by giving jobs to usa autoworkers. Japan should had fought to make militaristic agreements with china+ korea+ russia to get the usa out of their country but didn't for various reasons. so... 

The usa /japan relationship has been positive for the usa and negative for japan. It isn't that it hasn't been fruitful but that fruit is a one way street. The USA has always meddled very negatively in Nippon to manipulate that country and those who run it, the kawaakis and et cetera who lost it all after SWEIW and were made wealthy by the usa artificially , post SWEIW have been the stoolies for the USA they were paid to be.