Video of collateral murder of two Reuters journalists by U.S. from Apache helicopter

[Martin Radwin]

In some ways, people can be a cut above in one area and middling or way below in others, no?

Bob Kolker is actually an extreme example of the above observation. In the areas of theoretical physics and mathematics, he's probably what would rightfully be classified as a genius. Yet in his views regarding war and the value of human life, his ravings are those of a blithering idiot, and his perspective is that of a sociopath with a depraved indifference to the value of human life. If ever there were living proof that a person can be exceptionally intelligent in one area and a complete fool in another, Bob is it.

Moreover, I seriously doubt if many Americans believe that the U.S. military should deliberately target young children in war zones and attempt to "kill them all." Yet this is the clear implication of Bob's reference to the logical "default" position, if even one child might be used for combat purposes.

I think people have to be persuaded to believe that -- and Bob's other rhetoric seems to show he has to even persuade himself. In other words, it seems less a default position than an attempt at dehumanizing other people so they might be easier targets.

It's interesting in a sad way the extent to which objectivism often seems to attract such sociopathic personalities. In such people, a feeling of empathy for their fellow human beings is mostly or entirely lacking. Thus may they justify the slaughter of thousands or millions of other people not belonging to their particular tribe, without feeling even a sliver of sadness.

Martin

[dan2100]

In some ways, people can be a cut above in one area and middling or way below in others, no?

Bob Kolker is actually an extreme example of the above observation. In the areas of theoretical physics and mathematics, he's probably what would rightfully be classified as a genius. Yet in his views regarding war and the value of human life, his ravings are those of a blithering idiot, and his perspective is that of a sociopath with a depraved indifference to the value of human life. If ever there were living proof that a person can be exceptionally intelligent in one area and a complete fool in another, Bob is it.

Does this seem related, to you, to the typical intellectual's hubris of mastering one area of knowledge only to think she or he has mastered all (or all important) areas of knowledge?

Moreover, I seriously doubt if many Americans believe that the U.S. military should deliberately target young children in war zones and attempt to "kill them all." Yet this is the clear implication of Bob's reference to the logical "default" position, if even one child might be used for combat purposes.

I think people have to be persuaded to believe that -- and Bob's other rhetoric seems to show he has to even persuade himself. In other words, it seems less a default position than an attempt at dehumanizing other people so they might be easier targets.

It's interesting in a sad way the extent to which objectivism often seems to attract such sociopathic personalities. In such people, a feeling of empathy for their fellow human beings is mostly or entirely lacking. Thus may they justify the slaughter of thousands or millions of other people not belonging to their particular tribe, without feeling even a sliver of sadness.

I've seen such outside the Objectivist movement. I think the Republicans and conservatives tend to attract similar personalities too. And it is sad, but what is to be done? Are such people lost causes? I'd like to believe not...

I'd like to believe, too, that some of this talk is just a pose -- that people who talk about casual slaughter are not serious and would, unlike Macbeth, turn away once they got close to the brink. What do you believe?

[BaalChatzaf]

It's interesting in a sad way the extent to which objectivism often seems to attract such sociopathic personalities. In such people, a feeling of empathy for their fellow human beings is mostly or entirely lacking. Thus may they justify the slaughter of thousands or millions of other people not belonging to their particular tribe, without feeling even a sliver of sadness.

Martin

For the record, I am not an Objectivist. I never was one.

To answer the point: blithering idiots ended WW2 with a pair of bombs that incinerated women and children in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. My heroes, Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had an indifference to the lives of the enemy. They made my life safer. The people who bombed Germany to rubble saved me from a grim fate: becoming a bar of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

W.T. Sherman was another blithering idiot. I follow the doctrine of W. T. Sherman. Wars should be fought very hard so that they may be ended all the sooner and the enemy side be discouraged from ever waging war again. Once Grant and Lincoln unleashed Sherman the end of the Civil War was in sight. And since 1865 we have not had another civil war.

I have zero empathy for those who would make war against me and mine or who assist people who do or would do such things.

I follow a very simple rule: cherish and protect your friends. Destroy your enemies (if it is feasible to do so). If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him. Pretty soon no one will smite thee on thy cheek.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More seriously, if I didn't think that Bob has a good heart, I wouldn't be surprised that he takes the position he does.

George,

You don't have any idea...

Bob is a whole lot more humane than when he arrived on OL. Well... maybe he isn't more humane as a person (like I said, he has a good heart), but his writing sure is.

His previous solution would have been to nuke the enemy with enough payload to ensure the area would be radioactive for at least 500 millennia, bomb the rubble just to be sure, then seek out anyone even remotely related to the enemy anywhere else on earth and whack them--in killing fields at that--so that not even a single genome of that bloodline remained in existence.

You write about Just War. How about Just Genocide and/or Just Obliteration?

You have to admit, if the idea is to solve the problem of aggression from a specific people for all time, this works. Depending on what kind of Aspie you are, it's even reasonable.

But, joking aside, Bob's a good guy. The people around here seem to bring out the best in him (with sporadic relapses--but hell, who's made of steel?).

(EDIT - My post crossed with Bob's. See what I mean? )

btw - I am right now finishing up your essay. One of your phrases cracked me up, so I posted a quote here.

I will be writing something about your essay a little later today.

Michael

[dan2100]

It's interesting in a sad way the extent to which objectivism often seems to attract such sociopathic personalities. In such people, a feeling of empathy for their fellow human beings is mostly or entirely lacking. Thus may they justify the slaughter of thousands or millions of other people not belonging to their particular tribe, without feeling even a sliver of sadness.

Martin

For the record, I am not an Objectivist. I never was one.

To answer the point: blithering idiots ended WW2 with a pair of bombs that incinerated women and children in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. My heroes, Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had an indifference to the lives of the enemy. They made my life safer. The people who bombed Germany to rubble saved me from a grim fate: becoming a bar of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

W.T. Sherman was another blithering idiot. I follow the doctrine of W. T. Sherman. Wars should be fought very hard so that they may be ended all the sooner and the enemy side be discouraged from ever waging war again. Once Grant and Lincoln unleashed Sherman the end of the Civil War was in sight. And since 1865 we have not had another civil war.

I have zero empathy for those who would make war against me and mine or who assist people who do or would do such things.

I follow a very simple rule: cherish and protect your friends. Destroy your enemies (if it is feasible to do so). If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him. Pretty soon no one will smite thee on thy cheek.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think this misses Martin's point. It's not about enemies, but about those innocent people who get in the way -- and these days usually end up being most of the casualties in war.

Also, as a matter of fact, it seems the Sherman total war attitude often leads to the opposite outcome: a longer war because the enemy elites can rally support better by showing their enemy shows no mercy and the same elite has nothing to lose by intensifying the fight.

[Dragonfly]

The terror bombing of Dresden was a military failure. Speer among others has pointed out that redirecting the bombing of cities to the ball-bearing factories and oil supplies would have ended the war already in 1944.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think this misses Martin's point. It's not about enemies, but about those innocent people who get in the way -- and these days usually end up being most of the casualties in war.

Also, as a matter of fact, it seems the Sherman total war attitude often leads to the opposite outcome: a longer war because the enemy elites can rally support better by showing their enemy shows no mercy and the same elite has nothing to lose by intensifying the fight.

As to collateral damage: life is full of pain and woe. If the allies worried about women and children on the enemy side, the Germans might have won. Collateral damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Let those who start the wars bear the onus for the collateral damages.

Hard war has proven itself. It shortened the Civil War. It shortened WW2. Without the nukes, the U.S would have had to invade Japan with a very great loss of life to our side. Nuanced war, such as was fought in Viet Nam lengthened the war and we lost. The Late and Unlamented Robert S. MacNamarra regarded our attacks as sending messages to the enemy side. We lost 60,000 people. If the U.S. had bombed the dikes and laid waste the rice fields in the North, the war would have been over in a year. The only message we should be sending to the other side is ---die! If the war is fought hard enough there will be little resistance left to the enemy.

I favor the Conan theory of war: From Conan the Barbarian

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

The terror bombing of Dresden was a military failure. Speer among others has pointed out that redirecting the bombing of cities to the ball-bearing factories and oil supplies would have ended the war already in 1944.

The allies lost 40 percent of planes and crews in the Schweinfort Raid. We just did not have the chops for a strong follow up. Two more "victories" like that would have finished the 8th Air Force. If we had the means to follow up, the war would have been shortened by a year. But we didn't. We lacked a capable fighter that could accompany the bombers to the interior of Germany and back.

Dresden was a crie de cour of Bomber Harris to prove that killing civilians was the key. It wasn't. He was mistaken. The American policy was daylight raids on specific targets, rather than area bombing. The American policy was sounder.

If we had nuclear bombs six to eight months earlier we could have nuked Dresden which was undamaged. It would have accomplished two ends: seeing just how effective nuclear bombs are and forcing the Germans to surrender. Expunging Dresden would have forced Hitler to capitulate or induced his officers to kill him so they could capitulate.

Curtis LeMay got the same results by burning a sixteen square mile area of Tokyo to the ground. The Japanese would not capitulate. It took nukes to get their attention.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

I follow a very simple rule: cherish and protect your friends. Destroy your enemies (if it is feasible to do so). If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him. Pretty soon no one will smite thee on thy cheek.

In that case, please consider me a very good friend. No matter what I may say, I will always be your loyal and faithful friend -- for ever and ever and ever.

And if anyone should smite me on the cheek, I'll give you a call, so you can utterly destroy everyone in his city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of your sword.

Ghs

[dan2100]

The terror bombing of Dresden was a military failure. Speer among others has pointed out that redirecting the bombing of cities to the ball-bearing factories and oil supplies would have ended the war already in 1944.

If terror bombing worked, then why did the Germans lose the Battle of Britain? Also, if strategic bombing was such a success -- with, it seems at this time, only one case to support it: the 1999 Serbian War -- then why didn't the Soviets and the Germans use it on each other?

[dan2100]

I follow a very simple rule: cherish and protect your friends. Destroy your enemies (if it is feasible to do so). If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, decapitate him. Pretty soon no one will smite thee on thy cheek.

In that case, please consider me a very good friend. No matter what I may say, I will always be your loyal and faithful friend -- for ever and ever and ever.

And if anyone should smite me on the cheek, I'll give you a call, so you can utterly destroy everyone in his city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of your sword.

Ghs

Hey, George, didn't the state smite you on the cheek? Is Bob going to utterly destroy the state? If so, I'll get popcorn and watch.

[dan2100]

I think this misses Martin's point. It's not about enemies, but about those innocent people who get in the way -- and these days usually end up being most of the casualties in war.

Also, as a matter of fact, it seems the Sherman total war attitude often leads to the opposite outcome: a longer war because the enemy elites can rally support better by showing their enemy shows no mercy and the same elite has nothing to lose by intensifying the fight.

As to collateral damage: life is full of pain and woe. If the allies worried about women and children on the enemy side, the Germans might have won. Collateral damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Let those who start the wars bear the onus for the collateral damages.

Hard war has proven itself. It shortened the Civil War. It shortened WW2. Without the nukes, the U.S would have had to invade Japan with a very great loss of life to our side. Nuanced war, such as was fought in Viet Nam lengthened the war and we lost. The Late and Unlamented Robert S. MacNamarra regarded our attacks as sending messages to the enemy side. We lost 60,000 people. If the U.S. had bombed the dikes and laid waste the rice fields in the North, the war would have been over in a year. The only message we should be sending to the other side is ---die! If the war is fought hard enough there will be little resistance left to the enemy.

I favor the Conan theory of war: From Conan the Barbarian

Ba'al Chatzaf

Actually, no. I don't think that total war or war of extermination shortens wars. I think it lengthens them. In the Japanese example, for instance, it probably prolonged the war by a year or more. The Japanese government, it seems and probably realizing the hopelessness of its position, were interested in 1944 in negotiating a peace, but the US leadership was deaf to any of this. (The same seems true of some in the German regime. Had unconditional surrender not been the rule, who knows what might have happened -- how many lives might have been saved on all sides?)

I'm also not sure about your take on the Vietnam War. The US government did inflict heavy casualties on the enemy and did bomb the North -- and even spread the war into Cambodia and Laos, causing mayhem and chaos in those countries. The so called enemy did lose orders of magnitudes more civilians and soldiers. Yet the US lost.

It seems to me too the style of warfare you relish here is more akin to that of the Nazis and other groups who sought to exterminate their enemies. You might point to winning examples, such as the US government winning in exterminating the Plains Indians, but, morality aside, this style of warfare only works best if you win and if you would've won anyhow because of other factors (such as having a better economy, better military, strategic location, and the like; for instance, the Union won the Civil War mostly because it could cut off the South and it actually inflated and regulated less -- not because the madman Sherman burned his way across the South). Often, however, the side who plays that way or plays that way more consistently loses -- because it tends to bring others together to bring it down. (E.g., if it works so well, why are Nazis in the dustbin of history?)

Edited April 13, 2010 by Dan Ust

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I just finished Thinking About War. I'm glad I read it since it touched several bases I have been wanting to touch. Unfortunately, this topic is a luxury for me at the moment given my other projects, so my comments will be brief. Later when I expand on my ideas, I will definitely use this as one of my sources.

To start with, I had fully intended to do a rebuttal sometime of "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein. I think you did such a good job of showing some of the cracks (especially their reliance on altruism as the Satan of the world) and strengths that I no longer feel inwardly compelled to do so. I still have other differences with that article, but they lean in the direction of Brook and Epstein replacing all of human nature with the selfish-altruistic dichotomy as a premise for their examinations and positions.

I want to do something thinking about that state of nature thing you discussed. It was illuminating to imagine individual nature projected to a sovereign country and the world of nations existing as if they were individuals coexisting in a natural state. I also want to think a bit about your comments on political reductionism, which essentially goes the other way, from the country to the individual.

But I do have one observation about this part. The one thing I don't see focused on is human nature per se. The scale in this thinking goes from the individual to the state and from the state to the individual, but if "should" is to be an issue of how people are supposed to act (in war or otherwise, and with respect to rights), there has to be a clear answer to: An individual what?

I don't find "human being," or "rational animal," or "child of God," or any of the other term or meaning--i.e., ones presumed by the authors you discussed--very useful when discussing something as complex as war. They may be good labels, but they fall way short as premise-level material. This is because the more complex parts of the human being are evident in acts of aggression. Ignoring them or sweeping them under a principle will not make them go away, ever. Just look at the history that keeps on repeating.

I do see fragments, though. For example, later in your essay, you mentioned revenge as covered by Augustine. Can any theory of war be complete without taking revenge into account as something that will always be present? Always? Like in never going to be different? Merely saying, "You shouldn't do that," isn't enough to be very practical. Not even for Augustine. The proof is in the continuation of wars that could have been stopped long ago. What drives them? Considerations of who is moral or immoral? I don't think so. I believe revenge plays a large part and this aspect of human nature needs fleshing out within the context of war. Only then can reasonable rules be made to minimize the damage without endangering the soldier.

Another point of human nature is bullying. Calling this concept "aggressor" or "threat" might be technically accurate, but it does not convey the connection with the inherent nature of human beings. We are all prone to bullying if we allow ourselves to go in that direction. This possibility is not only built into human nature, it comes in a form that makes it extremely easy to flare up. So a consideration of Just War for me would have to include how to kick the enemy's ass big-time without becoming a bully.

Also, if you saw a peaceful productive country committed to a live-and-let-live morality and sense-of-life (to use Rand's clunky phrase) stockpiling heavy weapons of mass destruction as a form of preventive defense, you will look at that country with very different eyes than you would another country--one where bullying is rampant--doing the same thing. Iran, for instance. Nazi Germany for an historical example. It is reasonable to presume that a country that bullies its own citizens with an alarming amount of brutality will likewise bully other nations if the opportunity arises. I believe the world senses this, but I don't see this thought expressed with much clarity--neither in the mainstream nor in the Objectivist-libertarian subcommunity.

If another standard is needed for examining Just War, I see bullying as a much needed one. In fact, the more I think about bullying, the more I am convinced that this is a form of evil that needs to be addressed on the level Rand did with altruism.

Another area of human nature is what happens to individual human nature in the collective. I found a great analogy in your essay to illustrate this. In discussing Rothbard, you discussed the nature of small arms like rifles and bow-and-arrows, as opposed to mass destruction weapons like bombs. There is a fundamental characteristic that gets added to the smaller weapons when more firepower is added. It could almost be called a fundamental transformation. As the area of destruction is larger, the possibility of excluding innocent people is diminished. With small weapons, the small area of destruction allows for greater precision.

I think this is an apt analogy (although a bit forced) for what happens to individuals when they get into organized collective structures like governments and nations. The area of destruction vastly increases if you manage to mobilize an entire population. And the precision gets shot to hell. (Ditto for construction, but that's another issue.)

Not only that, the more instinctive parts of the mind kick in. These parts make individuals prone to join large groups and get caught up emotionally in them to the point that their rational minds turn off. This isn't inevitable in all cases, but it happens so often and with such ease that it must be taken into account. I have been studying trances. It's interesting how acting in organized groups induces a certain kind of trance if certain kinds of elements are present. Marching music, for example, exists for a reason. And it is not for soldiers to weigh the technical minutiae in some subsection of morality as they march to the war zone. Speeches of leaders also include all kinds of hooks to get into the Achilles heel of the mind. They work, too. Just look at history, or hell, at any lynch mob.

Just War needs to take all this into account if an efficient rational set of rules can be devised that minimizes destruction, lets soldiers be highly competent at their jobs, and allows for noble morality.

I fully agree with you that Objectivists and libertarians need to examine this with a lot more seriousness. You have no idea how much I cringe whenever I read the oversimplified brush-off of human life expoused by Objectivists like Brook and Epstein when they say, "... any innocent deaths in war are the sole moral responsibility of the aggressor nation." (That's a direct quote.)

I wish I had more time to go into this further, but I just blew off a deadline to get this little bit out. I will be returning to this issue time after time, though, sipping it like a fine wine. That is until it becomes my project of the moment. Then I'll go on a bender.

Anyway, congratulations on a great essay. It got my juices flowing.

Michael

[tjohnson]

As to collateral damage: life is full of pain and woe. If the allies worried about women and children on the enemy side, the Germans might have won. Collateral damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Let those who start the wars bear the onus for the collateral damages.

Oh you mean like the war in Iraq the US started? Is the US bearing the onus for these damages?

[dan2100]

As to collateral damage: life is full of pain and woe. If the allies worried about women and children on the enemy side, the Germans might have won. Collateral damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. Let those who start the wars bear the onus for the collateral damages.

Oh you mean like the war in Iraq the US started? Is the US bearing the onus for these damages?

The criminal gang now calling itself US government does. Of course, since it doesn't really have assets of its own, this means it would have to, were it hauled into court and made to pay for the damages, steal from others to do so.

[Aaron]

Explain the raid on Dresden.

Mass murder. The one redeeming quality I can think of concerning Arthur Harris was that he had the honesty to call such targeting of civilians 'terror bombing'.

Aaron

[Aaron]

Hard war has proven itself.

By the same standard, genocide has proven itself.

Without the nukes, the U.S would have had to invade Japan with a very great loss of life to our side.

False dichotomy. Also at odds with the US' bomber survey study (that Japan would have surrendered by end of '45 without invasion) and Japanese records (that the betrayal by the Soviets and invasion of Manchuria was as significant in the decision to surrender at that time as the A-bombing).

And how about that Soviet agreement? All we had to do was sell out half of Europe to Joe Stalin, and it helped shorten the war with Japan. That end must make it justified, right?

Aaron

[BaalChatzaf]

And how about that Soviet agreement? All we had to do was sell out half of Europe to Joe Stalin, and it helped shorten the war with Japan. That end must make it justified, right?

Aaron

Japan was our dog and only we are allowed to kick it. It was Get Even Time for Pearl Harbor. Take my word for it. I was alive and aware of that period of time and I had several relatives in the Pacific War. At the time America and Japan were in a hate-hate relationship. Once we spooked Hirohito into surrendering, MacArthur told the Russikies, hands off. Which is why there is not a North Japan and a South Japan today.

The nukes were a God-send. We avoided perhaps a million U.S. casualties. We knew what to expect from the Japanese after Okinowah. They were crazy fanatics and would fight to the death, like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Had it gone the other way, we would have let the Russians fight the Japanese in China, where they still had a large army.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aaron]

And how about that Soviet agreement? All we had to do was sell out half of Europe to Joe Stalin, and it helped shorten the war with Japan. That end must make it justified, right?

Japan was our dog and only we are allowed to kick it. It was Get Even Time for Pearl Harbor. Take my word for it. I was alive and aware of that period of time and I had several relatives in the Pacific War. At the time America and Japan were in a hate-hate relationship.

Being alive then appears to give you license to ignore history.

Once we spooked Hirohito into surrendering, MacArthur told the Russikies, hands off.

Japan wasn't to be handed to the Soviets after Yalta (except for some islands such as Sakhalin). Just much of Europe. So back to the question... was that justified?

Which is why there is not a North Japan and a South Japan today.

We'll just ignore that whole issue of Korea too.

The nukes were a God-send. We avoided perhaps a million U.S. casualties. We knew what to expect from the Japanese after Okinowah. They were crazy fanatics and would fight to the death, like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Had it gone the other way, we would have let the Russians fight the Japanese in China, where they still had a large army.

In your world, Russia didn't fight the Japanese in China?

[DavidMcK]

With reference to the 'Conan' link: It is interesting that the screen writer for 'Conan the Barbarian' was the movie director Oliver Stone...renowned for his conspiracy theory movie JFK and his anti-capitalist movies 'Wall Street' (with a sequel in the making I believe) as well as his strange 'Born Killers' which seems to celebrate spree killers. You can see his philosophy in that excerpt.

[BaalChatzaf]

With reference to the 'Conan' link: It is interesting that the screen writer for 'Conan the Barbarian' was the movie director Oliver Stone...renowned for his conspiracy theory movie JFK and his anti-capitalist movies 'Wall Street' (with a sequel in the making I believe) as well as his strange 'Born Killers' which seems to celebrate spree killers. You can see his philosophy in that excerpt.

Barbarian by Association?

I like that little Conan blurb on what is best because it coincides with my thinking. I guess I am a barbarian too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

Had it gone the other way, we would have let the Russians fight the Japanese in China, where they still had a large army.

In your world, Russia didn't fight the Japanese in China?

Not exactly a historical document, but a great film covering the Japanese in Manchuria, including the end game where the Soviets and Japanese did, again, battle it out, is The Human Condition. It's long, but, in my opinion, worth the effort of viewing. I should create a topic elsewhere, if one doesn't already exist, devoted to this type of war film.

[BaalChatzaf]

In your world, Russia didn't fight the Japanese in China?

In my world and yours the Soviet Union did not declare war on Japan until early August, 1945.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

In your world, Russia didn't fight the Japanese in China?

In my world and yours the Soviet Union did not declare war on Japan until early August, 1945.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Earlier, you stated: "Had it gone the other way, we would have let the Russians fight the Japanese in China, where they still had a large army." This statement makes it seem to me like you believed the Soviets didn't fight the Japanese in China. Actually, the Soviets did fight the Japanese in China in both 1939 and in 1945 -- unless you consider Manchuria not to be part of China. Is that perhaps what you meant?

Also, the fact that the Japanese forces basically collapsed during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria seems to show not much fight was left in the Japanese Army at that point. But the fact is the Soviets did attack and fight the Japanese in 1945 in Manchuria, which is seen by many as part of China -- even if it was occupied by Japan for a long time.