Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Simon_Jester]

There are basically four outcomes:

-Third party arises, splits right-wing vote, mainstream Democrats win.
-Third party arises, splits left-wing vote, mainstream Republicans win. Note that Trump is a mainstream Republican under this definition.
-Third party arises, swiftly and completely cannibalizes Democratic Party while Democratic Party 'rump state' moves far enough to the right to steal Republican votes, creating a right/center/left party structure in the US that lasts for about 2-6 years until one of the three parties withers away into nothing.
-Third party arises, swiftly and completely cannibalizes Republican Party while Republican Party 'rump state' moves far enough to the right to steal Democratic votes, creating a right/center/left party structure in the US that lasts for about 2-6 years until one of the three parties withers away into nothing.

Either of the latter two outcomes is significantly less likely to occur than either of the first two. The first two rely on "A third party emerges! It does enough stuff to be relevant!" And that's all there is. Whereas the latter two rely on "A third party emerges! It does enough stuff to be relevant! AND THEN OTHER STUFF HAPPENS!"

By definition, "X happens, then other stuff happens" is going to be a subset, in this case a fairly narrow subset, of all cases in which X happens. So we are far more likely to see "new party splits vote and grants victory to the opposition" in the US than "new party replaces old party."

A movement that wants to replace one of the two parties with something better (or at least different) is far more likely to succeed by working within the party power structure. The Tea Party is exactly this class of movement, and has done a great deal to move the Republican Party to the far right while drastically increasing its tolerance for thuggishness, willful ignorance and policy incompetence. By contrast, if the Tea Party had started out trying to create a third super-conservative party in America, and 'eat' the Republican Party by outcompeting it for voters, it would almost certainly have split the right-wing vote hard enough to secure Democratic dominance of American politics for however long the Tea Party continued to exist.

[Civil War Man]

I wouldn't mind if someone replaced either of the two parties with something better, though.

Neither would I. I was just pointing out that the current setup is basically a zero-sum game. And I think most people here would agree that that is a bad thing.

[LaCroix]

This "will split this vote - or split that vote " argument is a fallacy - it relies on 50% of all available voters are already aligned and voting.
But according to the poll I posted, we saw a quite different reality.:
20% voting GOP, 20% voting DEM, 30% ineligible, 30% non-voters.

There is no evidence that the non-presidential elections have a drastically different composition. Which means that there is more than enough of a voter pool to take over with a third party even without stealing a single vote from the established ones.

[Crazedwraith]

That assumes the non-voters are somehow a monolithic block of people who can all be appealed to the same way in a way the existing parties can't.

Which doesn't seem plausible.

[LaCroix]

That assumes the non-voters are somehow a monolithic block of people who can all be appealed to the same way in a way the existing parties can't.

Which doesn't seem plausible.

Of course it is implausible - it was a number game, proving that you only would need to appeal to 2/3rds of them, and be on par with the two parties (20% of the vote).

More realistically - if you manage to appeal to a significant part of them, you'd always leech massive numbers off the estabished parties. But there is a huge untapped market available - if you assume that current voters will never abolish their party out of fear of splitting the vote. The potential is there, but it would need someone who can motivate these people. Obama massively tapped into this.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't think it's quite that simple though; you have to look closely at what factors are actually driving that portion of the population to not vote. While I don't know if any hard numbers on this are available, I would wager that a pretty solid majority of that 30% non-voting population are individuals whose interests are aligned with one of the two major parties but do not vote for other reasons (e.g. the Electoral College rules leading to depressed voter turnout in states that are "safe" for one party or the other, so some individuals decide their vote doesn't matter independent of the actual political issues; or the had to work on voting day; etc.).

That is, just because these individuals didn't vote in election X, does not necessarily mean that their votes at "at-large" and eligible to be collected by any third party candidate who moves in, at least at any rate significantly different from that in the actual voting population.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't mind if someone replaced either of the two parties with something better, though.

Neither would I. I support the Democratic Party because I believe it is the best tool at hand for advancing the causes and principles I care about. If a better option emerged, I would switch my support.

But I am not convinced that a viable alternative exists right now, and its not going to as long as third parties in the US tend to be composed of small groups on the fringe, running inexperienced conspiracy theorists as candidates, and relying on the false narrative that "The Democrats and Republicans are the same" to paper over their lack of a decent platform or candidate, and on the narrative that the system is suppressing them to justify their repeated failures.
There is not, frankly, a notable third party in the US that I would actually consider a better option, policy-wise, than the Democrats. Nor is there one that is likely to break five percent of the vote in the forseeable future. That may be an unpalatable reality for many people, but it is reality. And for all the talk about how half the people don't vote because they're supposedly so dissatisfied with the major parties, I don't see the Greens or the Libertarians pulling those people in in substantial numbers.

Nor is there time to cobble together a viable third party now, given the urgency of the threat Trump and the Republicans pose to American democratic principles, to the rule of law, and to global stability.

In fairness to TheFeniX, a lot of people do buy into that third party narrative. He's correct about that. But not enough (or not organized enough) to make such a movement politically viable. Moreover, it is in large part a false narrative, and one that was actively and enthusiastically exploited by the Right and the Trumpers last time around to drive a wedge in the ranks of the opposition.

Simply put, those people got played.

[Thanas]

Lazy (or else excessively cynical and apathetic) I'll give you, given the numbers who do not vote.

I don't think that you can draw much in the way of conclusions about the values or intelligence of the majority of the American public based on the election of Bush Jr. and Trump, however, as neither was elected with the popular vote behind him.

The most damning decision in recent times of the American electorate, therefore, is the reelection of George W. Bush. I have plenty of explanations for that (incumbent advantage, uncharismatic and incompetent opposition candidate, "rally behind the President in wartime" mentality), but those are explanations, not justifications. Though he would never have gotten a second chance to run if the will of the people had carried the day in 2000.

Those flaws are not, however, as particular to the American electorate as you seem to believe.

They are particular to the American electorate (EDIT: and britain) however as they are the only electorate to routinely elect such candidates on all levels, whether it be communal, state or national level.

EDIT: This might be too broad. I grant that Britain is doing similar things.

Perhaps we might have a more productive discussion if you bothered to explain your positions clearly, rather than assume that I am too stupid to understand them.

I have done so multiple times. You never get them. So the solution is either me assuming you won't or you can't understand them. When most other people can do so just fine.

That is class A weaseling you got going there and also some class A bullshit. Are elections happening in the country? Yes. Are those mostly fair and free? Yes. Is there a legitimate choice between candidates in past and present elections? Yes. Is there a free media in the country? Yes. Does the army interfere in the election process? No. Are political opponents jailed or beaten? No. The list goes on and on and by any standard the US is a democracy. A flawed one perhaps, but still a democracy.

I feel that if enough people are being disenfranchised or the system is being sufficiently weighted to frequently sway results in a particular party's favour at the national level, that is, at least, something that should be taken into account when asking weather the US qualifies as a democracy. At the same time, you are correct that the US is not currently a dictatorship. Hence my reply.

Perhaps I simply set the bar higher for qualifying as a democracy than you do.

According to your system there will always be an excuse because the perfect democracy does not exist. Democracies only exist in varying degrees of muck, that does not mean they are not democracies.

Again, I am aware that many countries that are considered democratic do not elect their top leaders by popular vote.

That said, I do think weather the majority of the people voted for someone ought to have some bearing on the extent to which the people are collectively responsible for their actions.

I disagree because if we follow that argument no electorate ever is responsible for an unpopular outcome.

Because an American who thinks Trump is stupid and shitty is morally inferior to, say, a Frenchman who thinks Trump is stupid and shitty, purely through the vice of living in the country Trump got elected in.

I did say nothing about morality, I talked about responsibility and facing consequences.

[Simon_Jester]

Being lectured on how morally inferior I am- or rather, being hit with a stereotype that applies to me as much as to anyone else- by vice of my nationality seems to be one of the main consequences.

[Crazedwraith]

Perhaps we might have a more productive discussion if you bothered to explain your positions clearly, rather than assume that I am too stupid to understand them.

I have done so multiple times. You never get them. So the solution is either me assuming you won't or you can't understand them. When most other people can do so just fine.

How about you explain to me? I've not taken part in this one of these conversations before to the best of my recollection. Can you explain your position or link to previous times you've explained it, please?

To be sure, as a British Citizen I can be held responsible on some level for saying Tony Blair invading Iraq as a result of the British Electoral System (Well actually I was too young to vote in Blair's general election but anyway)

That doesn't imply that I and every British person is equally responsible for said act and should be hauled up on charges at the Hague. Which seems to be your position when you say we're all responsible.

If not, again, please explain.

[Thanas]

How about you explain to me? I've not taken part in this one of these conversations before to the best of my recollection. Can you explain your position or link to previous times you've explained it, please?

To be sure, as a British Citizen I can be held responsible on some level for saying Tony Blair invading Iraq as a result of the British Electoral System (Well actually I was too young to vote in Blair's general election but anyway)

Anyboy who is a member of a democratic electorate and a member of the social contract of a society and thus is reaping the benefits from that system, while having a say in how the system is run through a democratic process, is also responsible for facing the consequences of the actions of the elected representatives. If the people as a whole elect an unqualified autocrat then they cannot divest themselves of the consequences of that fact. Like say if sanctions were to be levelled they cannot go and say "but I don't deserve to have my accounts frozen or travel restricted because I did not elect the autocrat".

This does not mean that the populace is liable for all actions. For example, if Trump were to suddenly start rounding up illegal immigrants and killing them - instead of say deporting them - then this is not an act that was foreseeable and thus people are not responsible for it. But for example a populace that voted for Obama to be reelected while it was public knowledge that he increased rendition flights and the drone program is responsible for illegal acts and war crimes as a whole. This is the collective guilt and also the legal basis for things like sanctions, compensation demands etc.

Collective guilt is different from individual guilt. So for example if Trump would be insane enough to start a war and in this hypothetical scenario is defeated, the populace of the USA as a whole could suffer the effects of war, sanctions, reparation demands etc. Now if a hypothetical occupying army would then want to inflict additional punishment upon individuals as outside the collective punishment, their individual guilt would have to be established in a tribunal of law. Or to make it more simple - if you get hit by a bullet while the war is going on it does not matter if you supported Trump or not. If after the war your property is confiscated as part of reparation demands then it also does not matter. If however they want to haul you specifically to the gallows or impose a specific additional punishment on you then individual guilt matters.

This is all established law and established tradition on how to deal with a populace that voted in heinous figures. It is why Germany cannot complain about the reparations levelled upon it after WWII. They might have a case about stuff like the bombing campaign in WWII but not about the general principle of being responsible for collectively supporting Hitler and thus being liable for reparations or having to surrender territory.

If you deny this principle it means the Neo Nazis are right.

That doesn't imply that I and every British person is equally responsible for said act and should be hauled up on charges at the Hague. Which seems to be your position when you say we're all responsible.

If not, again, please explain.

No, I am saying that exculpatory facts can be brought to light and considered if there is a question of punishment in practical terms. But if actions are levelled against the populace as a whole then it is legal and legitimate that those actions hit. Because otherwise said actions would be illegal as they would be targeted against innocents. (note that this obviously does not refer to acts that are criminal in itself like mass murdering the populace via acts outside established conventions).

[Thanas]

Being lectured on how morally inferior I am- or rather, being hit with a stereotype that applies to me as much as to anyone else- by vice of my nationality seems to be one of the main consequences.

So seriously, what the fuck is up with you? Claiming that the american electorate is responsible for Trump and has a bad history of voting in and re-electing despicable figures because the american electorate is largely comprised of lazy dumb nationalists is offensive to you personally? Or that the american electorate deserves to suffer the consequences of that action (namely being a subject of international derision)? Waaaah. Cry me a river.

It is almost like you want the american electorate to get off completely scot free for fucking voting for despicable assholes three times in this millenium alone.

[Broomstick]

The sad thing, from my standpoint, is that while I did not vote for the Trump or his ilk and I, as an American, can be caught up in the collective guilt/punishment there is no escape for me - there is NO country on Earth I can legally emigrate to for a better life, or to live in a place more in line with my personal beliefs and politics. Those nations that would fit that definition do not want me. So I am stuck living in a country where I am grossly out of step with the majority, find the government "leaders" morally repugnant, have no means to change the system (I vote and communicate with my representatives, but haven't the resources to do more than that), and no means to leave the system.

Of course I don't want to pay reparations for acts I condemn, I don't want to be reviled because of where I was born, I don't want to be held responsible and punished for decisions I opposed. But that's what's going to happen because I can't escape. Lots of countries would be happy to have me as a tourist, none want me as citizen.

So yes, sometimes I whine. It's a shitty position to be in.

[TheFeniX]

Historically, the electorate bears responsibility (and punishment) for their government, supporting or not, through death (due to multiple factors), rape, theft, and a whole bunch other nasty stuff performed by the occupying force or through the economic destruction caused by sanctions/blockades. Kangaroo courts would just be a twist of the knife. I mean, I don't even see a historical basis for anything Thanas is talking about.

The allied forces helped rebuild Japan and Germany. Though the mentioned rape, theft, and murder happened on a regular basis, that was just a byproduct of the situation. A horrible one, mind you. Within a few decades Japan was an economic power again. Germany would take a bit longer for reunification and the Russians deciding to mostly just strip East Germany down to the bone. But allied forces weren't bothering average Joe Japan/Germany with tribunals. Because that's dumb from both an economic and rational stand-point.

And whereas Japan (and Germany to a smaller extent) has more than enough (some/much of it earned) beef with the U.S.: we are today on friendly terms.

Oh yea slight difference as well, both these countries are about half the size of Texas. Like I said, your East and West Coast are pretty liberal to begin with (since: conservative seems to mean "Evil" these days). They could get to the flyover states (And Texas) through Texas. Then as they attempt to round up all the undesirables, I guess they're rolling tanks and APCs up through the middle of the country because walking/driving around in foreign fatigues in the areas of the U.S. with the highest gun ownership as you attempt to wrestle said gun-nuts from their families means atrocious losses on both sides. But bean-counters would care more about the ridiculous cost of rolling troops into said fly-over states. For what? To spank some rednecks?

And you thought Vietnam was a quagmire. Like I said, this is just some Tom Clancy/Red Dawn levels of BS. No, in this instance they'd handle things the old fashioned way: strip/destroy/murder everything close at hand (so the coastal cities) and just leave middle America to starve. And this even begs what situation would even arise where it would be worthwhile AND EVEN POSSIBLE to invade the U.S. We've got soldiers, tech, and nukes. We spend an incredibly stupid amount of money on the Complex.

So what? Nukes go off? What's worth invading? Are you going to round up what's left of the country for kicks? Did the U.S. collapse (and lose their nukes in a Hold'em tourny)? Then what's the POINT of boots on the ground except to just take the country over? Maybe, MAYBE if the U.S. started a war with China (or whoever) and was beaten back to it's borders by a world-wide coalition. But even China would love to get us back on track as quick as possible to start making reparations, not waste time with court cases against average joes.

tl;dr: Unless I can be shown otherwise, historically, when an occupier starts getting involved with the average occupied citizen: it's in the form of murder, rape, or theft. There's nothing "lawful" about it. And officially targetting the populace is just a good way to build resentment and rebellion while wasting tons of money for no benefit. It's probably why it's rarely bothered with: it costs to much, you might as well just shoot randos that look "guilty."

[K. A. Pital]

But allied forces weren't bothering average Joe Japan/Germany with tribunals.

Not just didn't bother with prosecuting average Joes... they actually pardoned or reduced punishment to a slap on the wrist a whole lot of people who shouldn't have ever been pardoned in the first place. Some seriously sick Nazi mofos who experimented on humans but then became A-OK capitalist geniuses in West Germany or the Japanese from Unit 731 who exterminated Chinese with biological warfare and tested pathogens on POWs and civilians.

So if these people went scot-free, there's little hope that one could actually prosecute an entire nation.

[Crazedwraith]

snip.

Thanks for explaining.

I can certainly see why the populace of a nation-state must be held accountable for it's actions. It's similar in my mind to the principle of a government's continuity. The current Government has to apologise for the misdeeds of a past one, even though on a personal level none of them bare any responsibility at all.

I see the logic of the statement, but its still a bit of a dick move to apply it to people directly, saying to people who campaign against trump and his policies as much as possible; 'trump is your fault' is hard blow to take emotionally.

Likewise it can truthfully be said the British are by and large idiots and turkey voting for Christmas in regards to brexit. As a Remainer though it would piss me off to be told it.

[Thanas]

tl;dr: Unless I can be shown otherwise, historically, when an occupier starts getting involved with the average occupied citizen: it's in the form of murder, rape, or theft. There's nothing "lawful" about it. And officially targetting the populace is just a good way to build resentment and rebellion while wasting tons of money for no benefit. It's probably why it's rarely bothered with: it costs to much, you might as well just shoot randos that look "guilty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazific ... rican_zone

They did include all POWs and originally intended to consider every adult over 18.

No matter what you think about the practicality, I was asked how individual guilt should measure into thi. I answered.

[K. A. Pital]

They weren't summarily judged, though, it was a screening procedure, and one swiftly abandoned in favor of very restricted prosecution.

[Thanas]

They weren't summarily judged, though, it was a screening procedure, and one swiftly abandoned in favor of very restricted prosecution.

I dont think I talked about summary judgement. And restricted prosecution is obviously the way to go. Most people can just get their version of the Persilschein.

[Simon_Jester]

I can certainly see why the populace of a nation-state must be held accountable for it's actions. It's similar in my mind to the principle of a government's continuity. The current Government has to apologise for the misdeeds of a past one, even though on a personal level none of them bare any responsibility at all.

I see the logic of the statement, but its still a bit of a dick move to apply it to people directly, saying to people who campaign against trump and his policies as much as possible; 'trump is your fault' is hard blow to take emotionally.

Likewise it can truthfully be said the British are by and large idiots and turkey voting for Christmas in regards to brexit. As a Remainer though it would piss me off to be told it.

That basically sums it up for me too.

If we're going to insist on WWII examples, it's like blaming, say, the Dutch for the way quite a few of the Dutch handed over Jews to the Nazis. You can point to it as Dutch national shame, but you can't walk up to someone who fought in the Dutch Resistance and say "that thing that happened there, it was your fault."

Of course, I'm not sure WWII examples are the best choice here. Because it creates this weird dissonance when we flip back and forth rapidly between the context of "this is what was done when entire nations were conquered and occupied by the countries they'd invaded, after said nations had gone out and directly killed tens of millions by starting the biggest war in history" and "this is how I talk in an Internet forum when no world wars have been started."

Collective responsibility by a national population makes a lot of sense when it is, in essence, a nation collectively laying claims to have been assaulted by another nation, on the scale of a world war. It starts getting a bit harder to process in a fair-minded way in situations less clear-cut than "so yeah, your guys invaded and killed twenty million of my guys, we're not going to settle for "but I never shot anyone personally!" as an excuse."

[TheFeniX]

So if these people went scot-free, there's little hope that one could actually prosecute an entire nation.

Wasn't the entire Imperial family not prosecuted as well to try and make a smoother transition? It's been years. I know a few thousand Japanese citizens were tried, some executed, but I was under the impression (even with the revenge angle) these people were directly involved in the war effort/massacres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazific ... rican_zone

I knew about "the list" but not about the survey and (albeit seemingly quickly dropped) idea of going through the entire populace for Nazis. I learned something today, thanks. And conceeded. Still, it's "funny" how off they were about how long it would take to De-Nazify Germany.

No matter what you think about the practicality, I was asked how individual guilt should measure into thi. I answered.

Fair enough, but even from your link, the practical limitation of what is talked about is near insurmountable even in Germany, much less the U.S. The Allies had to begin involving Germans for multiple reasons. Provided we could get to the part where it can even happen, involving the American populace would about be a requirement, even with the modern compatibility we have in power, computer hardware/software (and speed), and the ease of involving translators. And really, it's about putting the "right" locals in charge and hope things don't go to shit.

But still, I don't think it's even possible to get that far. Whenever I read something about Trumps and GOP gains victory, that isn't just a blame game or "you're racist" garbage-piece, you find the swing voters didn't push Trump over the top because he's a nutter. Those are the guys crying at GOP rallies. Honestly, those people on both sides kind of scare me, but that's another story. The GOP had multiple roads to victory, but a rather large one was Democrats being considered weak and corrupt.

Instead I find stuff like this:

50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

“If you felt like your life wasn’t getting better over eight years, then you might draw a conclusion that Democrats don’t care about you,” Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, told me in an interview.

8 years of Democrats is about what we got. Just like we had about 8 years of Republicans with GW, and what did we get? They threw in with Dems because Reps fucked them. Then they threw in with Reps because.... GOTO10.

They're stupid for ever thinking Trump would help their bank account. But even I'm pretty God damn sure Clinton wouldn't have bothered fighting for me. Enough voters took that to heart and voted poorly to make a difference. Welcome to 'Murrica.

So yea, the rise of Fascism in this country worries me, but the utter lack of faith the American people have in their government and the government's ability to let them earn money is more troubling, because that's the kind of shit that leads to Fascism, or just extreme mentalities in general.

[K. A. Pital]

So if these people went scot-free, there's little hope that one could actually prosecute an entire nation.

Wasn't the entire Imperial family not prosecuted as well to try and make a smoother transition? It's been years. I know a few thousand Japanese citizens were tried, some executed, but I was under the impression (even with the revenge angle) these people were directly involved in the war effort/massacres.

If you read a bit on what kind of people were pardoned by the US, it may be enlightening. The Imperial family is one thing. Below is another thing totally.

As Kai Bird pointed out (The Chairman: John J. McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment): " The enraged French public blamed the Americans for not allowing [Klaus] Barbie, the star witness against Hardy, to be extradited from Germany. By the end of May, under pressure from French resistance veterans, the French government had once again requested Barbie's apprehension."

McCloy was now in a difficult position. He was reluctant to admit that the CIC was employing an accused war criminal. In fact, it was more serious than that. According to one CIC document, Barbie had "personally directed CIC's counterintelligence operations aimed at infiltrating French intelligence." CIC told McCloy that "a complete disclosure by Barbie to the French of his activities on behalf of CIC would... furnish the French with evidence that we had been directing intelligence operations against them."
...

McCloy [US High Commissioner for Germany] also began pardoning German industrialists who had been convicted at Nuremberg. This included Fritz Ter Meer, the senior executive of I. G. Farben, the company that produced Zyklon B poison for the gas chambers. He was also Hitler's Commissioner of for Armament and War Production for the chemical industry during the war.

From 1925 to 1945 Fritz ter Meer was on the board of IG Farben AG. He was also from 1932 a member of the Working Committee and the Technical Committee, Head of Division II in the War Ministry and the defense industry. In May 1937, he joined the NSDAP.
During World War II

On 7 September 1939 he and Henry agreed with the Army Ordnance Hörlein the production of the gas Tabun, an extremely toxic nerve agent. More than 100 prisoners of war were used during construction of the designated poison gas factory in Dyhernfurth.

He was involved in the planning of Monowitz concentration camp, a satellite camp of KZ Auschwitz and responsible for helping build the IG Farben Buna Werke factory at Auschwitz, which conducted human experiments and held some 25,000 slave labourers under deplorable conditions.
...

After his arrest in April 1945, ter Meer was tried at the IG Farben Trial on 30 July 1948 for looting and enslavement in the context of the concentration camp Auschwitz III Monowitz. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. When he was interviewed in the process, asked whether he had considered the tests on humans in Auschwitz to be justified, he replied that this was irrelevant: "They were prisoners thus no particular harm was inflicted, as they would have been killed anyway."

After the German conquest and occupation of the Netherlands, Barbie was assigned to Amsterdam. In 1942 he was sent to Dijon, France, in the Occupied Zone. In November of the same year, at the age of 29, he was assigned to Lyon as the head of the local Gestapo. He established his headquarters at the Hôtel Terminus in Lyon, where he personally tortured adult and child prisoners: breaking extremities, using electroshock and sexually abusing them (including with dogs), among other methods. He became known as the "Butcher of Lyon". The daughter of a French Resistance leader based in Lyon claimed her father was beaten and skinned alive, and that his head was immersed in a bucket of ammonia; he died shortly afterward.

Historians estimate that Barbie was directly responsible for the deaths of up to 14,000 people. He arrested Jean Moulin, one of the highest-ranking members of the French Resistance and his most prominent captive. In 1943, he was awarded the Iron Cross First Class for his campaign against the French Resistance and the capture of Moulin, by Adolf Hitler.

A special project code-named Maruta used human beings for experiments. Test subjects were gathered from the surrounding population and were sometimes referred to euphemistically as "logs" (丸太 maruta), used in such contexts as "How many logs fell?". This term originated as a joke on the part of the staff because the official cover story for the facility given to the local authorities was that it was a lumber mill.
...

Physiologist Yoshimura Hisato conducted experiments by taking captives outside, dipping various appendages into water, and allowing the limb to freeze. Once frozen, which testimony from a Japanese officer said "was determined after the 'frozen arms, when struck with a short stick, emitted a sound resembling that which a board gives when it is struck'", ice was chipped away and the area doused in water. The effects of different water temperatures were tested by bludgeoning the victim to determine if any areas were still frozen. Variations of these tests in more gruesome forms were performed.

Doctors orchestrated forced sex acts between infected and non-infected prisoners to transmit the disease ... After victims were infected, they were vivisected at different stages of infection, so that internal and external organs could be observed as the disease progressed. Testimony from multiple guards blames the female victims as being hosts of the diseases, even as they were forcibly infected. Genitals of female prisoners that were infected with syphilis were called "jam filled buns" by guards.

Some children grew up inside the walls of Unit 731, infected with syphilis. The children ... were tested in ways similar to their parents, with specific emphasis on determining how longer infection periods affected the effectiveness of treatments.

Female prisoners were forced to become pregnant for use in experiments. The hypothetical possibility of vertical transmission (from mother to fetus or child) of diseases, particularly syphilis, was the stated reason for the torture. Fetal survival and damage to mother's reproductive organs were objects of interest. Though "a large number of babies were born in captivity", there have been no accounts of any survivors of Unit 731, children included. It is suspected that the children of female prisoners were killed or the pregnancies terminated.

While male prisoners were often used in single studies, so that the results of the experimentation on them would not be clouded by other variables, women were sometimes used in bacteriological or physiological experiments, sex experiments, and as the victims of sex crimes.

Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions. Flamethrowers were tested on humans. Humans were also tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs.

In other tests, subjects were deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death; placed into high-pressure chambers until death; experimented upon to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival; placed into centrifuges and spun until death; injected with animal blood; exposed to lethal doses of x-rays; subjected to various chemical weapons inside gas chambers; injected with sea water; and burned or buried alive.
...

Japanese researchers performed tests on prisoners with bubonic plague, cholera, smallpox, botulism, and other diseases. This research led to the development of the defoliation bacilli bomb and the flea bomb used to spread bubonic plague. Some of these bombs were designed with porcelain shells, an idea proposed by Ishii in 1938.

These bombs enabled Japanese soldiers to launch biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells, and other areas with anthrax, plague-carrier fleas, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and other deadly pathogens. During biological bomb experiments, researchers dressed in protective suits would examine the dying victims. Infected food supplies and clothing were dropped by airplane into areas of China not occupied by Japanese forces. In addition, poisoned food and candies were given to unsuspecting victims, and the results examined.
...

The Japanese wanted to avoid prosecution under the Soviet legal system, so the next morning after he made his threat, Sanders received a manuscript describing Japan's involvement in biological warfare.Sanders took this information to General Douglas MacArthur, who was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers responsible for rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupations. MacArthur struck a deal with Japanese informants—he secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731, including their leader, in exchange for providing America, but not the other wartime allies, with their research on biological warfare and data from human experimentation.
...

The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal heard only one reference to Japanese experiments with "poisonous serums" on Chinese civilians. This took place in August 1946 and was instigated by David Sutton, assistant to the Chinese prosecutor. The Japanese defense counsel argued that the claim was vague and uncorroborated and it was dismissed by the tribunal president, Sir William Webb, for lack of evidence. The subject was not pursued further by Sutton, who was probably unaware of Unit 731's activities. His reference to it at the trial is believed to have been accidental.

I've removed some of the more hurtful bits and direct quotes, but anyone can follow the links if they want to.

[TheFeniX]

If you read a bit on what kind of people were pardoned by the US, it may be enlightening. The Imperial family is one thing. Below is another thing totally.

I've done enough stomach turning reading about the monsters that were let fly after the war due to "useful" information they could or did provide. My comment was more of a "they couldn't even be bothered imprison, at best, the Japanese Emperor." You can make the argument that in the long-term this helped bring Japan back into the fold. But if you're arguing "justice," there's not much a leg to stand on. Though nothing would have saved him, at least Hitler had the common courtesy to kill himself.

Anyways, getting a bit OT here, but semi-related: Trump isn't some dictator for life kind of guy. Worst case, he does considerable damage to the U.S. and is gone at a max of 8 years. There's no dynasty in the making here. The GOP, if they decide to stick to their guns, are going to hemorrhage as well since Trump's first "victory" targets (the tax plan) upper-middle class voters who helped put him and more than a few Republicans in the Federal Govt. And his other big plans include... gutting the ACA and Dodd–Frank, essentially setting us back to pre-2008 levels.... you know, when we were going through a terrible recession due to the housing market bubble busting. That's not going over well when the reality hits the morons.

Judging from ever trend I've been seeing, the current idea is that this rise in far-right ideology won't hold. We're more likely looking at, at least the social-side of far-right politics completely dieing in the next decade. The GOP will also find some problems maintaining their view on "Free market" type bullshit, especially after the bad taste Trump is ready to leave in everyone's mouth if he gets his way. The GOP either has to move on or they will become a joke party.

The outlier is something Bad++™ happening. Like, another 9/11, another brush war, whatever. Like how 9/11 made the western world collectively lose it's shit for years, you'd need another something like that to get millenials to flip their stance. Because even conservative millenials don't seem to care about what makes old doods shit their pants such as gays and abortions.

For instance, Twenge said, "We know from other research that millennials are more supportive of LGBT rights, gender equality and racial equality compared to previous generations. Given that, it suggests that millennial conservatives may be focusing on issues other than these, for example, economic issues, gun rights."

Basically, millenials ARE pretty polarized at a level not seen before. But that polarization is in different directions. EDIT: clarification, that polarization of either side will basically be passing each other on the highway, not trying for a head-on collision.

I'm honestly trying to find more info here. But not just this seems to suggest a system where Democrats and Republicans will be stumping for completely unrelated social issues and fighting over economic ones. Could be interesting or the GOP could just crater again.

[K. A. Pital]

I think the problem is, what if neofascists in other nations actually succeed and come to power? Then if Trump as a person goes, the ideology stays.

[The Romulan Republic]

That is my fear, yes.

We need to view Trump not as an isolated phenomenon, but as the most high-profile expression of a global neo-fascist movement which, if allowed to grow unchecked, will become a global existential threat.