And the head of the medical unit that conducted the medical experimentation was later made the head of the Green Cross, which is the Japanese equivalent of the Red Cross.

That's why when Japan fails to acknowledge past war crimes, the rest of Asia goes ballistic. The thing is, they want Japan's financial resources and economic guide to help their own countries advance, so the criticism is limited.

Right, I've said before how the image is really the determining factor. We have reams of photos and films of the Holocaust, some in color even. But with the rare exception of images from personal collections, the Asian atrocities are largely in word only. It's hard to fathom the horror as real, not fiction, when it's only to be read and not seen.

This privilege mentality, that the Japanese had, is at the root of the barbarity. That's why I feel political correctness and victim mentality is just as dangerous. When one group feels superior to another, or justified in taking advantage of another, to right some past wrong, or exercise some manufactured superiority, then humans behave like we've seen in Nazi Germany, Japanese Asia, and throughout history.

The sheer scale of the dead in the Holocaust was horrific, but there was certainly a difference in the mindset of the perpetrators. The Germans—and here I need to choose my words carefully—were, if not ashamed of what they did, at least aware that they needed to hide it. The Japanese seemed proud of it.

It's hard to reconcile that fact with the image of a smiling, bowing, frail old man today.

And it's not being picky, it's fun. And as you know, the Japanese have different spellings for their pronunciation of words. Shinjuku, the major terminal city in Tokyo is spelled, to this day, depending on who you talk to and where you read it, "Shinjuku", "Shin Juku", "Shin juku", and my favorite, "Sin juku".

Also, Japanese often compress words that are commonly used, foreign 'loan words' as well as native Japanese words and phrases. Sexual Harassment is "sekuhara".

So, the extended vowel of 'uo' which you point out, is really a spelling preference (in this case). I chose to use the easier to pronounce for western readers version. And remember, the article is supposed to be 'translated'.

But thanks for the input.

All that you describe happened, yes? And so we are living in a world that is a result of those actions, correct? So, there is no need to write a 'what if' essay on it. It happened. It's our present day.

The alternative which I describe above is a 'what if', it's what might have happened had the Axis powers achieved their stated goals in line with historical development. From the tone of your reply, it seems you might prefer that alternative instead, no?

With all due respect, I think you're watching too much Jeremy Isaacs (whom I love) or reading too much Zinn. You need to talk to more Japanese. More elderly Japanese. I have a feeling you've consulted neither allied veterans nor axis ones in the forming of your views. Don't rely on published works. You'll only be repeating others' mistakes or fulfilling their desires.

Sign up for an account, and I'll be glad to discuss the issue with you. If not, then no one will take you seriously, regardless of the seriousness of your words. If you care enough about the issue to post, register and make it count. Otherwise, we're all just wasting our time, aren't we?

It's a lot closer to what a reality would be for us, than many can imagine, I think. All it would have taken was the lack of action by commandos on Vermork. That's it. People are worried today about Korea (me too, I'm over here in their line of fire) because they have might have nukes and already have a delivery system. The Nazis were extremely close to having the atom bomb, and already had the delivery system, the V rocket, far more advanced than piloted bombers over Hiroshima. If they were able to create one D2O bomb, attach it to a V rocket, send it over to London, then…. whooosh. They would be unstoppable. There would have been no limit to their ability to counter allied forces in europe. They would simply 'whoosh' them away.

It's a bit frightening how simply the world could have changed so drastically. And even more frightening that a lot of young people are oblivious to that fact.

'What if' scenarios of the present/future are hard to capture believably. Of course, everyone knows what a masterpiece Blade Runner is. Though at the time, the box office was not as good as expected. Especially not with major star Ford. Still, it took a visual artist like Ridley Scott to do it. If another director helmed that project and it stayed truer to the original concept by Hampton Fancher, it would most likely have been forgotten by now, or relegated to Silent Running stage.

Another example, many, most in fact, prefer Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 over the Truffaut film w/ Oscar Werner and Julie Christie. I'm on the fence on that one. I love both very much. There are major differences, naturally, but each has a tone, separate, but fulfilling. And I happen to love Truffaut's style for that film. The colors, the settings and the techniques used to portray the alternate present/future. Quite a different style than Ridley's but very, very effective (for me, at least)

I was lucky to meet Ray some years ago and he told me he didn't care for the film at all. I was a bit shocked. What I wasn't shocked about was that he hated the film treatment of his The Illustrated Man as much as I did. .

Yeah, the Kennedy legacy is powerful, no doubt. I often wonder what would have happened if JFK was ugly, as ugly as Nixon. What if their appearances were switched. I think the love of JFK would not even be a fraction of what it is, not even a fraction, since so many are swayed by the appearance, the image, the figure rather than the actual policies and competence of the man. He would probably not even have won.