Japan had a choice in initiating the war in the Asia-Pacific. Yes, Japan was considered by many to be a country with an aggressive military with no political stability. The Japanese were proud people, and wanted to prove themselves equal to the Western powers which had built empires and controlled large territories. The Japanese could just make peaceful treaties with other countries to gain much needed resources, but being proud people, they had to satisfy their need to prove themselves to others instead of making rash desicions to invade neighbouring countries like China to get what they wanted. (O)

Couldn't they just make peaceful exchange treaties with other countries rather than attacking and invading other countries? - Aaron/ Clara (opp)

The Japanese had been a very militaristic nation for centuries. The Japanese lived, up till the end of the Second World War, by Bushido (or Way of the Warrior). Bushido was the honour code of the Military ruling class, the Samurai. The Samurai developed this code over the Centuries; but the worthy point of note that is relevant to the Far East in World War 2 was the literal taking on sacrifice and Honour.

Often romanticisised, war was an honour and to die in battle brought glory to the family name. (https://www.makewav.es/story/16674/title/thejapaneseinworldwar2themindset) The Westerners could not fathom this, and as a result the Japanese sprouted hatred towards them. The Japanese could just ignore those remarks but being proud people, took it to heart and then waged war in the Asia-Pacific in a raged stuptor. - Aaron and Clara (opp)

No. Just no. NO. Would anyone like the prospect of getting sexually violated by a person you don't even know? Modern society would break down! What we know as psychopaths could then roam free without fear and just rape innocent people! SRSLY WHY WAS THIS TOPIC CREATED ITS F'ED UP.

It depends on the severity of your hate. If you're an ingrate and don't appreciate anything your PARENTS do, then you're not hating them. It depends on the kind of hate you're feeling towards them: enmity or as such.

Stalin killed those people in a paranoid, confused state of mind. Hitler eliminated those in his way with a clear mindset to reach his goal. Stalin may have killed a lot of people, but he killed them in a careless, frivolous way without any insight. Hitler had a clear plan of elimination, and not just beacuse people looked smart but because they had control of some power and could pose as a threat. - Aaron, Clara, Celeste

Just because mindless killings were performed does not make him ruthless. Exactly. Stalin killed people in a paranoid, confused state of mind. Hitler had a clear goal to power and was willing to use any means to get to his goal. - Aaron

Murder does not come in quantity, but in the types or state of mind in which those people were murdered. Even if one kills many in a cold-blooded massacre, killing them without thought is not as bad as killing a few with a satanic state of mind. - Aaron, Clara, Celeste

Yes, that's true. However, Hitler also eliminated threats from his own constituency. Even though he created his Secret Army, the Stormtroopers, he felt that Ernst Rohm, his old friend, was a threat and executed him and his followers that shared his point of view. Imagine, Hitler created the SA, and yet he still eliminated those people in the SA who he thought of as threats. Even if he was his own friend.- Aaron, Celeste and Clara

When the Reichstag Building caught fire in February 1933, Hitler used this incident to direct blame towards the communists for his own gain. He convinced the President to deal with the 'threat' that the Communists had shown. After gaining access to the Emergency Act, he the banned all political and civil rights, which eliminated any other opposing political parties and eliminating any threat that could end his rule. This proved him evil and ruthless, as he would go to the extent of eliminating all oppositon to conform to his wish of endless power. :D - Aaron, Celeste , Clara