They just rationalize it and say that they're doing things for the right reasons. And then, because they're broken, because there are things missing in their brains that normal people have, they sleep soundly at night.

The irony is that you assume a normality which is just not there. The norm is to be broken in the way you describe it.

It is not about the things missing in your brain, it is about the things added to it. Prejudices and 'common sense' allow for a good nights rest while doing horrendous things. That is the norm, it is like humans work, that is how trump, sexism, racism. anti-semitism, etc works … ironically that list includes advertising too. ;-)

And now am in a bad mood, I would rather talk about the glory of the empire. Real People are messed up

He was. He was helping literally Hitler to win the war, didn't try to use his position to sabotege war effort or really do anything to stop the nazi regime.

Say tomorrow a war starts between the US and Russia. Russia wins, conquering a large amount of American soil. When the US surrenders Russia orders the US to pay huge sums of money to Russia each year as "penance", occupies the West Coast and declares it Russian territory and demilitarises the US allowing it to keep a very weak defence force. The US has to take responsibility for every atrocity of the war and formally apologise to Russia which it must acknowledge as blameless. The government is forcibly dissolved and a new pro-Russian government put in its place based on the Russian system. The school curriculums are changed to teach children that the US was the evil aggressor which heroic Russia defeated and everyone in the US deserves what they got as a result.

Over time this cripples the American economy with Russia profiting greatly from the "reparations." During the poverty a leader emerges, promising to lead the American people to rebuild the US economy and take back the West Coast. A new war breaks out to "liberate" the West Coast from the Russians.

Are you going to side with the Russians?

We now know that the Nazis were an evil, genocidal, jingoistic regime but we've got 60 years worth of hindsight to tell us that. Would our judgements be the same if we only had the information and propaganda the average German citizen had at the time? Your moral judgement is inherently limited by your perspective, hence two people with the same morals can come to different judgements based on what they can see. The whole idea of propaganda is to manipulate people's perception of the truth so their moral judgements end up where the propagandist wants them.

Somewhere in the world there's someone who thinks you're evil for not doing anything to oppose the regime that's dropping bombs on the heads of their children every day.

it's important to remember that Hitler/the Nazi's did take a tired, beat up and depressedGermany and, to use Trumpisms. Make it great again.

Ain't that the scary part about this year's election.

IMO, one of the best example of victors writing the history is Stalin vs. Hitler. Both committed large scale atrocities,both tried to impose ther will by force onto part of the world and yet Stalin seems to be a lot less reviled than Hitler.

Everyone believes they're the good guy and everyone finds it hard to accept that everyone believes they're the good guy.

Because if they can be in the wrong and believe they're the good guy, couldn't we too?

Humans are easy to manipulate: we all want to believe we're doing the right thing. If we want to avoid being manipulated by others who understand this then we need to keep a critical eye on ourselves just as much as the world around us.

He was. He was helping literally Hitler to win the war, didn't try to use his position to sabotege war effort or really do anything to stop the nazi regime.

Say tomorrow a war starts between the US and Russia. Russia wins, conquering a large amount of American soil. When the US surrenders Russia orders the US to pay huge sums of money to Russia each year as "penance", occupies the West Coast and declares it Russian territory and demilitarises the US allowing it to keep a very weak defence force. The US has to take responsibility for every atrocity of the war and formally apologise to Russia which it must acknowledge as blameless. The government is forcibly dissolved and a new pro-Russian government put in its place based on the Russian system. The school curriculums are changed to teach children that the US was the evil aggressor which heroic Russia defeated and everyone in the US deserves what they got as a result.

Over time this cripples the American economy with Russia profiting greatly from the "reparations." During the poverty a leader emerges, promising to lead the American people to rebuild the US economy and take back the West Coast. A new war breaks out to liberate the West Coast from the Russians.

Are you going to side with the Russians?

We now know that the Nazis were an evil, genocidal, jingoistic regime but we've got 60 years worth of hindsight to tell us that. We don't know how much the people knew at the time, how they saw Hitler relative to how they saw the hostile force that was the Allies. Your moral judgement is inherently limited by your perspective, hence two people with the same morals can come to different judgements based on what they can see.

Somewhere in the world there's someone who thinks you're evil for not doing anything to oppose the regime that's dropping bombs on the heads of their children every day.

I wouldn't side with the Russians, but if suddenly said leader after coming to power made USA a facist regime and started murdering millions of Asians and Mexicans I like to believe I would try to stand against him, not help his war of aggresion in Mexico.

Also, that's a bad analogy for WW1 and extremely bad analogy for WW2.

Hitler's whole campaign was built on hate for the Jews, Slavs and other "subhumans", he didn't hide it and there is no reason to believe ordinary people didn't know what's happening.

IMO, one of the best example of victors writing the history is Stalin vs. Hitler. Both committed large scale atrocities,both tried to impose ther will by force onto part of the world and yet Stalin seems to be a lot less reviled than Hitler.

Or maybe it's this way because people dying en masse were a side effect of Stalin's policy and the whole point of Hitler's?

Stalin was a monster, a lot of people died because of him, there is no denying it, but Hitler was just another league.

Also, that's a bad analogy for WW1 and extremely bad analogy for WW2.

It's not meant to be a good analogy for either. It's loosely based on the Treaty of Versailles, but it's meant to demonstrate how only having part of the picture can influence your judgement.

but if suddenly said leader after coming to power made USA a facist regime and started murdering millions of Asians and Mexicans I like to believe I would try to stand against him.

We all would like to believe that we would. But would we? Especially when we knew what happened to the people that did?

There were people who spoke out against the Nazis when it became clearer what they really were and they met their end at the hands of the Gestapo. When standing up for what's right means arrest, death and likely changing nothing would we still do it? We all like to believe we would, but how many of us are truly prepared to die for what we believe is right?

Here's hoping none of us ever have to find out.

Everyone thinks they're the good guy.

Everyone.

It's all in perspective: what you see of the world and even more importantly what you don't see of the world.

When you can't see their full motivations it's easy to see someone as evil. Likewise it's easy not to see your own actions as evil when you can't see their full consequences.

People who do things for teh evilz don't exist.

And I never disputed that. But that's not the point of the discussion. The point is, that the Empire was founded on evil principles, and therefore no matter how many good people are in it, is evil. Yes everyone thinks they are the good guy. That doesn't make them right. Trying to justify that they're good is silly.

And I never disputed that. But that's not the point of the discussion. The point is, that the Empire was founded on evil principles, and therefore no matter how many good people are in it, is evil. Yes everyone thinks they are the good guy. That doesn't make them right. Trying to justify that they're good is silly.

You're aware my posts in this thread on the Empire describe it as reliant on state terrorism to maintain power, right? Or are you mistaking me for someone else?

I said that everyone believes they're the good guy. I didn't say that everyone is the good guy: that's an inherent contradiction. The real world is so morally complex that it's hard to decipher. Often there is no right answer and because we're part of it we even have to question our information: history is itself perspective and perspective is limited.

A fictional world is much easier to cast judgement on because there are clear facts. The Empire exists to be a villainous regime: while some works paint it in a positive light as perceived by their characters such works usually involve the faith those characters have in the Empire coming into contact with its brutal reality. The opening crawl literally refers to it as "The Evil Empire." It is certainly is not good when viewed across the fourth wall.

Could a character in universe perceive the Empire as good? Easily. The Empire produces a huge quantity of propaganda to paint itself in a positive light. When you combine that with the horrors of the Clone Wars and the equally dystopian corruption of the Old Republic it's not hard to see Imperial citizens in the Core Worlds not seeing the Empire as a malevolent force pre-Alderaan. It may constantly trample their personal liberties but if their daily lives are comfortable most Imperial citizens will accept that. The Empire probably can't completely hide its true nature and a lot of citizens are likely to have nagging doubts about it but it's far easier to surpress those doubts than to risk having your comfortable life blown apart by the revelation of the Empire's true nature.

By the time the Empire's nature is readily apparent it's fully established: when your best friend could be an ISB agent questioning it is dangerous. So even then it's easier to convince oneself that the Empire's okay than it is to resist it.

Also, that's a bad analogy for WW1 and extremely bad analogy for WW2.

It's not meant to be a good analogy for either. It's loosely based on the Treaty of Versailles, but it's meant to demonstrate how only having part of the picture can influence your judgement.

but if suddenly said leader after coming to power made USA a facist regime and started murdering millions of Asians and Mexicans I like to believe I would try to stand against him.

We all would like to believe that we would. But would we? Especially when we knew what happened to the people that did?

There were people who spoke out against the Nazis when it became clearer what they really were and they met their end at the hands of the Gestapo. When standing up for what's right means arrest, death and likely changing nothing would we still do it? We all like to believe we would, but how many of us are truly prepared to die for what we believe is right?

Empty rhetorics. Sure, whatever I write you may turn around and say "you don't know if you'd have enough courage". It doesn't matter, what I would or wouldn't do, what matters is what is wrong an what is right, and shame on me if I would do the wrong thing.

Some had courage to resist, actively or pasively, or at least emigrate.

But some didn't and it is their fault that what happened happened, trying to advocate otherwise is damaging our society. If we teach people it's okay not to stand against evil, not to help people in need, just because you might get hurt, we are encouraging the history to repeat itself. It was not okay. It was wrong that they didn't do anything and they have blood of millions of people on their hands. If it ever happens again I hope people will remember what happened in XX century, will remeber all those people who did nothing and will do something to ensure thay won't be remembered the same way we (should) remember people passively supporting the Third Reich.

(the next few lines are not a direct response for your post but a more or less unrelated rambling after skimming through this thread before going to sleep which I should have done a long time ago)

What is even more damaging is that nowadays some people, even here in this thread, celebrate as "heroes" or " honourable men" those who not only didn't do anything, but those who were voluntarily supporting the regime, despite having full knowledge of what's happening and means to do the oppoiste, like Rommel or von Braun. You can't be a honourable hero fighting for ******* Hitler and paving the roads for his genocides.

Schindler, von Stauffenberg, Schulz. Not ******* Rommel, the poster boy of Nazi propaganda.

To be fair, lots of people think that Rommel was a better man than he was for the crimes he was killed for, not because he actually committed those crimes (which he likely did not).

This is probably tied into the fact that the British and Germans fighting in North Africa thought very highly of each other. In fact, it's probably the only real instance in the Second World War (and one of the very few instances in history) where a war was fought with very few or no atrocities. The fact that all the forces involved were expeditionary in nature largely helped.

America doesn't have a particular memory of North Africa because we didn't particularly want to be there, got kind of stuck in with the French, and prefer to remember the bits of the ETO that we actually wanted to fight (which is to say, France, the Low Countries, and Germany) rather than the fighting (directed largely by the Brits) in the Mediterranean. Because the US didn't remember, it means that our memories are largely informed by the memories of the Brits (and the bit in Patton where George S. Scott (as Patton) leads the Third Army to victory against the Deutsche Afrikakorps ).

Rommel should probably be remembered with von Mannstein and Guderian: A capable and successful military leader, who perhaps may not have agreed with all the policies of the Nazi Party, but one who ultimately chose Reich over righteousness.

ETA: I'm not sure why we decided this was a good guy/bad guy thing. We've pretty well established that everyone thinks they're a good guy, even Hitler, Stalin, and Mao thought they were good guys (and though his crimes were not as heinous, so did Nixon, for that matter).

The Empire is evil.

There might be some good guys fighting for the Empire, but most of them have either dropped their flags or changed their flags by Endor (and the very few who haven't, do so not long after).

My point as ever, is that in the best speculative fiction, in any sci fi or fantasy or even alternate history war. The most epic stories have heroes on both sides.

Even Star Wars makes mention of this, during a clone wars episode.

Gundam wing for example would have been SHITE without Zechs and Treize.Hell, I was rooting for them the entire time.

Note: At no point am I saying that Nazi Germany, The British Empire or their bastard son the Galactic Empire are good things. That is insane. Everyone wants to be the good guy, and people with good, altruistic qualities may be on both sides of the trenches. The countries/media's narrative is really what most see.

The fan film winner this year was about a stormtrooper who thought he was doing the right thing, it was a good read. The Crusaders thought they were doing the right thing too probably.

This is from Wikipedia, so make of it what you will. I'll tell you what I make of it at the bottom.

​ "The attacks continued, and reached fever pitch when SA storm leader Axel Schaffeld was assassinated. At the end of July 1932, the Nazi Party gained 13,745,000 votes (37.3 %), securing 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag. Energised by the incredible results, Hitler asked to be made Chancellor. Papen offered the position of Vice Chancellor, but Hitler refused."

​"The Nazi party lost 35 seats in the November 1932 election, but remained the Reichstag's largest party, with 196 seats (33.09%). The Social Democrats (SPD) won 121 seats (20.43%) and the Communists (KPD) won 100 (16.86%)."

"After Chancellor Papen left office, he secretly told Hitler that he still held considerable sway with president Hindenburg and that he would make Hitler chancellor as long as he, Papen, could be the vice chancellor.

Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933, in a coalition arrangement between the Nazis and the Nationalist-Conservatives . Papen was to serve as Vice-Chancellor in a majority conservative Cabinet – still falsely believing that he could "tame" Hitler. ^[44] Initially, Papen did speak out against some Nazi excesses, and only narrowly escaped death in the night of the long knives , whereafter he ceased to openly criticize the regime."

"On 30 January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of a coalition government of the NSDAP-DNVP Party. The SA and SS led torchlight parades throughout Berlin. In the coalition government, three members of the cabinet were Nazis: Hitler, Wilhelm Frick (Minister of the Interior) and Hermann Göring (Minister Without Portfolio).

With Germans who opposed Nazism failing to unite against it, Hitler soon moved to consolidate absolute power."

"At the risk of appearing to talk nonsense I tell you that the National Socialist movement will go on for 1,000 years! ... Don't forget how people laughed at me 15 years ago when I declared that one day I would govern Germany. They laugh now, just as foolishly, when I declare that I shall remain in power!"

In short, Hitler used political intrigue, threats and backroom deals to seize control of the existing German state through outwardly legitimate means, ​without ever gaining reaching even %40 of the popular vote. ​

Also this:

Chancellor to dictator

"Following the Reichstag fire , the Nazis began to suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition. The Communists were excluded from the Reichstag. At the March 1933 elections , again no single party secured a majority. Hitler required the vote of the Centre Party and Conservatives in the Reichstag to obtain the powers he desired. ^[57] He called on Reichstag members to vote for the Enabling Act on 24 March 1933. Hitler was granted plenary powers "temporarily" by the passage of the Act. ^[57] The law gave him the freedom to act without parliamentary consent and even without constitutional limitations". ^[58]

"Employing his characteristic mix of negotiation and intimidation, Hitler offered the possibility of friendly co-operation, promising not to threaten the Reichstag, the President, the States or the Churches if granted the emergency powers. With Nazi paramilitary encircling the building, he said: "It is for you, gentlemen of the Reichstag to decide between war and peace". ^[57] The Centre Party, having obtained promises of non-interference in religion, joined with conservatives in voting for the Act (only the Social Democrats voted against)". ^[59]

"The Act allowed Hitler and his Cabinet to rule by emergency decree for four years, though Hindenburg remained President. ^[60] Hitler immediately set about abolishing the powers of the states and the existence of non-Nazi political parties and organisations. ^[61] Non-Nazi parties were formally outlawed on 14 July, and the Reichstag abdicated its democratic responsibilities". ^[61]

"The Act did not infringe upon the powers of the President, and Hitler would not fully achieve full dictatorial power until after the death of Hindenburg in August 1934. ^[62] Hindenburg remained commander-in-chief of the military and retained the power to negotiate foreign treaties."

​So basically, using a small group of paramilitary thugs and a great many backroom deals Hitler was able to manipulate, seize control of, and domineer an entire country without its consent. He bribed, bought, and threatened the leaders, altered the laws, and crushed prominent resistance movements in their infancy. The Germans people were not any more inherently evil than any other people in the world, but their country was taken out from under them.

War was declared for them, and with the armies of their newly-acquired enemies marching towards them, spies and police surrounding their families, and their leaders corrupted or out of reach, they fought to the death for a cause that most of them never believed in.

Back IN SPACE, a politician in the wake of a devastating war seizes control of an already Galaxy-spanning republic through wheeling, and dealing. He uses a customized military force to kill and cow his primary political opponents, bends the media to his will, and using fear forges an Empire out of the former republic. He uses his private military force to threaten key areas and hold destruction above the homes of his subjects.

You are a pilot/stormtrooper/starship captain. All the media tells you that the New Order is the legal successor to the Old Republic that your forefathers served. You are ordered to hold a world hostage in order to keep the peace. You know that if you fail in your duties, you will be killed, your family will suffer, and your planet will live in fear. You know that if you succeed in your duties that you will be showered with praise, your family will live in prosperity and peace, and your planet will enjoy the benefits that the Empire has to offer.

You have heard of rebels. You have seen what has happened to them, their planets, their families. Their actions threaten to destabilize the Order that you are firmly lodged in, and if it topples who can say if you and yours will come out on top.

What do you do? And if you don't join the rebels, are you just as evil as the Empire you serve?

Food for thought!

Also I'm probably done with this thread for a little while. It's been fun, and I've loved all the well-thought out and eloquent arguments, but here's the truth: I get in my TIE with a conscience clean enough for sleep and settled enough for the consumption of good food. The moment that changes I'll join the rebellion. Till then, it's white armor and triangles for me!

(Let's not even get started on Scum and Villainy. I bet those pirates, mercs, and death-stick dealers sleep real good. )

What is even more damaging is that nowadays some people, even here in this thread, celebrate as "heroes" or " honourable men" those who not only didn't do anything, but those who were voluntarily supporting the regime, despite having full knowledge of what's happening and means to do the oppoiste, like Rommel or von Braun. You can't be a honourable hero fighting for ******* Hitler and paving the roads for his genocides.

Schindler, von Stauffenberg, Schulz. Not ******* Rommel, the poster boy of Nazi propaganda.

Stauffenberg was no nazi, but he was absolutely a fascist. Besides I find it odd that you give Stauffenberg a pass, while Rommel does not get one.

Furthermore I agree that lack of action is a problem, but at the same time I don't see protest marches in the states against the drone war, even establishment of the NSA surveillance state is accepted under the pretence of security against terrorism which is literally breeded across the globe by the U.S. drone program. There is a lot of inaction going around the globe at all times. And let's not get into the real world, keep it fictional in the star wars universe. Fascism in space is a lot more entertaining than the real thing.

Patriotism and loyalty also needs to be taken into account. When going against an evil regime means going against your own country and institutions you believe in and respect (like the army in case of high ranking military officials) the decision becomes way less black and white. For German generals, going against Hitler was an act of treason, and for many of them treason was unthinkable.

If you play Empire you are a racist xenophobic deplorable person.

I'm so glad X-wing doesn't take politics into the game mechanics. Save that for Star Trek Armada.

Empty rhetorics. Sure, whatever I write you may turn around and say "you don't know if you'd have enough courage". It doesn't matter, what I would or wouldn't do, what matters is what is wrong an what is right, and shame on me if I would do the wrong thing.

Some had courage to resist, actively or pasively, or at least emigrate.

But some didn't and it is their fault that what happened happened, trying to advocate otherwise is damaging our society. If we teach people it's okay not to stand against evil, not to help people in need, just because you might get hurt, we are encouraging the history to repeat itself. It was not okay. It was wrong that they didn't do anything and they have blood of millions of people on their hands.

If inaction out of fear or ignorance is to be guilty then I find myself wondering what blood is on our hands. What is there today that we turn a blind eye to because it's easier than facing it? How will history judge us?

If you play Empire you are a racist xenophobic deplorable person.

I'm so glad X-wing doesn't take politics into the game mechanics. Save that for Star Trek Armada.

Aliens are the true source of evil that's why we're gonna a build a shield to keep em out, and they'll pay for it!

Let's make the galaxy great again.

It'll be a big shield, the best shield.

IMO, one of the best example of victors writing the history is Stalin vs. Hitler. Both committed large scale atrocities,both tried to impose ther will by force onto part of the world and yet Stalin seems to be a lot less reviled than Hitler.

Or maybe it's this way because people dying en masse were a side effect of Stalin's policy and the whole point of Hitler's?

Stalin was a monster, a lot of people died because of him, there is no denying it, but Hitler was just another league.

I'd flip that, based on numbers. Hitler was a monster, millions of people died because of him, but Stalin and Mao were just another league.

As for Empire=Nazis, I'd be inclined to defer that comparison until you get to the First Order. The New Order was much closer to the Principate than it was to the Nazis, but the First Order went full national socialist. The destruction of Alderaan was essentially analogous to the destruction of a city that was in rebellion, something that was uncommon but not unheard of, and even some great and otherwise moral emperors ordered such. The destruction of the Hosnian system was more like the Blitzkrieg, perhaps most closely the invasion of Poland, coming as it did without provocation and with minimal warning during peacetime.

IMO, one of the best example of victors writing the history is Stalin vs. Hitler. Both committed large scale atrocities,both tried to impose ther will by force onto part of the world and yet Stalin seems to be a lot less reviled than Hitler.

Or maybe it's this way because people dying en masse were a side effect of Stalin's policy and the whole point of Hitler's?

Stalin was a monster, a lot of people died because of him, there is no denying it, but Hitler was just another league.

I'd flip that, based on numbers. Hitler was a monster, millions of people died because of him, but Stalin and Mao were just another league.

He had much less time.

IMO, one of the best example of victors writing the history is Stalin vs. Hitler. Both committed large scale atrocities,both tried to impose ther will by force onto part of the world and yet Stalin seems to be a lot less reviled than Hitler.

Or maybe it's this way because people dying en masse were a side effect of Stalin's policy and the whole point of Hitler's?

Stalin was a monster, a lot of people died because of him, there is no denying it, but Hitler was just another league.

I'd flip that, based on numbers. Hitler was a monster, millions of people died because of him, but Stalin and Mao were just another league.

He had much less time.

And yet Stalin surpassed him, even considering the different lengths of time they had at their disposal.

The Holocaust killed between 6 and 11 million jews over 4 years, so (1.5-2.75 million per year)

Stalin's provoked famine in Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor ) killed between 2.5 and 7.5 million people in just 2 years, and this is only one of Stalin's genocides.

IMO, one of the best example of victors writing the history is Stalin vs. Hitler. Both committed large scale atrocities,both tried to impose ther will by force onto part of the world and yet Stalin seems to be a lot less reviled than Hitler.

Or maybe it's this way because people dying en masse were a side effect of Stalin's policy and the whole point of Hitler's?

Stalin was a monster, a lot of people died because of him, there is no denying it, but Hitler was just another league.

I'd flip that, based on numbers. Hitler was a monster, millions of people died because of him, but Stalin and Mao were just another league.

He had much less time.

And yet Stalin surpassed him, even considering the different lengths of time they had at their disposal.

The Holocaust killed between 6 and 11 million jews over 4 years, so (1.5-2.75 million per year)

Stalin's provoked famine in Ukraine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor ) killed between 2.5 and 7.5 million people in just 2 years, and this is only one of Stalin's genocides.

There is a difference between a famine that can occur naturaly and an industrial killing machine. The latter is infathomably inhuman. You look at the surface of that thing and say "no sane human would ever take part in that" yet it is a historical fact. It was supported by people like you and me. That is a terrible thought! The great famine on the other hand...well you could quite easily say it happened due to incompetence. People down the chain could easily know nothing of the deliberacy of how supplies were maldistributed. Common poeple certainly didn't.

I know that great-grandparents of myself had to know and even support (with their work if not their opinion, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt there for my own santities sake) the Holocaust and they were very ordinary people who just happened to work for the German railway company, the Reichsbahn, in Berlin. There were thousands of people like this. Hitler turned the entirety of Germany into assistant mass-murderers. Mao and Stalin were terrible in their own right, but they enforced their cruelty through elected leaders and policies and did everything to cover it up in righteousness. They didn't corrupt their people, they elaborately missinformed them.

Thats why Hitler is more baffeling and scary than the communist dictators of old, even if their "bodycounts" are worse. He demonstrates the daemonic evil that appears to be lurking inside of every human.

I was merely attempting to demonstrate Stalin equaled or surpassed Hitler in bodycount. He had his fair share of Holocaust-ish exterminations too. I highly doubt the gulags were much better than the concentration camps. The reasons Hitler wins this 'popularity' contest IMO are two:

First of all USSR was not occupied so nobody got to walk into a stalinist gulag and liberate the occupants. The survivor tales are fewer and less colorful, so the shock effect is smaller.

Secondly, and that's very sad, Stalin didn't kill Western Europeans. To the media at large,what happens to people in Western Europe and US seems to be more important and more tragic than what happens everywhere else.

No-ones mentioned Imperial Japan's war crimes yet? Because someone really should. Nanking is the obvious example.