marsCubed (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

It also demonstrates the power of the media to spin a story. If people are falling for these then it is partly because they have allowed themselves to be lulled into making judgements purely on the basis of who presents something to them. stick expert in the title and a lot of people will just believe. The onion gets people to challenge what they see, to think critically, which is a really useful thing in this day and age, and as you say, with our governments these days.

Hooya2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"The Japanese government had already lost & they knew it..."To defeat Japan's military, the US would have had to engage in an island-hopping campaign that would almost certainly have carried a death toll of over a million. That's a hefty bargaining chip, and it's one the Japanese had made clear after the Potsdam Ultimatum that they were going to use. That's why the statement 'necessarily entail major concessions from the defeated side' is utterly wrong.

Hooya2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"...the US occupation chose not to hold Hirohito accountable."Yeah, except where they forced him to sign away most his powers as emperor and read a public declaration admitting that he wasn't a God, but I'm sure none of that had any impact on him."AFTER the Japanese government had surrendered unconditionally the USAF sent a final bombing raid over Japanese cities to kill a few hundred more civilians before formally accepting the surrender."I hadn't heard that--source?

JRCN84 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

1 point the Japanese government were not willing to concede was the fate of the emperor Hirohito. That is why they were unwilling to surrender UNCONDITIONALLY.Having gained total surrender, the US occupation chose not to hold Hirohito accountable. That COULD be called appeasement.AFTER the Japanese government had surrendered unconditionally the USAF sent a final bombing raid over Japanese cities to kill a few hundred more civilians before formally accepting the surrender.

JRCN84 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Hooya2I didn't say it was OK, but BOTH sides did far worse things. The 'Rape of Nanking' & the fire bombing of Tokyo, for example.The US could have negotiated and demanded withdrawal from conquered territory & long term disarmament. That could hardly be called appeasement.The Japanese government had already lost & they knew it: that is why they were offering to surrender, which would necessarily entail major concessions from the defeated side.

exploto3 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Why do these comments get voted down? You know these comments wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without the gullables.

Hooya2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"Pearl Harbour was, after all, a military base..."Yeah, it's ok to bomb a neutral party, as long as you kill soldiers instead of civilians."The war could have been ended earlier...if the US had been willing to accept a negotiated peace..."Yes, if the US had let Japan hold on to the territory it conquered (a strategy also known as 'appeasement'."The US airforce continued bombing...AFTER the Japanese government had...surrendered."Duh, because many soldiers refused to quit fighting.

mindprism (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I think its a sign of success when the Onion gets people to believe. Especially on a video like this - it shows how plausible it could be given our government.

HubbaHubba1Time (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Oh please stop your breaking my heart.Remember Nanking, Yes the Japs were innocent victims of the Evil USA.

JRCN84 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

1) Pearl Harbour was, after all, a military base (on occupied land, incidentally).2) The war could have been ended earlier & without the atomic bombings if the US had been willing to accept a negotiated peace, rather than insisting on unconditional surrender.3) The US airforce continued bombing Japan AFTER the Japanese government had officially and unconditionally surrendered.