You've heard of Auschwitz right? What about the Rhine Meadows camps where over a million German prisoners were killed by the Allies?...
Yes it is true, official German inquiries estimate death totals between 3,000 and 10,000. The figures you quote are absurd as there were 1 to 1.9 million prisoners in them, so to say that a million died is totally ridiculous. Most of these deaths were attributed to an unexpectedly large number of POWs which accumulated during the end of WWII, and the subsequent inability to provide adequate necessities for them and to feed the German civilian population as well. The allies were also concerned about a breakout of this huge numbers of prisoners.

On the other hand Germany placed their civilian prisoners in concentration camps that were treated so horrific it was beyond belief that the Germans were actually human beings.Yes I know those concentration camp pictures of walking skeletons are all doctored and it treally never happened.
On the other hand 57.5% of Russian POWs held by Germans died. German POWs held by Americans 0.15%

“Japan? Well your precious Allies really did a number on them didn't they?”
My "precious allies? So you obviously wished that the Nazis and Japanese won WWII.
And the fact that Japan attacked China the US and bombed Australia meant we should not retaliate. Any Australian reading this and comparing what the Japanese did to allied prisoners and how we treated theirs should be outraged at this stupid childish remark.

Australia is being betrayed & undermined & sold out by its own. The last federal election was a blatant example how a handful of connivers & an independent can get away with going against the majority. Something is seriously wrong.
The allies are amateurs in comparison.

Kman.
He said/She said, it depends who you choose to believe.
The estimates vary from 38,000 to one million.
Just like the estimates of deaths at Auschwitz have varied over time from four million to 1.5 million.
Example, Jewish academic Fritjof Meyer put out a paper almost a decade ago which totally contradicts the orthodox account of the Auschwitz death toll:
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/Meyer.html

This goes to the heart of this topic, "Who do you trust?".
Could a regime of the sophistication of the Nazis simply make six million people "disappear"? I'd say yes, they were capable of building devices which could vaporise a human body and we don't know the extent of their technological breakthroughs, they were supposedly working with plasmas, directed energy weapons, microwaves, fuel air bombs etc.
There are several versions of the "electric" machine stories from camp survivors, technology which could kill and completely dispose of up to 2,000 people at a time.
Well then...
Could a regime capable of dropping thermonuclear weapons and incendiaries on defenceless civilians possibly kill millions of non combatants through starvation and slave labour?
Absolutely, it's perfectly plausible if you look at it that way.

The current Canberra regime has the blood of innocent civilians on it's hands, it supports murder, genocide and terrorism in the name of the "War on terror".
Are they capable of betraying their own constituents? Of course, it's perfectly plausible that such people would go down that path.

Kman,
You are skating on particularly thin ice when you mention the German atrocities, every Nation which took part in WW11, sunk to levels of inhumane acts, whilst I abhor the vagaries of war, not one participating Nation came out squeaky clean, it is just the level of the atrocities which makes the difference. On a safer note, one cannot change 'that which IS', it will have to be sufficient to say that we hope that humanity improves somewhat over future decades, and hopefully not more wars (pie in the sky? yep.)
NSB

Cutting to the nub of the matter.

I agree that

>>…the United States [is] consumed by bankruptcy and [a] corrupt and dysfunctional financial elite..,>>

China and India are not bankrupt but their elites are at least as dysfunctional and corrupt. What’s more, since China holds most of its reserves in USD, a necessary concomitant to its currency manipulation, if the US goes so does much of China’s wealth.

Reg Little makes it sound as though Asia is somehow ganging up on the “Anglo-Saxon empire.” Nothing could be further from reality. There are signs that China’s recent assertiveness and expressions of nationalism are causing disquiet among its neighbours. India and the US are drawing closer together. In fact India may one day become co-dominant with the US in the “Anglo-Saxon club” which is no longer Anglo nor Saxon anyway. (Does Barack Hussein Obama sound like an Anglo-Saxon name?)

In a turnaround that would have been considered unthinkable when Saigon fell 35 years ago, Vietnam and the US seem to be becoming de facto allies.

See:

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/04_us_vietnam_relations_tuan.aspx

>>Given the U.S. economic and security role in Asia Pacific, Vietnam welcomes active U.S. presence in the region.>>

I have no doubt that China will emerge as a great power. However whether a nation whose leadership is so insecure that it has to hide behind the “Great Firewall of China” can become a global dominant remains to be seen.

There are two ways to look at America’s current travails:

--It is in terminal decline and will soon be a negligible force

--America is undergoing one of its periodic and painful bouts of reinventing itself and will emerge stronger than ever

My GUESS is that reality lies somewhere between these two. America will never again be a global hegemon but it will remain a powerful player and will be welcomed in Asia as the only power able to help other countries deter possible Chinese aggression.

One thing. Demography is against China. It is aging rapidly – may get old before it gets rich.

This is worth hearing:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2011/3262439.htm

One point does need to be made.

If the US does implode and the situation in Asia begins destabilising Australia may have to consider acquiring the ultimate equaliser as a deterrent.

I’m referring to nukes.

India and Pakistan already have nukes.

Japan is in a sense a virtual nuclear power. It has no bomb but it is in a position to develop and deploy a nuclear deterrent very rapidly – probably within a year or two at most.

South Korea has the technology and would begin work if it appeared the US would leave it “naked” against the North and China.

The power vacuum created by a US implosion would certainly lead to a nuclear arms race in the region as countries scrambled to find a way of deterring attacks. I do not see how Indonesia and Australia could remain out of it.

To see what happens in a nuclear arms race let’s look at the Middle-East. I don’t mean Israel vs Iran. I mean Saudi Arabia vs Iran.

>>Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns>>

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran

Does anyone imagine Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and Australia would react any differently if they felt threatened?

A US implosion would cause a chain reaction in more ways than one (multiple puns intended).