We all know about the Nazis' persecution and genocide of the Jewish people on Europe, but their allies, the Japanese weren't exactly angels either.

Here is a Link (http://centurychina.com/wiihist/) which leads to a site that lists the atrocities against humanity commited by the Japanese.

Keep in mind that not only Chinese POW were treated this way. Russians, Mongolians, Koreans, Philipinos, Australians, Vietnamnese and Americans were also starved, beaten and treated in a most inhumane way.

The really sad part about this? The Japanese government has made no apology whatsoever to the people they mistreated. Atleast the German government is giving Jewish survivors entitlements.

Listing only German and Japanese atrocities during WW2 is not complete either.

In the Russian concentration and worker camps for example, more people died than in the Nazi camps.
And the Allies weren´t without guilt either. Just look for example at the treatment of Japanese-Americans during the War. Many of them had been living in the US for decades and longer, yet they were imprisoned, even tortured and killed.
The English treatment of North African and Middle East Natives was also not exactly in a gentleman´s way! :eek:

No side of the War was without atrocities, that is the really sad thing about war in general.
:(

Originally posted by Lucky
Listing only German and Japanese atrocities during WW2 is not complete either.

In the Russian concentration and worker camps for example, more people died than in the Nazi camps.
And the Allies weren´t without guilt either. Just look for example at the treatment of Japanese-Americans during the War. Many of them had been living in the US for decades and longer, yet they were imprisoned, even tortured and killed.
The English treatment of North African and Middle East Natives was also not exactly in a gentleman´s way! :eek:
:(

I'm going to try to be polite here, Lucky, but:

Russia killed more of its people BEFORE the war, and by famine rather than direct murder. Not that this makes a huge difference, but there is a difference; in Russia, no one was counting.

As for the Japanese Americans, yes, their internment - not imprisonment - was unfair, wrong and unconstitutional. But the "tortured and killed" bit is kaka. You will have to substantiate that; in my recollection, none were "tortured and killed" whatsoever.

Ditto the Mideast "natives." Take any shots at general English imperialist behavior you want, but I have a hard time remembering any WWII issues there.

Pretty much every country has done some lousy things. My great-grandfather was at the Amritsar massacre in India, so it's not as though I'm just saying that. People should beware of hypocrisy in this area.

But I think the reason Nazis and Japanese imperialists are singled out was the particularly bizarre and inhuman nature of their behavior; in the German case, the bureaucratization of extermination and murder, which turned the whole thing into just another public works project (read Hoss' - Auschwitz camp commandant's - memoirs to see what I mean), and in Japan's case, a different degree of inhumanity - not as efficient, but savage in its complete contempt for human life.

Russia was equally twisted , but I think Russia gets forgiven more often for two reasons: first, it was a regime-down battle (the starvation was a weapon against a rebellion larger than anything the Nazis ever faced in Germany), and second, because the Russian people suffered so badly at the hands of the invading Germans.

(Yes, I know, the Russians gave as "good" as they got on arrival in Germany, that's not my point)

R.III

and that fact is that not all japanse americans or german americans were intenerd in camps

there were some compnays comprasing of these cultures
the japanese were sent to europe
and the germens to asia

This is my first comment to this whole web site but here goes. In the book "Wages of Guilt" by Ian Buruma the author explores this exact dissussion. (I hope I remember this all corectly, if I don't I am sure someone will point it out) In the book the author dissusses that how after the war the Germans were seen as the "aggressors" and therefore, all of the negative qualities( the interment camps to name just one) were displayed in public (Nunenburg Trials if I remember correctly). However, the Jappanese becasue the dropping of the two atomic bombs were seen as "victims" becasue of the mass distruction that the two bombs created. The author goes on to further discuss how the Japanese goverment "while not on purpose" has tried to avoid dissussion about what they did as aggressors in the war, so that the world may see them as the victims, and therefore the "atrocities against humanity commited by the Japanese" have not been really emphased. (I hope this all makes sense.) Thank-you

I hardly see the dropping of 2 atomic bombs on Japan as "Mass Destruction". Only around 30 000 people, mostly soldiers died whereas in Nanjing alone, the Japanese killed 300 000 people who were nearly all civilians.

Sabotage, that figure is total BS.
The true figure was something like 80,000 imeadiatly killed in the two attacks (who were mainly civilians), with tens of thousands more people dieing of radiation sickness in the years after the attacks.

Originally posted by Case
The true figure was something like 80,000 imeadiatly killed in the two attacks (who were mainly civilians), with tens of thousands more people dieing of radiation sickness in the years after the attacks.

I feel that you discussed about different facts : the drop of the two A-bombs and massacre of Chinese by Japan Kwantung Army.

Regards

I feel that you discussed about different facts : the drop of the two A-bombs and massacre of Chinese by Japan Kwantung Army.I think the theme was that the Japanese loved to portray themselves as 'victims' during WW2, hence the A-bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki images but tended to neglect/ignore the atrocities their soldiers committed in the course of their campaigning across East Asia and SE Asia. This was something which frequently caused friction betw an unrepentant Japan and the other Asian countries esp China, both Koreas etc.

I think everything about Germany was exposed because of completion between the allies. Japan is differient because only one nation(US) was calling the shots there.

Originally posted by Ozz
I think everything about Germany was exposed because of completion between the allies. Japan is differient because only one nation(US) was calling the shots there. Also, after the fall of China to communism in 1949, the US decided to whitewash everything and turn Japan into their ally in Asia. The Japanese were indeed let off too easily due to the encroaching Cold War.

Originally posted by Richard III

As for the Japanese Americans, yes, their internment - not imprisonment - was unfair, wrong and unconstitutional. But the "tortured and killed" bit is kaka. You will have to substantiate that; in my recollection, none were "tortured and killed" whatsoever.

R.III

The internment thing is no big deal. I have seen several interviews where marines said they took no prisoners and there were no POWs or POW camps to speak off all the way to Japan. Most Japs wouldn't surrender but those who did were just shot on the spot.

I don't doubt that a lot of countries shot surrendering troops Kobayashi. I was referring to "Japanese-American" civilians, quoting and rebutting lucky (look above).

R.III

Hmm, first, the two A-bomb strikes netted about 100,000 killed each, so that should settle that.

Japan viewed WWII as being forced on it by the Allies, the allies having cut off raw materials to Japan as a form of leverage against Japan's imperial ambition in China (Japan felt this hypocritical, they pointed out they were doing nothing that the Europeans hadn't done a century before), so this is the root cause of their lack of repentence about the war.

Japan treated all non Japanese as inferiors, and felt no remorse about commiting any atrocity against either civilians or captured military personel.
In their culture, non-Japanese are Gai-jin, "barbarians", and are inherintly inferior, so their national character was consistant with their behavior in the war.

There were war crime trials in Japan, 7 men were executed for war crimes, but Japan still tries to play the victim to this day.

I have been told that they still do not teach the actual causes of WWII in Japan, and that many students believe that Japan was attacked by the west!

People have to get past the A-Bomb, it was viewed by the allies as just a more effective bomb, not a terror weapon.
I can't understand why people find the use of atomic weapons is somehow wrong when they don't condem TNT bombs, both kill and destroy, the A-Bomb just does it more effectively.
If people believe that bombing is terror, what difference does it make what kind of weapon is used?

I digress, but that point always bothered me.

Japan was no victim, what happened to it was a direct result of it's own arrogence and stubborness.

As for the US Neisei detainees, it was both illeagal and amoral by modern standards, but it didn't involve tortue or killings.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
People have to get past the A-Bomb, it was viewed by the allies as just a more effective bomb, not a terror weapon.
I can't understand why people find the use of atomic weapons is somehow wrong when they don't condem TNT bombs, both kill and destroy, the A-Bomb just does it more effectively.
If people believe that bombing is terror, what difference does it make what kind of weapon is used?

I digress, but that point always bothered me.
I don't entirely agree with you AoA, there has been lots of discussion on the use of conventional bombs against civilians as well. Bombings of cities by the Germans but later on in the war also by allies have raised quite a lot of discussion. It is the fact that city bombings like these are just like nukes directed against civilians rather than the army.

When you bomb a city with conventional bombs you're gonna get lots of civilian casualties, the same is the case when using nukes. Using nukes will always affect civilians as the range of influence of such a bomb is so big, on top of that there is always fall-out that harms civilians as well.

The reason why conventional bombs are not such a big issue is in my opinion in the fact that they can be aimed better nowadays to strike their goal instead of civilians and further on extensive and deliberate city bombings are not being done anymore (at least not in the western world).

Originally posted by kobayashi
Most Japs wouldn't surrender but those who did were just shot on the spot.

I think this has more to do with common sense than sheer ruthlessness. Many Japs booby trapped themselves with grenades so that they'd blow up several allied soldiers when they came near.

Besides, taking a Jap as a POW would be letting them off the hook. The Americans never mistreated their POWs the way the Japanese and Germans treated theirs (thought the Germans did treat the British well).

Originally posted by Sabotage


I think this has more to do with common sense than sheer ruthlessness. Many Japs booby trapped themselves with grenades so that they'd blow up several allied soldiers when they came near.

Besides, taking a Jap as a POW would be letting them off the hook. The Americans never mistreated their POWs the way the Japanese and Germans treated theirs (thought the Germans did treat the British well).

Common sense? What kind of answer is that? Would it have been common sense to shoot any German who surrendered too, so they wouldn't be let off the hook?

Maybe it was common sense to bomb the pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour before declaring war? Then they wouldn't be able to shoot back. (Purely Rhetoric - I don't mean to imply there is any acceptable reason for doing that)

well they made the mistake of picking the day when the US carriers were out at sea

as it turned out our carriers not out battle ships won the war for us

Originally posted by kobayashi


Common sense? What kind of answer is that? Would it have been common sense to shoot any German who surrendered too, so they wouldn't be let off the hook?

Maybe it was common sense to bomb the pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour before declaring war? Then they wouldn't be able to shoot back. (Purely Rhetoric - I don't mean to imply there is any acceptable reason for doing that)

Agreed. Then again the plan was to drop the bombs half an hour or so after a declaration of war, but someone screwed up along the line (not that it displeased all members of the government, I'm sure). It's still their fault that the declaration arrived late, of course, but it was not the original plan, at least not according to any of the variety of source I've been able to find so far on the topic.

And Yamamoto's sleeping quote (as opposed to the sleeping giant quote, which from what I hear was put in for the Tora Tora Tora movie - which despite some bouts of inventiveness was still infinitely better than a certain other recent movie on the same topic) was actually in direct relation to that :

"It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."

I am given to understand that the sleeping giant quote is in fact accurate.

still planned or not it still wiped the american pubilc and goverment into a frenzy of patratism which was probly for the better

Originally posted by Admiral_Drake
well they made the mistake of picking the day when the US carriers were out at sea

as it turned out our carriers not out battle ships won the war for us

They didn't attack the fuel depot, Carriers, Battleships are
just so much scrap iron with no fuel!.

so, how long do you think it would take for us to replace those fuel depots and fuel esspecily since we didn't know if they were going to invade the main land

The number killed in the two atomic blasts has always been contested. I'm sure it involves how you count them (by blast, by radiation) and a host of other factors. I have heard 80K in Hiroshima, 20K in Nagasaki. I suspect that these are blast numbers. For a sense of perspective, more were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo over one night (Don't have the date, sorry).

As far as the treatment of prisoners. I have not heard that Germany treated its prisoners (other than the Russians) any worse than the allied nations (Again, excepting the Russions. I saw statistics on this once, and the death rate was something like 4-6% in German camps v. 3-4% in western Allied camps. IIRC the number was 27% in Japanese camps. That number does not include the Asian prisoners.

As far as shooting those who surrender. After finding butchered marines who had surrendered on Guadalcanal, the US marines didn't take very many prisoners. The Japanese didn't try to surrender much either. Hard but true, you reap what you sow.

On atrocities: The internments of West Coast Japanese Americans was not a good thing. The Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking, Railway of Death, slave labor, forced prostitution, and that 27% casualty rate among prisoners are all downright evil. There really isn't a comparison.

Richard III, what source have you about that? I have seen no actual source (other than urban legend-style popular knowledge) about this, whereas I have heard from a few sources that it wasn't the case. If you have any further information, I'd be intereted in hearing of it.

Knowltok, while Japanesse actions during the war are definitely evil, the resonsibility of these actions seems to be hard to keep track of, as more often than not they seem to have been done by unit commanders, not through the regular channels of theater commanders.

IE, at Bataan, the Philippine commander (Homa, I think) ordered decent treatment of americans - and yes, this is documented. Apparently either someone upper in teh command line decided to go around him to give a different order (he was, AFAIK, removed from command after honoring americans in Manilla with the Star and STripes), or else the soldiers decided he didn't deserve being listened to.

It's not like the Japanesse right-wing-extremist side of the military was not used to stepping outside the command line when it felt right. Coup attempts "to protect the emperor from evil advisors" and the like were a rather commn pastime for them.

Similary, documented sources do indicate that Matsui, the general in charge around Nanking ordered that "a limited number of carefully selected units" only be let in Nankin, and that they should conduct themselves without reproach. That order apparently wasn't heard too well, given that several divisions stormed the city as we know. The diplomat (member of the foreign affair dept of Japan) Hidaka, who went to talk with Matsui at length about it, reported a rather angry general who admitted his troops had behaved in an unaceptable manner.

And it is a definite fact that the Japanesse high command did not exactly approve (but they were far from hard enough on the punishment) of what happened ; they did send a general to investigate in the event, and they did recall a number of commanding officers whose conduct was considered unaceptable. That is as far as it went, where it definitely should have gone further, but compare with the government-sanctioned action of the SS in Europe (I'm thinking especially about Poland here), and you get a somewhat different picture.

And while what Japan did was bad, none of these events, even in their combined effect, even come near the actions of Hitler in Germany. Which may be why we hear less about them than about the Holocaust.

On the other hand, it is true also that the actions of the Japanesse army were far more horrible than the actions of the American government (the internment, even the seizing everything they owned or nearly so, and selling it to americans).

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Richard III, what source have you about that? I have seen no actual source (other than urban legend-style popular knowledge) about this, whereas I have heard from a few sources that it wasn't the case. If you have any further information, I'd be intereted in hearing of it.

Knowltok, while Japanesse actions during the war are definitely evil, the resonsibility of these actions seems to be hard to keep track of, as more often than not they seem to have been done by unit commanders, not through the regular channels of theater commanders.

IE, at Bataan, the Philippine commander (Homa, I think) ordered decent treatment of americans - and yes, this is documented. Apparently either someone upper in teh command line decided to go around him to give a different order (he was, AFAIK, removed from command after honoring americans in Manilla with the Star and STripes), or else the soldiers decided he didn't deserve being listened to.

It's not like the Japanesse right-wing-extremist side of the military was not used to stepping outside the command line when it felt right. Coup attempts "to protect the emperor from evil advisors" and the like were a rather commn pastime for them.

Similary, documented sources do indicate that Matsui, the general in charge around Nanking ordered that "a limited number of carefully selected units" only be let in Nankin, and that they should conduct themselves without reproach. That order apparently wasn't heard too well, given that several divisions stormed the city as we know. The diplomat (member of the foreign affair dept of Japan) Hidaka, who went to talk with Matsui at length about it, reported a rather angry general who admitted his troops had behaved in an unaceptable manner.

And it is a definite fact that the Japanesse high command did not exactly approve (but they were far from hard enough on the punishment) of what happened ; they did send a general to investigate in the event, and they did recall a number of commanding officers whose conduct was considered unaceptable. That is as far as it went, where it definitely should have gone further, but compare with the government-sanctioned action of the SS in Europe (I'm thinking especially about Poland here), and you get a somewhat different picture.

And while what Japan did was bad, none of these events, even in their combined effect, even come near the actions of Hitler in Germany. Which may be why we hear less about them than about the Holocaust.

On the other hand, it is true also that the actions of the Japanesse army were far more horrible than the actions of the American government (the internment, even the seizing everything they owned or nearly so, and selling it to americans).

I can agree with the comparison between Japan and Germany. I think anyone could. But I think when it comes to looking at Japanese atrocities and pointing out that they may not have been specifically ordered, you touch on an even more disturbing point: the attitude was endemic in the society (At least of the army). To me it might be seen as even worse that one gerneral didn't give instructions to terrorize a city, but that individual units and soldiers took it upon themselves to use humans for bayonet practice. Especially if those actions were against direct orders.

Originally posted by Admiral_Drake
so, how long do you think it would take for us to replace those fuel depots and fuel esspecily since we didn't know if they were going to invade the main land

I was just pointing out another major blunder by the Japanese.

(Major Blunders)
1. Attacking USA, all others are minor after this one.
2. Sneak attacking USA
3. No Carriers in Pearl during attack
4. Didn't hit the fuel depot.

Those fuel depots were huge and supplied the Entire US fleet, I heard at least 3 months to get a minimal fleet capacity. The carriers and submarines would have been forced to base off the west coast for fuel with all that entailed.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Richard III, what source have you about that? I have seen no actual source (other than urban legend-style popular knowledge) about this, whereas I have heard from a few sources that it wasn't the case. If you have any further information, I'd be intereted in hearing of it.

My cautious "given to understand" was based on the idea that it wasn't simply Tora Tora Tora being dramatic; I have seen a million-odd references to the quote in sources far more reputable.

However, on reflection, have I seen anything that gives more detail on where it came from? Let me look in the big bookcase beside the computer, I'm not sure...

On the subject of shooting surrendered enemies, it is my understanding that the German troops shot all prisoners taken during the Battle of the Bulge. Sadly, this was not an unusual thing at all, just some nations (Japan) practiced it to an extent virtually unheard of to many other countries.

Oda Nobunaga, how do you substantiate your claim that the Japanese atrocities were not as bad as the Nazi's? The Japanese extensively tested biological agents on civilian populations, tortured and murdered prisoners, raped looted and pillaged at least as much as their German and Russian counterparts, and generally showed utter disregard for human life. Unit 731 may not have industrialized or specialized murder to the same degree as, say, Auschwitz, there is no grounds to state that the offenses were not as grave.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
In their culture, non-Japanese are Gai-jin, "barbarians",and are inherintly inferior, so their national character was consistant with their behavior in the war.

Gai-jin is a contraction of gaikokujin which simply means "person from another country" or "foreigner".

It is not an inherently derogatory term. Indeed, it is more polite for a Japanese person who doesn't know your name or occupation to address you as gaijin-san rather than "you".

Their behaviour during the war also reflects the particular disgust for surrender that was common amoung Japanese at the time. According to that view, those who surrender have already debased themselves far beyond anything others can do to them.

I think we all agree that the Japanese actions during, and maybe before (I don't know) World War II were atrocities of such kind we are incapable of summarizing.

The same goes for the German actions before and during the war..

The same goes for the Soviet actions before, during and after the war.

The Allies did an important job liberating Europe from the clutches of Hitler as well as preventing Stalin from extending his power too far.

The price was high.

500,000 German civlists died. This number is not very high compared to other nations such as Poland, the Soviet Union or Jugoslavia, but it still is very high.
By almost or completely destroying several German cities during the bombing raids, the Allies proved to be not much better than the Germans themselves.

I will not discuss here wether this was a necessity or not.
I only wanted to show you how two-sided history sometimes is.

It's pretty hard to argue that the British policy of deliberetly 'dehousing' German civilians by carpet bombing their cities wasn't a war crime.

Originally posted by Case
It's pretty hard to argue that the British policy of deliberetly 'dehousing' German civilians by carpet bombing their cities wasn't a war crime.

dude that is called sweet revenge
do you know how many birtish were kiled in delbriate cilvallin attacks by the germens

if your gonna play war be prepared for the casulatys

dude that is called sweet revenge
do you know how many birtish were kiled in delbriate cilvallin attacks by the germens

if your gonna play war be prepared for the casulatys

I take from your embarrasing misspelling of the words "british", "civilian", "german" and "casualties" that you don't really care for anything considering these terms.

Tecksan.

Originally posted by Case
It's pretty hard to argue that the British policy of deliberetly 'dehousing' German civilians by carpet bombing their cities wasn't a war crime. The whole concept of bombing is often parried about as to what is a war crime and what isn't.

Europe from the 16th century foward began "formalizing" warfare, the so called "honors of war" and such, to spare populations the effects of fighting.

We see this pattern continue into the 19th century, where civilain populations barely are affected directly by fighting, but the 20th century brought a return to the older and more common "total war" concept, which, in fact, the USA reintroduced in it's Civil war of the 1860s, and the Great war brought back in full force.

I find the concept of trying to fight wars with 'kid gloves" on somewhat ludicrous, and ultimetly self-defeating, and the leaders of WWII understood this perfectly.

Roosevelt, a man of great compasion, had no problem with bombing German and Japanese cities into oblivion, because he understood it would save the lives of his own people (which is the PARAMOUNT concideration of a national leader) and end the war more swiftly.

I personally understand the horror people feel about civilians being killed and bombed, but I also agree with what was done and how it was done, simply because wars are fought to be won, and this was a war (the second world war) where good and evil are clearly defined.

If you try to fight with rules, this only works if both sides comply.
An example is Vietnam.
US forces engaged and fought a bloody stalemate for 7 years (65-72) because they had many "rules of engagement" that attempted to stay withen international treaty, whereas the communist foes broke treaties at a whim, and understood that in war the end justifies the means.

It is my belief that if citizens are producing the weapons of war, they are a legitimate target for bombing, and this was the allied approach to strategic bombing in WWII.
In fact, all the major powers bombed civilian targets at one time or another, in there was a military target in the area, it isn't a war crime, it would be a war crime to bomb a target of NO military value.
Thus, Hamburg was a legitamte target, but Nuremburg was not, as Hamburg had a military port and aircraft and munitions industries, wheras Churchill ordered Nuremburg destroyed because it was the "heart" of the Nazi movement.

Does that mean I agree with it?
No, I disagree with all war, but I think it rather childish to argue for rules for killing, if you fight a war, fight it to win.

Mrog,
Please do not try to correct me when I am not in error, I know the difference between gaikokujin and Gai-Jin, I learned it in Japan, Gai-Jin is a derogotory term, even though westerners are told it's sometimes not.
In this culture, all people not decendent from the sun goddess Amatsuteru (Meaning ALL non-Japanese) and inferior by definition, which helps to explain the brutality displayed against fellow asians such as the Koreans and Chinese, and why people in places like Okinawa were considered second class citizens, even though they are of Japanese extraction.
This has changed somewhat since the 1940s, but it isn't completely gone.

right..as they say there are no rules in love and war

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

Please do not try to correct me when I am not in error, I know the difference between gaikokujin and Gai-Jin, I learned it in Japan, Gai-Jin is a derogotory term, even though westerners are told it's sometimes not.

In present day usage "gaijin" may be derogatory or a simple statement of fact, it all depends on the context.

In this culture, all people not decendent from the sun goddess Amatsuteru (Meaning ALL non-Japanese) and inferior by definition, which helps to explain the brutality displayed against fellow asians such as the Koreans and Chinese, and why people in places like Okinawa were considered second class citizens, even though they are of Japanese extraction.]This has changed somewhat since the 1940s, but it isn't completely gone.


I agree that was probably a large part of the explanation for Japanese war crimes.

This has changed somewhat since the 1940s, but it isn't completely gone.

Yes to some extent it lingers, particularly with regard to the Koreans and Chinese and the term "sangokujin" (which is most definitely insulting) is sometimes used to refer to them and Taiwanese people. It is less apparent with regard to westeners, particularly amoung the younger generation. Indeed there seems to be an increasing trend for young Japanese people regarding themselves as inferior to westerners.

Originally posted by Admiral_Drake


dude that is called sweet revenge
do you know how many birtish were kiled in delbriate cilvallin attacks by the germens

if your gonna play war be prepared for the casulatys

:rolleyes:

I understand that the reasons that Osama Bin Laden hates the US include his belief that the US has been responcible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and is partially responcible for the death of hundreds of Palistinian civilians.

I guess that by your reasoning the September 11 attacks on American civilians were fully justified...

Roadwarriors, there's one simple way to explain why I view the Japanesse (and russians) as one step lower than the Germans on the horror scale. In fact, one word can sum it up.

Genocide.

Even with unit 731, the Japanesse didn't try their hand at genocide, unless you play by a very large definition of genocide. They comitted a swarm of atrocities every inch as bad as those comitted by the nazi (slavery, slaughters, nankin, etc), but genocide wasn't one of them. They were racist, but their racism was more expressed in considering "lower" people as "expendable" as opposed to Hitler's view that the (evil) jews needed to either be forever removed from Europe, by death preferably.

AoA, only the emperor was a descendant of Amaterasu. That was what his whole claim to the throne was built on* - but he was made to renounce that in 1945.

*Specificaly, the emperor was descended from the grandsom of Amaterasu, whom she sent down to earth to become emperor.

So the whole Japaensse nation can't feel superior "Because they think they are descendants of Amaterasu and others aren't.". They did feel superior, but the reasons for this are far more varied, and far reduced by now.

Still, I will agree with you on the one point that now there is such a thing as contempt and distrust toward westerners in Japan. It's nowhere near World War II level, but it's there.

As for the using of A-bombs knowltok2 mentioned what I was about to quote also: the bombing of Tokyo shortly before had more civilian casulties.
Personally I don't think that using the A-bombs was necessary, it had more political reason than military one. If the Americans didn't want to invade Japan (which I understand they didn't want) they could have carpet bomb the country with the 'traditional' methods like in the case of Tokyo.
But on the other hand people think and act in a different way in war than in peace: I guess the Americans were so pissed off by 1945 that they didn't think of the consequences of these military steps as we do it now. It was the same with the English when bombing Germany. Struggling through years without major success but many humiliation cumulated a lot of agression in military leaders in the Allied side by the time they had the tools to revenge. That's the easiest argument: you have started the game so don't blame us!

And for the Battle of Bulge and the killing of prisoners, I think particularly the SS was responsible for this and at that time there was an SS unit unfortunately.

Originally posted by klazlo
Personally I don't think that using the A-bombs was necessary, it had more political reason than military one. If the Americans didn't want to invade Japan (which I understand they didn't want) they could have carpet bomb the country with the 'traditional' methods like in the case of Tokyo.

This subject has been thoroughly debated in other threads, but I should note:

1) I don't think its fair to claim revenge was the motivation. There is no evidence that the bomb was dropped out of spite; in fact, there was a good deal of hand-wringing about civilian casualties by leading officials in several cases, both related to the A-bombings and conventional attacks as well.

2) The US was also motivated by intelligence that demonstrated that the air and sea blockade was not effective in preventing the armament of the civilian population, preparations for an invasion defence or in demoralizing the military regime.

It's not like they could have just "waited" a year for Japan to cave; half the reason for the war was to liberate peoples under occupation, and at that point, that figure included several countries and a healthy quantity of starving Allied prisoners.

See "Downfall" by R. Frank and the LAst Great Victory by Weintraub for more on these themes.

R.III

The Japanese commited atrocities, but the Americans knew it and covered it up so that they could obtain the NBC technology.

Originally posted by Richard III


1) I don't think its fair to claim revenge was the motivation. There is no evidence that the bomb was dropped out of spite; in fact, there was a good deal of hand-wringing about civilian casualties by leading officials in several cases, both related to the A-bombings and conventional attacks as well.
R.III

What I basically wanted to say (and maybe was not entirely clear) is that using the A-bomb was not plain revenge, they wanted to use (test in live) an ultimate weapon to finish the war as soon as possible (because they had enough of it) and it was correlated with their political interests as well. It was a good occasion to try a new weapon with major public support.
But you're right, sorry for hijacking this thread with this.

Originally posted by Sayhueque
The Japanese commited atrocities, but the Americans knew it and covered it up so that they could obtain the NBC technology.

I think that the US covered up for the Japanese government more because of growing tensions with the Soviets. Policy makers saw that a friendly base of operations near mainland Asia would be very beneficial, so they mad a conscious decision to downlplay Japanese atrocities in order to gain acceptance for their policies. Like we are told that Hirohito really didn't want war, while there has been evidence that he was as militaristic as any of his generals. It is reasonable to think that getting ahold of Japanese wartime technology factored into the treatment of Japan psot-WW2, but that is not the only or even the primary reason.

The Australian government was very keen to hang Hirohito for his various war crimes. However, the Americans (probably correctly) decided that this wouldn't really be in the long term interests of Japan and the west.

One of the biggest japanese atrocities would be the 'comfort women' where they conscripted women from korea, china, philipines etc to make a institutionalized army prostitutes.
As a person who studies korean history, i'm sometimes enraged at the way japanese committed atrocities and how they are victimized only because they got 'imprisoned' in North america and because they got smashed by an a-bomb.
Thinking about the people they killed....
It's so sad.
And they don't even apologize and actually, still glorify the war criminals.
There is another saying that, without korean specimens used in biological and chemical experiment done by japan, world medicine would have been 30 years backward.

I have pretty much the same feelings, stationery. It's one of my rants against the present-day Japanese govt and people, esp when yet another high lvl Japanese govt official (the PM sometimes) makes yet another visit to that shrine. :mad:

BTW, are you Korean per chance?

No. Canadian.
Just studying korean history and all that.
What about you?
Probably Chinese. I saw you refered to China as 'us'.
So you must be Chinese.

Yep, Chinese. Not China Chinese, but M'sian Chinese. ;)

The Japanese raped tevery women in our country not only us but in thier occupied countries they are merciless in raping women not only women but also gays they are sexually maniac during war times and pluder our rich natural resources

I suppose they eat children while they're at it?

That Japanesse soldiers in World War II raped many women in conquered territories is definitely true (then again, it's true of many armies throughout history - not like the Japanesse invented it, though they kept the idea around somewhat longer than most). Using the term "every" is, of course, an exxageration.

As for plundering your rich natural resources, they did what just about every other "modern" civ did before and after them. Heck, now most poor countries have a handful (like 1%) of locals plus international companies plundering the resources while the rest stay poor). Why Japan should get more blame out of it is beyond me...

As for raping gay everywhere, care to document that claim?

I read most but I am tired hope I didn't miss someone saying this.
Now is it completely true that they were innocent civilians. I mean they weren't part of the Army but they were going to fight. Did we save more people by dropping the bombs? We may have but that will never be known because we can't go back.

Yes dropping those bombs saved the lives of people. If the Allied forces were to stage an assault on Japan, not only would Japanese soldiers be involved, but the Japanese civilians, most of them armed with nothing but bamboo spears would also go on the defensive. In other words, if the allied invaded Hiroshima, not only would those civilians that would have died in the nuke explosion die anyway, but they'd take hundreds of thousands of Allied Soldiers with them.

No good national leader would send his troops off to die when there are alternative methods. Roosevelt knew this and decided that it'd be better to win by a show of force rather than a bloody amphibious landing.

Originally posted by Sabotage
Yes dropping those bombs saved the lives of people. If the Allied forces were to stage an assault on Japan, not only would Japanese soldiers be involved, but the Japanese civilians, most of them armed with nothing but bamboo spears would also go on the defensive. In other words, if the allied invaded Hiroshima, not only would those civilians that would have died in the nuke explosion die anyway, but they'd take hundreds of thousands of Allied Soldiers with them.

No good national leader would send his troops off to die when there are alternative methods. Roosevelt knew this and decided that it'd be better to win by a show of force rather than a bloody amphibious landing.

This has been debated on other threads as well, but the bottom line is Japan was prepared to surrender, but not unconditionally. The US dropped the bomb to force unconditional surrender and pre-empt the Soviet invasion, which would have entitled the Soviets to land holdings because of agreements at Yalta. After the Soviets entered the war, Japan knew that their plans for a condtional surrender were hopeless (they wanted the Soviet Union to broker the deal) and surrendered. What did we do? Gave them a conditional surrender, like they wanted, because we wanted to control Japan and turn it into a non-communist buffer state against the Soviet Union.

It has been documented that the dropping of the A-bombs did little, if anything, to change the mind of the Japanese government. The real moment which forced their immediate surrender was the entrance of the Soviet Union into the Pacific War. They had been trying to open diplomatic channels for weeks with the Soviets, but the Soviets had stonewalled them. The Soviets wanted a piece of Japan, so they could set it up like they did in Germany.

Um, no cephyn. No.

I won't bother with the tiresome debate about the Soviets, but I will bother to dispute the issue with the surrender. Because the real moment which forced their immediate surrender was the second bomb - which barely succeeded in doing the persuading. I should add that this is not just an opinion; japanese documentation confirms it.

And the conditional surrender that the Japanese wanted until that second bomb was not just the preservation of the emporer, but the preservation of Japanese soveriegnty. Essentially, the government wanted to be able to "barter colonies" for territorial and institutional integrity - in other words, to achieve a reward for their aggression that would allow the idealogy of Japanese militarism to save face and come away with a moral victory.

Which, considering the immorality of what was done prior, was and should be unnacceptable to anyone.

Originally posted by Richard III
Um, no cephyn. No.

I won't bother with the tiresome debate about the Soviets, but I will bother to dispute the issue with the surrender. Because the real moment which forced their immediate surrender was the second bomb - which barely succeeded in doing the persuading. I should add that this is not just an opinion; japanese documentation confirms it.



Got a source? I want to see it. I've not seen any documentation to that effect. Here's the info i have:

July 26, Potsdam Declaration, ignored by Japan. Stalin plans to enter the war on Aug 11

Aug 6 Hiroshima bombed
Aug 7 Minister Togo sends urgent telegram to Sato, ambassador to Soviet Union (still counting on Soviet mediation)
Aug 8 Stalin changes date of invasion to Aug 9, gives Molotov the declaration of war on Japan
Aug 9 Soviets enter teh war, Manchuria invaded 5 hours before teh Japanese hear of the declaration of war
Aug 9 Nagasaki bombed
Aug 9 Japanese War Council convened, split 3-3 over surrender. Don't you think that, if the Nagasaki bomb had such an effect, they would have voted to surrender??
Aug 10 Imperial Council called (after they hear of the Soviet invasion and declaration of war, first time an Imperial Council had been called during the war) decision made to accept Potsdam Declaration with ONE condition, sent to Byrne
Aug 11 Byrne rejects 1-condition surrender
Aug 14 2nd Imperial Council, decides to accept unconditional surrender
Aug 15 US orders cease fire, Soviets move into Kuril Islands

Now, if the Nagasaki bomb was so decisive, why was the War council split? Why did it take 2 unprecedented Imperial Councils to accept unconditional surrender 4 days after the bomb?

Im open to debate. 8)

That Japanesse soldiers in World War II raped many women in conquered territories is definitely true (then again, it's true of many armies throughout history - not like the Japanesse invented it, though they kept the idea around somewhat longer than most). Using the term "every" is, of course, an exxageration.

Well, yes, soldiers raping women happened a lot in history.
But What is important here is that japan institutionalized it and made it something that is totally ok to do.
My general understanding is that, throughout the history, army leaders refrained their soldiers from raping and robbing if they were sensible leaders. However, in japan's case, we see that the high officials actually encouraged the soldiers to do it and they set it up for them. Not only that, after the war, they killed those women as if they were trash that is done and over with.
And Using the therm 'every' is of course exageration. If someone doesn't understand that it is an exageration, I doubt that person's intelligence.

As for plundering your rich natural resources, they did what just about every other "modern" civ did before and after them. Heck, now most poor countries have a handful (like 1%) of locals plus international companies plundering the resources while the rest stay poor). Why Japan should get more blame out of it is beyond me...

Oh, so it's ok to plunder other country because everyone did it back than?
Maybe I should go about killing people because some murderers are doing it as well.

i remind you that after carpet bombing,
the people are killed, some might survive
building break apart, but the land is only burn....

but after nuclear bombing,
all people in the city are rip apart,
anyone not in NBC near the city dies slow painfully death
(think : cancer spreading to every cell in minutes)
nuclear cloud spead the decay to nearby settlement...
the land is unihabitable for 100 of years...

:nuke: :scan: :nuke:

how many have work with radioactivity stuff before?
biotechnologist use them for many reasons like locating inserted GM etc....
but most importantly, it is the easiest way to create genetic mutation :D

for a person who say the nuke is just a very powerful bomb....
you haven't seen the effect of a nuclear fallout.
you may think I am bluffing but I am not....

- - - - -

The japanese imperial rapist marine corp..... well you know!
they are mass rapist.... it was in their blood! :cry:

for the US to side with them.....
that truely sux!!! :rolleyes:

>>>>nuclear cloud spead the decay to nearby settlement...
the land is unihabitable for 100 of years...
<<<<

for modern nukes, in the 10s of megatons, yes. But for the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs, not so -- Nagasaki and Hiroshima are large metropolises today, and theyre not full of radioactive mutants. ;)

True, japan doesn't suffer that kind of mutation problems or anything like that do they?
That's out of question. Japan doesn't even suffer from the points you made, akinkhoo.

The Japanese made four military innovations in World War 2:

(a) they were the first to successfully co-ordinate
air power, surface ships and submarine shipping
on a strategic basis;

(b) they were the first to use bicycles on a large scale
e.g. in Malaysia to create a supply independent
mobile force;

(c) they invented the concept of the suicide bomber;
their Kami-Kaze attacks on US ships; (should Osama
Bin Ladin pay them for Intellectual Property Rights); and

(d) they pioneered inter-continental bombing by
attaching bombs and incendiaries to balloons
although this was not very successful.

Originally posted by stationery2


Well, yes, soldiers raping women happened a lot in history.
But What is important here is that japan institutionalized it and made it something that is totally ok to do.

True, Japan did far worse than the average country in history.

My general understanding is that, throughout the history, army leaders refrained their soldiers from raping and robbing if they were sensible leaders. However, in japan's case, we see that the high officials actually encouraged the soldiers to do it and they set it up for them. Not only that, after the war, they killed those women as if they were trash that is done and over with.

After the war? I doubt they had any power left to do that, after the war. Refused to pay them compensation, yes, that they did (though I think they finally got around to apologizing lately).

And Using the therm 'every' is of course exageration. If someone doesn't understand that it is an exageration, I doubt that person's intelligence.

Yeah, but the poster irritated me. He seemed intent on painting Japan as absolute black. Japan's actions were dark - very much so, true, but even they pale in comparison to the Holocaust on the other side of the word at the same time.

Oh, so it's ok to plunder other country because everyone did it back than?

No. But it's not ok to post a rant about "evil Japan and only evil japan who plundered our resources and kept our resources-rich nation poor"*, or to blame Japan *out of the lots of all other nations*, since everyone was doing it.

*To see it another way, what's your usual answer when someone say : "The current state of the Middle-East is all the Western World fault for plundering us et al"?

Maybe I should go about killing people because some murderers are doing it as well.

Heh.

I do not say "The Japanesse are right in what they did because others did it." (on the plundering side). I say "It's wrong to blame all the plundering (even in the Philipines) on Japan when they were far from the only ones to play that game (and its still being played by many in lots of places)."



That said, I agree that Japanesse behavior on average was *very, very, very wrong* during the war. Not quite Holocaust-level wrong (which is why I'd tend to say Nazi Germany did somewhat worse), but very wrong still.

But "Japanesse are devils born in hell and sexual maniacs" kind of post just annoy the hell out of me - just like "All palestinians are devils born in hells with horns on top of their head" posts annoy me.

In fact, anyone painting anything as utterly evil (black) annoys me. Dark gray, yes, very dark gray, yes. but utterly evil just doesn't exist in this world. Just like utterly good (white).

The black and white vision of this world just get on my nerves.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga


That said, I agree that Japanesse behavior on average was *very, very, very wrong* during the war. Not quite Holocaust-level wrong (which is why I'd tend to say Nazi Germany did somewhat worse), but very wrong still.

But "Japanesse are devils born in hell and sexual maniacs" kind of post just annoy the hell out of me - just like "All palestinians are devils born in hells with horns on top of their head" posts annoy me.

In fact, anyone painting anything as utterly evil (black) annoys me. Dark gray, yes, very dark gray, yes. but utterly evil just doesn't exist in this world. Just like utterly good (white).

The black and white vision of this world just get on my nerves.

I agree with you here Nobunaga. Some people are intent on saying things like "rape was in the Japanese blood" -- if so, why is the crime rate in Japan one of hte lowest in the world? And no, its not that people aren't reporting it.

People talk of nuclear wasteland, but the fact is that the radiation from a 15 kiloton nuke is very weak and short lived. Chernobyl was/is far more dangerous.

Was Japan as bad as Germany? Well, the Nanjing massacre was deplorable, one of the worst events in World War II. The Japanese treatment of POWs was worse than anyone in the world. Why was Japan so "evil?" Was it in their blood? well, in a sense, yes -- but they believed it to be so.

Starting in the 1820s and gaining steam up to 1868 was a movement in Japan -- sonno joi -- to "revere the emperor, expel the barbarian." Hooked onto this was a revival of the belief of the superiority of the Yamato bloodline. While Japan was humiliated in 1853 by Perry, causing the eventual downfall of the shogunate and the samurai class, the Meiji government was initially still dominated by samurai. Warrior spirit and the superiority of the Japanese blood was paramount to their thinking.

Early Meiji era intellectuals dabbled with Natural Rights philosophy -- Rousseau, Locke, etc -- stuff that founded the US, modern Britain and France -- they even set up the government based on these principles. They said to the West "Hey look, we're modern! Treat us with respect! Revise unfair treaties!" Secretly, they believed they had only been able to do this because of their superior bloodline -- China, Korea, SE Asia were no where near their new level of sophistication.

The west ignored Japan. Japan looked and saw that the most powerful countries werent following rights of man anymore, they were following Imperialsm and social darwinism. Since Japan believed themselves to be a superior race, they latched onto this "scientific" theory of social darwinism and began their descent into imperialism and militarism.

1895 invade and defeat China
1905 invade and defeat Russia

Only then did the West realize that Japan was a new asian force to be reckoned with...and Japan was intent on setting up colonies and controlling Asia. What was their racial plan? To exterminate, like Germany?

No. Japan, although firmly believing they were asuperior race, did NOT want to exterminate other races -- this was foolish. Influenced by Confucian philosophy, they believed that every race held a place in teh heirarchy of society -- Japanese on top. Through the "guidance" (ie Rule, Domination) of Japan, all asian peoples would rise to their natural level in the heirarchy. Extermination wasn't the plan.

Now, regarding the West, they were to be expelled at all costs. They were invaders who planned to rape and kill all Japanese, because they feared teh Japanese superiorty. Their only goal was to humiliate and destroy Japan. That is why Japanese would rather have died than be captured -- they bought into the propaganda. Hirohito in his speech saying that Japan had surrendered asked the people -- who had never heard his voice before --- asked them to "bear the unbearable" -- bear the humiliation of defeat, as well as atrocities against them just as they had done to the US.

Sorry for the long post. got carried away. :)

They veiwed themselves as champions against imperialism and they went about ending imperialism by building an empire.

Originally posted by cephyn:

"And no, its not that people aren't reporting it."

Well to my understanding, in Japan, when a woman is raped, it is seen to be a great dishonour and a disgrace to her. Reporting it and otherwise letting people know about it would be making her loose face, a great Taboo in nearly all asian cultures.

Also, if you don't think that there is any crime in Japan, what about the Yakuza? They're one of the most vicious criminal gangs in Japan, if not the world. Their crimes aren't heard because either people are too afraid to report them or because they bribe government officials into downplaying their crimes.

Remember that Japan has about 1500 political parties. Don't tell me that none of these are incorruptable.

Originally posted by Sabotage
Originally posted by cephyn:

"And no, its not that people aren't reporting it."

Well to my understanding, in Japan, when a woman is raped, it is seen to be a great dishonour and a disgrace to her. Reporting it and otherwise letting people know about it would be making her loose face, a great Taboo in nearly all asian cultures.

Given that we discussed such topics in my classes on modern Japan in university last term (I'm from Canada, studying in Eastern Asian studies and History), and that I heard nothing of the "non-reported rapes" problem you believe exist, I'm a bit surprised.

It's not impossible, but I've never heard of such a problem. And frankly, defending an accusation against the Japanesse (of them being sexual maniacs) with a simple "Maybe they aren't reporting it" when the point of few rapes is made is rather weak.

Also, if you don't think that there is any crime in Japan, what about the Yakuza?

There is crime in japan, but the crime rate is very low. Which is what the original poster said.

They're one of the most vicious criminal gangs in Japan, if not the world. Their crimes aren't heard because either people are too afraid to report them

If their crimes aren't heard, how do you know they happen? Seriously, yes, there's crime ni Japan, but the crime rate is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, among the modern countries.

Saying "maybe there's more that isn'T reported" is pointless- it apply to *ALL* countries equally.

or because they bribe government officials into downplaying their crimes.

Remember that Japan has about 1500 political parties. Don't tell me that none of these are incorruptable.

Remember that the number of political parties is largely irrelevant since the number of parties which held power between 1945 and 1992 or so is as follow : 1.

Sure they are corruptible. But there's no reason to believe the corruption problem is worse than it is anywhere else in the world. And *MOST* of the corruption problem comes not from the Yazuka, but from the industrial conglomerates (IE, the people who gives them financial backing), much like in any other country. *CoughEnroncoughGroupactioncough*



Japan (post-war) isn't much of a dark country of any sort. I don't know why you try to defend a darker view of Japan without relying on any fact.

If you talked about the schoolbooks, then yes, I could agree. But if you want to attack modern Japan (or Japan, period), rely on facts, not on personal theories on how things might actually be without facts to back it up...

Originally posted by Sabotage
Originally posted by cephyn:

"And no, its not that people aren't reporting it."

Well to my understanding, in Japan, when a woman is raped, it is seen to be a great dishonour and a disgrace to her. Reporting it and otherwise letting people know about it would be making her loose face, a great Taboo in nearly all asian cultures.

Also, if you don't think that there is any crime in Japan, what about the Yakuza? They're one of the most vicious criminal gangs in Japan, if not the world. Their crimes aren't heard because either people are too afraid to report them or because they bribe government officials into downplaying their crimes.

Remember that Japan has about 1500 political parties. Don't tell me that none of these are incorruptable.

Im not arguing with most of this. What i'm saying is that the crime rate in Japan is very low compared to the rest of the industrialized countries. For example, compared to Japan, the United States larceny rate is 4 times greater, the rape rate is nearly 25 times greater and the robbery rate is a staggering 140 times greater. This is not because people are just saving face. While there has been a rise in the crime rate since 1998, it is still FAR lower than the US, UK, France or Germany.

While the Yakuza are by no means pacifist or friendly, they patrol the regions of the city they control and keep non-organized crime very low. In heavy Yakuza-populated areas, teh crime rate (minus that committed by the Yakuza) is even lower than in the general population.

Originally posted by stationery2
My general understanding is that, throughout the history, army leaders refrained their soldiers from raping and robbing if they were sensible leaders.Not really, it depends on which army we're talking about. Like the Mongols (and other nomadic hordes), women were considered loot as well. ;)

However, in japan's case, we see that the high officials actually encouraged the soldiers to do it and they set it up for them. Not only that, after the war, they killed those women as if they were trash that is done and over with.Well, the Imperial Japanese Army definitely had a program to set up groups of these comfort women to serve the needs of the soldiers all around their realm.

But I don't think the killing part was realistic. Many survived the war till even today and are still demanding compensation and admission fr Japan today.

Originally posted by Sabotage
Well to my understanding, in Japan, when a woman is raped, it is seen to be a great dishonour and a disgrace to her. Reporting it and otherwise letting people know about it would be making her loose face, a great Taboo in nearly all asian cultures.It's certainly true. People will look at rape victims differently no matter what, so many cases go unreported. It's a matter of 'face', not just to the victim but also to the family. Although I think such an attitude is slowly ebbing away today with Westernization. :)

Remember that Japan has about 1500 political parties. Don't tell me that none of these are incorruptable.Even the big parties are corrupt. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by cephyn
No. Japan, although firmly believing they were asuperior race, did NOT want to exterminate other races -- this was foolish. Influenced by Confucian philosophy, they believed that every race held a place in teh heirarchy of society -- Japanese on top. Through the "guidance" (ie Rule, Domination) of Japan, all asian peoples would rise to their natural level in the heirarchy. Extermination wasn't the plan.Japan got this attitude fr the Chinese. For the Chinese, they view themselves as culturally superior to everyone else. This's still prevalent today.

However (unlike the Japanese), it's hard to feel racially superior since many Chinese look the same as the surrounding peoples like Mongolians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Thais etc. It's more prevalent for Chinese fr certain regions (north) to look down on Chinese fr other regions (south). ;)

Sorry for the long post. got carried away. :)Nice post though. :goodjob:

But I don't think the killing part was realistic. Many survived the war till even today and are still demanding compensation and admission fr Japan today.

No, no. They did kill the women after they 'used' them.
Think about that. What defeated army would wanna carry women who are seemingly useless with them? They can't fight, they consume food, and they slow down the march.
Even before the defeat of japan, they killed a lot of them.
Some women sure were violently killed just because they refused to have intercourse with soldiers.
Sometimes, killing is more amusing than just raping i suppose.:mad:
The fact that there are 'this many' survivor now means that there were probably innormous number of them during WWII.

Not really, it depends on which army we're talking about. Like the Mongols (and other nomadic hordes), women were considered loot as well.

Well, if the leaders were sensible and if they had manners. I guess the army like mongolian one probably have done as you say.

Knight-Dragon said:

"Japan got this attitude fr the Chinese. For the Chinese, they view themselves as culturally superior to everyone else. This's still prevalent today."

This is very true. But if you think of it, it could just be seen as an extention of National Pride. But the "I'm better because I'm from the north" additude is just plain idiotic. If you know howto speak Chinese (Mandarin) then you would know that China is actually "Zhong-Goug" (correct me if I'm wrong) which litterally means "Middle Nation or Middle Kingdom".

While Australians are proud to be Aussie, we don't really see ourselves as being above others. While we may dislike the Yanks to an extent and think of the Kiwis as nothing but our outcasted sheep loving cousins, we don't totally look down on them, nor do we distrust them. Atleast not generally, there will always be elitists and dickheads in the world, it can't be helped. If it could be helped, then many wars would never have occured.

Originally posted by stationery2


No, no. They did kill the women after they 'used' them.
Think about that. What defeated army would wanna carry women who are seemingly useless with them? They can't fight, they consume food, and they slow down the march.
Even before the defeat of japan, they killed a lot of them.
Some women sure were violently killed just because they refused to have intercourse with soldiers.
Sometimes, killing is more amusing than just raping i suppose.:mad:
The fact that there are 'this many' survivor now means that there were probably innormous number of them during WWII.



There are cases of the murdering of comfort women, but they are not widespread. The comfort women were organized BY the army specifically to follow the units of soldiers around. In some ways it was seen as a more healthy, controlled way for the soldiers to release sexual tension. Part of the hope was that it would improve discipline during battle -- if youre raping some woman in a war zone, the enemy could catch you with your pants down.

The use of comfort women was also a price the conquered were expected to pay. When Japan was first occupied by the US, the conquered generals offered to organize troops of Japanese comfort women for the US to use.

Originally posted by Sabotage
This is very true. But if you think of it, it could just be seen as an extention of National Pride. But the "I'm better because I'm from the north" additude is just plain idiotic. If you know howto speak Chinese (Mandarin) then you would know that China is actually "Zhong-Goug" (correct me if I'm wrong) which litterally means "Middle Nation or Middle Kingdom".Yes I do speak Mandarin (even understand a few dialects). :) Zhongguo actually means more like the Central State or the State in the Center (of the world).

China is big country and some regions (like the north) had been Chinese for much longer. Hence the I-am-more-Chinese-than-you attitude/mentality. ;) It's like the Roman empire had survived to today and then, you had the Italian Romans looking down on all the provincials just cos they're the original Roman homeland.

But that attitude is breaking down esp since Guangdong (in the deep south) being a powerful economy in its own right nowadays. Also the example of HK.

There are cases of the murdering of comfort women, but they are not widespread. The comfort women were organized BY the army specifically to follow the units of soldiers around. In some ways it was seen as a more healthy, controlled way for the soldiers to release sexual tension. Part of the hope was that it would improve discipline during battle -- if youre raping some woman in a war zone, the enemy could catch you with your pants down.

Your quote does not contradict what I said cephyn.
What you are sauing is about the pros of the comfort women.
I was saying that they did kill many women after using them.

"they killed a lot of them
Some women sure were violently killed just because they refused to have intercourse with soldiers.
Sometimes, killing is more amusing than just raping i suppose.
The fact that there are 'this many' survivor now means that there were probably innormous number of them during WWII."

Thats what you said. I'm saying it wasn't like that. First, the killing of comfort women did not happen "a lot"
There was not an "enormous" number of them during the war compared to after because they killed "a lot" of them.

While they may have killed women who refused to have sex with them, those were not "comfort women" -- they were women whom the Japanese soldiers were encouraged to rape as the spoils of war. (like in Nanjing) Killing of the comfort women was forbidden -- they were army property. It would be like a soldier going around and burning food rations or breaking weapons. Not a good idea, not sanctioned by the military, not a common occurrance.

If what i'm saying doesnt differ from what youre saying, its because youre not clearly differentiating "comfort women" from "women" in general.

Originally posted by akinkhoo
for the US to side with them.....
that truely sux!!! :rolleyes:

What do you mean by this? In my revisionist history books the US fought against the Japanese in WWII.

Originally posted by knowltok2
What do you mean by this? In my revisionist history books the US fought against the Japanese in WWII. He meant after the war, when the Cold War came up. Then the Americans forgave all, and began to turn Japan into their Asian bastion.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
He meant after the war, when the Cold War came up. Then the Americans forgave all, and began to turn Japan into their Asian bastion.

That's "Realpolitik" for you. The Cold War began while the US was still occupying Japan. It was rather natural to turn it into our forward base in Asia. After the occupation ended, it was in the US best interest to continue a close relationship with Japan for the very same reason.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
He meant after the war, when the Cold War came up. Then the Americans forgave all, and began to turn Japan into their Asian bastion.

Okay. But I wouldn't say forgave all. There were Japanese war crimes trials, though not at a level to match the German ones.

As switch says, Realpolitik for you. Sad but true. Much was done during the cold war that would not have otherwise been done. :(

The war crimes were before the moment the Cold War became a reality I think. There're only 7 who're sent to the gallows - that's the no of interns at that Japanese shrine for their war dead at any rate.

Thats what you said. I'm saying it wasn't like that. First, the killing of comfort women did not happen "a lot"

How sad....
Even a single woman being raped and killed like that is 'a lot' don't you think?
You are saying there wasn't a lot of them...
I'm at the point of enrage.:mad:


they were army property

Indeed they were army property.
And that's why an individual soldier didn't kill (of course they did but anyway...), but the whole army did.

Originally posted by stationery2


How sad....
Even a single woman being raped and killed like that is 'a lot' don't you think?
You are saying there wasn't a lot of them...
I'm at the point of enrage.:mad:




Indeed they were army property.
And that's why an individual soldier didn't kill (of course they did but anyway...), but the whole army did.

jebus man, of course i dont approve of ANY raping and killing. But this isn't a discussion on whether or not it was wrong, its a matter of what happened and what didnt -- whether i approve of it or not is irrelevant.

With your argument, then all the killing and raping anyone has ever done is too much -- and maybe so! but that doesnt mean we shouldnt set the record straight on what happend, what didnt, and why or why not -- THATS history.

So dont be enraged -- if you can't engage in historical discussion, backed up by facts and evidence, and you just get enraged that other people have better support, don't enter the discussion -- youre only going to upset yourself.

Alright.
I'll just get off.
I don't find any more meaning in 'discussing' this.

cephyn..

from what you are saying, I get the feeling that what you are trying to get across is: The Japanese did not kill the comfort women, they simply forced them from their families, took them from loved ones, killed their husbands and forced them to have sex with the soldiers. But that's ok. They weren't killed so it isn't that bad.

Anyone who forces another person to have sex with him should be, in my opinion, cut open alive and have hot coals put into their intestines.

The problem is that we're not discussing the morality of what the Japanesse did. It's wrong, we can all agree on that. And personally, I tend to favor the idea of making all offenders eunuch ;). Not to mention many may die in the process...talk about nice bonuses ;)

But it's also false to say that the comfort women were murdered on top of all the rest. And yes, there's a difference there. Sure it doesn't make what the Japanesse actually did more right - but even though what they did was wrong, they, like anyone else, do not deserve to be condemened and blamed for what they didn't do.

There'S enough actual wrong to blame on them without needing to add to it just to make them look even eviler.

Originally posted by Sabotage
cephyn..

from what you are saying, I get the feeling that what you are trying to get across is: The Japanese did not kill the comfort women, they simply forced them from their families, took them from loved ones, killed their husbands and forced them to have sex with the soldiers. But that's ok. They weren't killed so it isn't that bad.

Anyone who forces another person to have sex with him should be, in my opinion, cut open alive and have hot coals put into their intestines.

They should be condemned for what they did. The should not be condemned for what they didnt do. I agree with what Nobunaga said as well.

It was bad. But there wasn't widespread murder of hte comfort women. It's not right to accept a falsity stated about anyone, whether theyre evil or not. John Wayne Gacy was evil, a serial killer -- but he didn't eat little puppies. If anyone said that, I'd argue it. Because it's not true.

About the emperor...

A couple of hours ago there was a documentary film in History Channel about the role of Hirohito in WWII. Although I saw only the end I could catch that there isn't a consensus about his role (whether he was the active top of the war hierarchy or he was used as a symbol by the generals), since he did not get in the trial. However two things were very interesting for me:

1. MacArthur was the one who convinced the allies not to bring the emperor to the court because he assumed a large scale revolt in Japan in this case, which clearly would take a lot of allied lives.

2. Since the emperor was not part of the trial most Japanese could take this fact as a reason or explanation for themselves for not being guilty, just "loyal".