What Japan did in World War 2

[Sabotage]

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 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.

 

[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!

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

 

[Richard III]

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!

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

 

[Admiral_Drake]

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

 

[Lifeguard]

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

 

[Sabotage]

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.

 

[Case]

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.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

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

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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.

 

[kobayashi]

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.

 

[Richard III]

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

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

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.

 

[Zwelgje]

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).

 

[Sabotage]

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).

 

[kobayashi]

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)

 

[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

 

[Evie]

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."

 

[Richard III]

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