Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 20th, 2016, 09:43 AM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
I'm obliged to disagree, the USMC may not have taken many prisoners but they also didn't go on an unprovoked raping rampage like the Japanese did in Nanking. The USMC and allied response was likely a result of Japanese behaviour towards allied prisoners io Bataan, Wake and Singapore. Cutting people to ribbons with swords is also rather more personal than a bullet to the head, then there's how they treated civilian prisoners. Bayonetting women and children for fun and slaughtering medical staff and the wounded in hospital beds probably isn't something the allies would consider as very sporting. The Japanese started the war in a dishonourable way, which was odd considering their civilised standards in WW1, the allies merely paid them back with interest.

Massacres and Atrocities of WWII in the Pacific Region
There's no doubt that the axis powers started it, with Bataan, Hong Kong, and Singapore in the pacific and Warsaw, Rotterdam, and the Blitz in Europe. We wouldn't have simply inflicted this damage on Germany and Japan without cause and they deserved everything we threw at them. No nation can allow her ships to be bombed and her citizens massacred without a response in kind. As such, we did have the moral high ground, there was really no other viable (or ethical) choice than to do what we did. But we gave as good as we got, far better in the end.

If someone wants to attack the axis powers for having started the war and their motivations in doing so, then I'll be the first to jump on board. But as far as how they conducted it, it's how war (total war, not police actions or border skirmishes) has always been conducted...and always will be. Yes, we fought the war in a more civilized manner, in accordance with the customs and norms of our civilization, but that didn't really reduce the amount of death and destruction we dealt out, we merely went about it in a different, more detached, manner as is fitting to our temperament as a people.
constantine is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 20th, 2016, 10:05 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
There's no doubt that the axis powers started it, with Bataan, Hong Kong, and Singapore in the pacific and Warsaw, Rotterdam, and the Blitz in Europe. We wouldn't have simply inflicted this damage on Germany and Japan without cause and they deserved everything we threw at them. No nation can allow her ships to be bombed and her citizens massacred without a response in kind. As such, we did have the moral high ground, there was really no other viable (or ethical) choice than to do what we did. But we gave as good as we got, far better in the end.

If someone wants to attack the axis powers for having started the war and their motivations in doing so, then I'll be the first to jump on board. But as far as how they conducted it, it's how war (total war, not police actions or border skirmishes) has always been conducted...and always will be. Yes, we fought the war in a more civilized manner, in accordance with the customs and norms of our civilization, but that didn't really reduce the amount of death and destruction we dealt out, we merely went about it in a different, more detached, manner as is fitting to our temperament as a people.
There is no doubt, that the axis committed terrible crimes and did not behave according to modern standards written down in the HC. It is true, that the allied victory was probably saving the world of even more crimes. But as you said, you fought in "a more civilized manner", as far as one can call the total termination of cities, nuking civilians, ethnic cleansing, deliberate murder of japanese POWs, mass raping and others as civilized.
beorna is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 10:38 AM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
There is no doubt, that the axis committed terrible crimes and did not behave according to modern standards written down in the HC. It is true, that the allied victory was probably saving the world of even more crimes. But as you said, you fought in "a more civilized manner", as far as one can call the total termination of cities, nuking civilians, ethnic cleansing, deliberate murder of japanese POWs, mass raping and others as civilized.
'Civilized' is a relative term in times of war, the fundamental reality of death and destruction cannot change. I would argue that the difference between civilized and uncivilized behaviour in war is not the degree of the destruction, but the manner in which it is inflicted; there may not be a 'moral' distinction between bayoneting 100,000 people and nuking 100,000 people, but there is a difference in cultural responses. Our society norms tend towards dictating that our destruction to be carried out in a clinical and detached manner.

With that said, I think the German conduct on the western front was relatively civilized, they broke a few taboos early in the war that the allies then used as justification to do the same, but it wasn't anything like what occurred on the eastern front or in the Pacific theater, at the hands of axis and allied troops alike. When your enemy fights in an uncivilized manner, you're compelled y the necessities of war to respond in kind.
constantine is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 11:40 AM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: VA
Posts: 1,198

Quote:
Originally Posted by HongRengan View Post
@MagnusStultus:
The Korean comfort women issue was only settled after the Japanese government basically paid the South Koreans to move a statue commemorating the tribulations of comfort women away from the Japanese embassy. Pardon me if that doesn't strike me as sincere.
Again moving the goal posts from "do they admit it" to "are they sincere when they apologize". Objectively the Japanese government came to an agreement to compensate the Korean Comfort Women which is contrary to decades of claim that the compensation agreed to in 1965 was final and was the end of the claims and in the process opened themselves up to further claims from elsewhere (which I agree is deserved). That is a major step and while you are free to reject seeing it that way at least acknowledge Japan took that step. Ultimately a statue really isn't a big deal, lifting decades of policy to come to an agreement with a country you have wronged (and have a legal way to refuse to compensate other countries agree with)? Much more significant. The Republic of Korea agreed to look into moving the statue (which does leave wiggle room on that issue) because it is hoping for a new era with Japan that isn't marked by Japan's colonial occupation of Korea.

Quote:
In addition, the figure you're using to count death tolls during the Second Sino-Japanese War is either not accounting for civilian deaths or is entirely inaccurate. Given that the official military strategy was the "Three Alls" (the Japanese referred to it as the "Burn to Ash" strategy") kill all, burn all, loot all; how could you genuinely believe only 6 million people were killed by the Japanese?
I agree it does seem low to me, too low I was using the first easy citation google brought up for casualties and I apologize for it, the Three Alls campaign in Northern China alone killed millions. I cited it and quoted it carelessly without thinking critically and I shouldn't have.

hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3 (I think that will mean it doesn't link?)


It does go into civilian deaths it just gives a low estimate.

Quote:
In addition, the source you cited seems to be lacking to say the least. I apologize, but I've genuinely never seen a death estimate so low for the Second Sino-Japanese War, and I don't suspect that a publication
Again I apologize that source on Japanese War Crimes seemed good, it was written by a highly thought of professor so I assumed the work was solid, the apology is genuine and I do regret posting a link to it and will be glad to delete the reference if you want (I wouldn't if you don't because that could look like I'm just being a bad sport and trying to pretend I didn't link to it).

Quote:
featuring such esteemed titles as "Barbarous Mexico" and the "Communist Chinese Ant Hill" is a source that should be taken seriously; I suspect you were cherry-picking to find the lowest death toll feasible. I know it's hard to find a reliable source on such a thing, but I'm sure we can all agree that an estimated 6 million in a place as populated as China with the military policy Japan has just isn't realistic.
Hold on does that mean you are defending Mao?

https://www.questia.com/library/9493...ommunist-china

That would be the origin of the term, and you are surely not defending Mao are you?

About the numbers I again apologize.

Quote:
In addition, the definition of "stirring up controversy" is highly subjective and as aforementioned, the Imperial Family aren't in a position to suggest that the deniers are right whether the constitution says so or not due to the nature of the treaty of surrender the emperor signed. I think you are straw manning this whole Imperial involvement thing.
The Imperial Family isn't in a position to give anything but what the public believes or complete silence. If this issue was a controversy you wouldn't see the Imperial Family discussing it. Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy in a modern sense, the Imperial Family is not meant to weigh in on controversy, not meant to start controversy, and not meant to influence public on policy.

Quote:
And I don't know why you're bringing Austria into this.
Comparison, it is important to understand when going over Japan that nations acting like Germany afterwards is rare and that should be considered when deciding how you feel about how much Japan has confronted the past.

Denying the war crimes took place isn't mainstream in Japan, and while you may think Japanese apologies need work they are happening and denial is to be blunt just not mainstream.
MagnusStultus is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 12:01 PM   #35

HongRengan's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: North Carolina, US of A
Posts: 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusStultus View Post
Again moving the goal posts from "do they admit it" to "are they sincere when they apologize". Objectively the Japanese government came to an agreement to compensate the Korean Comfort Women which is contrary to decades of claim that the compensation agreed to in 1965 was final and was the end of the claims and in the process opened themselves up to further claims from elsewhere (which I agree is deserved). That is a major step and while you are free to reject seeing it that way at least acknowledge Japan took that step. Ultimately a statue really isn't a big deal, lifting decades of policy to come to an agreement with a country you have wronged (and have a legal way to refuse to compensate other countries agree with)? Much more significant. The Republic of Korea agreed to look into moving the statue (which does leave wiggle room on that issue) because it is hoping for a new era with Japan that isn't marked by Japan's colonial occupation of Korea.



I agree it does seem low to me, too low I was using the first easy citation google brought up for casualties and I apologize for it, the Three Alls campaign in Northern China alone killed millions. I cited it and quoted it carelessly without thinking critically and I shouldn't have.

hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3 (I think that will mean it doesn't link?)


It does go into civilian deaths it just gives a low estimate.



Again I apologize that source on Japanese War Crimes seemed good, it was written by a highly thought of professor so I assumed the work was solid, the apology is genuine and I do regret posting a link to it and will be glad to delete the reference if you want (I wouldn't if you don't because that could look like I'm just being a bad sport and trying to pretend I didn't link to it).



Hold on does that mean you are defending Mao?

https://www.questia.com/library/9493...ommunist-china

That would be the origin of the term, and you are surely not defending Mao are you?

About the numbers I again apologize.



The Imperial Family isn't in a position to give anything but what the public believes or complete silence. If this issue was a controversy you wouldn't see the Imperial Family discussing it. Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy in a modern sense, the Imperial Family is not meant to weigh in on controversy, not meant to start controversy, and not meant to influence public on policy.



Comparison, it is important to understand when going over Japan that nations acting like Germany afterwards is rare and that should be considered when deciding how you feel about how much Japan has confronted the past.

Denying the war crimes took place isn't mainstream in Japan, and while you may think Japanese apologies need work they are happening and denial is to be blunt just not mainstream.
@MagnusStultus:

I know that the traditional mainstream is not outright denial. The people that deny are far-right and are under the impression that it's all something made it by communists. I've talked to some of them myself and found to be irrevocably stubborn, even when confronted with the fact that their whole philosophy about a communist making up the comfort women issue didn't actually make it up, because there are references to comfort women in Korean media as early as 1946, well before the hated Communists started writing false propaganda.
The mainstream is, however, a general understatement as to what actually happened, as embodied by the fact that the Second Sino-Japanese War is still referred to by the term "China Incident" in Japan, and is the term generally used by the government in official documents. They've intentionally avoided anything mentioning war. This is one of the many reasons why I feel like they've not come face-to-face with their past and, quite frankly, have dealt with it in a rather juvenile manner. I understand that it's difficult for a country with a history of respecting elders and not questioning authority to come to terms with their past, but that doesn't give them an excuse to act like it wasn't as bad as it was.
And again, I think you misunderstand my stance, I really don't care what the Imperial family says because again, they can't really go out of their way to pander to the same deniers that put them on a pedestal and want to return to the days of Emperor-worship. My issue is how the Japanese government deals with their past crimes.

Also, off-topic, but I'm not defending Mao. I think he's misunderstood, but by no means a nice guy.
HongRengan is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 05:48 PM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: VA
Posts: 1,198

Quote:
Originally Posted by HongRengan View Post
@MagnusStultus:

I know that the traditional mainstream is not outright denial. The people that deny are far-right and are under the impression that it's all something made it by communists. I've talked to some of them myself and found to be irrevocably stubborn, even when confronted with the fact that their whole philosophy about a communist making up the comfort women issue didn't actually make it up, because there are references to comfort women in Korean media as early as 1946, well before the hated Communists started writing false propaganda.
The mainstream is, however, a general understatement as to what actually happened, as embodied by the fact that the Second Sino-Japanese War is still referred to by the term "China Incident" in Japan, and is the term generally used by the government in official documents. They've intentionally avoided anything mentioning war. This is one of the many reasons why I feel like they've not come face-to-face with their past and, quite frankly, have dealt with it in a rather juvenile manner. I understand that it's difficult for a country with a history of respecting elders and not questioning authority to come to terms with their past, but that doesn't give them an excuse to act like it wasn't as bad as it was.
And again, I think you misunderstand my stance, I really don't care what the Imperial family says because again, they can't really go out of their way to pander to the same deniers that put them on a pedestal and want to return to the days of Emperor-worship. My issue is how the Japanese government deals with their past crimes.

Also, off-topic, but I'm not defending Mao. I think he's misunderstood, but by no means a nice guy.
Before I start I must repeat I apologize, I was lazy and really should have been using my brain earlier in the thread.

We aren't as far apart as I thought, I thought you asserted that the Japanese mainstream was denial. I agree that Japan does have more distance to go in confronting it's demons.

I agree the government still has a lot farther to go but I also think the recent deal with South Korea was a major step in the right direction and by breaking with the stance that Japan's earlier compensation was final it opens up other claims which could bring the historical issues more and more to the Japanese public.

About the deniers I agree they are completely hopeless.

Also OT

Question answered I shouldn't have asked that at all, I misunderstood what you said.

Overall I was a jerk in this thread because I didn't read it carefully enough and thought it was suggesting something it wasn't, and because I wasn't careful about reading the work I quoted before quoting it.
MagnusStultus is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 08:04 PM   #37

Gaius Japonicus's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Eurasia
Posts: 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by HongRengan View Post
@MagnusStultus:Second Sino-Japanese War is still referred to by the term "China Incident" in Japan,
Again I don't want to be picky, but that's wrong, it's referred as "日中戦争" which means Sino-Japanese war, the term "支那事変" china incident is a contemporary term of the war, and is dated.
Gaius Japonicus is offline  
Old December 6th, 2016, 10:07 PM   #38
Citizen
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
In contrast, Japan officially apologized to China for those war crimes.
Actually, the Japanese government has consistently avoided to admit evil deeds of the Empire of Japan. Being demanded an apology for the war crimes of Japan, it has always used the word 'OWABI おわび', never 'SHAZAI 謝罪'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rms_of_apology

About a difference between OWABI and SHAZAI, the explanation of Wikipedia is full of mistakes for native speakers of Japanese. There is accurate one at the below link.
H-Yamaguchi.net: ????????????????

Quote:
The original text:
一方、「お詫び」は、「謝罪」よりもトーンがやや軽い。本当に悪いとは思っていない場合にも、比較的気軽に 使える。「世間をお騒がせしたことに対し」「ご迷惑をおかけしたのであれば」などはいずれも本気で謝る気が ないときに使うレトリックだが、これらにつながることばはやはり「謝罪」より「お詫び」だろう 。

The translation:
On the other hand, OWABI has a lighter meaning than SHAZAI to some extent. We can use it with comparative ease, even when we do not feel guilty at heart. When we do not want to apologize sincerely, we use some rhetorical techniques. For example, "Because I have caused a public uproar, ..." or "If I have troubled you, ...". They will be followed by not SHAZAI, but OWABI.
Both OWABI and SHAZAI are translated as 'apology' in English. The Japanese government has abused this fact, and externally pretended to apologize. On the other hand, it can give domestic comrades an excuse with saying "They were so noisy that I only gave them trivial OWABI." Thus, OWABI is a magic word in a sense.
Baritsu is offline  
Old December 6th, 2016, 11:25 PM   #39
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Agraphur
Posts: 721

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baritsu View Post
Actually, the Japanese government has consistently avoided to admit evil deeds of the Empire of Japan. Being demanded an apology for the war crimes of Japan, it has always used the word 'OWABI おわび', never 'SHAZAI 謝罪'.

Both OWABI and SHAZAI are translated as 'apology' in English. The Japanese government has abused this fact, and externally pretended to apologize. On the other hand, it can give domestic comrades an excuse with saying "They were so noisy that I only gave them trivial OWABI." Thus, OWABI is a magic word in a sense.
Yes, just continue ignoring all those "deeply remorseful" "entirely inexcusable" "sincere apology" and focus on form so you can remain offended.
Just like we have to conclude people who visit Yaskuni, the shrine entombing 2.5 million people, just have to be there to celebrate war crimes.
Yezdigerd is offline  
Old December 7th, 2016, 04:39 AM   #40
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Must I specify?
Posts: 56

For those of you who have no idea how horrific Japanese war crimes were, search for Unit 731. What it did were one of the most revolting and evil deeds done throughout the history of mankind. And Unit 731 was just one of the numerous other institutes the Japanese created.
timtimwowo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
crimes, denial, japanese, war



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hoover's denial of the Mob Lekbo American History 23 February 19th, 2016 04:23 AM
What motivated the Japanese military to commit atrocities and war crimes during WW2? Cmyers1980 War and Military History 10 December 19th, 2014 02:06 PM
The Denial of History Total Science Speculative History 53 June 7th, 2009 09:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.