Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an interesting mentality. Would Native Americans, Filipinos, North Koreans (who lost 25% of their population in the Korean War), and Vietnamese have been justified in doing the same to Americans if these aforementioned groups had nuclear weapons? BTW where are the American apologies to these groups (LOL at the thought of America apologizing to North Korea) and why don't they teach in history classes about how millions of Filipinos died during the 1900s to 1920s due to the American occupation? Seems America isn't quite that different from Japan in being forgetful.
Uh, North Korea INVADED South Korea. So, no need to apologize on our end. Laughable that you expect the US to, but not NK?
Not even close to reality. That's like saying Mongolia would try to conquer Asia and Europe again if they had the chance. There are reasons the US has troops stationed in those two countries, but what you mentioned is definitely not one of them.
Now we are getting from the "what" to the "why" of Japan. It's hard to explain. Both Germany and Japan practiced genocide on a scale unmatched in history but Japan stands out for the shear sickening brutality practiced by it's soldiers. Read this passage from Iris Chang's "Rape of Nanking":
"Chinese men were used for bayonet practice and in decapitation contests. An estimated 20,000 – 80,000 Chinese women were raped. Many soldiers went beyond rape to disembowel women, slice off their breasts, and nail them alive to walls. Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons their mothers, as other family members watched. Not only did live burials, castration, the carving of organs, and the roasting of people become routine, but more diabolical tortures were practiced, such as hanging people by their tongues on iron hooks or burying people to their waists and watching them get torn apart by German shepherds. So sickening was the spectacle that even Nazis in the city were horrified, one proclaiming the massacre to be the work of bestial machinery"
One of the reasons that Germany developed it's death camps, besides creating an efficient means of murder, was so as to not to turn it's soldiers into psychopaths as they expected that, eventually, they would return back to a peaceful fatherland. Executions were talking it's toll on a normal soldier, effecting morale. Best to keep things unseen, even if Germans very well knew what was happening there. Thus the murder factories were created - clean, efficient, organized. For Japan, it's solders were TRAINED to be psychopaths. Why? The traditional bushido code was warped into something unrecgonizable by Imperial Japan of the 30s - the soldier lived and died to serve the emperor, racism to both westerners and fellow asians was taught. The "three alls" was drilled into there head - "kill all, burn all, loot all". Japanese soldiers were brutalized by it's officers, often beaten to death. Of course the lowest Japanese soldier would treat the next lowest - enemy civilians, the same or worse treatment. To do otherwise was weakness, a betrayel of the emperor. Surrender was weakness, mercy was weakness, EMPATHY WAS WEAKNESS. Thus - you had an army of psychopaths, Ted Bundy's marching across Asia.
I disagree that Japan practiced genocide. Germany yes, but not Japan. Not that it made their conduct any less reprehensible. Nor was either of their conduct in terms of sheer numbers of civilian killings unmatched in history, it was actually exceeded by their enemies in the same war. Japan's brutality was also matched or surpassed in history. Just look at the Roman Empire. You have to consider the source when reading anything by Iris Chang, who's no doubt a Chinese nationalist. Agree Japanese soldiers practiced brutality due to what they were taught but remember, the "three alls" were around since at least the US war against the Philippines if not earlier. Anyways, my original reason for posting was because I totally disagreed about "east asian" culture, whatever that is, showing no mercy for the weak, at least compared to other cultures. The poster took a very brief period of time, used extreme situations, and applied that logic to a whole region. No doubt Korea and China would take offense to being lumped in with Japan and no doubt Japan's culture today is totally different than it was during WWII.
Neither does Japan or Germany so there's no logic behind your assertion
germany has a population of 82 million. Japan has a population of 126 million. Mongoilia has only 9 million
Germany was kicking everyone's butt with 70 million. Japan was raping china and china was huge. Mongolians raped china wholesale and they did it worse than the japanese. The only reason no one talks about it is because they are all dead.
germany has a population of 82 million. Japan has a population of 126 million. Mongoilia has only 9 million
Germany was kicking everyone's butt with 70 million. Japan was raping china and china was huge. Mongolians raped china wholesale and they did it worse than the japanese. The only reason no one talks about it is because they are all dead.
Why do I get the feeling like I'm trying to debate with a high school kid who can't even get basic facts correct? Also, population size isn't the only thing to consider. There are opinions about who was worse but if you're too lazy to even do a google search there's no use continuing this conversation.
I disagree that Japan practiced genocide. Germany yes, but not Japan. Not that it made their conduct any less reprehensible. Nor was either of their conduct in terms of sheer numbers of civilian killings unmatched in history, it was actually exceeded by their enemies in the same war. Japan's brutality was also matched or surpassed in history. Just look at the Roman Empire. You have to consider the source when reading anything by Iris Chang, who's no doubt a Chinese nationalist. Agree Japanese soldiers practiced brutality due to what they were taught but remember, the "three alls" were around since at least the US war against the Philippines if not earlier. Anyways, my original reason for posting was because I totally disagreed about "east asian" culture, whatever that is, showing no mercy for the weak, at least compared to other cultures. The poster took a very brief period of time, used extreme situations, and applied that logic to a whole region. No doubt Korea and China would take offense to being lumped in with Japan and no doubt Japan's culture today is totally different than it was during WWII.
Yeah I think the proper label to Japan's attrocities is "democide" not "genocide" as they would simply kill who was not Japanese, rather than directed to certain peoples. Not sure what enemies of Japan practiced the same, of course Japan lost an enourmous amount of civilians, mostly from allied strategic bombing campaign. Both sides practiced this, Japan likewise bombed population centers in China, and that's the terrible cost of the concept known as Total War. Again the difference was once Japan surrendered, civilians deaths ended and bombing ceased. In contrast once Singapore, the Philipines, provinces in China, and elsewhere, surrendered and were occupied by Japan - the killings to civilians were only beginning.
Chang was a US citizen of Chinese heritage. I've heard argument that her claims were exaggerated but many of these claims came from Japanese right wing radicals. I log that the same as the Holocaust Deniers. Japanese government as a whole has admitted (under global pressure) that these attrocities took place, Japanese veterans years later also admitted these attrocities took place. There is some question on casualties, who really knows - but the argument that 150,000 vs. 200,000 Chinese civilians were murdered in Nanking really make that much of a difference?
And finally, yes Japan's conduct during the war was unique to Japan, and only during that militaristic period from the 30's to the 40s. Japan has certainly changed to embrace pacifism after the war and thus has done a 360 turn around, there current military forces only dedicated to self defense. Likewise, Japan had war in the late 19th and early 20th century, prior to the 30s, where their conduct was relativly civilized - well treated POWs, prisoner exchanges, etc.
Why do I get the feeling like I'm trying to debate with a high school kid who can't even get basic facts correct? Also, population size isn't the only thing to consider. There are opinions about who was worse but if you're too lazy to even do a google search there's no use continuing this conversation.
its because you're on a message board on the internet
Yeah I think the proper label to Japan's attrocities is "democide" not "genocide" as they would simply kill who was not Japanese, rather than directed to certain peoples. Not sure what enemies of Japan practiced the same, of course Japan lost an enourmous amount of civilians, mostly from allied strategic bombing campaign. Both sides practiced this, Japan likewise bombed population centers in China, and that's the terrible cost of the concept known as Total War. Again the difference was once Japan surrendered, civilians deaths ended and bombing ceased. In contrast once Singapore, the Philipines, provinces in China, and elsewhere, surrendered and were occupied by Japan - the killings to civilians were only beginning.
Chang was a US citizen of Chinese heritage. I've heard argument that her claims were exaggerated but many of these claims came from Japanese right wing radicals. I log that the same as the Holocaust Deniers. Japanese government as a whole has admitted (under global pressure) that these attrocities took place, Japanese veterans years later also admitted these attrocities took place. There is some question on casualties, who really knows - but the argument that 150,000 vs. 200,000 Chinese civilians were murdered in Nanking really make that much of a difference?
And finally, yes Japan's conduct during the war was unique to Japan, and only during that militaristic period from the 30's to the 40s. Japan has certainly changed to embrace pacifism after the war and thus has done a 360 turn around, there current military forces only dedicated to self defense. Likewise, Japan had war in the late 19th and early 20th century, prior to the 30s, where their conduct was relativly civilized - well treated POWs, prisoner exchanges, etc.
Most of the people who were murdered by the Japanese in the Pacific War were not white, wouldn't that be a plus to most White Americans during that time period?
Most of the people who were murdered by the Japanese in the Pacific War were not white, wouldn't that be a plus to most White Americans during that time period?
I don't know why you are always trying to turn this topic into something it isn't about (it has nothing to do with "white americans"), but some questions simply don't dignify a response.
You just earned an *ignore* label, congratulations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
