Leaving their island in droves, they quickly occupied the surrounding islands. Soon however, they were to be annihilated, torn apart by physical forces. Towards the end, there were so many of their dead, bulldozers had to be used to move them. In the air, they lost half a dozen for every one they got.

Uncomprehending of what the bright white flash meant, some were vapourised instantly.

The Japanese involvement in WWII I feel was a farce.

Yamomoto said he could give 6 months of victories and no more , he got it about right.
Had the carriers been at Pearl on December 7th , there might have been no Midway , had the Japanese codes not been compromised any Battle fought at Midway might well have turned out differently.

Even so the long term outcome would increasingly never have been in doubt , Japan was in a war she could not hope to win.
The "bomb" would still have been dropped and surrender would be the only option.

The Island to Island battles of the Marines must have seemed long and hard.
The Japanese soldier was no pushover, Bushido was out of step with the modern battlefield and contributed to both useless resistance , desperate decisions and use of resources which in reality would bring no returns.

The resources for 6 months of war proved almost exact , time would never be on Japans side.
A nation dependent on imports with an overseas "Empire" will always be vunerable to an enemy with an industrial base greater than Tojo and those who yearned for war could ever imagine.

The "sleeping giant" once awaken would not be defeated.

Japan got off so easily from WWII. The Japanese have not spent the last 50 years bowing and scraping for their crimes (I believe they should, among other reasons being that one of *my* relatives died in a Japanese camp). Nor have they let large numbers of non-Japanese into Japan. They've won out over Germany, it seems.

The pacific front was given less priority than the war with Germany. I wonder what the rushtonites have to say about the casualty stats, the air war included.

Japan did divorce itself completely from what history has been written about the war and their part in it , a few lines tells all.
Catch phrase might be " No claim , no blame".
They have not taken responsibility for the wrongs done by them in China or Korea.
Japan was treated differently , America being the decision maker.
Other Allied powers had enough to do trying to recover themselves , America was quite content to administer Japan on her terms.

Like Sinclair my own family has a war grave in Japan ( Yokohama ).
British POW's who have sought compensation have not had much satisfaction either , from both British or Japanese Goverments.
The Japanese see it as a war they have no responsibility for and the British don't want to know. (Tea and sympathy , nothing more).
Not that the British Goverment surprise me very much , I am off the opinion that they like other Goverments are good at sending troops away to fight but are very poor at looking after them when they come home.

Yes Germany was given priority but how much more could America actually have turned against japan?
The USN and USAF resources alone were beyond anything Japan could hope to match, America locked into a Pacific war alone would quickly have isolated Japan to within her own coastal waters.

Given that the Japanese acted in isolation Germany declaring war in support of her was at best ill thought out.

Japan got off so easily from WWII. The Japanese have not spent the last 50 years bowing and scraping for their crimes (I believe they should, among other reasons being that one of *my* relatives died in a Japanese camp). Nor have they let large numbers of non-Japanese into Japan. They've won out over Germany, it seems.
On the other hand, they got nuked twice.

On the other hand, they got nuked twice.

Fewer people died as a result of those 2 nukes than died from the firebombing of Tokyo. The early nukes are really overrated.

Besides, what is getting nuked a couple times versus your culture and country being shorthand for "evil" for more than 50 years?

The Japanese did horrible things. They ran the WORST PoW camps of the war, you would be better off a Russian in a German camp back then than anybody in a Japanese camp. The Rape of Nanking is in many ways more sickening than anything, say, the Einsatzgruppen did, because what the latter did, they did mostly in a methodic fashion, as part of an ideology. The Japanese figured out every combination of sword, bayonet, and Chinese man/woman/child they could JUST FOR FUN.

On the note of POW's.
See "Hitler's grey Wolves" by L.Patterson.
The author describes how German sailors stationed in the far east were disgusted by the treatment handed out to Allied POW's.
He describes how some U-boat men gave cigerattes to Allied POW's , they knew the Japanese guards didn't like it.

At the docks at Singapore , a German sailor was attacked by a Japanese guard , who had mistaken him for a British POW.
The Jap ended up in the sea .
The Guards Commander had to issue an apology to the local German commander for the conduct of his man.

Besides, what is getting nuked a couple times versus your culture and country being shorthand for "evil" for more than 50 years?


The difference is that the Nazis were comitting their atrocities in the heart of Western Civilization while the Japanese were abusing foreigners alien to the west.


The Japanese did horrible things. They ran the WORST PoW camps of the war, you would be better off a Russian in a German camp back then than anybody in a Japanese camp.


Thats an overstatement. Japanese POW camps were competitive with Soviet Gulags and German POW camps for Russian soldiers.

Lets not go overboard here.


The Rape of Nanking is in many ways more sickening than anything, say, the Einsatzgruppen did, because what the latter did, they did mostly in a methodic fashion, as part of an ideology.


How is that better?

The difference is that the Nazis were comitting their atrocities in the heart of Western Civilization while the Japanese were abusing foreigners alien to the west.



Thats an overstatement. Japanese POW camps were competitive with Soviet Gulags and German POW camps for Russian soldiers.

Lets not go overboard here.



How is that better?

1. The Nazis committed most of their atrocities in Poland, the Ukraine, Russia, etc. Hardly the heart of Western civilisation. I'm not defending them, but I am protesting the manner in which the Japanese have been allowed to get away with their crimes. For crying out loud, there is a SHRINE to executed Japanese Class A war criminals, that is regularly visited by government high-ups. Imagine the Germans putting up a monument to, I dunno, Mengele or whoever. It would not fly.

Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, are people too. Their deaths should not be ignored just because they didn't happen in Europe. I do not think that the murder of a Chinese civilian is somehow less of a crime than the murder of a Jewish civilian. Nor that of a Korean vs. a Gypsy, a Filipino vs. a homosexual.

2. Competetive? I'd say they'd get first place. Especially in the "Jungle Hell vs. Frozen Nightmare" contest. I'd rather freeze than die of a tropical disease.

3. Japanese camps, for both civilians and PoWs, sound by all descriptions to have been nightmarishly awful, especially when contrasted with the punishment the Japanese recieved (if you guessed "about zip diddly", you're right).

4. The Einsatzgruppen were relatively small units. Japanese soldiers in general seem to have gleefully accepted not just the opportunity to rape and loot, which soldiers generally will take, for various reasons, but the opportunity to basically carve up the Chinese in some rather novel ways. They used pregnant women for bayonet practice, for fuck's sake. Yes, the German army was involved in SS atrocities: But that was by orders, under the iniative of others, and usually not done just for shits and giggles. The behaviour of the Japanese soldiery at Nanking is nearly incomprehensibly atrocious. It is the definition of atrocity.


I am not defending German war criminals. I am pointing out that German war criminals, and Germans and Germany in general, have gotten punished much more than the Japanese. Where the Japanese got a slap on the wrist, and were then allowed to move on to making electronics, the Germans got their hands cut off, were forced to pay out money repeatedly, and have (so far) forever had the name of their country made a synonym for "evil". When somebody says "Japan" the first thought that pops into someone's head is usually not "Nanking". When somebody says "Germany", I'd think "Auschwitz" is a hell of a lot more likely to be first.

As far as I'm concerned, German and Japanese war criminals can all burn: But they have not been burned equally, and neither have Germany and Japan. Those are the plain facts.

Did you know that, I believe it was MacArthur, worked out an agreement with Japanese scientists, to not prosecute in exchange for the data from inhuman experiments carried out on civilians and Allied PoWs?

Sinclair is right, Japan really wasn't made to own up for what it did the way Germany was. Japanese soldiers were probably more racist than any Germans, and they committed horrible crimes.

1. The Nazis committed most of their atrocities in Poland, the Ukraine, Russia, etc. Hardly the heart of Western civilisation.


Deporting French Jews to a Polish death camp doesn't change anything.


I'm not defending them, but I am protesting the manner in which the Japanese have been allowed to get away with their crimes. For crying out loud, there is a SHRINE to executed Japanese Class A war criminals, that is regularly visited by government high-ups.


Well, for clarification, that shrine is there to honor their sacrifice, not the crimes they're accused of. During the war crime trials in Europe, blame flowed uphill. Everyone blamed Hitler and Himmler for every atrocity they committed. Tojo and friends took responsibility that wasn't actually theirs, allowing the Emperor to stand above the court and free from prosecution.


Imagine the Germans putting up a monument to, I dunno, Mengele or whoever. It would not fly.


The individuals in question were executed for Class A warcrimes, which are crimes of war and treaty violation leading to atrocities. Not quite the same. A more valid comparison would be to Goebbels. But one of the key differences is the character of the defendants. They arn't the egotistical windbags the Nazis are. They're quiet bureaucrats.


Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, are people too. Their deaths should not be ignored just because they didn't happen in Europe. I do not think that the murder of a Chinese civilian is somehow less of a crime than the murder of a Jewish civilian. Nor that of a Korean vs. a Gypsy, a Filipino vs. a homosexual.


Well to be frank, Nuremberg was primarily a trial relating to crimes in Europe. In fact, I would say that the war in the East has only recently gained emphasis in a view of Nazi atrocities, since during the Cold War the view was generally that the Communists and the Nazis deserved each other.


2. Competetive? I'd say they'd get first place. Especially in the "Jungle Hell vs. Frozen Nightmare" contest. I'd rather freeze than die of a tropical disease.


The Japanese aren't responsible for jungle disease. :p

You have Germans starving and shooting Soviet POWs to the point where 1 out of 2 of them die in 4 years. You have Soviets working German POWs to death for decades. Yes, the Japanese were brutal. I can't see it as being more brutal than a German or Soviet POW camp.


3. Japanese camps, for both civilians and PoWs, sound by all descriptions to have been nightmarishly awful, especially when contrasted with the punishment the Japanese recieved (if you guessed "about zip diddly", you're right).


Well, you're not quite correct here. Often Japanese guards were killed on the spot, such as in the Phillipines, and there were seperate trials from the main Pacific war crimes trial. The General in charge of the Phillipines theater was executed, in fact.

Also, since Japanese warcrimes wern't as organized as German ones, its harder to establish a chain of evidence. A Japanese sergeant taking the opportunity to disembowel a man in a village somewhere in Singapore in 1942 is hard to track down in 1945.


4. The Einsatzgruppen were relatively small units. Japanese soldiers in general seem to have gleefully accepted not just the opportunity to rape and loot, which soldiers generally will take, for various reasons, but the opportunity to basically carve up the Chinese in some rather novel ways. They used pregnant women for bayonet practice, for fuck's sake. Yes, the German army was involved in SS atrocities: But that was by orders, under the iniative of others, and usually not done just for shits and giggles. The behaviour of the Japanese soldiery at Nanking is nearly incomprehensibly atrocious. It is the definition of atrocity.


"Small units" whose PURPOSE was to commit atrocities. A unit created and dedicated to the slaughter of innocents. These are extermination squads. How is deliberate slaughter 'not as bad' as the 'whimsy' of a barbaric army? To me it seems worse. Especially since the Germans were far more effective at slaughter than the Japanese. Bayonet practice and decapitation competitions are terrible things. But simply because gassing fifty thousand people in a couple of days is more hygenic, I don't see it as 'better'.


I am not defending German war criminals. I am pointing out that German war criminals, and Germans and Germany in general, have gotten punished much more than the Japanese.


I'd point out to you that the West Germans were punished for what they did to European Jews, the French, and Britain. Not for the war with the Soviets.

Just as the Japanese were punished for what they did to Allied POWs. The Japanese had the good luck of having their former victim turn into a vile Communist state.


Where the Japanese got a slap on the wrist, and were then allowed to move on to making electronics, the Germans got their hands cut off, were forced to pay out money repeatedly, and have (so far) forever had the name of their country made a synonym for "evil".


I think you exaggerate. The two nations wern't similar in appearance or threat. These are two other things you aren't taking into consideration. Furthermore, with the division of Germany and the rise of Stalin, new considerations rose to the fore. The aftermath of war doesn't happen in a vacuum.


When somebody says "Japan" the first thought that pops into someone's head is usually not "Nanking". When somebody says "Germany", I'd think "Auschwitz" is a hell of a lot more likely to be first.


Nanking isn't comparable to Auschwitz, which has a lot to do with it.


As far as I'm concerned, German and Japanese war criminals can all burn: But they have not been burned equally, and neither have Germany and Japan. Those are the plain facts.


The bombing campaign against the Japanese was more severe, the use of two atomic bombs, and the fact that the Japanese surrendered without the need for an American invasion lends to the difference. So does the poor performance of Japanese troops in the field and the new balance in world geopolitics after the end of the war.


Did you know that, I believe it was MacArthur, worked out an agreement with Japanese scientists, to not prosecute in exchange for the data from inhuman experiments carried out on civilians and Allied PoWs?

Who cares?

Dammit, Sulla, you're taking the wrong idea from what I'm saying.

Concise mode: The Japanese were not punished adequately for what they did. The Germans were, and may have been punished more than adequately. The Germans have apologised, atoned, and paid out. The Japanese government still more or less either denies what happened, or avoids it entirely.

Geopolitical interests should not get in the way of justice, or at least something approaching it.

There's no cocept of justice in international politics. Live with it.

Fuck international politics. The way the Western Allies acted after the war, punishing those who it was convenient to do so, while divvying up the Evil Nazi Scientists with the Russians, was the height of hypocrisy. It is one of the reasons the world is so fucked up today: Once the war was over, the self-proclaimed knights in shining armour decided to do whatever was beneficial to themselves.

Vae victis.

Sulla seems to be playing two conflicting cards at the same time. He talks about what the Germans did as being horrible (which it was), and says that the Nazi leadership was probably more involved in specific events (most likely true). Then he starts talking about geopolitics, and says that the deal with the Japanese scientists was OK.

How is one supposed to mix moral thinking with politics?

agreed

Dammit, Sulla, you're taking the wrong idea from what I'm saying.

Concise mode: The Japanese were not punished adequately for what they did. The Germans were, and may have been punished more than adequately. The Germans have apologised, atoned, and paid out. The Japanese government still more or less either denies what happened, or avoids it entirely.


True. I agree with you. I'm just saying Japanese POW camps wern't worse than concentration camps. :p


Geopolitical interests should not get in the way of justice, or at least something approaching it.

Eh, I think we got pretty close to justice.

Sulla seems to be playing two conflicting cards at the same time. He talks about what the Germans did as being horrible (which it was), and says that the Nazi leadership was probably more involved in specific events (most likely true). Then he starts talking about geopolitics, and says that the deal with the Japanese scientists was OK.


I asked how it was relevant. Were they supposed to burn the knowledge?

Take it, then punish the Japanese anyway. That's justice.

And I wasn't comparing Japanese camps with concentration camps. I was comparing them with German PoW camps.

The Japanese did have a racist attitude towards the colonial powers playing this card to promote their own view of what they would like their "co-prosperity sphere" to look like.

Their Bushido code which was an entrenched nationalist view served only to endorse ill treatment , they had no regard for their captives.

No better than concentration camps , little different, the end appreciation of life was the same , inmates = no value whatsoever.
Slave labour again no concerns as to working people to death.
Experiemnts on POW's , again no concerns as to the rights or ethics of the experiments , inmates = no value whatsoever.

War crimes yes japan had plenty to plead guilty to, see the japanese version of history which completely ignores murder of civilian populations and of POW's.

Were all Japanese monsters , no.
Were the hawks of the Army , yes quite a few of them.
Was justice done in hanging those found guilty , I agree with Sulla. Yes.

Did Japan have a right to declare war ?
Americas attitude pushed them more firmly in that direction , but it was only a matter of time.
An expansionist hungry power with any number of weak colonial powers on the wane around it- war was coming and America would have been brought into it .
Right to declare wasr , no , just as they had no right to be waging a war in China.

Take it, then punish the Japanese anyway. That's justice.


Well you can't have perfect justice. You're suggesting that while the Soviets were blockading Berlin, and Mao was sweeping through China, our primary concern should be executing more Japanese?


And I wasn't comparing Japanese camps with concentration camps. I was comparing them with German PoW camps.

Soviet prisoners found themselves 'imprisoned' at places like Dachau and Auschwitz frequently.