Japanese War Guilt Debate

[weemadando]

My uncle could never bring himself to admit that what he did during the War was as bad as anything the Nazis ever dreamed up. He did, however, decide that military service was not something he was proud of.

:roll:

not one round of chemical weapons was ever used in the pacific against
Japan, and this guy's dumbfuck uncle equates it to the Death Camps?

Fucking idiot, he was.

Actually I believe that blister and tear gas agents were used by the US during the preliminary bombardments on a few of the later islands when it was just getting damn costly.

IIRC it was mentioned during "The World At War" doco series, or "Hell in the Pacific", not sure which.

[Darth Wong]

The Japanese were MONSTERS during WWII that really put them on par with the other axis powers. Of course, not saying every Japanese person was evil, just like not every Wermacht soldier was a Nazi. But their practices were almost similar.

While the Hitler targeted mainly Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals.. the Japanese targeted everyone that was not Japanese. Koreans and Chinese were taken for weapons and science experiment. Being raped and killed indiscriminately on the streets.. being raped and killed in large systematic processes. It was incredibly brutal that people still in China and Korea have an intense hatred and mistrust for the Japanese.

Not really. There were individual atrocities committed by many soldiers and commanders. However, there was no directive from the top to commit these atrocities, hence there were regions where none of this shit occurred. My grandfather and my mother lived under Japanese occupation, and their stories do not match your stories. It's not like the Nazi Holocaust, which was planned and co-ordinated from the top. War crimes were committed, of course, but at the lower levels. There was not the uniformity whose impression you strive to create.

Events such as the Bataan Death March are also exaggerated, in the sense that it was shitty planning rather than murderous violence that led to most of the deaths. The same charge could easily be levelled at the American concentration camps set up in Germany after the war, yet Americans invariably get angry if you call them "death camps".

As for the two A-bombs saving lives, that's a false dilemma fallacy (forced choice between massive amphibious invasion and dropping two A-bombs in rapid succession on civilian targets). Among other problems with the claim, there was no reason the second bomb HAD to be dropped so soon after the first one. Most of the arguments against that sound like WW2-era war propaganda; isolated events such as a small group of lunatics trying to seize power are blown up into the belief that the entire nation was rabidly insane and the first bomb didn't faze them at all

[Glocksman]

Events such as the Bataan Death March are also exaggerated, in the sense that it was shitty planning rather than murderous violence that led to most of the deaths

Planning so shitty that it lead to around a 40% death rate among POW's held by Japan versus a little over 1% death rate for POW's held by Germany?

Source on page 10.

I'd say there was something else at work other than shitty planning.

[Striderteen]

And we didn't go hanging people on trees with their dicks sewn to their tongues.

My grandparents were in Vietnam under Japanese occupation. No, there was no organized, official campaign of genocide -- just official freedom to pillage, rob, kill and rape at will. And because of the bushido code, they didn't even have any qualms or second thoughts about it; it's a samurai's right to do as he pleases with the vanquished, for they are honorless.

[Darth Wong]

Planning so shitty that it lead to around a 40% death rate among POW's held by Japan versus a little over 1% death rate for POW's held by Germany?

Source on page 10.

I'd say there was something else at work other than shitty planning.

Historically, forced long-distance marches of POW's usually tend to have a rather high attrition rate. I'm not saying it was a GOOD thing; it was obviously a bad thing. But it was not deliberate murder either.

[Darth Wong]

And we didn't go hanging people on trees with their dicks sewn to their tongues.

My grandparents were in Vietnam under Japanese occupation. No, there was no organized, official campaign of genocide -- just official freedom to pillage, rob, kill and rape at will. And because of the bushido code, they didn't even have any qualms or second thoughts about it; it's a samurai's right to do as he pleases with the vanquished, for they are honorless.

Again, that is not necessarily uniform. My grandfather and my mother witnessed none of this activity under Japanese occupation. Don't confuse my position for "The WW2 japanese were angels"; I did not say that. I'm just saying that some of the claims made against them are exaggerated.

[weemadando]

Planning so shitty that it lead to around a 40% death rate among POW's held by Japan versus a little over 1% death rate for POW's held by Germany?

Source on page 10.

I'd say there was something else at work other than shitty planning.

Historically, forced long-distance marches of POW's usually tend to have a rather high attrition rate. I'm not saying it was a GOOD thing; it was obviously a bad thing. But it was not deliberate murder either.

Add to this troops that are not used to the climate, have likely not received innoculations for half the diseases.

You forget that the Japanese were having troops drop on this march as well. Not to the same level because they were using their supplies to keep their men alive. Poor planning and management did have a LOT to do with it.

[Glocksman]

Historically, forced long-distance marches of POW's usually tend to have a rather high attrition rate. I'm not saying it was a GOOD thing; it was obviously a bad thing. But it was not deliberate murder either.

The way I read that CRS report is that it reflects death rates in the camps, not on the forced marches and 'hell ships'.


From the report:

The stark differences in reported death rates for U.S. soldiers and civilians in German vs. Japanese camps dramatize the nature of the experience of Japan’s camps for POWs and internees. Dr. Stenger’s figures list 93,941 U.S. military personnel captured and interned by Germany, of whom 1,121 died (a little over a 1% death rate), and 27,465 U.S. military personnel captured and interned by Japan, of whom 11,107 died (more than a 40% death rate) The Center for Internee Rights (CFIR), an internee advocacy group, uses the same figures as Dr. Stenger for Nazi POWs and POW deaths. However, CFIR has different figures for POWs of Japan. Using its higher figures for both American POWs held by Japan (36,260) and their higher number of POW deaths (13,851) results in a slightly lower percentage of POW deaths, 38.2%. According to the Center for Internee Rights, of the 4,749 U.S. civilians held by the Germans, 168, or 3.5%, died; in contrast, of the 13,996 American civilian internees they believe were held by Japan, 1,536, or 11 %, died. A similar figure of 13,979 for the total number of American civilian internees held by Japan was compiled by the Army’s Office of the Provost Marshal General’s Prisoner of War

[Jeremy]

Axis Kast wrote:

Keep in mind you are essentially condemning anything save Western culture.

Not in that particular statement to such an extent, I just chose western ideology because we are western and were the conquering heros. However if you truely wish to know I basically do believe that western culture is superior--and if you talk to me long enough you just might get to hear how much I truely believe that.

weemadando wrote:

Actually I believe that blister and tear gas agents were used by the US during the preliminary bombardments on a few of the later islands when it was just getting damn costly.

Considering the Japanese Empire never signed on to the Geneva bit this would not surprise me. The US Armed Forces took several actions against the Japanese Empire that would not be allowed under the Geneva Accords but was excused because the Japanese had not signed on.

Darth Wong wrote:

Not really. There were individual atrocities committed by many soldiers and commanders. However, there was no directive from the top to commit these atrocities, hence there were regions where none of this shit occurred. My grandfather and my mother lived under Japanese occupation, and their stories do not match your stories. It's not like the Nazi Holocaust, which was planned and co-ordinated from the top. War crimes were committed, of course, but at the lower levels. There was not the uniformity whose impression you strive to create.

If I were to let my children play in a crystal shop with jackhammers and they were to break something, would I be responsible for that action? Ultimately, the government was responsible for this. One could say that the Japanese just didn't want the UN forces to get more troops and that is why they kept moving the prisoners further and further back, or one could say that they knew they had committed an egregious crime.

[Axis Kast]

They are guilty or innocent not because they lost (or won) the war, but because of the atrocities they committed.

"War guilt" is a political concept at heart. Especially after the Second World War, demilitarization was as much a caveat of extended Western occupation as anything else.

The Japanese are no more or less guilty than any other loser in history.

[Striderteen]

You forget that the Japanese were having troops drop on this march as well. Not to the same level because they were using their supplies to keep their men alive. Poor planning and management did have a LOT to do with it.

Poor planning and management does not have anything to do with shooting and bayonetting prisoners or slow-hanging them with their genitals sewn to their tongues.

Japanese atrocities were worse than those performed by other nations, due to the nature of the bushido code, and I think it's shameful that modern accounts try to dismiss this because it's not PC.

[phongn]

As for the two A-bombs saving lives, that's a false dilemma fallacy (forced choice between massive amphibious invasion and dropping two A-bombs in rapid succession on civilian targets).

Well, of course. There was a third option, that of continued blockade and bombardment, which wouldn't have been pretty once the USAAF and USN completed their destruction of the Japanese transportation network.

Among other problems with the claim, there was no reason the second bomb HAD to be dropped so soon after the first one. Most of the arguments against that sound like WW2-era war propaganda; isolated events such as a small group of lunatics trying to seize power are blown up into the belief that the entire nation was rabidly insane and the first bomb didn't faze them at all

It's not like the bombing on Hiroshima didn't faze them at all, but from what I've read, it wasn't quite enough to induce surrender. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria coupled with the second bombing at Nagasaki probably caused them to finally surrender. I'm not just referring to the attempted coup incident here.

[Dahak]

Do German textbooks mention their past atrocities in much detail?

The second World War takes up huge chunks of the history curriculum, including the atrocities.
And as a sidenote, things like denial of Auschwitz is punishable by law with prison...

[Howedar]

"War guilt" is a political concept at heart. Especially after the Second World War, demilitarization was as much a caveat of extended Western occupation as anything else.

The Japanese are no more or less guilty than any other loser in history.

Are you honestly suggesting that the Japanese were no worse than the CSA? Or Spain in 1898?

Only an idiot would say that guilt is delt out based on losing a war, and not on what the losing power actually did.

[Axis Kast]

Are you honestly suggesting that the Japanese were no worse than the CSA? Or Spain in 1898?

Andersonville.

Cuban massacres.

My point, Howedar, is that the concept of assigning "war guilt" to both nation and people is a result of power politics.

[Jeremy]

Andersonville...typical. The south had enough food for its troops, so do they give that food to the troops or the prisoners?

[Axis Kast]

Andersonville...typical. The south had enough food for its troops, so do they give that food to the troops or the prisoners.

Don't you dare try that apologist crap with me.

There's no damn reason why the garrison - or even prisoners under guard - should have been prohibited from digging latrines, divering the river for a clean flow of water from upstream, or chopping wood with which to give limited shade.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually I believe that blister and tear gas agents were used by the US during the preliminary bombardments on a few of the later islands when it was just getting damn costly.

IIRC it was mentioned during "The World At War" doco series, or "Hell in the Pacific", not sure which.

Tear gas might have been used. But the US never used lethal agents during the war. Lethal agents where forward deployed against at least Germnay though.

[Sea Skimmer]

Andersonville...typical. The south had enough food for its troops, so do they give that food to the troops or the prisoners.

Don't you dare try that apologist crap with me.

There's no damn reason why the garrison - or even prisoners under guard - should have been prohibited from digging latrines, divering the river for a clean flow of water from upstream, or chopping wood with which to give limited shade.

Not to mention they could have just fucking paroled them all as was often done during the war. General Grant for example did that for the entire Vicksburg garrison rather then use of resources guarding and feeding them.

[Glocksman]

There's no damn reason why the garrison - or even prisoners under guard - should have been prohibited from digging latrines, divering the river for a clean flow of water from upstream, or chopping wood with which to give limited shade.

Indeed.

But the North hanged the wrong man after the war. Henry Wirz was just a scapegoat

Union Army Lieutenant James Madison Page:
(During the Summer of 1864)


" July brought unusual suffering to the prisoners on account of the hot weather."

The suffering caused the initiation of a petition by the prisoners for reinstatement of prisoner exchanges. Four were paroled to go to Washington and three returned to report their request had been refused.

(Following the return of the paroled emissaries to Washington).

"When we heard [Secretary of War] Stanton's reply in regard to exchange [reinstatement], we felt we were forsaken by our Government. The War Office at Washington preferred us to die rather than exchange us." "Many of the prisoners, being but human, raised their clenched, trembling hands towards heaven and with fearful oaths cursed the authorities at Washington, and the day they were born. Oh what hatred was engendered for our Secretary of War."

(On meeting Henry Wirz).

"I met Wirz while on one of his visits to the hospital. He stopped his horse, and I explained briefly the situation and the condition of my comrades. Said I, 'If something is not done for them at once, in a few days death will be the result,' and this is the substance of his reply: 'I am doing all I can. I am handicapped and pressed for rations. I am exceeding my authority now in issuing supplies. I am blamed by the soldiers for all this suffering. They do not realize I am a subordinate, governed by orders of my commanding officer. Why, sir, my own men are on short rations. The best that I can do is to see that your sick comrades are removed to the hospital. God help you, I cannot.,' and his eyes were filled with tears. I was crying myself. I saw how deeply he felt. He was pale and emaciated. His wounded arm was troubling him - he said nothing about the fact that gangrene had set in. I said to myself, 'Here is a man obliged to endure the odium resulting from the sins of others.'"

(While Wirz was on sick leave during the month of August).

"Scurvy is now fearfully prevalent. Hundreds are dying daily. It is caused by not having proper food - a change of food is absolutely necessary to relieve scurvy.
Captain Wirz was absent on sick leave for the month of August. Lieutenant Davis was in command and he did all that he could to alleviate the suffering. From all sides could be heard from men who had said derogatory things of Wirz, 'I wish the Captain was back.'"

The authorities in the North were well aware of conditions in the camps, yet halted prisoner exchanges.

Union Brigadier-General T. Seymour:
(Regarding the exchange of prisoners after being sent to visit Andersonville and other Southern Prisons)


"The Southern authorities are exceedingly desirous of an immediate change of prisoners. Their urgency is unbounded, but it is the poorest policy for our Government to deliver to them 40,000 prisoners better fed and clothed than ever before in their lives, in good condition for the field, while the United States received in return an equal number of men worn out with privations and neglect, barely able to walk and drawing their last breath, and unfit to take the field as soldiers. It is much wiser to leave the prisoners where they are."

All from here.

IMHO, General Seymour was unfit to wear the uniform of the United States Army if he felt the prisoners should be left to die.

[Glocksman]

Not to mention they could have just fucking paroled them all as was often done during the war. General Grant for example did that for the entire Vicksburg garrison rather then use of resources guarding and feeding them.

Something else interesting from that site on this subject:

In November 1864, the South unilaterally released over thirteen thousand prisoners who were seriously ill, to the United States. The majority of the released men came from Andersonville. In February 1865, Wirz released three thousand prisoners who were well enough to travel on their own to Jacksonville, Florida to the Federal commander there. The Union commander refused to accept them, and they were returned to Andersonville.

What in the fuck went through that commander's mind?

The United States War Department's statistics showed that more Southern prisoners died in Northern camps than did Northern soldiers in Southern camps. The death rate in Northern camps was approximately 12%, while the death rate in Southern camps was about 9%. This evidence was kept out as irrelevant. Of the approximately 45,000 Union prisoners to enter Andersonville, over 13,000 died. The defense was allowed to prove that the Confederate guards at Andersonville received the same quantity and quality of rations as the prisoners, and that the death rate of the guards was approximately the same as the prisoners.

Among the 68 defense witnesses who testified were former prisoners at Andersonville, relatives of prisoners, and a Catholic priest who was among the prisoner every day. The consensus of the testimony described Wirz as a kind hearted man, anguished by the terrible conditions in the prison, who did all that he could to alleviate the prisoners' suffering.

The verdict of guilty on both charges was announced on October 24, 1865. Wirz was sentenced to hang. There was a post trial review conducted by Judge Advocate General Holt. Holt had been with the Bureau of Military Justice that had gathered evidence against Wirz. In his review, Holt describes Wirz as a "demon" whose work of death caused him "savage orgies" of enjoyment. Holt confirmed Wirz's conviction and sentence.

The federal commander who turned back the prisoners would have been a better candidate for a hanging than Wirz.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Japanese censoring of books is an act of political correctness, and a residual part of the denial of their culture and history that was spawned by the US occupation.

This excuses it how?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well, of course. There was a third option, that of continued blockade and bombardment, which wouldn't have been pretty once the USAAF and USN completed their destruction of the Japanese transportation network.

Naturally. They would've starved to death.

The ideal situation would've been to demonstrate the bomb without killing anyone. Then bomb the landing beaches.

Then bomb the troop concentrations in the South. Then bomb a city.

Point is they could've waited, demonstrated--anything...they dropped to A-Bombs in less than a week and its debatable they had to drop another so rapidly.

[Axis Kast]

Most Federal commanders probably turned back the thousands of prisoners just released because it would have been a major - if not insurmountable - burden to feed, clothe, and care for all of them. While that does not of course excuse certain instances of negligence, we must be careful not to immediately jump to conclusions.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Mike, I have a question about your family members - Did they live in cities at the time, or the countryside?