Did you know?

[kuroneko]

Japanese human experimentation--- like what the Nazis did in concentration camps but almost worse.

i consider myself somewhat knowledgeable, but somehow I missed entire part of Japanese history shoved under the rug. the part where Japan occupied china and did horrendous things, more so than the rape of nanking.

Have you guys heard/read about the Japanese ventures into biowarfare and human vivisection... and the gruesome torture and painful deaths of Chinese civilians, POWs and others? I had no idea the extent of it until today.

Despite being half Japanese and half Taiwanese, I have a new appreciation to why China insists on things like the war crimes of Japan, and which Japan refuses to admit. IT really is horrendous.

[General Suburbia]

Worse than the Rape of Nanking? Never heard of this till now.

[animanic_critic]

I've heard a lot about how the Japanese loved to torture the Chinese nationals back then and the bitter emotions the present Chinese nationals feel towards the dark event. I don't think those bitter feelings will be going away for a long time.

However, I don't agree that it's worse than the Nazi's concentration camps. If you're speaking about mass killings or genocide, there's no case where one is worse than the other. I believe that any mass killing is the worst.

[laborpilot86]

Ah, those lovely 'gentlemen' at Unit 731...

They made the Nazis look like a bunch a boy scouts.

The Kempeitai (military police) were just as nasty.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Nah, the Nazis had Mengele, who was easily on par with Unit 731.

At least the Nazis didn't test the effects of chemical and biological warfare on occupied territory though.

But what can you do. Germany had its denazification post-war program, but Japanese atrocities (and the war itself) are wholly on the shoulders of the military (its not like Tojo was ever elected by the general populace), and they already demolished the military post-war, you can't take the population and force them to renounce something they didn't even know about.

Would be nice if Koizumi and Abe fessed up though. Bastards.

But alas, everyone knows about the Holocaust, and a growing number know about the Rape of Nanking, but that still leaves Malmedy, Katyn, Babi Yar, the Red Army in East Prussia/Germany, Bataan, Changi, etc... and that's just one war.

[loner]

The difference between the Holocaust and the Japanese atrocities is that the former was done because of the ideology of the Nazis while the latter were done for mainly strategic purposes. Both were among the worst moments in human history. The Nanjing Massacre was committed by the Japanese mainly to shock the Nanjing government, which had moved inland into Chongqing, into submission. After Nanjing, most Japanese atrocities were actually committed in the countryside. Japan adopted a policy of "kill all, take all, burn all" in the countryside, where local militias resisted the invaders ferociously. Again, this was done to scare the locals into submission, but it only made the Chinese populace more and more angry with them and form even tougher resistance. It is unfortunate that the deeds of the Japanese in the countryside are quite unknown outside of China, but such is how most people understand history: through major events only.

There's no point really in arguing which atrocity is worse; they are all horrible and must be recognized as such. Dehumanization is part of all wars, and it shouldn't be a surprise that it is at its worst during the most horrible of all wars.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Not wholly for strategic purposes though, as the Japanese did view the Chinese as inferior, even going to the whole Shina vs Chugoku debate. There are also arguments that Nanjing was a byproduct of Japanese rage over Chinese resistance in Shanghai, combined with the Japanese leadership telling their men that the campaign would be over in three months.

[ProfessorWashu]

Not surprised at all. Japanese Imperial torture was some of the most sophisticated of its time. You don't just magically figure out how to torture the hell out of people. You experiment. No one just automatically figures out how to get you riiiiiight to the point where you're about to black out, but can't. No one.

[loner]

Not wholly for strategic purposes though, as the Japanese did view the Chinese as inferior, even going to the whole Shina vs Chugoku debate. There are also arguments that Nanjing was a byproduct of Japanese rage over Chinese resistance in Shanghai, combined with the Japanese leadership telling their men that the campaign would be over in three months.

Well yes, the Shina vs. Chugoku debate was there to serve as a ideological excuse for invasion, but I don't think Japan had the extermination of of an entire race of people in their program like Nazi Germany did. They were trying to put on a Co-Prosperity Sphere facade instead expressing wholesale aggression against other East Asian peoples. Of course, all these explanations are all plausible and they all reinforce each other. Rage against Chinese resistance did worked up the soldiers, but nothing on the scale of the Nanjing Massacre would have occurred without consent from the military leadership IMO.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

No, military leadership certainly OKed/condoned all the atrocities that occurred, if not ordered them outright. But while Japan didn't have a dogma of exterminating the Chinese like the Nazis and the Jews, they instead, I believe, treated them like livestock. That is, let them live if you can use them, but don't hesitate to kill them if you need something from them and they won't give it up. Closer to the Third Reich's eventual plans for conquered Russia/Ukraine/Other Eastern Territories.

P.S. if you ever read some of the plans the Nazis had for occupied USSR, yeesh. No education for the Slavs above 4th grade, all rebellions will be put down by bombing raid, etc...

[loner]

Right, which isn't really anything better than what the Nazi's are doing with the Jews really. It is the spirit of an age that is fueled by ultra-nationalism, where nationalism turned from forming your own group identity and be proud of it to thinking your group is the greatest of the entire world and all others should be your slaves.

Which is why people must know about what a horror WWII was.

[laborpilot86]

Would be nice if Koizumi and Abe fessed up though. Bastards.

The reason for Japan's non-apology is simple: Confucious. In the moral world of Confucian thought, when you apologize to someone for anything, you are considered morally inferior to the apologized party (hence why the that Chinese-force-down U.S spy plane thing back in 2001 was such a disaster for the U.S. We apologized to China for thier forcing down of our aircraft.), and what even moderatly nationalist Japanese politican is going to admit that Japan is 'morally inferior' to China...especially with very angry right-wing nuts running around screaming about how 'Nanjing never happened etc!' will try to kill you.

[kuroneko]

i dunno systematically gassing a room full of people to kill them, versus gassing individual families (including women and children) and studying how long they are able to survive... and watching parents give mouth to mouth, to their children until they're all dead.

the japanese just seem so much more twisted. in addition to freezing off all a person's limbs... and then using their head and torso for pathologicial studies

did u know they actually breeded fleas to spread the bubonic plague? and actually used it to kill hundred of thousands.

and the american military.. mcarthur... actually granted reprieve to many of the scientists involved, because they wanted that "research"

[loner]

The reason for Japan's non-apology is simple: Confucious. In the moral world of Confucian thought, when you apologize to someone for anything, you are considered morally inferior to the apologized party (hence why the that Chinese-force-down U.S spy plane thing back in 2001 was such a disaster for the U.S. We apologized to China for thier forcing down of our aircraft.), and what even moderatly nationalist Japanese politican is going to admit that Japan is 'morally inferior' to China...especially with very angry right-wing nuts running around screaming about how 'Nanjing never happened etc!' will try to kill you.

Thank you for another baseless, stupid piece of BS. Why don't you quote something from the Analects or any other Confucian texts to back that claim up? Japan is hardly a Confucian society anyways, especially at that period. China can't be generalized as a Confucian society right now either, especially not after Confucius was demonized during the Cultural Revolution.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

i dunno systematically gassing a room full of people to kill them, versus gassing individual families (including women and children) and studying how long they are able to survive... and watching parents give mouth to mouth, to their children until they're all dead.

the japanese just seem so much more twisted. in addition to freezing off all a person's limbs... and then using their head and torso for pathologicial studies

did u know they actually breeded fleas to spread the bubonic plague? and actually used it to kill hundred of thousands.

Mengele also did experiments involving live subjects regarding pain tolerance, any potential special properties of twins, and organ removal - all without anesthetic.

The Germans had the world's largest chemical warfare agent factories, but Hitler never used it, fearing either retaliation, or he had a soft spot because he was gassed in the 1st War.

[ProfessorWashu]

Mengele also did experiments involving live subjects regarding pain tolerance, any potential special properties of twins, and organ removal - all without anesthetic.

The Germans had the world's largest chemical warfare agent factories, but Hitler never used it, fearing either retaliation, or he had a soft spot because he was gassed in the 1st War.

Yep. Can't forget that. The advancement of a lot of scientific knowledge of twins and genetics was established during the Nazi regime. Unfortunately, the method of obtaining that knowledge was, for lack of a better word, demonic.

Is this a match between the Nazis and the Japanese Imperial military for the title of "Cruelest Bastards Alive"? Both were pretty bad. On one hand, you've got Germans planning to slowly obliterate the human race (eventually killing even themselves due to genetic symmetry), and on the other you've got people who were on par with the Viet Cong. Why debate who was more evil?

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Where did the Viet Cong reference come from? Not to mention, the Nazis (not Germans) were never planning on obliterating the human race. But it's not so much a comparison or a contest, as it's leaving no stone unturned and making sure people know about everything that happened.

[ProfessorWashu]

Where did the Viet Cong reference come from? Not to mention, the Nazis (not Germans) were never planning on obliterating the human race. But it's not so much a comparison or a contest, as it's leaving no stone unturned and making sure people know about everything that happened.

The Viet Cong reference was meant to represent that the Japanese Imperial military didn't really exercize much reservation about fighting unfairly, especially in jungle-like settings. They used a whole book of "dirty" tricks. For example, they (so I'm told) would string captured soldiers in trees, injure them so the bait would call out, and then lure enemy troops with the distress calls. Then they'd snipe the ones who came to help. Pretty Viet Cong-like.

I assume that when you say that the Nazis, not Germans, were planning anything, you mean that the military was conducting the experiments and executions, not civilians? Because the Nazi party was a German party, and its members were Germans. In fact, they were the government in Germany at the time. So it is actually accurate to say that the German nation was acting as Nazis. The civilians put up marginal resistance at best, and were hence partially responsible for the actions of their government. But the etymology of the phrase "Germans" is a minor point in my argument. I only bring it up to clarify who it is I was talking about.

As to the obliteration thing. I believe I phrased myself poorly, leading to a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that the Nazi party's plans to ethnically cleanse the world to be composed of only the "master race" were unsound plans that would inevitibly cause genetic symmetry in the human race, resulting in a collapse of human adaptation to any disease foreign to the "master genome". A plague, and the subsequent death of humanity, could have been the result. So, in a sorta bent way, they were planning humanity's extinction, even if only implicitly and accidentally. (This assumes no mutations, but then again they killed anyone with mutations. Or at least wanted to.)

It's commendable to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but about WWII. But we can only retrieve so much. And with large amounts of the veterans dying every day, we sure need to act fast. I commend your efforts. Apparently I misunderstood the conversation's nature.

One last thing, on an admittedly unrelated note: Your signiature contains a picture with an interesting art style. I'd like to watch it, but do not recognize the characters. Would you tell me which anime they are from? The style is similar to another baseball anime, "Princess 9", but that's not it. My apologies if this question is out of line, I mean no irreverance to the purpose of this thread.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

The Viet Cong reference was meant to represent that the Japanese Imperial military didn't really exercize much reservation about fighting unfairly, especially in jungle-like settings. They used a whole book of "dirty" tricks. For example, they (so I'm told) would string captured soldiers in trees, injure them so the bait would call out, and then lure enemy troops with the distress calls. Then they'd snipe the ones who came to help. Pretty Viet Cong-like.

This isn't quite the same since we're principally talking about atrocities against a civilian population.

I assume that when you say that the Nazis, not Germans, were planning anything, you mean that the military was conducting the experiments and executions, not civilians? Because the Nazi party was a German party, and its members were Germans. In fact, they were the government in Germany at the time. So it is actually accurate to say that the German nation was acting as Nazis. The civilians put up marginal resistance at best, and were hence partially responsible for the actions of their government. But the etymology of the phrase "Germans" is a minor point in my argument. I only bring it up to clarify who it is I was talking about.

The Wehrmacht, for the most part, absolutely despised the Waffen-SS and the regular SS. However, the General Staff was so indoctrinated in that old Prussian philosophy "befehl ist befehl" ("orders are orders") that they simply refused to act. But no, one cannot say that the Nazis are the Germans for more than just that. News of the actions of the SS and Einsatzgruppen never reached the general German public. Furthermore, Hitler never actually won a majority in the Reichstag. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenberg in a purely political move, and then used an emergency clause in the Constitution to assume the Presidency. He then merged the two offices into "Fuhrer und Reichskanzler" (Fuhrer and Reichschancellor) and assumed absolute power. While most Germans did join the Party, they did so because not joining would lead to suspicion and a visit from the Gestapo.

Oh, and Hitler was an Austrian. But that's just a bit of trivia.

As to the obliteration thing. I believe I phrased myself poorly, leading to a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that the Nazi party's plans to ethnically cleanse the world to be composed of only the "master race" were unsound plans that would inevitibly cause genetic symmetry in the human race, resulting in a collapse of human adaptation to any disease foreign to the "master genome". A plague, and the subsequent death of humanity, could have been the result. So, in a sorta bent way, they were planning humanity's extinction, even if only implicitly and accidentally. (This assumes no mutations, but then again they killed anyone with mutations. Or at least wanted to.)

Ironically, the subjugated Slavs would live in such a scenario, where the "master race" would perish. However, this wasn't so cut and dry. While there was certainly an ideal image (blond/blue eyes - ironically both recessive alleles I believe), the German people were not all blond with blue eyes. Eugenics was only practiced on the mentally disabled, so from a purely Darwinian point of view, they were actually strengthening the gene pool. Also, fraternization was generally permitted to some degree between the Germans and Scandinavia, Benelux, and France. The big no-nos, so to speak, were the Slavs and the Jews. Finally, Germany's population at the time was roughly 70-80 million. That would be plenty to ensure genetic variation.

One last thing, on an admittedly unrelated note: Your signiature contains a picture with an interesting art style. I'd like to watch it, but do not recognize the characters. Would you tell me which anime they are from? The style is similar to another baseball anime, "Princess 9", but that's not it. My apologies if this question is out of line, I mean no irreverance to the purpose of this thread.

Its from H2, a manga by Adachi Mitsuru. His art style is pretty much uniform throughout his works, the most popular of which is Touch, which was a WILDLY POPULAR (33% viewing share) series in Japan. 101 episodes, unlicensed, so er... take a Google stab. <.<

[laborpilot86]

"orders are orders"
alas, that is often the excuse war criminals give when confronted with what they did...

You mention the Prussian mentalitly, which is interesting because it was Prussian officers like von Stauffenburg who were the first to turn against Hitler in 1943-44. If they had thier limits.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

alas, that is often the excuse war criminals give when confronted with what they did...

You mention the Prussian mentalitly, which is interesting because it was Prussian officers like von Stauffenburg who were the first to turn against Hitler in 1943-44. If they had thier limits.

What are you getting at exactly? von Stauffenberg was not the first to resist, civilian or military. If anything, he was one of the last. You ignore the Kreisau Circle, von Kleist, and the Scholls. Most of the Prussian field marshals were drummed out of the service because they disagreed with Hitler's strategy, not because they actively conspired against him. Of the 12 field marshals he promoted after the Fall of France, 7 were from Prussian nobility, but only two, von Kluge and von Witzelben, were part of July 20. The majority of the senior military leaders stood by "Prussian field marshals do not mutiny" until the end of the war, even though they were willing to commit treason by speaking to and not reporting members of the German resistance against Hitler.

[ProfessorWashu]

The Wehrmacht, for the most part, absolutely despised the Waffen-SS and the regular SS. However, the General Staff was so indoctrinated in that old Prussian philosophy "befehl ist befehl" ("orders are orders") that they simply refused to act. But no, one cannot say that the Nazis are the Germans for more than just that. News of the actions of the SS and Einsatzgruppen never reached the general German public. Furthermore, Hitler never actually won a majority in the Reichstag. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenberg in a purely political move, and then used an emergency clause in the Constitution to assume the Presidency. He then merged the two offices into "Fuhrer und Reichskanzler" (Fuhrer and Reichschancellor) and assumed absolute power. While most Germans did join the Party, they did so because not joining would lead to suspicion and a visit from the Gestapo.

Oh, and Hitler was an Austrian. But that's just a bit of trivia.

Well, despite that Hitler was Austrian and the Nazis were unpopular in the German government, I'd still say that it was the German Army fighting its wars, guarding its camps, and on occasion serving in the SS/Gestapo. And I'm sure that there were German officials participating in the Nazi movement, or else the party would've been easily annihilated and unable to gain any power at all. And orders may be orders, but this situation is why modern soldiers are told to disobey any order that is obviously morally questionable, isn't it?

You are right, though. The German populace (i.e. civilians) was chiefly unaware of the offenses committed in camps and at war. But they knew that the government was up to something, and acting wrongly. Otherwise they wouldn't have been afraid of a Gestapo, because they'd have never heard of such a thing. So I can't help but hold the German citizens of then (I certainly don't blame modern Germans for the Holocaust and WWII...) partially responsible. Just as I hold the American population of today partially responsible for the war in Iraq. But I digress from the purpose of this forum, and will hence end my ranting about semantics and blame. Let's talk civilian atrocities.

I believe I recall a story of American Marines entering a peasant village in the Japanese captured territories. The Japanese Army decieved the peasants into believing that the US was going to capture and torment them, and that if they wanted to retain their honor, they had to kill themselves. The peasants then plunged themselves into the sea and purposely drowned. I couldn't give you the where or the when, but has anyone else heard this story? It illustrates very well for me the severity of the offenses. And further, didn't the Japanese drive armored cars through Manchuria and open fire on civilians? Pretty ruthless.

Ah. And thank you for the tip on the anime.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

No, no member of the Wehrmacht ever served (or was allowed to serve) in the Gestapo or the SS/Waffen SS. The Wehrmacht certainly did fight the wars, but again, orders are orders. The Wehrmacht were not responsible for the construction, function, or maintenance of the camps. Certainly, the Germans are not blameless, but to label the Holocaust an atrocity of the German people (of any time period) is certainly stretching it. Oh, the Nazis WERE the German government after Hitler united the offices of Chancellor and President, since he proceeded to disband the parliamentary Reichstag.

Yes, the German populace probably figured something was up with the mass deportations of Jews and such (Sophie Scholl for example), but really, hindsight is 20/20. Could a normal person really have fathomed the concept of assembly line murder prior to actually finding the camps? Also, there are several factors against popular rebellion. One is simple fear, two, if you rebel and topple the government, do you really think the Russians would have stopped and negotiated with the new civilian government, or would have simply overran the nation? The Waffen-SS/SS was also 2 million men strong, and had the potential to trigger a civil war. The domestic situation in Germany was not so cut and dry as evil vs. good, as nice as that would have been. A key thing to keep in mind was that the Endlosung (Final Solution) didn't actually start until 1939/40, after the Germans took Poland and committed themselves to the Second War.

But really, its utterly difficult to fathom the depth of the "befehl ist befehl" mentality. Stalingrad is a good example. Paulus was a FINE general, and everyone, from himself, to his peers, to his immediate superiors, thought he should retreat from the city. Hitler said stay, and although Paulus and von Manstein and everyone involved argued with Hitler's decision, no one dared issue any order contrary to the "stand your ground" order.

I believe that was Okinawa, the example you illustrated. But given the historical background, the Japanese civilian knew nothing about America, aside from Perry's Black Ships sailing into Edo Harbour.

On a final note (for this post), I advise you to watch the movie Downfall (German: Der Untergang). It's masterfully done, and gives some insight into both the military "befehl ist befehl" mentality, and Hitler's sway over the civilian population.

[ZZalapski]

On a final note (for this post), I advise you to watch the movie Downfall (German: Der Untergang). It's masterfully done, and gives some insight into both the military "befehl ist befehl" mentality, and Hitler's sway over the civilian population.

I'll second that. The scenes with the youngster Nazi-wannabes were like a punch in the gut.

[KiraraKim]

In my opinion Nazi was almost synonymous with German during WWII. Of course that doesn't mean that every German was a Nazi or even every German that was a Nazi followed their ideology to the fullest or knew the full extent of what was going in the camps. But many German citizens did support the Nazi party fully. Yes I know there were those who also joined out of fear but it wasn't like the Nazi party had no real support from the German people.

The thing is before WWII, the Germans were at their absolute lowest. They had just been defeated in WWI, unemployment was at an all time high, and the morale of the entire country was down. Then the Nazi party came and promised to unite the German people, make Germany a wonderful country again, and save the country from the Jews (who became the main scapegoats to all the German's problems).

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

In my opinion Nazi was almost synonymous with German during WWII. Of course that doesn't mean that every German was a Nazi or even every German that was a Nazi followed their ideology to the fullest or knew the full extent of what was going in the camps. But many German citizens did support the Nazi party fully. Yes I know there were those who also joined out of fear but it wasn't like the Nazi party had no real support from the German people.

42.9% support in the 1933 General Election. Party membership of 2 million in 1933. Population of Germany in 1937: ~70 million. Certainly, to say that the German populace hated Hitler would be completely insane, but to say "synonymous" is a stretch as well. That's on the same vein as saying everyone in the USSR was a Stalinist in the 30s.

[KiraraKim]

42.9% support in the 1933 General Election. Party membership of 2 million in 1933. Population of Germany in 1937: ~70 million. Certainly, to say that the German populace hated Hitler would be completely insane, but to say "synonymous" is a stretch as well. That's on the same vein as saying everyone in the USSR was a Stalinist in the 30s.

Well I said almost synonymous (though I admit maybe that was still a little strong.) I think I also made it clear that I did not believe every German was a Nazi during WWII. Still with 42.9% (I've also seen 43.9%) that was the largest percentage by far of any of the other parties. I am just trying to say that the people of Germany were not completely guilt free or innocent bystanders. And while most of them did not know the full extent of the camps they did know something was happening to their Jewish neighbors. Yes there were many people just following orders who were scared and there were many people who were truly manipulated and supported the party fully (the thing is most people would never admit the latter).

Whatever past is past and most of these people are dead or dying. And I truly believe Germany made amends for their past. And I am also not forgetting all the Germans who did rebel against the Nazis and who hid Jews in their homes at the risk of their own life. Those are the Germans during WWII that I want to remember.

[ProfessorWashu]

I probably moved too swiftly in saying that the "Germans" were responsible for the Nazi actions. I accidentally created an argument. I really meant the governmental entity that was Germany at that point (Hence, Germans), not necessarily its people. And that was synonymous to Nazi. I didn't forget that there were Germans who resisted the Nazis, opposed them, or at the very least didn't help them. But at the same time, I couldn't completely separate the Nazis as a separate entity from Germany, because that too would've been incorrect. So, when I say Germans, I mean German government. Much like during the Cold War. When we said we were in opposition to the "Russians", we really meant the Russian government. That's all I meant.

Okinawa, eh? I figured it was around there, but I had plain forgotten.

I'll check out that movie you recommended. At the least it never hurts to have a little more information, at the most it may completely change the way I think about the situation. I'm also wanting to see "Letters from Iwo Jima", because I have never really had the Japanese side of the story told to me. Would you recommend that one for such a purpose, or should I look elsewhere? (History channel and such are a given....) ^_^

Finally, you are wise to consider the implications of full-on rebellion against the Nazi party. But what I thought was that so many people were in opposition to the Nazis, that restoration of the parliament and thus the de-Nazification of the military would prevent a civilian-state and just turn Germany back into its old self. But this is speculation, and not much else.

[Major Tom]

I'll second that. The scenes with the youngster Nazi-wannabes were like a punch in the gut.

Thirded. Of all the institutions of Nazi Germany, the Hitler Jugend is the only one that has my unreserved pity, but I found the Goebbels children to be more heartbreaking. Der Untergang is one of the finest war movies made, but it is a difficult film to watch, I have seen it twice and it doesn't get any easier. The best thing about it is that it doesn't take any sides, it is politically impartial.

I've also been wondering about Letters From Iwo Jima as well. I have a penchant for the other side of the story, and I think the Japanese perhaps have been even more restricted than the Germans in exploring their own past. I don't know of any Japanese films about the war.

[laborpilot86]

Harp of Burma (I think that's the name...) is a movie made in the early 1950s in Japan about the war...but I haven't seen it.

The Japanese have a much worse track record on the war then the Germans do (The Germans did formally apologize for most of thier actions after all) and as a result the war is a rare subject in Japanese (Letters from Iwo Jima was made by an American after all) film in comparison to German film.

There are a lot of books about Japan's actions during the war published by Japanese scholars, but most are hard to find in English.

It's a subject the Japanese as a society would perfer not to discuss at least not from the viewpoint of thier own actions during the conflict.

[Major Tom]

Harp of Burma (I think that's the name...) is a movie made in the early 1950s in Japan about the war...but I haven't seen it.

Is this the film you are talking about? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harp_of_Burma) It sounds interesting, but it doesn't look to focus on events like Der Untergang or Letters from Iwo Jima.

The Japanese have a much worse track record on the war then the Germans do (The Germans did formally apologize for most of thier actions after all) and as a result the war is a rare subject in Japanese (Letters from Iwo Jima was made by an American after all) film in comparison to German film.

On Letters, I have heard it said that a film like this was only ever going to be made by a foreign director. I suspect China and Korea would have something to say about any sort of major Japanese project about Japan and the war, in the same sort of manner that Jewish communities raised a fuss about Der Untergang. I think specifically because it made little mention of the Holocaust.

There are a lot of books about Japan's actions during the war published by Japanese scholars, but most are hard to find in English.

I can also sympathise about the book situation. My particular interest is Hungary and WWII, but most materials on this subject are in Hungarian or German, there is precious little in English. I do have a rather extensive book on the subject in english, but it's a rather difficult to read, very wordy with lots of samll text.

It's a subject the Japanese as a society would perfer not to discuss at least not from the viewpoint of thier own actions during the conflict.

This I find interesting. I have heard a quote (I think it was from an interview with Traudl Junge) that described how generations in Germany dealt with the war. I think it went something on the lines of those that lived through the war and the children born in the aftermath (50's & 60's) just didn't talk about it, but come the 80's the new generation started asking questions, what happened, why, and how.

The survivors I can understand, they would have seen many things that perhaps they ought not to have. That's one of the reasons I have baulked at talking to my grandfather about his war. The Eastern Front was not a pleasant place and from what I have heard from him, he considers it a mistake to have joined up in the first place. I suppose the following generation saw that that the topic was not welcome and did not press the issue, whereas the new generation had a good deal of distance between them and the war, so the subject may not have been as......personal.

But for the Japanese to prefer to forget the whole shebang happened puzzles me.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

On the subject of war guilt, read this: http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Guilt-Memories-Germany-Japan/dp/0452011566

There's also this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162563/) film about the war, but it was just infuriating.

[laborpilot86]

But for the Japanese to prefer to forget the whole shebang happened puzzles me.

The war is discussed, at least on an allegorical level, in many anime series. Think of the 'kids fighting against overwhelming odds' leitmotif that occurs in Gunbuster, Neon Genesis Evangelion, and Space Battleship Yamato for example. That ia a very subtle referance to Japan's situation in the war, especially by the time of Iwo Jima. I think personally that Japan as a society knows what they did wrong during the war, but feel that thier suffering (atomic bombs etc.) was just as bad, so they try to focus on the atomic weapons and fire-bombing campaign instead of Unit 731 et al when discussing war, and its intrinsic barbarity, in general and WW2 in particular.

You can see that ambivelence about the war in the common view of war provided in anime: war is evil and brutal, but it is often nessacery for the survival of (blank), and thus the warrior should be celebrated on certain level, while the war itself should be shown for all its brutality so as to discourage future generations from embarking on the path of combat.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

The problem with the Evangelion example is that the protagonist is often portrayed as an unwilling participant, forced to become a fighter/monster/killer, which is ignoring the fact that Japan started all the wars she became involved in (except Operation August Storm, but that doesn't really count).

Also, why do the Germans, who also got firebombed into the ground and even had to endure a brutal Soviet occupation, not have this same point of view? Wolfgang Petersen mentioned it himself when talking about the ending to Das Boot - "[post-war] German war movies cannot have happy endings."

[laborpilot86]

The problem with the Evangelion example is that the protagonist is often portrayed as an unwilling participant

not every soldier goes to war willingly...and I was mainly speaking of the concepts in Evangelion regarding the god-like powers of the Angels and that piloting the Evas profoundly damages the kids 'doing the fighting'

why do the Germans, who also got firebombed into the ground and even had to endure a brutal Soviet occupation, not have this same point of view?

hmm...that's a good question actually. Maybe because the Germans also went through the experience of the utter horror of trench warfare in WW1, where there were no 'heroes', only victims, whereas the Japanese did not?

Even the series, where a war is the main part of the narrative, in which the 'good guys'(and more often than not thier are no out-and-out good vs. evil narratives, at least in the way Americans wrote war stories up until Vietnam) win don't have all 'happy-happy joy-joy' endings. Think of the Gundam 0079 series and Macross. Yes, there is victory but often it is just as depressing as the end of Das Boot.

[f1rst children]

No, military leadership certainly OKed/condoned all the atrocities that occurred, if not ordered them outright. But while Japan didn't have a dogma of exterminating the Chinese like the Nazis and the Jews, they instead, I believe, treated them like livestock. That is, let them live if you can use them, but don't hesitate to kill them if you need something from them and they won't give it up. Closer to the Third Reich's eventual plans for conquered Russia/Ukraine/Other Eastern Territories.

We all treated each other like livestock during WWII.

Dropping an atomic bomb on a city, or firebombing a city?
Starving hundreds of thousands of civilians to death during occupation?
The forced return of nearly 2 million refugees to their former territory (with accompanying summary execution or slave-labor internment)?
The rape of Okinawa?
Driving tanks over and bombing refugee columns?

All done by the Allies during or immediately following WWII.

Switch the jerseys around, and half the time you wouldn't be able to tell the 2 teams apart.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

not every soldier goes to war willingly...and I was mainly speaking of the concepts in Evangelion regarding the god-like powers of the Angels and that piloting the Evas profoundly damages the kids 'doing the fighting'

And the Evas don't have god-like powers? The reason the Evas are able to defeat the Angels is because they can do just about everything the Angels can. Likewise, mecha shows usually have the protagonist piloting some super machine that cuts through grunts like a hot knife through butter. Besides, that's not what you meant by "fighting against overwhelming odds' leitmotif."

You seem to have missed the point.


hmm...that's a good question actually. Maybe because the Germans also went through the experience of the utter horror of trench warfare in WW1, where there were no 'heroes', only victims, whereas the Japanese did not?


No, because the Germans thought they were the victims after WW1. (See Dolchstosslegende.)

[laborpilot86]

No, because the Germans thought they were the victims after WW1. (See Dolchstosslegende.)

Quite true, but the allied powers were also profondly damaged by thier experience in WW1. Britian became reflexiavly anti-war, and France was decimated on so many levels to such a degree that they couldn't put up any kind of defence when the Germans came over the border for 'round two', and these two nations were the ones that pressed for the one-sided terms of Versailles. There were no winners in WW1, which is why there was a second global war less than a generation later.

Defeat in war can really change a society(see U.S after Vietnam and Japan after WW2) and it can impact a society's view of itself in very strange ways. On the one hand, Japan accepts that it was defeated, but on the other hand, some elements in the culture flatly refuse to accept defeat and 'blame the victim', or lash out at anyone who says that Japan's actions were wrong or illegal (see the recent textbook contreversies vis a vis China and Korea). Oddly enough, this debate is similar to the one that occured in the U.S after the end of the Vietnam war , with those on the left being attacked vicously by the right for a supposed 'lack of patroitism' in regards to what 'they did, or didn't do, in Vietnam', and thier stance on war as an instrument of national policy. In a nutshell, the issue is a debate between 'those who say (insert country here) did wrong' vs. 'those who say (insert country here) did right'. And this debate is played out on a cultural as well as political level.

NGE is a bad example what I was talking about, I'll give you that.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Quite true, but the allied powers were also profondly damaged by thier experience in WW1. Britian became reflexiavly anti-war, and France was decimated on so many levels to such a degree that they couldn't put up any kind of defence when the Germans came over the border for 'round two', and these two nations were the ones that pressed for the one-sided terms of Versailles. There were no winners in WW1, which is why there was a second global war less than a generation later.

Yeah... but what does that have to do with the presence/absence of a victim's mentality? We're not arguing the legitimacy of the Dolchstosslegende here. Oh, you're a bit off there on the reasons for France's fall in 1940.

Defeat in war can really change a society(see U.S after Vietnam and Japan after WW2) and it can impact a society's view of itself in very strange ways. On the one hand, Japan accepts that it was defeated, but on the other hand, some elements in the culture flatly refuse to accept defeat and 'blame the victim', or lash out at anyone who says that Japan's actions were wrong or illegal (see the recent textbook contreversies vis a vis China and Korea).

The general consensus among Japanese civilians, according to Ian Buruma, is that Japan was the victim of the Second World War. Note that Hirohito's message to the people made no mention of the word surrender. And how much has Japanese society really changed? Pre-war and post-war, the nation was/is still ruled by a select oligarchy (the army/the capitalists), and the people don't seem to really care - how can one ruling party - through boom, crash, and recession - for 60-odd years be the natural product of a democracy?

[Major Tom]

Wolfgang Petersen mentioned it himself when talking about the ending to Das Boot - "[post-war] German war movies cannot have happy endings."

I think it would be very difficult to come up with a happy ending to a German POV WWII war film, simply because there just aren't many happy endings to be had. Whilst the Americans, British and Soviets can take comfort in the fact that they won and can put a reason to what they fought and died for, the best sort of ending I can come up with for the Germans is simply surviving. That said, I did feel that the end to Der Untergang did leave on a hopeful note, that the nightmare was over. But I'm guessing that may be more of an exception to the rule.

I'm gathering that the main reason why Japan as a whole isn't too concerned with exploring their more recent history is a steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that they were wrong. I'm guessing that this may tie into the concept of losing face, a concept that is still somewhat alien to me.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

I think it would be very difficult to come up with a happy ending to a German POV WWII war film, simply because there just aren't many happy endings to be had. Whilst the Americans, British and Soviets can take comfort in the fact that they won and can put a reason to what they fought and died for, the best sort of ending I can come up with for the Germans is simply surviving.

The interesting thing about this is that recently, only the Americans have actually put out "happy" movies about the Second War. The Soviets/Russians in particular are particularly shocking in that they will not put emphasis on what they won, and adamantly portray what they lost (see Elem Klimov's Come and See (Idi i Smotri), Mikhail Kalatozov's Cranes are Flying, Andrei Tarkovsky's Ivan's Childhood, and Marlen Khutsiyev's I am Twenty (Mne dvadtsat let) for some stunning examples). Klimov's films are particularly brutal, and all of these aforementioned films involve children/youths in the lead roles.

But if you've seen the ending to Das Boot, you'll see that it doesn't seem to be an issue of lack of potential, it's a likely a guilt complex.


I'm gathering that the main reason why Japan as a whole isn't too concerned with exploring their more recent history is a steadfast refusal to consider the possibility that they were wrong. I'm guessing that this may tie into the concept of losing face, a concept that is still somewhat alien to me.

It's interesting, because in Oriental culture, losing face/honour is the worst thing that could happen to a person, alive or dead. I don't know the exact reasons, but a possibility is the emphasis on name, particularly the family name. In old Oriental culture, and even today to some degree, you're only as good as your name. Either way, this trend isn't just Japanese, but also Chinese - China refuses to admit any problems, the Kuomintang in Taiwan hasn't yielded their claims on Mongolia. Perhaps it also partially stems from the risk of colonization by the Western Powers in the 19th century, and that none of the major Asian powers ever want to appear that weak again.

[laborpilot86]

this may tie into the concept of losing face
Yup, that's the root cause of all of this. The Japanese as a culture do not want to 'lose face', hence they will probably never admit they were wrong during WW2. Although, you can make the arguement that nobody in a war admits that they are 'wrong', even the victors.
how much has Japanese society really changed?
Quite a bit actually. When Shinzo Abe tried to play the nationalist card to appease the right-wingers, he, and the LDP, got smoked in the most recent Diet election. The extreme right-wing (the 'Nanking deniers' you could call them) in Japan is much, much smaller than it's noise level would lead you to believe, and has little support in the major cities, just like the LDP.

how can one ruling party - through boom, crash, and recession - for 60-odd years be the natural product of a democracy?
lack of unified opposition, a little help from the CIA, and a careful cultivation of allies in the business world and the press.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Yup, that's the root cause of all of this. The Japanese as a culture do not want to 'lose face', hence they will probably never admit they were wrong during WW2. Although, you can make the arguement that nobody in a war admits that they are 'wrong', even the victors.

(West) Germany has, quite vehemently.


Quite a bit actually. When Shinzo Abe tried to play the nationalist card to appease the right-wingers, he, and the LDP, got smoked in the most recent Diet election. The extreme right-wing (the 'Nanking deniers' you could call them) in Japan is much, much smaller than it's noise level would lead you to believe, and has little support in the major cities, just like the LDP.

Don't read too much in to this, for although the DPJ has been gaining steam in the Upper House elections gradually since 2004, Koizumi smashed all opposition despite indications to the contrary in the 2005 General Elections (for the more powerful Lower House), taking 11 more seats in Tokyo and 7 more in Osaka than he had previously.


lack of unified opposition, a little help from the CIA, and a careful cultivation of allies in the business world and the press.

Well, yes, but I was saying that the key to success in this modern Japanese "democracy" is playing out exactly like the keys to success for the warlords in the Sengoku Jidai. So how is it a democracy?

[laborpilot86]

(West) Germany has, quite vehemently.
Germany is the exception, not the rule.

So how is it a democracy?
I guess Japan's expections are lower than most other countries.

[ProfessorWashu]

We all treated each other like livestock during WWII.

Dropping an atomic bomb on a city, or firebombing a city?
Starving hundreds of thousands of civilians to death during occupation?
The forced return of nearly 2 million refugees to their former territory (with accompanying summary execution or slave-labor internment)?
The rape of Okinawa?
Driving tanks over and bombing refugee columns?

All done by the Allies during or immediately following WWII.

Switch the jerseys around, and half the time you wouldn't be able to tell the 2 teams apart.

Yes. It was an awful, disgusting, brutal war with no winners. It led to years of hatred, fear, and regret. It left uninvolved civilians with millions of dead in its wake, and the families of soldiers on all sides in ruin.

I can't help but feel strange when I think back on Truman's famous words about the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima: "Shed your tears at Pearl Harbor." I can't help but feel strange that an AMERICAN leader felt that way. Just goes to show that no one is above cruelty and remorselessness. Americans can do it too. Even if the bombings were inevitable, and ultimately saved millions of lives, I'd still at least say I was sorry so many civilians had to die in the process. Heartless bastard. Shed your tears at all three sites.

[laborpilot86]

war sucks.

'Those who know not war welcome it with a dance.' Iraqi proverb

[f1rst children]

Well, yes, but I was saying that the key to success in this modern Japanese "democracy" is playing out exactly like the keys to success for the warlords in the Sengoku Jidai. So how is it a democracy?

Crappy, dysfunctional, corrupt democracy is still democracy, just as a crappy Tekken cartoon is still anime.

Mexico was controlled by the PRI for a long time. So was the Southern US. So is Sweden. They're all democracies. It's not like Japan is officially a one-party state, like a China or USSR, it's just that one party always wins.

Most Japanese don't care about politics anyways, and are more dependent on custom than law in their daily life. Heck, half the time the LDP wins elections simply by nominating some random hot girl, as if being elected to public office was no different than being chosen idol of a shopping district.

When you don't care about something, you'll find very little reason to change it.

[laborpilot86]

Crappy, dysfunctional, corrupt democracy is still democracy, just as a crappy Tekken cartoon is still anime.


quite true. I'll take Japan over North Korea any day of the week.

[LadyYuina]

Never heard of any of this. Now I feel like looking up information on this particular topic.

[laborpilot86]

Never heard of any of this. Now I feel like looking up information on this particular topic.

Some elements in Japan would prefer that you stay in the dark about Japan's role in WW2.

[Erigion]

war sucks.

'Those who know not war welcome it with a dance.' Iraqi proverb
Wrong. War is awesome. Just look at Pearl Harbor! To think that Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale could find love in that mess just means war is awesome.

[laborpilot86]

Wrong. War is awesome. Just look at Pearl Harbor! To think that Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale could find love in that mess just means war is awesome.

I smell sarcasm...which actually is needed in this particular topic

[Erigion]

I smell sarcasm...which actually is needed in this particular topic
Not sarcasm at all. Ben Affleck is the best actor alive and Kate Beckinsale is so very hot, course she's hotter with that accent of hers.

[ProfessorWashu]

I smell sarcasm...which actually is needed in this particular topic

Why do we need sarcasm, laborpilot86...? Isn't the fact that humanity has performed these atrocious deeds upon itself for basically its entire existence a twisted enough joke? Meh. You approach it your way, I'll approach it mine, and we'll probably meet in the middle somewhere.

[laborpilot86]

I take the soldier's view, ProfWashu, which is 'either make jokes are go crazy' when discussing topics like this.

[ProfessorWashu]

I'm not wholly unaware of that mentality, Laborpilot. And sometimes a joke really is the only way to not snap on a battlefield. Just not sure it applies here. But hey! I'm not really objecting. I'm really more or less just making a passive observation.

Besides. Humor sometimes makes it easier to talk about touchy subjects that are otherwise taboo.

[animanic_critic]

I'm not wholly unaware of that mentality, Laborpilot. And sometimes a joke really is the only way to not snap on a battlefield. Just not sure it applies here. But hey! I'm not really objecting. I'm really more or less just making a passive observation.

Besides. Humor sometimes makes it easier to talk about touchy subjects that are otherwise taboo.
Speaking from a military personnel's point of view, I don't see how it is appropriate to crack a joke on the battlefield where those brothers you fight with/for may die in a gruesome way.

[ProfessorWashu]

I know exactly what you mean as well. I wouldn't crack a joke on the battlefield (especially not one ABOUT the battlefield) and I sure wouldn't expect to see anyone else do it. But at the same time, if someone did, I could wholly understand why. Some people laugh when they mean to cry or get angry. It's a coping mechanism. I wouldn't expect to see this particular one very often, but it could happen. But that's assuming there's even TIME to crack a joke on a battlefield (unlikely).

But what I was originally questioning is joking about battle, especially tragic ones, just for the sake of joking rather than as a coping mechanism to a traumatic situation. Internet forum =/= battlefield, so I can't see how the idea of humor to cope applies here.

See what I mean? And all I meant by the function of humor as a platform for taboo subjects was that some folks are uncomfortable talking seriously and candidly about tough issues like war, race, gender, etc. I was just trying to understand why the jokes about the battlefield were being said in the first place. Didn't mean to offend or confuse.

[animanic_critic]

But what I was originally questioning is joking about battle, especially tragic ones, just for the sake of joking rather than as a coping mechanism to a traumatic situation. Internet forum =/= battlefield, so I can't see how the idea of humor to cope applies here.
I really don't believe how the Nanking Massacre and the Holocaust were made by people just out of a twisted joke. They were serious about this in the first place. Yes, they were maybe sadistic but not as retarded as "Hey, let's rape and use these Chinese nationals as test dummies!".

They had a serious objective in mind (serious to them). I can't see how it comes up from just a joke.

[laborpilot86]

"Hey, let's rape and use these Chinese nationals as test dummies!"

sadly, for the Japanese officers especially, it was a 'twisted joke'. (ditto for the Nazis) Which is what makes reading about it all so disturbing.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Er, I'd advise you go and re-read the definition of joke.

[ProfessorWashu]

I really don't believe how the Nanking Massacre and the Holocaust were made by people just out of a twisted joke. They were serious about this in the first place. Yes, they were maybe sadistic but not as retarded as "Hey, let's rape and use these Chinese nationals as test dummies!".

They had a serious objective in mind (serious to them). I can't see how it comes up from just a joke.

Actually, I never meant that war and battle were jokes or rose from jokes. I think I may be poorly conveying what I'm talking about. War and battle themselves are never funny. I can't think of one that was. What I actually meant was telling a joke on a battlefield to calm your nerves because you need to get your mind off the danger. But, as I will admit, I've never been on a battlefield, so I don't actually know what coping mechanisms people use. So I'd be more than ready to accept that people don't actually do that. Anyway, I'd like to explain what got me in on this conversation in the first place.

See, a little way back in the forum, Erigion made jokes about Pearl Harbor. Erigion was just being ironic, but I questioned the place of humor in this conversation. Then I just proposed a few ways it could arise in this talk, but noted that even if there was a legitimate reason (like humor is the only way one can talk about serious subjects), it was still slightly inappropriate to make jokes (even ironic ones) in this situation. That's pretty much all I've been saying. I considered Laborpilot's point about using humor to stay sane, and while it makes sense on paper, you as a military personnel are probably more qualified to say what coping mechanisms are used on a battlefield than my civilian self.

[laborpilot86]

you as a military personnel are probably more qualified to say what coping mechanisms are used on a battlefield than my civilian self.

I agree, we should defer to anime_critic on this point. He knows more about it then any of us do.

Er, I'd advise you go and re-read the definition of joke.

tell that to the Japanese officers who thought it was a 'grand old time' having decapitation contests using Chinese soldiers and civilians. They even published the results in the army newspapers:_insane:

[ProfessorWashu]

There was certainly propaganda out the wazoo in Japan during the WWII period. All representations of enemy foreign officials had to be in charicature, if I remember correctly. Further, everyone had the idea instilled in their minds that absolutely anything the government (which had been basically taken over by the Army) did was in the name of the Emperor, and therefore moral.

And there's a Japanese cartoon on youtube from the WWII era that was apparently shown in theaters. It depicts Imperial soldiers as little teddy bears that conquer the Allies, complete with guns, bayonets, and lotsa blood. Which means that this is what CHILDREN were being shown in the Japanese theaters. All pretty scary, if you ask me.

In psychological studies, it has been shown that even well-balanced, average Joe individuals who pay their taxes, go to church, and never think of harming people can perform atrocities. You just have to gradually work them up to it by asking them to do smaller things first. This explains how entire nations (i.e. Japan and Germany) could condone the actions of their governments (with the exception of the actions the public was unaware of). You slowly convince the people that the government is working for good and justice, and gradually work up to the evil that we remember as the Nazi and Japanese Imperial governments.

Those same studies I mentioned also indicate that all it takes to make an individual behave in an immoral fashion is to have an unopposed authority figure (Hitler or the Emperor) demand it. Unless someone stands up against the authority figure, there will be about a 63-65% compliance rate (assuming gradual buildup toward atrocities. You can't just automatically go to "Kill the Jews/Chinese.") And that compliance rate is even present in individuals who vocally express their concern about the demanded behavior (provided they are a minority voice). All the authority figure has to do is demand the action be carried out.

This helps explain the "I was just following orders" mentality in a very big way. Hitler and the Emperor (actually the generals of the Army) stood unopposed as authority figures, gradually built up the atrocities they demanded and claimed as necessary, and thus obtained high compliance rates. The amazing thing? Subjects in the psychological study exhibited no guilt for their actions afterward, just like a lot of people making the "I was following orders" claims.

I don't have the information on the study I'm referring to on-hand, but I would be glad to edit this message later and insert a citation. I can, however, describe the study.

Basically, the study was conducted in the 1970s to examine why so many people had obeyed Hitler during the Holocaust. It has been replicated many times for practically every possible variable. Basically, a confederate (individual who poses as a subject but is actually in on the study) sat in a chair and the true subject was placed in a teaching role. The subject would teach the confederate a set of word pairs and then quiz them on it. The confederate would occasionally give wrong answers intentionally.

The subject was led to believe that the confederate was sitting in an electrified chair (just a chair with sound effects), and was ordered to give the confederate a shock for every wrong answer, with voltage increasing with every shock. Voltage ranged from about 15 Volts initially all the way up to a final value of 450 (very dangerous voltage). The subjects usually expressed concern for the confederates, but the experimentor (authority figure) would always insist that the subject MUST shock the confederate. Total compliance (the 63-65%) was only awarded if the subject shocked the confederate all the way up to the 450 Volts.

In other words, 63-65% of the time, simply by being ordered to, average-Joes were willing to subject a complete stranger to potentially damaging (or fatal) shocks. It is important to note that this compliance rate occurs even when the confederate announces they have a heart condition. Absolutely no change in results. Further, these results occur even though midway through the experiment, the confederate begins to act completely incoherent, unable to answer any questions at all. Absolutely no change in results.

All of this leads up to an observation I've made about the "Following Orders" mentality. Absolutely anyone, no matter how much they believe they won't, could possibly commit atrocities under the guise of orders. The worst part? The study showed that the subjects felt no guilt, remember? Scary.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

tell that to the Japanese officers who thought it was a 'grand old time' having decapitation contests using Chinese soldiers and civilians. They even published the results in the army newspapers:_insane:

Exactly, it wasn't a joke. It was jovial, but it was serious. Like a pro sports league.

[laborpilot86]

Like a pro sports league.

That's what made it so twisted. Part of me has always wanted to pick up Iris Chang's Rape of Nanking (I'm a history buff, so...), but another part of me just doesn't want to 'go there' on a lot of levels.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

That book is... from an academic perspective, very sketchy. There's a lot of sensationalist writing and a bit of hyperbole. It's a good overview and does set the tone/mood, but I wouldn't use it as a scholarly source at all.

[laborpilot86]

There's a lot of sensationalist writing and a bit of hyperbole. It's a good overview and does set the tone/mood, but I wouldn't use it as a scholarly source at all.

I know that was one of the critiques that the Japanese nationalists tried to use to discount the book.

On an added note, Chang committed suicide back in '05.

[ShinoMatrix]

Americans can do it too.

I'm sorry, but I just have to point out that this really made me laugh.

[animanic_critic]

See, a little way back in the forum, Erigion made jokes about Pearl Harbor. Erigion was just being ironic, but I questioned the place of humor in this conversation. Then I just proposed a few ways it could arise in this talk, but noted that even if there was a legitimate reason (like humor is the only way one can talk about serious subjects), it was still slightly inappropriate to make jokes (even ironic ones) in this situation. That's pretty much all I've been saying. I considered Laborpilot's point about using humor to stay sane, and while it makes sense on paper, you as a military personnel are probably more qualified to say what coping mechanisms are used on a battlefield than my civilian self.
Nope, Eri wasn't being ironic or sarcastic; he's just being himself. That's why we all love him so much, and we wish he continues this for eternity.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

I know that was one of the critiques that the Japanese nationalists tried to use to discount the book.

Japanese nationalists and some scholars as well. But the nationalists said the events didn't occur. The scholars said that the events did occur, but Chang approached them with a biased view. There's a difference.

On an added note, Chang committed suicide back in '05.

And?

[ProfessorWashu]

I'm sorry, but I just have to point out that this really made me laugh.

Not sure why. USA develops and drops an untested weapon of unknown capabilities (all we knew was it would make a HUGE boom and cause a lot of destruction) and destroys an entire city (in excess of 10,000 dead in a single blast). USA inters Japanese as "spies" (arresting people w/o habeus corpus). We weren't exactly representations of perfection in WWII. And I'm not even counting the birth defects caused by our nuclear weapons. We didn't just punish the imperial generation of Japanese, we smacked their kids and grandkids in the face too.

Now, I'm not saying that the US hasn't improved itself, or that it was as bad as Nazis or the Empire. That's not really true. We were the best folks out there at the time. What I AM saying is that the United States is not a perfect picture. We too are capable of atrocities. If you scoff at the idea of this being true, you really need to read into WHAT we did, not WHY we did it. To me, the ends never justify the means.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

No, he's saying that the way you said it, you were painting the Americans as saints and heroes prior to finding out about the atomic bomb and all that stuff. Hence the "[wow, I didn't think they did but] Americans can do it too."

And you still have that mentality when you say "We were the best folks out there at the time."

[laborpilot86]

"We were the best folks out there at the time."

some people forget the words of Senator Carl Schurz..."My Country Right Or Wrong. And If Wrong, Made Right."

Our history can be just as bad in terms of the 'crimes of the past'. Yoy should see the way slavery was talked about until the 1970s.:help:

[f1rst children]

some people forget the words of Senator Carl Schurz..."My Country Right Or Wrong. And If Wrong, Made Right."

Our history can be just as bad in terms of the 'crimes of the past'. Yoy should see the way slavery was talked about until the 1970s.:help:

Heck, you should see the way the genocide of American Indians is (not) talked about in 2008.

And there's a Japanese cartoon on youtube from the WWII era that was apparently shown in theaters. It depicts Imperial soldiers as little teddy bears that conquer the Allies, complete with guns, bayonets, and lotsa blood. Which means that this is what CHILDREN were being shown in the Japanese theaters. All pretty scary, if you ask me.

Meh, that's par for the course in wartime. Who do you think was reading these:


http://www.superdickery.com/images/dick/97_4_0000058.jpg

http://www.superdickery.com/images/propaganda/war_report5.jpg

[laborpilot86]

Captain America, anyone...

[ProfessorWashu]

No, he's saying that the way you said it, you were painting the Americans as saints and heroes prior to finding out about the atomic bomb and all that stuff. Hence the "[wow, I didn't think they did but] Americans can do it too."

And you still have that mentality when you say "We were the best folks out there at the time."

I really don't know what to say. Honestly, I'm not sure how to respond. All I can say is that I am sorry if I misunderstood you, ShinoMatrix.

[ShinoMatrix]

:p

It's all right. I'm not saying I was offended or felt you said something wrong. Not going to argue here that America is evil or otherwise, I just couldn't help but point out that the statement actually did make me chuckle a bit in the natural progression of what you said, pretty much for the reason Kuzu said.

[ProfessorWashu]

OK. Now that that's over and done with, I'd like to express some important words. First, though, I'd like to set the context.

When I first became interested in Japan, that's when I found out that my uncle had served in WWII as a demolitions man for the US in the Pacific Theater. He had a lot of time to get to know the Japanese as a people, and even learned their language.

Then, one day he told me what he thought of the Japanese as a people and as a military: "They're just people, and all people want the same things. They want a family, they want friends, and they want a safe world to live in."

Do you folks believe him? I know I do, and I admire him for his beliefs. There are bad people, but I believe that even among the ranks of Weremacht and Japanese Imperial forces, there were more good people than bad. Basically, they're just fighting for their country.

Now I'm not going to say that this applies to the experimentors in the German/Japanese military, because they probably had ulterior motives to behave how they did. But the grunts were who I believe my uncle was talking about, and I believe him.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Didn't you equate Germans with Nazis (to some degree) earlier in the thread - and also, just now?

Again, the equivalent of the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces is the German Wehrmacht, not the Nazis.

[ProfessorWashu]

Yes, you're right. Weremacht =/= Nazis. It's just a hard thing to do, breaking that connection when the connection is so hammered into my head from a verrrry early age. Sorry. I fixed it.

[laborpilot86]

Weremacht =/= Nazis.

The Wermacht was just as guilty of atrocities as the S.S and Gestapo. If I remember correctly several field marshals and generals were executed for actions committed by those under thier command. The war in Russia was particularly nasty in this regard.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

The Wermacht was just as guilty of atrocities as the S.S and Gestapo. If I remember correctly several field marshals and generals were executed for actions committed by those under thier command. The war in Russia was particularly nasty in this regard.

Debatable. No one is saying the Wehrmacht is perfectly clean in this regard (treatment of Russian POWs is a prime example), but there is absolutely no way to compare them to the SS (go read about Einsatzgruppen). Also, the Gestapo was a wholly internal organization, so they shouldn't be in this equation at all.

As for trials for the Wehrmacht, not a single Wehrmacht general that saw action at the front was tried for war crimes at the biggest Nuremberg Trial. There was a trial held against Wehrmacht generals, but it was held by the US Military only, not the International Military Tribunal that had tried Goring et al. Furthermore, no one was sentenced to death. To quote Wiki (not that reliable, but I believe it fits) "The Nuremberg Trials of the major war criminals at the end of World War II found that the Wehrmacht was not an inherently criminal organization [implying that the SS was], but that it had committed crimes in the course of the war."

Finally, remember one important thing: the SS and Waffen SS were voluntary. The Wehrmacht, as the official military, conscripted.

[ProfessorWashu]

I believe I finally understand the big picture behind the whole "Wehrmacht were not Nazis" argument that has been presented here. I'll try to explain, correct me if I'm wrong.

Wehrmacht = German Army
Nazi Party = Political organization that ran Germany during WWII

The difference is that the Wehrmacht was the military that the Nazis were controlling, not the Nazis themselves. Guilt of atrocity alone does not a Nazi make. True, the Wehrmacht was guilty of many offenses, but as I understand it the Schutstaffel (S.S.) was a separate branch, more part of the Gestapo than the Army. Think the difference between C.I.A. and U.S. Army. Similar in some respects, but definitely different organizations.

Further, while a member of the S.S. could join the military, that did not make the S.S. part of the Weremacht.

The final nail in the coffin is that the majority of the German populace and therefore the prospective Wehrmacht members were not Nazis, but rather obeyed the Nazis out of fear. So, to an extent, you can't actually call the Wehrmacht Nazis, but rather an organization that was commanded by Nazis in the political realm.

Based upon all this, it is correct to say the following:

Wehrmacht =/= Nazis, but rather Wehrmacht = organization commanded by Nazis composed of multiple political ideologies

S.S. = Nazis, because they voluntarily operated under Nazi political ideals

Ultimately, it seems, Kuzu Ryu Sen's point is that if you're going to call the Wehrmacht Nazis, it's the same thing as calling the U.S. Army "Republicans". Armies are composed of a vast array of political affiliations in nations with more than one party option (i.e. WWII Germany).

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Not quite. You got everything right except that the SS and Gestapo were distinct organizations. Generally, the Gestapo handled things inside Germany, and the SS was almost a paramilitary militia (although far better trained than any ordinary militia) operated in the occupied territories.

People also joined the Wehrmacht not only out of fear from the Nazis, but a sense of national pride, desire to protect one's nation, etc...

The Wehrmacht was commanded by Nazis in the political realm like any other military though. Leaders say attack this country, military obeys, because that's what it's there to do.

Of course, Hitler hated Wehrmacht generals so much that he fired half of them and made himself Head of the Army in 1943.

[Major Tom]

In regards to the Waffen-SS, it may also be prudent to step carefully with the labels. While most certainly the initial units involved were SS members and subject to ideology and all that jazz, by wars end a full half of Waffen-SS members were foreign volunteers and I would bet money that good deal were there out of fear of the Soviets rather than fighting for Nazi ideology.

Also, the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts) (not the best of sources, true, but a good starting point and relatively apolitical) gives some scant details of the introduction of conscription to maintain troop numbers, and from what I can glean it was mainly foreigners conscipted and labeled in a convoluted way to sidestep the race laws regarding membership of the SS. I don't know if German nationals or ethnic Germans were conscripted, and the article only mentions Latvians, so I am unclear on how this applies to other nationalities.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending a nasty organisation like the SS, but I don't have time to do anymore in depth searching, as a quick google search pulled up several articles that were pretty much ripped off of Wikipedia, one dealing specifically with Norweigans and another that looked and felt a bit too......favourable to the SS as a whole. It's just with the Waffen-SS it's a little greyer than with regular SS.

[ProfessorWashu]

Well certainly. I mean, what better way to not look like a defeatist or a Soviet sympathizer in Nazi Germany than to join the SS? It makes sense, though it doesn't justify entirely joining such organizations. (Not to imply you were suggesting it did...)

With that distinction between Gestapo and SS out of the way, I can now fully comprehend your argument. Thanks.

People also joined the Wehrmacht not only out of fear from the Nazis, but a sense of national pride, desire to protect one's nation, etc...

The Wehrmacht was commanded by Nazis in the political realm like any other military though. Leaders say attack this country, military obeys, because that's what it's there to do.

That is very true. People didn't necessarily fight for Hitler because they liked him. Not every single soldier in every single German department of defense was screaming "Sieg HEIL" because they hated Jews and other "political enemies". However, enough men who did not agree with the policies and the prejudice did not resist that those who did agree were successful. The Wehrmacht has a bit of an exuse: a dissenting military will weaken the nation and possibly lead to its collapse, especially during war. Further, the people could've created a chaotic state by removing the Nazis from power. In effect, a headless state which could be easily toppled would be created. It was a dilemma. I don't want to justify the actions of the German government or to completely condone the inaction of the people in Germany, but at the same time they didn't simply ALLOW things to happen. It's more complicated than that, and I've found that a lot of people (admittedly up until recently myself included) miss that.

[laborpilot86]

The Wehrmacht has a bit of an exuse: a dissenting military will weaken the nation and possibly lead to its collapse, especially during war. Further, the people could've created a chaotic state by removing the Nazis from power.

I think on certain level a comparison can be made between the Wehrmacht and the Imperial Japanese Navy. Both were sort of 'dragged' (albeit less so for the Germans) into the war, both had dissenting voices (Yamamoto in particular thought the Japanese couldn't win a long war, but the army thought otherwise) who thought that the war couldn't be won beyond a certain point, and both were accersories to the crimes committed by thier fellow 'government elements'. In both cases, the countries the IJN and Wehrmacht had sworn to defend were totally destroyed. Yamamoto's fate is similar to that of Wehrmacht generals like Jodl (executed)and Blaskowitiz [sic?] (committed suicide at the end of the war. He was one of the few military men to protest against the actions of the S.S, albeit only in private), which was to pay the price for the arrogance of men he had little effective control over. That was both the IJN and Wehrmact's tragedy.

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

These voices are not anti-war because they're pacifists though, they were anti-war because they didn't think they could win. Almost the whole of the German General Staff didn't want war with Poland because they thought they could not win a two front war ala WWI. Even the big guys like Hitler and Goring, if you read William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, were ready to hang von Ribbentrop on Sept 2 because he had assured them that France and the UK would not intervene for Poland.

[laborpilot86]

These voices are not anti-war because they're pacifists though,

quite true, and on a certain level one can make an arguement that military men in general should not get into politics while in 'service', but one also can make an arguement that high-ranking officers in particular have a moral obligation to make sure those under thier command aren't killed for no purpose. Its a big dilemma for an officer, especially when they are also responsiable for the actions of those under thier command, and can be held liable (a la Jodl). The choice to get involved in politics can lead either to acts of reckless courage (Stauffenburg) or acts of sheer barbarism (the Argentine junta).

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

Of course, apolitical military officers just lends more credence to the "befehl ist befehl" defense, as a military leader's primary duty is loyalty to the state (loyalty to his men should be a close second, but there have been a lot of successful generals that threw men into the meatgrinder as a tactical choice).

And wishing to avoid war is not necessarily political. Political would be a wish not to destroy the enemy. Most generals really only care about whether the war is winnable or not.

[laborpilot86]

Most generals really only care about whether the war is winnable or not.

it is thier job after all.