Why were the Japanese so cruel in WW2?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

Crunch it's impossible to determine if diplomacy would have failed or if different tactics would have failed. The atomic bombs worked, and there's a good chance they saved Japanese and American lives: but if winning the war took dropping a nuclear bomb on 2 cities and killing hundreds of thousands of women and children there has to be at least the discussion about proportionality.

Considering that the Japanese had shown no interest in a diplomatic out.

Combine that with Roosevelt deciding that the U.S. would accept nothing less then unconditional surrender, there was no diplomatic solution to be had.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

It is incredible now to see the harmonious relations between Japan and the USA and to think of how they once despised one another so that they would die in fighting rather than surrender.

While the two countries do have fairly civil relationships, I'm not sure I'd call it that harmonious. While always polite, the Japanese are still very xenophobic when it comes to foreigners in their own land.....just try marrying a japanese girl as a white guy, and see what kind of response you get. An American in Japan will always be an outsider.....that's definitely not the case the other way around.

[theonlywhiteout]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And you don't think their government had filled the main land civilians with the same sh%t.

If the Marines had gone ashore there would have been millions of civilian casualties. Both from suicide and Civilians helping to defend their home island.

Let me ask you this, crunch. If North Korea and South Korea had a war and the North was winning, but the South refused to surrender, what would your reaction be to NK nuking Seoul to get them to surrender? Would you think "oh look at those noble North Koreans thinking about their South Korean brothers and saving them from suicide and a messy invasion"

No, not really. You'd like consider them war criminals. And before you lose your mind and get mad at me Robert McNamara and Curtis LeMay (2 of the highest ranking officers involved in the bombing of Japan during ww2) considered themselves to be acting like war criminals with the fire bombings of Japan, nevermind the Atomic bombs.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

A good chunk of the 22,000 civilian casualties in Saipan chose to end their own lives rather then submit to the Americans.

Japanese culture venerated suicide back then, from killing yourself to atone for your failures, to killing yourself to avoid honorless capture.

And like I said, I'm not denying the suicide tradition in Japan because I know of that history, but simply saying that 10-15 million people would not have commited suicide.

That number is just plain wrong. Maybe a couple hundred thousand at most.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And you don't think their government had filled the main land civilians with the same sh%t.

If the Marines had gone ashore there would have been millions of civilian casualties. Both from suicide and Civilians helping to defend their home island.

Could be, but I think 99% percent of those casualities would have been fighting for their country rather than offing themselves.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by pylon

You would be surprised. Look at the Kamikaze bombers. They full well knew they were on suicide missions. Faith in god was much, much different then. There was not the same skepticism and doubt we have now.

I agree with Puckluck here. To suggest 10-15 million civilians would commit suicide is way different than kamikaze bombers. Kamikaze bombers joined the army and were given missions to do so and they were glad to do it to defend there country. 15 million civilians didn't join the army and volunteer to blow themselves up.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Bull crap.

It's one thing for the parents to tell the kids something, but it's another thing for the kids and adults to actually go ahead and commit suicide when the time comes.

I hope you don't actually believe 10-15 million people were going to commit suicide. That's insane.

I guess anything to defend America though.

You don't have a strong grasp on sociological theory. If a government can convince an entire country of an imaginary racial superiority and have the willingly murder 6 million innocent human beings, you can make them do anything. The propaganda and indoctrination techniques used by these governments from birth are much more powerful the you're giving them credit for. I have no doubt in my mind that 10-15 million people would have commmited suicide in Japan due to the collective mind set and honour system which was, and to some extent still is in place.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

Let me ask you this, crunch. If North Korea and South Korea had a war and the North was winning, but the South refused to surrender, what would your reaction be to NK nuking Seoul to get them to surrender? Would you think "oh look at those noble North Koreans thinking about their South Korean brothers and saving them from suicide and a messy invasion"

No, not really. You'd like consider them war criminals. And before you lose your mind and get mad at me Robert McNamara and Curtis LeMay (2 of the highest ranking officers involved in the bombing of Japan during ww2) considered themselves to be acting like war criminals with the fire bombings of Japan, nevermind the Atomic bombs.

Its not something that I can equate because I have to look at the whole situation. How does said war start? Does North Korea sneak attack South Korea? Whats their conduct in dealing with Civilian Centers and prisoners.

If South Korea invaded first with a sneak attack, burned down cities in North Korea, rounded up and executed and raped thousands of Civilians, then the North Korea using a nuke to end a murderous Military threat would be something that could be livable, especially if they could reduce casualties by using a nuclear threat.

If however North Korea started the war, executed South Korean's enmasse, burned infrastructure to the ground, then used nukes then the whole conduct of the war including the nuking would be criminal in my mind.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Combine that with Roosevelt deciding that the U.S. would accept nothing less then unconditional surrender, there was no diplomatic solution to be had.

Roosevelt was dead before the bombs were ever dropped. It's hard to say if Roosevelt would have actually used the bomb had he lived for the whole war.

Also it is hard to say that the dropping of the bomb was what ended the war. Is it a coincidence that the Japanese surrendered to the Americans just as the Russians were massing for an invasion of Japan. It is possible that the Japanese surrendered to the Americans because they knew they would be easier on them than the Russians.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by tussery

Roosevelt was dead before the bombs were ever dropped. It's hard to say if Roosevelt would have actually used the bomb had he lived for the whole war.

Roosevelt would have used the bomb, he was certainly ok with the development of it as a weapon of war. he was the one that agreed to the unconditional surrender terms along with Stalin and Churchill. If he would have had it, he would have dropped it earlier in Germany, or if they had the air capability over Japan.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by puckluck

And like I said, I'm not denying the suicide tradition in Japan because I know of that history, but simply saying that 10-15 million people would not have commited suicide.

That number is just plain wrong. Maybe a couple hundred thousand at most.

Don't shoot the messanger with ignorence. It was estimated by a Japanese official that 15-20% of the population would never give up to USA ground forces. Christ, they were training young kids to attack with sharpened sticks and wooden swords.

[FlameOn]

Aside from the discussion with the suicides, Japanese were really cruel because of the culture of Bushido surviving in the military following the collapse of the Tokugawa shogunate following the Meiji Restoration. Surrender or even capture was the highest level of shame that a person could commit. If you surrendered, you'd probably be considered worse than a dog... so... the Japanese felt they really could treat you however they liked at that point. No need to waste resources or effort humanely treating POWs and captured civilians.

This attitude prevailed throughout Japanese military elite at the time and under pressure from them, the Emporer signed an order in 1937 allowing the military to not be constrained by international law regarding the treatment of prisoners. This snowballed to the Japanese having standing orders to execute prisoners at sea by 1943.

The above, coupled with general Japanese xenophobia and outright sense of superiority at the time and the rest is history, 30 million dead at the hands of the Japanese.

[theonlywhiteout]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its not something that I can equate because I have to look at the whole situation. How does said war start? Does North Korea sneak attack South Korea? Whats their conduct in dealing with Civilian Centers and prisoners.

If South Korea invaded first with a sneak attack, burned down cities in North Korea, rounded up and executed and raped thousands of Civilians, then the North Korea using a nuke to end a murderous Military threat would be something that could be livable, especially if they could reduce casualties by using a nuclear threat.

If however North Korea started the war, executed South Korean's enmasse, burned infrastructure to the ground, then used nukes then the whole conduct of the war including the nuking would be criminal in my mind.

if thats not rationalizing i dont know what is. look, japan was imperialistic and the americans forced their hand with an oil embargo. the americans damn well knew what they were getting into when they did this. also, japan attacked a millitary base @ pearl. the fact is that they killed no american citizens stateside and probably only a few dozen in the pearl attacks.

either killing civilians thru nuclear bombs is a proportional way to win a war or it isnt.

[Jordan!]

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

if thats not rationalizing i dont know what is. look, japan was imperialistic and the americans forced their hand with an oil embargo. the americans damn well knew what they were getting into when they did this. also, japan attacked a millitary base @ pearl. the fact is that they killed no american citizens stateside and probably only a few dozen in the pearl attacks.

either killing civilians thru nuclear bombs is a proportional way to win a war or it isnt.

And I'm rationalizing. The Japanese had started a brutal war of subjugation, which started in 1937, you can talk about the Oil Embargo starting the war, but the Oil Embargo was caused by Japan deciding to seize territory and fighting a brutal war against people that were considered to be America's Allies. The Embargo wasn't put in place until 1941, long after events like the rape of nanking as an example, and after Japan started their own Island hoping campaign that threatened to swallow the Pacific.

I don't give a crap about the lack of civilian casualties at pearl harbor, the fact that it was a undeclared attack was enough justification for the American actions in the Pacific. Those assets at Pearl Harbor were American assets, those sailors, airmen and others who were killed by the Japanese were still American Citizens.

My sympathies for Imperial Japan are next to none, they decided that they wanted to tear off a piece of the World, their conduct was brutal and sub human, they decided that they wanted to fight to the bitter end, and thats what they got. Do I feel bad about the civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Absolutely, however you can put a large chunk of the blame on the Japanese Military and government, and their emperor.

The Japanese were beaten, Truman issued them an or else ultimatum, unconditional surrender or consequences. The Japanese refused, they dropped the first bomb, The Japanese refused another ultimatum hours before the second bomb, and only after that one did the Emperor tell the Military leaders to sue for peace.

Again we can talk about negotiated peace, but the conditions of peace were that the Japanese government had to be gutted and their military neutralized and the Islands occupied, the Allies were going to accept no other conditions, the concept of Imperial Japan had to die.



If the Japanese had decided not to exercise their imperial ambitions there would have been no need for an oil embargo in 1941.

[comrade]

I think the case for the bombs was a little overstated. At first the japanese couldn't even tell the difference between the devastation caused by an atomic bomb and the firebombing that preceded it. Just as important to their surrender was the fact that the Soviets were preparing to attack Japan as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

I agree, the Bombs were equally important to keeping the Soviets out of the Pacific War. But with the Atomic Bomb, the American's illustrated that they could destroy cities very easily without using hundreds of bombers.

Its doubtful though that the Japanese would have surrendered due to normal fire bombing, the ability to destroy a city with one bomber showed the Japanese that they had strategically and tactically lost the ability to protect their home Islands.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Table 5

While the two countries do have fairly civil relationships, I'm not sure I'd call it that harmonious. While always polite, the Japanese are still very xenophobic when it comes to foreigners in their own land.....just try marrying a japanese girl as a white guy, and see what kind of response you get. An American in Japan will always be an outsider.....that's definitely not the case the other way around.

In regards to the marriage stuff, I never had any problems, nor most of my friends. There are still pockets of that stuff, but largely that stuff is slowly going away.

The "outsider" thing is quite funny as well - I know a number of Japanese Americans who still feel barbs when they are in the states. To me there is no perfect model for this "insider/outsider" thing. ####ty people are ####ty, regardless of race.

[Hack&Lube]

My immediate family suffered under the Japanese occupation in Hong Kong in WWII. They were quite cruel in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ste...llege_incident

I would not equate the neccessity of dropping two atomic bombs to end the war to soldiers directly participating in and encouraging torture and attrocities. The guy who pressed the button to release Little Boy was not himself directly participating in and taking pleasure out of the eventual suffering that the bomb would cause.

That said, I love the Japanese and I put it down to cultural differences and wartime mentality (Imperial brainwashing) that encouraged such behavior. We all have those violent instincts deep down but we have been tempered by growing up in such a civil and loving society. You see this kind of behavior out of all child soldiers (I mean soldiers in the late teens) from any background when placed in certain stressful situations. Look at what some American soldiers did during the Vietnam war.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

My immediate family suffered under the Japanese occupation in Hong Kong in WWII. They were quite cruel in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen's_college_incident

I would not equate the neccessity of dropping two atomic bombs to end the war to soldiers directly participating in and encouraging torture and attrocities. The guy who pressed the button to release Little Boy was not himself directly participating in and taking pleasure out of the eventual suffering that the bomb would cause.

That said, I love the Japanese and I put it down to cultural differences and wartime mentality (Imperial brainwashing) that encouraged such behavior. We all have those violent instincts deep down but we have been tempered by growing up in such a civil and loving society. You see this kind of behavior out of all child soldiers (I mean soldiers in the late teens) from any background when placed in certain stressful situations. Look at what some American soldiers did during the Vietnam war.

I think this is the best explanation as to why.

I would add

Racism and a feeling of superiority towards their neighbors. The Japanese had dragged themselves out of the Middle Ages, defeated a European power and became the reigning Asian/World power in the world all within 4 decades. No other Asian nation could do what Japan could. Technologically, militarily, etc, etc, etc...

That is an ego boost if there ever was one! That makes it easier to portray others as less than human.