Why were the Japanese so cruel in WW2?

[Hemi-Cuda]

[GirlySports]

That was war back then. Maybe this is why these days people are actually scared to go back to a major war. WWII was a shocker. Japan was one thing.. the Eastern front was also brutal with Germans killing every Russian in sight and then a few years later Russia turning the tables and getting revenge once entering Germany.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by HOZ

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.

I think we can ignore the Japanese accomplishments. It's more like teenage soldiers relieving wartime stress and treating other humans as animals because they have been encouraged to act as savages themselves by the military machine and cultural conditioning.

We see the same barbaric instincts coming out of people in all wars, in WWII, Iraq, etc. with the same brutal disregard to the suffering of other human beings and even people taking an enjoyment out of the torture and murder of other human beings. We all have these instincts deep down but they are tempered by upbringing, the culture of our peers, and even education. Many of the instances of American caused attrocities in the Vietnam War were caused by the tendancy of the US Army to put the least educated and redneck (I don't know how to put this any other way easily) soldiers in leadership positions.

This is actually a big area of interest of mine, I was just in Hong Kong at the Victoria and Stanley Prisons where many Chinese and European Expats were tortured and executed by the Japanese in WWII.

I am not interested in assigning blame but rather my interest stems from people not forgetting these things or having history being whitewashed and ignored. Many Japanese students are never taught these lessons from their own history or have them whitewashed from their textbooks. People need to learn from their own history and not have a false history promoted to them.

Human nature is at it's heart barbaric and we are capable of causing horrible suffering which has always plagued civilization, I find that modern society often forgets just how bad it was at some points in our not so distant history or even in many parts of today's world and our short sightedness, forgetfulness of history, and lack of vigilance is what allows this suffering to continue.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

Before I even read your post and respond directly to your question, keep in mind that American strategic bombing burned millions of Japanese civilians to death in unprecedented fire bombings.

Yeah, it's not like in ww2 they had the capabilities to "paint" a target and not kill civilians.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

I think it's a bit much to suggest the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs were the best options, in so far suggesting it saved millions of lives.

Really? Got any supporting evidence? Or are you basing this on the idea that the Japanese would have stopped the kamikaze dives until the last man all of a sudden?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

The Japanese did carry out extremely brutal atrocities on the people of East Asia, especially Manchuria and China and against ex-pats and allied prisoners of war where soldiers themselves engaged in and took pleasure out of the torture, rape, and causing the deaths of millions of people.

While the ends are the same - both causing death and suffering on a horrific scale, the atomic bombs are irrelevant as a justification for equating personal actions of the Japanese and the Americans. It's like saying that the governor who signs the letter allowing the criminal to be executed is just as morally culpable as the criminal who tortured his victims to death.

The very reason the bombs were deployed were to avoid further conflict and bloodshed. It estimated and presented to Truman that continuing conventional war to actually invade Japan would result in another two million soldiers dying (that is not counting the untold civilian deaths).

[PIMking]

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.

Wasn't it the Japanese that abruptly attacked pearl harbor? I guess it's okay to sucker punch but when you get kicked square in the ass militarily by two big ass bombs someone has to bitch and moan.

[PIMking]

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.

apples vs oranges...

We had no idea what the nuclear weapons could really do. This was the cost of war. If you attack a neutral country that had no intention to fight and get your ass beat, then you have no reason to complain about how you lost. (within the rules too)

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Really? Got any supporting evidence? Or are you basing this on the idea that the Japanese would have stopped the kamikaze dives until the last man all of a sudden?

It has nothing to do with kami kaze dives which were largely ineffectual and a desperate last-ditch strategy. By the the time the bombs were even starting to get into play, the Japanese airforce was pretty much decimated and they had no real airpower left anymore.

You are right though, as a physical invasion of the Japanese home islands would have caused the deaths of millions of soldiers and civilians as was the imperial cultural conditional of the Japanese army to practice scorched earth, commit suicide (or even "assist" those civilians who did not want to kill themselves) and basically never surrender and fight to the death in jungle and urban warfare that is the most brutal kind of warfare.

The mentality of Imperial Japanese leadership would not have changed unless the bombs were dropped. Even after the bombs were dropped, the generals wanted to continue the fighting until there was absolutely nothing left and Japan was utterly destroyed (causing the deaths of millions of Japanese and Americans). Only the intervention of the Emperor swayed them into the camp of surrender.

[PIMking]

My fiance's grandfather was two days away from being sent to Japan when the surrender happened. I tried to explain to her the millions of lives that were saved (past and future) of the bombs. The amount of civilians lost due to the bombs pails in comparison to the amount of civilian lives lost due to an actual invasion. Plus not mentioning the loss of life of military force.

Just point out to an American that if they didn't surrender or the bombs weren't used that her Grandfather could of been killed thus her father and the rest of her family wouldn't be around.

The bombs were tragic, a mass amount of wasted life. It however was a necessary means to end the barbaric war.

[Hack&Lube]

Lets get away from this unpleasant topic and take a look at some WWII propaganda Christmas cards!

http://www.psywarrior.com/xmascards.html

[theonlywhiteout]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

While the ends are the same - both causing death and suffering on a horrific scale, the atomic bombs are irrelevant as a justification for equating personal actions of the Japanese and the Americans. It's like saying that the governor who signs the letter allowing the criminal to be executed is just as morally culpable as the criminal who tortured his victims to death.

The very reason the bombs were deployed were to avoid further conflict and bloodshed. It estimated and presented to Truman that continuing conventional war to actually invade Japan would result in another two million soldiers dying (that is not counting the untold civilian deaths).

This is a bizarre sentence. You're suggesting that since the atomic bomb did the killing for Americans that they're some how morally cleansed of the action? Or are you saying that because Japan 1st attacked America the Allies could use whatever force necessary to end the war, even bombing civilians? Please elaborate.

[dissentowner]

What do you mean were? I hate the Japanese, they kill everything they can and ignore the laws set down to protect endangered species.

[PIMking]

Will you quit trying to spin this into "Americans are bad and mean people that killed and raped millions of Japanese"

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What do you mean were? I hate the Japanese, they kill everything they can and ignore the laws set down to protect endangered species.

Research!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

This is a bizarre sentence. You're suggesting that since the atomic bomb did the killing for Americans that they're some how morally cleansed of the action? Or are you saying that because Japan 1st attacked America the Allies could use whatever force necessary to end the war, even bombing civilians? Please elaborate.

Simplification of war, but in the conditions of WW2 yes, and remember that the Japanese Military knew that the war was lost, but they figured if they could bleed the American's massively during a land invasion that they would be able to negotiate from a position of greater strength. Civilian deaths in their minds were just another card on the table. And in WW2, civilian deaths happened from bombing campaigns first and foremost because most of the industrial capability was embedded in the cities, and second it was hoped that the Japanese civilian base would turn against the Military and the Emperor and force them to sue for peace.

The sad truth of war is that its goals are to destroy an enemies capability to make war by destroying their industrial base, and in WW2, to put the fear of god into your enemies and their civilians.

In hindsight, maybe the best thing to do would have been to setup a maritime exclusion zone with the help of the Russians, and starve Japan into submission, and then split Japan between the U.S. and Russia, because Russia had a historical desire to destroy Japan.

But then we'd have a north and south japan now.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Will you quit trying to spin this into "Americans are bad and mean people that killed and raped millions of Japanese"

I don't think that's what is being spun at all at this point. I think people are just questioning the moral validity of your position that the bombs were justified because more people would have died. The fact of the matter is neither side can actually back their position up with fact, as only one of the alternatives actually happened.

It's simply a moral debate. Is it moral to wipe out that many civilians to end the war and try to prevent a larger number of deaths? People can hold the position that it was immoral without trying to say that "Americans are bad and mean people that killed and raped millions of Japanese".

[TylerSVT]

Originally Posted by Cole436

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.

Exactly, it impossible for any of us to comprehend the thinking of the Japanese at this time, Their entire view of EVERYTHING is differnt than how society is today. The way they view life, death, money, food, honor. All of it is different.

I have no doubt that 10 million people would commit suicide given the circumstances. Its hard to believe now because people see suicide in such negative light, they can see outside of things. But in an age of propaganda where your only knowledge is what is fed to you... Suicide could be seen as a positive thing, as a way to honorably join god in the heavens.

The Power of Social Control is mind boggling, even simple things like informal social controls would be different. You could create socities where cannablism is seen as the norm, where dogs are seen as wifes and lovers... I think sometimes people forget how incredibly open the human mind is, the Socialization that we all go through is very important.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by 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.

This. Just comes down to basic worldviews.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

I think it's a bit much to suggest the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs were the best options, in so far suggesting it saved millions of lives.

From what I remember reading the Americans sent several dispatches stating they were going to use the weapons on Hiroshima and gave several days for them to respond with a surrender. Let's not be silly here, if the Japanese had the weapons they would have been produced and use en masse on mainland USA.

Both bombings saw losses of just under 200,000 - the US lost under half a million in the war. What would that number be if they had to assault the island of Japan? The USA did what they had to do and the Japanese only have themselves to blame.