# Battle for Nanking



## Thorlifter (Oct 13, 2010)

I must start this thread with a note to anyone who decides to participate. I am in NO WAY flaming a country or religion. This thread is simply for me, and us, to learn of an event that happened 73 years ago and how it still is an extremely hot issue to this day.

I just finished reading the book "The Rape of Nanking". The author of the book brought up many facts, thoughts, and theories that made me think in new and broader terms on the affects of war on both the victorious and defeated country. I decided to ask Shinpachi his perspective on the modern aspect of Japanese/Chinese relations as well as WW2 in general from the Japanese eyes and he suggested I start an open thread to the group. 

Shinpachi, I may be speaking out of turn so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from your message to me, it sounds like you have extremely strong feelings about this issue. If you wish to share them here, I would love to hear your opinions of this issue. If you choose to stay silent, I respect your decision to do so.

To start, I wanted to share my message that I sent to Shinpachi with the forum.

_I was wondering if you could answer a question for me as I'm trying to get a better grasp on a book I'm reading.

I am currently reading a book called "The Rape of Nanking" and towards the end of the book, the author goes on to explain how even the modern Japanese culture barely makes mention of WWII in schools. Extremist groups have gone as far as death attempts and threats against authors and veterans that speak against Emperor Hirohito and the IJA's involvement and approval of war crimes. It seems these revisionist and extremist are attempting to change (or forget) about history.

Now I understand this was a dark time in Japanese history, just like the slave trading days of the early U.S. colonies and states and the Nazi party in Germany. All cultures and countries have had times like these.

Why do you believe there has been such an extreme attempt to hide the fact of Japan's involvement in WWII?

Why do you feel the extremist go to such violent attempts to keep people quiet about the events of WWII.

I'm just hoping you could help me understand a little better._

After re-reading my message, I feel I should explain my use of the words extremists and revisionists. I do NOT mean to categorize the Japanese nation under these two types and nothing else, but simply call these two groups out for this discussion.

After reading the book, I began to develop some thoughts and opinions about the events that happened in Nanking. I could even expand these to include Singapore, the Asian war, and as far as that goes, the Pacific War as a whole. However, I do not want my opinions to be based on just one book, one persons words, and one point of view. I truly wish to learn and appreciate any type of knowledge that anyone would like to share.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 13, 2010)

I read some about it in Lord Russell's book _Knights of Bushido_. Another interesting thing to look into is the writings of John Rabe, which formed the basis for the movie _John Rabe_. 

There was a great deal of de-humanizing of the enemy, on both Japanese and American sides. When one de-humanizes the enemy, it makes it "easier" to kill them, sometimes in ways that would make most folks shudder.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

The Geneva convention was a western convention which Japan didnt sign they had a different code of honour and behaviour. Having invented all sorts of ways of killing people indiscriminantly we now spend our time discussing right and wrong ways to kill people and what are legitimate targets.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 13, 2010)

If you read _Flyboys_, it really gives you a better understanding of the Japanese Army psyche - at least it did for me.

I never understood what happened to the Japanese Army between the Russo-Japanese War where the Chinese preferred them much more to the Russians and what they became in WW2 until I read that book.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2010)

There are countless examples of brutal, barbaric and inhuman behavior by all branches of the Japanese military as well as non military during WW2( which may have actually begun with Japan's invasion of China.) There are also recorded instances where members of the Japanese military showed human compassion. The key word for compassion shown by Japanese and atrocities committed by the Allies is individual. There were indiviual acts of barbarous behavior by Allied military personnel as well as individual acts of compassion behavior by Japanese.

The Bushido code of the warrior has been used as an excuse for the behavior of Japanese military. They were allegedly supposed to never surrender and people who did surrender were beneath contempt, which supposedly explains the uniformly bad treatment of Allied POWs. Compare the fate of Allied POWs in Japanese prison camps with those POWs in German prison camps. The death rate was around 40% in Japanese camps and around 6% in German camps.

I wonder how the warrior code of Bushido explains the behavior of Japanese personnel toward civilians as in Nanking since the civilians were non combatants.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 13, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> I just finished reading the book "The Rape of Nanking". The author of the book brought up many facts, thoughts, and theories that made me think in new and broader terms on the affects of war on both the victorious and defeated country.



On a related note, the author of that book, Iris Chang I believe her name was, commited suicide a few years back... Sad.

Also while reading this book, I became aware of a "companion" book written by another author that could be considered a picture book to Chang's book, thought it was written prior to hers being published. I have never seen it however... Again, very sad...


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 14, 2010)

I didn't know that, Vick. Just read the Wiki page on her and it's truly sad.

Iris Chang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It leaves me to wonder if all her repeated research into so many acts of human evil led her down her path of depression.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 14, 2010)

Who knows really...too late to ask I guess...

Though I must admit to having a morbid facination with people who take their own lives...


----------



## mikewint (Oct 14, 2010)

Thor, i admire your courage for taking this on. i too mentioned this to Shinpachi in another thread I've also tried to make it very clear that he was not responsible in any way shape or form but i know it still hurts him.
I think that evan made my earlier point about "dehumanizing" the enemy, plus i think a lot of hostility simmered just below the surface and this was a chance to "get even" and lastly the presence of Prince Yasuhiko Asaka also gave the atrocities committed by ordinary troops an imperial blessing.
I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned the Japanese Unit 731 commanded by general Shiro Ishii code name Maruta
estimates are that 580,000 were killed by bacteriological experiments and 200,000 by chemical warfare experiments. this was not even by troops but by civilian "scientists"


----------



## parsifal (Oct 14, 2010)

renrich said:


> There are countless examples of brutal, barbaric and inhuman behavior by all branches of the Japanese military as well as non military during WW2( which may have actually begun with Japan's invasion of China.) There are also recorded instances where members of the Japanese military showed human compassion. The key word for compassion shown by Japanese and atrocities committed by the Allies is individual. There were indiviual acts of barbarous behavior by Allied military personnel as well as individual acts of compassion behavior by Japanese.
> 
> The Bushido code of the warrior has been used as an excuse for the behavior of Japanese military. They were allegedly supposed to never surrender and people who did surrender were beneath contempt, which supposedly explains the uniformly bad treatment of Allied POWs. Compare the fate of Allied POWs in Japanese prison camps with those POWs in German prison camps. The death rate was around 40% in Japanese camps and around 6% in German camps.
> 
> I wonder how the warrior code of Bushido explains the behavior of Japanese personnel toward civilians as in Nanking since the civilians were non combatants.



There is a world of difference between the individual acts of bastardry that occurred by all sides, and those cases of state sponsored murder that countries like Germany, Japan and the USSR were guilty of. To try and make comparisons between the allies and these nations is monstrous and offensive to be honest.

Having said that, it is well known that many Japanese prisoners ended up dead in the jungle, simply because they could not be guarded or escorted back to friendly bases. Sometimes it was even more flimsy than that. Sometimes allied soldiers were just plain racist.

However, the japanese took racism to a whole new level in China. it was not just the Bushido Code driving them. For a generation Japanese were taught that the Chinese were morally bankrupt and barely human. Their soldiers were already de-sensititized from heavy casualties, but there is also clear evidence of orders to the effct of taking no preisoners in Nanking.

It was a crime against humanity, and the Chinese are justified to feel affronted by the Japanese apparent unwillingness to admit war guilt and demonstyrate suitable state attonement for their actions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 15, 2010)

IMO. its one of the great mysteries of the war why they were never prosecuted. I never could follow MacAruthers logic on this.

I find it interesting you have two main groups in the Axis corner - both brainwashing their public and doing horrific things - but judged and treat them seperatly.

In regards to the Bushido code, the powers that be corrupted the meaning of it. From _Flyboys_ by James Bradley pages 37-38:


"Samurai were shrewd strategists and tacticians. Samurai fought to win, to protect their lives and the lives of their compatriots. There was no concept that death in battle was a sound strategy. Mass suicide was never part of Bushido. A true Samurai would agree with the U.S. Army General George Patton that 'no one ever won a war by dying for their country. They won by making the other son-of-a-bitch die for his!'

In an effort to make warriors out of the entire male populace, the Spirit Warriors distorted the essence of Bushido and began to peddle a bastardized version that taught a cult of death. This twisted version focused not on the sublime personal standards of honor among samurai, but one based on blood and guts of death.

The Japanese Army field regulations of 1912 systematically stated the Spirit Warriors' strategic doctrine for the first time...

In the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars, many Japanese troops had surrendered , served as POWs, and later been welcomed back to Japan with open arms. But as the Meiji leaders passed, the new crop of Yamato damashi boys decreed that it was absolutely forbidden to withdraw, surrender, or become prisoner of war..."


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

At the end of the war Japanese who commited attricities against allied prisoners were tried as criminals while those who commited attrocities and experiments on Chinese which cost lives running into millions were offered jobs, that is the way the Chinese see it anyway and they havnt wont/forget..

The USA has recently appologised for deliberately infecting the mentally ill and prisoners in Guatamala 1946-48
while the British deliberately exposed their own servicemen to radiation in Australia, no ones hands are clean here.


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 15, 2010)

Wow, Thor. Who asked YOU to start an open thread to the group?
My last message to you was as follows -

_"Thank you, Thorlifter, for your private message and question.
I understand you are very serious about the historical issue and your sense of justice is strong. That always looks favorable to me.

However, being only one member from Japan in the forum who posts one's opinion, I am frankly tired of this kind of criticism about the Nanjing incident because I have understood that this issue is always coupled with the Hiroshima/Nagasaki dispute like the Japanese cannot blame the Americans because they commited historical war crime in China.

I would like to launch new thread to answer if you, and Mods, may admit as I always want my opinion to be known widely.

Thank you very much for you attention.
Best wishes,
Shinpachi"_

If you may want my opinion, that is OK but it may sound offensive to you against my will here because, sorry, I may have to refer to your nation's war crimes in Asia too to keep the fairness.

I am not going to offend anyone in this forum at all but I am afraid of being asked to delete/edit my post or to resign as a member of this forum as a result though my opinion is simply different from yours.

If our honorable moderators should admit my free talk here with no future blames, I would be pleased to state my opinion.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 15, 2010)

Shinpachi, speaking just for myself, this is a FORUM which, means to me, open and honest DISCUSSION of differing opinions no matter how diametrically opposed those views are. we all see the world a different way which is why i treasure your posts i wish we could sit down together and talk. So again, just from me, please state your opinions freely and if someone is offended by what you say maybe it is because their minds are closed and need to be opened. i don't believe that anyone here ever means to directly offend anyone


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 15, 2010)

I really appreciate your kindness, mikewint but you don't know what happened on my posts during these few months.
So I am more careful now.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 15, 2010)

One of the reasons Japan was treated differently than Germany was the U.S. needed another Asian ally against the communist that began to take over China and Korea after the war. 

There are many things said here that I want to respond to, but I need my book to say it correctly and I left it at our ranch so I'll have to wait until I get it back.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 15, 2010)

I thought you did.



Shinpachi said:


> *I would like to launch new thread to answer* if you, and Mods, may admit as I always want my opinion to be known widely.



Shinpachi, you will not offend me. I contacted you because you are from Japan and I truly want your opinion. If you want to send it to me privately to avoid any feelings from getting hurt, that is fine. I find the whole discussion of this matter fascinating and very informative. Believe me, I'm not here to offend. I'm here to learn so I find nothing wrong with asking questions as long as they are done tastefully, which I believe I have done.

If I knew a member here from China, I would want their opinion as well. Again, not to anger, but to learn.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

Shinpachi said:


> I really appreciate your kindness, mikewint but you don't know what happened on my posts during these few months.
> So I am more careful now.



Shinpachi, this is a forum for Aircraft of World War 2 and while there are many threads on many subjects I personally think it is extremely impolite to aim a very loaded thread at one particular poster. There are many questions we all could ask about each others history and as a British national I probably have more to answer than most, but personally I dont feel responsible for Amritsar or the Opium wars The Boer war or any of the rest. If i were you i would stick to subjects you enjoy discussing you are not legally bound to answer or answer for anything.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 15, 2010)

TEC, well said as always. Shinpachi said that i do not know the history of his posts, which is true. and he is only one person who happens to be Japanese. he speaks for himself and not Japan. as Thor said he is asking to learn not offend. and i like Thor wish we had more japanese and chinese on this forum so it does seem like we are putting Shinpachi on the spot that being said how else can we obtain anything even remotely resembling a Japanese opinion without asking him? and I don't feel that anyone here or anywhere else has a right to be offended by someone else's OPINION. like butts, we all have one


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2010)

Shinpachi said:


> I am not going to offend anyone in this forum at all but I am afraid of being asked to delete/edit my post or to resign as a member of this forum as a result though my opinion is simply different from yours.



Who has asked you to resign from this forum?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 15, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> for Amritsar or the Opium wars The Boer war




Oh, so YOU'RE the one!


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 15, 2010)

Strange how we can discuss Nazi activity against the Jews and there are many people from Germany on this site and it's not an issue. I bring up one battle that I don't know much about and want to learn and now we are having to tiptoe around "feelings".

I thought we could discuss this, but this whole thread is going in a direction I didn't anticipate. I didn't mean to ruffle feathers so I will go find the "Best Night Fighter" or "The Person Below Me" thread and post there.

Apologize to all.....


----------



## renrich (Oct 15, 2010)

This thread has the potential of becoming very inflamed. Having said that, I have enjoyed the very well done posts of our Japanese friend and would welcome his participation in this thread, especially with accurate accounts that he can contribute based on his different perspective. I have always had deep feelings of dismay about the atrocities committed by the Japanese in WW2, especially in POW camps. But to try to gain perspective about it, an American has only to be aware of the atrocities committed by Americans of both sides in POW camps during the War Between the States. There are almost always two sides to every point of view.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

mikewint said:


> TEC, well said as always. Shinpachi said that i do not know the history of his posts, which is true. and he is only one person who happens to be Japanese. he speaks for himself and not Japan. as Thor said he is asking to learn not offend. and i like Thor wish we had more japanese and chinese on this forum so it does seem like we are putting Shinpachi on the spot that being said how else can we obtain anything even remotely resembling a Japanese opinion without asking him? and I don't feel that anyone here or anywhere else has a right to be offended by someone else's OPINION. like butts, we all have one



Mike this is my opinion (Shinpachi is more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong)

There are many things I could say which would run into a book but here goes.

This forum is in the English language and English and its users are direct, most English speaking countries have a confrontational style of government and an adversarial system of justice. Japanese language and culture is based on consensus and not causing offense and being part of a group. Shinpachi is therefore caught between expressing his opinion (which wont necessarily be welcomed by some) and maintaining the harmony of the group.

In Europe few people can trace their history back further than a few hundred years unless they are from an aristocratic family. It is normal in parts of Japan for the family history to be held covering well over a thousand years many can trace their family back longer than the Queen of England. From this there is a respect for elders, criticising the conduct of the war is criticising your elders which is against Japanese custom.

The Emperor had and has a special place in Japanese society, I never met anyone who thought Hirohito was a god when I first went to Japan whether they actually did in WWII I dont know. From a British point of view I understand the Japanese. During WWII The King was head of state along with his wife the Queen. All service men fought for king and country, that is whatever servicemen did was in the name of the king, desipite all the feeling about Dresden I have never heard anyone hold the king responsible or, in post war years take the Queen Mother to task, imagine the British reaction if they did and the Queen Mother was fully aware of what bomber command was doing.

Japanese may not teach somethings we may wish they did but British schools hardly teach anything either, I was never taught about the Slave trade, Opium wars, attrocities in India Africa Ireland or anywhere else except the camps in the Boer war. Are Americans taught about the treatment of the native indians and if they are why dont they do something, I remember a cowboy film every weekend showing the indian savages being massacred, they still live on reservations I believe.

Every country has its nutters and extremists in my lifetime in the USA there has been a president assasinated, a presidential candidate assasinated and another president almost assasinated. Doctors are occasionaly killed and frequently threatened by the pro life movement in the USA for performing abortions which is legal. In the UK we have had people killed by animal rights activists which shows we can still teach the world something even if it is stupidity. I wont even go near the blatant hypocrisy on both sides of the Atlantic concerning Northern Ireland, I was brought up being taught I lived in a democratic country, it was a shock to me, and the soldiers involved that some Catholics didnt have a vote in N Ireland. There were few things good to come out of 9-11 but one was the Police in New York and Boston were prevented from sending money to N.Ireland to kill policemen there. Does anyone routinely question British or American society?

I have never met any Japanese who tried to excuse or deny Nanking although I am sure there are some. I have met many rampant Nazis in Germany and a few holocaust denyers. When it comes to anti semitism the French take some beating. If you take a group of people and fill their heads full of propaganda while demonising your enemies then attrocities occur. The Americans invented the word Vietcong because the real name didnt sound nasty enough and both British and Americans have commited attrocities in Iraq a country we both propped up for years to suit our ends against Iran.

Many times I have been put on the spot about international politics purely because I was the only English guy in the Bar. When Thatcher and Mitterand clashed I was in France, every french guy demanded to know what I thought never thinking that I may not have voted for her, as an expat I am expected to answer for the current British prime minister when all I actually want is a beer. Germans used to ask me if I was worried about mad cow disease never thinking that I was eating German Beef same as they were. Ive even had a group of Israelis bending my ear about the Crusades not knowing about the "Harrying of the North". Just because Shinpachi is Japanese doesnt mean he wants to answer for Japans history everytime some other poster feels like throwing a question at him. In any case it is a fundamental part of the far east that there are two truths, one you inwardly feel and the other that you outwardly express. It takes a long time to become a friend of Japanese (even for Japanese) and you dont become friends by asking confrontational questions in public.

From the few conversations I had, the Japanese see the second world war as inevitable, America and Britain wanted to expand their interests in the Pacific and Japan was a rival. America emposed an oil embargo and the Japanese reacted as they had to because they had no reserves themselves. To the Japanese I spoke to the idea that Pearl Harbour was a surprise is risible, it was viewed in the same way as Iran closing the Persian Gulf would be today.

There is much more to Japan than Nanking and World War II which as I see it Shinpachi is willing to share, given time I am sure he will feel comfortable enough to express HIS opinions when he is sure it wont be a witch hunt, which from what he says it has been up to now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> Strange how we can discuss Nazi activity against the Jews and there are many people from Germany on this site and it's not an issue. I bring up one battle that I don't know much about and want to learn and now we are having to tiptoe around "feelings".
> 
> I thought we could discuss this, but this whole thread is going in a direction I didn't anticipate. I didn't mean to ruffle feathers so I will go find the "Best Night Fighter" or "The Person Below Me" thread and post there.
> 
> Apologize to all.....



+1

I can agree with everything except:

1. I would love for this discussion to continue (peaceful of course).

2. You need not apologize to anyone, especially since I think you are correct in everything you said above.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> +1
> I can agree with everything except:
> 1. I would love for this discussion to continue (peaceful of course).
> 2. You need not apologize to anyone, especially since I think you are correct in everything you said above.




I agree Adler but is it normal behaviour to send a private message to German contributors about the holocaust and then post that private message on the forum to continue a private discussion in public. 
I havnt seen any post from Shinpachi saying he gave any support to the attrocities committed by Japanese wheras I have seen pro nazi posts on here (rightfully the guy was banned). If anyone wishes to know anyones PRIVATE opinion then they should conduct that conversation in PRIVATE, not post the PRIVATE question in PUBLIC when the answer doesnt satisfy.

sorry if I am out of order but I see that as bad manners at the least in any culture. I sense from Shinpachis posts he feels as if he is isolated (I have seen other posts of people having a go) if we want to know what he really feels we should give him time to feel he is among friends.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> Strange how we can discuss Nazi activity against the Jews and there are many people from Germany on this site and it's not an issue. I bring up one battle that I don't know much about and want to learn and now we are having to tiptoe around "feelings".
> 
> I thought we could discuss this, but this whole thread is going in a direction I didn't anticipate. I didn't mean to ruffle feathers so I will go find the "Best Night Fighter" or "The Person Below Me" thread and post there.
> 
> Apologize to all.....



Thorlifter you send a private message to anyone on any forum then post the message on the forum and ask for a reply then check out the result, Shinpachi was remarkably restrained in the circumstances most people would respond in Anglo Saxon. I personally am not interested in any private message from anyone as a result....on this forum private isnt private.

I would be outraged if you did that to me but you think it is normal behaviour...is it normal for you? do you normally post your private messages or have you done it because shinpachi is Japanese. Compared to Nanking and Hiroshima it isnt a big issue so lets have an answer.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> Oh, so YOU'RE the one!




Viking 

when you work in another country you become the focus of everyones grievance I have even been asked to explain Nelsons "inhuman" behaviour in Italy (you gotta read some books to find what on earth they are on about but they have a valid case)....I dont see why Shinpachi should be harrangued on a forum and this isnt an isolated case.

And By the way next time biker babe is on line I am going to ask her when she is going to rebuild that church her folks wrecked just up the road from me it may have been 1400years ago but like the elephant we dont forget like we dont forget the vikings VIKINGBERSEKER


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 15, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Thorlifter you send a private message to anyone on any forum then post the message on the forum and ask for a reply then check out the result, Shinpachi was remarkably restrained in the circumstances most people would respond in Anglo Saxon. I personally am not interested in any private message from anyone as a result....on this forum private isnt private.
> 
> I would be outraged if you did that to me but you think it is normal behaviour...is it normal for you? do you normally post your private messages or have you done it because shinpachi is Japanese. Compared to Nanking and Hiroshima it isnt a big issue so lets have an answer.



I posted the message due to his request to start a thread on this subject so all could see that I asked about the subject in the most respectful way I could (so I thought). I also made it very clear that I wished no disrespect to anyone and simply wished to learn about a subject I didn't know about

And now you question if I did it just because he is Japanese. Apparently you didn't read or couldn't comprehend all my other messages and make a freaking low life comment like that. I answered your question out of respect to the members of this board where I have been a member for over 6 years. But the last thing I have to do is explain myself to you. As far as you know, I'm Japanese too!

If you wish to contribute to this thread constructively, please do so. If you wish to question peoples motives after they have explained them several times, then take it up with the Mods. 

Now, I would love to continue the discussion of the thread but I will not continue in his manner. If you don't like my explanation, tough sh!t. 

Damn, try to learn something and my character comes into question. Whatever!


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 15, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> I posted the message due to his request to start a thread on this subject so all could see that I asked about the subject in the most respectful way I could (so I thought). I also made it very clear that I wished no disrespect to anyone and simply wished to learn about a subject I didn't know about
> 
> !


As I read Shinpachis private meassage clearly states the following....
quote
I would like to launch new thread to answer if you, and Mods, may admit as I always want my opinion to be known widely.
unquote
That is he would like to start a thread not someone else like YOU.


Thorlifter said:


> And now you question if I did it just because he is Japanese. Apparently you didn't read or couldn't comprehend all my other messages and make a freaking low life comment like that. I answered your question out of respect to the members of this board where I have been a member for over 6 years. But the last thing I have to do is explain myself to you. As far as you know, I'm Japanese too!
> 
> If you wish to contribute to this thread constructively, please do so. If you wish to question peoples motives after they have explained them several times, then take it up with the Mods.
> 
> ...



Show me in the 6 years of posting where you have posted on a forum message you sent in private. I havnt been posting on this forum very long but i recognise what is incorrect behaviour on a forum I have been on the internet since it started...show me where you have ever done that before, and if you didnt read my admittedly overly verbose post, the Japanese are different you will get nothing but contempt proceeding they way you are. 

In Japanese and British (I ask Americans to speak for America)culture a private conversation is private, personally I dont care how long you have been posting here, if you think long time attendance allows you to ignore normal behaviour and post a private message then there is nothing at all to say. Have you ever done that to a German poster?

I have discussed Nanjing with Japanese in Japan and Europe and with Chinese in China it is a very very emotive issue (there are issues going back to when Europe was under ice) and if you want to get an opinion you dont do it the way you started this thread. I maintain you have never pulled a stunt like that with any western poster even a nazi appologist, prove you have and the moderators can bar me, no problem.

There is one important difference between the Japanese and British however, I will express myself in Anglo Saxon in private or in public if someone pulls a stunt like that on me. How many expletives would you like. You show me where you have ever done a stunt like that and I am outta here if you dont it is for you to explain why Shinpachi is the first.



Obviously Australians are exempt from any discussion about behaviour as they are all criminals anyway
BTW well done in the Dehli games bring on the ashes


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 16, 2010)

Dear Thorlifter.

I could not understand well why I was asked to explain you about the China-Japan relation in details when there are no sufficient data writen in English yet but now I understand you have the right to know.

Japanese junior and senior hi-schools are teaching the Nanjing incident at history class though it may look simple for you. Here is a copy of the text. 
It says -

物資の略奪、放火、虐殺などの行為もしばしば発生した。
とくに南京占領にさいしては、捕虜・武器を捨てた兵士、老人、女性、子どもまでふくめた民衆を無差別に殺害した。戦死した兵士もあわせたこの時の死者の数は、多数にのぼると推定されている。諸外国は、この南京大虐殺事件を強く非難したが、当時の日本人のほとんどはこの事実さえ知らなかった。
（脚注）この時の死者の数については、数万人、十数万人、三十万人以上などと推定されている。（清水書院）

(Translation)
The acts such as the plunder of supplies, arson, the slaughter often occurred, too. Soldiers killed not only POWs, unarmed soldiers but old people, women, children indiscriminately for occupation of Nanjing. The number of victims, including KIA soldiers is estimated enormous. Many foreign countries strongly criticized this Nanjing Massacre case, but the then almost Japanese did not know even this fact. 
（Note）About the number of killed people of this time, it is estimated more than tens of thousands, a hundred and several thousands or three hundred thousand. （Publisher: Shimizu Shoin）


In addition,
*Japan-China Joint History Research Committee *was launched for the mutual better understanding between the two nations in December 2006. 

The First Meeting of The Japan-China Joint History Research Committee (Summary) December 2006

We regretly have no more official reports in English but Japanese or Chinese only.
Let me attach these 4 pdf files for your future references.

Following sentences quoted from English news early this year introduce the latest summary.

*The Final Report of the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee*
The Japan-China Joint History Research Committee, which comprises scholars from Japan and China, published its final report on their three-year study on 31 January 2010. Led by University of Tokyo Professor Shinichi Kitaoka and Director of the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Bu Ping, the panel discussed Sino-Japanese history through the ancient, medieval and modern eras. The final 549-page report contains a series of essays on the same subjects by both Japanese and Chinese scholars due to the differences in perceptions of various historical issues.....
......................................................................................................
(iv) The number of casualties in the Nanjing Massacre. The Japanese side notes that the Chinese claim that there were more than 300,000 casualties was based on the 1947 Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, but other studies estimate the number of casualties range from 20,000 to up to 300,000. The Japanese side did however acknowledge the responsibility of the Imperial Army for the ”mass killings” of prisoners of war, civilians, stragglers, and others, along with frequent rapes, lootings and arson.

For more details, please refer to the following site.
The Sino-Japanese History Issue ?? | Twisting Flowers

Others(General)
Japan-China Relations 
MOFA: Japan-China Relations

The extremist you mention belongs to the minority in Japan.
They have no power to change the society.

Thanks Thor and guys.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 16, 2010)

Thank you for that, Shinpachi-san! 

Actually, while the text about Nanjing is brief in it's description, it is not much different than some of the things we are taught in the US about things that we did to the native Americans and others. As is often the case with schools, you get a basic overview of things that would require further reading to get a better understanding of.

It is good to see that people of both Japan and China are reaching out to each other to mend old wounds and enhance understanding of each other.


----------



## Shinpachi (Oct 16, 2010)

Thanks evangilder for your favorable comment.
I am glad to hear that.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 16, 2010)

Japanese education about the WWII period is a real issue. OTOH it seems to often be exaggerated how much 'white washing' occurs in Japanese textbooks and classrooms. Also, Japanese atrocities in China are not a 'cut and dried' historical issue in the same way the Holocaust is. Japan fought a war of choice in China in the 1930's. As in most countries in human history up to that time, many people in China lived on the edge of life or death even in peacetime. The mere disruption of war (shortage of food, spread of disease, etc) was enough to push massive numbers over the line unless the invader went out of his way to prevent it, and the Japanese did not. This factor alone caused millions of Chinese deaths over the whole war, but again if you take the long view of history, it was usually the case. It's even true today in a place like Congo, where it's estimated 3mil have died in the multisided off and on war there since the 1990's, but again mostly to starvation and disease caused by war, not directly at the hands of combatants. Make no mistake, all such deaths are the responsiblity of whoever starts a war in such a situation, the point simply being it was not uncommon through history, and not really comparable to an attempt to eliminate a whole people by genocide.

But besides that massive number of deaths in China caused by indirect effects of war, the Japanese also committed deliberate killings of civilians, and there was hardly a concept of enemy POW's when it came to Chinese soldiers, either. But the numbers in that case are again not so cut and dried. So here's where Nanking is still an especially divisive issue between China and Japan. The big emotional picuture for most Chinese is massive overall Chinese suffering in the whole war, started by Japan. OTOH the specific historical technical fact is that likely far fewer than 2-300k people were actually murdered by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking, and the bulk of them were probably Chinese soldiers attempting to make off in civilian clothing (though again, because they knew they wouldn't be treated as POW's if they remained in uniform). Again that's not at all like saying far less than 6mil Jews were killed by Hitler; 6mil, or that ballpark, is pretty well documented, and saying it was much less is Holocaust denial. The number killed at Nanking is *far* less certain but even mentioning in a textbook that some say it's 300k is being more than fair, that's almost surely too high. What's in a number? it was a terrible wrong by any estimation, but many people *are* hung up about the specific number, and do criticize anyone, and especially any Japanese, for questioning the number, though the number is questionable.

Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" was mentioned earlier; it's not a reliable book as documentary history. 

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Oct 16, 2010)

I dont wish to offend anyone, so posting comments about sensitive issues about raw subjects must be done with some sensitivity. We break no rules if we state facts, or at least well based opinions, and dont turn on each other.

But having said that, I will not resile from the truth, even if that means I get into trouble, or it upsets one or more of our members. I am not blaming those members, or any individual, but i will hold a country, or an organization to account without fear of the consequences.

For me there is no ambiguity. The Japanese army, and its support elements, as an organization carried out repeated violations of human rights, and attrocities in China, based on nothing more than race. There is evidence of Japanese soldiers using pregnant women for bayonet practice, for example, systematic murder, rape and torture of civilians and the scantiest attention to the welfare of people such as POWs that were under their care. I can forgive all of that. I have forgiven all of that, but I will never forget either, and neither should the descendants of Japan be allowed to forget. It is something they have to deal with , in exactly the same way as the German second and third generations have to accept an know about their national war guilt. They arent responsible, but their country was. If we forget this guilt, we betray the millions who died trying to stop the madness all those years ago.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I agree Adler but is it normal behaviour to send a private message to German contributors about the holocaust and then post that private message on the forum to continue a private discussion in public.
> I havnt seen any post from Shinpachi saying he gave any support to the attrocities committed by Japanese wheras I have seen pro nazi posts on here (rightfully the guy was banned). If anyone wishes to know anyones PRIVATE opinion then they should conduct that conversation in PRIVATE, not post the PRIVATE question in PUBLIC when the answer doesnt satisfy.
> 
> sorry if I am out of order but I see that as bad manners at the least in any culture. I sense from Shinpachis posts he feels as if he is isolated (I have seen other posts of people having a go) if we want to know what he really feels we should give him time to feel he is among friends.



1. I don't think he did anything wrong. He posted the message to show that he meant no disrespect or harm. I believe he posted it so that he could show that he wanted to discuss this. I also believe that the message from Shinpachi was misunderstood and that might also be why the email was posted. This misunderstanding comes from the fact that it sounded like Shinpachi agreed to a thread but then was hurt by it when the thread was started. He was only showing that he thought Shinpachi agreed to the thread.

2. Shinpachi should not feel isolated. No one is attacking him. What happened during WW2 is history and that is something we discuss in this forum. 

3. We openly discuss what happened in Europe by the Germans, why should the Japanese be exempt from that? Were they on vacation or something? 

4. No one here including Thorlifter is attacking Shinpachi or any other Japanese. The innocent Japanese and Germans can not be blamed for what happened over 60 years ago. Nor can the Japanese and Germans that were born after the war.

5. This thread should just be discussed, but in a peaceful manner.

6. Shinpachi, please do not feel attacked. I do not feel that any member of this forum with a right mind would do so. If someone did, we *moderators* will handle it accordingly and the said member will be removed from this forum.

*7. Having said that, Tail End Charlie let us moderators do our job. Why don't you stay in your lane. I mean no disrespect to you either, but we do not need any more Chiefs around here or in this thread. If you wish to moderate a thread or forum, please start a forum of your own. If you have issues with a thread or post, message a moderator from now on and let us handle it.]*


----------



## Njaco (Oct 17, 2010)

and lets stay on topic.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 17, 2010)

Well said.


----------



## renrich (Oct 22, 2010)

Michael, your points are very well taken. People today should be made aware of inappropriate,(to say the least,) behavior of citizens, military or civilian, of our respective countries. The old saying, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it," (or something like that) is very true. Studying misbehavior in the past also gives one a sense of perspective about the present. Holding responsible, people today though, for acts of their ancestors is useless and does more harm than good.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 22, 2010)

A-fricken-men!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 22, 2010)

No country involved in the war is completely innocent of human rights violations. Some obviously had a more sever amount than others, but no country is innocent. Race based violations occurred everywhere. Think about it, propaganda used terms like Jap, Nip, Kraut, etc. While on the other side, terms like Yank, Limey, Frog, etc existed. Dehumanizing the enemy is part of war, and has happened throughout history.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> Michael, your points are very well taken. People today should be made aware of inappropriate,(to say the least,) behavior of citizens, military or civilian, of our respective countries. The old saying, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it," (or something like that) is very true. Studying misbehavior in the past also gives one a sense of perspective about the present. Holding responsible, people today though, for acts of their ancestors is useless and does more harm than good.



Very well said.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 22, 2010)

evangilder said:


> No country involved in the war is completely innocent of human rights violations. Some obviously had a more sever amount than others, but no country is innocent. Race based violations occurred everywhere. Think about it, propaganda used terms like Jap, Nip, Kraut, etc. While on the other side, terms like Yank, Limey, Frog, etc existed. Dehumanizing the enemy is part of war, and has happened throughout history.





The difference as i see it, is the difference between state sponsored murder and individual acts of barbarism. The US army is often criticised for the massacres that occurred in Vietnam, yet they were never orsered to do that, and at least the military went through a due process of trial by independant peers. It was still against the law for those soldiers to do what they did.

In China, it was completely different. The Imperial Army of Japan was never issued specific orders to carry out genocide in quite the same way as the Gewrmans, but commanders were never repreimanded for excessive brutality of their troops. This was essentially why Yamashita was hung. Even though he knew about the massacres taking place in Manilla, he did nothing to curb the Naval commander. 

In Nanking the army commander (a corps commander in our system) knew what was happening in the city and took no action, in fact he commended units that excelled in the ethnic cleansing. it was dark mark against the honour of japan and its army


----------



## parsifal (Oct 22, 2010)

a good summary of the massacre, which may be useful


http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMNJ.html


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 22, 2010)

parsifal said:


> In Nanking the army commander (a corps commander in our system) knew what was happening in the city and took no action, in fact he commended units that excelled in the ethnic cleansing. it was dark mark against the honour of japan and its army



The Geneva convention was not signed by the Japanese. I am in no way an apologist for Japanese attrocities, I have worked in China and Nanjing was a very small part, what the Japanese did used to be called sacking a city in Europe, there are no newsreels no photos and no written accounts but that used to be commonplace in Europe. Japan was a small country invading a larger one and paralysing your enemy with fear is a tactic that has been used since the start of warfare.

If the movie and still camera was invented 2000 yrs ago history would be very very different the problem for the Germans and Japanese is they waged war when a permanent photographic record was made. That is why journalists were/are not allowed to film freely by US and British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 22, 2010)

How about state sponsored acts incarceration based on race? 120,000 Japanese were put into "relocation camps" in the United States based on race alone. 60% of those placed into those relocation camps were American citizens. While it isn't rape and murder, it was theft (they were give very little notice of relocation and many had to sell their properties for a fraction of the value), robbing them of their rights herding them into cramped camps. 

What was done in China was wrong, but what was done in the US was wrong as well.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 23, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The Geneva convention was not signed by the Japanese. I am in no way an apologist for Japanese attrocities, I have worked in China and Nanjing was a very small part, what the Japanese did used to be called sacking a city in Europe, there are no newsreels no photos and no written accounts but that used to be commonplace in Europe. Japan was a small country invading a larger one and paralysing your enemy with fear is a tactic that has been used since the start of warfare.
> 
> If the movie and still camera was invented 2000 yrs ago history would be very very different the problem for the Germans and Japanese is they waged war when a permanent photographic record was made. That is why journalists were/are not allowed to film freely by US and British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.



Not signing the Geneva convention has nothing to do with whether a nation is guilty of war crimes. If Nin Laden ever gets caught, he could otherwise calim he never signed the genva Convention, and therefore is allowed to undertake arfare in whatever form he likes.

There are international rules imposed on all nations, as to the conduct of warfare. The system is far from fair, the victors tend to go unpunished for their misdemeanors. However, the basic rules of war are this....you cannot mistreat an eney that has surrecdered, or a population that is no longer resisting. This might mean a general surrender, or it might mean that a particular city or region capitulates. once that is deon, the occupying nation has a responsibility to maintain the rule of law. Japan did not observe that basic principal, and from that all the warcrimes her oersonnel committed, and the nations government as a whole, committed a fundamental criminal act


----------



## parsifal (Oct 23, 2010)

evangilder said:


> How about state sponsored acts incarceration based on race? 120,000 Japanese were put into "relocation camps" in the United States based on race alone. 60% of those placed into those relocation camps were American citizens. While it isn't rape and murder, it was theft (they were give very little notice of relocation and many had to sell their properties for a fraction of the value), robbing them of their rights herding them into cramped camps.
> 
> What was done in China was wrong, but what was done in the US was wrong as well.




An unjust act, to be sure, and one that should be compensated for, i agree, but not a warcrime in my opinion. The US government, pased the necessary legislation, and exedcuted the law as required. It was an unjust law, possibly contrary to the US constitution but not contrary to international law, and therefore not a war crime. The US as a nation did not sponsor state terrorism of populations, despite the popular myths that say they support regimes like Chile or Nicuagra (I can never spell that place). If anything the US could be found guilty of extreme Naivete but not much else

I agree that what happened was wrong, and i dont hide from that, just as our treatment of our aboriginals over the last 200 years is wrong. But in neither case does that qualify as a war crime. I confess too, that I just cannot put the incarceratiuon of the Japanese -Americans is even remotely comparable to what happened in China. I would much rahter be a n ehtnic Japanese living in the US in 1941 than a Chinese citizen living in Nanking in 1938


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Not signing the Geneva convention has nothing to do with whether a nation is guilty of war crimes. If Nin Laden ever gets caught, he could otherwise calim he never signed the genva Convention, and therefore is allowed to undertake arfare in whatever form he likes.
> 
> There are international rules imposed on all nations, as to the conduct of warfare. The system is far from fair, the victors tend to go unpunished for their misdemeanors. However, the basic rules of war are this....you cannot mistreat an eney that has surrecdered, or a population that is no longer resisting. This might mean a general surrender, or it might mean that a particular city or region capitulates. once that is deon, the occupying nation has a responsibility to maintain the rule of law. Japan did not observe that basic principal, and from that all the warcrimes her oersonnel committed, and the nations government as a whole, committed a fundamental criminal act




Parsifal it is a fundamental right of a population to resist, I believe that is what the second ammendment enshrines in law. You seem to quote a new definitition of a war crime written after the event to permit a nuclear attack. There is no definition of crimes against humanity that I know of that can forbid chemical weapons and allow nuclear, nuclear weapons as was known in 1945 cause death from the fallout and not only kill the immediate victims but also their decendants and people down wind. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been viewed as the most grotesque of medical experiments if the allies had eventually lost. Just think how many people were involved in researching the effects.

Consider the plight of a female German teenager in Berlin in 1945, a child when the war started seeing her city destroyed in a firestorm by British and American bombing then raped as part of the red armys occupation. When all is over she has to spend her life listening to the moral allies lecturing her on behaviour.
I have visited Germany many times and that is always in my mind when I see an old lady walking down the street.

The first victim in a war is the truth and the victors write the truth. It doesnt mean that because some victor has written it that I have to believe it.

I will be busy in the next few weeks reading wikileaks documents on Allied forces turning a blind eye to torture and executions in Iraq. Others while wandering about on what is left of any moral high ground may just consider that Guantanamo was specifically constructed to get around the letter of international law while everyone knows it breaks the spirit of it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 23, 2010)

I do find it interesting that you mention the allies turning a blind eye to torture and executions, but nothing about the people actually doing the torturing or executions.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 23, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I do find it interesting that you mention the allies turning a blind eye to torture and executions, but nothing about the people actually doing the torturing or executions.



That is because we are supposed to be in control, please do not pretend that torture and executions have not been carried out by allied forces it was organised under the name of "extraordinary rendition". An unmanned drone doesnt hold a trial, we are shown footage of a bomb exploding and killing people sometimes civilians in pakistan (that is a war crime) sometimes people concerned with resisting a foreign power (that is acceptable in war but none is declared in pakistan) sometimes a "leader" of a terrorist group. Personally I think its a propaganda war and I dont believe any of it.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 23, 2010)

Unintentionally killing civilians is not a war crime, unless it's due to gross negligence. By the definition you are using, every Allied and Axis Commander in WW2 and most other wars could be put on trial for war crimes. 

Iraq's Army has been under Iraqi direction (not allied) since early 2006. The actually declaration of war is a merely a political issue, you can still have a war without it. The majority of the wars that the US has been involved in through out it's history have been undeclared - but they are still wars.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 23, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> we are shown footage of a bomb exploding and killing people sometimes civilians in pakistan (that is a war crime)



Sorry TEC but the inadvertant killing of civilians while attempting to eliminate a legitimate target is covered under that very sterile phrase "collateral damage". It isn't a war crime.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Parsifal it is a fundamental right of a population to resist, I believe that is what the second ammendment enshrines in law. You seem to quote a new definitition of a war crime written after the event to permit a nuclear attack. There is no definition of crimes against humanity that I know of that can forbid chemical weapons and allow nuclear, nuclear weapons as was known in 1945 cause death from the fallout and not only kill the immediate victims but also their decendants and people down wind. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been viewed as the most grotesque of medical experiments if the allies had eventually lost. Just think how many people were involved in researching the effects.
> 
> Consider the plight of a female German teenager in Berlin in 1945, a child when the war started seeing her city destroyed in a firestorm by British and American bombing then raped as part of the red armys occupation. When all is over she has to spend her life listening to the moral allies lecturing her on behaviour.
> I have visited Germany many times and that is always in my mind when I see an old lady walking down the street.
> ...



There is no absolutes, trying to apply the law on moral issues is a wrong test to apply. Instead the best that can be hoped for is to apply a test of equity to each individual case......to assess the relative merits of a particular action or response against the accepted standards of the day. And that pre-supposes that there is an independant body of like minded peers to judge the appropriateness or otherwise of an individuals nation or organizations actions. The most appropriate and successful application of this approach occurred at Nurnberg (IMO), since then the international court of justice has struggled hard for independance and objectivity, but it is a flawed organization at best (that perhaps explains why the US does not allow its personnel to be tried by the court). 

If there is an army of occupation, it is of course reasonable for the occupying power to apply rules of military justice to acts of civil disobedience. Moreover, the military code is generally taken to mean a harsher, less rigorous test in the presumption of innocence. If you are caught with a rock in your hand, and there is a broken window nearby, under military occupation you are as good as guilty. Dont laugh, this actual situation has occurred in places like Palestine. However, the response has to be the application of reasonable force to counter the threat. If there are university students rioting, but no actual lethal force is occurring, it would be illegal to use lethal force to curb that riotus behaviour. If there are are acts of sabotage occurring, placing the lives of military personnel at risk, it becomes a more reasonable case to use deadly force 

In the case of the little girl in Berlin that you cite....her plight is ultimately the responsibility of the germans themselves. The International trials that followed the war quite appropriately found Germany was guilty of starting the war, of undertaking acts of genocide and wars of aggression, of using illegal and laws contrary to basic human rights to secure political outcomes to their liking (in an extreme and perverted way ....everybody is guilty of this, but not to the same extent and level of perversion that Germans were guilty of). If the education system was set up correctly, when finally she ent back to school, she would learn that harsh as the allied respoonses to german aggression were, it was ultimately the germans who were responsible for her plight. That is not to exonerate the individual acts of bastardry meted out on her. The soldiers who raped her should have faced military justice. That is not a war crime....it s a breach of the military justice sytem of that country, the war crime would be if the soldiers were ordered to rape her, or were allowed to do it without consequence. Thats how it works I am afraid. as an aside, my stepafather is German, a Berliner, fought at Stalingrad, won the iron cross there...returned home to Berlin at the end of the war, says there were many cases of rape in the city, but also says that many Russian soldiers were eventually punished (severely....many were sent to Siberian Gulags for these crimes), though it is popular to paint the Russian authorities as s as uncaring in this situation. In fact it was the common soldiers hardened by four years of the most inimaginable conditions, who carried out these acts....my father-in law was a Soviet Cavalrymen, a Siberian that fought the Japanese, defeated the germans in front of Moscow, and fought all the way through to '45, one of the toughest soldiers I ever met. He says it was mostly the actions of the undisciplined Far eastern and Central Asian raw recruits responsible for the breakdown in discipline that occurred).

There will always be versions of the truth, like Irvings assertion of Holcaust denial, and the like. There will always be those that say the International court of justice is flawed and ought not be supported. I dont support those notions at all. The basic fundamentals in a free society are true.....in a democracy you fool all of the peoiple only some of the time. If you choose to disrespect the scarifices made on your behalf by a generation of people fighting tyranny and oppression, thats your business. I will prefer and continue to support that version of the truth closest to what I believe is the real truth. 


As for guantanamo, this is NOT the applicvation of International law, neither is it the application of US dometic statutes. Its a very dicey interpretation of creating a stateless, haven that is outside all jurisdiction. I actually agree with its principals, because the situation it was dealing with ( essentially a war underetaken by stateless individuals, who took it upon themselves to wage war free of all moral or legal limitations).


----------



## Njaco (Oct 24, 2010)

Excuss me for being naive (my forte with WWII has always been the ETO) but can someone enlighten me about what actually happened at Nanking?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 24, 2010)

Chinese city falls to the Japanese - who then rape, shoot and bayonet their way through the city. Berlin with bayonets +. God awful and especially so because it revealed just how racist the Japanese were to the defeated Chinese -- on a visceral level that took more than one generation to infuse into the national character of Japanese people .

Nanking was a sign of "things to come" -- in the the same way that Guernica was in Spain during the Civil War.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2010)

Njaco said:


> Excuss me for being naive (my forte with WWII has always been the ETO) but can someone enlighten me about what actually happened at Nanking?




Posted a link earlier that gives a pretty balanced summary of the events. Roughly 400000 fatalities, at least 20000 rapes, an unknown number of serious torture victims. From 1945 through to about 1980 Japanese government acknowledged the incident as a massacre. Since the early 1980s have downplayed it as an event...now referes to it as an incident, and honours some of its participants. 

This later position by the japanese has attracted widespread diplometic backlashes in East Asia, particulalry China. Western nations have remained tight lipped and uncommittal on this issue. They appear reluctant to side with China over a long term friend, Japan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Consider the plight of a female German teenager in Berlin in 1945, a child when the war started seeing her city destroyed in a firestorm by British and American bombing then raped as part of the red armys occupation.



My wife has family that is all to familiar with that very thing you just said...



buffnut453 said:


> Sorry TEC but the inadvertant killing of civilians while attempting to eliminate a legitimate target is covered under that very sterile phrase "collateral damage". It isn't a war crime.



I agree, it is a fact of war. Unfortunate but not a war crime.

I also wish to point out. TEC the torture that possibly happens in Iraq is not state sponsored. Individual soldiers that may commit such acts and the commanders that order them to do so should be punished but it can not be compared to the type of war crimes committed during WW2 by the Axis powers.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 24, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The difference as i see it, is the difference between state sponsored murder and individual acts of barbarism. The US army is often criticised for the massacres that occurred in Vietnam, yet they were never orsered to do that, and at least the military went through a due process of trial by independant peers. It was still against the law for those soldiers to do what they did.



Parsifal, sorry to come in so late on this but i've been on the lake for the past 4 days. let me set the record straight on vietnam: 
The bielief that American Atrocities were widespread is totally false.
During the entire war there were TWO cases of War Crimes by military
personnel. March 1968 My Lai by the 1st platoon of Charlie company,
Lt Calley and February 1970 16 women and children by 5 Marines
Bravo company at Son Thang. Both case resulted in court martial
and all were found guilty. After 3 years, Calley was pardoned by
Nixon.
Meanwhile the press never mentioned any of the widespread civilian
murders committed by the VC/NVA. During Tet alone the VC/NVA
murdered over 5,000 civilians, in Hue alone over 3,000 were tortured
and murdered. Civilian USAID workers, missionaries and any other
westerners were captured starved, tortured, and murdered with never
a press comment.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 24, 2010)

mikewint said:


> Meanwhile the press never mentioned any of the widespread civilian
> murders committed by the VC/NVA. During Tet alone the VC/NVA
> murdered over 5,000 civilians, in Hue alone over 3,000 were tortured
> and murdered. Civilian USAID workers, missionaries and any other
> ...



And that's what really p*sses me off about stuff like that. People will show up to protest against executing a murderer, but don't show up at his/her trial to protest them murdering somebody in the first place. Thousands were protesting the invasion of Iraq, but those same people were never protesting while Sadam was killing innocents as a policy.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 24, 2010)

Viking, shame on you, those were "Heroic Freedom Fighters" just ask Jane


----------



## parsifal (Oct 24, 2010)

Hi Mike

No argument from me that thealleged acts of misconduct by the US army is grossly overblown. The fact also that the establishment put the guilty people on trial and went through due process is a testament to the high moral standards of the US Army.

Methinks you might be misunderstanding the point I was trying to make.....people have been tring to compare the US expereinces and activities in iraq and Vietnam with the activities of the Imperial Japanese Army in China. I think there is no valid comparison that can be made. One could care less about the protection of human life and the due processes of the law....the other was fighting a war, on behalf of others, trying to protect and keep free those "others".

There could be no greater difference between the two armies in my opinion.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 25, 2010)

Parsifal, don't want to get off the topic on Nanking but US "atrocities" in Vietnam is one of my "buttons" (we all have them) i do Vietnam days at many high schools and I hear it over and over again, even today. Starting in about 1970 or so the entire character of the Army in Vietnam changed. everybody knew we were pulling out, all hope of victory was gone, no one wanted to be the last man to die there.
Guerrilla war I understand, the enemy is everywhere and no where, frustration builds. Is a "civilian" a true civilian or a soldier without uniform? Or the Mideast where rulers deliberately place military targets in residential, school, or hospital zones putting their own civilians at risk. Do you ignore those targets or try to hit them as surgically as possible as the 6'oclock news shows bloody children pulled out of wreckage However Nanking, to me, goes back to medieval warfare and even further back when conquering armies decimated entire cities putting whole populations "to the sword"
Most Germans were held accountable for their "war crimes" and a few Japanese, like Tojo, but large numbers were never prosecuted. Why? McAurther's Deal? Or were we afraid of a re-ignition of the war with a Kamakazie population.
As i recall the invasion of Japan called for an initial "million man" first wave


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 25, 2010)

In 1905 - when reporting the Russo-Japan War - no less an 'international-brotherhood-of-man-socialist' - Jack London remarked in his writings what a shock it was to see an Asiatic nation whipping a member of the European family of nations (my words, not Jack's ).

You write: "Most Germans were held accountable for their "war crimes" and a few Japanese, like Tojo, but large numbers were never prosecuted. Why? McAurther's Deal? Or were we afraid of a re-ignition of the war with a Kamakazie population.
As i recall the invasion of Japan called for an initial "million man" first wave".

I don't think there was any sort of 'conspiracy'. Think how easily Germany got off THE FIRST TIME (1914-18 ).

Japan was thoroughly defeated in 1945 - not just by the A bombs. The Russian operation that started in August 1945 was rapid, masterful and all-encompassing. If the war had lasted another month the Russians would have unilaterally invaded the most northerly Home Island - Hokkaido.

The Japanese learned a lesson in 1945. The Germans DIDN'T in 1918 - and had to be taught again.

There is no point dwelling on Nanking - it happened, shouldn't be forgotten, etc. etc., has happened again - Rowanda. BUT - understanding the who/how/why of it is essential to human progress.

Nanking, IMHO, was a combination of vile racist loathing - the Japanese view at the time was that the Chinese were decadent beyond salvation. And Japanese history was in the process of turning around and turning outward. While always a warrior society - the warriors historically had been a Class. Come modern times with mass armies and you have to take peasants and everyday men and imbue them with "esprit du corps" - in this case the "code". A soldier who was drunk on the code was a very dangerous element - running amok in a conquered civilian population that he despised.

But the difference between Japan and Germany was that Japan is a "good" learner. 

MM

__________________


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 25, 2010)

WOW, many topics since I last visited this thread. Ok......

@TEC - I had forgotten the Japanese didn't sign the Geneva convention. Thanks for the reminder!

@Parcifal responding to Eric - I agree that, while the treatment of Japanese Americans was irresponsible (to say the least), it was not a war crime.

@Njaco - Michael and Parcifal gave you a few quick overviews and they are right. Just a little more information: The numbers have always been a source of disagreement. The number of women raped has ranged from 20,000 to as high as 80,000. This number is only surpassed by the treatment of Bengali women by Pakistani soldier in 1971 where an estimated 200,000-400,000 women were raped in Bangladesh in 9 months.

The number killed has ranged between 150,000 to 350,000. The IMTFE (International Military Tribunal of the Far East) estimates the number at 260,000 noncombatants. What makes these numbers so astounding is these people were killed in a 6-8 week time frame. _Self edit: I had typed a couple of details of the rampage, but decided to remove them. Believe me, it was some of the worst acts of evil I have ever read._

*Quote from "The Rape of Nanking"*
_"Using numbers killed alone, the Rape of Nanking surpasses much of the worst barbarism of the ages. The Japanese outdid the Romans at Carthage (only 150,000 died in the slaughter), the Christian armies during the Spanish Inquisition, and even some of the monstrosities of Timur Lenk, who killed 100,000 prisoners at Delhi in 1398 and built two towers of skills in Syria in 1400 and 1401."_

@Parcifal - Just like your post that the breakdown during the Soviet occupation of Berlin was done by undiciplined recruits, most of the crimes in Nanking were done by the common soldier. I think the difference is the Soviet's acted on their own, while the Japanese were given the go ahead, and encouraged by their commanders. How they even made games and contests who could bayonet the most Chinese. How they used their swords to behead Chinese. There is photographic and newspaper articles of proof of both of these happening. The bayonet games was a big news story in the Japanese news paper "The Japan Advisor" with photos of the participants.

Japanese scholars believe the unmitigated aggression was brought about by a phenomenon called "the transfer of oppression." Japanese author Tanaka Yuki wrote about how soldiers were subjected to endless humiliation, such as being forced to wash the underwear of officers, or to stand while being slapped by officers until blood streamed from their face.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 25, 2010)

MichaelM, i had 4 uncles in WWII in the marines and navy, one died on Iwo and another on a ship hit by a Kamikaze. i still remember to this day the others talking about how badly those kamikaze shook-up the entire ship's company. again as i recall there was a very real fear that an invasion of the home islands i.e. sacred soil would be met by the same type of kamikaze attacks. men, women, children triggering explosives as troops went by. the Russians would have met the same fate if they had invaded. that million man first wave would not have been the end of the slaughter. and what about the mental state of troops asked to endure such resistance? It was the reason Truman authorized the use of the bomb.
In my opinion Japanese war crimes far exceed the German and again in my opinion very few of Japan's war criminals were ever prosecuted. Why?
Again I do not mean to turn this thread away from Nanking but what of the crimes committed by Unit 731 code-named Maruta also on Chinese soil. I doubt if 1 in 1000 people have ever heard of this Unit and probably fewer in Japan. Yet the name Dr. Mengele is synonymous with these types of experiments


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 25, 2010)

All your points are valid, Mikewint. But you wondered if Japan got off lightly. They did and they didn't. The Allies (General MacArthur) essentially took on the task of re-engineering Japanese society. That was not done in Germany in 1918. The country was "demilitarized" but (for example) the Kaiser's decision to abdicate was not imposed on Germany - it was a voluntary decision.

If the Russians had had to attack Hokkaido - the casualties would have been horrific - but that wouldn't have stopped Stalin.

As for kamikaze attacks - unfortunately it proved to be the kind of asymmetrical weapon like the IED and suicide bomber in today's war on Islamic extremism. And when an enemy under-values their own lives it sadly brutalizes the whole conflict - as history records on the Eastern Front.

MM


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 25, 2010)

Everybody is politely skirting around the issue. During WW2 Japanese with American citizenship were incarcerated while germans on the same status wernt. German prisoners of war were held in prisoner of war camps. In those camps German prisoners of war used the facilities of the white soldiers which were barred to black American servicemen. That is a German prisoner of war in a prison camp for german prisoners of war had higher status than a black serviceman in the US Army. Americans came first Americans of German ancestry came above black people, Japanese with American citizenship came below blacks and Japanese civilians/servicemen below that.
American civilians and were killed prior to Germany declaring war on the USA, and Americans fought against Germany prior to the declaration which was contravening the Geneva convention. The whole lease lend operation was a contravention of the Geneva convention for America as a neutral country anyway. In international law the flying tigers were mercenaries, if you want to invoke international laws then do it across the board.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 25, 2010)

Hi TEC

Your last post is essentially that the US army suffered from racism? True enough, when judged by todays stadards. However, I have to raise two questions here....firstly, of relevance.....this has nothing to do with war crimes, except that Japoans unbridled racism was a factor in the massacre at Nanking. The sheer scale of the inicdent finds no equal in any western allied army that I can think of.

The second is that no nation is free of the racism card. The British army in this regard is as bad, if not worse than the US army. Saying that we are all racists proves nothing of itself. We are, but not all of us act on that flaw in our character. The Japanese did, and in so doing also permitted war crimes aplenty to occur


----------



## mikewint (Oct 25, 2010)

TEC, i would disagree with you with all due respect. we have 1st degree and second degree murder and manslaughter. all three involve the death of a human but are varying degrees with varying sentences. jananese-americans in interment camp is a crime but it was done legally by force of law through elected representatives. japanese-americans in these camps were not bayoneted, tortured, starved, or had contests seeing how many heads could be lopped off per hour nor were they subject to "medical experimentation". Blacks in the entire american nation were not treated equally and the army is a microcosm of society. in fact it was the war and the needs of the war that finally started blacks on the road to equality.
and lastly Roosevelt certainly "bent" the convention with Lend-Lease much as I might bend the letter of the law to help you, my neighbor. Flying tigers mercs, yes of course, is the employment of foreign nationals as a fighting force illegal by internation law? The French Foreign Legion might be surprised by that


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 25, 2010)

We're getting off topic. What was Nanking and why did it happen?

MM


----------



## mikewint (Oct 25, 2010)

MichaelM, i think that the Kamikaze had an impact far far beyond the physical damage they caused. American in WWII were a pretty unsophisticated group and the mental impact of the Kamikaze un-nerved them well beyond physical damage.
one can only imagine the mental effect of women and children blowing themselves up would have had on a group of 18-19 yo in that million man invasion force.
as you observed McAurthur had to alter the entire society to prevent such a scenario. Stalin might have withstood such brutality but i don't think the average american could have survived such killing (least i hope its not in our character)


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 25, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Hi TEC
> 
> Your last post is essentially that the US army suffered from racism? True enough, when judged by todays stadards. However, I have to raise two questions here....firstly, of relevance.....this has nothing to do with war crimes, except that Japoans unbridled racism was a factor in the massacre at Nanking. The sheer scale of the inicdent finds no equal in any western allied army that I can think of.



As I have said previously Berlin is an equal eithjer by systematic bombing or sytematic murder and rape, Russia was our ally and the attrocities committed by Russia were equal in severity and number to the Germans but no attempt was made to prosecute anybody. 

The point I was making was not really about the USA it was about the world in 1930s/40s the whole world was fundamentally racist and maybe it still is.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 25, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> We're getting off topic. What was Nanking and why did it happen?
> 
> MM



Nanking was a tragedy which was easily forseen. The head of the chinese army didnt want to defend it. It was a city which sybolised China as the capital but was impossible to defend. The Japanese were advancing from the East and Nankin had a river on its west side. For the Chinese it was impossible to retreat from and impossible to reinforce. As a capital the Japanese destroyed it and everyone in it as many capitals have been destroyed before.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 25, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> As I have said previously Berlin is an equal eithjer by systematic bombing or sytematic murder and rape, Russia was our ally and the attrocities committed by Russia were equal in severity and number to the Germans but no attempt was made to prosecute anybody.
> 
> The point I was making was not really about the USA it was about the world in 1930s/40s the whole world was fundamentally racist and maybe it still is.



Bombing is another issue, but in my view does not qualify as a war crime. The fundamental difference is that the germans initiated a war of agression, and secondly continued to resist, long after it was sensible or logical to do so. It is is not a war crime, of itself, to bomb civilian targets, or even to target civilians. That is provided their country continues to apply deadly resistance in the conflict, which the germans did in spades.

Incidentally I think your logic could also be applied to unrestricted U-Boat warfare, and even though Doenitz was incarcerated on that charge, it was not so much on the basis of the act being a war crime, merely that he was acting contrary to the hague convention. His relatively light sentence relects that tacit admission. There was no such convention with regard to bombing that I am aware of.

In any event, there is a world of difference between attacking civilian targets for stated and legitimate military reasons and unbridled and unresisted genocide. Thats the difference between the Allied bombing offensive and the Rape Of Nanking. Even though the Japanese since 1980 have jazzed their defence up to try and pass the actions of their army as serving legitimate military purposes, I simply dont buy it. The city had surrenderedand was offereing no resistance, this did not save them. Berlin had not surrendered and was continuing to resist. I fail to see the similarity after that.

With regard to the Russians, again there is no war crime that I know of. There were crimes, and many o them went unpunished, though you seem to deliberately ignore witness statements I produced for you that said there were military justice consequences in the russian army to these breaches of discipline.

You need to understand the essentials of what is a war crime, as opposed to just a crime.  The best definition I could find (and ther is no universal statute that describes precisely what a war crime is) says that a war cime is

"_Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare._" I would add my own twist to that in that it is not a war crime if it is a crime carried out by an individual (or small group), acting outside of orders, and those individuals or small groups are dealt with by the military justice system of that country. You have to study the avaialble case law to reach that point, but generally that is the position acquiesced by the International Court of Justice


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 25, 2010)

Well said.

I think too many today throw around the words "war crimes" without really understanding what it means.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 25, 2010)

"... the mental impact of the Kamikaze un-nerved them well beyond physical damage."

I am sure that is true and I do not underestimate the effect of the tactic. That is why 9-11 has been so traumatic. 

But the point of true amazement was/is that just 25 years after the defeat of Japan, Americans are/were buying Honda's, Toyota's and Datsun's. That is how profound the redemption of Japanese society was. And yes, Americans are/were also buying VW's .

MM


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Berlin had not surrendered and was continuing to resist. I fail to see the similarity after that.




Parsifal the war crimes in Berlin (and east Germany) were committed by the Russians prior to after the Berlin surrendered women were raped and killed men were killed and transported back to camps in Russia, I have met their descendants. No one even considered taking Russia to task because they were taking revenge, the Hague and Geneva conventions didnt discuss revenge as far as I remember. I personally dont think bombing is a war crime, rape is a civilian crime and so is murder and arson, however when you count up the amount of arson rape and murder in Berlin then if that isnt a war crime then the term war crime doesnt exist.
The value of people like Lincoln, Ghandi and Mandela is to draw a line and not demand revenge. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Even though the Japanese since 1980 have jazzed their defence up to try and pass the actions of their army as serving legitimate military purposes, I simply dont buy it. The city had surrenderedand was offereing no resistance, this did not save them. Berlin had not surrendered and was continuing to resist. I fail to see the similarity after that.
> 
> With regard to the Russians, again there is no war crime that I know of. There were crimes, and many o them went unpunished, though you seem to deliberately ignore witness statements I produced for you that said there were military justice consequences in the russian army to these breaches of discipline.
> 
> ...



I suggest you read about the conduct of the red army in Berlin and for example how many babies were born 9 months after its fall, erman women had to latch on to senior russian officers to protect them. Russia used the end of the conflict to eliminate opposition of approximate 20million losses by Russia approximately 7 million were from the Soviet Union killed by the soldiers Soviet Union but the Soviet Union was merely a name for countries occupied by Russia. When it comes to jazzing up history that is a gambit used by ALL countries throughout history.

The essentials of a war crime is the people who sit in judgement firstly decide that they havnt committed any war crimes. The Hague and Geneva are European cities where right minded people tried to form rules for warfare. It is a great idea but there is no precedent in Europe or anywhere else to my knowledge. A conquering army only behave in a civilized manner to the conquered when it is seen to be to their advantage.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 26, 2010)

mikewint said:


> MichaelM, i had 4 uncles in WWII in the marines and navy, one died on Iwo and another on a ship hit by a Kamikaze. i still remember to this day the others talking about how badly those kamikaze shook-up the entire ship's company. again as i recall there was a very real fear that an invasion of the home islands i.e. sacred soil would be met by the same type of kamikaze attacks. men, women, children triggering explosives as troops went by. the Russians would have met the same fate if they had invaded. that million man first wave would not have been the end of the slaughter. and what about the mental state of troops asked to endure such resistance? It was the reason Truman authorized the use of the bomb.
> In my opinion Japanese war crimes far exceed the German and again in my opinion very few of Japan's war criminals were ever prosecuted. Why?
> Again I do not mean to turn this thread away from Nanking but what of the crimes committed by Unit 731 code-named Maruta also on Chinese soil. I doubt if 1 in 1000 people have ever heard of this Unit and probably fewer in Japan. Yet the name Dr. Mengele is synonymous with these types of experiments




Unit 731 and most Japanese experiments were hushed up by the Allies because the USA gave the perpetrators, a job as they did with German rocket scientists. Werner von Braun was responsible for designing terror weapons which killed thousand but he was useful to the space programme. Simillarly the heads of unit 731 were useful for Americas chemical and biological weapons programme and so they were employed. If there was a military use for a gas chamber or mengeles experiments who knows what would have happened.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 26, 2010)

TEC, could not agree with you more. actually a number of Mengle's human experiments form the basis of several human vs environment tables, like wind chill, and coast guard water temp/time survival tables.
and we could also digress into human experiments conducted by the US government on its own citizens military and civilian


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2010)

mikewint said:


> TEC, could not agree with you more. actually a number of Mengle's human experiments form the basis of several human vs environment tables, like wind chill, and coast guard water temp/time survival tables.
> and we could also digress into human experiments conducted by the US government on its own citizens military and civilian



I actually read an interesting article about medical knowledge that came directly from his experiments. Still very awful what he did, but it was an interesting read none the less. I will have to see if my wife still has the magazine.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 26, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry TEC but the inadvertant killing of civilians while attempting to eliminate a legitimate target is covered under that very sterile phrase "collateral damage". It isn't a war crime.



Collateral damage is a new phrase. Pakistan is controlled by an unelected military government. Afghanistan is an occupied country with a pupet leader elected in a bogus election which the leader himself doesnt wish to repeat. There is no "just" war it is just a few groups of military organizations killing people who my or may not agree with a leader who may or may not be as corrupt violent and inhumane as those he replaced. If Karzai was a US President no one would say that opposing him deserved the death penalty without a trial. 
The term "legitimate target" is also a new phrase, I am sure there are many legitimate targets in the USA but that doesnt mean you kill first and ask questions later. Americas overwhelming military power has led it to believe it can impose a completely arbitary law throughout the world, simultaneously supporting Israel in a land grap against palestine and supporting Karzai against his opponents in Afhanistan, I have no idea who is the "democratic" ruler of Iraq.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Parsifal the war crimes in Berlin (and east Germany) were committed by the Russians prior to after the Berlin surrendered women were raped and killed men were killed and transported back to camps in Russia, I have met their descendants. No one even considered taking Russia to task because they were taking revenge, the Hague and Geneva conventions didnt discuss revenge as far as I remember. I personally dont think bombing is a war crime, rape is a civilian crime and so is murder and arson, however when you count up the amount of arson rape and murder in Berlin then if that isnt a war crime then the term war crime doesnt exist.
> The value of people like Lincoln, Ghandi and Mandela is to draw a line and not demand revenge. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.




There is no doubt that what happened in Berlin before and after the surrender at the hands of the Red Army was pretty horrific. However, despite the protestation, it is technically not a war crime. These were breaches of military discipline. OTOH there were many cases of rape and murder in Berlin that did go unpunished, as there were also many such cases in Stalingrad, Kharkov, etc etc at the hands of the german army. It is untrue, that the Red Army did not move to curtail these activities. Many Russian soldiers ended up serving time for these crimes, which never happened in the german army. Thats why I find it hard to rate the russian experiences as war crimes. AFAIK, there were no formal orders issued to undertake any sort of ethnic cleansing, or orders that sanctioned rape or murder. In fact, though they were slow to move on the problem, the Red Army did eventually take action to firstly curtail what was happening, and then to punish at least some of the perpetrators of these crimes.

In my book that is not a war crime, its a breakdown of military discipline. Though you are sceptical, a war crime IS a rather narrowly defined and new concept, at least in 1945. The concept has expanded since 1945, so if such activities occurred today, under the interpretation given today to the vague concept of "war crime" then the Red army's conduct in berlin in 1945, if judged by the standards of 2010, would qualify as a war crime.

A difference remains between the coonduct of the Red Army in 1945 in berlin, and that of the japanese Army in Nanking in 1937. Whereas the Russians issued no orders to authorise or instruct their troops to undertake rape and murder as part of their occupation strategy, and did eventually take action to stop this from happening, The Japanese did issue such illegal orders (as did the Germans including hitlers illegal orders to shoot commissars without trial, and similar treatment for british commandoes), and did nothing to curtail the violence. Nanking was not an isolated incident, Mistreatment of the Chinese by the japanese continued before, during, and after Nanking, with absolutley no attempt by the leadership to stop this from happening by the military leadership.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Unit 731 and most Japanese experiments were hushed up by the Allies because the USA gave the perpetrators, a job as they did with German rocket scientists.



Actually the Soviet Union persecuted at least 12 of them, including the Chief of the unit who was sentenced to 25 years IIRC. But IMHO I think a lot more should have been.




tail end charlie said:


> Werner von Braun was responsible for designing terror weapons which killed thousand but he was useful to the space programme.



So did every other arms designer, are you suggesting that they should be tried for war crimes as well? 

Since we are on the topic, what exactly is your definition of war crimes? There is a difference between a crime commited during war and a war crime.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 27, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> Actually the Soviet Union persecuted at least 12 of them, including the Chief of the unit who was sentenced to 25 years IIRC. But IMHO I think a lot more should have been.
> 
> So did every other arms designer, are you suggesting that they should be tried for war crimes as well?
> 
> Since we are on the topic, what exactly is your definition of war crimes? There is a difference between a crime commited during war and a war crime.



Viking you have made my point for me and thank you. 

If you are involved in delivering death to the enemy by a high tech system of rocket propulsion then you are feted in the new world however if you are involved in delivering death to the enemy by biological means you are a war criminal. It could be argued that some of the biological and medical research will eventually save more lives than it destroyed, while the space programme just made a lot of pollution. In my opinion however for the future of humanity I dont think human vivisection can ever be justified.

Were the people sentenced to 25 yrs languishing in a prison in Russia or helping to further the Soviet Chemical Biological arms programme? I think it was the latter.

The V2 programme killed completely indescriminately men women and children, it is a post war folly to argue that it is a nice way to die as compared to a medical experiment or by gassing, some people in a gas attack died immediately while others who were victims of a V2 rocket (or any other type of bombing) lingered for weeks and months in agony, and incedentally all sides researched how long it took them to die in order to perfect todays fragmentation bombs. It is better, after all, to cripple a soldier than to kill him and all sides have researched this unsavoury fact to their own ends.

My definition of a war crime is that the idea of war crimes are completely bogus, war is war, after winning a war by killing more of the enemy than they killed it is entirely specious to pretend that the victors killed in the "right" way. The nuclear bomb doesnt pass any yardstick of behaviour except in the context that we used it we won so it was correct to save lives on our side. The massacre in Nanking could be said to serve the same purpose for the Japanese, to terrify the enemy into servitude.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 27, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The massacre in Nanking could be said to serve the same purpose for the Japanese, to terrify the enemy into servitude.



TEC, which again i pretty much agree with you on most of your points I find the reverse to be true about the above. Westmoreland had a policy of attrition. The US killed 2.5 million VC/NVA to 60,000 US. we did not win.
for everyone you kill, two stand-up to avenge. attrition only works if you go to the edge of genocide


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 27, 2010)

parsifal said:


> A difference remains between the coonduct of the Red Army in 1945 in berlin, and that of the japanese Army in Nanjing in 1937.



Nanjing was in 1937 that is NINETEEN THIRTY SEVEN two years before the START of the world war in Europe and four years before America was involved in any conflict with Japan. If the Rape of Nanking ranked alongside the holocaust in human history then why wasnt anything said at the time? all the details were known fairly quickly! The truth is no one cared about a few hundred thousand Chinese being killed at the time, just as they didnt care about a few hundred thousand Germans or Japanese in 1945, it is hindsight moralising to further justify the the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quite clearly you dont agree but in not agreeing you must say why war was not declared on Japan in 1937. I am now 50 yrs old I heard almost nothing about Nanjing (it used to be Nanking) until about 20 yrs ago and each year it seems to gather in importance, to me it is re writing history, people should write about why no one gave a damn then, but do now. That is more to do with trade with modern China than it has to do with right and wrong.

Each year 6000 people die in mining accidents in China which doesnt even trouble the Chinese today, the tragedy of Nanjing is using history for modern politics of trade.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 27, 2010)

mikewint said:


> TEC, which again i pretty much agree with you on most of your points I find the reverse to be true about the above. Westmoreland had a policy of attrition. The US killed 2.5 million VC/NVA to 60,000 US. we did not win.
> for everyone you kill, two stand-up to avenge. attrition only works if you go to the edge of genocide



Mike, killing 2.5 million is genocide, a population that prefer to die than surrender or bow down is not unusual, it is what the US second ammendment enshrines. What surprises me is that some countries believe other countries will do what they would absolutely not dream of doing.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 27, 2010)

TEC, again total agreement which is why I never agreed with Attrition as a war policy it only hardens the population. The US had no Genocide policy but armed troops were attacked with everything we had as long as they resisted but we also took many POWs who were never mistreated that I ever saw in 6 years. In fact most were treated better by us than their own NVA commanders


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 27, 2010)

mikewint said:


> TEC, again total agreement which is why I never agreed with Attrition as a war policy it only hardens the population. The US had no Genocide policy but armed troops were attacked with everything we had as long as they resisted but we also took many POWs who were never mistreated that I ever saw in 6 years. In fact most were treated better by us than their own NVA commanders




Mike 

I dont deliberately set out to offend or open sore wounds, I am just making the point that we are deciding arbitrarily what is right and wrong and usually a long time after the event. If the United Nations was based in Hanoi and Vietnam had a permananent seat on the council how would history be written. Foreign powers tried to carve up the country for their own ends and the vietnamese heroically resisted taking huge losses rather than surrender to foreign powers.

I am in no way insulting the memory of the guys who lost their lives but it was part of a geo political game sorting out the collapse of a former french colony and preventing Soviet expansion Both the Vietnamese and the US army were part of that tragic game. And now that Russia has no interest then neither has the USA or the west. Billions were spent on both sides fighting over a very poor country that still remains very very poor.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Nanjing was in 1937 that is NINETEEN THIRTY SEVEN two years before the START of the world war in Europe and four years before America was involved in any conflict with Japan. If the Rape of Nanking ranked alongside the holocaust in human history then why wasnt anything said at the time? all the details were known fairly quickly! The truth is no one cared about a few hundred thousand Chinese being killed at the time, just as they didnt care about a few hundred thousand Germans or Japanese in 1945, it is hindsight moralising to further justify the the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quite clearly you dont agree but in not agreeing you must say why war was not declared on Japan in 1937. I am now 50 yrs old I heard almost nothing about Nanjing (it used to be Nanking) until about 20 yrs ago and each year it seems to gather in importance, to me it is re writing history, people should write about why no one gave a damn then, but do now. That is more to do with trade with modern China than it has to do with right and wrong.
> 
> Each year 6000 people die in mining accidents in China which doesnt even trouble the Chinese today, the tragedy of Nanjing is using history for modern politics of trade.



I have some books at home, written in 1939, and continuing on an annual basis until the end of the war. It is called "the war in Pictures", and it chronicles the war, year by year. It has references in the 1939 and 1940 editions to the shameful activities of the japanese army, and makes specific reference to Nanking.

The world in 1937 and after was concerned, but the western nations were powerles to act, because they lacked the means to challenge the japanese in China. But they did respond to provide assistance to the chinese, as exemplified by the AVG. In fact, the continuing support for the chinese regime, which eventually led to the closing of the Burma Road in 1940, the occupation of French Indochina, the imposition of the oil embargoes by the US, and from there, the road to total war. To try and argue that the west did not respond to Japanese agression in China, which included the documented massacres including Nanking, or that the west somehow did not care about what was happening in China, is simply untrue. The world still believed in the League of nations at that time, and hoped it would be able to curtail these acts of aggression (which included war crimes) through peceful negotiation and the application of non-violent coercion. This proved inadequate, admittedly, but it was still and attempt to address the issue, using the tools available at the time. 

The concept of a war crime did not exist in 1937, it was developed under the UN charter. thats what makes the trials in 1945, so unique, and world changing. For the first time, however inadequately, the world united and said these are criminal acts, and we need to do something about it. I think that is the right decision. To say that the world did nothing about war crimes in 1937 is non-sequita, there was no such thing in 1937. that the UN found a way of applying the new rules retrospectively is a testament of the allies to applying moral standards to the conduct of warfare, using legal systems to achieve that outcome. The fact that they were successful in applying that principal before what up to that time was the most independant international judicial review the world had ever seen, is further testament to the correctness of the war crimes principals, and the basis of those trials.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 27, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Collateral damage is a new phrase. Pakistan is controlled by an unelected military government. Afghanistan is an occupied country with a pupet leader elected in a bogus election which the leader himself doesnt wish to repeat. There is no "just" war it is just a few groups of military organizations killing people who my or may not agree with a leader who may or may not be as corrupt violent and inhumane as those he replaced. If Karzai was a US President no one would say that opposing him deserved the death penalty without a trial.
> The term "legitimate target" is also a new phrase, I am sure there are many legitimate targets in the USA but that doesnt mean you kill first and ask questions later. Americas overwhelming military power has led it to believe it can impose a completely arbitary law throughout the world, simultaneously supporting Israel in a land grap against palestine and supporting Karzai against his opponents in Afhanistan, I have no idea who is the "democratic" ruler of Iraq.




Sorry TEC not really following your thread here - I was talking about collateral damage and you're meandering off into totally unrelated concepts of "just war" and the legality, or otherwise, of particular forms of government. "Collateral damage is a new phrase" - can you please define "new" because it's been military parlance for at least 25 years. It is defined (roughly) as the inadvertent damage caused to unassociated persons or property when attacking a target. 

Adding the word "legitimate" in front of "target" is my faux pas but a legal target is one which meets the criteria defined by the rules of engagement, Law of Armed Conflict (in UK parlance) and is on the theatre-approved target list. Identifying a target, be that an airfield, a tank, a house or an insurgent, has nothing to do with the imposition of some imagined "arbitrary law" by one nation and everything to do with the priorities and objectives levied on and by the senior military leader of the campaign.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I am just making the point that we are deciding arbitrarily what is right and wrong and usually a long time after the event.



Sorry, TEC, but I have to disagree here. Countries are expected to abide by whatever international laws or conventions are in force at the time. Japan did not sign the Geneva Convention whereas all the other major WWII combatant nations did sign it. However, it was not the failure to sign the Geneva Convention that resulted in the systematic, often directed, mistreatment of Allied POWs or subjugated peoples, rather it was the natural consequence of the militarisation of the Japanese civilian populace during from the late 19th century onwards and the associated "superiority complex" which indoctrinated people to believe that gaijin were lesser creatures than the people of the Son of Heaven.

We cannot compare events during WWII with actions in Vietnam or, today, in Afghanistan, because the international legal frameworks are different and, more importantly, they are different forms of warfare. WWII was traditional nation-state, force-on-force warfare - a "winner takes all" if you like. Uniquely, technology ensured that the conduct of that war came the closest to Clausewitz's concept of Absolute (or Total) War. The entire resources of the nation, and yes that included women and children, were brought to bear for the good of the country in waging war. Under such conditions, the concept of what constituted a viable, legal target was, by necessity, broadened to include anything that contributed to an adversary's war effort, including workers in armaments factories, shipyards, railways etc. 

Vietnam was a hybrid with the North Vietnamese waging their version of "Total War" because it was, for them, a fight for survival while, conversely, the US forces arraigned against North Vietnam were not fighting for the survival of their nation. The conflict was further complicated because it included traditional force-on-force, nation-state warfare as conducted by the North Vietnamese Army etc as well as insurgent and terrorist actions undertaken by the Vietcong.

Today, we're fighting wars largely against insurgents and terrorists who fight not for nation but for their concept of deity. They are hard to locate and difficult to neutralise. We also live in an age of immediate access to international media and a much-modified concept of what constitutes "acceptable losses" on either our side or that of our adversaries. The emergence of the term "collateral damage" occurred precisely because, under current combat conditions, it is almost impossible to attack one's adversary without hurting some innocent bystander but there is a world of difference, legally speaking, between someone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and the deliberate, systematic subjugation of a people, race or other social group.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2010)

(please note, much of the following is a simple cut and paste from the one site….Nuremberg Trials: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. I acknowledge the input of this article to my post)
The Nuremberg trials of 1945 and 1946 influenced later developments of international law and the courts that enforce it. It underpinned the work of the Tokyo War Crimes Trials (1946–1948) and subsequent trials under Control Council Law No. 10 in occupied Germany. They also firmly established the basis for attributing individual criminal responsibility for atrocity crimes such as genocide, serious war crimes, and crimes against humanity that would constitute the core jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals at the end of the twentieth century and beyond. The trials accelerated the further development of the principles of international criminal law and international humanitarian law, as reflected in the Genocide Convention of 1948, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Geneva Protocols of 1977, the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The UN General Assembly affirmed in Resolution 95(I) of December 11, 1946, the "Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal." The illegality of aggression was further elaborated in a 1974 UN General Assembly resolution defining aggression with regard to state responsibility, and in the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, which was adopted by the International Law Commission. Deeply influenced by the record of the Nuremberg trials, the states that are party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court continue to negotiate how to activate the crime of aggression which, for purposes of individual criminal responsibility, is included in the new court's jurisdiction. In Justice Jackson's opening statement at the Nuremberg trials, he summed up what they were all about:
The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to reason.
The London Charter required a fair trial for all of the defendants, and set forth fundamental rules for that purpose. These rules included the right to counsel and the right to cross-examine any witness. As the trials got underway, however, defense lawyers often found it difficult to obtain documents sought for the defense of their clients, and delays in the translation of key documents created difficulties for both the prosecution and defense.
The indictment, issued on October 19, 1945, included four charges drawn from the London Charter: a common conspiracy to wage aggressive war, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The second category, crimes against peace, had no pre-existing definition in international law. It was defined in the London Charter as the "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of [war crimes or crimes against humanity]."
The third category, war crimes, was a well-established concept in international law. It was defined in the London Charter as follows:
violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
The fourth category, crimes against humanity, had at best a very problematic foundation in international law. Such crimes were defined as follows:
murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Fundamentally, the allies themselves escaped being brought to trial on any counts, because a pre-condition in the formation of the IMT was the need to establish whether the nation state was guilty of a war of aggression. This also explains why the leadership of the minor axis powers were not brought to account at Nurnberg. Subsequent tribunals such as the Hague International criminal court of justice operate under different rules, and it would be possible to prosecute the allies for war crimes for some of their activities. 

The basic rules of evidence, and the legal procedures used in the IMT at Nurnberg were mostly Anglo American in character. This basic principle has continued into the post Nurnberg permutations of the IMT. It means there is a heavier burden of proof for the prosecution, and this has meant many of the more recent trials are long drawn out affairs, with a great deal of uncertainty as to the outcomes

I will see what I can unearth about the terms of reference for the Tokyo war crimes tribunal, which did not have the same terms of reference in its formation to the Nurnberg tribunal.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 28, 2010)

mikewint said:


> Most Germans were held accountable for their "war crimes"


This is not true, most of the war criminals of WW2 were not caught, except for some top-figures and some examples. In the sixties, many ex-SS criminals had high ranking functions in West German and East-German societies.



michaelmaltby said:


> I don't think there was any sort of 'conspiracy'. Think how easily Germany got off THE FIRST TIME (1914-18 ).


This is not a very thoughtful remark.
First of all: German actions in WWI can in no-way be compared to WW2. I know the Allies wanted to blame Germany of everything in WWI, but if you study the history closely, there's no way that Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of WWI, British, France, Russia were probably even more responsible. The punishment of Germany after WWI was not fair and very dangerous. 
This brings to my next problem with your statement. How easy did Germany get off in 1918? Punishments were so severe that it resulted in WWII. They were 'killed' economically, blamed for everything, while they had no more guild than the other countries. I think Germany (with your words) came off 'Easy' after WWII. But this was good policy, as is shown: Germany is now a very valuable and respected country here in Europe and no wars occurred.

We also had no wars with Japan after WWII.....


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Nanjing was in 1937 that is NINETEEN THIRTY SEVEN two years before the START of the world war in Europe and four years before America was involved in any conflict with Japan. If the Rape of Nanking ranked alongside the holocaust in human history then why wasnt anything said at the time? all the details were known fairly quickly! The truth is no one cared about a few hundred thousand Chinese being killed at the time, just as they didnt care about a few hundred thousand Germans or Japanese in 1945, it is hindsight moralising to further justify the the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quite clearly you dont agree but in not agreeing you must say why war was not declared on Japan in 1937. I am now 50 yrs old I heard almost nothing about Nanjing (it used to be Nanking) until about 20 yrs ago and each year it seems to gather in importance, to me it is re writing history, people should write about why no one gave a damn then, but do now. That is more to do with trade with modern China than it has to do with right and wrong.
> 
> Each year 6000 people die in mining accidents in China which doesnt even trouble the Chinese today, the tragedy of Nanjing is using history for modern politics of trade.



Regarding your statement of "why wasn't anything said at the time?" In fact, it was heavily being covered. Months before the fall of the capital, there were reporters from all over the world living there to report on the bombings and providing almost daily coverage. Japanese newspapers ran photos of Chinese being rounded up for execution. It was being reported on by Frank Durdin of the New York Times, Archibald Steele of the
Chicago Daily News, and C. Yates McDaniel of the Associated Press.  

**Quote from The Rape of Nanking**
_
Durdin, Steele, and McDaniel left only a few days after the massacre began, but in the brief time they were in Nanking they made an enormous impact. Not only did they write riveting stories that were splashed across the biggest and most prestigious newspapers in the United States, but they also joined the International Safety Zone Committee in trying to save lives._

There were also two American newsreel men near Nanking; Norman Alley of Universal and Eric Mayell of Fox Movietone. They were on board the Panay when it was attacked and filmed the whole event.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 28, 2010)

@Marcel:

"... This is not a very thoughtful remark.
First of all: German actions in WWI can in no-way be compared to WW2. I know the Allies wanted to blame Germany of everything in WWI, but if you study the history closely, there's no way that Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of WWI, British, France, Russia were probably even more responsible. The punishment of Germany after WWI was not fair and very dangerous.
This brings to my next problem with your statement. How easy did Germany get off in 1918? Punishments were so severe that it resulted in WWII. They were 'killed' economically, blamed for everything, while they had no more guild than the other countries. I think Germany (with your words) came off 'Easy' after WWII. But this was good policy, as is shown: Germany is now a very valuable and respected country here in Europe and no wars occurred.
We also had no wars with Japan after WWII....."

Sorry but you and I will have to agree to DISAGREE, Marcel. Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 - sheer aggression.

I did NOT suggest Germany got off easily in 1945 - Germany was utterly crushed, divided up and fully occupied. I stated that in 1918 Germany got off "easy" - it did, compared to what was in store in 1945. By your logic, Marcel - if the Allies had treated a DEFEATED Germany in 1918 the way they did in 1945 there would never have been WW2.

Prior to WW1, newly unified Germany under the Kaiser expected Europe (and the world) to make room for them - when that didn't happen the next recourse was to "take" what Germany wanted. From slave labour to reprisals against civilians -- everything the Nazis did in WW2 the Kaiser's forces did in 1914-18 on a smaller scale but with the same contempt for others. 

My original thesis in this thread - that I stick to now - is that Germany DID NOT LEARN A LESSON (or at least the right lesson) in WW1 and hence the lesson had to be taught tenfold over in WW2. Japan changed itself as a result of defeat in WW2 -- and the world has made "room" for Japan as a result.

MM


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 28, 2010)

MM,

Both you and Marcel have valid points, the difference seems to be one of perspective. Undoubtedly there were many Germans who did not learn the right lesson(s) from WWI. In large part this was due to the lack of an Allied occupying force in Germany. For many Germans, although they lost hundreds of thousands of fathers, husbands and sons, the war was a remote affair with no need to defend the homeland street-by-street. This gave rise to the perception that the German Army had not lost the war but had been failed by the politicians, which ultimately spawned the numerous extremist factions of which the Nazi party was but one. 

Related to the above issue is the way the Germans, themselves, thought they were treated after WWI. The country was effectively neutered, given no opportunity to defend itself properly. There were various land-grabs by the Allies, particularly the French, which continued long after WWI had ended. This all gave rise to considerable resentment, further fuelling extremism. Add the financial crisis of the early '30s and extremists have an opportunity to remove German reliance on international commerce (Hitler's autarky) and, equally important, blame anyone and everyone for the nation's failings - the Allies (so let's re-arm and show them what a real German military can do), the Jews (because they run international banking and we are above such usury), the cripples (because they contribute nothing to the nation's strength, indeed they are a drain on valuable resources) etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 28, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> @Marcel:
> 
> "... This is not a very thoughtful remark.
> First of all: German actions in WWI can in no-way be compared to WW2. I know the Allies wanted to blame Germany of everything in WWI, but if you study the history closely, there's no way that Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of WWI, British, France, Russia were probably even more responsible. The punishment of Germany after WWI was not fair and very dangerous.
> ...


Hi Michael,

You should read up more on the politics 1890-1914. France and Russia were cooking this up for Germany for years. They cornerd Germany to start agressions. This is of course off topic, but if you're interested, I could explain some other time.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 28, 2010)

@buffnut453:

"... the way the Germans, themselves, thought they were treated after WWI. The country was effectively neutered, given no opportunity to defend itself properly. There were various land-grabs by the Allies, particularly the French, which continued long after WWI had ended"

Hey - lets move the yardsticks back to the Franco-Prussian war - when the French were humiliated and had territory seized by the Germans. I mean - if we are going to accept "sorry for myself" arguments - why start with 1918 .

Was France vindictive as Hell in 1918? Was there hatred for the "Bosch"? - damn right there was. Was it justified ... well it was *just as valid* as the way Germans felt they were treated.

You have to draw a line somewhere, buffnut, and accept that each of us is responsible for our choices and our actions. Blaming others doesn't cut it.

My grand dad and two uncles didn't go to France in 1914 to return again in 1939 because the Germans hadn't learned a thing from the first go-round. But the uncles DID go back to war in 1939 - grand dad died in '39 - ed and disappointed, I'm sure.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 28, 2010)

@Marcel:

"... France and Russia were cooking this up for Germany for years. They cornerd Germany to start agressions. "

Please start a thread on this, Marcel, I'd love to know more .

MM


----------



## Marcel (Oct 28, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> @Marcel:
> 
> "... France and Russia were cooking this up for Germany for years. They cornerd Germany to start agressions. "
> 
> ...



Hi Michael,

Good idea. But it's a long story and as you might know, quite complex. As soon as I have time, I'll try to start one.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 28, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> @buffnut453:
> 
> "... the way the Germans, themselves, thought they were treated after WWI. The country was effectively neutered, given no opportunity to defend itself properly. There were various land-grabs by the Allies, particularly the French, which continued long after WWI had ended"
> 
> ...




MM

I'm not blaming others nor am I justifying actions. The problem of looking back in history is that we view things from how they are now not how they might have been had things gone differently. You can't look at international relations or wars without going into the history - often way back into the history - to truly understand why things happened the way they did and why people made the decisions they made (and that's not excusing responsibility nor indicating that any perspective is any more or less valid than another).


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2010)

Excellent point. The peace that was imposed on Germany at versailles was nasty, by todays standards. By the standards applicable pre-League of nations, it was actually pretty tame.

In some sense, Germany was lucky to continue to exist as a separate state after WWI. They could easily have ended up as provinces of france, Germany and her other neighbours, in much the same way as Austria was carved up


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 28, 2010)

All the more so because the concept of Germany as a nation state was still very new in first quarter of the 20th century.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 28, 2010)

@parsifal:

Absolutely right - just don't tell the Germans that. A tougher stance in 1918 WOULD have altered history.

@buffnut: "... The problem of looking back in history is that we view things from how they are now not how they might have been"

Perhaps - but some of us are old enough to have heard first hand from our mothers and uncles - participants - what actually happened. *I am not looking back*, I am remembering vividly what I was told. *And I was told precisely so I would remember.*. Germany wanted to go through Belgium to seal off France, they told Germany "let us through and we won't harm you, resist and we'll hurt you." Belgium resisted and Germany wreaked terrible vengeance on them.

Recently BikerBabe posted colour photos of WW1. I urge all of you to look at them. What stands out to my eye is Germany's preparation for the war, the fortifications etc., the smug complacency of the officers, and the backdrop of already wrecked (Belgian) cities. (And yes, I know these photos were posed so they are hardly "natural" but they were carefully composed to convey a reality)

I have spent my life testing and measuring WHAT I WAS TAUGHT against what I have learned for myself. I think I am more than accommodating of the German point-of-view, and see shortcomings in the Allied position, but, after a lifetime of reading I still believe that in both wars *everything started with German aggression and treachery*. To rationalize or revisionize that is just to indulge in some kind of fantasy -- and it is unhelpful. It is impossible for people to make accurate assessments of world conditions TODAY when they are being fed misinformation about the recent past.

I am not an existentialist. I do not believe morality is "relative" although I do understand there are times when people have to do what they have to do. So - call me old fashioned or brain washed - but that's the way I see things. Yes, my family fought on the winning side, but by God they paid a terrible price for coming to the aid of Belgium.

MM


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 29, 2010)

MM,

The information you were provided with by your family as a youth is their perception and understanding of a situation. Your identification of smugness and complacency in certain posed pictures is your interpretation based on that perception. This is not rationalizing nor revising, and I agree that German aggression was a pivotal issue in the spark for WWi and WWII, but the basis of our world view is a function of human nature centered on our experiences and memories. Unfortunately, our experiences are often only a small part of the big picture, or are based on what we are allowed to read by those who publish books, while our memories are highly fallible even at short remove from the events we are describing.

Historians often suffer from a deterministic bent when they examine events that led to a particular decision or crisis. We often look for the "one big thing" that caused an otherwise unavoidable crisis when, in reality, it was often a complex chain of inter-related conditions and decisions by multiple individuals. There is a tension between structure (ie the constraints which limit freedom to act) and agency (whcih is the freedom to act). International political treaties form part of the structure and are intended to prevent or limit nations' freedom to act, including individual acts of aggression. Origins of crises are often found in the interplay between these elements, even going back before the treaties were signed into the, often long-running, antipathy between nations or peoples. 

As stated above, WWII was certainly caused by aggression by the Axis powers but there were causes for that aggression, either real or perceived by the aggressors, which prompted the decisions and actions of the Axis leaders and their peoples. War doesn't spring from some big-bang to occupy a previous political vacuum, rather it is an extension of conflicting political and cultural positions and idealogies that, in the belief of at least one nation's stated position, cannot be resolved by other means.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 29, 2010)

@ buffnut:

Of course everything is _relative _old chap.

*Dulce Et Decorum Est*

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!– An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.–
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

_Wilfred Owen_


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

speaking of which MM I drove past the Vimy memorial in france yesterday


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 29, 2010)

Thanks for that TEC.  As we approach November 11 a great sadness always stalks me.

MM


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 29, 2010)

Dulce et Decorum Est...one of my all-time favourite poems. Tanks for posting it MM.


----------



## RabidAlien (Oct 29, 2010)

For those of us who haven't a clue re: Latin, can somebody please translate the last line? Otherwise....very gripping poem. Feels like I'm right there in the trenches with them.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 29, 2010)

_Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori _= It is sweet and honorable to die for one’s country


----------



## RabidAlien (Oct 29, 2010)

Thank you, VB (I went to public schools in South Georgia, where English was considered a foreign language class along with Spanish and French. The French teacher pretty much knew how to order wine, and surrender.)!!!  Knowing that makes the poem all the more poignant. Gonna have to add it to my archives....


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 30, 2010)

RabidAlien said:


> Thank you, VB (I went to public schools in South Georgia, where English was considered a foreign language class along with Spanish and French. The French teacher pretty much knew how to order wine, and surrender.)!!!  Knowing that makes the poem all the more poignant. Gonna have to add it to my archives....



RA

from wiki

The title and the Latin exhortation of the final two lines are drawn from the phrase "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" written by the Roman poet Horace in (Ode III.2.13):[2]

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
mors et fugacem persequitur virum
nec parcit inbellis iuventae
poplitibus timidove tergo.

"How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country:
Death pursues the man who flees,
spares not the hamstrings or cowardly backs
Of battle-shy youths."

These words were well known and often quoted by supporters of the war near its inception and were, therefore, of particular relevance to soldiers of the era.

In 1913, the first line, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, was inscribed on the wall of the chapel of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.[3] In the final stanza of his poem, Owen refers to this as "The old Lie".[4]


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 30, 2010)

RabidAlien said:


> Thank you, VB (I went to public schools in South Georgia, where English was considered a foreign language class along with Spanish and French. The French teacher pretty much knew how to order wine, and surrender.)!!!  Knowing that makes the poem all the more poignant. Gonna have to add it to my archives....



RA

from wiki

The title and the Latin exhortation of the final two lines are drawn from the phrase "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" written by the Roman poet Horace in (Ode III.2.13):[2]

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
mors et fugacem persequitur virum
nec parcit inbellis iuventae
poplitibus timidove tergo.

"How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country:
Death pursues the man who flees,
spares not the hamstrings or cowardly backs
Of battle-shy youths."

These words were well known and often quoted by supporters of the war near its inception and were, therefore, of particular relevance to soldiers of the era.

In 1913, the first line, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, was inscribed on the wall of the chapel of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.[3] In the final stanza of his poem, Owen refers to this as "The old Lie".[4]


----------



## parsifal (Oct 30, 2010)

It takes a very special kind of man to keep fighting, knowing they have no chance of surviving.

The commander of the Guard at waterloo, I forget his name, replied to offers to surrender with the words...."The guard does not surrender, it dies!" And then it did, to a man.

The greatest incentive for coldiers, isnt the high sounding ideals and catchcries that got them to join. Its usually very simple....the desire to survive. men fight to try and stay alive.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 30, 2010)

A short story about people not afraid to die:

During the Battle of Sutjeska, during summer of 1943, German, Italian and quisling forces were trying to encircle and destroy the HQ of Tito's partisans (and Tito himself, obviously). One of Tito's units, 2nd Dalmatian brigade was guarding the extraction of the HQ. After days of attacks of more numerous number, their reply to the HQ offering reinforcements was: "We have lost 3/4 of our number, but count at as as a full-strength unit".
Eventually, the HQ got away from Axis forces (cca 120 000 vs. 20 000 partisans).

Now one might think that soldiers of the brigade were hard-boiled communists and what not. The core of brigade was born after this:
After Axis occupation of Kingdom of Yougoslavia, the island of Iž was under Italian control. So they confiscated olive oil, the main souce of income of people of the island. The locals broke in the warehouse, reclaiming the oil. The Italians responded with army unit, recapturing the oil, and took young man as hostages. Now the locals got real angry, and attacked Italians, liberating the hostages and, of course, the oil. Now, knowing that next time Italians land their units at island the issues might went very bad, decided to leave the island and join Tito.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 30, 2010)

parsifal said:


> It takes a very special kind of man to keep fighting, knowing they have no chance of surviving.
> 
> The commander of the Guard at waterloo, I forget his name, replied to offers to surrender with the words...."The guard does not surrender, it dies!" And then it did, to a man.
> 
> The greatest incentive for coldiers, isnt the high sounding ideals and catchcries that got them to join. Its usually very simple....the desire to survive. men fight to try and stay alive.



Actually, Parsifal, more than merely wanting to survive (which is an entirely human desire), it's often the case that soldiers continue to fight because they don't want to let their mates down. The bonds between soldiers can be incredibly strong, so much so that men will stand shoulder-to-shoulder to face certain death because that's what all their mates are doing around them.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2010)

Bingo, buffnut. Not only that, but when you face a situation that appears to be a no win deal, you fight much differently. There are times in a soldiers life when they think they have no chance of surviving, but it is rare.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 30, 2010)

I can accept that as well BN. But I still think that links back to survival. A soldier knows he can survive, only if enough of his mates also survive. 

The will to survive is not a purely selfish instinct. It does include selfless actions as well. But deep down, most soldiers are thinking....."if I dod this, I can survive as well"as


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 31, 2010)

I don't disagree, Parsifal - there's always strength in numbers and there's always the slight chance that you might survive. However, I do think it's a little more complex than that - militaries live and breathe their ethos and team ethic. There was a British soldier who threw himself on a grenade that landed in his platoon position to save his mates. That takes an innate desire to protect the team. Amazingly, he survived the action because his backpack absorbed virtually all the blast. However, at the time, he was not weighing the chances of his survival, rather he wanted to protect his mates.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 1, 2010)

parsifal said:


> There is no doubt that what happened in Berlin before and after the surrender at the hands of the Red Army was pretty horrific. However, despite the protestation, it is technically not a war crime. These were breaches of military discipline.
> 
> In my book that is not a war crime, its a breakdown of military discipline. Though you are sceptical, a war crime IS a rather narrowly defined and new concept, at least in 1945. The concept has expanded since 1945, so if such activities occurred today, under the interpretation given today to the vague concept of "war crime" then the Red army's conduct in berlin in 1945, if judged by the standards of 2010, would qualify as a war crime.
> 
> A difference remains between the coonduct of the Red Army in 1945 in berlin, and that of the japanese Army in Nanking in 1937. Whereas the Russians issued no orders to authorise or instruct their troops to undertake rape and murder as part of their occupation strategy, and did eventually take action to stop this from happening, The Japanese did issue such illegal orders


The distinction you are drawing there is highly questionable in terms of known historical facts, though in both cases the situation is blurred by propaganda of both sides, neither of those cases is as well studied and documented as say, the Holocaust.

There is no evidence the Soviets ordered their soldiers to commit atrocities against civilians on a large scale in Germany (or Eastern Europe generally, or Manchuria in 1945, where they also behaved atrociously toward civilians) but in Germany in particular it's quite apparent that their leadership was not inclined to protect Germany civilians, especially given the frequent atrocities committed by the German armed forces in the USSR in the years just preceding. Whether or not some Soviet soldiers were prosecuted or shot out of hand for mistreating civilians, the atrocities occurred on a quite massive scale, inconsistent with a really serious Soviet attempt to prevent them, as opposed to some selective enforcement to have a fig leaf for later propaganda and or history to say it wasn't deliberate, as well as declaring at a certain point 'enough is enough' when enough women had been raped enough times in a particular area. First hand accounts seem to admit this.

OTOH I know of no evidence, or even claim, that the Japanese ordered their soldiers to mistreat civlians around Nanking. Read "The Good German of Nanking" which is the personal account of the John Rabe Siemens Corp rep in Nanking, a Nazi sympathizer (though again this was 1937, before the real horrors of Nazism), who organized a 'safe zone' for Chinese civilians in the city. It's clear from that day to day diary that the main threat to Chinese civilians was individual Japanese soldiers and small groups looking to commit crimes (robbery, rape, and to kill if resisted), and their officers didn't really care, though repeatedly promised Rabe they would do a better job stopping it, and eventually they did. Rabe figured that a few 1,000 civilians had lost their lives. Separately, the Japanese executed (often gruesomely) a larger number of Chinese soldiers caught trying to escape the city in civlian clothes. They were technically within their rights to do so if they conducted some kind of trials, but they didn't, and moreover the Chinese tried such escapes because they believed it was their only chance to survive if cut off from retreat. Surely some of the suspected Nationalist soldiers killed were actually civilians. Altogether the number of people killed might have been as many as 100k, the usually bandied 200-300k being a fairly clear exaggeration. 

The numbers of course aren't really the point. Military leaders who show obvious dereliction in protecting civilians from their soldiers *are* war criminals, besides the offending soldiers themselves. Some IJA officers were brought to justice for that, basically no Red Army officers were: because the Japanese lost WWII and the Soviets won. That's the main actual distinction between Nanking and Berlin. That distinction also shows up in the fact that Soviet crimes in Germany weren't played up in the West much; the Nazi regime wasn't around to still do it, a clearly adversarial relationship between West and Soviets came only later on, and the Allies were somewhat implicated being in bed with the Soviets (also wrt abandoning Poland etc to the tender mercies of Stalin), so it wasn't something that reflected badly only on the Soviets. OTOH Chinese propaganda versions of Nanking were, and even are, still sold as pure fact.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Nov 2, 2010)

_OTOH I know of no evidence, or even claim, that the Japanese ordered their soldiers to mistreat civlians around Nanking. Read "The Good German of Nanking" which is the personal account of the John Rabe Siemens Corp rep in Nanking, a Nazi sympathizer (though again this was 1937, before the real horrors of Nazism), who organized a 'safe zone' for Chinese civilians in the city. It's clear from that day to day diary that the main threat to Chinese civilians was individual Japanese soldiers and small groups looking to commit crimes (robbery, rape, and to kill if resisted), and their officers didn't really care, though repeatedly promised Rabe they would do a better job stopping it, and eventually they did. Rabe figured that a few 1,000 civilians had lost their lives. Separately, the Japanese executed (often gruesomely) a larger number of Chinese soldiers caught trying to escape the city in civlian clothes. They were technically within their rights to do so if they conducted some kind of trials, but they didn't, and moreover the Chinese tried such escapes because they believed it was their only chance to survive if cut off from retreat. Surely some of the suspected Nationalist soldiers killed were actually civilians. Altogether the number of people killed might have been as many as 100k, the usually bandied 200-300k being a fairly clear exaggeration. 

The numbers of course aren't really the point. Military leaders who show obvious dereliction in protecting civilians from their soldiers *are* war criminals, besides the offending soldiers themselves. Some IJA officers were brought to justice for that, basically no Red Army officers were: because the Japanese lost WWII and the Soviets won. That's the main actual distinction between Nanking and Berlin. That distinction also shows up in the fact that Soviet crimes in Germany weren't played up in the West much; the Nazi regime wasn't around to still do it, a clearly adversarial relationship between West and Soviets came only later on, and the Allies were somewhat implicated being in bed with the Soviets (also wrt abandoning Poland etc to the tender mercies of Stalin), so it wasn't something that reflected badly only on the Soviets. OTOH Chinese propaganda versions of Nanking were, and even are, still sold as pure fact._

Hi Joe. 

I have to disagree with the suggestion that there is little or no evidence of official sanction of the massacre. In fact there is a truckload of it. Only if one accepts the banal post 1990 version of the event put out by some Japanese nationalist after 1990, can it be plausibly argued that there was no order to commit the massacre from the highest levels of command

On December 5, Prince Asaka was ordered by no less than Hirohito to the Nanking front, to take command of the army leading the assault. Asaka was sent there as punishment for insubordination and poor performance. Asaka left Tokyo by plane and arrived at the front three days later. Asaka met with division commanders, lieutenant-generals Kesago Nakajima and Heisuke Yanagawa, who informed him that the Japanese troops had almost completely surrounded three hundred thousand Chinese troops in the vicinity of Nanking and that preliminary negotiations suggested that the Chinese were ready to surrender. Asaka was informed that the Chinese wanted to declare the city an open city, essentially surrendering its control to the Japanese. 

Prince Asaka allegedly wanted to make an example of the city and issued an order to "kill all captives," thus providing official sanction for the crimes which took place during and after the battle. Some authors record that Prince Asaka signed the order for Japanese soldiers in Nanking to "kill all captives". Others have tried to claim that lieutenant colonel Isamu Chō, Asaka's aide-de-camp, sent this order under the Prince's sign manual without the Prince's knowledge or assent. However, even if Chō took the initiative on his own, Prince Asaka, who was nominally the officer in charge, gave no orders to stop the carnage. 

It was not until the arrival of General l Matsui four weeks after the massacre had begun, that orders were finally issued that eventually resulted in the end of the unrelenting massacre. Even so the killing did not stop, and this appears to be a direct result of Asakas continued presence and authority. He simply did not want to stop the killing, and as a member of the royal family, held considerable sway over the army. Not that the army needed any sort of encouragement in this work

While the extent of Prince Asaka's responsibility for the massacre remains a matter of debate, the ultimate sanction for the massacre and the crimes committed during the invasion of China were issued in the Emperor Hirohito's ratification of the Japanese army's proposition to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners on August 5, 1937. Therein lies the root cause of the massacre…….

With regard to your take on the numbers, in fact there is no firm handle on the numbers, though the number you are suggesting seems far too low. The 300000 you seem to dismiss is a number generally accepted (read the article i posted earlier , a link is to be found on page 3 of this thread....it gives pretty strong suggestion that the figure is between 300 and 400K. However, no-one can say even to the nearest 20000 what the casualties were. . However, in that six month period that takes in the majority of the massacre, the Chinese lost 785000 people in the war, and given that the lions share of the fighting was around Nanking, your figure of "about 100000 starts to lose some credibility

Perhaps the Soviet prosecutions were token as you say, though there is no evidence either way in that regard (infact there is some evidence to suggest they were genuine attampts to curtail the violence). Its hard to defend the actions of the Red Army in 1945, but I adhere to the notion that the Soviet behaviour in Germany was far better than anything that can be said for the Japanese in Nanking, and indeed , in China in general. There is ample evidence, for example that the Japanese ordered the use of opiates and bacteriological agents in their war, which were never used by the Russians. And you are right about the russians not having issued any orders to massacre surrendered civilians in 1945. And you are right that the barbarity of the Russian soldiers can at least be understood because of the activities of the Germans in the previous 4 years.

With regard to your second statement about the dereliction of civilians under care, that can be a part of a war crime, but in the context of 1945, it is still not a war crime. Given the terms of reference issued to Nurenberg, and at tokyo, the Soviet actions cannot be seen, or defined as a war crime. Its missing one of the essential ingredients included in the terms of reference and therefore whilst it can be argued as criminally negligent, cannot be given the label war crime


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 2, 2010)

JoeB said:


> (also wrt abandoning Poland etc to the tender mercies of Stalin)



Joe,

Are you referring to 1939 or 1945? I wanted to understand whcih period you were talking about.

Many thanks.


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 2, 2010)

I agree with Parcifal on all accounts, but using your words, Joe, you may be correct. I don't know of an "order" to slaughter civilians was directly given, but the actions of the soldiers was encouraged and popularized by the Japanese media. Given the extreme discipline handed out to the common soldier, the way any act of individualism was literally beaten out of them, a suggestion or encouragement was just as good as an order.

_Altogether the number of people killed might have been as many as 100k, the usually bandied 200-300k being a fairly clear exaggeration. _

Even some Japanese historians and revisonists say the numbers were at least 120,000 and they are trying to downplay the event. The Chinese may very well have exaggerated the numbers to 350,000. The IMTFE has estimated the numbers to be 260,000 noncombatants, not soldiers, but noncombatants.

However, I think, whatever the numbers are, we can agree it was a mass stage of rape, murder, and torture rarely seen on this earth. Parcifal also reference the biological warfare the Japanese used against the Chinese. In the book I read, which I completely understand has a pro-Chinese bias, the author wrote about the war in China as a whole.....

_"The final death count was almost incredible, between 1,578,000 and 6,325,000 people. R.J. Rummel gives a prudent estimate of 3,949,000 people killed, of which all but 400,000 were civilians. But he points out that millions more perished from starvation and disease caused in large part by Japanese looting, bombing, and medical experimentation."_

She points out the biological warfare such as experiments done on the villages that helped the Doolittle attackers, how the Japanese aviators sprayed fleas carrying plague germs over cities like Shanghai, Ningpo, and Changteh, flasks of microbes carrying cholera, dysentery, typhoid, plague, anthrax, and paratyphoid were tossed into rivers, wells, reservoirs, and houses. Cakes were laced with typhoid and were scattered around bivouac areas to entice hungry peasants. You don't think things like this were done without orders?
_
OTOH Chinese propaganda versions of Nanking were, and even are, still sold as pure fact._

I agree with you on this also. Atrocities happened on a grand scale, no question. Was it to the numbers the Chinese claim? I have my doubts.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I have to disagree with the suggestion that there is little or no evidence of official sanction of the massacre. In fact there is a truckload of it. Only if one accepts the banal post 1990 version of the event put out by some Japanese nationalist after 1990, can it be plausibly argued that there was no order to commit the massacre from the highest levels of command
> 
> With regard to your take on the numbers, in fact there is no firm handle on the numbers, though the number you are suggesting seems far too low. The 300000 you seem to dismiss is a number generally accepted (read the article i posted earlier , a link is to be found on page 3 of this thread....it gives pretty strong suggestion that the figure is between 300 and 400K. However, no-one can say even to the nearest 20000 what the casualties were. . However, in that six month period that takes in the majority of the massacre, the Chinese lost 785000 people in the war, and given that the lions share of the fighting was around Nanking, your figure of "about 100000 starts to lose some credibility


300k is 'generally accepted' to the extent it is, from the issue I pointed out. The de facto historiography of Nanking in the West is to accept Chinese (Nationalist, inherited by the Communists) propaganda at face value. Rabe was an eye witness, over the whole period of the incident, and directly involved by being leader of ad hoc international volunteers trying to protect Chinese civilians. He did not see any 'unrelenting massacre' of those civilians, just completely unacceptable degree of control of IJA soliders by their officers, which added up to what he estimated were several 1,000 murders of civlians, and which completely horrified Rabe (who believed Hitler would do something 'if only he knew', that sort of political naif, not by any means an apologist for the Japanese).

Again as I mentioned, the large scale killings were of 'captives', ie Chinese soldiers and those suspected of being. When it comes to mass murder of civilians in an organized way, that's a lot less clear, to say the least.

And the other basic historiograpy problem with Nanking is that no one in China can research it unless they are willing to corroborate the original Chinese propaganda claims, which do still tend to be 'accepted' in the West, but it doesn't make them true. And no really serious Western researcher has looked back into it (the late Iris Chang, an American, does not count, her 'Rape of Nanking' was another simple repetition of Chinese propaganda and second and third hand reports as far as the big picture, it only added any value in terms of oral history by some first hand accounts). The only serious restudies happen to have been Japanese, some by no means all, nor even most of whom were by neo-militarist apologists; some have been radical left type Japanese academics with no agenda to defend Imperial Japan or any element of modern Japan that tries to minimize its crimes. None of those people could find evidence for more than ca. 100k deaths at Nanking at the high end (by doing stuff like statisitcs on actual family records in the area). The 'accepted' number has no backing in any detailed records, it's just 'we say so and you insult the Chinese people if you don't agree'. It's very far from the situation with the Holocaust where there is relatively tight range of accepted *for good historiographical reasons* death toll, which various micro and macro facts all add up to approximately, looked at from a variety of directions.

Anybody at this point is still guessing if they try to exactly categorize the Nanking massacre specifically relative to a specific Soviet crime like the Red Army's behavior in Germany in 1945 (which was absolutely a war crime, you undermine your credibility trying to parse words on that, I would never claim the Japanese actions in the Nanking campaign were not crimes). Again, the obvious reason Soviet officers didn't stand trial at Nuremburg is...they won! German officers were also tried and convicted for actions identical to those of US officers. Doenitz wa convicted simply for unrestricted submarine warfare, something the US Pacific Fleet command ordered immediately against Japan in December 1941. I'm not directly comparing sub ops to massacring civilians by an army, but the point is that Nuremburg cosnsistently defined 'war crime' de facto as something the Axis did, which left a Grand Canyon-size gap in consistency when it came to the Soviets, though also a few gaps when it came to the Wester Allies.

And once you expand Japanese crimes to the whole Sino-Japanese War, you'd have to consider the Soviet regime's massive crimes v humanity inside the Soviet Union as well as in East Europe and Asia in 30's and 40's, which were absolutely deliberate and calculated, as for example to eliminate troublesome groups and classes of people (anti-Soviet Ukranian peasants starved on purpose in millions in the 30's, 100k's Pole deported and died post '39, etc). There's no reasonable argument that Soviet behavior in that period compared well to Japan's, hard to argue it compared well to Germany's either. Of course that doesn't excuse any of them.

Re Buffnut, which crimes of the Soviets in Poland, post '39, or post '45? I was directly referring to the ones post '45, but really both, the body count was probably higher in the first. But the Western propaganda machine didn't crank up about Soviet crimes v humanity in Poland (and a lot of other places) as long as the Soviets were Anglo-American allies or for awhile after, when lack of solid fact was somewhat of a hindrance (for example, it was long 'accepted' in the West to give 'equal time' to the Soviet claim that the Katyn Massacre was committed by the Germans, hard to prove that claim absolutely false till after the fall of the Soviet Union). Whereas Western propaganda about Japanese crimes was fully wound up to speed even during the war, and in wartime mode with less worry about solid facts. And that still influences a comparative discussion of Soviet and Japanese crimes, as we see in this exchange.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2010)

Hi Joe

No it is incorrect to assert that there is insufficient evidence on which to make the claim of war crimes, or that the case against the IJA in the mistreatment of civilians would not have formed part of the indictment. It is also untrue, and highly revisionist to try and claim the incident as overblown, and the product of some evil communist plot, hatched long after the event. The truth is, the crime was exposed by the west mostly, and the reliable accounts collected and recorded by IMTFE obviate the need for any questionable unsubstantiated claims by known enemy sources to be relied upon…. . 

At the end of the war, Prince Asaka was investigated by the Allied war crimes investigatory teams. The commission established a strong prima facie case of war crimes by the IJA not only against the Chinese Army but also against the civil population. The prosecution of Asaka was cancelled, on direct order by Macarthur, not because a lack of evidence, rather because Mac had determined that no members of the Royal Family were to be prosecuted for war crimes….so much for the claim that the allies were siding with the Chinese. Even at this early junction (1946) the US was taking steps to protect the Japanese, not the other way around. 

The actions by the by the Tokyo War Crimes make interesting reading, and debunk pretty much all the claims to the effect that the massacre was overblown, or a political propaganda piece by the allies in the post war period. It was none of those. The Japanese Army was guilty of the single biggest civilian massacre in modern history….those words are from the commission, not mine…….

An accurate estimation of the death toll in the massacre is never achieved because most of the Japanese military records on the killings were deliberately destroyed or kept secret shortly after the surrender of Japan in 1945. The International Military Tribunal of the Far East estimates more than 200,000 casualties in the incident China's official estimate is about 300,000 casualties, based on the evaluation of the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. Estimates from Japanese historians vary widely, in the vicinity of 40,000–200,000. Some Japanese scholars even deny that a widespread, systematic massacre occurred at all, claiming that any deaths were either justified militarily, accidental or isolated incidents of unauthorized atrocities. These negationists claim that the characterization of the incident as a large-scale, systematic massacre was fabricated for the purpose of political propaganda. Virtually no authoritative scholar accepts these claims as realistic however. 

From Wiki

The Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal was established in 1946 by the government of Chiang Kai-Shek to judge four Japanese Imperial Army officers accused of crimes committed during the Second Sino-Japanese War. It was one of thirteen tribunals established by the Nationalist government. These trials were authorised by the nationalists, but were ultimately responsible and answerable to SCAP
The accused were Lieutenant General Hisao Tani, company commander Captain Gunkichi Tanaka and Second Lieutenants Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda, made famous by the contest to kill 100 people using a sword.
General Yasuji Okamura was convicted of war crimes in July 1948 by the Tribunal, but was immediately protected by the personal order of Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, who retained him as a military adviser for the Kuomintang (KMT).
While he was questioned by the investigators, he however testified about the Nanking massacre :

"I surmised the following based on what I heard from Staff Officer Miyazaki, CCAA Special Service Department Chief Harada and Hangzhou Special Service Department Chief Hagiwara a day or two after I arrived in Shanghai. First, it is true that tens of thousands of acts of violence, such as looting and rape, took place against civilians during the assault on Nanking. Second, front-line troops indulged in the evil practice of executing POWs on the pretext of (lacking) rations."
End of wiki quote 

Hisao Tani was the only officer prosecuted for the Nanking massacre. He was found guilty on 6 February 1947 and executed on 10 March by a firing squad. All the accused (ie noncommissioned ranks) were sentenced to death in 1947.

According to the verdict of the Tribunal for Tani, on 10 March 1947, there were more than 190,000 civilians and Chinese soldiers killed by machine gun whose corpses were burned to destroy proof. Besides, we count more than 150,000 victims of barbarous acts buried by the charity organisms. We thus have a total of more than 300,000 victims. This estimate was made from burial records and eyewitness accounts.

The war crimes trials in China were not directly controlled by the Chinese. They authorised them, however the courts themselves were independent and answerable administratively to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) in Tokyo. The prosecution team was made up of justices from eleven Allied nations: Australia, Canada, China, France, Great Britain, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The Tokyo trial lasted two and a half years, from May 1946 to November 1948. Other war criminals were tried in the respective victim countries. War crime trials were held at ten different locations in China. 

Numerous eye-witness accounts of the Nanking Massacre were provided by Chinese civilian survivors and western nationals living in Nanking at the time. The accounts included gruesome details of the Nanking Massacre. Thousands of innocent civilians were buried alive, used as targets for bayonet practice, shot in large groups and thrown into the Yangtze River. Rampant rapes (and gang rapes) of women ranging from age seven to over seventy were reported. The international community estimated that within the six weeks of the Massacre, 20,000 women were raped, many of them subsequently murdered or mutilated; and over 300,000 people were killed, often with the most inhumane brutality. With that weight of evidence, it is hard not to label your response as revisionist and negationist

Why we are trying to rely on the questionable accounts of a known enemy sympathiser, escapes me

A more credible account in easily digestible form can be found easily. I have attached a telegram from the US embassy written in 1938, which confirms estimated casualties to be in excess of 300K

SCAP staff played a primary role to exonerate Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) and all members of the imperial family implicated in the war such as Prince Chichibu, Prince Tsuneyoshi Takeda, Prince Asaka, Prince Higashikuni and Prince Hiroyasu Fushimi from criminal prosecutions before the Tokyo tribunal. 

Subsequently many of the records were suppressed, to further protect the Japanese royal family. This is the primary reason that people like yourself can claim no proof, not that there was never any proof.


----------

