Japanese perspective

[parsifal]

How much did they care about "Asian identity" when they slaughtered all those Chinese in Nanking? No, I'm sorry, it's not that easy. "Japanese identity," now we're talking. And I'm seeing, now, they were unprovoked. They had a plan and military they thought was tough as a nickel steak. I could get it all off an episode of "Victory at Sea." They were going ahead with their plan to conquer that region, and that was that, nothing, no amount of negotiation, was stopping it.

They didnt care much, and reality Japanese "liberation" was really exchanging one form of imperial ruler for another. However the Japanese themselves did not see it that way. They saw it their manifest detiny to lead other nations in Asia. That doesnt mean they wanted to get all warm and fuzzy with them . They wanted to lead an independant Asia as a separate block to what they saw as emerging power blocs in the world

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was an imperial concept created and promulgated for occupied Asian populations by the government and military of the Empire of Japan. It promoted the cultural and economic unity of the East Asian race. It also declared the intention to create a self-sufficient "bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers". It was announced in a radio address entitled "The International Situation and Japan's Position" by Foreign Minister Hachirō Arita on June 29, 1940.

An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus was a secret document completed in 1943 for high-ranking government use — laid out the superior position of Japan in the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, showing the subordination of other nations was not forced by the war but part of explicit policy. It explicitly states the superiority of the Japanese over other Asian races and provides evidence that the Sphere was inherently hierarchical, including Japan's true intention of domination over Asia

the phrase "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was proposed by Kiyoshi Miki, a Kyoto School analytic philosopher who was actually opposed to militarism.

An earlier, influential concept was the geographically smaller version called New Order in East Asia, which was announced by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe on 22 December 1938 and was limited to Northeast Asia only.

The original concept was an idealistic wish to free Asia from colonizing powers, but soon, nationalists saw it as a way to gain resources to keep Japan a modern power, and militarists saw the same resources as raw materials for war. Many Japanese nationalists were drawn to it as an ideal. Many of them remained convinced, throughout the war, that the Sphere was idealistic, offering slogans in a newspaper competition, praising the sphere for constructive efforts and peace.

Konoe planned the Sphere in 1940 in an attempt to create a Great East Asia, comprising Japan, Manchukuo, China, and parts of Southeast Asia, that would, according to imperial propaganda, establish a new international order seeking "co prosperity" for Asian countries which would share prosperity and peace, free from Western colonialism and domination. Military goals of this expansion included naval operations in the Indian Ocean and the isolation of Australia. This would enable the principle of "hakkō ichiu".

This was one of a number of slogans and concepts used in the justification of Japanese aggression in East Asia in the 1930s through the end of World War II. The term "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" is remembered largely as a front for the Japanese control of occupied countries during World War II, in which puppet governments manipulated local populations and economies for the benefit of Imperial Japan.

To combat the protectionist dollar and sterling zones, Japanese economic planners called for a "yen bloc." Japan's experiment with such financial imperialism encompassed both official and semi-official colonies. In the period between 1895 (when Japan annexed Taiwan) and 1937 (the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War), monetary specialists in Tokyo directed and managed programs of coordinated monetary reforms in Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and the peripheral Japanese-controlled islands in the Pacific. These reforms aimed to foster a network of linked political and economic relationships. These efforts foundered in the eventual debacle of the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

The negative connotations that still attach to the term "Greater East Asia" remain one of a number of difficulties facing the annual East Asia Summits, begun in 2005 to discuss the possibility of the establishment of a stronger, more united East Asian Community.

 

[tyrodtom]

When you look at the Bataan death march, and the Siam-Burma railways deaths, usually only the western personnel deaths are given any notice. But every American that died on the Bataan death march, possible as many as 10 Filipinos died.

And the number of deaths on the Siam-Burma railway were similar. !3,000 allied deaths, 80-100,000 Asian civilian deaths.

From the Japanese perspective, the Co-Prosperirty Sphere was their opportunity to plunder Asia, instead of Westerners.

But to non-Japanese Asians, the Co-Prosperity Sphere was a disaster of holocaust proportions.

 

[Shinpachi]

...and indiscriminate bombings followed. Wake up please. Where was the beginning?

 

[vikingBerserker]

I've been on a kick of late reading books on WW2 written by Japanese soldiers and it is quite eye opening as most were no different than their Allied counterparts. There have been 2 pictures posted on this site of grave markers erected by the Japanese for Allied pilots killed in action (in in Alaska and another one on an island in the South Pacific). Yes prisoners were treated unfairly by Western Standards, but in a lot of cases they were treated no worse then the Japanese Soldiers were treated themselves(esp the IJ Army).

After WW1 (as already has been mentioned) the West did not treat the Japanese with the respect of an equal power, even with all the contributions they made to WW1. Then to turn around and be treated the way they were with the Washington Treaty I can fully understand why they were upset, I certainly would have. Nothing like helping people and afterwards are ungrateful.

The Japanese were no different IMO then any of the Western Powers at the time in wanting resources to survive and grow.

 

[parsifal]

I think that just about nails it. Conditions in the IJA were extremely harsh, which became even worse as the war progressed. however, that would still fall short of why the japanese behaved at times, so boorishly. Japanese soldiers received indoctrination on the code of the bushido, in which allowing oneself to be captured meant dishonour to oneself, ones family and the community as a whole. if one submitted to your enemy, the prisoner was essentially "owned" by his captoirs. There was no differentiation betwen soldiers or civilians. It was a medieval concept, applied in a modern world, and applied to peasant soldiers with no thorough grounding such as the true samurai of the 17th century had received. So here we have soldiers, not well educated, given a gun, and told they are masters of all that had surrendered or conquered by them, and further, that those people had shamed their lives in so surrendering.

It has been estimated that between 19,500 and 50,000 Japanese military personnel surrendered to Allied forces prior to the end of the Pacific War in August 1945, of which about 15-30000 were captured by the Australian Army. Only a fraction of those numbers actually made it to a POW camp. An unknown number, but many, are believed to have been summarily executed at the front, for a variety of reasons. The number of Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen who surrendered was limited by the Japanese military indoctrinating its personnel to fight to the death, Allied personnel often being unwilling to take prisoners, and many Japanese soldiers believing that those who surrendered would be killed by their captors.This latter point is significant, because it shows the average Japanese soldier only gave out what he expected to receive himself.

Western Allied governments and senior military commanders directed that Japanese POWs be treated in accordance with relevant international conventions. In practice though, many front-line soldiers were unwilling to accept the surrender of Japanese personnel due to a combination of racist attitudes and reports of atrocities conducted against Allied troops. A campaign launched in 1944 to encourage prisoner-taking was partially successful, and the number of prisoners taken increased significantly in the last year of the war.

Japanese POWs often believed that by surrendering they had broken all ties with Japan, and many provided military intelligence to the Allies. The prisoners taken by the western Allies were held in generally good conditions in camps located in the Australia, New Zealand, India and the United States. Those taken by the Soviet Union were treated harshly in work camps located in Siberia. Following the war the prisoners were repatriated to Japan, though the United States and Britain retained thousands until 1946 and 1947 respectively and the Soviet Union continued to hold hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs until the early 1950s.


Estimates of the numbers of Japanese personnel taken prisoner at the front during the Pacific War differ. Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata claims that up to 50,000 Japanese became POWs before Japan's surrender. The Japanese Government's wartime POW Information Bureau believed that 42,543 Japanese surrendered during the war (prior to 1945); a figure also used by Niall Ferguson who states that it refers to prisoners taken by United States and Australian forces. Ulrich Straus states that about 35,000 were captured by western Allied and Chinese forces and Alison B. Gilmore has calculated that Allied forces in the South West Pacific Area alone captured at least 19,500 Japanese. Only about half this number turned up in POW camps at the end of the war, so mistreatment is not necessarily a one way street.


During the war, the Japanese government sought to suppress information about captured personnel. On 27 December 1941, it established a POW Information Bureau within the Ministry of the Army to manage information concerning Japanese POWs. While the Bureau cataloged information provided by the Allies via the Red Cross identifying POWs, it did not pass this information on to the families of the prisoners. When individuals wrote to the Bureau to inquire if their relative had been taken prisoner, it appears that the Bureau provided a reply which neither confirmed or denied whether the man was a prisoner. Although the Bureau's role included facilitating mail between POWs and their families, this was not carried out as the families were not notified and few POWs wrote home. This only added to the misery for the famillies and the POWs alike.

 

[VBF-13]

I think this thread title had better be changed to 'American Perspective' but complying with it with my great respects to you VBF-13, a genuine Japanese perspective was, unlike you imagine with my apology, the Pacific Ocean was not their back yard but sacred front yard.

When armed Americans one day suddenly came in there paying no respects and even killed a number of Filipinos in front of them, no natural threats like the typhoons or earthquakes were bigger than that for the Japanese. They had no choice but expanding their armaments further to confront like "Come on guy. Draw your gun".

That's it and no way but I don't think the PH attack would have come earlier than the Dec 7 as I know Japanese leaders hesitated another war in Asia until the last moment in the end of October, 1941. You could see there are same dilemma in China and North Korea today.

OK, good, Shin, I needed to hear that. Can we say that nothing by 1940 could have stopped it? This may sound rather simplistic, but I've actually even heard it proposed, the Japanese military was so geared-up, by that time, it had to pick a fight with somebody. That never really registered with me, though. Just look at what those manufacturers after the war became. Maybe the leaders needed to pick a fight? I could probably agree with that a little more, but as incidental, not as a major cause.

 

[swampyankee]

japans war with China and the West was a war about trade. Basically the japanese wanted most favoured nation status, something the Chinese had given to the wetern european nations under the uneaqual treaties of the 1800s, but not to them. they resented that. And the japanese policy toward China was diametrically opposite to the US Open Door policy toward China.

Japan observed the deeply racist and white supremacist policies of the west in the Far East and determined that they had to lead asia out of its bondage. They viewed the colonial expansions as a deep affront to emerging Asian identity.

Unfortunately at the same time as japan was emerghing from her isolation , she also adopted some rather nasty traaits that was to seal the collision with the west. Japans samurai codes and military traditions lent themselves well to the rise of ultra nationalism in Japan, and from that extreme militarism. The result was that when Japan did actually start on its 20th century expansion, it soon came up against Asian and western resistence

Nanking was a massacre, lets not beat around the bush, for which there are few excuses. it is a stain on japanese honour Im afraid, particulalry since the commander, a relative of the emperor no less, continued to issue orders to continue the slaughter, long after it was obvious that no legitimate military targets remained in the city

The racial friction between the US was probably a factor; among other things, during the first few decades of the 20th Century, California (Santa Cruz County History - Santa Cruz Public Libraries) and Washington (Alien Land Law) had laws forbidding Asians from owning land and a there was a federal law rendering Asians ineligible for naturalization. Possibly because of this racism, the US had a much more fraught relationship with regard to Japan in China than it did with any of the European powers. Regardless, when the militarists took charge of Japan, and started assassinating people who argued for restraint (Yamamoto was, supposedly, sent to sea so the extremists wouldn't kill him), they pretty much closed the doors to peace. Right now, we think the ayatollahs in Iran are bad. These guys were probably worse.

 

[yulzari]

My understanding of the Japanese perspective is that it regarded itself as being one of the leading powers, having defeated Russia and been an active allied power in WW1. They found no active opposition from their actions in Formosa, Korea and Manchuria and Britain had been courting Japan as a balance against the US navy in the Pacific. By the 1930s Japan thought that they could push expansion further with no more than token complaints. The first shock was that Japanese actions and US pressure left Britian having to choose between Japan and the USA and they chose the USA. Next the realisation that the modern Japanese military relied on oil. Especially the Navy which had little in the way of a strategic reserve. War in Europe and North Africa left British Commonwealth and Dutch forces weakened. Militarists saw this as an opportunity to advance Japanese power. In the background the militarists had sought and gained political power over a civilian government already unhappy with military adventurism ignoring the home government. When the supply of oil was threatened Japan saw itself surrounded and being forced to cease expansion and make concessions. Thus being humiliated by the established powers to whom it felt it deserved to belong. They saw a window of opportunity to strike whilst their enemy was temporarily weakened and humiliate them into a negotiation that would maintain the pre existing Japanese situation.

This is my understanding and I am happy to be corrected.

Incidentally, too much emphasis has been put on the 'Samurai Tradition'. Traditionally (and especially after the matchlock was introduced) the Samurai were a class who were being militarily marginalised by peasant troops quickly trained and armed with guns. The militarists took advantage of the samurai traditions to encourage the common people to identify with them, not their true peasant mass soldiers ancestry. This built up a momentum in the post WW1 society through active propaganda. As an Allied Power in WW1 German soldiers and sailors captured in the far east were treated reasonably well and Russian prisoners in the earlier conflict were not mistreated quite as we saw in WW2. I speak as one whose father dug up the bodies of two Australians in our back garden who had been taken outside and bayonetted for being too noisy and irrespectful so I am not excusing Japanese atrocities. Given the right (wrong) life experiences and teaching any race, nation or group can be induced to behave abominably. Fortunately it is difficult, in the 21st century world, to do so in secret. Sadly (eg Congo) it can still be done.

 

[VBF-13]

We fight for freedom, we kill for freedom, we die for freedom. Only we don't know it when we have it, we know it when we used to have it, and lost it. So, let's face it. From the standpoint of the precipitating causes for the unilateral aggression that ensued in both the Pacific and European theaters, was this Pacific War really any different than this European War? It wasn't, when you get right down to it. Try to lift a critical thought up off the ground, in either of those two tyrannies, Japan or Germany, you're gone. That's what was at stake. It was the freedom to lift that thought, however critical of government, or otherwise, right up off the ground, and not be punished for it. That's what was being fought for, killed for, and died for. It was antithetical to tyrannies. That's why that aggression couldn't be stopped.

 

[tyrodtom]

There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.

Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.

 

[Shinpachi]

OK, good, Shin, I needed to hear that. Can we say that nothing by 1940 could have stopped it? This may sound rather simplistic, but I've actually even heard it proposed, the Japanese military was so geared-up, by that time, it had to pick a fight with somebody. That never really registered with me, though. Just look at what those manufacturers after the war became. Maybe the leaders needed to pick a fight? I could probably agree with that a little more, but as incidental, not as a major cause.

It is no wonder that the US Government had its own propaganda for the people like you mentioned in above but Japan did not want war with the US when they were busy in China. Here is my summary classified by the event and its year. Sorry to say but, after classification, I was obliged to think that the US did want war with Japan first.

US Economic Sanctions Blockade against Japan (1937-1941)
==============================================
October, 1937......."Quarantine Speech" by Roosevelt
July, 1939................Notice of discarding US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
December, 1939.....Notice of stopping export production facilities of aviation gasoline and rights of its manufacturing technology
January, 1940.........Revocation of US-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation
June, 1940...............Permit system for export of special machine tools and others to Japan.
July, 1940.................'An Act to Expedite the Strengthening of the National Defense' approved by Congress
July, 1940................Export laws for iron and steel scrap and cutting oil to Japan
August, 1940..........Export licensing system for the petroleum products, mainly aviation gasoline of octane 87 or more, the tetraethyl lead for aviation gasoline as

additive and the iron scrap
August,1940...........Full embargo of aviation gasoline to countries outside the Western Hemisphere
September, 1940....Ban on exports of iron and steel scrap
December, 1940......Export licensing system for manufacturing equipments of aviation lubricant plus other 15 items
June, 1941...............Export licensing system for oil
July, 1941.................Freeze Ordinance on Japan's assets in the US
August, 1941...........Full oil embargo against Japan

Japanese Reaction
==============
January, 1941.........Isoroku Yamamoto ordered his staff to make attack plan on the Pearl Harbor and general plan completed by March.
July 1, 1941.............Japanese Government decided war with the United States and the Great Britain in case future diplomatic negotiation should have failed.
September, 1941....Imperial GHQ began making total attack plan but Yamamoto's plan was disapproved as too risky.
October, 1941.........His plan approved and formally decided war against US and UK to be carried out in early December if negotiation failed.

 

[pbehn]

As far as I can see and have seen in my life time countries decide to go to war and then make the "facts" fit the criteria they want. GB declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, why not after Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland.

 

[Shinpachi]

There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.

Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.

Sorry tyrodtom if you have had wrong feeling.

I am a simple man.
My father's last words to me was "Contribute to your country".
I have my own country but that is not the United States.

 

[pbehn]

There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.

Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.

That is true but any Brit can post about the British perspective any North American can post about the USA or Canadian perspective and any Aussie or New Zealander can post about their perspective why is a Japanese posters perspective somehow invalid. Personally I find it interesting, it is clear from Shipachis posts that Japan and the USA and UK were sliding into war long before Pearl Harbour, just as Europe was prior to the invasion of Poland.

 

[parsifal]

As far as I can see and have seen in my life time countries decide to go to war and then make the "facts" fit the criteria they want. GB declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, why not after Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland.

Because the situation was not in British interests to do so. We lacked the strength and the will to go to war at those earlier times, and we still trusted Hitler as an honourable man. After the debacle of the Czech crisis, we trusted him no more and knew that war was inevitable. Britsih are a bit funny like that. they tend to give people the full benefit of the doubt, until that person is caught out, red handed, lying to us. Then we tend to become a little intransigent and obstinate. Something about the British the Germans never quite understood.

 

[parsifal]

Sorry tyrodtom if you have had wrong feeling.

I am a simple man.
My father's last words to me was "Contribute to your country".
I have my own country but that is not the United States.

There are lot of latent prejudices Shin, you need to understand that. People do not mean ill will to you or Japane over this. You need to rememeber that us older guyus have been brought on an anti-japanese diet for a long time. Be patient, you are doing good, is my advice

 

[GrauGeist]

There's only one Japanese citizen that post regular on this site, and even his perspective is going to be second hand since I'm pretty sure he's not old enough to have lived during the period. So his impressions will be from talking with some older people that did live in that era, or reading Japanese language writings about the period.

Asking anyone else for the "Japanese" perspective is like asking a man what's it's like to have a baby, from the woman's perspective.

Actually, there's several, though they've been quiet since the recent earthquake/tsunami.

Shinpachi has had the opportunity to live among Japanese WWII veterans and hear first-hand accounts just as most of us in the west have had to opportunity to hear first-hand accounts from Allied veterans (and western Axis veterans). He has shared many first-hand accounts with us that would have otherwise been missed.

And I would certainly trust Shinpachi's contributions as being alot closer to the source than otherwise.

 

[tyrodtom]

That is true but any Brit can post about the British perspective any North American can post about the USA or Canadian perspective and any Aussie or New Zealander can post about their perspective why is a Japanese posters perspective somehow invalid. Personally I find it interesting, it is clear from Shipachis posts that Japan and the USA and UK were sliding into war long before Pearl Harbour, just as Europe was prior to the invasion of Poland.

You totally misunderstood my post, if you think I'm implying Shinpachi's perspective was invalid.

What I'm saying is Shinpachi's perspective IS valid. He lives in Japan, grew up in Japan, reads Japanese, and possible has talked to many Japanese who lived thru the WW2 era.

How many others on this forum has the same qualifications ?

I was born in 1947, but my Dad, and many uncles fought ( 3 died) as well as many other people in my growing up years were veterans.
We even had a German refugee living in my home and next door from 1939-51. My older sister Leyetta is named after her.

Though my perspective may be very close, it's still second hand.

 

[buffnut453]

The problem is there is no single perspective to be captured. We can understand the position of the political leadership in part from the collection of conferences compiled by Nobutaka Ike in his "Japan's Decision for War" but that only covers 1941. As has been pointed out, other views were repressed at the time. We can capture hundreds of individual perspectives from those who were there at the time but it will still be just a drop in the ocean as a percentage of total population. Often, average people caught up in momentous events are too close to the action to gain a broader appreciation for the causal factors and drivers that led to specific decisions.

I think we all benefit from trying to look at the onset of the war in the Far East from a Japanese perspective. We come from all sorts of backgrounds but that doesn't prevent us from recognizing mis-steps by the Western nations that contributed to the war in the Far East. Many on this forum are willing to put the German perspective of WWII although few posters are German and even fewer (probably none) lived through it. Why should we treat Japan any different? So long as people are respectful, we can all learn by trying to look at any problem from alternate perspectives.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Well said my friend, well said.

-------------------------------------------------

I have to say most of the items Shinpachi listed I'd never heard before. Really I only have heard about the oil and scrap metal so this is very interesting to me.