disturbing Japanese anime' (hiroshima 1945)

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by proton45

This is the view most frequently given by the more conservative branches of Japanese society. They claim that Japan just wanted t be left alone and that the American's + international pressures caused Japan to militarize quickly. After Admiral Perry showed up with his guns and forced japan to open her ports, Japan felt very vulnerable & was afraid that they would end up like China (pulled apart by international concerns). Most conservatives feet that this was the bedrock that actually led to the "showdown" between Japan & the USA...

There was a small, wealthy, maniacal element in Japanese society who had extreme nationalist and imperialist agendas and who seized the opportunity to create a fascist government and a ruthless and sadistic military. The Japanese weren't forced to become Imperial Japan any more than the French and British forced the German people to accept the Nazis. The power vacuum created by losses those countries suffered allowed people like Nazis, Fascists and Imperialists to come to power, but the people bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen and supporting it.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

There was a small, wealthy, maniacal element in Japanese society who had extreme nationalist and imperialist agendas and who seized the opportunity to create a fascist government and a ruthless and sadistic military. The Japanese weren't forced to become Imperial Japan any more than the French and British forced the German people to accept the Nazis. The power vacuum created by losses those countries suffered allowed people like Nazis, Fascists and Imperialists to come to power, but the people bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen and supporting it.

Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by proton45

Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".

All that happened in the 1850s. I think by the 1930s things changed just a little....

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by proton45

Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".

There is a difference between strengthening ones military (the way we did when extorted by Barbary Coast Pirates under Thomas Jefferson) and putting rape and genocide on the agenda as standard operating procedure. I'd fully support them consolidating their power and building a Navy etc. It's when they decide to start conquering all of Asia and committing unspeakable atrocities that I draw the line.

[Ferdinand Foch]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

All that happened in the 1850s. I think by the 1930s things changed just a little....

True Flyboy. By the 1930's, I think that people's rights became more of an issue for the western world than they did during the 19th century. I mean, Japan was kinda like a 19th Century power in the 20th Century world, trying to catch up with the rest of the world (least politically).
Anybody who wants to read about this kind of thinking should check out Winston Groom's 1942. It was a great book, couldn't put it down.

[ppopsie]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

..... the behavior of the Japanese military during WW2,

No. Its people, from top through bottom, between 1935 and August 1945. I am horrified to learn that. Am now to find out why that happened.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand Foch

True Flyboy. By the 1930's, I think that people's rights became more of an issue for the western world than they did during the 19th century. I mean, Japan was kinda like a 19th Century power in the 20th Century world, trying to catch up with the rest of the world (least politically).
Anybody who wants to read about this kind of thinking should check out Winston Groom's 1942. It was a great book, couldn't put it down.

America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by proton45

America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...

Although Japan did not participate in Europe and see the horrors of trench warfare, they did participate in the First World War.

Japan during World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GrauGeist]

Originally Posted by proton45

...Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields.

Originally Posted by proton45

Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...

Joe already commented on the WWI part, and I might add that warfare between the nations of the Orient have been historically brutal, and in many cases, moreso than European wars.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by GrauGeist

That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields.

Joe already commented on the WWI part, and I might add that warfare between the nations of the Orient have been historically brutal, and in many cases, moreso than European wars.

So your saying the violence against African Americans in the USA was not as bad as what happened in China(?)... your not African American are you? Violence and brutality of that nature is unacceptable on any scale. Their are some estimates that claim that between 5000 and 8000 American Blacks where lynched in America between the years of 1880 and the 1930's (the years that some claim a rise in "Human Rights"), most of these where in the "south" but not all. I'm not sure why its so important to separate the notion of the "south" from the rest of the USA, but I guess it helps Americans feel better about the truth.

FYI; their are people in Japan who claim the violence in China was unacceptable at the time (people who where alive in the 1930's)...


Rape and pillage happened in WW1 and in European WW2...and easy example would be the Russians against Germany. But Americans where known for looting Europe of "souvenirs"...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by proton45

So your saying the violence against African Americans in the USA was not as bad as what happened in China(?)... your not African American are you? Violence and brutality of that nature is unacceptable on any scale. Their are some estimates that claim that between 5000 and 8000 American Blacks where lynched in America between the years of 1880 and the 1930's (the years that some claim a rise in "Human Rights"), most of these where in the "south" but not all. I'm not sure why its so important to separate the notion of the "south" from the rest of the USA, but I guess it helps Americans feel better about the truth.

FYI; their are people in Japan who claim the violence in China was unacceptable at the time (people who where alive in the 1930's)...


Rape and pillage happened in WW1 and in European WW2...and easy example would be the Russians against Germany. But Americans where known for looting Europe of "souvenirs"...

There were atrocities committed by all sides during WW2 - that's a given, but please, done even try to compare US "souvenir" hunting to what Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union did during WW2 and into the post war years.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

There were atrocities committed by all sides during WW2 - that's a given, but please, done even try to compare US "souvenir" hunting to what Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union did during WW2 and into the post war years.

I was not making a judgment...just stating fact.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by proton45

I was not making a judgment...just stating fact.

Well the fact is while we did have a few soldiers behaving badly, there were also some identified and eventually prosecuted for their crimes. Not that it’s made right but as we know during the war you had wide scale plunder sanctioned by the axis powers. After the war the Soviet Union did the same in Eastern Europe and it was done on a scale that would make anything done by the west look like "child's play."

[proton45]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Well the fact is while we did have a few soldiers behaving badly, there were also some identified and eventually prosecuted for their crimes. Not that it’s made right but as we know during the war you had wide scale plunder sanctioned by the axis powers. After the war the Soviet Union did the same in Eastern Europe and it was done on a scale that would make anything done by the west look like "child's play."

True...Japan did very poor planning in the area of supply and this may have contributed to the compliance of (some) Japanese Generals who voiced personal feelings of contempt for the unacceptable behavior of their soldiers (this point was ment as an acknowledgment of Japanese limited involvement in WW1 and the lessons of supply and production that where learned by the western nations involved). Interestingly enough, General Yamashita is rarely remembered for the way in which he disciplined one of his own officers in the "Battle of Singapore"...Yamashita actually had one of his own officers executed for the unsanctioned killing of POW's in a hospital. Apparently Yamashita even apologized to the surviving POW's at the hospital. On another battle, their are some who say that the civilian casualties in Manila may have been much lower if Yamashita's original orders to stay out of the city had been followed. However once Yamashitas soldiers had left the city Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi forces reoccupied the city with the intent of destroying "key" strategic points (it turned into a civilian blood bath in the end). My point being that these ideas where not unknown in the Japanese military...I should also point out that General Yamashita was somewhat unpopular with the "higher command" (maybe because of his thinking)...

The nature of warfare in the 18th,19th,20th and 21st century is a very interesting topic and its interesting to consider the ways in which the idea of chivalry and "fairplay" (fairplay might not be an accurate term for the idea of a civil / honorable war in which civilians are not used as pawns) have developed.

[GrauGeist]

In response to:

Originally Posted by proton45

America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

I posted:
That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields.

You replied:

Originally Posted by proton45

So your saying the violence against African Americans in the USA was not as bad as what happened in China(?) Read my reply above, you may have missed it the first time... your not African American are you? No, I am an American, period. Violence and brutality of that nature is unacceptable on any scale. Their are some estimates that claim that between 5000 and 8000 American Blacks where lynched in America between the years of 1880 and the 1930's (the years that some claim a rise in "Human Rights"), most of these where in the "south" but not all. I can assure you that more unfortunate blacks and thier white sympathizers (oh yeah, friends of blacks & mixed couples weren't immune) were lynched and worse, in places in the south like Alabama or Georgia, for example, than say, in Oregon or Wyoming. I'm not sure why its so important to separate the notion of the "south" from the rest of the USA, but I guess it helps Americans feel better about the truth.

I'm trying to figure out how Black Americans work into the Hiroshima discussion, but I'll respond anyway.

How is there any "feeling better" about that truth? The fact that an estimated 5 to 8 thousand Americans were killed over the course of 50 years by fellow Americans is, like I said before, despicable and inexcusable. What I was getting at in my previous response, was that in Europe, people had just experianced a war who's battles saw slaughters of up to 18,800 Allied soldiers alone...in one single day. Those were just the British losses during the opening battle of the Somme, 1 July 1916. The Somme would go on to be a meat grinder consuming a staggering amount of men during it's course. It was only one of many bitter battles, as you may or may not know.

So perhaps the domestic issue of injustices against Black Americans back then is similiar to what we see in today's society and it's "great public outcry" against the former administration and it's "war for oil" instead of trying to do something about the 16,204 Americans that were murdered last year.