Honestly, I do not, and I have never, understood why Japan, after it’s successful conquest of large parts of coastal Asia signed on with Germany. Anyone want to try to explain that to me?
Let me try this again... [Has technology surpassed our humanity & was the Pacific war about racism?]
[QUOTE=Frank]
Honestly, I do not, and I have never, understood why Japan, after it’s successful conquest of large parts of coastal Asia signed on with Germany. Anyone want to try to explain that to me?
[/QUOTE]
The short answer is that both countries sought allies to counter balance the Soviet Union and the US. Japan also received some technological transfer from the Germans, but mainly I think they allied with Germany because their choices were a bit limited, and they needed some kind of ally against the US and the European colonial powers in the region. Germany, of course, allied with Japan to put pressure on the Soviets in the far east (didn’t work out, of course…the alliance, such as it was, favored Japan a lot more than it did Germany) and because, like Japan, it’s alliance possibilities were a bit limited as well.
-XT
Are you implying that there are no Japanese WW2 apologists?
For starters, how about the (ex) head of the Japanese Air Force, Toshio Tamogami. IMHO it’s ignorant to believe there are none, because there are many.
IRT Superfluous Parentheses - I don’t mind your bluntness in the least.
I apologize for the vagueness of my questions, lack of argument and multiple questions in a single topic.
My pov is simple, IMO, to claim the main motivation of US’s actions towards Japan was racially motivated seems somewhat odd and I don’t understand the basis of that pov. However, I’m interested in others’ opinions. I may be missing something. Now to the 2nd half of the quote that the US engaged in a “war of terror” against the Japanese, well, that seems entirely likely and numerous examples of terror (from all sides) have been presented in this thread.
As to Einstein’s quote, without the knowing context of the quote, and nobody has provided that context, everybody’s answer is relevant. If it simply refers to wmds and our capacity for destruction then it has arguable truth, or if the quote is claiming technology = dehumanization than many arguments could be made to the contrary.
I didn’t ask these questions to discuss my ideas, this may shock you all but my opinions aren’t that interesting, again, I was interested in others’ ideas and opinions on the questions.
Thanks, Everybody for their responses, as they have been educational, interesting and thought provoking. Also, thanks for tolerating (to an extent 
) my missteps.
PS - What’s an “OP” or do I not want to know?
Japanese apologists publish in Japan and are rarely quoted outside that country. I am well aware, for example, that Japan has a shameful record of whitewashing its actions in its history textbooks. I have not and would not imply or claim that there have never been apologists for Japan’s actions; however, Curtis was posting as though there were many imperial apologists actually plying their trade for a U.S. audience. That is utter nonsense and his failure to note anything they have actually said indicates, to me, that he is simply parroting the nonsense of people like Charles Krauthammer without recognizing Krauthammer’s errors and dishonesty and failing to recognize that most of the accusations of such “defense” are little more than attempts, employing silly denials or tu quoque, to whitewash U.S. actions.
Japan was wrong in initiating that war and it was wrong in many of its actions during that war. The U.S. did well to defend itself and to carry the war back to Japan to reduce that country’s warmaking capacity and imperial designs. However, failing to recognize that many U.S. decisions and actions were, themselves wrongheaded or driven by racism is dishonest and counterproductive to understanding history. History is messy and reducing it to simplistic “good guys and bad guys” is harmful–as a reading of Curtis’s posts generally demonstrate.
OP = Original Post or Original Poster, i.e., your first post starting this thread or you as the poster who started the thread.
[QUOTE=Regullus]
PS - What’s an “OP” or do I not want to know?
[/QUOTE]
You might want to check out this thread, which goes over some of the commonly used terms and abbreviations here on the SD. Might be helpful.
Anyone claiming the ‘main motivation’ of the US towards Japan during WWII was racially motivated is so out of touch that they aren’t worth debating. Our ‘main’ motivation was entirely driven by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, and the drive for revenge. This isn’t to say that there was no racial motivation or racism element (on both sides), because there certainly was. But Japan attacked the US for reasons other than racism, and the US responded for reasons other than racism.
As to terrorism, this was an era of total war, so this was pretty much de rigueur for that period. US attacks against Japan were no more vicious or terror oriented than our (and the Brits) attacks against Germany. The only reason the atomic bomb was used against Japan instead of Germany was that it wasn’t ready for use against Germany (who was the primary reason we developed the thing in the first place) before they surrendered.
-XT
Not anytime recently. Mankind’s use of technology for inhumane ends began with the jawbone of an ass splitting Abel’s skull.
That sounds to me to be a horrible misquote of what Hanks said, not a partial quote at all. In essence the Pacific War was a war of racism and terror. Appending on “by the Americans against the Japanese” changes the entire meaning of the quote making it say something entirely different and slanderous. Unless Hanks did actually say something this stupid, in which caser he’s wrong. There were incredible amounts of racism fueling **both sides **in the war that were absent in the western allies war with Germany - but not between Germany and its eastern enemies. It’d be hard to imagine American soldiers collecting gold teeth from dead or captured Germans or using German body parts as souvenirs, but this practice was so widespread in the Pacific that the Joint Chief of Staff had to issue a formal directive against the taking of Japanese body parts in 1944. Life Magazine ran a photo of a Japanese skull sent as a gift to a sailor’s sister back home with the encryption “Here is a good Jap – a dead one.”
John Dower’s War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War does a very good job of examining the effects of racism by both sides during the war. E. B. Sledge’s memoirs of being an assistant gunner in a 60mm mortar team in the 1st Marine Division, With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa is highly regarded as one of the best war memoirs ever written, and is quite an eye opener to the brutality and racism on the front line level.
Actually, it was Samson that went to town with the ass-jaw. The bible only records that Cain “slew” Abel, method unstated, though if one wants to read it literally, at least some blood as spilled, suggesting it wasn’t strangulation or poisoning.
Anyway, the question is meaningless until a generally accepted definition of “humanity” is set.
As I understand it, Japan was essentially in it for themselves. Their intentions and worldview were close enough to the Germans that they could be on the same team, but I don’t think it went beyond that- I doubt the Japanese much cared what the Germans were about as long as they kept Europe busy. Japan wanted/believed they deserved an empire (for Japanese people; for another example see Nazis); for this they needed land and resources; to that end it was war. Puh-leeze correct me if I’m off-base.
The Japanese empire had a racial identity. But I don’t think it was ‘racism’ in the sense it existed elsewhere. Japan just was not particularly racially diverse. Everybody there was more or less ‘Japanese’, and other races were for the rest of the world. They thought they were the best, their emperor had some kind of divine quality that all of them could somehow partake in… er, ok.
But I don’t think the war was about race/racism insofar that I think Empire was the primary motive. On the American side (and I think Zinn would agree), the racism was confined to the ‘locals’- blacks and whites and Indians and so on. I think Zinn would say that the American elite wouldn’t have had much Machiavellian use for racism against the Japanese prior to WWII. Once the war started, well, America was at war with the Japanese Empire, which amounted to war against very nearly every Japanese person in the world. But again, I think Empire/war comes first, and it just so happens that they were all more or less the same ‘race’ second.
So yeah, after the war started racism against the Japanese was employed. But look again. After the war, racism against the Japanese pretty much went away. Kids today aren’t propagandized about it like in 1944.
To me, these days, the really remarkable thing is that it was over so quickly. Thousands of years ago Imperial conflicts might take centuries to play out. But who knows, maybe there are more world wars yet to come…
I haven’t read Zinn on ‘modern’ history though. If someone has a shocking Zinn quote about all this, let 'er rip.
My first thought in response to this post is it disproves institutionalized racism as the collection of body parts was forbidden whether it was forbidden in a timely fashion is debateable.
Also, how did th US/Pacific war differ from US/German engagements?
The obvious and first difference that comes to my mind is Pearl Harbor and ‘the Day of Infamy.’ It could be argued that US hostility is greater towards the Japanese due to the ‘sneak’ attack. It’s more personal; it’s visceral.
I also wonder about the ferocity of the fighting having influence as well as Japanese behavior towards prisoners and tales of Japanese torture, etc.
Stripping the bodies of fallen enemies is something that was done and I assume still is done, including the removal of gold teeth or just teeth at points in time. Body parts as trophies isn’t new either although in modern times, I believe its frowned upon.
A little detail but I question it, the gold teeth, these soldiers are young, how often are you going to find gold teeth? Presumably most foot soldiers are from relatively poor backgrounds and I wonder how many of them could afford gold teeth.
While I believe there was racism, although not the primary motivation, I think there might be other influences to explain the different fighting that occurred in the two theaters.
I don’t think many people in the heat of fighting for their lives and the lives of their friends are really thinking the enemy is a venerable people.
As to the veracity of the quote, it is how I read it, frankly, I don’t care who said it or why it is was said, it just seemed an odd pov. It’s not the first time, I’ve heard the charge against US re: the Japanese. The charge of racism was made about the US’s use of The Bomb.
I don’t think so but I’m willing to be educated.
[QUOTE=Regullus]
The obvious and first difference that comes to my mind is Pearl Harbor and ‘the Day of Infamy.’ It could be argued that US hostility is greater towards the Japanese due to the ‘sneak’ attack. It’s more personal; it’s visceral.
[/QUOTE]
No doubt, though remember that the US focused most of it’s efforts on Germany…Japan was more of a side show to the war, at least initially for the US, as a large percentage of our military power went either directly towards attacking Germany or in supporting our allies in their attacks against Germany.
The Japanese behavior towards prisoners had nothing to do with the ferocity of the fighting, and everything to do with Japanese exceptionalism, racism, and the Japanese military’s concepts of the true path of the warrior (borrowed heavily from Japanese myths and popular conceptions of Bushido). Simply put, the Japanese felt that it was dishonorable for anyone to surrender, and anyone who did so forfeited any right to honorable treatment (of course, had they not surrendered then they would have simply been dead, so it was probably a wash). Couple that with the way the Japanese felt about the Chinese, Koreans, European colonial powers and America, and it’s no mystery why they acted the way they acted towards prisoners.
-XT
Except that, they had other sources for the oil- many of whom wouldn’t sell to them either. The only reason why the Japanese needed the extra oil- and why there was an international embargo- was because of their aggression and atrocities in China. They could have scaled back the war anytime they wanted. This argument- that we forced japan into attacking us, is like is liek a drug addict claiming his homicide of a rich person is justified as the rich person had money and the drug addict needed it for drugs.:dubious:
Not “nearly as heinous”- more heinous. IMHO.
It is nice that you can excuse American brutality, but you are still dodging the significant point that while that sort of trophy taking was common in the Pacific, to the point where the brass had to issue specific orders against it, it was rare in Europe. The attitudes on both sides in the Pacific were much more racist. In Hanks’s words, it was a war of racism and terror. It was not initiated for racist purposes, but it was conducted in an atmosphere of racism.
That’s some very tortured logic, was there no racism in the US during the 1950’s and 60’s because Civil Rights legislation was eventually written, perhaps not in the most timely fashion? That the Joint Chiefs found it necessary to formally note that collecting Japanese body parts was forbidden speaks volumes to the scope of the problem. FDR was presented with a letter opener fashioned from the arm bone of a Japanese soldier as a gift from a congressman which he at least had the decency to return several weeks later.
The most immediate difference is that the Japanese fought to the last man, quarter was rarely asked or given. American and Commonwealth soldiers taken prisoner by the Japanese were 7 times more likely to die in captivity than those taken prisoner by the Germans or Italians; the Japanese treated prisoners with barbaric cruelty exemplified by such things as the Bataan death march and the Burma-Thailand Railway of Death. One of the more brutal aspects of Japanese racism at this time was that it was omni-directional, everyone was inferior to the Yamato race. It was common practice to use Chinese prisoners for bayonet practice, and the horrors of the Rape of Nanking or the human experimentation carried out by Unit 731 can scarcely be exaggerated. Another thing to note is that it was common practice by both sides to strafe shipwrecked sailors and lifeboats.
From page 120 of With the Old Breed, I can’t recommend the book highly enough if you’ve the stomach for it.
The charge of racism in the use of the A-bomb is absurd; the only reason it wasn’t used on Germany was because Germany had surrendered before the first test detonation was conducted. It’s not an odd point of view that the fighting in the Pacific was conducted with a degree of racism and brutality by both sides that simply wasn’t present between the Western Allies and Germany/Italy. Racial attitudes didn’t pop into existence on Dec 7, 1941; they were there before the war began. For example, it was believed before the war by people who should have known better that Japanese would make terrible pilots because they all had poor vision being slant-eyed and all.
Except that in our case, the “brutality” was against dead guys. Hardly even close.
This is silly. I have not and would not treat as equal the levels of brutality inflicted by U.S. troops and Japanese troops, but the notion that the only time the U.S. troops did anything brutal or wrong was after they happened to encounter a dead body, somewhere, is simply without any basis in fact. As I noted earlier, one reason that few Japanese were captured was that few Yanks bothered to accept their surrender. Yes, the Bushida mindset inculcated in Japanese training made surrender a less viable option to Japanese soldiers, but as the war progressed and more conscripts filled the Japanese ranks, the Bushida mentality held less sway over them, but they were still given little opportunity to surrender and were often murdered when they did surrender.
The strafing of survivors floundering in the water of ships sunk during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea was not perpetrated by Japanese, but on them.
Noting that U.S. troops engaged in brutal acts does not diminish the overall greater brutality committed by the Japanese. Pretending that no U.S. brutality occurred or that it was “justifiable” mocks clasims of moral superiority and actually justifies Japanese brutality by making it seem that it was normal behavior and that they happened to be better at it than we were.
If you’re referring to Japan, I expect you mean they were allies in WW1. Nitpick
While Churchill was certainly a prick, and while with hindsight it is possible to argue that bombing Dresden was unnecessary, this is such a ridiculous simplification of a major argument that it is hard to respond to.