A close reading of Der Trihs’ post shows that he is describing “the soft bigotry of low expectations” (i.e. people didn’t get as outraged over the barbarities of the Japanese as they did over the barbarities of the Germans because the Germans were supposedly a civilized Western nation whereas the Japanese were “those people” from whom nothing better was to be expected).
I am not excusing or belittling what the Japanese did. I would add this to what has been said here:
• I think probably no one is going to go apesh^t if I say that the Japanese killed between 4 and 10 million “innocents”. You pick a number a number at the high end of that range, that is still approximately half the number the Nazi’s killed – victims that can be attributed to “War crimes.”
• Further, the bulk of Japanese innocent slaughter took place in China. The Kuomintang and Communists each probably killed more Chinese than the Japanese, immediately before, during and after the occupation and that makes it very hard to devise close to accurate numbers and it lets a certain moral relativism & compassion fatigue creep in.
• I think the United Nations (Read the West) was at War with the “Red Chinese” within a half-decade of Nuremberg and this further colored the West’s view of the Victims of Japanese aggression, just as Histories began to be written and films began to be made.
• I think that most standard Histories “blame” the Nazi’s for starting World War II. Sure there was a sneak attack at Pearl and that was huge. But the world-wide conflagration started when Germany Invaded Poland 9/01/39.
Not saying that Racism or Immediacy or anything listed before this wasn’t part of the “Why” on this, it was. These were some other factors.
I disagree with one point made earlier though and I have said it on the SDMB before: There is a common belief that the Nazi’s had Nuremberg and that the Japanese were never brought to account for their war crimes by and large. This belief stands History on its head.
From 1946–51 some 5,600 Japanese personnel were prosecuted in more than 2,200 trials. More than 4,400 Japanese personnel were convicted and about 1,000 were sentenced to death.
This was not even the main trials, the equivalents of Nuremberg. They were in addition to the main Japanese War Crime tribunal the so-called “Tokyo Trials ”
-----------Quote---------
Twenty-five Japanese military and political leaders were charged with Class A crimes, and more than 300,000 Japanese nationals were charged with Class B and C crimes, mostly over prisoner abuse. The crimes perpetrated by Japanese troops and authorities in the occupation of Korea and China (Manchukuo) were not part of the proceeding. China held 13 tribunals of its own, resulting in 504 convictions and 149 executions.
In contrast, the Nazi regime was put on trial in two tribunals in Nuremberg, Germany from 1945 to 1949. The first tribunal indicted 24 major Nazi war criminals, and resulted in 19 convictions (of which 12 led to death sentences) and 3 acquittals. The second tribunal indicted 185 members of the military, economic, and political leadership of Nazi Germany, of which 142 were convicted and 35 were acquitted. In subsequent decades, approximately 20 additional war criminals who escaped capture in the immediate aftermath of World War II were tried in West Germany and Israel.
There was Soviet summary justice going on in Germany that make this number discrepancy less than this post makes it seem. Additionally the Nazi regime, unlike the Japanese, was completely destroyed before surrender (meaning fewer documents, fewer baddest of the bad survivors and people in a position to “flip” on the worst). Still, it is fair to say that after the war the Japanese by and large were punished more thoroughly and in greater numbers for War crimes than the Germans were.
I think that about covers that question, from both angles.
I figure a lot of people are like my dad, who still won’t buy a Japanese car and was kind of peeved when I spent a few years learning Japanese. If you mention it he’ll say “Do you know what they did to our guys over there?” In other words, Japanese atrocities had some Western victims (‘our guys’) but many more Asian ones. I doubt my dad knows very much about the Rape of Nanking; it’s certainly not why he won’t buy a Japanese car. (He won’t buy a German one either, to be fair.)
WARNING: do NOT read while eating, or if you are squeamish. EXTREMELY disturbing material.
These? (quotes edited only for spacing to make reading easier)
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear I was reading about Auschwitz.
Just tossing in an additional idea I haven’t seen mentioned:
Let’s say you’re in the US and want to make a movie about German death camps. It’s relatively easy to cast people of an acceptably-close ethnicity for both sides. You want to use the current heartthrob, you can easily get a role where he fits.
Now do the same about the massacre of Nanking. Yes, it hasn’t been so long since wite guys got cast as “any color except black”… but a whole cast? It’s doable, but not so easily.
Re. communist crimes, many Spaniards were extremely angry when La Pasionaria and The Butcher of Paracuellos (Santiago Carrillo) were coming back to the country. But ah, all of a sudden they were democratic leaders! Few times have I seen people use such strong language than when referring to those two being received with palms and red carpets, yet if any newspaper or TV refers to Carrillo by that well-deserved nickname, they’re automatically accused of fascism.
Either a lobby, or to further the desired narrative. I would argue that not only are the Japanese war crimes not well known, but the Nazi war crimes are not well known either. In the US, the Jewish Holocaust is relatively well known, but the extermination of Slavs, Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs etc. seem to be less widely taught (despite the larger numbers).
The camp and mass grave at Babi Yar makes a good illustration of this point - variously described as a massacre of Ukrainian Jews or of Ukrainian Slavs - it seems that both are true, with Kiev’s Jews accounting for some 30,000 of the 100,000 victims.
Yes, on his way to prison. Denying the historicity of the Holocaust is illegal (and not protected by free speech laws) in a number of European countries, including Germany.
And since we’re starting to expand to other examples of genocide and mass murder, it’s the exact opposite in Turkey: any attempt to NOT deny the Armenian genocide is punishable by the law. It’s called “insulting Turkishness” or something to that effect.
The Turks are similarly passionate regarding Ataturk
Instead of hypothesizing a “lobby” (or some other vaguely pejorative term), consider that the purpose of commemorating the Holocaust is to 1) honor its victims, and 2) ensure that a dark chapter in history is not forgotten, to lessen the chances of its being repeated.
Many ethnic and national groups promote knowledge and understanding of history as it applies to the experience of the particular group. Promoting attention to a particular aspect of history does not preclude others from sharing their experiences and calling attention to unrecognized wrongs.
The continuing furor over the Japanese prime minister’s attempts to gloss over the sufferings of the “comfort women” is a good example of recent attention to Japanese war crimes. As the Turkish government has discovered, denial helps ensure that genocide and other atrocities remain fresh in our memory.
Well, the Turkish government had nothing to do with that. It was the Ottoman Empire not the nation of Turkey and even so, anyone that could have had a hand in it back then is dead now.
Yeah, but was Ataturk that much of a tyrant? I understood that he was actually more of benevolent dictator, and actually pretty much a hero, at least compared to the past sultans.
DrDeth, my point is, that there is another example of a nation refusing to face up to past crimes. (And the Ottoman Empire is what we now call Turkey). To punish people for even admitting it occurred only adds fuel to the flames.
One could argue also that many of the victims of the Holocaust are now dead, as are many of the Nazi war criminals. Does that mean we should ignore it?
I was only commenting on the passion in and of itself for Ataturk, which I thought might be interesting to some Dopers. I wasn’t commenting beyond that.
Ah, okay. Mea culpa. :o
Umm no. The Ottoman Empire had several times the area of modern day Turkey, and a completely different government. The Roma Empire took and kept millions of slaves- do we blame the Modern Government of Italy?
Plenty of victims of the Holocaust still alive, bucky.
Of course the Ottoman Empire was larger. But modern day Turkey is basically what was the center of the empire. Only back then, Istanbul was still called Constantinople.
And I didn’t SAY there were no victims of the Holocaust today. But, to say that the Armenian holocaust was too long ago to care about, (which was more or less what you said), only adds to the problem.
It’s my understanding that the Rape of Nanking was deliberately ordered by the army high command. Certainly a policy of “hardness” toward Chinese civilians was official-in-the-understood-sense. Hirohito didn’t sign off on it – but Hirohito was not directing the Japanese war effort, the Army and Navy high commands were.
Sailboat
No problemo 
But that does not really contradict what I said. Periodic outbreaks of horror were far too common, but they were not carried out along the same lines as the devotion of a substantial portion of the war effort to simply eradicate entire classes of people.
I was not arguing that the Japanese were “nicer” than the Germans, only noting (in the context of why people today are more likely to thing Germany rather than Japan when looking for a demonic regime), that when people of the early 21st century compare the two regimes, the Nazis devoted a substantial portion of their energy to carrying out a systematic destruction of millions of people extending over multiple years in a way that the Japanese did not.