Why were the Japanese so cruel in World War II?

The closest I’ve heard of is the times when the allies liberated various camps—Dachau, for instance. I can’t recall any prolonged torture or trophy taking, though I recall more than a few instances of former guards just being turned over to former prisoners who took their time killing them.

I suspect another difference, even aside from the obvious racial aspect, is that the fighting in Europe took place in, well, Europe. A big developed continent, lots of infrastructure, civilians…cameras, military bureaucracy, reporters. It wasn’t the middle of nowhere. If the fighting had been against the 36th Waffen Grenadiers hopping across a series of isolated, miserable little islands in the Arctic Ocean, maybe it would have gotten more gruesome on the allies’ part. I dunno.

While I’m sure we on the Right side of life appreciate it (e do, really), this is the Straight Dope. We’ve more or less either gotten used to mentally going :rolleyes: or just left.

Yeah, I hate Canada too.

I had watched Nanking over at Hulu the same week that I was reading Sarah Vowel’s The Wordy Shipmates, which includes a brief mention of Oliver Cromwell’s massacre after the Battle of Drogheda. By coincidence, both had graphic descriptions of a baby nursing at its mother’s breast as she lie dying.

this isn’t to let the Japanese Empire off the hook, but just to note that it’s really a pretty crowded hook.

Well, it shocked John Rabe, but I don’t think there’s anything more profound than that (and, in fact, Rabe got in trouble with the German government for his actions in Nanking).

And a few years later the Japanese Ambassador to Lithuania saved more Jews than Oskar Schindler.

I actually said “this goes for everybody,” so potshots from the right are equally unnecessary. Let’s stick to the topic, please.

That seems a very different sort of reaction to me - more along the lines of revenge, or a sense of moral revulsion at those particular Nazis, for what they had done.

I got the impression, from reading Sledge’s memoir, that the Marines were simply shocked, desensitized and brutalized by the brutality of the combat experence they were subjected to - against an enemy they perceived as absolutely merciless and uncaring of life, and under conditions that were horribly atrocious in their own right.

So I guess I’d agree that the setting made a great deal of the difference. Plus, at least where the Western Allies were concerned, the German army (aside from certain incidents, often involving the SS) was perfectly willing to extend the honours of war to enemy soldiers, give and accept surrenders, etc.

Even within the confines of the European war, setting is very important. The character of prisoner treatment between the Eastern and Western Fronts is quite marked. If anything, what happened in Russia was closer to what was going on with the Japanese in Asia, except that both sides were doing, it not just one.

It is, perhaps, illustrative of the effects of dehumanizing the enemy on any military force. Nazi ideology thought about as much of Slavs as the Japanese government/ideology thought of their enemies as a whole. The similarity of results is interesting. As for the Russians, they were at least in part motivated by revenge and, let’s face it, the culture that had grown up under Stalin was well steeped in mistreatment of prisoners, so it is not surprising that this attitude would be extended to the invading Germans.

The author of Fires on the Plain also wrote Taken Captive: A Japanese POW’s Story, which is a non-novelized autobiography of his experiences.

I can ancedotally confirm instances of similar behavior on the Western Front. Also the taking of German ears. Dunno if they were lying, but I have heard stories of that and similar incidents from people who were either there, or in the same unit.

The description of that book is very interesting - allegedly, the Americans treated Japanese captives much better than the captives themselves thought they deserved - being captive, they simply assumed that they deserved to be treated harshly!

Woah. Maybe there wasn’t such a difference after all.

I guess my humor doesn’t translate very well.

I got that it was a joke, it’s just that conservatives would probably not find it very amusing (nor would liberals if the joke went in the other direction) and I’d like to keep the thread on track.

And didn’t he get fired by the japanese (after the war was already over) for it?

And I WANT my scalps.

He was made to resign, but whether it was over the stuff he did in Lithuania or not is debateable. The official reason was just that Japan was reducing its diplomatic corps. Unofficially, though, some people have suggested that it was because of his actions in Lithuania.

I had 2 good fiends who were Japanese POWs and who lived thru it, but I can not even repeat the horrors that they told me that they went thru and what they saw the Japs do to fellow prisoners. I dont even like to think about it. Frankly, I am surprised that my 2 friends, or anybody, actually lived thru the Jap POW camps.

It matters to me, still to this day, and you will never find me in a Japan car.

This scene is depicted in episode 7 of “The Pacific”, by the way.