I believe they did that to a minister’s family on picnic in California with bombs from a balloon.
That was a bit too subtle for me. What are you talking about?
Melting from the air is so unsporting, as opposed to personally bayoneting after having raped the mother.
This, I imagine.
Well the obvious thing would be to ask a Japanese member of Parliament?
Peter, I can only find British MPs!
They used balloons to carry explosives to the West coast of the USA.
Well, those who weren’t just shot out of hand after surrendering, anyway.
Does it matter to you that most of the Japanese cars sold in the US today are made in the US? Is it just Japanese cars or would you stay away from German cars too? I mean with the holocaust and all? How about a Korean car that was actually made in Korea (instead of Alabama where they all seem to be made these days).
I read some pretty gruesome accounts of what Korean marines did in Vietnam and they were for all intents and purposes mercenaries.
The two might be closer in moral equivalence if, say, we waited until Japan was already under occupation and then rolled a nuke into the middle of town and set it off.
The analogy really breaks down here; Japan owes a great deal of its language and culture to China. The Japanese written language in part is the Chinese written language, Kanji is Chinese and used alongside Hiragana and Katakana in written Japanese.
Or didn’t try to grenade themselves and/or their would be captors. Graphic video link of a Japanese pilot committing suicide by holding a hand grenade to his head rather than be rescued. The point that Allied soldiers undoubtedly shot out of hand Japanese who were trying to or were willing to surrender is well taken, but it should be borne in mind what death rather than surrender entails, from the Battle of the Tenaru, the first significant Allied victory on land against Japan which resulted in 777 Japanese killed and only 15 POWs:
I’m a bit late to the thread, but personally I wouldn’t view it as a “Japanese” thing.
Mankind is built to follow the lead of the big dog. If you’re in a troop of 20 people and the commander is a sick bastard, the 20 underlings will generally all act like sick bastards as well. If that commander is higher up the command chain, then 200 or 2,000 or 20,000 soldiers will all act in that same manner. It’s just one of those things.
I don’t know who the person would be to blame, but I’d be fairly certain that the reason that the Japanese were so cruel in WWII is because several of the highest ranking people were evil bastards. Had the leadership been kind, you would have gotten a different result.
Compare Washington and the US to Robespierre and France.
I think there’s something to that, and to a degree we may be over-thinking things. The Japanese army at that time was a pack of vile bastards because they were setup, organized and directed to be a pack of vile bastards.
It might be interesting to find out exactly who made exactly which decisions when, and the nuances that people have provided in this thread have certainly been good contributions, but to a degree I can’t help but feel that “it steam engines when it comes steam engine time.”
What could Robespierre have done in America if he magically traded places with Washington? Not much, I’m betting. There was a unique social and cultural background that allowed a bookish sort with a famously “gentle smile” to turn the levers of the French state into a murder machine. In colonial America he’d have been ridden on a rail out of Boston, covered with feathers.
Likewise with Germany, where a funny-looking street rabble rouser could band together with a grotesque club-footed dwarf, a failed chicken farmer and a has-been flying ace to create, well, you know.
I don’t think there’s any question that the social and cultural settings of France, Germany and the US had a major role in what historical figures emerged.
But because Japan is a non-white society, we’re all walking on eggshells either to draw some moral equivalence with ourselves or to blame some crazy stroke of fate – eh, some madmen took hold of the government, whaddya gonna do, it could happen anywhere! The one thing everybody seems determined to avoid is face squarely on that Japanese *culture and society *produced the evil bastards in question, and the big question is why?
To be clear, I am not trying to establish a moral equivalence. I am just saying it muddies the water whenever we talk about the Pacific theater. I mean, our act unleashed the nuclear age, Mutual Assured Destruction, etc., totally aside from killing 80,000 people in a minute. Is the potential to destroy the world as bad as bayoneting a baby? I would say the phrase “as bad” just doesn’t apply. They are two different things, both evil.
Hey, the world was being destroyed pretty well by people with bayonets, when we dropped the bomb—and it actually unleashed an age lacking in 50 million+ death wars. And helped bring that immediate war to a quick end.
I would, however, point out that just because Japanese and Chinese use (partly) the same written components does not make them mutually intelligible languages.
There is a fair bit of cultural cross pollination, but I would say that by the time of their Manchurian escapades the Japanese were not exactly emphasizing cultural similarities. Frankly they had so deeply internalized those ties into Japanese culture during their long isolation that they were quite likely not to have noticed.
Certainly China was no longer the great nation it had been, not by the time that the Japanese were invading. It is much like how the ancient Romans looked at the Greeks of their time with some disdain while looking at Greek culture of earlier ages with respect. One can visualize any Japanese soldier who actually took time to notice old cultural connections with China feeling that Japan had preserved what China had lost. No doubt government propaganda would have skewed in that direction.
The Japanese would have had the equivalent of Nurenburg Trials for American generals and soldiers. We did plenty of horrible things in WW2. The victor makes the rules.
Do you think it is a coincidence that German and Japan atrocities were touted, while what we did was whitewashed. I suppose the Japanese would have held trials on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for starters.Ever talk to anybody about what happened on the islands as we island hopped toward Japan?
There is something specifically Japanese (or at least, specific to Japanese soldiers in this conflict): the readiness of the average soldier to embrace suicide in combat.
The atrocities stuff is pretty common to total war, and once could provide all sorts of examples - or, as above, argue about “strategic bombing” and the like.
But one thing that sets the war against Japan apart and makes it unique (an in some ways a uniquely horrible ordeal for both sides) was the common, ingrained willingness of the ordinary Japanese soldier to fight to the death against impossible odds. This is unusual. Even in other total-war conflicts of the time. While there were no doubt lots of cases of soldiers fighting to the death, no other combatant, to my knowledge, embraced this as an point of principle on an almost universal basis.
This had all sorts of consequences - not least, it lent combat a particularly brutal, dehumanizing edge. As others note, if Japanese soldiers used injury or surrender as an excuse to suicide-by-grenade and take some of their captors with them, pretty soon the other side ceases to even attempt to take prisoners …
The question then becomes, how did the particular set of evil bastards ruling Japan in the '30s and '40s manage to convince their soldiers to do this? I’m pretty sure that the answer must lie in them exploiting a twisted version of the notion of “honour” already present in the culture.
A fair point - but this is an American board, and most of the posters and moderators are American. It makes sense to apply American norms here. For that matter, I believe that Susanann herself is an American. While it might not say anything unfortunate about your character if you referred to someone using that term, it says a great deal about her.
This makes no sense. Buddhist believe that any suffering they cause others will be repaid them. Others most often includes any other living thing, not just people.