Challenge: Japanese less harsh in WW2...

[B_Munro]

Europeans were hardly paragons of civilized behaviour in dealing with colonial conquests, either. Ask any Herero. Ask any Tasmanian, if you can find one.
The big change was their treatment of European opponents in 1941- compared to the Russian-Japanese war. The question is whether this was a matter of circumstances (in 1904 Japan was a minor member of a European-dominated system, fighting for limited objectives, and could not afford to anger other powers by, say, slaughtering white prisoners) while in 1941 they were part of an alliance of _dictatorships_ attempting to overthrow the entire pre-existing world system);

or, an actual change in attitudes.

Much Japanese militarism was rooted in the whole warrior-shinto ideal which was effectively artificially created after the Meiji restoration as a unifying national creed: if we look at Japanese brutality and militarism as arising from an outgrowth and perversion of what the state was teaching the masses in school about "Japanese culture" and the "Samurai way" (also cobbled together out of disparate parts after 1858) then we may be talking about a genuine change in Japanese views on "appropriate" behavior after a third generation of nationalist nonsense being drilled into their heads...

Bruce

 

[Cook]

Ask any Tasmanian, if you can find one.

Prior to White settlement of Tasmania there are believed to have been a bit under 10,000 Tasmanian aborigines.

The Cape Grim Massacre of 1828 is the bloodiest event of Tasmania’s Black War and at 30 Aboriginal deaths would not have been noticed in even a small location like Japanese occupied Ambon, let alone across the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Geoffrey Blainey, Keith Windschuttle amongst other historians believe European diseases are the main cause of their numbers declining.

And for the record, there are a significant number of people claiming Tasmanian Aboriginal Descent.

 

[Keenir]

The Cape Grim Massacre of 1828 is the bloodiest event of Tasmania’s Black War and at 30 Aboriginal deaths would not have been noticed in even a small location like Japanese occupied Ambon, let alone across the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere.

you mean not counting the extermination of the Tasmanian cultures, traditions, and family structures? not to mention their languages, the bodies of their dead (which were often dug up by whites), and other actions against them?

Geoffrey Blainey, Keith Windschuttle amongst other historians believe European diseases are the main cause of their numbers declining.

being fed bad food, being rounded up for missionary houses and hunted down if they're on the wrong side of the line...

you might say that the Tasmanians weren't treated as badly as the Chinese were...but I doubt the Tasmanians {at the time} would agree.

And for the record, there are a significant number of people claiming Tasmanian Aboriginal Descent.

yes, there are many people with mixed-race heritage that includes Tasmanian. there are no pure-blooded Tasmanians any more.

there are a great many pure-blooded Koreans and Manchurians, even after the Japanese left.

so obviously there is a fault with your "it wasn't as bad as the Japanese did things" analogy.

 

[Cook]

[/SIZE]

[/FONT]

you mean not counting the extermination of the Tasmanian cultures, traditions, and family structures? not to mention their languages, the bodies of their dead (which were often dug up by whites), and other actions against them?

This is a stupid attempt at moral equivalency. Trying to make a moral equivalency between the 19th Century Colonial government of Tasmania and the 20th Century Imperial Japanese government is ridiculous; especially when most of the things you cite didn’t take place in Tasmania.

The Tasmanian population plummeted from multiple diseases.

At no time did the colonial government of 19th Century Tasmania have a policy of exterminating the Aborigines.

Try actually doing some research before you put things in type.

 

[Larrikin]

This is a stupid attempt at moral equivalency. Trying to make a moral equivalency between the 19th Century Colonial government of Tasmania and the 20th Century Imperial Japanese government is ridiculous; especially when most of the things you cite didn’t take place in Tasmania.

The Tasmanian population plummeted from multiple diseases.

At no time did the colonial government of 19th Century Tasmania have a policy of exterminating the Aborigines.

Try actually doing some research before you put things in type.

In fact the Colonial Govt in Tasmania rounded up the survivors of the epidemics and moved them to an island in Bass Strait as a means of setting up a quarantine and saving the remaining population.

The black armband of Australian treatment of the Aborigines is so biased it's not funny, and is amply exposed by the whole "stolen generation" garbage.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

I’m not sure there was a significant shift.

Japan’s history in Korea (from 1910) and Manchuria (from 1931) is one of terrible treatment to the local peoples.

I once saw a collection of Russo-Japanese War photos at a garage sale showing several Japanese soldiers next to a pile of severed Chinese heads. Too bad I didn't buy them.

Japan acted according to established conventions with Russian POWs because that war was Japan's coming out party. They wanted to be recognized as a civilized country by Western powers. Ditto in WWI. By WWII they wanted to be the sole super power of East Asia. There was no more incentive to play by Western rules.

 

[Mark Ford]

I’m not sure there was a significant shift.

Japan’s history in Korea (from 1910) and Manchuria (from 1931) is one of terrible treatment to the local peoples.

While not an indication of attitude to subject peoples, the treatment of POWs in both world wars through the record of deaths is a measurable quantity and quite dramatic in it's contrast. In the WWI the Japanese captured territory from the Germans and they took thousands of prisoners, the death toll amoung these prisoners was 1.6% while in WWII the death toll amoung British, Dutch and Australian prisoners varied between 30% and 35%.

 

[Just Leo]

I recently read James Bradley's "The Imperial Cruise". An interesting slant on the reasons for the Pacific war.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I recently read James Bradley's "The Imperial Cruise". An interesting slant on the reasons for the Pacific war.

I read it last year and also found it interesting. There was some criticism about the work being 'too anti-American' particularly on Amazon.com, but I sorta liked the can of worms it opened. There were a few mistakes by Bradley which I found irksome, he should have had more proofreading done.

 

[Blair152]

So would it have been possible for the Japanese to commit less genocide during the war? By that, I mean that they wouldn't want to kill all those people, or that maybe they considered them to be people of worth?

Have the Japanese ratify the Geneva Convention. Japan was the only country
NOT to ratify the Geneva Convention.

 

[Just Leo]

The Soviet Union did not ratify the Geneva Convention. Germany did. As a result, 3.3 million Soviet POW's died, as opposed to just over 8,000 western allied POW's. 57.4% as opposed to 3.5%.

 

[Keenir]

This is a stupid attempt at moral equivalency. Trying to make a moral equivalency between the 19th Century Colonial government of Tasmania and the 20th Century Imperial Japanese government is ridiculous;

if there is no equivalency, why did you compare them?

 

[AmIndHistoryAuthor]

Prior to White settlement of Tasmania there are believed to have been a bit under 10,000 Tasmanian aborigines.

The Cape Grim Massacre of 1828 is the bloodiest event of Tasmania’s Black War and at 30 Aboriginal deaths would not have been noticed in even a small location like Japanese occupied Ambon, let alone across the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Geoffrey Blainey, Keith Windschuttle amongst other historians believe European diseases are the main cause of their numbers declining.

And for the record, there are a significant number of people claiming Tasmanian Aboriginal Descent.

Windschuttle's a white supremacist, with lots of deeply racist arguments about Aboriginals and Asians and claims about the inherent superiority of whites. He even took part in a documentary with other white supremacists. You should pick better sources.

Granted, your argument seems to be to try to minimize that genocide by saying:

1. It was only a little genocide.
2. Disease carried most of it out.

But we've all seen the same kinds of justifications of genocide vs Indians, and very few people at AH.com buy them in my experience.

Back to the main topic, it should seem self evident that all Japanese were not inherently predestined to carry out genocide, as you seem to be arguing. There were peace factions at various times in the govt, there was a strong Socialist Party for a time, and Japan had its own period similar to the Weimar. Japan was often held up as a model for its treatment of prisoners prior to the militarist takeover. Today it has one of the strongest peace movements and strongest environmental movements anywhere on the planet. It's mostly a matter of figuring out what went wrong and how to prevent that.

 

[Blair152]

That was the nationalist military reasoning.

Ideas of Lebensraum were doing the rounds in various capitals at the time.

That's right. Japan wanted to create the Greater East Asia Co-Propersity Sphere. It had the dream of "bringing the corners of the world under one roof."

 

[joea64]

Back to the main topic, it should seem self evident that all Japanese were not inherently predestined to carry out genocide, as you seem to be arguing. There were peace factions at various times in the govt, there was a strong Socialist Party for a time, and Japan had its own period similar to the Weimar. Japan was often held up as a model for its treatment of prisoners prior to the militarist takeover. Today it has one of the strongest peace movements and strongest environmental movements anywhere on the planet. It's mostly a matter of figuring out what went wrong and how to prevent that.

Three things I can think of offhand:

1) A surviving Anglo-Japanese alliance. If the Japanese continue to be closely connected to a major Western power, and want to keep that connection, that may act as a restraint upon their conduct.

2) As Blair152 suggests, have Japan ratify the Geneva Convention.

3) The militarist ideology either doesn't develop, or if it does, develops in a form that promotes the honorable treatment of prisoners/doesn't consider it irredeemably shameful to be taken prisoner. Some sources I've read suggest that the variant of bushido that provided the theological/philosophical underpinning for Japanese militarism was actually a perversion or misreading of the original bushido, and the same argument applies to the "state Shinto" that arose in the early 20th century. If those don't develop, then a lot of the philosophical backing for Japanese soldiers to behave like supremacist dicks vanishes.

 

[Cook]

if there is no equivalency, why did you compare them?

I didn’t you dickhead, B_Munro brought up the European colonial period.

Try reading the actual thread.

 

[Cook]

Windschuttle's a white supremacist, with lots of deeply racist arguments about Aboriginals and Asians and claims about the inherent superiority of whites. He even took part in a documentary with other white supremacists. You should pick better sources. .

I mentioned both Geoffrey Blainey and Keith Windschuttle because they are about as far apart as you can get and they still both agree on events in Tasmania.

Granted, your argument seems to be to try to minimize that genocide by saying:

1. It was only a little genocide.
2. Disease carried most of it out.

But we've all seen the same kinds of justifications of genocide vs Indians, and very few people at AH.com buy them in my experience.

My point, pretty clear if you’d bothered to read it was:

This is a stupid attempt at moral equivalency. Trying to make a moral equivalency between the 19th Century Colonial government of Tasmania and the 20th Century Imperial Japanese government is ridiculous; especially when most of the things you cite didn’t take place in Tasmania. .

Events in Tasmania took place when the United States was little more than thirteen recently independent colonies, half of whom would still have slavery for another thirty years.

Events in the Pacific War are still within the living memory of older members of our communities.

Not even the war criminals in the dock in Tokyo were stupid enough to try to justify their actions by saying they were no different from the European Colonials and yet some people here think it’s ok to do so.