New documents prove that Japan had enslaved up to 200,000 "comfort women" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;44681486]Say what you want about the USA, at least when our government commits war-crimes and horrific atrocities we citizens actually give a shit, complain, protest, and perhaps even admit our mistakes. The denial of war-crimes by the Japanese government is absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE] No, the USA only admits to them 30 years later when people have mostly forgotten the tragedy and when controversy isn't going to hold anywhere near as much weight.

I think they were trying to prove to themselves that the group of people they were destroying were beneath them and prove that they believed in their country. "It doesn't matter if I do X to the Chinese, because they're the enemy. See, look?" Multiply that by your peers doing the same and propaganda and you've got a desensitized group of people. I saw a disturbing picture of a Japanese soldier holding a beheaded Chinese man, and he was laughing about it. They were probably taught that they aren't people worth giving a damn about and that they were made to be dominated. Maybe I'm wrong. There's a good chance that I am because I'm no psychiatrist or psychologist, but that's at least what I think what got them to justify some of their actions. If you look at Americans with slavery, a lot of them were able to live with themselves because they thought the slaves were animals with viewpoints they supported by the bible.

The Japanese were the worse with war crimes, in pretty much every way. Atleast the Nazi's were able to treat the allies (not including the Soviets) relatively well the majority of the time, the Japanese just treated everyone like shit

Most of the Japanese Soldiers in WW2 were a bunch of fanatical scum. Being on the same side as the Nazis and being worse than them is quite the feat

I think you may be mistaken about the germans. We can mention stuff like POW death marches, square massacres in occupied cities, civilian executions and destruction of villages on the road to moscow. But it doesn't matter. We should stop pointing fingers. War is hell, and any man that has endured it will nor return home the same as when he left. Never.

[QUOTE=Radley;44684029]I think you may be mistaken about the germans. We can mention stuff like POW death marches, square massacres in occupied cities, civilian executions and destruction of villages on the road to moscow. But it doesn't matter. We should stop pointing fingers. War is hell, and any man that has endured it will nor return home the same as when he left. Never.[/QUOTE] Lol not true. I know many young kids who went to war and are still doing the same shit they did before they left. The majority of veterans returning from combat won't experience any post deployment illness like PTSD, it's actually a small minority that does. If that's what you're insinuating.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;44683932]I think they were trying to prove to themselves that the group of people they were destroying were beneath them and prove that they believed in their country. "It doesn't matter if I do X to the Chinese, because they're the enemy. See, look?" Multiply that by your peers doing the same and propaganda and you've got a desensitized group of people. I saw a disturbing picture of a Japanese soldier holding a beheaded Chinese man, and he was laughing about it. They were probably taught that they aren't people worth giving a damn about and that they were made to be dominated.[/QUOTE] They actually believed that the Chinese were not humans, at most they were biological robots (the concept of a robot didn't exist yet, but bear with me) and what you did with them didn't matter at all. Explains a lot of their behavior, but even then it's way off the deep end.

[QUOTE=minilandstan;44681124][I]At least they were comfortable.[/I][/QUOTE] My grandmother didn't find it comfortable.

Why can't the Japanese man up and accept what they did like the Germans?

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;44681486]Say what you want about the USA, at least when our government commits war-crimes and horrific atrocities we citizens actually give a shit, complain, protest, and perhaps even admit our mistakes. The denial of war-crimes by the Japanese government is absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE] The Japanese [i]government[/i]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44684151]They actually believed that the Chinese were not humans, at most they were biological robots (the concept of a robot didn't exist yet, but bear with me) and what you did with them didn't matter at all. Explains a lot of their behavior, but even then it's way off the deep end.[/QUOTE] Don't suppose you have a source for that by any chance? I can imagine a propaganda piece or something painting the Chinese in a very unfavourable way, but it wouldn't be the first time someone erroneously claimed "oh the japanese really believe this" in a broad way.

[QUOTE=Megafan;44685393]Don't suppose you have a source for that by any chance? I can imagine a propaganda piece or something painting the Chinese in a very unfavourable way, but it wouldn't be the first time someone erroneously claimed "oh the japanese really believe this" in a broad way.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/1viooi/why_did_the_japanese_treat_chinese_so_horribly/"]This[/URL] was a very interesting thread I had read on that exact subject in reddit's r/history, which also comes with cited sources for Japanese Imperial policy regarding their behaviour. If anything, it was interesting because it cleared a lot of my own misconceptions regarding the ideology of the Japanese at the time.

The more I hear about the IJA, the more disgusted I get at them. It's really hard not to call them barbaric animals during WWII.

[QUOTE=Radley;44684029]I think you may be mistaken about the germans. We can mention stuff like POW death marches, square massacres in occupied cities, civilian executions and destruction of villages on the road to moscow. But it doesn't matter. We should stop pointing fingers. War is hell, and any man that has endured it will nor return home the same as when he left. Never.[/QUOTE] The Germans, Japanese, and Russians did the bulk of war crimes. Unfortunately, the Japanese got off more lightly than the Germans, and the Russians got off practically scot free.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44685600]The more I hear about the IJA, the more disgusted I get at them. It's really hard not to call them barbaric animals during WWII.[/QUOTE] I would say killing thousands of innocent civilians with firebombs in Tokyo and atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also pretty 'barbaric'.

[QUOTE=Megafan;44686089]I would say killing thousands of innocent civilians with firebombs in Tokyo and atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also pretty 'barbaric'.[/QUOTE] Just wait til you hear about the invasion of Manchuria. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gegenmiao_massacre[/url] Of course it's forgotten. Although it's not nearly as bad as what Ivan got up to in Berlin. If the allies had done to Japan what they had done to Germany, they would have turned Hokkaido into its own country, ceded Kyushu to Taiwan, and then split it in half under respective Communist and Capitalist governments for half a century. They would have also raped every women in Tokyo.

[QUOTE=Megafan;44686089]I would say killing thousands of innocent civilians with firebombs in Tokyo and atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also pretty 'barbaric'.[/QUOTE] You don't make atomic bombs by chopping off people's heads and parading them around as a trophy, then raping the wife and daughters of the man's head you carry.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44686163]Just wait til you hear about the invasion of Manchuria. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gegenmiao_massacre[/url] Of course it's forgotten. Although it's not nearly as bad as what Ivan got up to in Berlin. If the allies had done to Japan what they had done to Germany, they would have turned Hokkaido into its own country, ceded Kyushu to Taiwan, and then split it in half under respective Communist and Capitalist governments for half a century. They would have also raped every women in Tokyo.[/QUOTE] Well you've got a point, but I think the 'split the country in half' thing is more of a Cold War issue than a WWII one. It was more difficult for the Soviets to do something like that in Japan because they didn't have an easily accessible land border, which they did have with Korea. That and they were already stretched pretty thin. Point is, there's atrocities on all sides. Pointing at one and going "well these here are the [I]real[/I] bad guys" is a pretty fruitless exercise. Of course this doesn't then mean that the holocaust in Europe is 'equally as bad' as the invasion of China, but let's look at events and people for what they are, not as generalised groups of Japanese Death Squads and American Do-Gooders. [editline]30th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44686194]You don't make atomic bombs by chopping off people's heads and parading them around as a trophy, then raping the wife and daughters of the man's head you carry.[/QUOTE] No, instead you wipe out thousands and a city centre in less than ten minutes.

American war crimes were nothing compared to the horrors that the Nazi and IJA unleashed upon others. [QUOTE=Megafan;44686224]No, instead you wipe out thousands and a city centre in less than ten minutes.[/QUOTE] Which in the end saved more lives as a land invasion would have killed many, many more people on both sides. The atomic bombs were questionably ethical, but it brought the war to a speedy end.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44686261]American war crimes were nothing compared to the horrors that the Nazi and IJA unleashed upon others. Which in the end saved more lives as a land invasion would have killed many, many more people on both sides. The atomic bombs were questionably ethical, but it brought the war to a speedy end.[/QUOTE] The bombs were completely unnecessary. The japanese fleet had already been destroyed, their people suffering from constant shortages, there was heavy debt, high attrition, and the leadership was falling apart.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44686194]You don't make atomic bombs by chopping off people's heads and parading them around as a trophy, then raping the wife and daughters of the man's head you carry.[/QUOTE] I heard that you make it by enriching uranium and plutonium, no?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44686298]The bombs were completely unnecessary. The japanese fleet had already been destroyed, their people suffering from constant shortages, there was heavy debt, high attrition, and the leadership was falling apart.[/QUOTE] The bombs were the final straw. If we had tried a land invasion instead of the bombs, their heavy nationalism would cause constant attacks to any infantry on their land. Instead, the bombs told them to stop fighting or face total destruction.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44686366]The bombs were the final straw. If we had tried a land invasion instead of the bombs, their heavy nationalism would cause constant attacks to any infantry on their land. Instead, the bombs told them to stop fighting or face total destruction.[/QUOTE] Except the Japanese were already preparing to sue for peace. The Japanese military was in retreat on all fronts. Even if America had gotten as far as surrounding the country, the Japanese would not be able to stop them, since the resources of the state had been exhausted.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dARSvPDoJag[/media] Whenever you discuss the 2nd World War, this is a good place to start at. I really sometimes wish their was more curiosity regarding the Pacific War. It's hardly discussed outside of Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, and Guadalcanal.

[QUOTE=Megafan;44686224] No, instead you wipe out thousands and a city centre in less than ten minutes.[/QUOTE] I never understood this sentiment. For all the cities that were burned to the ground, for all the millions that died, for all the rape and the torture and the inhumanity, the atomic bomb somehow stands out because it was . . . efficient? Powerful? Quick? I guess what I'm getting at is, what is the crime of the atomic bomb compared to the crime that is any given war? What does it matter how quickly those 10,000 people died or how close in proximity they were?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44686721]I never understood this sentiment. For all the cities that were burned to the ground, for all the millions that died, for all the rape and the torture and the inhumanity, the atomic bomb somehow stands out because it was . . . efficient? Powerful? Quick? I guess what I'm getting at is, what is the crime of the atomic bomb compared to the crime that is any given war? What does it matter how quickly those 10,000 people died or how close in proximity they were?[/QUOTE] I think what makes it scary is that the decisions of a few men with the approval of the government to launch it resulted in the deaths of so many people, whereas the looting, the raping and the wanton violence were the actions of large bodies of men to whom their government chose to turn a blind eye. As you say, the clinical nature with which the atomic bomb worked was terrifying, but what makes it so frightening was that a few people got together in a room and agreed on the deaths of so many people, something far out of the scope of any other military operation at the time. To put it in perspective, the Normandy Beach landings resulted in the death of nearly 12,000 allied soldiers. The dropping of Fat Boy and Little Man resulted in the deaths of almost 246,000 people in a single go. And that's not counting the poor people who survived and we left irradiated to give birth to children who were severely deformed, taking away the chance of fatherhood and motherhood from innocent civilians who probably detested what the war had done to their country as much as a large number of German civilians who watched the horror of their Jewish friends being sent to Auschwitz. When you really think about it, the horror of it all, you really come to terms with the fact that human beings cannot justify using the term human to denote our positive traits as much as they've come to stand for the horrors we inflict on the environment, on other creatures and upon each other.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44686721]I never understood this sentiment. For all the cities that were burned to the ground, for all the millions that died, for all the rape and the torture and the inhumanity, the atomic bomb somehow stands out because it was . . . efficient? Powerful? Quick? I guess what I'm getting at is, what is the crime of the atomic bomb compared to the crime that is any given war? What does it matter how quickly those 10,000 people died or how close in proximity they were?[/QUOTE] The Atomic Bomb was far better then the horrible fire bombs that were thrown on Germany and Japan alike. At least the Bomb kills most of it's victims instantly, instead of leaving them burning in their homes that are also on fire. It is still fucking horrible but it is far more... humane then using the fire bombs that were thrown on Japan and Germany, Japan had it even worse because of the pure fact that most the homes were made out of fucking wood. Of course, I am not going to say that Germany or Japan didn't commit war crimes or bomb the allied/chinese people. But the(innocent) people of any nation didn't deserve it. Nobody deserves war or deserves to get bombed and burned to death if they don't want to fight. WW2 was a horrible conflict and I hope that we shall never have another world war with the destruction and experiments that were conducted during WW2.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;44686995]I think what makes it scary is that the decisions of a few men with the approval of the government to launch it resulted in the deaths of so many people, whereas the looting, the raping and the wanton violence were the actions of large bodies of men to whom their government chose to turn a blind eye. As you say, the clinical nature with which the atomic bomb worked was terrifying, but what makes it so frightening was that a few people got together in a room and agreed on the deaths of so many people, something far out of the scope of any other military operation at the time. To put it in perspective, the Normandy Beach landings resulted in the death of nearly 12,000 allied soldiers. The dropping of Fat Boy and Little Man resulted in the deaths of almost 246,000 people in a single go. And that's not counting the poor people who survived and we left irradiated to give birth to children who were severely deformed, taking away the chance of fatherhood and motherhood from innocent civilians who probably detested what the war had done to their country as much as a large number of German civilians who watched the horror of their Jewish friends being sent to Auschwitz. When you really think about it, the horror of it all, you really come to terms with the fact that human beings cannot justify using the term human to denote our positive traits as much as they've come to stand for the horrors we inflict on the environment, on other creatures and upon each other.[/QUOTE] War has always been the tool of a few highly influential individuals. When a king decides to send his armies to rape and burn and pillage, that is a choice made by a few that results in the death and torture of thousands. When a general orders the shelling of a populated city, when congress declares war, when the pope declares a crusade, these are all decisions made by a selective cabinet of socialites.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44686721]I never understood this sentiment. For all the cities that were burned to the ground, for all the millions that died, for all the rape and the torture and the inhumanity, the atomic bomb somehow stands out because it was . . . efficient? Powerful? Quick? I guess what I'm getting at is, what is the crime of the atomic bomb compared to the crime that is any given war? What does it matter how quickly those 10,000 people died or how close in proximity they were?[/QUOTE] Well the problem is more that many of them had nothing to do with the war and were civilians. As for the 'efficiency' or power of it, think of it this way - You could technically kill as many people with a single pistol as any ICBM in the world, if given enough time or concentration of people or whatever else. It doesn't mean that dead civilians are 'special' if killed by a nuclear bomb, but it is the most well-recognised figure of large-scale destruction. For example, in wars by the US against various native tribes, at least some 30,000 natives were killed. Civilian casualties in the modern war in Afghanistan number somewhere around 19,000. These are not less important, but the total loss of life and infrastructure damage from a nuclear bomb, as well as how gruesome the effects were (people trying to escape with skin hanging off of them, burn and radiation damage leaving people ill for years afterward) are what is recognised.

[QUOTE=Megafan;44687320]Well the problem is more that many of them had nothing to do with the war and were civilians. As for the 'efficiency' or power of it, think of it this way - You could technically kill as many people with a single pistol as any ICBM in the world, if given enough time or concentration of people or whatever else. It doesn't mean that dead civilians are 'special' if killed by a nuclear bomb, but it is the most well-recognised figure of large-scale destruction. For example, in wars by the US against various native tribes, at least some 30,000 natives were killed. Civilian casualties in the modern war in Afghanistan number somewhere around 19,000. These are not less important, but the total loss of life and infrastructure damage from a nuclear bomb, as well as how gruesome the effects were (people trying to escape with skin hanging off of them, burn and radiation damage leaving people ill for years afterward) are what is recognised.[/QUOTE] The effects of every war are gruesome. Be it fire, or blades, or bombs, I have yet to see or hear described the effects of a weapon that I could say was more or less brutal and foul than any given other. Send soldiers in with swords and they cut people apart from the crotch upwards. Send in soldiers with guns and they'll blow apart extremities piece by piece. Send in soldiers with atomic bombs and they'll inflict mutation and radiation poisoning. I think what bothers me is the idea that the nuclear bomb was the "bad thing" we did in the war, and that the rest was perfectly justified. The idea that if you send in young men to kill people with their own hands it's just, but once they're removed from the picture those same deaths become an atrocity. It seems like an appalling strain of contradictory revisionist thinking to me.