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

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44687605]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.[/quote] Well sure, you can do those things, but in a general sense, if I had to compare being set on fire or being shot through the brain, I would probably say the latter is at least less torturous for the victim. [quote]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.[/QUOTE] I don't recall ever suggesting that. Of course war is atrocious and it's a crime against human dignity to even pit millions of young men, many drafted, to kill each other on behalf of some lofty ideas about their country. But, if we are going to critique it, we have to talk in degrees of things. If you can make no meaningful distinction between genocide and a single death, then you can't discuss it at all.

[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] Not really, most of our war crimes were swept under the rug. Its the victors who write history, not the losers. Prime example is most modern text books dont even bring up the american firebombings over japan which were fucking devastating to civilians.

I didn't even know about the firebombings until this thread. Sheesh.

[QUOTE=Megafan;44687689]Well sure, you can do those things, but in a general sense, if I had to compare being set on fire or being shot through the brain, I would probably say the latter is at least less torturous for the victim. I don't recall ever suggesting that. Of course war is atrocious and it's a crime against human dignity to even pit millions of young men, many drafted, to kill each other on behalf of some lofty ideas about their country. But, if we are going to critique it, we have to talk in degrees of things. If you can make no meaningful distinction between genocide and a single death, then you can't discuss it at all.[/QUOTE] I would probably prefer vaporization, honestly. At least it can't miss. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that killing or torturing one person is the same as killing and torturing ten thousand. I'm saying that killing and torturing ten thousand people over the course of many years is no less foul than killing and torturing ten thousand people in an instant. A bomb is dropped, or a building is destroyed, or a boat is sunk, and it's a tragedy worthy of regret, shame, or apology. Then five times as many people die in a related war, and then it's just "civilian casualties". The war was fine, but the bomb was evil. Or to put it another way, war is just, but the inevitable results of war are not. We should apologize for the atrocity that was the atomic bomb, but not for the atrocity that was the war. Because one was an atrocity, but the other was just war and that's just how war is. I hope I'm making sense here, I don't feel like I'm being as clear as I should be.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44687973]I would probably prefer vaporization, honestly. At least it can't miss. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that killing or torturing one person is the same as killing and torturing ten thousand. I'm saying that killing and torturing ten thousand people over the course of many years is no less foul than killing and torturing ten thousand people in an instant. A bomb is dropped, or a building is destroyed, or a boat is sunk, and it's a tragedy worthy of regret, shame, or apology. Then five times as many people die in a related war, and then it's just "civilian casualties". The war was fine, but the bomb was evil. Or to put it another way, war is just, but the inevitable results of war are not. We should apologize for the atrocity that was the atomic bomb, but not for the atrocity that was the war. Because one was an atrocity, but the other was just war and that's just how war is. I hope I'm making sense here, I don't feel like I'm being as clear as I should be.[/QUOTE] I just think you're conflating the wrong things here. War itself is not 'just', it depends on what you mean. For example even a humanitarian operation might be construed as 'war' by someone opposed to it, but that doesn't mean it is. Not that war was a humanitarian operation or that civilian casualties were justified within it, but you should recognise that simply being in a war may not be your fault. Poland being invaded by the Germans (and subsequently going to war with them) is probably not something the Polish government needs to apologise for, but I think most people acknowledge that war hurts people of all parties involved in some way or another. If anything, we treat combatants' deaths as different from civilian ones, but even still it is widely known that the conditions of war are very bad.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44686380]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.[/QUOTE] Haha Japan wasn't preparing to sue for peace. They were preparing to fight for the death. Have you ever heard of the Potsdam Declaration? Of course you haven't! The Potsdam Declaration was a collaborative declaration by the Allies calling for the surrender of Japan and basically giving them one last chance. The document warned the Japanese of an incoming hail of fire like they never would have seen, instead of accepting the terms the Japanese said "fuck that shit" and continued on with the war. Also, during this period they were preparing citizens of all ages on fighting to the death. Such as teaching them how to fight with improvised weapons, small unit tactics, etc. If the Japanese were preparing to sue for peace I don't see why they would do any of the things they did prior to the use of the atomic bombs. Also, I'm not going to cite Wikipedia so you can Google everything I just said.

I've literally heard each side of the debate blather on without any real ability to say who's right at the end of the day. Part of the argument says that the japanese would never give up and would have fought to the death and the allies expected massive death tolls if an invasion is attempted. The other side of the argument says that the government would have laid down and surrendered. I've had different history professors on the subject each say different things.

[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] The bombs really didn't do anything though. If you wanted to cause mass casualties the fire bombings were just as effective of causing havoc. The bomb was used because it was the newest innovation, we felt a need to show our force with it, and to hopefully scare Ivan a bit with it. There are numerous ways to give the Japanese "total destruction" we just needed to try out the newest one.

That's why there's a very heavy debate about the usage of the atomic bomb. Nobody knows for certain if it was the right thing to do. But I feel given the information [i]at the time[/i], Truman felt it to be the best option to end the war immediately. [i]At the time[/i], nobody knew the long-term effects of atomic bombs, but it was inevitable someone was going to use it on somebody. Be thankful that it wasn't the Nazis or Soviets to use it first on the Allies. Also, this is getting pretty off-topic from comfort women. [editline]30th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Tureis;44690633]The bombs really didn't do anything though. If you wanted to cause mass casualties the fire bombings were just as effective of causing havoc. The bomb was used because it was the newest innovation, we felt a need to show our force with it, and to hopefully scare Ivan a bit with it. There are numerous ways to give the Japanese "total destruction" we just needed to try out the newest one.[/QUOTE] It causes a massive drop in morale when you learn your enemies have the ability to erase cities from the map with a single bomb in a matter of seconds.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44690483]I've literally heard each side of the debate blather on without any real ability to say who's right at the end of the day. Part of the argument says that the japanese would never give up and would have fought to the death and the allies expected massive death tolls if an invasion is attempted. The other side of the argument says that the government would have laid down and surrendered. I've had different history professors on the subject each say different things.[/QUOTE] Well the "government would have laid down and surrendered" is a pretty shite argument in my opinion since the Japanese government openly refused surrender, and encouraged people of all ages to train and prepare to fight to the death. Also, you need to see how the Japanese treated the Okinawan's during the Battle of Okinawa. They scared and coerced hundreds of thousands of Okinawan's to kill themselves and even used them as cannon fodder to keep fighting on, and considering Okinawa is less then 1% of Japan's total area just imagine how that would have gone down in the Japanese mainland.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;44691192]Well the "government would have laid down and surrendered" is a pretty shite argument in my opinion since the Japanese government openly refused surrender, and encouraged people of all ages to train and prepare to fight to the death.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/url] [quote]On June 9, the Emperor's confidant Marquis Kōichi Kido wrote a "Draft Plan for Controlling the Crisis Situation," warning that by the end of the year Japan's ability to wage modern war would be extinguished and the government would be unable to contain civil unrest. "... We cannot be sure we will not share the fate of Germany and be reduced to adverse circumstances under which we will not attain even our supreme object of safeguarding the Imperial Household and preserving the national polity."[40] Kido proposed that the Emperor take action, by offering to end the war on "very generous terms." Kido proposed that Japan withdraw from the formerly European colonies it had occupied provided they were granted independence, that Japan disarm provided this not occur under Allied supervision, and that Japan for a time be "content with minimum defense." Kido's proposal did not contemplate Allied occupation of Japan, prosecution of war criminals or substantial change in Japan's system of government. With the Emperor's authorization, Kido approached several members of the Supreme Council, the "Big Six." Tōgō was very supportive. Suzuki and Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, were both cautiously supportive; each wondered what the other thought. General Korechika Anami, the Army minister, was ambivalent, insisting that diplomacy must wait until "after the United States has sustained heavy losses" in Operation Ketsugō.[41] In June, the Emperor lost confidence in the chances of achieving a military victory. The Battle of Okinawa was lost, and he learned of the weakness of the Japanese army in China, of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria, of the navy, and of the army defending the Home Islands. The Emperor received a report by Prince Higashikuni from which he concluded that "it was not just the coast defense; the divisions reserved to engage in the decisive battle also did not have sufficient numbers of weapons."[42] According to the Emperor: I was told that the iron from bomb fragments dropped by the enemy was being used to make shovels. This confirmed my opinion that we were no longer in a position to continue the war.[42] On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."[43] It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City, were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they were believed unable to do more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain.[44][/quote] The Japanese would not have fought to defend their country. They were finally tired of war, even by the time the atomic bombs had been dropped.

Japanese were insanely brutal during world war 2

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44686380]Except the Japanese were already preparing to sue for peace. The Japanese military was in retreat on all fronts. [/QUOTE] It was a close call. After the bombings the generals who wanted to continue the war attempted a coup and luckily failed.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44691230][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/url] The Japanese would not have fought to defend their country. They were finally tired of war, even by the time the atomic bombs had been dropped.[/QUOTE] The military itself attempted a last minute coup of the countries government, no?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44691292]The military itself attempted a last minute coup of the countries government, no?[/QUOTE] And could have it held onto power? Not to mention the coup failed.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44691315]And could have it held onto power? Not to mention the coup failed.[/QUOTE] The coup did fail, but wasn't the timeline of events inside the country hard to decipher from an outside point of view? [editline]30th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;44691312]I was taught the real reason was to prevent the soviets from getting involved, if I remember correctly The Soviets had agreed to get involved in the pacific theater. Them getting involved would mean increasing the soviet sphere of influence once the conflict had reached the carving up stage.[/QUOTE] I've heard this as well. It's well documented that the US used the power gap created by nuking japan into surrender to capture as many japanese sub-carrier ships and any and all other technology they could get their hands on.

The other problem of using the bomb is that the Japanese government could blame loss of the war on these super weapons, instead of civil unrest and economic woes. Had the Japanese government continued to fight on, a revolution would have most likely arisen and removed the imperial system and the military government.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44691429]I suppose the US should've nuked Iraq instead of invading them by that logic.[/QUOTE] But then again, oil.

[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. [/QUOTE] Uh, hello? If you read the caption again you'll see that: [QUOTE] [b]Japanese women[/b] hold portraits of Chinese, Philippine, South Korean and Taiwanese former 'comfort women' who were sex slaves for Japanese soldiers during the second world war. [/QUOTE] Yes. [b]Japanese women[/b]. [b]Japanese citizens[/b]. And when the fuck was this about the USA?

[QUOTE=snookypookums;44691874]But then again, oil.[/QUOTE] since when did the USA invade iraq for oil

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44686261][B]American war crimes were nothing compared to the horrors that the Nazi and IJA unleashed upon others[/B]. 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] i'm sorry, you were saying? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan[/url]

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44692704]i'm sorry, you were saying? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan[/url][/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but your examples only reinforce my point. The American war crimes were nothing compared to the Nazi or IJA. Mutiliation and trophy-taking was massively condemned by the civilian population and military generals. In addition, only a minority of the armed forces participated in the war crime, while most others just watched. As for the rape during occupation, it was nothing to the scale of "comfort women". The rapes took place only during the initial landing of Japan, when the soldiers were still pissed-off at the "japs". [quote="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan"]American soldiers did sometimes deliberately kill Okinawan civilians, though American official policy was to not kill civilians. The Americans also provided food and medicine, something the Japanese had been unable to do. [b]In view of the propaganda claiming that American policy would be rape, torture and murder, the Okinawans were often surprised at "the comparatively humane treatment".[/b] Over time, Okinawans would become increasingly despondent with the Americans, but at the time of surrender [b]the American soldiers were less vicious than had been expected.[/b][/quote] So rather than help the defeated populace, the IJA instead made "comfort women" out of them. Do you still think American war crimes were just as terrible as the ones committed by the IJA? And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44694194]I'm sorry, but your examples only reinforce my point. The American war crimes were nothing compared to the Nazi or IJA. Mutiliation and trophy-taking was massively condemned by the civilian population and military generals. In addition, only a minority of the armed forces participated in the war crime, while most others just watched. As for the rape during occupation, it was nothing to the scale of "comfort women". The rapes took place only during the initial landing of Japan, when the soldiers were still pissed-off at the "japs". So rather than help the defeated populace, the IJA instead made "comfort women" out of them. Do you still think American war crimes were just as terrible as the ones committed by the IJA? And this is only the tip of the iceberg.[/QUOTE] how about the camps of Rheinwiesenlager? and tokyo firebombings? yeah the nazis and the japanese did incredibly fucked up shit, but the way you put it, you make it sound as if it gave the americans the right to commit warcrimes. is it that hard to admit that the US did incredibly fucked up stuff during the war, and got away with it, in pretty much everything?

I'm not denying that the US comitted war crimes as well, but they were nothing to the scale of what the Nazis and Japanese comitted.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44691230][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/url] The Japanese would not have fought to defend their country. They were finally tired of war, even by the time the atomic bombs had been dropped.[/QUOTE] Hindsight is 20/20.