Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japanese atrocities in Nanking

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I don't blame the code, I blame the people and in the case, the IJA.

    After a period of ultra- nationalism/racist development in the 1920s, the code has been cherry picked to serve an imperialistic ambition, all the “good aspect” of the code was out of the window, while all aspects of blink and divine loyalty were reinforced. Instead of looking at the code, one should look at what IJA taught at their military schools
    Last edited by xinhui; 25 Nov 08,, 06:52.
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Chaobam Armour View Post
      Bushido-Code. The way of the Warrior. This will correct you about the Samurai.

      http://www.aikido-world.com/articles...%20Samurai.htm
      ha, a code of conduct not upheld is as good as nothing. the japanese can praise bushido in anyway they liked, and as a form of modern self help or self-discipline i wouldnt doubt its usefulness. but in times of war, too bad, everything is thrown out of the window.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by xinhui View Post
        Like most of the Japanese intro to Bushido, it complete by past one important factor of consideration, namely the creation of Bushido as a state ideology to "control" by creating a sense of loyalty to the warrior class toward the ruling class by the Tokugawa with a heavy borrowing from Neo-Confucianism.

        See Gilbert Rozman's The East Asian Region -- Confucian Heritage and its Modern Adoption

        Also see Martin Collcultt's The legacy of Confucianism in Japan which deals directly in to the relationship between Neo Confucianism and the Samurai code

        confucianism is only one part in the creation of bushido. confucianism probably brought along the social heirachy and the code of conducts between different social class, although it is still slightly different from its chinese origin. if we give most of the credit to confucianism we wouldnt be able to explain for example, the 'kamikaze' part, or say why japanese are particularly good at making minature gadgets with high degree of precision.

        buddhist zenism and the natural geography/climate of japan are the other two major influences that helped to shape bushido. in general, because of the long, thin shape of the island state, climatic changes are pretty distinctive, and so were the climate diffenrences at different part of the island. japanese had, since dozen of centuries ago, became very obsessed with climate changes(thus the idea of time passing) and everything that hint or signify such changes. their literature, clothings, decorations, food and color themes of everyday life all includes such changes.

        the coming of buddhism introduced the idea of 'impermanace' ('Anitya' in sunskrit, meaning, every conditioned existence, without exception, is inconstant and in flux) to the japanese. the japanese found it very easy to understand and adopt this as a philosophy cos it's pretty close to their understanding and obsession in climatic changes. they carry on to develope the idea that one has to excel(even if it's just for once) in his life, without much consideration for the price or consequences. just like the blossom of sakura tree, showing their short-lived beauty and then shed with the passing wind of spring. as long as they showed their best part at the right time, it doesnt matter if it lasts long or not. therefore although the bushido code deals with loyalty, benevolence, honesty and other positive virtues, it is also deeply associated with death.

        such passion drove them to fulfill either their duties or their dreams to the very end, without much calculations or common moral concept of good, evil, right(morally desirable) or wrong(morally undesirable). it also drove them to perfect their skills, or creations, to the very minute details, even to the cost of disregarding other factors. they wanted the zero fighters to be light and agile, so amour and safety were reduced to minimal. they wanted to be cost effective cos they dont have much resources to spare, so their shooters are exceptionally good with their arisakas and they have very little machine guns manufactured. they are prone to go to the extreme end of things if left unchecked. at the end of it, death is the ultimate fulfilment for them. thats why we see kamikazes and human bombs, and surrender is in general, not an option. in fact they simply dont compromise to other people's view. they get confucianism and buddhism from china, but explained and developed it into their own way. even their curvy samurai swords was a failed copy of chinese swordsmithing skills, but they honed it into becoming their special way of martial arts. ultimately they try to explain the invasion and war crimes in their own way.
        Last edited by Aniki; 25 Nov 08,, 08:15.

        Comment


        • #49
          they wanted the zero fighters to be light and agile, so amour and safety were reduced to minimal.
          Your post assumes to much, I think. The Zero sacrificed armor and safety because the technology Japan had did not allow nimbleness and protection. Forced like every one else to choose one of the other they drew on their experiences in China and concluded, incorrectly, that agility was the key factor for an aircraft to have. This is not in anyway tied to philosophy, but on what they thought a weapon of war needed.

          You should consider reading Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific, by Eric M Bergerud. I think it might open your eyes a bit and cause you to rethink the Japanese as generally beign far more methodical and scientific than bound by some "honor" code that influenced design concepts.

          A person could make the same argument about Kamikaze and Banzai, that they were natural outgrowths of combat experience, not Bushido. Japan knew it was unmatched when the US did not sue for peace. Their only hope from the middle of 1943 onward was to make the US pay so much blood, they could not invade. Prior to that force conservation was still a factor as when the survivors were evacuated off Guadalcanal. But once the Imperial Navy was gutted and the policy of leap frogging became apparent there was no longer any way to send troops to a garrison under attack or bring that garrison out. The Japanese moves to build up the garrisons on Okinawa and Iwo Jima being classic examples. Once the US showed up, physical contact with Japan was terminated.

          By refusing to surrender, those garrisons and the others like them bought Japan time. The same goes for the kamikaze, if Japan lost 50 planes and barely pilots to sink a US destroyer it was a net gain for them. The US Navy knew this, and if not for the radio proximity fuse, WWII in the Pacific might have been a stalemate until America had the atomic bomb.

          This practicality on the part of the Japanese has a direct bearing on Nanking. While the rank and file may have subscribed to a warriors code, the command did not. The generals and governments failure to act to keep troops in line is a direct indictment of Japan's leadership. If Japan is practical about A, B and C then it stands to reason that action D is also taken with an eye towards practicality.

          Did Nanking serve such a purpose? I would argue it did, the killed prisoners could never again pose a risk to Japan or kill more Japanese. The killings of the civilians also served to relieve tension among the Japanese troops who had been taking a pounding and heavy losses since August- it was stress relief. Western armies had let troops engage in an orgy of looting and pillaging (Devils Wind- Delhi), or engaged in the whole sale destruction of an enemies city (Atlanta) within living memory. It was also an object lesson for the rest of China that served a very practical political purpose. Where again we can direct western examples within living memory (Plains Indians (US), Philippines (US), Belgian civilians (Germany)).

          Comment


          • #50
            i think it would be a 'chicken or egg' debate, on whether they sacrifice protection cos they didnt have the skills to get both agility and safety, or, becos of resources constrain they decided not to develope the skills of getting both.

            from my experience with japanese publishings like 'Bunrindo Famous Aircraft' series or 'Mechanism of Military Aircraft' series (the japanese kind of 'Osprey' series or 'Verlinden Lock On' series), in these explainations regarding their design philosophy, the emphsis seems to be always on the agility part. even when they can manage to get relatively powerful engines to accomodate more weight and thus justifying better protection, they simply dont care about pilot protection, self-sealing tanks and all these minor improvements which they already mastered and can be easily implemented. they just wanted the planes remain small and as light as possible, and fly fast and far. in these aircraft introductions the japanese authors often go into very detailed explainations on the numourous minor weight cuts, but never cared about safety. thats the part that really fascinates me and makes me think so.

            as for the buying time reason. i really cant comprehen they want to buy time for what? so that the emperor and rest of the civilians can migrate to atlantis and avoid total defeat? the fact is their military leaders, and probably a large portion of the govt people, already knew that they were going to lose. but the one and only slogan they used/proposed during that time was '100mil total destruction' (100mil = japanese population, japan+manchuria+taiwan). they werent prepared to stall for anything, they were looking forward to 'over my dead body' kind of consequence.

            some of the 'practical' reasons for the nanking massacre, explained by japanese military leaders during trials, include:
            1, nanking was the chinese capital, a total destruction will demoralise chinese, ensuring an immediate surrender of the kmt govt.
            2, they havent got enough food for everyone in the city. population of nanking was around 1 mil, plus 100+K surrendered chinese troop, while the japanese troops numbered only 120K or so. according to 2 chinese census prior to 1937, the population count is probably true (190-199K households. average size of 5 persons/house will make 1mil head count).
            3, action of some of the undisciplined officers.

            i think the reasons are a little far-fetched cos
            1, since japanese are very familiar with chinese history, they should know that no chinese empire in history ever surrender immediately after their capital was taken. wont happen. the chinese may give up some land but they will try to sustain as long as possible.
            2, kill the civvies cos they got no food? 'reasonable' from practical pov, but definitely unacceptable. doesnt fit the reasoning too cos they didnt wipe out everyone, if they were really short of food.
            3, japanese officers during the early stages of the war are pretty well-desciplined. they usually act only upon orders. it was only at later stage of the war when the old timers were lost and they began to have punks filling in the officers' post.
            Last edited by Aniki; 26 Nov 08,, 11:47.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              The killings of the civilians also served to relieve tension among the Japanese troops who had been taking a pounding and heavy losses since August- it was stress relief
              Jesus zraver, I thought you were a nice guy.

              That has to be the most brutally-cold-blooded observation written since Caesar wrote De Bellum Gallico.

              Not saying you are wrong though...
              L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                Jesus zraver, I thought you were a nice guy.

                That has to be the most brutally-cold-blooded observation written since Caesar wrote De Bellum Gallico.

                Not saying you are wrong though...
                With the exception of Russia and the Arabs I try and not get to emotional. I call it as I see it.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Aniki View Post
                  i think it would be a 'chicken or egg' debate, on whether they sacrifice protection cos they didnt have the skills to get both agility and safety, or, becos of resources constrain they decided not to develope the skills of getting both.
                  No its not, the A6M was designed to combat the Chinese and Russian air forces as they existed at the time. The A5 Claude was designed on the same principles and the Zero was simply a refinement over that. Combat experience in China and Mongolia taught the Japanese that agility was king so that is what the went after. The same experiences taught them that dog fighting would be a 1v1 situation and so they never really developed formation tactics. This led to allied pilots referring to large groups of japanese fighters as swarms, they did not fight as a team. Had resources truly been an issue Japan would not have built the super battleships.

                  This Chinese experience was also reinforced by the needs of the navy for very long ranged craft. Since China taught them most combat was at low level, big wings to hold a lot of fuel in the thick air was actually beneficial and helped accent the crafts agility, but above 20,000' the Zero was a target, not a fighter.

                  A bit later in the war, the Japanese tried to switch to a Western Model with the Tony, but its complexity and a shortage of technically trained individuals meant this plane was a nightmare to keep running. The final and probably best Japanese fighter was the Ki-84 very much western inspired and the better of the Hellcat in the right hands.

                  as for the buying time reason. i really cant comprehen they want to buy time for what?
                  For America to grow tired of war, without the A-bomb it might have worked. There were serious rumblings by the troops in Europe about being sent to fight another war, industry wanted to switch back to civilian production, and every one was dreading the cost of the invasion-insipred directly by the Japanese defense of useless rockballs.

                  the fact is their military leaders, and probably a large portion of the govt people, already knew that they were going to lose. but the one and only slogan they used/proposed during that time was '100mil total destruction' (100mil = japanese population, japan+manchuria+taiwan). they werent prepared to stall for anything, they were looking forward to 'over my dead body' kind of consequence.
                  Those Japanese troops gave their lives to make America think twice about invasion. They succeeded, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the war orphans of Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan and Tarawa

                  [/quote]some of the 'practical' reasons for the nanking massacre, explained by japanese military leaders during trials, include:et al [/quote]

                  What did other armies do under similar conditions? Pretty much the same thing, the Russians did it in 1945. War is ugly, and troops under a lot of pressure have a history going back millennium of taking that stress out on civilians. What the Japanese did was not a war crime even 100 years earlier, but by the end of WWII it was: and so necks were stretched doing the Tyburn Jig.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    what, comfort women was not enough?
                    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      The main area of disagreement between Tokyo and Beijing is that Beijing states that this was an organized affair while Tokyo maintained that this was the actions of loyal ranking officers who got out of control.

                      There is merit to both claims. If it was organized, then it was a damned bad organization since whole city blocks were left untouched and leakage was good as an open tap. However, far too many people died not to state some organization. Still, what is known that the RoCA garrison surrendered according to terms of the Geneva Convention, the IJA ignored it and butchered the garrison and burried most alive. The IJA Headquarters in Tokyo knew about the garrison but did nothing. However, a week later, the IJA HQ had to send a general to stop the butchering.
                      Much of the Japanese war effort was like this: rigidly organized, but sloppily executed. Look at their small arms. They launched a brutal war, "to the knife, and the knife in to the hilt," while they were in the midst of a caliber conversion. As a result, Japanese forces were burdened throughout the war with supplying three different "standard" rifle cartridges. You can find similar examples from every branch and level of service.

                      My suspicion is that, overall, their arrogance led them to believe that their fighting spirit and any inherent superiority would overcome any lapse in planning.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Both the PTO and the Russian Front were cases of mercy neither asked nor given.
                        Having spoken to veterans (military and civilian) of both theaters, from all sides involved save the Japanese, it seems to me that the overall thrust of the Eastern Front, even the brutality, still kept the ultimate war goals in mind, while the Japanese seemd to be brutal out of sheer sadism. They may well have derived some social benifit from it, gaining status or fitting in among their fellows, for example, but the motivation appears to be other than simply winning the war.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          It certainly seems that way. While cannibalism existed on all fronts, the IJA takes extreme measures and pleasures in keeping the meat fresh such as taking only the limbs while keeping the man alive for another week or so before putting him out of his miseries.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by GraniteForge View Post
                            My suspicion is that, overall, their arrogance led them to believe that their fighting spirit and any inherent superiority would overcome any lapse in planning.
                            And were they surprised when the Soviets finally entered the war. It makes one wonder how much shorter the entire war would have been had Stalin finished the Japanese before taking on Hitler, freeing up the Americans from the PTO.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              And were they surprised when the Soviets finally entered the war. It makes one wonder how much shorter the entire war would have been had Stalin finished the Japanese before taking on Hitler, freeing up the Americans from the PTO.
                              Stalin didn't really have a choice. If he had thrown his weight against Japan instead of Germany, he wouldn't have had much of a country left.

                              And its not clear that many Americans would have been freed up. If you look at the history of the war, US assets that were deployed to the Pacific, whether units, ships, or individuals, tended to stay there, even after the war. My father, as a very salty Navy CPO, was deemed "essential," and kept in the Pacific until the mid-1950s.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                What did other armies do under similar conditions? Pretty much the same thing, the Russians did it in 1945. War is ugly, and troops under a lot of pressure have a history going back millennium of taking that stress out on civilians. What the Japanese did was not a war crime even 100 years earlier, but by the end of WWII it was: and so necks were stretched doing the Tyburn Jig.
                                The Japanese did what Wellington's army did during the Peninsula campaign. In the 19th century code of warfare, the city that continued to resist after the first assault party is deprived of all legal protection when it falls.
                                All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                                -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X