Anon

spittle8

"Although the Japanese soldiers did mutilate people in Nanking there were never any accusations of them mutulating the bodies of dead soldiers/Marines. It would have been against the teachings of their religion and the Bushido code. Also any Japanese soldier that was found guilty of mutilating a warriors corpse would have been "encurraged" to commit seppuku to regain their honor."

Bullshat. Are you saying that numerous veterans of Guadalcanal and elsewhere are liars? That's a big statement. I'd take the soldiers word on this before yours.

Bushido was a WORD. It is a GREAT myth that Japanese soldiers rarely surrendered, or that they followed Bushido so closely. No. Bushido was an ideal for the entitled, historically, the "warrior class". The men who actually fought, the peasant class, had no illusions of grandeur. Well, not to the same extent. Saying that Japanese soldiers closely followed the rules of Bushido is like saying that militan Muslims are faithful to their creed. Just not so.

Gun Grape

I am saying that there were never any reports of it in official records of the various campaigns. That NO charges were ever brought up in regards to mutilation against enemy combatants in the war crimes tribunals..

That from various PMEs that I attended, put on by WW2 veterans of 2d and 6th Mar regts, there was never any mention of "They mutilated our dead."

That, during various discussions with Gen James Day to include 2 battlefield studies on Okinawa, he said those things didn't happen. And that question was asked. He participated in the Marshal Islands, Guam and Okinawa.

That during battlefield tours in the phillipines, and Iwo Jima, led by participants of those battles, no one ever mentioned dead being mutilated.

Gen Day's son was my Battery Commander and Gen Day was the CG of Camp Butler. Kind of neat the last Active duty person that took part in the battle of Okinawa served on okinawa as his last duty station. And the place he earned the MoH.

Does that mean that the vets that you spoke to were lying? No. But if mutilation did happen it was very rare.



I never said that ALL Japanese soldiers closly follower the Bushido code. Rather it was taught to them by the IJA/IJN. Was codified in the rules of the Japanese military and the act of mutilation is against All of the mainstream religions practiced
in Japan.

Saying that they all closely followed it woiuld be like saying that all soldiers and Marines closly follow the rules and regulations in the UCMJ.

It is a fact that the penalty in the Japanese Imperial Army for mutilating a enemy combatant was death. That they would give the individual the option of killing hisself, saving his familys honor and having the family be able to draw his penson does make since.

Now you believe that Bushido was a myth for the "Pesent class". Would you care to explain the hundreds of soldiers that refused to surrender after the war? Many living in the jungles until former COs, or family members were brought to convince them to come home? Or my example of the Seppuku deaths at the naval Headquarters in Naha, Okinawa ?

Anon

I am saying that there were never any reports of it in official records of the various campaigns. That NO charges were ever brought up in regards to mutilation against enemy combatants in the war crimes tribunals..

Japanese prisoncamp "Doctors" sure didnt seem to have any problem mutilating LIVING American prisoners for their "experiments".

That is quite well documented.

Japanese officers also didn't mind decapitating living americans with their Katana's either. Which obviously results in a mutilated dead body. If their intent was to merely kill, they could do that with a simple thrust to the chest/belly.
But they DECAPITATED American prisoners almost without fail when they were executed, and that's a disfigurement any way you cut it.

Also, the Japanese used Allied prisoners for LIVE bayonet practice.

You're defending the wrong piece of shiit subhuman animals Gunny.

Gun Grape

And you will hear no argument by me about what was done in the prison camps.
Those things are well documented. The argument was about mutilating dead combatants on the battlefield. We all know how they treated prisoners.

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the japanese but clear up the misconception that spittle has.

spittle8

I'm not mistaken. Veterans put this idea in my head, not propaganda.

We didn't follow through on many war crimes charges for one big reason: we were occupying Japan, and we wanted their complacency. It is why we didn't kill Hirohito, why we didn't prosecute those very doctors that M21 cited. They did unimaginable things. Not just to the Chinese, but to our POWs. No anesthesia, men were torn apart while alive, to see what would happen. They tested biological weapons on them. Horrible stuff. Instead of killing (preferably in the same ways they killed ours) them, and having a nice, mock trial, we let them go so that we might learn their knowledge on biological weapons. Real nice, huh? That is why the Japs can worship at the Yasukuni warshrine, where these pigs are glorified. They later became wealthy doctors in Japan. But we had the Red Menace, we didn't want Japan to lean towards the Soviets.

How might you prosecute individual Japanese soldiers, undistinguishable from the other Japanese soldiers, when these very Japs almost certainly died?

" That from various PMEs that I attended, put on by WW2 veterans of 2d and 6th Mar regts, there was never any mention of "They mutilated our dead." "

Perhaps they don't want to remember it. Perhaps they didn't witness it. It did, however, happen, on many occasions.

"That, during various discussions with Gen James Day to include 2 battlefield studies on Okinawa, he said those things didn't happen. And that question was asked. He participated in the Marshal Islands, Guam and Okinawa."

It happened at Guadalcanal.

"That during battlefield tours in the phillipines, and Iwo Jima, led by participants of those battles, no one ever mentioned dead being mutilated."

I think M21 already demonstrated the issue of the katana deaths. On Iwo Jima, they weren't in a position that they were in on Guadalcanal, they couldn't take dead bodies of Marines and mutilate them, while both sides had their own battle lines to stand behind. I believe, that on Iwo Jima, we basically blew the crap out of them, and then stormed in, and dealt with what was left. Not much time (and not very wise) to mutilate bodies.

"Now you believe that Bushido was a myth for the "Pesent class". Would you care to explain the hundreds of soldiers that refused to surrender after the war? Many living in the jungles until former COs, or family members were brought to convince them to come home? Or my example of the Seppuku deaths at the naval Headquarters in Naha, Okinawa ?"

That was nationalism, and brain washing. Not Bushido. Bushido, like organized religion, was merely an excuse to commit crimes. The military elite in Japan were rarely peasants. Yamamoto was exceptional, for this reason.

"Was codified in the rules of the Japanese military and the act of mutilation is against All of the mainstream religions practiced
in Japan."

Well, Nanking. Not many Japanese soldiers were executed for that, eh? They had institutional rape, where they had hundreds of thousands (millions of condoms were being shipped to the front, all the time) of Chinese women, enslaved as prostitutes, to be raped as much as 50 times a day. They executed the most disgusting war crimes, that I am personally aware of, in human history. They went beyond mutilation. I don't think the Japanese really cared for that rule.

The specific charge on Guadalcanal, was that they were cutting the genitals off of dead Marines, and putting them in their mouths, for the survivors to find. During this same time, same place, the Japanese would harass Marines on their side of the front by calling out profanities in English, and egging them on. It was apparently an extremely hateful, disturbingly personal conflict. My favorite episodes have to be the case of the Marine gunner manning an MG, against hundreds of Japanese assaulters, who ends up getting blinded, and his spotter, who has his fingers blown off. The spotter spots for the blind gunner, and they killed guys that got within yards of them. That, and the guy who came walking into a Marine camp, after being separated from his company the previous night, covered in (Japanese) blood, holding his .45, and being offered some food.

Good argument, good to hear from you.

SnowLeopard

Mmmmmmm, 1 post on the topic line; 20 posts on something else, if related.

A and B. A: if such orders were given, then someone should be standing up and stating such. If such orders were not given, then someone should be standing up and stating such. The point that neither situation is happening leads me to believe that someone did give such an order but now that the situation is coming back to bite, they have taken cover and have left the enlisted man hanging out to dry. IMHO.

Unfortunally, I've seen things like this before, but not in combat. Where a superior officer orders one thing but then when questioned on it, then denies that he ever gave such an order. People are told to do things so he looks good but they only hold up so long as he is there, but fall apart soon after he leaves because the task was not done properally. Been there, had it done to me, so I find it not too hard to at least believe that a similar situation may be in place.

B: If that is the case, then leadership of the troops has failed. Leadership in such cases must be complete and honest so officers, commissioned and noncoms, stand up and stand behind the orders that they give, even if they turn out to be wrong. The troops must be properally led so when they are on their own, if there is a question of what they must to do, they can answer the question by asking "What would the Sgt./Lt. do?" and proceed from that point.

But I do not believe in these cases that the people giving the orders, setting the examples, have an ounce of the idea of what it means to give the orders and set the example.

IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------
("No, Sir, I don't recall ever giving such an order."--Officer lying under oath.
Stunned, then recoverying, "It is immaterial that such an order, to kill prisoners, has been stated as not being given by higher authority. What is material, Sir, is the all those in the Bushveldt Carbineers were told that was the order by their (late) commanding officer."--Maj. Thomas, defense, (w,stte), "Breaker Morant")

Shek

SnowLeopard,

You try cases in court, not in public. Hence, the lack of confirmatory statements coming out. Until the investigation is complete and trial is complete, if it comes to that, you won't hear many statements if any at all. Silence is indicative of only one thing - the criminal case is still underway.

Next, given that a SSG is being held, then it is more than likely that a PSG, PL, or higher would have given this supposed order. I find it hard to believe that the other 25 or so members of a platoon, or 75+ other members of a company would all fail to mention that the PSG/PL/CO/1SG/whoever gave this supposed order spoke of "killing all military age males." It's too easy to check this information during the initial investigation, which led to the detention of these four soldiers.

Next, if the order was to kill all military age males, then why were detainees even taken???? The actions of the soldiers are not consistent with the alleged orders. If they had the conscience to understand that such an order was illegal as evidenced by the fact they took detainees, you don't suddenly catch amnesia and then decide that it would be a good defense in a criminal trial.

Lastly, the "kill all miltary age males" doesn't even jive with their defense. Their attorney is claiming that it was done in self-defense. If so, then the order is irrelevent to their situation (except to tank their credibility as I pointed out in the previous paragraph) and just PR disinformation.

So, in conclusion, while there are plenty of facts that we just don't know and won't know until after the investigations and any trials are complete, if you had to judge right now and speculate towards a potential judgement, the story being proffered by the soldiers' attorney has a hole wide enough for an Abrams to drive through it comfortably.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Gun Grape

I know he was banned, but maybe he stills lurks and can learn something.

But I doubt it.

We didn't kill the Emperor, because that was in the terms of surrender that we agreed to. The Royal family was spared.

You can blame McArthur for that. The doctors of Unit 731 that made it to Japan were spared by his order. Over the protest of the State Dept.

However the Soviets and Chinese did hold trials for those that they had. From unit 731 and the other BW units.


The Yasukuni War Shrine dates back to 1869. I'm not sure what you mean "Glorified". The names of 14 convicted class A war criminals are listed but it is a Shinto shrine whos only only criteria is that the person died serving the Emperor during a time of war. You must mean at the Yushukan museum. The place houses war relics all the way back to the mid 1800s. The whole theme there is "Sacrifice and Bravery". (like any military museum). The controversy there is that they claim that WW2 was a war of self defence for Japan.
The Government has stated that that is not the official version of WW2.

However it is a PRIVATE entity that is privatly funded. Per US orders after WW2. So the Government has no say in what they do.

You should go there if you ever go to Japan. It is very beautiful.

A little racism slipping out? Japanese people do not all look the same.

However there were over 3 thousand Japanese convicted in the Tokyo War Crime Tribunal. This doesn't include the other Tribunals held in other parts of the Far East.
It also doesn't account for the people that would have been prosecuted but were shown to have died.
But you said they mutilated dead bodies. Not that Japanese guards executed American POWs by beheading them. Hell we know about that.

You really need to brush up on your history

Once General Matsui took charge, the incidents stopped. Which leads me to believe that he either started enforcing the rules against that type of behavior. Or the soldiers loved him so much they took it on themselves to stop out of admiration


The only reference to any type of mutilation at Guadalcanal was Japanese putting severed heads of dead Marines on spikes in view of the Marines lines.


Like "I fart in your general Direction"
"I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper."
" Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. "

Taunting, OOh the horrors

Its not called War for nothing.


Actually the loader was killed, the gun team leader was shot in the arm. Although he could no longer load, he was able to fire his rifle one armed. PFC Al Schmid loaded and fired his MG for about 4 hours. Cpl Diamond would punch him when the belt was about to run out.

The blind firing episode only lasted for a few minutes. Cpl Leroy Diamond and PFC Schmid were both awarded the Navy Cross.

There is a great movie about Sgt Albert Schmid called "Pride of the Marines"

If that was a story, told by civilians, it would normally start off with "Once opon a time."