Rape Of Nanking: Japan has never even apologized

Danger Dave, good reply to my previous comments. It would be hard to argue with you about Irving since you have meet him and the fact that he waved the "bloody flag" about a Jewish conspiracy doesnt do him any good. One could argue about the total numbers of people killed but it doesnt change the facts of these exterminations. Stalin killed more than Hitler,but when we talk about numbers killed or who killed more, there is no sense in it.I give a lot of credit to the Germans of the postwar era who were taught what happened under Hitler . And the sad fact is that the postwar Japanese werent taught in their schools what their Army did to so many people. I think Macarthur missed the boat when he ran Japan after the war. But, you know our hands were not so clean during WWII. We even knew about the death camps and refused to bomb them. Maybe we were short of bombs? And,like I have pointed out, Heinrich Muller,after a few years in exile in Switzerland, was a valuable employee of the CIA in the late forties and beyond.
And this guy was head of the Gestapo which was not part of the extermination camps,but was still,of coarse, the major police agency inside Nazi Germany. I still am wondering if what he said about Churchill and FDR knowing where the Japanese Fleet was is true. If it is true ,what does that make Churchill? I guess we will never really know since much information is still classified.
 
RepublicThunderbolt,
The orders of that General can found on the book by Stanley Karnow, In Our Image America's Empire in the Philippines.
 
About the question did Churchill (or the British) know in 1941 about the attack to Pearl Harbor or against the USA in general, I think it is possible they knew that the Japanese were planning something in the Pacific. I would not be so sure if they knew it was Pearl Harbor they were heading.

There are at least two ways they could have obtained the knowledge outside Japan. First, the Soviets knew about the Japanese going to war in the Pacific, because they had an agent in Japan. It is no secret that this agent was Dr Sarge, a German national working in the German embassy in Tokyo. Immediately after the Japanese government's decision to go to war in the Pacific the Soviets started to transport troops from their Manchurian border to Moscow area because they knew Japanese would not attack the Soviet Union (that had been a second option for the Japanese), but instead in the Pacific. And since Stalin knew it, he might (or might not) have told it to his allies, the British.

Another good way for the British to get knowledge was the Operation Ultra (there is also a book of it with the same name). That meant opening coded German messages sent by radio. The German code machine "Enigma" was first stolen and some codes broken by Polish intelligence before the Germans occupied Poland. After the occupation of Poland the British continued with their best brains (including many university professors), and with help of some escaped Polish intelligence officers, the project of opening German messages, and till the end of the war could open most messages within hours while it had taken days or weeks in the beginning. So if the Germans radioed something about the Japanese plans in 1941 there was a good chance the British had opened it.

If Churchill has told about the Japanese plans to FDR, but did nothing more, you cannot blame Churchill, only FDR and men around him. A leader of a foreign country can warn another leader, but after that there is not much more he can do. It is unrealistic to think Churchill could have told the media that yes, he warned FDR, but FDR did not believe or react.

BTW, Finland made peace twice (1940 and 1944), but was never occupied during the WWII. London, Helsinki and Moscow (and that was close) were the only capitals never occupied by foreign troops among the European countries that participated the WWII.

Ossi
 
In view of the Rape of Nanking, how much has Japanese culture been "civilized" since then?

Japan seems to me, though I have never been there, to be a totalitarian state where the people are virtually "robotized".

The high rate of suicides in Japan shows it is not a paradise. Something stinks.

Why are they currently screaming for gun control in America? We buy their goods, they buy very little of ours.

They outmaneuvered and nearly destroyed the American auto industry.

They outmaneuvered most of the world motorcycle industry and nearly wiped it out.

I would laud them for capitalistic expertise but Japan did all this by "robotizing" the people in a Socialist environment.

What are their goals for America? Why are they trying to interfere (through the U.N.) and force us to give up our Second Amendment?

Is it merely a "more civilized" Rape of Nanking? (A ploy for Japanese dominance?)
 
Ossi, you're right. Finland was never conquered, but they were defeated twice. Once by the Soviets in the Winter War (about one Soviet general commented that they managed to wrest just enough land from the Finns to bury the Russian dead), and, because they allied themselves with the Nazis (revenge for the Winter War, I believe), they were defeated by the Allies.

The Japanese had tried to attack the USSR through Manchuria. They ran into the only major general that never lost a battle in WWII and his tough Siberian troops. They got their butts seriously kicked and never came back for more. After that, the Germans were the bigger threat, so the troops and their commander were recalled to defend Moscow.

If Churchill is guilty of not informing the US about PH, it was done in the interests of what was best for his own country. Would we ask any less of our leaders than to put our country first?

Back to the original thread - as bad as the Rape of Nanking was (and it was inexcusable), Chairman Mao killed more Chinese through his incompetence than the Japanese killed through malice, so maybe that kind of overshadowed what went on. China was a very active place after WWII, with the Communist revolt and all.
 
Gentlemen:

Re who knew what, and when they knew it concerning the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, I have a couple of times read a book entitled the Great Pacific War, can't recall the author's name. This book, written in the 1920's, as I recall, depicted pretty much all the major events of the pacific naval action in ww2. It did not mention the use of atomic weapons, but it would have been written a bit early to predict those events. Interested parties might look it up, and read same.
 
14 million Chinese civilians were butchered by the Japanese. The Japanese insisted that a civilized nation has no need for an armed population. I think that the butchered and raped residence of Nanking would like to disagree.

The Japanese did not only commited atrocities in China. The Koreans and the Indonesians also suffered greatly in the Japanese hand. I know a few Korean friends who hate the Japanese so much, they would not hesitate kicking the ***** out of some Japanese if they could get away with it.

I am also very upset that the Japanese do not want to admit to the attrocities that they commited. There many unrepentant Japanese out there. There was this unrepentant bastard who made the following speech:
"We (Japanese) would slash the throat of the bear (Russians), tear the wing of the eagle (US), enslave the Chinese and make the Korean women to be our prostitutes".

Johannes
 
Re: the atomic bombing of Japan. As one instructor said, "Why did it take TWO?". Even after Nagasaki, the military refused to
see reality and prepared to have the entire civilization immolated rather than surrender.

I read a great "code breaker" book recently and kick myself because I forgot the title and author (I suffer from CRS). That book detailed how we had broken the Japanese code
and that we learned that Japan was trying to sign a treaty with Russia to rule Asia in a Japan-USSR hegemony against the Western powers. They were unaware that Russia had previously committed themselves to attacking Japan two months after the surrender of Germany. Japan entertained no thought of unconditional surrender.

There's also an interesting chapter detailing
some U.S. thinking that we'd better use the Bomb and take out Japan QUICK, else Russia
would be expanding into that part of the world (we had lost a lot of naiveity about Russia by then). Russia was already demanding dual control of Japan even before
they declared war on her.

Unrepentent bastards - The Unit 731 camp was called some kind of lumber mill and the prisoners were aptly called "logs". One SOB
interviewed a few years ago STILL referred to them that way.

Hiroshima monument -- Some idiot American wrote in the vistor's log "I am ashamed to be an American". The next guy wrote "I'm ashamed you're an American too". Bravo!

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
well, we don't have to worry about the Japanese now. in the 1920s, Japan was still smarting from a lost war (the Russo-Japanese War) a few decades ago, had an industrialized economy hungry for natural resources, a relatively ignorant and close-minded population, and an urge to become a major player on the world stage.

as opposed to now...
 
Excuse me, but Japan won both the Sino-Japanese war of 1894 and the Russo-Japanese was of 1904-5. Russia showed rare incompetence in trying to expand Eastward and its navy and military were in much worse shape than in Chechniya. Trouble for the Japanese was that Russia could not replace their losses in material fast, while US of 1940s could.
 
Russia didn't do that well on expanding it's borders for a lot of reasons - they were militarily behind the times, and economically underdeveloped. That, and they had the misfortune of running into a brilliant commander at the Battle of the Tsushima Straits (his name escapes me) in the Russo-Japanese war. And they sold Alaska - cheap!

The Soviet Union, that's a different story. The Japanese tried their hand against the Soviets in Manchuria, and were soundly, soundly defeated by Georgi Zhukov (payback's a b**ch), aruguably the greatest combat general of WWII (the only major general never to lose a battle). At the time, defeat was something the Japanese hadn't experienced much of, and they weren't eager to push it again, especially with their supply lines so stretched through hostile territory (China). The Soviet Union learned a bit about replacing their losses - they had to - and the importance of industrialization in modern warfare. I don't think the Japanese had the equipment to take the offensive against a major power on the ground, especially as stretched as their armed forces were, and their equipment just wasn't up to the standard (Japanese tanks vs Soviet T-34's - that's like bringing a slingshot to the OK Corral!).

And I wouldn't understate the effectiveness of the U.S.'s submarine warfare campaign against Japanese shipping. We did to them what Germany only tried to do to Great Britain.
 
Tsusima was a matter of *many* techical problems the Russians had. Those included poorly made and stored shells that failed to explode, lack of rangefinders (two-three per ship as opposed to one per cannon or turret on Japanese vessels), utterly unreliable communications within each ship. On the tactical end, they were slowed down by inclusion of obsolete ships into the fleet, that permitting the Japanese to cut their battle line off and thus all pick on the lead ship at once, utter lack of a clue in contingency planning.

Port Arthur was worse, they cooped their fleet up in the harbor after one sortie out and eventually Japanese land guns sank them all...while ship cannon couln't elevate enough to respond.

Zhukov was not brilliant (kinda like Grant) but he had better logistics and equipment behind him (T34 + La-5 vs. 1938 light tanks and unarmored biplane fighters).
 
On another note: in Unintended Consequences, Henry and Ray are talking about 1940 France and how Hitler fought France and the USSR at the same time. USSR didn't get into that war tilll '41...sloppy details bug me. Same with comments like "Japan lost in '05".
 
Zhukov may not have been brilliant, but it's hard to argue with his successes against the Japanese and the Germans. But, he did have his shortcomings - he was a definite believer in "victory at all costs" - part of his strategy was to let the Germans wear themselves out against his lesser troops, then at the decisive moment, strike with experienced, well equipped reserves (Kursk). Zhukov was able to casually accept losses in a single battle that would have many countries suing for peace, as long as the result was a battlefield victory. He may not have been a brilliant strategist, but he seemed to be able to "read" a battlefield well, and his troops believed in him and feared him (no small thing, considering the morale of the USSR at the time).

He may not have been brilliant, but he was no idiot either - he managed to be one of the few officers to survive the revolution, one of the fewer to survive Stalin's purges in the 30's, survive the war, and still managed to survive being successful and popular (very dangerous to your health under Stalin) after the war. I can't believe that was all luck.

BTW, the Japanese also "won" in WWI - they took some far east colonies from the Germans. They & the U.S. were about the only ones who came out of that war with more prestige and power than they went into it with.

CR, aren't you originally from Russia? It's just interesting hearing things from your viewpoint.

------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.

I hope these evil men come to understand our peaceful ways soon - My trigger finger is blistering!
 
By comparing Zhukov to Grant, I was referring to his propensity to expend lives freely. Having seen numerous regimes sacrifice everyone and everything to the glory of Il Duce or Billary or what have you, I am quite intent on not cooperating with any bellicose designs.
 
I remember reading that the Russians used companies of political dissidents or other "uncleans" to charge across the battlefield to trip all the land mines, then send in the regular troops.

Off topic, but ... Khoumeni did this in the Iran-Iraq War, only he used 12-year-olds waving their "Khoumeni Says" green books as they charged. The horror of this was compounded by the fact that the Iraquis used a lot of "ping" mines which exploded at waist level on grown-ups but at face level for the kids. Lots of blind "veterans" in Iran now. There ought to be a particular Hell for bastards who would do that.

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
CR, as a Southerner and a descendent of Confederate veterans, I'm naturally biased against Grant, so I'm not real objective where he's concerned, but at least he wasn't Sherman... ;)

However, I have to agree with you in your comparison of Grant and Zhukov - they were both willing to expend as many of their own soldiers lives as necessary to win and maintain political favor. They both knew they had more men and equipment than the other side, and were willing to sacrifice as many pawns as necessary to win the game. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I've heard the same criticism of Patton. Truly brilliant generalship seems to be the rarest of qualities.

Oatka, the Soviets did use unarmed penal battalions for reconaissance in mass. They consisted of dissidents, defrocked officers, and other "undesirables". They weren't used just to detonate land mines, they were used to draw fire to see how strong the Germans were & get them to expend ammunition. We had our own versions, we just stuck them in regular units - it wasn't uncommon during wartime (WWII & Vietnam) for a judge to offer to drop charges if the accused entered the service.

The idea of using children to fight wars is nothing new, I'm sorry to say. Napolean used 13 yr olds at Waterloo, the Hitler Youth participated in the defense of Berlin, etc., etc. Trading your children to win a war. Sad. Even sadder, I can't think of a single case where it was successful, so all those young lives were wasted for nothing.

On a side note, one of the creepiest things I ever heard was from a 2nd Armored Division veteran. He said that first of all, those "kids" (Hitler Youth) were hell behind a machine gun. They had years of training vs. the 6 weeks your average American soldier had, and they were fanatical. But what really got to me was this: This guy had been in N. Africa, Sicily, Italy, France and Germany fighting at the front, and he said whenever you saw a soldier who knew he was dying, he'd be calling for two things - god and his mother. It didn't matter what country they were from, or what language they spoke. Except the Hitler Youth, who would cry for Hitler to save them....

------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.

I hope these evil men come to understand our peaceful ways soon - My trigger finger is blistering!

[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited September 09, 1999).]
 
Germany lost her war against all of the nations that she agressed against. Yes, there were still some nations that hadn't been liberated yet, (Denmark, Norway) but all of the active nations that Germany invaded were on German soil at the end of her war. Germany HAD to pay for what she did. It is interesting to note that even though we were bombing Japan's cities to ashes at the end of the war, Japan's entire army was largely intact on the Asian mainland. Nations apologize to countries that beat them in war. Where Germany lost the war to All the countries she was fighting, Japan lost only to the United States, the U.K. and (jumping on the bandwagon at the end)the U.S.S.R.. Japan never lost her war against the Chinese. At the end of the war, the Japanese army in China just laid down it's arms. So even though the Japanese acted horribly in their war against the Chinese, I wouldn't hold my breath for a Japan-to-China apology anytime soon. I mean, do you ever expect the Vietnamese to apologize to us? And when was the last time we apologized to the American Indians? Have we ever given them back their right to national sovereignty? Never have, never will.....they lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top