First off I want to make this as clear as day, war crimes committed by anyone of any nation is wrong and if the mods feel this thread is to aggressive then by all means I have no problem with it being deleted. It is my motive to discuss these issues in a logical and coherent manner. I do not have the same beliefs as Nazi Sympathizers like "okayokayitsnotok" a poster who appears to deny the holocaust.

This is due to my belief that unlike there Nazi counterparts, those of the Empire of Japan believed in the honorable way of the Samurai. To this day Japans Prime Minister Shinzō Abe visits the Yasukuni Shrine which honors Japanese war veterans during the Empire of Japan

Since the end of WW2 there have been numerous efforts by statesmen and social leaders, peace activists and other world leaders to address the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

Many Ex wartime Japan leaders went on to Prominent positions in Japan and abroad after ww2 leading Japan to become the worlds 2nd greatest economy. Takeo Fukuda was a well known player in WW2 Japan whom was elected as Japans prime minister in 1975. These actions are a key difference to the aftermath of WW2 Germany in which case ex Nazis were not allowed into government affairs after the war.

Japan did not seek to eliminate whole populations and were not involved in the Holocaust. The vast majority of war crimes Japan faced were for prisoner abuse. At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East Justice Radha Binod Pal was the only one who submitted a judgment which insisted all defendants were not guilty.

"While finding that 'the evidence is still overwhelming that atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population of some of the territories occupied by them as also against the prisoners of war', he produced a judgment questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal and its rulings. He held the view that the legitimacy of the tribunal was suspect and questionable, because the spirit of retribution, and not impartial justice, was the underlying criterion for passing the judgment"

On April 29, 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told his counterpart ex Prime Minister of Japan Koizumi Junichiro that "the dissenting judgement of Justice Radha Binod Pal is well-known to the Japanese people and will always symbolise the affection and regard our people have for your country

On December 14, 2006, Singh, made a speech in the Japanese Diet. He stated:

"The principled judgment of Justice Radhabinod Pal after the War is remembered even today in Japan. Ladies and Gentlemen, these events reflect the depth of our friendship and the fact that we have stood by each other at critical moments in our history.


Monument of Radha Binod Pal at Kyoto Ryozen Gokoku Shrine.


A bronze statue of a carrier pigeon at Yasukuni Shrine, commemorating the carrier pigeons that died serving Japan in WWII , I thought this was quite impressive


A bronze statue of a woman and children commemorating the sacrifices made by mothers and children when husbands did not return after the war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radha_B..._Trial_Dissent

If I follow correctly, you are arguing that Japanese individuals followed an honorable, admirable, code of the Samurai and therefore should be judged differently from Nazis. You acknowledge they committed atrocities but I gather you hold the individuals to have had high, unselfish motives.

I have a problem with judging historical acts according to intent and motivation rather than effect. The American officer corps in Vietnam and Korea followed a professional code, risked their lives for others, and fought for freedom and prosperity, which was very noble. But they killed around 5 million people, mostly civilians, who were not a danger to the U.S.

I think most of the worst crimes are committed for high ideals. Who had better goals than the peaceful lives of communal agrarian harmony imagined by the Khmer Rouge?

The Samurai, who should be called militarists in their 20th century incarnation, brought utter disaster to Japan and Manchuria. They enslaved a generation of young Korean women as rape receptacles (look up "comfort women") and got their children nuked. I don't find that level of fanatical warrior delusion admirable.

I think you are engaging in a form of Orientalism. You are seeing what you want to see in the Samurai, the code, the toughness, the willingness to die -- very exotic and exciting, and pure romanticizing. Looking at the Samurai in their cultural context, rather than a swordsman fantasy, they were a cataclysm.

You think all the women honored by the statue wanted to lose their husbands and watch their cities burn down? They didn't sacrifice -- they were robbed by a criminal class using ancient warrior traditions to justify 20th century factory slaughter. A criminal class that came to power by murdering politicians who stood in the way of a reckless war.

The difference between Nazis and Samurai is that you aren't excited by German uniforms.

Of course Japan did not desire a War with the US, in the lead up to the war Japan Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe made numerous attempts at peace talks with FDR . Obv a US alliance with Germany would be impossible due to there Aryan race superiority beliefs. Yet The inability of Japan and the US to come to peace terms or even an alliance prior to WW2 will go down in history as one of the most unfortunate issues

I highlighted what I thought were two interesting points by you, What you see in the American Gi I also see in a WW2 Japanese solider, this respect of Japanese strength and courage was admired by Us troops as well as plenty of ex allies whom have visited the Empire of Japan war Memorials.

And no I'm not excited by Japans WW2 uniforms and I would not use the term romanticizing either. As for why I view the Japanese in a different light then the Germans is b/c....

The Samurai and Japans common class were among the worlds most educated people and a dominating force in Asia for over 500 years influencing advances in military, education and arts. Which is still felt today in Japan.

Based on a Aryan race ideology the Third Reich lasted for only 12 years and was therefore a failure.

I feel comfortable saying The third Reich will go down as one of the most evil regimes in history where as the Samurai as a whole along with the Empire Of Japan are viewed in a much more positive matter, not to mention how many of the Empire of Japans ex personal went on to prominent positions after WW2.

"Not as bad as Nazis" is a pretty weak argument. Why not separate your admiration for the Samurai from the empire? Just say Samurai were impressive, but that doesn't minimize the crimes of Japanese aggression. We can luxuriate driving the autobahn without falling into a "Nazis weren't all bad" tar pit. A first step would be to recognize that Samurai are an old martial tradition and so different from industrial, nation-state militarism that they should not be called the same name. Should Lt. William Calley of My Lai fame be called a Minuteman?

So more Japanese officers remained free after the war than Nazis. I wonder if it was because they weren't held responsible for what they did to China and Korea and were only punished for what they did to US, Britain, Australian troops.

That depends on what part of the world you're asking the question.

If you refer to events of WW2 then I'd disagree. Japan is very much renowned for it's mistreatment of allied prisoners during the war. It is one of THE lasting memories from the war in that region. I think it would be even worse if more people were aware of the attrocities committed against the Chinese etc.

Basically, some people will view Germany as worse and others will view the Japanese as worse.

I feel The majority of US and Japan WW2 troops held a high standard of morality. The people of Japan did not live in the same town where concentration camps were, the civilian population of WW2 Japan was not involved in a holocaust coverup. I never said itt "not as bad as Nazis" I view the Empire Of Japan and Nazi Germany in two completely different fashions mainly bc of the Third Reichs racial superiority beliefs and there extremely short lifespan on this world.

As for William Calley's actions at My Lai he had superiors giving him orders so should Gen Westmoreland be charged with war crimes as well?

I don't often agree with Colin Powell but he is quoted as saying irt My Lai "So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored." I think if we apply this concept to US involvement in Vietnam we should apply it to The Empire of Japan in WW2.

Of course. Westmoreland's use of the body count as the key metric of military success steered the war towards civilians.

No, it shouldn't be applied in either. Powell's view is cowardly and evil, especially considering that he undoubtedly knew of Operation Speedy Express at the time, a particularly genocidal phase in Vietnam (see Nick Turse's phenomenally documented book Kill Anything that Moves). Civilian killings were not incidental in Manchuria or Vietnam, they were objectives. Powell is just a liar. The brass never said "our goal is to kill civilians," who does, but the whole conduct of the war, their strategies, turned it into that.

I can't tell if you are in denial about the Japanese empire, or just unfamiliar with its crimes. John Dower's book War without Mercy (about both Japanese and US troops understanding the fighting as a race war for dominance of the Pacific) is a good place to start. There are also books on the germ warfare against civilians in Manchuria, Korean comfort women, starvation of the Vietnamese, etc.

Hey, things that go bang excite me as much as the next guy. But I don't understand why a fascination with combat requires downplaying how the troops are used by these horrible empires to keep wasting millions of people. Feeling stirred by extraordinary warriors, that I understand. But feeling the need to defend an empire -- that's like saying you are an HMO patriot and will die for your insurance company and look at the Blue Cross tattoo I got in Panama. Empire is a strange object to be drawn to.

See Dower book. Both sides barely took prisoners. American intelligence officers kept complaining they had no one to interrogate.

Books

Why Japan went to war

John Dower

Rape of Nanking "Within weeks, more than 300,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers were systematically raped, tortured, and murdered—a death toll exceeding that of the atomic blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

Historical revisionism and Nanking

I would agree with that, but here is maybe where we have polarized views,

The German political hierarchy during the Third Reich sought not only territorial gains but elimination or imprisonment of all Non Aryans within there own country, This was not a form of warfare against military targets but indiscriminate killing to wipe out Non Aryans.

Its important to note Prior to the 19th century China dominated East Asia. And up until the Meji Restorition Japan practiced a policy of seclusion. After years of having a traditional culture It was a necessity that Japan become industrialized to survive as a nation . You can probably call the first and Second Sino war a form of Imperialism by Japan that other countries took part in throughout the 18th and 19th centuries to gain resources to compete with the rest of the world

WW2 Japan did treat POWS poorly and most prisoners were enemy combatants during a time of war. And China mobilized pretty much all of its population for war as they were fighting Japan since the 1890s. Warfare in any part of the world usually ends up having dark consequences

This seems like an bit of an understatement and a pretty blase comment considering the reality.

The Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s is often compared to the military of Nazi Germany during 1933–45 because of the sheer scale of suffering. Much of the controversy regarding Japan's role in World War II revolves around the death rates of prisoners of war and civilians under Japanese occupation. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:

It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians (i.e. Soviet citizens); the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as (forced) prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not the Soviet Union) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; (by comparison) the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.[34]

According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%.[35] The death rate of Chinese POWs was much higher because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[36] Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan.[37] After March 20, 1943, the Japanese Navy was under orders to execute all prisoners taken at sea.[38]

Source: Wiki

interesting viewpoint by Wikipedia, Keep in mind China dominated the East Asian part of the world for years up until the Sino wars, Chinese Warlords were involved in the killings of civilians as well, the history is there.

My point is warfare is going to be violent but what the Japanese did should not be held on its own ground in history, it belongs in the category of what the American Indians endured for years under occupation due to manifest destiny or other military campaigns involving France or Germany, Mongolia etc throughout history.

The actions of the Third Reich deserves its own unique category for its beliefs, and of using country resources to fund the final solution

Agreed.

It was distinctive in some respects. But as Chalmers Johnson pointed out in the above quote, it killed about as many people as Japan, differing in the motive and method on a minority of the deaths. The race science that made Nazis reputable also dominated western European and American academies, whose armies also massacred natives. German eugenicists borrowed a lot from US researchers. The Final Solution was more systematized and industrialized than anyone else had taken it, but the components were present elsewhere, sterilization, for example. In casual conversation, yes the Nazis are a useful symbol of how evil people can get, but in a rigorous comparison, the differences move closer and are on a continuum, not separate categories. Any individual American or Belgian or Japanese soldier was as cooperative in the larger killing machine as a Wehrmacht.

TOKYO —
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday his visit to the controversial Yasukuni war shrine was a pledge that Japan would not go to war again and was not intended to hurt Chinese or South Koreans.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/p...ge-against-war

For the first time in 7 years an incumbent Japanese PM has visited the Yasukuni war shrine. Which honors soldiers of the likes of Kamikaze pilots, Japanese civilians, animals during WW2. Chinese and US officials were upset by the visit but many others, Including Americans who fought in WW2 admire the bravery and courage these Japanese troops exemplified during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine

It takes extreme courage to defend an Island knowing its impossible to outright defeat the enemy. When Japanese Islands were being invaded toward the end of the war (in an effort to set up air fields to eventually Bomb mainland Japan) Japanese troops sacrificed themselves to prolong the Allied bombing of mainland Japan, these actions saved many Japanese civilian lives.

Typo here, I meant to say something more along the lines of decelerating the allied bombing of mainland Japan