Aussie nurses raped before being massacred by Japanese

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Abd yet, the Americans who’d been fighting them with equal extreme savagery came to realise during Okinawa that the Japanrse were actually just like them.
The average Japanese did value human life, and could and did show just as much concern abd care for a wounded comrade as they did.

View attachment 389223

They could have just left their gravely injured friend to his fate.

Savagery begets savagery, but the protected nature of the hellish fighting on Okinawa did away with a lot of the racist BS on both sides.
You do realise that trying to do your best for a wounded comrade is generally considered to be a sine qua non for any fighting force worthy of the description? The test is how you treat the wounded of the other side.
 
Just in case this was never covered in History class.


"HONG KONG ATROCITIES (December 25, 1941)
The lush island of Hong Kong, thirty-two square miles in area, was formally ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. Around Christmas, 1941, the peace and tranquillity of this island paradise was shattered when the troops of General Ito Takeo defeated the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India, and detachments of various other nationalities. Intoxicated with the spirit of victory, the Japanese troops showed no mercy to their victims. At Eucliff, fifty-three prisoners were shot, bayoneted, some beheaded and their bodies rolled down the cliff. On Christmas morning, around 200 drunken Japanese approached St. Stephen's College, now a sanctuary for ninety-six wounded soldiers. Barring the front door was the head medic, Dr. George Black. 'You can't come in here' he called out, 'this is a hospital'. With deliberate aim, one of the soldiers raised his rifle and shot the doctor through the head. As the drunken mob surged into the hospital ward, the body of Dr Black was repeatedly bayoneted as he lay at the door. In the wards, a massacre of unprecedented ferocity took place. The Japanese ripped the bandages off the wounded patients and plunged their bayonets into the amputated arms and legs before finishing them off with a bullet. In half an hour fifty-six wounded soldiers had been massacred while the nursing staff looked on helplessly. The female nurses were then led away, to a fate one can only imagine. The patients and staff who had survived the slaughter were then forced to carry the bodies and bloodied mattresses to the grounds outside where a huge funeral pyre was prepared and lit from the college desks and cupboards which had been smashed up for firewood. Similar atrocities was enacted at the Jockey Club in Happy Valley which had been turned into a hospital and at the Salesian Mission at Shau Kei Wan. Atrocities were committed at various locations throughout the colony including the rape of thousands of women and young girls. On this day, any misconceptions the world had that Japan was a civilized nation, disappeared into thin air."


Massacres and Atrocities of WWII in the Pacific Region

A brief summary of their overall behaviour throughout the war tbh.
 
Just in case this was never covered in History class.


"HONG KONG ATROCITIES (December 25, 1941)
The lush island of Hong Kong, thirty-two square miles in area, was formally ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. Around Christmas, 1941, the peace and tranquillity of this island paradise was shattered when the troops of General Ito Takeo defeated the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India, and detachments of various other nationalities. Intoxicated with the spirit of victory, the Japanese troops showed no mercy to their victims. At Eucliff, fifty-three prisoners were shot, bayoneted, some beheaded and their bodies rolled down the cliff. On Christmas morning, around 200 drunken Japanese approached St. Stephen's College, now a sanctuary for ninety-six wounded soldiers. Barring the front door was the head medic, Dr. George Black. 'You can't come in here' he called out, 'this is a hospital'. With deliberate aim, one of the soldiers raised his rifle and shot the doctor through the head. As the drunken mob surged into the hospital ward, the body of Dr Black was repeatedly bayoneted as he lay at the door. In the wards, a massacre of unprecedented ferocity took place. The Japanese ripped the bandages off the wounded patients and plunged their bayonets into the amputated arms and legs before finishing them off with a bullet. In half an hour fifty-six wounded soldiers had been massacred while the nursing staff looked on helplessly. The female nurses were then led away, to a fate one can only imagine. The patients and staff who had survived the slaughter were then forced to carry the bodies and bloodied mattresses to the grounds outside where a huge funeral pyre was prepared and lit from the college desks and cupboards which had been smashed up for firewood. Similar atrocities was enacted at the Jockey Club in Happy Valley which had been turned into a hospital and at the Salesian Mission at Shau Kei Wan. Atrocities were committed at various locations throughout the colony including the rape of thousands of women and young girls. On this day, any misconceptions the world had that Japan was a civilized nation, disappeared into thin air."


Massacres and Atrocities of WWII in the Pacific Region

A brief summary of their overall behaviour throughout the war tbh.
I'm not suggesting this account is not factual, nor that there were similar and worse atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the war, but the author doesn't do his/her objectiveness or lack of bias much good with references to 'the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India,... '.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm not suggesting this account is not factual, nor that there were similar and worse atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the war, but the author doesn't do his/her objectiveness or lack of bias much good with references to 'the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India,... '.
Stylistically, it's of its time and, besides, the forces in question fully deserved the sobriquet.

The events in question are well documented elsewhere. What factual inaccuracy in this piece do you find objectionable?
 
Stylistically, it's of its time and, besides, the forces in question fully deserved the sobriquet.

The events in question are well documented elsewhere. What factual inaccuracy in this piece do you find objectionable?
None. Where did I say there was any inaccuracy? As for 'stylistically it's of its time', I can find no reference to when it was written, whether it's unattributed quotation from another source or something of the site owner's own authorship; if the latter it could have been written last week.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
None. Where did I say there was any inaccuracy?
You implied bias. Specifically:

"I'm not suggesting this account is not factual, nor that there were similar and worse atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the war, but the author doesn't do his/her objectiveness or lack of bias much good with references to 'the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India,... '. "
 
You implied bias. Specifically:

"I'm not suggesting this account is not factual, nor that there were similar and worse atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the war, but the author doesn't do his/her objectiveness or lack of bias much good with references to 'the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India,... '. "
No again. I did not imply bias, but pointed out that the 'author', if such, used terminology which suggested he was not impartial. Again as to your 'of it's time' excuse, the 'author' writes of events occurring in 2004, which suggests any or all of the piece could have been written after that date. Is only 15 years ago 'of its time'?

It is unfortunate that his 'All text researched and compiled' statement offers no sources, otherwise the origin of the terminology could be found.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
No again. I did not imply bias, but pointed out that the 'author', if such, used terminology which suggested he was not impartial. (snip).
Thinking folk generally accept that those who are not impartial are, by definition, partial. You're hopelessly muddled and arguing against yourself.

"I'm not suggesting this account is not factual, nor that there were similar and worse atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the war, but the author doesn't do his/her objectiveness or lack of bias much good with references to 'the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India,... '.
 
Thinking folk generally accept that those who are not impartial are, by definition, partial. You're hopelessly muddled and arguing against yourself.

"I'm not suggesting this account is not factual, nor that there were similar and worse atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the war, but the author doesn't do his/her objectiveness or lack of bias much good with references to 'the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India,... '.
So what's your take on this piece of his 'authorship'?

'In charge of the prisoners was a senior British officer, Major Cumyns. Considered by the inmates as a strict disciplinarian, arrogant and conceited who used every opportunity to advance his own creature comforts and at the same time to endear himself to the good graces of the Camp Commandant, Captain Yoshishito. In the camp were 44 British and 120 Australian prisoners-of war plus one solitary American. On Christmas Eve, 1943, four Australians made a desperate attempt to escape. Hunted down, with the help of Major Cumyns, the four were eventually captured. Next morning, Christmas Day, the four Aussies were beheaded in front of the assembled prisoners. Hatred towards Major Cumyns spilled over in the hearts of the Australians and around midnight that night a small group of Australian prisoners crept into Cumyns' hut while he slept, slipped a leather cord around his neck and strangled him to death. From then on the British P.O.W.s refused to have anything to do with their Aussie mates.'
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
So what's your take on this piece of his 'authorship'?

'In charge of the prisoners was a senior British officer, Major Cumyns. Considered by the inmates as a strict disciplinarian, arrogant and conceited who used every opportunity to advance his own creature comforts and at the same time to endear himself to the good graces of the Camp Commandant, Captain Yoshishito. In the camp were 44 British and 120 Australian prisoners-of war plus one solitary American. On Christmas Eve, 1943, four Australians made a desperate attempt to escape. Hunted down, with the help of Major Cumyns, the four were eventually captured. Next morning, Christmas Day, the four Aussies were beheaded in front of the assembled prisoners. Hatred towards Major Cumyns spilled over in the hearts of the Australians and around midnight that night a small group of Australian prisoners crept into Cumyns' hut while he slept, slipped a leather cord around his neck and strangled him to death. From then on the British P.O.W.s refused to have anything to do with their Aussie mates.'
What relevance does it have to what you previously posted and the point I was making?
 
What relevance does it have to what you previously posted and the point I was making?
That the 'author' offers no evidence for anything he has posted on his site, while at the same time making judgemental (and therefore prejudicial, for good or bad) statements. In the case I've quoted there, he makes highly prejudicial statements about the conduct of a named individual, but with what veracity?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
That the 'author' offers no evidence for anything he has posted on his site, while at the same time making judgemental (and therefore prejudicial, for good or bad) statements. In the case I've quoted there, he makes highly prejudicial statements about the conduct of a named individual, but with what veracity?
I'm sure this post makes sense to you.

I responded to the pejorative tripe you posted earlier relating to events which are well-documented and the substance and veracity of which cannot be undermined by any adjective that the author wishes to ascribe to allied troops, regardless of your view.

I'm not quite sure why you've introduced this new element and I'm even less sure as to why you believe it has any relevance.
 
I'm sure this post makes sense to you.

I responded to the pejorative tripe you posted earlier relating to events which are well-documented and the substance and veracity of which cannot be undermined by any adjective that the author wishes to ascribe to allied troops, regardless of your view.

I'm not quite sure why you've introduced this new element and I'm even less sure as to why you believe it has any relevance.
Ok George,

To show you how you could be writing your articles, in an unsensationalist, unbiased manner, showing the sources from which information was derived, while still conveying the facts, compare and contrast.

'Several hours before the British surrendered on Christmas day at the end of the Battle of Hong Kong, Japanese soldiers entered St. Stephen's College, which was being used as a hospital on the front line at the time.[1][2] The Japanese were met by two doctors, Black and Witney, who were marched away, and were later found dead and mutilated.[1][2] They then burst into the wards and bayoneted a number of British, Canadian and Indian wounded soldiers who were incapable of hiding.[1] The survivors and their nurses were imprisoned in two rooms upstairs. Later, a second wave of Japanese troops arrived after the fighting had moved further south, away from the school. They removed two Canadians from one of the rooms, and mutilated and killed them outside. Many of the nurses next door were then dragged off to be gang raped, and later found mutilated.[1][2][3] The following morning, after the surrender, the Japanese ordered that all these bodies should be cremated just outside the hall. Other soldiers who had died in the defence of Stanley were burned with those killed in the massacre, making well over 100 altogether.[1]'

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Roland, Charles G. (January 1997). "Massacre and Rape in Hong Kong: Two Case Studies Involving Medical Personnel and Patients". Journal of Contemporary History. 32 (1): 52–61. doi:10.1177/002200949703200104. JSTOR 261075.
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Lim, Patricia Pui Huen (2002). Discovering Hong Kong's Cultural Heritage: Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. Oxford University Press. p. 73. ISBN 9780195927238.
  3. ^ Dew, Josie. (2002). The Sun in My Eyes: Two-Wheeling East. Warner Books publishing. ISBN 0-7515-3018-2, ISBN 978-0-7515-3018-6. p 184.

St. Stephen's College massacre - Wikipedia

Good night, Mr Duncan. You need to get your head down, as you've got a lot of rewriting to do in the morning.
 
So what's your take on this piece of his 'authorship'?

'In charge of the prisoners was a senior British officer, Major Cumyns. Considered by the inmates as a strict disciplinarian, arrogant and conceited who used every opportunity to advance his own creature comforts and at the same time to endear himself to the good graces of the Camp Commandant, Captain Yoshishito. In the camp were 44 British and 120 Australian prisoners-of war plus one solitary American. On Christmas Eve, 1943, four Australians made a desperate attempt to escape. Hunted down, with the help of Major Cumyns, the four were eventually captured. Next morning, Christmas Day, the four Aussies were beheaded in front of the assembled prisoners. Hatred towards Major Cumyns spilled over in the hearts of the Australians and around midnight that night a small group of Australian prisoners crept into Cumyns' hut while he slept, slipped a leather cord around his neck and strangled him to death. From then on the British P.O.W.s refused to have anything to do with their Aussie mates.'
Its single source is a novel disguised as fact called 'The Hotel Tacloban'
 
I'm not suggesting this account is not factual, nor that there were similar and worse atrocities committed by the Japanese military during the war, but the author doesn't do his/her objectiveness or lack of bias much good with references to 'the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India,... '.
The PoW's lost diary and the story behind the lover called 'G'

Black, Dr. George D., O.B.E., killed in action. Defence of Hong Kong - City of Vancouver Archives

This is true, however, you'll not find anything like that about British troops in all of our history, and that's something we should be proud of, especially since we took over half the world. Can you imagine the Japanese taking over half the world and what the results would have been?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Ok George,

To show you how you could be writing your articles, in an unsensationalist, unbiased manner, showing the sources from which information was derived, while still conveying the facts, compare and contrast.

'Several hours before the British surrendered on Christmas day at the end of the Battle of Hong Kong, Japanese soldiers entered St. Stephen's College, which was being used as a hospital on the front line at the time.[1][2] The Japanese were met by two doctors, Black and Witney, who were marched away, and were later found dead and mutilated.[1][2] They then burst into the wards and bayoneted a number of British, Canadian and Indian wounded soldiers who were incapable of hiding.[1] The survivors and their nurses were imprisoned in two rooms upstairs. Later, a second wave of Japanese troops arrived after the fighting had moved further south, away from the school. They removed two Canadians from one of the rooms, and mutilated and killed them outside. Many of the nurses next door were then dragged off to be gang raped, and later found mutilated.[1][2][3] The following morning, after the surrender, the Japanese ordered that all these bodies should be cremated just outside the hall. Other soldiers who had died in the defence of Stanley were burned with those killed in the massacre, making well over 100 altogether.[1]'

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Roland, Charles G. (January 1997). "Massacre and Rape in Hong Kong: Two Case Studies Involving Medical Personnel and Patients". Journal of Contemporary History. 32 (1): 52–61. doi:10.1177/002200949703200104. JSTOR 261075.
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Lim, Patricia Pui Huen (2002). Discovering Hong Kong's Cultural Heritage: Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. Oxford University Press. p. 73. ISBN 9780195927238.
  3. ^ Dew, Josie. (2002). The Sun in My Eyes: Two-Wheeling East. Warner Books publishing. ISBN 0-7515-3018-2, ISBN 978-0-7515-3018-6. p 184.

St. Stephen's College massacre - Wikipedia

Good night, Mr Duncan. You need to get your head down, as you've got a lot of rewriting to do in the morning.
No-one's questioning the facts of Japanese atrocities, merely the highly judgemental and rather pompous editorial style with which you dismiss other authors and the remedial manner in which you contradict yourself in the space of two posts.
 
you'll not find anything like that about British troops in all of our history,
ERRRRR......yes you will.

This week in history: British brutality followed the fall of Badajoz

“Every house presented a scene of plunder, debauchery and bloodshed, committed with wanton cruelty on the persons of the defenseless inhabitants by our soldiery. … Men, women and children were shot in the streets for no other apparent reason than pastime; every species of outrage was publicly committed in the houses, churches and streets, and in a manner so brutal that a faithful recital would be too indecent and too shocking to humanity.”
One of the reasons why the British soldiers took such an evil revenge upon the Spanish residents of Badajoz had to do with the British sense of cultural superiority. As historian Charles Esdaile noted in his book, “Napoleon's Wars: An International History,” the British looked down on the Spanish, whom they though of as “incompetent, cowardly and unreliable.” Additionally, years of hard feelings between Protestants and Catholics in England fueled another level of antagonism, mostly directed toward the French, but also toward the Catholic Spaniards. Badajoz was not the first time British feelings of superiority led to savagery against the Spanish, but it was perhaps the worst example.


I am in no way defending the Japanese, but British soldiers have had their day as well.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Were they really that much worse than the Nazis?
Short answer? Yes

The worst thing is that the really nasty record of the Imperial Japanese Army across the board is opaque to the Japanese of today. They genuinely regard themselves as the victims of the Pacific War.

As a lad I knew my mate Ian's Dad 'Fred' as a quiet thoughtful teacher, a bit solemn but had a laugh in him.

He worked with my own father and the families were friends.

It turned out Fred was captured by the Japanese at Singapore and spent 4 years in Changi. I didn't know till long after I'd left home.

I remember him telling me one night , when he and his wife came round for dinner, that a pint of cold water was all he wanted.

He said ' you'd be amazed how much we take clean water for granted...you only miss it if you can't get it'

Fred drove a Volkswagen, didn't have any issues with the Germans.

Unfortunately, he developed dementia in old age and the Japanese featured in some of his dodgier moments.

And Changi was a cake walk in comparison to Outtram Road Gaol , let alone the Burma railway.

Outram Road: Bravery beyond limits

Rest in Peace Fred. A pint of clean water with you Sir.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
So what's your take on this piece of his 'authorship'?

'In charge of the prisoners was a senior British officer, Major Cumyns. Considered by the inmates as a strict disciplinarian, arrogant and conceited who used every opportunity to advance his own creature comforts and at the same time to endear himself to the good graces of the Camp Commandant, Captain Yoshishito. In the camp were 44 British and 120 Australian prisoners-of war plus one solitary American. On Christmas Eve, 1943, four Australians made a desperate attempt to escape. Hunted down, with the help of Major Cumyns, the four were eventually captured. Next morning, Christmas Day, the four Aussies were beheaded in front of the assembled prisoners. Hatred towards Major Cumyns spilled over in the hearts of the Australians and around midnight that night a small group of Australian prisoners crept into Cumyns' hut while he slept, slipped a leather cord around his neck and strangled him to death. From then on the British P.O.W.s refused to have anything to do with their Aussie mates.'
Please explain what all that has to do with the content of your post of #243.
 
ERRRRR......yes you will.

This week in history: British brutality followed the fall of Badajoz

“Every house presented a scene of plunder, debauchery and bloodshed, committed with wanton cruelty on the persons of the defenseless inhabitants by our soldiery. … Men, women and children were shot in the streets for no other apparent reason than pastime; every species of outrage was publicly committed in the houses, churches and streets, and in a manner so brutal that a faithful recital would be too indecent and too shocking to humanity.”
One of the reasons why the British soldiers took such an evil revenge upon the Spanish residents of Badajoz had to do with the British sense of cultural superiority. As historian Charles Esdaile noted in his book, “Napoleon's Wars: An International History,” the British looked down on the Spanish, whom they though of as “incompetent, cowardly and unreliable.” Additionally, years of hard feelings between Protestants and Catholics in England fueled another level of antagonism, mostly directed toward the French, but also toward the Catholic Spaniards. Badajoz was not the first time British feelings of superiority led to savagery against the Spanish, but it was perhaps the worst example.


I am in no way defending the Japanese, but British soldiers have had their day as well.
OK I stand corrected on that one, but apart from one or two mass shootings it's rather unlikely that you'd get British troops committing mass rape and torture in a hospital. That sort of thing was as standard for the Japanese though. I think a lot of it has to do with their lack of a judeo-Christian culture. This also explains why it's still acceptable for businessmen to read bizarre porno mags in public and girls to have enema parties in Japan*. The Germans have a reputation for being kinky too, though I think the Japanese were worse with their inventive torture.

*Not that I've ever seen anything like that myself.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Dwarf Miscellaneous Jokes 4
ThunderBox The NAAFI Bar 71
Glad_its_all_over Int Corps 35

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top