Hiroshima Day

@blurp
revisionism is the flavour of the day.
Not a lot of it happened when those exposed to all that shite were above ground. Expect more now.
 

nanayon

Swinger
I thought cutting sarcasm was a must have skill for being a Mod.

There is a perception that the Japanese Army entered the game full on prepared for barbarity. Right from the start in China

The problem you have here in terms of your thesis is that:
1] Being a loosely military themed forum is that many posters have relatives who fought these people and saw their actions against prisoners in field and against civilians.
2] Within the forum, there is a good to excellent knowledge base amongst posters.
3] The type of person who comes here can usually see through agenda in prose which attempts a revisionist narrative at the state level whilst downplaying the barbarity at the coal face or flipping blame, see 1].

All I know is the words of dear relatives in frontline units who respected the Germans but loathed the Japanese, having started off against the Japanese. Those relatives are dead now and their memories will be lost as a new collective memory seems to be taking place.

Doesn't alter the truth though.
Well of course I mean no disrespect to relatives that had once served. But I can't let that interfere with my ideas and debate.

Loath to the Japanese was FDR propaganda. It was a regional matter in Asia. A shithole if even. But the US got itself involved when it wasn't even a member of the league of nations. When the Japanese invaded Manchuria. The FDR administration used that point of time to give official recognition to the Soviet Union. So let's not pretend the hypocrisy did not exist.
 

nanayon

Swinger
@blurp
revisionism is the flavour of the day.
Not a lot of it happened when those exposed to all that shite were above ground. Expect more now.
Call it revisionism if you must.

But hat does not change the fact tha
...and yet, until 2015 , Japanese courts refuse to acknowledge the use of 'comfort women' by the Imperial Japanese Army.


In 2007, the surviving sex slaves wanted an apology from the Japanese government. Shinzō Abe, the prime minister at the time, stated on March 1, 2007, that there was no evidence that the Japanese government had kept sex slaves, even though the Japanese government had already admitted the use of coercion in 1993. On March 27 the Japanese parliament issued an official apology.[130] On February 20, 2014, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that the Japanese government may reconsider the study and the apology.[131] However, Prime Minister Abe clarified on March 14, 2014, that he had no intention of renouncing or altering it.[132]

On December 28, 2015, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye reached an formal agreement to settle the dispute. Abe again expressed his most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women and acknowledged that they had undergone immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.[133]

He stated that Japan continued to hold the position that issues relating to property and claims between Japan and the ROK, including the issue of comfort women, had been settled completely and finally by the Japan-ROK Claims Settlement and Economic Cooperation Agreement of 1965 and welcomed the fact that the issue of comfort women is resolved “finally and irreversibly” with this agreement.[133][134][135][136][137]

Japan agreed to pay ¥1 billion (9.7 billion; $8.3 million) to a fund supporting surviving victims while South Korea agreed to refrain from criticizing Japan regarding the issue and to work to remove a statue memorializing the victims from in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul.[138]
While South Korea has made many advances in technology and democracy, one area it falls short on history understanding and using the history for political reasons and take advantage of Japanese history being used as a punching bag for more benifits. They have had difficulty in incorporating contrasting views about the comfort women. Park Yu-Ha had a more balanced account about the Korean comfort women yet she was fined by South Korean court.
Writer 'mentally stressed' comfort women

 
How many Chinese POWs were released by the Japanese after VJ Day?

56

FWIW, Hirohito explicity removed by Imperial decree, all and any protection of Chinese civilians and prisoners in 1937.
 
Well anyway, I had a chance to express my views. Thank you for all your time.
Quick flounce!

Look pal, nobody here bears any animosity to modern day Japan. Much the same as our attitude to modern Germany, which is "great place".

But we don't get many Germans on here whinging about ARRSE cruelty to the Nazis (although we seem to have a few home-grown Nazi fan bois and holocaust deniers).

Simple fact is that in the 30s and WWII both the Japanese and the Germans were complete and utter cnuts.

It doesn't matter that the Soviets were also a bit naughty, or that the Americans put dead Japanese soldiers heads on spikes on their aircraft carriers.

They were c*nts then. They're not now. They got over it. Why can't you.

I told you it was a hard sell.
 

anglo

LE
1. The military tribunal in the far east was all part of victor's rewriting of history. For example, it ruled 200,000 killed in the Nanking massacre. How in the world do they do a proper review of that event when there was a civil war going on at the time? They didn't. They just made up numbers.

2. If they felt Japan was the greatest threat, then why did CKS feel the Chinese communists had to be removed first? Which is why the He-Umezu agreement in 1935 was made. I do feel some sympathy for any Chinese sentiment towards Japanese expansion. But the communism was something to not tolerate.
He–Umezu Agreement - Wikipedia.

3. One has to wonder about Manchuria though. In fact what is China exactly? There was of course the previous Qing dynasty. It had an area that included Mongolia, Tibet, and Outer Manchuria. These areas were not necessarily so han chinese. Manchuria had a greater proportion of Han Chinese but partly due to Russian influnce by developing Harbin which attracted Han Chinese. So that in combination with the continuing dwindling of Manchu population. In addition, Manchuria was mostly only part of the Qing dynasty. Only the very southern parts had a history longer than that as part of a China dynasty. So it is a bit of a stretch to speak in terms of Manchuria being "part of China" that foreign elements had to be removed from. Again, its economy failed in 1928. The Soviet Union attacked it in 1929 to reestablish control of an earlier Russian built railway. And nationalist Chinese were no where to press influence. So it was really only part of China in name only. With a Soviet to the north, the place was essentially a power vacuum. So the Japanese moved in. Well in the end, Wang changed sides and adopted the view of Pan-Asia. Afterall Japan was still part of asia. The chinese communists were backed by the Soviets accept at some moments. And Chiang Kai-shek was backed by the US and GB. CHiang actually viewed the US not much different than Japan.. just some other foreign power wanting influence in China. But Chiang still hated communist more than Japan even, hence his approach of trying to remove the communists first.

4 and 5. Well Japan backed Sun Yat-sen at some points of time. And Japan backed the Fangtian clique before it collapsed on its own. The earlier years saw all the other major powers grabbing a slice out of China. If not taking one's own slice, then someone else was going to take it. Japan in those years was certainly not going to be able to fight for an independent China against the other powers. Let's not get trapped in political correctness thinking now. Before the 1870s, the Qing dynasty was displaced by the other powers in the region. Rules have changed. Japan's top concern was Russia, not China. Had the Fangtian clique remained strong, Japan would have been fine. Had the Wang regime been established and the Chinese communists eliminated, than Japan would be fine. Well speaking in defense of Wang is not to hold him or the regime in high regard. It was bad. But it only existed for 5 war years. Still can't say that CKS or Mao commies were any better routes for China.

6. Well maybe you were just bluffing?

7. Well, one would hope the NRA saw better results in recruitment. But still, lots of forced conscription. It's no wonder that the Chinese were no help to US forces in Burma, even after attempts of painting scary faces on the front of M4A4s as some sort of morale baost to get the Chinese in Burma more active in figthing.

8. A defeat of Japan that fell short of terms laid out by the Cairo Declaration would have less sacrificed and an avoidance of the bad geopolitical situation that we have right now but just have become normalized to.

9. Election with results like this look like one of Assad's "elections" in Syria.

1947 Republic of China National Assembly election - Wikipedia

10. Condemnation of Japanese or any other atrocity is surely well in place. One atrocity that seemed to have damaged the reputation of the Nationalists Chinese was yellow river flooding.
1938 Yellow River flood - Wikipedia
This thread is about Hiroshima hence the thread title, Hiroshima Day,
It is not about the Chinese, Russians, Americans or anybody else but the Japanese,
Are you trying to justify the actions of the Japanese by waffling about everybody else

Hiroshima boils down to this,
Coming towards the end of the war the Americans were left with two choices
1] Use nuclear weapons to bring the war to an end
2] Invade the home islands of Japanese and lose at least one million allied troops
in doing so
Hence, the bomb was dropped
All the rest is irrelevant
if you think dropping the bomb was a tad unfair, then say so and it can be debated on here
 
I refer the noble gentlmen assorted to Eugene Sledges autobiography.

when they heard the bombs had been dropped and the Japanese has jacked in, these hard as nails, battle hardened Marines cried.... as he put it, now we would live. They’d been told to expect 100% casualties in the forthcoming invasion.
 

nanayon

Swinger
Quick flounce!

Look pal, nobody here bears any animosity to modern day Japan. Much the same as our attitude to modern Germany, which is "great place".

But we don't get many Germans on here whinging about ARRSE cruelty to the Nazis (although we seem to have a few home-grown Nazi fan bois and holocaust deniers).

Simple fact is that in the 30s and WWII both the Japanese and the Germans were complete and utter cnuts.

It doesn't matter that the Soviets were also a bit naughty, or that the Americans put dead Japanese soldiers heads on spikes on their aircraft carriers.

They were c*nts then. They're not now. They got over it. Why can't you.

I told you it was a hard sell.
I don't think you sincerely read my posts but instead are just knee-jerk reacting. There's alot in there but it also includes "life goes on".

If one person says "why you cone here, gonna troll" or "there are many here that had relatives that served in the Pacific" then I think it's best for me to not dwell on the matter here. I had my chance to thoroughly express my views and I'll leave it to others to thoroughly (or not thoroughly) consider points I said. So I'm done. Pardon my flouncing.
 
1. The military tribunal in the far east was all part of victor's rewriting of history
Whereas the actual events for which the individuals were prosecuted were all part of Japanese actions in the areas they’d conquered.

2. If they felt Japan was the greatest threat, then why did CKS feel the Chinese communists had to be removed first?
Because he did not feel that a fragmented and disunited China was capable of successfully opposing external threats of which Japan was the most voracious. Unify first, then apply full strength in the cause of independence.

3. One has to wonder about Manchuria though. In fact what is China exactly?
What is Japan, exactly? The Manchu lands had been part of the ‘Chinese’ polity since 1644 – a good deal longer then… oh, to pick an example at random… Okinawa has been part of Japan.

4 and 5. Well Japan backed Sun Yat-sen at some points of time. And Japan backed the Fangtian clique before it collapsed on its own. The earlier years saw all the other major powers grabbing a slice out of China. If not taking one's own slice, then someone else was going to take it.
Well, that’s alright then. Might is right and superior force is its own moral justification.

Diaoyus, here we come!

6. Well maybe you were just bluffing?
I gave you the treaty name and year, why don’t you do your own reading?

7. Well, one would hope the NRA saw better results in recruitment. But still, lots of forced conscription. It's no wonder that the Chinese were no help to US forces in Burma, even after attempts of painting scary faces on the front of M4A4s as some sort of morale baost to get the Chinese in Burma more active in figthing.
They were a great deal of help to the British at Yenangyaung, despite their presence there weakening the defence of China against Japan. The scale of casualties inflicted in China by the Japanese meant the barrel was increasingly empty and needed ever-harder scraping, which probably accounts for low morale amongst the scraped.

That tended to be less of a problem amongst the Red Army troops, though. What were you saying about effective recruitment and retention demonstrating popularity of the regime?

8. A defeat of Japan that fell short of terms laid out by the Cairo Declaration would have less sacrificed and an avoidance of the bad geopolitical situation that we have right now but just have become normalized to.
The terms of the Cairo Declaration haven’t been enforced, most obviously because Japan isn’t restricted to "the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine." Indeed, Japan has unilaterally absorbed territory since war's end and has laid claim to yet more without reference to the Allied Powers.

9. Election with results like this look like one of Assad's "elections" in Syria.
So you’re just going to ignore the Taiwan elections were the KMT were spectacularly unsuccessful?

10. Condemnation of Japanese or any other atrocity is surely well in place. One atrocity that seemed to have damaged the reputation of the Nationalists Chinese was yellow river flooding.
Extreme ‘scorched earth’ defensive measures now constitute an atrocity? Where do you stand on Jinmetsu Sakusen as a retaliatory programme; or the enforcement of suicide amongst Okinawans by IJA?
 
Quick flounce!

Look pal, nobody here bears any animosity to modern day Japan. Much the same as our attitude to modern Germany, which is "great place".
Well it was if you lived in Berlin (capital of the DDR) pre 1990 after which it was ruined by capitalist gobments


MSG
 
I don't think you sincerely read my posts but instead are just knee-jerk reacting. There's alot in there but it also includes "life goes on".

If one person says "why you cone here, gonna troll" or "there are many here that had relatives that served in the Pacific" then I think it's best for me to not dwell on the matter here. I had my chance to thoroughly express my views and I'll leave it to others to thoroughly (or not thoroughly) consider points I said. So I'm done. Pardon my flouncing.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I've followed your posts, but still am not clear about whether you think the bombs should not have been dropped, and that the Allies - and Japanese - would have been better off by accepting the inevitable heavy casualties following an invasion of Japan.
 

nanayon

Swinger
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I've followed your posts, but still am not clear about whether you think the bombs should not have been dropped, and that the Allies - and Japanese - would have been better off by accepting the inevitable heavy casualties following an invasion of Japan.
In real simple terms.. If to force through the unconditional terms, then yes, the a-bombs helped it happen and better than land invasion.

But the push for unconditional was not justified but were instead a US desire, and the result of the complete dismantling of the empire like how it happened was negative result to the Asia Pacific region.
 

nanayon

Swinger
Whereas the actual events for which the individuals were prosecuted were all part of Japanese actions in the areas they’d conquered.



Because he did not feel that a fragmented and disunited China was capable of successfully opposing external threats of which Japan was the most voracious. Unify first, then apply full strength in the cause of independence.



What is Japan, exactly? The Manchu lands had been part of the ‘Chinese’ polity since 1644 – a good deal longer then… oh, to pick an example at random… Okinawa has been part of Japan.



Well, that’s alright then. Might is right and superior force is its own moral justification.

Diaoyus, here we come!



I gave you the treaty name and year, why don’t you do your own reading?



They were a great deal of help to the British at Yenangyaung, despite their presence there weakening the defence of China against Japan. The scale of casualties inflicted in China by the Japanese meant the barrel was increasingly empty and needed ever-harder scraping, which probably accounts for low morale amongst the scraped.

That tended to be less of a problem amongst the Red Army troops, though. What were you saying about effective recruitment and retention demonstrating popularity of the regime?



The terms of the Cairo Declaration haven’t been enforced, most obviously because Japan isn’t restricted to "the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine." Indeed, Japan has unilaterally absorbed territory since war's end and has laid claim to yet more without reference to the Allied Powers.



So you’re just going to ignore the Taiwan elections were the KMT were spectacularly unsuccessful?



Extreme ‘scorched earth’ defensive measures now constitute an atrocity? Where do you stand on Jinmetsu Sakusen as a retaliatory programme; or the enforcement of suicide amongst Okinawans by IJA?
Well I would like to tango with you more but I'm going to give a rest. Maybe at a later time :)
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Frame me as however you like. The mods can observe my posts and make their own conclusions and decisions.

If you are a mod, then your sarcasm doesn't bode well for that role.
you've not really met any mods, have you?
 

anglo

LE
In real simple terms.. If to force through the unconditional terms, then yes, the a-bombs helped it happen and better than land invasion.

But the push for unconditional was not justified but were instead a US desire, and the result of the complete dismantling of the empire like how it happened was negative result to the Asia Pacific region.
But but but,

fence01.jpg
 
In real simple terms.. If to force through the unconditional terms, then yes, the a-bombs helped it happen and better than land invasion.

But the push for unconditional was not justified but were instead a US desire, and the result of the complete dismantling of the empire like how it happened was negative result to the Asia Pacific region.
I simply don't follow that. It seems to me that dismantling the Japanese empire actually had a stabilising effect on the region.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Not on these forums yet until responding to your post.
Thought not, if you had you'd know Our chief weapon is sarcasm...sarcasm and fear...fear and sarcasm.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency..
 

Latest Threads

Top