German versus Japanese atrocities - and a comparison to Rome

[Timotheus]

Why are we leaving out the Russians...or Americans, or any other country that fought in WWII? Each side was just as responsible for attrocities as the other me thinks.

Because that would be a waste of time. The scale of actions by the Allies (possibly excluding the Soviets) is nothing when compared to the scale and scope of the actions by the Germans and Japanese.

I think the issue has something to do with focus - I get the impression that Timothy is focusing on, so to speak, the handwork of atrocity, whereas Matt also includes atrocities that do not involve close contact between aggressor and victim. I think that in an overall discussion of WW2, the strategic bombing by the Allies should indeed be included, but is not what Timothy is looking for right now.

As to what the Romans would have though, we need to keep in mind that we're talking about people who thought watching a woman raped to death by a bull was great afternoon entertainment. They'd probably think the whole thing wasteful - needlessly destructive of good slave stock - but hardly shocking.

I think I agree. And I also think it is revolting.

My focus here in not on who is worse or who killed more people. To me that trivializes these brutal actions.

My interest is in why the Japanese fight so much more against accepting what they did the Germans.

One particular theory that came to mind is that the average Japanese civilian can look at his family tree and find someone who commited atrocities and this brings it closer to heart for far more Japanese and makes them more inclined to deny them.