German versus Japanese atrocities - and a comparison to Rome

[Timotheus]

I have two questions that I would like some opinions on.

1. Who had a greater involvement in atrocities in WW2? Yes we all know that the Germans killed more people. Millions of Jews, Eastern Europeans, and anyone else who the Nazis did not like were rounded up and exterminated. This was done though in a efficient system where a vast majority of the murders were done in the Death Camps. On the other hand the atrocities of the Japanese in WW2 were done by and large by the common soldier. With this in mind while the Germans killed more people I would be willing to surmise that the average Japanese person is much more likely to personally know or be related closely to a member of the Japanese military who in WW2 butchered people than the average German citizen.

Do you think this is a fair assessment? It is important to me because to throw out random numbers lets say that 2% of all Germans can point to someone in their family tree who was working at a Death Camp while 20% of all Japanese can point to someone in their family tree who raped, murdered at Nanking or someone else this would result in the Japanese as a whole being much more afraid of accepting what happened.


2. How does anyone here think the Romans who were not above exterminating every living soul in a city that resisted them would feel if they were there to witness Nanking? Would it be something that they accepted as a practice of war? Or would the event even turn the stomach of Romans who saw the actions of the Japanese as going too far even by Roman standards? My personal take is that even hardened Roman legionaries would be repelled by the brutal rape/torture/mutilation that happened in Nanking.

Opinions?

[Carlton Bach]

People tend to overestimate the efficiency of the German killing machinery - it is, in fact, one of the myths that sustained German conservatism through the postwar period that the majority of soldiers and civilians did not know or were not involved. History does not bear this out. There were German troops that did not participate in atrocities, especially those engaged on the Western front, but large numbers of German soldiers and civilians were part of torture, killings, looting, slave labour and all manner of very ugly things. We have no hard numbers (neither do we have them for the Japanese), but the records are clear on the fact that German soldiers of every arm routinely shot hostages, destroyed or looted property, murdered prisoners, hunted slave labour, and beat, raped and shot civilians in Eastern Europe. One thing that German veterans recall from the last years of the war is how different units drawn from the Eastern front behaved in combat in France. But even the 'regular' German occupation troops there were far more dangerous and violent men that the stereotype allows.

It is quite likely that nonetheless, the proportion of Japanese troops who personally participated in atrocities was larger simply because the military culture was more strongly pervaded by the idea that this was right. Japanese who refused were punished or bullied while there are many documented cases of Wehrmacht troops suffering no adverse consequences for refusing to be part of murders (though in other cases, it did happen). But the divergence is unlikely to be very great. For the Japanese, everywhere was the Eastern Front.

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.

[Timotheus]

People tend to overestimate the efficiency of the German killing machinery - it is, in fact, one of the myths that sustained German conservatism through the postwar period that the majority of soldiers and civilians did not know or were not involved. History does not bear this out. There were German troops that did not participate in atrocities, especially those engaged on the Western front, but large numbers of German soldiers and civilians were part of torture, killings, looting, slave labour and all manner of very ugly things. We have no hard numbers (neither do we have them for the Japanese), but the records are clear on the fact that German soldiers of every arm routinely shot hostages, destroyed or looted property, murdered prisoners, hunted slave labour, and beat, raped and shot civilians in Eastern Europe. One thing that German veterans recall from the last years of the war is how different units drawn from the Eastern front behaved in combat in France. But even the 'regular' German occupation troops there were far more dangerous and violent men that the stereotype allows.

It is quite likely that nonetheless, the proportion of Japanese troops who personally participated in atrocities was larger simply because the military culture was more strongly pervaded by the idea that this was right. Japanese who refused were punished or bullied while there are many documented cases of Wehrmacht troops suffering no adverse consequences for refusing to be part of murders (though in other cases, it did happen). But the divergence is unlikely to be very great. For the Japanese, everywhere was the Eastern Front.

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.

You pretty well mirror my thoughts on both. The Japanese accepted it at a level beyond what the Germans did and this made it more widespread.

I also agree that the Romans would have considered it a waste of material and probably detrimental to their soldiers. Bad movies aside a sociopath does not make a good soldier and I am sure the Romans were pragmatic enough to realize this.

[Magnus]

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.

Look at the firebombings of Japanese cities by US B-29's after their decision to switch to incendiaries, once intel showed they would have a greater effect on their wooden houses than heavy explosive. The US bomber command essentially used the same idea as the Luftwaffe did when the germans switched to targeting civilian targets instead of military in the Battle of Britain. Figured the #of civillian casualties would break the backs of their enemies...

Not to start a flame war, but if you read enough accounts from both sides, you'll see that not just the losing side of the war committed attrocities against civilians and POW's.

You seem a bit biased concerning the japanese Timotheus...

As for the Romans in general terms I believe their idea of human life having value was different from ours. Most likely on par with attrocities of any given war, but having said that I don't think the Romans systematically butchered everyone they won a battle with.

[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.

Look at the firebombings of Japanese cities by US B-29's after their decision to switch to incendiaries, once intel showed they would have a greater effect on their wooden houses than heavy explosive. The US bomber command essentially used the same idea as the Luftwaffe did when the germans switched to targeting civilian targets instead of military in the Battle of Britain. Figured the #of civillian casualties would break the backs of their enemies...

Not to start a flame war, but if you read enough accounts from both sides, you'll see that not just the losing side of the war committed attrocities against civilians and POW's.

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.

There is also an order of magnitude difference. The US Army Airforce knew that firebombing Japanese cities would be efficient and destroy all levels of industry right do the the small mom and pop machine shops that existed and supported the large weapon producing factories.

In comparison tell me what stretch of any sort can one make to give any sort of military justification to the Nazi Death Camps or the Japanese rape of Nanking where Japanese soldiers did but were not limited to:

Rape
Murder
Mutilation of rape victims (chopping off breasts)
Forcing family members to watch or participate it rape of family members.
Feeding living Chinese to dogs
Hanging chinese peasants from hooks to slowly die
Contests between officers over who could murder more chinese citizens with their sword in a given time. (these little contests were reported in Japanese newspapers much like sporting events)


Shall I continue? Do you really think the Allied strategic bombing program designed to end the war quickly by removing any and all ability to continue fighting in any way shape or form matches with this list? Oh and trust me this list I gave you is far from complete.

[Jona Lendering]

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.

[john m roberts]

Wars tend to bring out the worst in people. Long wars always do. People who employ generous clemency and chivalric gestures at the beginning of a war will usually have dispensed with all such foolishness after a year or two. Our Civil War was full of chivalric illusion in its early months. By its third year there was unrestrained warfare against civilian populations. By the end of WWII all restraint was gone and whole cities were bombed into oblivion. People just wanted the war to be over, whatever it took.

POWs were usually taken in big enveloping movements where entire divisions were surrounded and surrendered as a whole. There was very little of this sort of fighting in the Pacific. Instead, you had small-unit actions on a massive scale. When you are out in the jungle with a squad of 10 or 12 men, you can't spare any to watch over prisoners. So you don't take any.

The Eastern Front of WWII was unusual in that it was decided at the highest levels of German command that this was to be a war to extermination between races, unlike the comparatively lawful warfare in France and Poland. Soldiers were not encouraged to take prisoners and when Russians began to surrender in large numbers, they were not killed simply because the ammunition was needed elsewhere. Most were simply alowed to perish through neglect. Very few survived captivity. The few who did were mostly executed upon repatriation after the war. It was a war of nearly unexampled brutality.

[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.

[Magnus]

Easy Timotheus we're on the same side 8) . My point was that the US was not without it's fair share of attrocities, and more often than not it's the winning side who writes the history books.

And I'm sorry, but carpet bombing civilian areas with incendiaries is not strategic bombing...Have you read "Fly Boys" by James Bradley? It's about the author's father who was shot down over Chi Chi Jima and taken prisoner by the Japanese. Fantastic book and will give you an awesome perspective into the how and why's the japanese behaved the way they did.

I think you're also after the psyche or mind-set required by any side to commit terrible acts against the other. I think all the involved sides in WWII had the win "at all costs" attitude...and thankfully (since we won).

Did you know that many all native units in the US Army during WWII practised scalping of enemy soldiers and trophy taking? Quantitatively not as grand as Axis attrocities, but it certainly demonstrates that both sides had the mental capacity to do terrible things.[/i]

[Timotheus]

Easy Timotheus we're on the same side 8) . My point was that the US was not without it's fair share of attrocities, and more often than not it's the winning side who writes the history books.

And I'm sorry, but carpet bombing civilian areas with incendiaries is not strategic bombing...Have you read "Fly Boys" by James Bradley? It's about the author's father who was shot down over Chi Chi Jima and taken prisoner by the Japanese. Fantastic book and will give you an awesome perspective into the how and why's the japanese behaved the way they did.

I think you're also after the psyche or mind-set required by any side to commit terrible acts against the other. I think all the involved sides in WWII had the win "at all costs" attitude...and thankfully (since we won).

Did you know that many all native units in the US Army during WWII practised scalping of enemy soldiers and trophy taking? Quantitatively not as grand as Axis attrocities, but it certainly demonstrates that both sides had the mental capacity to do terrible things.[/i]

I will take the carpet bombing as merely a difference if opinion. To me you fight to win and the fact that by design or coincidence the enemy tries to hide their war building factories among civilian populations does not automatically take them off the target list. To do so only entices pepple in the future to hide among civilians and thus prolong wars which then increases the losses of life on both sides.

But as I posted earlier I am more interested in why the Japanese are so hostile to accepting what they did. Maybe the difference lies in the post-war situation. In Germany nothing survived the war. The government was completely taken apart and rebuilt. On the other hand under MacArthur much more of the Japanese government remained in power.

It also did not help that China did not really recover after the war but continued fighting as the Nationalists and Communists went after each other.

[Jona Lendering]

it certainly demonstrates that both sides had the mental capacity to do terrible things.

I often think that this is common to us all; and -frankly- I can imagine myself, under the right (or should I say: "wrong"?) circumstances, acting cruelly too. One factor, mentioned by Timothy, may indeed be a tradition of violence - if your ancestors have committed atrocities and if you have learned to follow your ancestors, things will become easier. (Dis)information about the enemy may be another factor. I think John Calvin was right that human beings are inclined to do evil and incapable of doing good without help.

On the other hand, my rabbi (who survived Bergen-Belsen) often says that "people always have an opportunity to do the good thing", and because of his special history, I accept that people can retain their moral integrity even under beastly circumstances. That one's father and grandfather have killed, does not mean that the grandson will automatically follow.

That being said, I would not be surprised if cruelty is something that can get embedded in society. Did you (=Timothy) check the Stanley Milgram reports about obedience and cruelty? There is a good book about the Milgram experiments and Nazi atrocities ([amazon]Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men[/amazon]), which contains a theoretical chapter you may find useful.

[Timotheus]

I think John Calvin was right that human beings are inclined to do evil and incapable of doing good without help.

Man was both good and evil long before "God" came along. Calvin was merely trying to reinforce his stance that Christianity made you a better person because only a man who knows God can be moral.

[Narukami]

One factor, mentioned by Timothy, may indeed be a tradition of violence - if your ancestors have committed atrocities and if you have learned to follow your ancestors, things will become easier.

That one's father and grandfather have killed, does not mean that the grandson will automatically follow.

That being said, I would not be surprised if cruelty is something that can get embedded in society.

To your last point: Did not the ancient Romans prove this to be true?

And to your first point: Violence must be learned -- it is not an instinct. To this I would recommend Gwynne Dyer's book "War" and the chapter "Anybody's Son Will Do" which deals with how armies go about turning civilians into soldiers. Many members of our forum have endured this process and the similarities far out weigh the differences in uniform, nation, or political ideology.

"The method for turning young men into soldiers - people who kill other people and expose themselves to death - is basic training. It's essentially the same all over the world, and it always has been, because young men everywhere are pretty much alike." p.103

Timotheus's basic point is an interesting one:

"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."

However I do not believe it holds up. The idea that only a small subset of the German population knew of or, more to the point, was involved in war crimes is simply not true. That is the old "SS Alibi of a Nation" argument -- that the regular German Military did not engage in war crimes.

Thus the idea that more Japanese today have ancestors who committed war crimes than do Germans just does not seem valid. It is an interesting idea that this connection to family members might make the Japanese reluctant to confront their past, but I don't think the numbers support it.

On the other hand, this idea that our approach to Germany was fundamentally different to that which we took toward Japan does raise some interesting questions.

Had we insisted on trying the Emperor for war crimes, and executing him for same, if that shock to the system would have made a difference in their willingness to confront their past.

I am of a mind that insisting on the Emperor's trial would have caused the Japanese to fight on (as the Army wanted to do even after Nagasaki). We did make drastic changes to their government and even now they are struggling with the constitution we wrote for them and it's prohibitions against having a military.

I do not think this is the answer to the basic question, but quite frankly I am at a loss to figure it out. This will take more thought.

:?

Narukami

[Timotheus]

Interesting point David. One could never know how the numbers stack up and like I said before focusing on the number I think trivializes incredible suffering.

There is though something different. Something about how the occupation was operated. Nanking happened 8 years before the occupation of Japan began. This plus the fact that it happened in China meant that trials for the action were not going to be as extensive as those in Germany.

I believe that the Soviets conducted trials against Unit 731 but I do not know how extensive they were and if I remember right at least one member of the unit was relocated to the USA to work for the military much like German rocket scientists who should have probably spent time in prison for their use of slave labor.

Could the refusal to accept what happen be due to the simple fact that more Japanese slipped through the cracks and melted back into society than did in Germany.

[Narukami]

Timothy,

Speaking of differences in post-war approaches to the occupation of Germany and Japan, and how we dealt with war criminals, you might find the article at this link to be of some interest:

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/levy_ja ... crimes.htm


And this article as well:

http://www.japanfocus.org/_David_McNeil ... sciousness


As we have Holocaust deniers in the US and Europe (David Irving comes to mind) so too do the Japanese have theirs.

The Government of Japan has issued apologies and made some payments ($27 Billion) but your question concerns the people themselves and their attitudes towards their recent history -- it would seem that attitude is very complicated.


Narukami