So everyone were very upset with the war crimes committed by the Japanese Imperial army against China. But we must understand that as a result of corruptions in the government and personal greed of a few VIPs, have made China a weak country by large and invited a lot of unwanted troubles. If Chinese were united and strong, other countries would think twice before making a move on China. So brothers, let's be united!
er..not just "a few months back". their history books have been "rewriting history" for a long time. such a practice isn't uncommon. many countries in the world do such a practice. just the degree of which they do this to varies.
Well I was referring to a specific point, when Japan tried to release a new history book glorifying Japan in WWII. The reason I chose this specific point is that it was a major one - as many Chinese people were outraged and started riots in China and attacked Japanese businesses in China.
A main point you did not point out is that China AND Korea both resisted Japanese rule leading to these atrocities. If you ask Taiwanese grand parents to watched the 1940s era you would notice that they actually enjoyed the Japanese take over. The atrocities were obviousy done to terrorize China. You have to take into account that the world was in a mess and not world policies were implemented. Such cases should not be a surprise to anyone when there is not policy control during a war.
ok so your saying that its fine just because its war.... ok actually your points taken, but then I already said thats in the past but the sticking point is Japans denial of the whole thing... So I guess we shouldnt be suprised about the holocaust either right Hang on the more I read your reply the more ridiculous it sounds, war does not justify anything like this, nor make it anymore acceptable. So your saying if a country just invaded you, youd stand back and just say 'hey its ok'... In fact it would be a suprise to me if a country who had the force to do it, stood back and did nothing
that's crap man, seriously, japs come to china to rip off our culture and they turn around and take over the country?? stoopid ppl eh
Oh pul-leeze, what are the Korean casualties inflicted by the Japanese? It's not even close to a fraction of what the Chinese sufferred. Your second point is obviously bullshit, Japan did not obey the League of Nations demand to get out of Northeast China ("Manchukuo" as they called it) and experimented chemical weapons on civilians. Some of my relatives died because of those bastards. Not only that, they did not adhere to the Geneva Convention, hence your statement of "word policies not being implemented" is 100% bullshit.
man, this topic is too sensitive. I know the events that happened were in the past, but thinking of it just gets me mad. The japanese till this day still deny what they have done to us. Not to mention, they didnt include it in their history books. I'm not telling you guys should do this, but we chinese must do something...perhaps to their women.
It really pains me to point this out, but during the last century, the one person that cause the most Chinese deaths was another Chinese; Mao, with about 50 million to his, er... credit. And no, the figure of 30 million Nanjing deaths that someone quoted was way off. It was closer to about three hundred thousand. BTW, who saved the most Chinese during the Nanjing incident? A Nazi named John Rabe. And FYI, during the Japanese purges of Chinese in Singapore, a Japanese Senior Special Foreign Affairs Officer named Mamoru Shinozaki, at great personal risk, printed, personally signed, and distributed nearly thirty thousand "safe passage for the bearer" cards that was credited with saving thousands of Chinese. So not all Japanese were war criminals during the war. Japanese war crimes subsequently became a non-issue with the start of the Korean conflict as US forces needed a highly industrialized and politically functional Japan to support allied forces. Thereafter, years of Chinese isolation further exacerbated the lack of attention to this side of history. In another forum, where I was discussing this same issue, I had posted the following: Obviously, this issue remains a hot button of histrionics similar to that evoked by the Holocaust. Surprisingly though, the period of the Nanjing atrocities lasted roughly three months, whereas the Nazi endeavor endured a protracted number of years. That the perpetrated deeds were of horrific nature in and of itself is not in dispute. What many Japanese nationalists insist upon however, is that these were the isolated actions of a few rogue or undisciplined soldiers, and not a systematic campaign of extermination ordered or even authorized from the top; and that the number of victims often quoted are sheer revisionist exaggerations unsupported by prevailing evidence. It is assertions like this that prevents the Japanese government from being more politically sympathetic to the idea of a national apology. That many victims and their progeny, imbued with tremendous residual anger, may call for a nuclear annihilation of Japan is not surprising. But, neither is such anger constructively helpful towards deconstructing the wall of conservative Japanese resistance in recognizing one of it's history's most shameful episodes. In this regard, let us examine the position taken by many Japanese conservatives and evaluate the probabilities based on what we know about Japanese social and military history. Japan at the onset of the twentieth century, was a highly organized and militaristic society. Many of it's moral codes revolved around personal martial honor, devotion and willingness to sacrifice for the emperor, with little regard for the needs or desire of the individual. An excerpt from Kamikaze Diaries, found here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/619508.html ...goes on to explain: "...Any soldier who would not obey military rules and his commander’s orders was shot on the spot, without a charge against the one who shot him. Furthermore, people feared that such an offense by a soldier would lead to the punishment of his immediate and extended family members, just as during the Edo period the government warned that “crime extends to five generations and punishment to five affinal relationships” (tsumi godai ni oyobi batsu gozoku ni wataru)—that is, the punishment of a large number of people related to him by blood and marriage. These rules were intended to hold an entire kin group responsible for the actions of an individual and, thus, to reinforce the social pressure on soldiers to obey orders. In practice the system suppressed complaints by soldiers’ parents and made soldiers fearful of committing any violation..." In such an atmosphere, the probabilites of rogue or undisciplined soldiers, is simply unfathomable. Assume for a moment, that the conservative view is true, that these were cases of abberant or criminal conduct, outside the norm of everyday military activity for any Japanese unit. One would readily surmise that within such a strictly controlled setting that was the Japanese army, such behavior would hardly have been ignored. Rather, punishment should have been swift indeed. Moreover, the Japanese army (similar to the German military), was also extraordinary in the degree of it's written documentation. If evidence of such appalling crimes (and during Nanjing, atricities were in plain view of Japanese command) were committed by Japanese troops, such soldiers should have been severely punished. The records of such military judicial proceedings would therefore be available for historians to review. That however, has not been the case. The fact that no Kempeitai (military police) unit documents, or other military judicial records exist, when we know that crimes took place; combined with the fact that the Japanese army was, if anything, a strict disciplinarian and fastidious record keeper; weighs heavily towards the conclusion that the Japanese command did not view such activities to be crimes, or even as breakdowns in discipline. Even if criminal acts were not tacitly ordered, those in authority knew about such crimes and did nothing to order the curtailment of such activity. Recognizing that the Japanese army was a tightly disciplined group, both by socialization structure and military training, one can effectively argue that if any commander order his troops to stop raping, they would have immediately stopped. Hence, it becomes difficult to avoid that the event occurred with full knowledge of Japanese authorities, and that those in command, not only didn't oppose such crimes; that by their inaction, allowed and even encouraged their troops to further excesses. Note: For an excellent background on the structure and enforcement of Japanese military rules and regulations, one simply has to do a web search on the Kempeitai, the Japanese military or secret police. As brutal as the German gestapo, the Kempeitai, is rarely, if ever, mentioned by western media. Ralph
Don't be an idiot. -rolleyes The only thing that would accomplish is put you in jail. Spend your energy studying up on the history of the events so that you can speak about it with intelligence and eloquence. That is probably the most powerful tool for righting the wrongs for those that were victimized. Oh, and BTW, lest we forget, the issue of Chinese responsibility in Nanjing: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20050421_2.htm ...which discusses the infighting within Chinese political circles, military bungles and foul ups, and poor leadership that allowed a smaller attacking force to defeat nearly twice their numerical strengthed defenders. For those that know about military strategy, the traditional balance is that defenders usually have the advantage over attackers by a 3:1 margin. Meaning that Chinese forces, by numbers alone, went into the battle with 6:1 odds in their favor, but still lost. There's an ugly side to every story, and in Chinese, it's even uglier. History is a bit like parents; you can't pick and choose. Ralph
If all was well and civilized we wouldn't be fighting for land. The fact that war has broken loose would mean to expect the worst. I'm not saying that its right to kill and torture I'm just saying it should be expected of a war. Thats why people are against wars. I can't think of a war where people were not tortured and killed...can you? (The US-Soviet cold war does not count ) From what I hear Taiwan did not resist. They were well treated. When a country has been run over by multiple foreign powers over many decades and cannot defend themselves.....I suggest surrendering to reduce casualties. "Resistance is futile!." This is before the whole Europe join in deal. I'm talking about Japan vs Asia. BTW: I don't think i went into the Japanese denial thing.
Good info, but comparing the systematic slaughtering of Chinese civilians to those who died as a result of poor policy is a bad comparison. Also, 50 million is an exaggerated figure. Almost all of the estimates for the Great Leap Forward are obscure or sketchy at best. As for "Chinese 'responsibility' in the Nanjing atrocities," it does not justify for what the Japanese did in any way whatsoever. If anything, Shanghai was the strategic error made Jiang Jieshi, not the defence of Nanjing.
I apologize if I gave you a false impression of comparison between Japanese mass murder versus Mao's failed policy management. It was meant as an observation that the Chinese, throughout history, suffered enormously at the hands of many, with some causes closer to home than others. Nor am I even suggesting abrogation of Japanese guilt from their henious role in Nanjing. I was merely pointing to other factors that lent more fuel to the fire; of salting an already terrible wound. I disagree with your assessment regarding Shanghai. Jiang Jieshi's (mandarin romanization of Chiang KaiShek) loss of Shanghai, while a tactical and military setback for China, was considered a huge strategic and political victory for the Chinese. It galvanized China's resistance and forced competing warlord factions to work together, for the first time, towards the common good of the nation. Further, China needed to salvage it's industry into the interior, away from Japanese capture. Shanghai bought time for the evacuation and subsequent safeguarding of limited, but vital production capability to Wuhan. Moreover, in stunning contrast to Japanese propaganda, not only did Shanghai not fall in a predicted three days, but took nearly three months at a cost of 70,000 Japanese casualties. This occured despite the huge tactical material advantage that the Japanese had in arms, ships, tanks, and aircraft. That a third rate army of poorly trained illiterate recruits was able to go mano a mano with a sophisticated military powerhouse (that Japan was at the time), and severely bloodied it's nose; Shanghai became a huge source of Chinese pride, as well as a tremendous political embarassment to the acutely image sensitive Japanese. Many historians have theorized that this was a major source of anger that contributed to the Japanese rage evident later in Nanjing. Ralph
Not exactly. At the Battle of Shanghai, the elite "cream of the crop" German-trained divisions were put forth by the Nationalists. Having to deal with not only the Japanese army, but also the ongoing barrage from the IJN, it was a strategic mistake to have put them there. This meant that some of the best officiers and troops that the Nationalists could field had gone down the drain in that battle. But don't get me wrong, the Chinese Nationalist troops at Shanghai did a superb job, and their defense of the Sihang warehouse was heroic indeed. Jiang Jieshi thought he would be able to invite interest of foreign powers to intervene on Japan (repeat of 1932) had he shown some will power to confront the invading Japanese, but we now know that had not been the case. Again, it is a strategic mistake of Jiang to have defended Shanghai, knowing full well that the city was undefendable and that the nation would have lost some of its best soldiers - who would've otherwise been used against the Japanese elsewhere.
Not to be argumentative, I think this is just a dance of semantics, really. I never said that Chiang planned for it; simple serendipity, as it just happened that way. Like you so stated, he had anticipated the conflict to continue for less than a year as he stubbornly insisted and expected European or American powers to come to his rescue. The battle cost him tremendous assets, including a large number of not easily replaced Whampoa educated officers, and like you stated, his best German trained garrisons, which he had gambled (erroneously as history has shown) with the above assumptions in mind. Nevertheless, the overall strategic importance cannot be overstated. It resulted in long term political gains that China would never have been able to garner otherwise; in spite of the fact that as it occurred, it was a considered a tactical catastrophe. Ralph
