No Japanese Atrocities in WWII

[Norman]

The question asked about Pearl Harbor made me wonder, what would the result have been if Japan had determied (for what ever reason) not to engage in the atrocities against Chinese civilians and Allied troops and Civilians and instead determined to conduct a 'civilized war'?

 

[Prunesquallor]

There is the old story of Irish countryman who was asked for directions to a certain village. "In the first place," he replied, "I wouldn't start from here." For the Japanese to have fought a "civilised" war in the 30s and afterwards would have required a totally different starting point. I think it would be fair to say that at the start of the century, the Japanese Army had a high reputation for discipline and treatment of civilians. They were supposedly the best behaved of the allied contingents in the Boxer Uprising and treated Russian prisoners (in general) well during the Russo-Japanese War. This changed post WWI. I'd suggest that the behaviour of the Japanese Army and Japan's foreign policy (largely a creation of the Army as time went on) were part and parcel of the same thing, an atavistic reaction, a feeling that the West had rejected them, "right, we're not Westerners in their eyes, let's show them what we really are and what we're capable of."

 

[Melvin Loh]

Yeah, I agree with Prune, for the IJA not to have committed atrocities during the 1937-45 China War and in the Pacific during WWII would require that somehow Japan's militarists don't adopt such a brutalised interpretation of BUSHIDO, such that their conduct remains akin to the disciplined behaviour of Japanese soldiers during the Boxer rebellion, Russo-Japanese War and WWI in the Pacific.

 

[raharris1973]

Maybe you run it as a thought experiment in the ASB forum

I would say though that Japanese and American atrocities against each other were not really a cycle, both came about independently of each other. The critical exception is Pearl Harbor, which started the war.

Assuming Pearl Harbor happens, if the japanese had committed no subsequent atrocities on the American POWs, Americans still would likely have interned the Japanese Americans, often taken no prisoners and used the atomic bomb.

Likewise, if the Americans had not interned Japanese-Americans, tried really hard to make sure Japanese who wanted to surrender could surrender, and had not done unrestricted U-Boat warfare, fdifrebombing or the atomic bomb, it wouldn't have made the Japanese any nicer towards POWs and Chinese civilians, or any less suicidal in resistance.

 

[Mark Ford]

The end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in the 1920s saw a huge upsurge of anti western feelings and a repudiation of many of the western ideas that had been popular over the previous ten years. It is a rather interesting to note that the Japanese fought in WWI and took thousands of German prisoners and the death rate amoung those priosoners where amoung the lowest of the war, about 1-2%.

 

[Norman]

The end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in the 1920s saw a huge upsurge of anti western feelings and a repudiation of many of the western ideas that had been popular over the previous ten years. It is a rather interesting to note that the Japanese fought in WWI and took thousands of German prisoners and the death rate amoung those priosoners where amoung the lowest of the war, about 1-2%.

So what if the Japanese extended this to WWII? What if at the end of the war when we were taking the POW camps the prisoners had been well fed and well treated?

Say in April of 1945, the Japanese realize that the end is near, could they have approached the US and conditionally surrendered?

 

[Agrippa]

So what if the Japanese extended this to WWII? What if at the end of the war when we were taking the POW camps the prisoners had been well fed and well treated?

Say in April of 1945, the Japanese realize that the end is near, could they have approached the US and conditionally surrendered?

Unless there's some other POD, by April 1945 no one is going to be taking conditional surrenders. The US, UK, and USSR had expended too much blood to give Japan or Germany the chance to pull a 'post-Versailles Germany' and rearm. Each Axis nation was going to learn that it had been defeated. An unconditional surrender would have been accepted at that point and the end result would be pretty similar to OTL: occupation, maintance of Emperor, etc.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Norman- you couldn't extend this to WWII because that would imply a wholly different background where Japanese foreign policy had been more of a case of "oh come on, give us it, you know it's in your own best interests" rather than "we want it and we're taking it."

Japanese atrocities- an incidental point. I get the impression that during the war, America made more of a noise about Japanese treatment of POWs than Britain, but that this was reversed in post war years. America suffered more in relative terms if less in absolute terms than Britain (in round terms, US 7,400 died in captivity, about a third of the total, GB 12,500 died, about a quarter.) But after the war the "prisoner of the Japanese" cycle became a British staple, not an American. This is simply because America had Midway and the rest to look back on, Britain only the sideshow in Burma and Wingate's futilities. To distract themselves from the knowledge that they'd been pulled to victory in Asia on America's coat-tails, the British concentrated on the barbarity of the other side.

Unconditional surrender. In Europe, this was a way of keeping the alliance together. A perfectly rational one (no, I'm not going to reply to anyone on this.) Its extension to the Pacific was an automatic one, rather a considered view of the situation. In fact the Japanese surrender wasn't unconditional, quiet assurances were made about the Emperor's position. In my magnum opus (which I must resume work on), in an AH where America hasn't entered the European War, there is a compromise peace after the Japanese announce that the warmongering clique has been removed and committed "suicide", and the Emperor has abdicated and retired to a monastery in favour of his son. The trouble is that we tend to have this myth of undying loyalty and fighting to the last man among the samurai. In practise, you'd just as often have usurpation or the last minute deal between supposed enemies.

 

[Guilherme Loureiro]

It is a rather interesting to note that the Japanese fought in WWI and took thousands of German prisoners and the death rate amoung those priosoners where amoung the lowest of the war, about 1-2%.

Also, treatment of Russian prisoners during the 1904-5 war was laudable. I have one question, though: How were the Chinese prisoners treated in the 1894-5 war? The only mention I know of is the incident where the cruiser Naniwa, commanded by Heihachiro Togo, machine-gunned Chinese soldiers that had abandoned a sinking transport and were on the water. However, I don't know whether that was an isolated incident or not.

 

[Mark Ford]

Japanese atrocities- an incidental point. I get the impression that during the war, America made more of a noise about Japanese treatment of POWs than Britain, but that this was reversed in post war years. America suffered more in relative terms if less in absolute terms than Britain (in round terms, US 7,400 died in captivity, about a third of the total, GB 12,500 died, about a quarter.) But after the war the "prisoner of the Japanese" cycle became a British staple, not an American. This is simply because America had Midway and the rest to look back on, Britain only the sideshow in Burma and Wingate's futilities. To distract themselves from the knowledge that they'd been pulled to victory in Asia on America's coat-tails, the British concentrated on the barbarity of the other side.

The reason the British made a bigger noise about atrocities after the war was because there were more survivors from Britain than anywhere else. Something like 38,000 survivors returned to the UK with harrowing stories compared to 14,000 Americans, when you remember that the USA had three times the population of the UK it is not surpriseing that stories told by survivors would permiate through British culture more so than American.
And as for the treatment of POWs affecting the victorious government's attitude to Japan, the only country that falls into that catagory is Australia. One in five Australian's to die in WWII were quests of the Japanese Emperor and to the best of my knowledge Australia was the only western country out for revenge in 1945.

 

[Prunesquallor]

I'm not sure I agree, Mark. Britain has a long history of military fuck ups and so has developed various strategies of making them sound good. You can emphasise heroism. The Crimea's a balls up- then make a fuss about the Charge of the Light Brigade. You can emphasise isolated feats of arms. The Zulus have smashed our column at Isandhlwana- then make a fuss about Rourke's Drift. You can emphasise national characteristics. We've been kicked out of the continent, then go on about the "little ships" at Dunkirk and the British spirit of enterprise. You can turn it into a romantic saga. The Afghans have destroyed an expeditionary force- go on about the single survivor who road back to give the news about the fate of the army. You can create an icon- the British are in full retreat from the French in the Peninsular War, then start churning out paintings of the death of Sir John Moore. Sadly in WWII in Asia, for want of anything better, the British had to resort to the unspeakable beastliness of the enemy.

Animus towards the Japanese in WWII. John Dower has an interesting book on racial attitudes in the Pacific War, WAR WITHOUT MERCY, where he argues that American and Japanese attitudes towards the enemy were virtually mirror images, racist. I don't believe that anything like the last 1,000 bomber raid against Japan would have been done against Germany.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I'm not sure I agree, Mark. Britain has a long history of military fuck ups and so has developed various strategies of making them sound good. You can emphasise heroism. The Crimea's a balls up- then make a fuss about the Charge of the Light Brigade. You can emphasise isolated feats of arms. The Zulus have smashed our column at Isandhlwana- then make a fuss about Rourke's Drift. You can emphasise national characteristics. We've been kicked out of the continent, then go on about the "little ships" at Dunkirk and the British spirit of enterprise. You can turn it into a romantic saga. The Afghans have destroyed an expeditionary force- go on about the single survivor who road back to give the news about the fate of the army. You can create an icon- the British are in full retreat from the French in the Peninsular War, then start churning out paintings of the death of Sir John Moore. Sadly in WWII in Asia, for want of anything better, the British had to resort to the unspeakable beastliness of the enemy.

Animus towards the Japanese in WWII. John Dower has an interesting book on racial attitudes in the Pacific War, WAR WITHOUT MERCY, where he argues that American and Japanese attitudes towards the enemy were virtually mirror images, racist. I don't believe that anything like the last 1,000 bomber raid against Japan would have been done against Germany.

1,000 bomber raids against Germany were pretty common. There were more deaths in Dresden Germany then Hiroshima or Nagasaki!

 

[Hendryk]

The country that bears the worst grudge against Japan for what they did during WW2 is probably China, with the two Koreas coming right behind. Those were the peoples who bore the brunt of Japanese brutality until 1945. I don't have the definitive explanation for the atrocities the Japanese committed, but I think it may have something to do with the influence of European ideologies on the military, especially the various forms of fascism and its underlying racism. It seems that between 1918 and 1931, the Japanese military came to consider that non-Japanese were unworthy of humane treatment. Thus the Chinese, the Koreans and, later on, British and American POWs could be tortured and killed as convenience dictated. The list of atrocities committed in occupied China is truly sickening in both its scope and the level of sadism involved. (Check out the Rape of Nanjing and the notorious Unit 731).
I am less an expert on Japanese culture than of Chinese culture, but I guess fascist ideas must have grafted themselves at some point on the already adulterated Bushido code that was prevalent among the armed forces, making it possible for both officers and common soldiers to indulge their bloodlust in a way that would have been considered distateful at the very least in pre-Meiji Japan. So if you want an ATL in which these atrocities don't take place, you have to modify the ideological framework of the Japanese military, perhaps by retaining a "purer" Bushido code, and remaining wary of Western-style racism. Of course the Japanese were already racist after a fashion before being exposed to fascism, but it was more along the lines of complacent paternalism.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Brilliantlight- No. That's a myth. Gradually the estimates of deaths in Dresden have been coming down. Last I heard (IIRC) they reckon about one third of the Hiroshima figure. Dresden has been built up , firstly because it was useful to right wing apologists, secondly because by concentrating on the RAF, it distracted attention from the activities of the American bombing force.

And the last 1,000 bomber raid on Japan was done simply as a demonstration of air power. They knew the Japanese were surrendering, the last of the bombers were still in flight when official confirmation came.

Hendryk- I'm not sure on this matter. I don't believe in the fascism element. One theory of mine (I'm totally willing to be shown wrong by anyone with expertise in this area) was that Japanese behaviour was actually the revenge of the peasantry. The post Meiji Army was a mass one, manned by the elements of society who hadn't even had the right to bear arms since Hideyoshi's sword hunt. Once the officer class of Japan turned its back on the West, the peasants who formed the rank and file were now free to exercise power over the conquered and ,in a sense, pay back on the world what generations of the Japanese peasantry had suffered from the samurai.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Prunes,

I included the "sword hunt" stuff in an article I wrote critical of gun control that will (I hope) appear in a book of essays written by members of my college's Libertarian club (hopefully it will be available @ www.lewrockwell.com within the year).

It's good to know that someone else has been paying attention to Japanese history.

Hendryk,

A friend of mine is Korean and he HATES the Japanese. IIRC the Japanese were running Korea gruesomely before their exposure to fascism. According to Thomas Fleming's Illusions of Victory, the Japanese indulged in some truly ghoulish behavior in Korea when the people demanded self-determination based on Wilson's 14 Points. I think the Japanese indulged in the "worse variety" of racism (sadistic tyranny as opposed to simply snobbery) much earlier than the appearance of fascism in Europe.