Letters from Iwo Jima

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

What I surely understand is that you persist in wanting to define collective guilt as a legal status. You just presented a fine example.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Surely you undertand that an "emotion you are sharing with others" constitutes a "collective" experience, ergo the emotion was experinced collectively and if that emotion happens to be guilt, then you have participated in the experience of collective guilt. How can you possibly continue to deny it's existence with a straight face?

Well, what happens with the individual that does not feel that same emotion as the rest of the group? He is not experiencing that emotion that others are sharing, is he?

So, in order for us to know whether an individual is feeling that emotion or not, we have to check each individual to see whether he is feeling the emotion or not. And thus, we are making an individual test to see whether the emotion is there or not.

A side-effect of this of cource, is that the feeling is only collective among those who experience it, and if we translate this to the discussion we were having, then only those japanese guilty of warcrimes share the guilt of those warcrimes, or in other words, the guilt is not collective for all japanese members of the armed forces, only for those who are found guilty on an individual level.

The fact that you fail to understand this is truly amazing.

Disecting the group into individuals is indeed necessary to ascertain what each individual experienced. You then fail to take the necessary next step in assembling the data gleaned into a group representative set, auspiciously because doing so would undermine your circular argument. Examine 100 individuals to ascertain what each experienced and come away with 72, or 37 or 2 (the number, as long as it is greater than one, is irrelevant) who experienced the same emotional response to the stimulus and you have undenaible documentation that the emotional response was experienced collectively. We both know you are intelligent enough to understand this and your dogmatic denial of it appears to represent nothing more than irrational obstinance.

Your misperception that only those comitting an act can feel guilt for it is completely baseless and a decided delusionary misconception of reality. It is perfectly well possible for individuals to feel guilt by association. As a member of the human race, I feel no end of guilt for the manner in which my self proclaimed superior animal species tramples every other life form on the planet in it's hasty pursuit of it's petty self interests. I don't have to personnally trample every other life form in my path to feel guilt over the fact that my species as a whole does so.

While I don't personnally participate in this particular manifestation of collective guilt there is a large segment of my society that constantly preaches to me that I should feel guilt by association simply for being of caucasion European descent (only partially as I am 50% blood Lebonese and only a quarter German and a quarter Irish in terms of heritage)....guilt for the European imperialistic exploitation of much of much of the rest of the world, "white" guilt for the slave trade......ad infintum.

It is a simpe fact of reality that guilt by association is a common human emotion, which can come in collective form. It isn't a fact of reality because "I feel it is" and I don't merely "think" it is becasue of the way I "feel". I know it is because I possess sufficient powers of perception and intelligence to be capable of comprehending that it is. This is the ONLY reason why anyone can know anything regarding the reality of their existence. It doesn't come from the historical study of laws and norms and standards, it doesn't come from a flood of "corroborating" second opinions.

Frankly, I find the need some evidence for supplying third party support for their opinion a decided sign of insecurity. I don't want to know, nor will I be impressed by, what you think because of what others have told you, I want to know , and will, or will not be impressed by what you think FOR YOURSELF. That is why I don't insult others buy trying to prop up my observations and opinions with the opinions of others. I find the practice rather comical.

It is this collective white guilt that Panzerjaeger Hortlund attempts to exploit in many of his posts yet denies existing.

It is a tool that he uses to get a desired effect so he must certainly know of its existence.

[martxyz]

I'm sorry. Is this the 10-day argument I've walked into, or the 10-week argument? I wish to god I'd brought some pizzas with me.
Here's a good piece of courtroom advice, for the uninitiated. If you feel at all intimidated by a judge, lawyer, defendant or witness, just imagine them sitting nude, on the toilet, straining with constipation. My suggestion for ending this argument therefore goes like this: All the participants should show photos of their "real" selves instead of the silly avatars, and everyone reveals their true name. Then we can all have a damn good laugh at your expense. It's amazing how quickly an argument will end if instead of people being called some weird military name and appearing to be either butch or gorgeous, they turn out to be a 20-stone sweaty person called Colin. [>:]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Mart

I'm sorry. Is this the 10-day argument I've walked into, or the 10-week argument? I wish to god I'd brought some pizzas with me.
Here's a good piece of courtroom advice, for the uninitiated. If you feel at all intimidated by a judge, lawyer, defendant or witness, just imagine them sitting nude, on the toilet, straining with constipation. My suggestion for ending this argument therefore goes like this: All the participants should show photos of their "real" selves instead of the silly avatars, and everyone reveals their true name. Then we can all have a damn good laugh at your expense. It's amazing how quickly an argument will end if instead of people being called some weird military name and appearing to be either butch or gorgeous, they turn out to be a 20-stone sweaty person called Colin. [>:]

Mart, just for your edification Hans Bolter is not some "wierd military name". Hans was a Tiger tank commander in the 502nd Heavy Panzer Battalion with one of the highest tank "kill" counts in the war.

Try this link and educate yourself:

http://www.alanhamby.com/aces.html

No insult intended, no hard feelings.

While I don't have a readily availble webcam picture of myself, my real name has been inadvertantly mentioned in these forums by several other posters who have learned it from my participation as a beta tester on Pather Games private game development forum here at this site. I'm not hiding from anyone so I can get away with "flaming" others anonymously.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

So, what did you think of my previous posts? The Sir Thomas Moore example?

Im afraid I didnt see the relevance of it to the discussion we had about collective guilt.

Sir Thomas Moore as assumed innocent because of his silence. (collective innocence?) If collective innocence can exist why can't collective guilt?

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Mart

I'm sorry. Is this the 10-day argument I've walked into, or the 10-week argument? I wish to god I'd brought some pizzas with me.
Here's a good piece of courtroom advice, for the uninitiated. If you feel at all intimidated by a judge, lawyer, defendant or witness, just imagine them sitting nude, on the toilet, straining with constipation. My suggestion for ending this argument therefore goes like this: All the participants should show photos of their "real" selves instead of the silly avatars, and everyone reveals their true name. Then we can all have a damn good laugh at your expense. It's amazing how quickly an argument will end if instead of people being called some weird military name and appearing to be either butch or gorgeous, they turn out to be a 20-stone sweaty person called Colin. [>:]

Already done here, just follow my link.[8D]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

While I don't have a readily availble webcam picture of myself, my real name has been inadvertantly mentioned in these forums by several other posters who have learned it from my participation as a beta tester on Pather Games private game development forum here at this site. I'm not hiding from anyone so I can get away with "flaming" others anonymously.

It's also in your profile at this site, bro. Mine is too, although only the last initial.

Mart may not have intended that just for you. He may not have intended that for you at all, since you do have your name public.

I do notice frequently that people that delight in taking shots at our country don't make their own location known. And "Tojo's Loins" doesnt count.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

While I don't have a readily availble webcam picture of myself, my real name has been inadvertantly mentioned in these forums by several other posters who have learned it from my participation as a beta tester on Pather Games private game development forum here at this site. I'm not hiding from anyone so I can get away with "flaming" others anonymously.

It's also in your profile at this site, bro. Mine is too, although only the last initial.

Mart may not have intended that just for you. He may not have intended that for you at all, since you do have your name public.

I do notice frequently that people that delight in taking shots at our country don't make their own location known. And "Tojo's Loins" doesnt count.

LOL, seems I'm more "disclosed" than I even realized!

[Ike99]

ORANGE-I would like to see the proof of these alleged widespread atrocities of Allied Troops in the Pacific theatre.

Where were these widespread killings of POWS? And what do you mean by widespread? Do you mean that one POW was killed in the Aleutians and one killed in Borneo so that they were widespread spatially? Or did one occur in 1941 and another in 1945 so they were widespread chronologically?

Look around Orange. You can find the entire history and not just the spoon fed version. I just got done reading how killing Japanese POW´s on Okinawa was ¨widespead¨ as reported as such by Ernie Pyle. A war correspondant it seems from the US.

But as I said to someone else, I´m not doing your homework for you. I´ll give you a good start though....

Excerpts taken from the Austrailan government site on the war in the South Pacific. A cooperative effort between Australia & Japan it seems to get the history...the whole, un white washed history.

Only a few hundred Japanese were taken prisoner by Australian and American troops in New Guinea during the war....the reluctance on the part of Australian and other Allied troops to take Japanese prisoners...Allied commanders and intelligence officers were constantly reminding the front-line troops of the importance of doing so.

The killing of unarmed, sleeping, sick or wounded Japanese was common. Although official pressure was put on troops to take prisoners, the Australian front-line soldiers - like their American counterparts - had little desire to do so.

All this is from a Australian government site. Pretty credible to you or no?

Anyways, go through and read the veterans accounts, both Japanese & Allied. There are many, many interviews. It´s not a case of here and there of killing POW´s. It´s widespread and very much the normal thing.

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

ORANGE-I would like to see the proof of these alleged widespread atrocities of Allied Troops in the Pacific theatre.

Where were these widespread killings of POWS? And what do you mean by widespread? Do you mean that one POW was killed in the Aleutians and one killed in Borneo so that they were widespread spatially? Or did one occur in 1941 and another in 1945 so they were widespread chronologically?

Look around Orange. You can find the entire history and not just the spoon fed version. I just got done reading how killing Japanese POW´s on Okinawa was ¨widespead¨ as reported as such by Ernie Pyle. A war correspondant it seems from the US.

But as I said to someone else, I´m not doing your homework for you. I´ll give you a good start though....

Excerpts taken from the Austrailan government site on the war in the South Pacific. A cooperative effort between Australia & Japan it seems to get the history...the whole, un white washed history.

Only a few hundred Japanese were taken prisoner by Australian and American troops in New Guinea during the war....the reluctance on the part of Australian and other Allied troops to take Japanese prisoners...Allied commanders and intelligence officers were constantly reminding the front-line troops of the importance of doing so.

The killing of unarmed, sleeping, sick or wounded Japanese was common. Although official pressure was put on troops to take prisoners, the Australian front-line soldiers - like their American counterparts - had little desire to do so.

All this is from a Australian government site. Pretty credible to you or no?

Anyways, go through and read the veterans accounts, both Japanese & Allied. There are many, many interviews. It´s not a case of here and there of killing POW´s. It´s widespread and very much the normal thing.

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf

But what about the next step?
Why did this happen?

One thing to keep in mind is that the battle you reference here was rather small. If memory serves, it was perhaps two regiments of Japanese infantry against two batallions of Australian Territorials. All of this fought along a foot path through rugged mountianous terrain called the "Kokoda trail".

All the veteran's accounts I have read about the war in the Pacific and China were feirce. No doubts there.
But who would you rather be taken prisoner by? Imperial Japan or the Western Allies? Where do you think you had a better chance of surviving?

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Heh, this is too funny. First, I think its blindingly obvious that I added the gang-variable to (try to) explain to you what would need to be changed for this to be a case of collective guilt. Second, why would "gang" be a racial stereotype? Are you implying that only a certain ethnicity is involved in gangs? LOL.

Sorry, you won't dance out of this. You saw an article about a black man murdered by a black man and immediately assumed the killer and his entourage belonged to a gang. That's a racial stereotype. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

Here is a piece of advice. Follow this case if you can. Look at the case on court-tv or whatever. Perhaps you could get a transcript of the verdict some day. When you do, ask yourself this. Did the prosecutor try to lead in evidence that all four were at the scene of the crime together. Did he try to lead in evidence that all four knowingly and willingly took part in the original break-in. Because if he does, and if the court finds that he has been able to show that, then..surprise surprise, we have tried these guys as individuals.

Undoubtedly they will be given seperate trials and treated individually throughout. However, they will be defending themselves against a charge they didn't commit because they were treated collectively by the prosecuter (backed up by lawmakers).
For what one person did, they all pay a price.

Sure, there is a law that says roughly this. If you are part of a group of people who decide to do a burglary into someones home, and if you know that one or more of your group are carrying a gun to be used in case someone tries to interfer with your burglary, then once you have passed the threshold into the house (once the "original crime" is committed) anything that happens is on your head aswell. The court will argue that since you knowingly and willingly took part in the original crime despite knowing that your friends were armed, then you must have been in agreement with the fact that the gun might also come to be used. You commit the crime "together and with shared intent". This is not an example of collective guilt however, since you are all tried individually for your knowledge/understanding and intent to join the original crime.

I understand the law. I understand the reason for it. In this particular case I'm OK with it. There are many people that don't like this law for the same reason that you don't think it's right to assign guilt to an entire group because of the actions of a few of its members. At a bare minimum, this law violates the spirit of: There is no collective guilt, only individual guilt.

In this case they all committed burglary, which is a serious crime, so charging them all with murder isn't totally out of bounds. However, this law is getting stretched further and further. Two news helicopters crash into each other while covering a car chase and the driver faces multiple homicide charges (this happened) even though the helicopter pilots put themselve at risk and pilot error caused the crash. This all goes towards showing that we're not quite at "there is only individual guilt" - even in the courtroom.

What about the case Procrustes posted, what did you think of that?

Actually, for your collective guilt-theory to work, you will need to show that every individual of the Japanese armed forces took part in the trespassing. If you fail to do that, then not every member trespassed, and thus, not every member can be convicted for any eventual crime that took part during the trespassing. So...if for example I can hold up one example of a Japanese soldier who never left his homeland, your case fails. And, since it is quite easy to hold up the example of some poor AA-gunner in Nagoya or whatever, who never left Japan, you fail.

I don't know how members of an invading force can remain in the homeland. However, I'll go along with what you're saying. If every member of a given Japanese unit that was deployed in the Phillipines was charged with war crimes, that would be OK as long as at least one of them committed said war crimes (since they all trespassed and all belong to the same group). I think we're making progress. Still seems like collective guilt to me though.

Now, this is actually a pretty good analogy to the break-in case you were talking about earlier, so dont just dismiss all this out of frustration of being wrong. Think of it this way.

Guys doing the break in = Japanese army in China.
Guy who shot the victim = Japanese soldiers committing warcrimes.
Members of the gang = Japanese armed forces
Members of the gang who stayed at home during this particular night = Japanese soldiers who never committed any warcrime.

That's why you dismiss and ignore so much that is posted. It's frustration out of being wrong. Don't worry, I'm not like that. I'll keep playing even if someday I'm wrong about something.

As for the rest, see above & below.

Now, when doggie calls for the slaughtering of all japanese soldiers (lets be nice and pretend he only meant japanese soldiers shall we..even though we both know it isnt so). He is in effect calling for the punishment of all the gang-members, including those who didnt take part in the crime. I have tried to explain why this is wrong. This made doggie angry and he called me names. It also made you angry, because you have insisted that all gang-members should share the same guilt, and you have tried over and over again to make the case that all members are equally guilty...because you think guilt can be collective like this.

Now consider this. How does it rhyme with your sense of justice and you morals to have those gang-members who were at home that night playing PS3 with their girlfriend or whatever...executed for the murder someone else committed in another part of the city?

It's you that claims to know what's in Doggie's heart. I don't. You must think he has superpowers too - if he can call for punishment to occur 60+ years in the past.

I'm all for punishing (but not executing)l gang members simply for being in a gang. They should be rousted, harrassed and generally made miserable at every opportunity if they are openly members of a criminal gang. Especially those where it is known that "making your bones" requires killing someone. This is a poor analogy on your part and not because it isn't fitting. The IJA made the Mafia look like choir boys. I have no problem saying that gangsters are a "group of thugs" just as I called the IJA - it's self evident. So calling the IJA stinking savages that deserved everything they got and more is A-OK by me. Understanding that it's hyperbole and an opinion that will not cause any action.

Two things you just don't seem to get is that neither a battlefield nor an internet forum is a courtroom. Although they both can be a battlefield.

[Ike99]

But what about the next step?
Why did this happen?

Why did it happen?![:D][:D]

I think it´s pretty clear why it happened, because they hated each other.

[:D]

They viewed each other as not quite human.

I did see an interview where they were interviewing a Japanese veteran who was guarding American prisoners sent back to Japan. They had interviewed one of the Americans who was under him previously.

The American had said this person had been cruel and hit them, made them work under harsh condition etc, etc. So when they told the Japanese veteran this and asked if what the american had said was true he said...

The Japanese veteran never denied anything and said...Yes, it´s all true.

Then the interviewer asked, well why would you do such things to him/them?

The Japanese Army veteran said...

I was an Imperial soldier. These were enemies of Japan and I treated them as such.

Pretty satisfactory answer don´t you think?

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

ORANGE-I would like to see the proof of these alleged widespread atrocities of Allied Troops in the Pacific theatre.

Where were these widespread killings of POWS? And what do you mean by widespread? Do you mean that one POW was killed in the Aleutians and one killed in Borneo so that they were widespread spatially? Or did one occur in 1941 and another in 1945 so they were widespread chronologically?

Look around Orange. You can find the entire history and not just the spoon fed version. I just got done reading how killing Japanese POW´s on Okinawa was ¨widespead¨ as reported as such by Ernie Pyle. A war correspondant it seems from the US.

But as I said to someone else, I´m not doing your homework for you. I´ll give you a good start though....

Excerpts taken from the Austrailan government site on the war in the South Pacific. A cooperative effort between Australia & Japan it seems to get the history...the whole, un white washed history.

Only a few hundred Japanese were taken prisoner by Australian and American troops in New Guinea during the war....the reluctance on the part of Australian and other Allied troops to take Japanese prisoners...Allied commanders and intelligence officers were constantly reminding the front-line troops of the importance of doing so.

The killing of unarmed, sleeping, sick or wounded Japanese was common. Although official pressure was put on troops to take prisoners, the Australian front-line soldiers - like their American counterparts - had little desire to do so.

All this is from a Australian government site. Pretty credible to you or no?

Anyways, go through and read the veterans accounts, both Japanese & Allied. There are many, many interviews. It´s not a case of here and there of killing POW´s. It´s widespread and very much the normal thing.

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf

When you have an enemy that fights to the death it is hard to take prisoners. Also when you have one that will attack even after they surrender there is reluctance to trust them. That is stereotyping but stereotyping that could save your life.

You may not see the difference but just telling your troops to take prisoners does not mean that troops were not taking prisoners.

No matter what the apologist Australian government says, which may or may not be true. there is no comparison of the level of the actions of the combatants:

Here is a report that originally appeared in the New York Times, which reports on what happened during the three-month Battle of Okinawa during which one quarter of the Okinawa’s civilian residents (94,000) perished, as opposed to 94,136 Japanese soldiers and 12,520 Americans.
The article relates how the people in Okinawa also were mistreated by the Japanese army, and even makes the case that many of the civilian “suicides” that have been claimed actually may have been coerced.
Okinawa’s anguish over the widespread civilian suicides has been sharpened by the deep belief here that soldiers from Japan’s main islands encouraged Okinawan civilians to choose suicide. In a display at the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum, a spotlight highlights a glinting bayonet held by a fierce looking Japanese soldier who stands over an Okinawan family huddled in a cave, the mother trying to smother her baby’s cries.
“At the hands of Japanese soldiers, civilians were massacred, forced to kill themselves and each other,” reads the caption. Nearby, a life-size photo shows the grisly aftermath of a family killed by a hand grenade.
Soldiers seeking refuge from the naval shelling forced civilians out of limestone caves and, during the fighting, out of the island’s turtle-back shaped tombs, according to captions. About two weeks into the battle, the Japanese military commander sought to suppress spying by banning the speaking of Okinawan dialect, a version of Japanese often unintelligible to nonresidents. Armed with this order, Japanese soldiers killed about 1,000 Okinawans, according to local historians.
Two mainstream Japanese history textbooks from the 1990’s that talk of Japanese soldiers “coercing” civilians to kill themselves are on display. Now, Okinawans fear that this history will be dropped from the national consciousness.
What happened to the Japanese who did not or could not obey the commands of their protectors and fell into the hands of the hated enemy?
“I tried to also strangle myself with a rope,” he recalled, lifting his now weather-beaten hands to his neck. “But I kept breathing. It is really tough to kill yourself.”
Minutes later, the Americans took them captive.
“The U.S. soldier touched me to check if I had any weapons,” he recalled. “Then he gave us candy and cigarettes. That was my first experience on coming out of the cave.”
His mother lived into her 80’s.
I good friend of mine once told me that his father used to say, all the patriots who did what they were told ended up dead.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Heh, this is too funny. First, I think its blindingly obvious that I added the gang-variable to (try to) explain to you what would need to be changed for this to be a case of collective guilt. Second, why would "gang" be a racial stereotype? Are you implying that only a certain ethnicity is involved in gangs? LOL.

Sorry, you won't dance out of this. You saw an article about a black man murdered by a black man and immediately assumed the killer and his entourage belonged to a gang. That's a racial stereotype. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.

That is a racial stereotype and does not need to be acknowledged by the author to be such.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

But what about the next step?
Why did this happen?

Why did it happen?![:D][:D]

I think it´s pretty clear why it happened, because they hated each other.

[:D]

They viewed each other as not quite human.

I did see an interview where they were interviewing a Japanese veteran who was guarding American prisoners sent back to Japan. They had interviewed one of the Americans who was under him previously.



The American had said this person had been cruel and hit them, made them work under harsh condition etc, etc. So when they told the Japanese veteran this and asked if what the american had said was true he said...

The Japanese veteran never denied anything and said...Yes, it´s all true.

Then the interviewer asked, well why would you do such things to him/them?

The Japanese Army veteran said...

I was an Imperial soldier. These were enemies of Japan and I treated them as such.

Pretty satisfactory answer don´t you think?

No, that is not a satisfactory answer at all. Combatants are not the same as POW's, and POW's are not the same as combatants. This is something that Tojo's Lions had a difficult time reasoning out in the early '40's, and surprisingly, in the 21st century too. I am speaking from both a legal point of view, and a moral one.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

But what about the next step?
Why did this happen?

Why did it happen?![:D][:D]

I think it´s pretty clear why it happened, because they hated each other.

[:D]

They viewed each other as not quite human.

I did see an interview where they were interviewing a Japanese veteran who was guarding American prisoners sent back to Japan. They had interviewed one of the Americans who was under him previously.

The American had said this person had been cruel and hit them, made them work under harsh condition etc, etc. So when they told the Japanese veteran this and asked if what the american had said was true he said...

The Japanese veteran never denied anything and said...Yes, it´s all true.

Then the interviewer asked, well why would you do such things to him/them?

The Japanese Army veteran said...

I was an Imperial soldier. These were enemies of Japan and I treated them as such.

Pretty satisfactory answer don´t you think?

Exactly the point we have been driving at!
Cruelty to prisoners was a matter of policy to Imperial Japan. It was considered normal to even the private soldier. Where as the west wanted prisoners to be alive and well treated so they would give us intel.

Years ago, I remember seeing a cartoon (can't remember where) showing a German POW in the US having his friend sew on sargent strips. The friend asks "are you sure this will get us a private rooms with showers?"

Of course the cartoon was a joke, but like with all good humor there was a thread of truth to it. Most POW's in the US were better treated here than in their own countries.

[freeboy]

Are u going to take these arguments anywhere.. ?

I believe that there are confirmed reports , of American service personel who committed attrocities. Was it widespread? I personally doubt it, remember there was a great deal of press and other unnoficial information from all fronts...

I do want to say bravo to those who always ask for confirmation, ESPECIALLY in historical refferences as they are, imo so grossly distorted. Many time what these discussions lack is a pointed task of asking MOTIVES.. I simply do not trust most reports.. for instance you could read three totally slanted stories of the current conflict in Iraq.. no I am not going therre, just as an example. one could tell horrors of any group.. Heusien, any one of the three major conflicting sub political religious grous the us the Iranians etce etc, another report could go into what good has come from the conflict. etc etc...
what is myu point? simple.. often the reports start with a goal or a presupposition and then report or write the hgystory off that platform. Just my nickols worth with inflation... ( American idiomatic expression, " my 2 cents worth" or my opinion for what its worth"

[martxyz]

                                                               [:)]            [:'(]

[Ike99]

freeboy- I believe that there are confirmed reports , of American service personel who committed attrocities. Was it widespread? I personally doubt it...

So all the veterans who have testified the killing of POW´s in the New Guinea campaign with given examples are lying and that such killings summarized as ¨common¨ by the Australian government are wrong because freeboy ¨doubts¨ it.

Yeah OK, whatever.

morvwilson- Cruelty to prisoners was a matter of policy to Imperial Japan. It was considered normal to even the private soldier. Where as the west wanted prisoners to be alive and well treated so they would give us intel.

Cruelty was a matter of policy on both sides towards prisoners. Get off the moral high horse and suck up the truth.

One prisoner was taken...but an infantry colonel told me later that no prisoners were taken at all. "Our boys just don't take prisoners."

Before the bodies in the hollow were "bulldozed over,"....a number of our Marines went in among them, searching through their pockets and prodding around in their mouths for gold-filled teeth. Some of the Marines...had a little sack in which they collected teeth with gold fillings. The officer said he had seen a number of Japanese bodies from which an ear or a nose had been cut off."Our boys cut them off to show their friends in fun, or to dry and take back to the States when they go. We found one Marine with a Japanese head. He was trying to get the ants to clean the flesh off the skull, but the odor got so bad we had to take it away from him." It is the same story everywhere I go.

We, who claimed that the German was defiling humanity in his treatment of the Jew, were doing the same thing in our treatment of the Jap. "They really are lower than beasts. Every one of 'em ought to be exterminated." How many times I heard that statement made by American officers in the Pacific!

[Sarge]

Going for the impact value with the EXTRA LARGE BOLD letters I see Ike [8|]

"They really are lower than beasts. Every one of 'em ought to be exterminated." How many times I heard that statement made by American officers in the Pacific!

That’s how we ended the war [;)]

We, who claimed that the German was defiling humanity in his treatment of the Jew, were doing the same thing in our treatment of the Jap.

This is one asinine and misinformed statement, and I could care less who made it. [8|]



Nice cherry picking

[Sarge]

Guess Japan and its citizens don’t have a clue ether right Ike [:D]

Japan expressed remorse for past atrocities on the anniversary of its World War II surrender

Sixty-two years after Japan capitulated in the deadliest conflict in history, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged that his country would never return to war.Japan "caused tremendous damage and suffering to many countries, especially in Asian nations," the conservative leader said, using identical language to previous statements by Japanese leaders.

"Representing the people of Japan, I with deep remorse offer my condolences to the people victimised," Mr Abe told an audience of nearly 6,000 people, including Emperor Akihito.

Emperor Akihito's father Hirohito, who was revered as divine and had never spoken to the public before, went on the radio on August 15, 1945 to announce Japan had to "bear the unbearable" and surrender as its cities lay in ruins, two of them obliterated by US nuclear bombs.

Passions about the war still run high in east Asia, with many Chinese and Koreans resentful over Japanese atrocities on their soil. Koreans celebrated "Liberation Day".
In South Korea's capital Seoul, hundreds rallied outside the Japanese embassy. Four Koreans wearing traditional robes kicked a protester who acted the role of a Japanese emperor bowing to a Korean flag.
Some 20 activists also marched to the Japanese consulate in Hong Kong, although they called off a plan to land a boat on disputed islands, citing bad weather.

Mr Abe, the grandson of a WWII cabinet minister, is known for his conservative views on history and speaks sparingly about Japan's past wrongdoing.

Also, Mr Abe stayed away from the Yasukuni shrine, which honours war dead and war criminals alike and has been a source of constant friction with neighbouring countries.

Last year, Junichiro Koizumi became the first sitting prime minister in 21 years to visit the sprawling Shinto shrine in central Tokyo on the sensitive surrender anniversary, setting off protests by China and South Korea.
Mr Koizumi, who handed power to Mr Abe last September but remains widely popular, went again this year. Passers-by cheered as Mr Koizumi, dressed in a suit and tie, silently prayed in the shrine's inner sanctum in the early morning.
Seizo Noguchi, an 87-year-old navy veteran who said he prays at Yasukuni every August 15, wished Mr Abe had come to the shrine but understood he "faces opposition from the outside."

"But I'm sure that in his heart he would like to visit the shrine and that's enough for me," said Mr Noguchi, wearing a necktie and sailor's hat with images of a battleship.
Forty-six lawmakers paid a group pilgrimage. But only one member of the cabinet visited the Yasukuni shrine - Sanae Takaichi, the minister in charge of food safety and gender equality.
Mr Takaichi says she came in an individual capacity, telling reporters: "I don't want to benefit the forces who are trying to make a diplomatic issue out of this".