OT: War in the Pacific

[Rising-Sun]

I know most of you guys that play this game have some reading as well research background during WWII in the Pacific, otherwise wouldn't be much fun playing this game. I wanted to point out some details that some of you may or may not agreed with me. I mention this to many people through the net and other sources on what started this in the first place in WWII in the Pacific and some was pissed saying that I am wrong, usually on youtube.

For one thing that the reasons the Japanese left the League of Nations, got tired of been manipulate and controls by European Powers. This started back in 1700 to 1800s, when changing everything from gunpowers, etcs. When Japan was building her ships, others especially the British didn't want any other nations to go over their tonnages and number of ships of each class, for example you cannot build more than 2 battleships that aren't over 35k tons.

One things for sure that Chinese had some serious civil issues over there before war broke out. There no telling how many provinces that are separated or act on their own, this been going on for a long time. Remind me of Shogun eras when warlords trying to form Japan and it was bloody for many years til they figure out a better government system. Most Japanese are well discipline and honorable than most Europeans are back in those days and probably even now at this present time.

I just want to point out that the Chinese started this and they got punished for it, many lives were lost during this horror conflict. During the rape of Nanking was a big mistake, making Japan look really bad. During the Chinese civil wars, National Chinese manage to captured Communist generals and love ones and my opinion that Communist China had many spies and I wouldn't be surprised that some of them were near that incident on the July 7th 1937. So three shots were fired, but Chinese refuse to hand over the snipers then the Japanese Government decided to rush in by force. So it look like the Communist China was trying to put them two together to fight, like a cat and mouse game. There no proof of that or records of anything back in those days.

The generals that been charged with war crimes was a serious one, some doesn't add up though. Like Lieutenant-General Yamashita (Malayan Tiger) was hanged or shot, but not sure what he did wrong. He did what needed to be done and he succeeded doing so. For Lieutenant-General Homma that allows Death March of PoWs from Bataan was horrible too, many lives couldn't make it. I knew that Yamamoto didn't want to go to war, already explained that cant be done or will lose for long period of time. So hot headed Tojo what made the mess along with the Imperial Japanese Army.

Guess many people out there have no ideas what war is all about, many things can get ugly and you carry it with you for the rest of your life. Wondering what it would be like, if this never did happen when Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and decided to step down. Of course it would upset many Japanese Militants or veterans. Also would have to pull out of China. Funny thing is that when war broke out in China, Germany had some officials there helping the Chinese to fight and later on Hitler invited Japan to join the Axis.

[warspite1]

Hi Rising Sun

Well I guess you are coming at this from a Japanese slant – and fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I suspect that you won’t get too many on these forums that will agree with most or all of your comments.

I certainly would be one of those that disagree – although I am not ‘pissed’ with you for stating your view. Happy to debate as always. I would comment on your points as follows:

- Japan may have got tired of being manipulated and controlled by the European powers, but maybe the Koreans and Chinese that were their victims got tired of being controlled by the Japanese? And yes, I know it all seems (and indeed is) double standards – bearing in mind what the European powers/USA/Russia got up to previously. But two wrongs don’t make a right and fact was, times were changing, Empires were coming to an end and, after WWI the plan was for countries not to go around nicking territory by force. Sadly the League of Nations proved an abject failure and that simply encouraged the Axis powers - and we got WWII anyway - but the idea was right.

- The Washington Treaty and their successors were not anti-Japanese. They were a means to try and stop another damaging and expensive naval arms race for all five signatories. Yes it probably stuck in the Japanese craw that they had less tonnage than the British and US, but then Japan was only involved in the Pacific. The other two powers were multi-ocean (frankly the French had more reason to be aggrieved). For the British or the US (acting alone) to take on the smaller Japanese navy they would need to pretty much abandon all other commitments – so really wasn’t that one sided. There was no guarantee the US and the British would fight together (as was indeed the case in 1939-41).

- Not sure what you mean re the Chinese civil issues? Are you suggesting that was sufficient reason for them to be invaded by a foreign power? But then you also say the Chinese started the Sino-Japanese war - so am really non-plussed on that one too....

- Not sure how many Europeans you have met and why you say they are less honourable than Japanese...This sort of massive generalisation is a bit silly isn't it? What about Australians? What about North Americans? or South Americans? or Africans perhaps?

- It matters not a jot what caused the Rape of Nanking – Chinese Communists or whatever, it simply does not matter. Fact is, there is no excuse for what happened. No excuse end of. And no, the Japanese are not the only ones to have committed appalling acts in times of war. But that is no excuse – and no reason to try and justify the incident. Just remember the sheer scale of the slaughter. Barbaric. Mind-numbingly barbaric.

- Yep, history is written by the winners – who also dish out the punishment. Were some innocents (or at least innocent enough) killed after the war? Yes, I am sure they were – and some guilty ones who got away too.

- Yes. Pulling out of China and not attacking Pearl Harbor would have been best.

[zuluhour]

Please read more.

[Skygge]

During the rape of Nanking was a big mistake, making Japan look really bad

A Mistake.

I can think of quite a few other things to name it.

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hi Rising Sun

Well I guess you are coming at this from a Japanese slant – and fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I suspect that you won’t get too many on these forums that will agree with most or all of your comments.

I certainly would be one of those that disagree – although I am not ‘pissed’ with you for stating your view. Happy to debate as always. I would comment on your points as follows:

- Japan may have got tired of being manipulated and controlled by the European powers, but maybe the Koreans and Chinese that were their victims got tired of being controlled by the Japanese? And yes, I know it all seems (and indeed is) double standards – bearing in mind what the European powers/USA/Russia got up to previously. But two wrongs don’t make a right and fact was, times were changing, Empires were coming to an end and, after WWI the plan was for countries not to go around nicking territory by force. Sadly the League of Nations proved an abject failure and that simply encouraged the Axis powers - and we got WWII anyway - but the idea was right.

- The Washington Treaty and their successors were not anti-Japanese. They were a means to try and stop another damaging and expensive naval arms race for all five signatories. Yes it probably stuck in the Japanese craw that they had less tonnage than the British and US, but then Japan was only involved in the Pacific. The other two powers were multi-ocean (frankly the French had more reason to be aggrieved). For the British or the US (acting alone) to take on the smaller Japanese navy they would need to pretty much abandon all other commitments – so really wasn’t that one sided. There was no guarantee the US and the British would fight together (as was indeed the case in 1939-41).

- Not sure what you mean re the Chinese civil issues? Are you suggesting that was sufficient reason for them to be invaded by a foreign power? But then you also say the Chinese started the Sino-Japanese war - so am really non-plussed on that one too....

- Not sure how many Europeans you have met and why you say they are less honourable than Japanese...This sort of massive generalisation is a bit silly isn't it? What about Australians? What about North Americans? or South Americans? or Africans perhaps?

- It matters not a jot what caused the Rape of Nanking – Chinese Communists or whatever, it simply does not matter. Fact is, there is no excuse for what happened. No excuse end of. And no, the Japanese are not the only ones to have committed appalling acts in times of war. But that is no excuse – and no reason to try and justify the incident. Just remember the sheer scale of the slaughter. Barbaric. Mind-numbingly barbaric.

- Yep, history is written by the winners – who also dish out the punishment. Were some innocents (or at least innocent enough) killed after the war? Yes, I am sure they were – and some guilty ones who got away too.

- Yes. Pulling out of China and not attacking Pearl Harbor would have been best.

I think that when European powers came and started messing things up, mostly by technology and culture, like clothing, etcs. They were making trades to make profits back then, another word kinda like a threat if they don't make trade agreement and Japanese aren't stupid though. Also the USN Great White Fleet sailed and visit Japan, she didn't like the ideas having all those warships forming up on her front door. I know I wouldn't, so she decided to build her navy over the years.

Only thing I can think of is Japan have the right to build whatever they wanted, to protect themselves and it wouldn't be weapon mass destruction (WMD) and they wont travel all the way to Australia or USA to start a fight. In that case, when they are expecting a war, I would hit the enemy where it hurt the most to prevent them from doing much damage. So Pearl Harbor would been a perfect target, as long hit those naval warships to keep USN off balance for awhile.

Been reading some old documentary on Japan History and Korean or Chinese would causing problems too, both sides cant seem to get along at all. We already know that Japan annex Korea, left Taiwan and Manchuria as well those Islands down the Pacific are colonies and treated them as puppet states. As long they get along and work together, they will live.

Not sure how they manage to get around helping the Allies in WWI and gotten opposite during WWII, believe the government and good officials were about the same on both wars. Like Tojo and other staffs took office, it gotten much worst. So Tojo has to be the cause all of this and prevent this from happen, someone should have assassinate him back then. But still there problems between China and Japanese near that border where it all started. Yes the Japanese are aggressive if you provoke them, just like stirring up a hornet nest.

[warspite1]

I think that when European powers came and started messing things up, mostly by technology and culture, like clothing, etcs. They were making trades to make profits back then, another word kinda like a threat if they don't make trade agreement and Japanese aren't stupid though.

Yes, sure – the imperialists were looking to trade, make a profit and – humans being humans – no doubt many were looking to exploit the locals to maximise that profit. I am not defending what happened in less enlightened times.

Only thing I can think of is Japan have the right to build whatever they wanted

Yes, but this ignores one vital point. The treaties were designed, as said above, to save a costly and ultimately pointless naval arms race. If there was no treaty do you honestly think the Japanese could have won a naval arms race with the US? So they would build what they like, spend money they haven't got..... and still end up with a smaller navy.

and they wont travel all the way to Australia or USA to start a fight.

Yes they will!!! Pearl Harbor to be precise [;)] Not sure how you can say that.....

Not sure how they manage to get around helping the Allies in WWI and gotten opposite during WWII

Long story, and I am happy to provide more details. Suffice to say, the British went along with the US because we were too weak in the Far East (strategic overstretch). That meant dumping the Japanese. However, let's be clear, the Japanese contribution to the victory in WWI was minimal. They essentially looked after number one (the thing that you have (quite rightly) called the Europeans over). They used WWI to take what they could from Germany, but when asked for help with ships in the Mediterranean they merely provided a few destroyers. Guess all countries can be less than honourable eh? [;)]

[Rising-Sun]

Well I am glad we had this conversation, could have learn from many points of views. There is up and down on many situations, just like the Great Britain did their parts, not much different than the Japanese on expansion and colonization.

The most interesting parts would be what would happen if Japan didn't attack Pearl and pulled out of China. Wondering how the American Technology would be like now. Hard to say, after Hitler was building up over there and many scientists left there coming to USA, one of them is Albert Einstein. After research projects, both failed and succeeded with great cost of money and human lives. They manage to come up with a doom day weapon, then more and more testing in the blast zones, the up coming cold wars.

Usually don't get into projects unless something is about to happen, so they/we learn from our mistakes.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hi Rising Sun

Well I guess you are coming at this from a Japanese slant – and fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I suspect that you won’t get too many on these forums that will agree with most or all of your comments.

I certainly would be one of those that disagree – although I am not ‘pissed’ with you for stating your view. Happy to debate as always. I would comment on your points as follows:

- Japan may have got tired of being manipulated and controlled by the European powers, but maybe the Koreans and Chinese that were their victims got tired of being controlled by the Japanese? And yes, I know it all seems (and indeed is) double standards – bearing in mind what the European powers/USA/Russia got up to previously. But two wrongs don’t make a right and fact was, times were changing, Empires were coming to an end and, after WWI the plan was for countries not to go around nicking territory by force. Sadly the League of Nations proved an abject failure and that simply encouraged the Axis powers - and we got WWII anyway - but the idea was right.

- The Washington Treaty and their successors were not anti-Japanese. They were a means to try and stop another damaging and expensive naval arms race for all five signatories. Yes it probably stuck in the Japanese craw that they had less tonnage than the British and US, but then Japan was only involved in the Pacific. The other two powers were multi-ocean (frankly the French had more reason to be aggrieved). For the British or the US (acting alone) to take on the smaller Japanese navy they would need to pretty much abandon all other commitments – so really wasn’t that one sided. There was no guarantee the US and the British would fight together (as was indeed the case in 1939-41).

- Not sure what you mean re the Chinese civil issues? Are you suggesting that was sufficient reason for them to be invaded by a foreign power? But then you also say the Chinese started the Sino-Japanese war - so am really non-plussed on that one too....

- Not sure how many Europeans you have met and why you say they are less honourable than Japanese...This sort of massive generalisation is a bit silly isn't it? What about Australians? What about North Americans? or South Americans? or Africans perhaps?

- It matters not a jot what caused the Rape of Nanking – Chinese Communists or whatever, it simply does not matter. Fact is, there is no excuse for what happened. No excuse end of. And no, the Japanese are not the only ones to have committed appalling acts in times of war. But that is no excuse – and no reason to try and justify the incident. Just remember the sheer scale of the slaughter. Barbaric. Mind-numbingly barbaric.

- Yep, history is written by the winners – who also dish out the punishment. Were some innocents (or at least innocent enough) killed after the war? Yes, I am sure they were – and some guilty ones who got away too.

- Yes. Pulling out of China and not attacking Pearl Harbor would have been best.

Stop the presses!

For once, Mind_messing and warspite1 are in agreement. Generally.

- The League was an overwhelming failure outside of mainland Europe.

- In terms of geographical considerations, the WNT was a bonus to the Japanese. The extensive American and British industrial capabilities were limited by the treaty. The already limited Japanese industry (unable to keep up with the US and UK) could focus on quality.

- China didn't start it. The Second Sino-Japanese War was merely the culmination of decades of aggressive Japanese military expansion. China had chronic internal issues with the proclamation of the republic, but that doesn't give Japan a carte blance to make the country a province of Japan. (NB: SECOND Sino-Japanese War)

- To state that the Japanese bear no responsibility for the atrocities that took pace during the war is revisionist manure. Was the situation nuanced, with Chinese being involved to a notable degree? Yes. Were the Japanese the main movers? Yes.

- Were the post war trials about retribution? Yes. Were men who were essentially innocent hanged? Probably. We have the Yamashita standard today for a reason.

- You forget that China was at the core of Japan's strategy. They went to war with the west to get the resources to beat China.

[Lowpe]

I find it odd, that in both the Russian war and then in WW1 Japanese troops treated POWs with absolute enlightenment. From what I understand the Navy pretty much tried to carry that mindset forward, but the Army went the exact opposite. At least that is my understanding from what I have read.[:)]

[JeffroK]

All japanese forces had their good & bad, treatment of USN aviators picked up at sea could be just as brutal.

nb. Of the RAAF airmen shot down over Timor, Ambon etc, not one returned from a POW camp post war.

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

All japanese forces had their good & bad, treatment of USN aviators picked up at sea could be just as brutal.

nb. Of the RAAF airmen shot down over Timor, Ambon etc, not one returned from a POW camp post war.

Not just the Japanese. It goes for all sides. There are many instances where Americans didn't take prisoners either and we all know of the atrocities committed by allied units. Not to mention the decision to target civilian cities with strategic bombing to cause mass death (despite MacArthur's objection). During Pearl Harbor for example the Japanese pilots were explicitly told not to cause any civilian casualties. However, from what I understand the Japanese appear to have been a bit more sadistic than most others. How much of this is propaganda and not is hard to tell. I think its clear though that westerners were treated a lot better than Chinese prisoners.

Given how Japanese soldiers were starving all over I don't think its strange that many prisoners didn't get fed properly. It is easy to treat your prisoners well if you're winning and have the means to do so.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hi Rising Sun

Well I guess you are coming at this from a Japanese slant – and fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I suspect that you won’t get too many on these forums that will agree with most or all of your comments.

I certainly would be one of those that disagree – although I am not ‘pissed’ with you for stating your view. Happy to debate as always. I would comment on your points as follows:

- Japan may have got tired of being manipulated and controlled by the European powers, but maybe the Koreans and Chinese that were their victims got tired of being controlled by the Japanese? And yes, I know it all seems (and indeed is) double standards – bearing in mind what the European powers/USA/Russia got up to previously. But two wrongs don’t make a right and fact was, times were changing, Empires were coming to an end and, after WWI the plan was for countries not to go around nicking territory by force. Sadly the League of Nations proved an abject failure and that simply encouraged the Axis powers - and we got WWII anyway - but the idea was right.

- The Washington Treaty and their successors were not anti-Japanese. They were a means to try and stop another damaging and expensive naval arms race for all five signatories. Yes it probably stuck in the Japanese craw that they had less tonnage than the British and US, but then Japan was only involved in the Pacific. The other two powers were multi-ocean (frankly the French had more reason to be aggrieved). For the British or the US (acting alone) to take on the smaller Japanese navy they would need to pretty much abandon all other commitments – so really wasn’t that one sided. There was no guarantee the US and the British would fight together (as was indeed the case in 1939-41).

- Not sure what you mean re the Chinese civil issues? Are you suggesting that was sufficient reason for them to be invaded by a foreign power? But then you also say the Chinese started the Sino-Japanese war - so am really non-plussed on that one too....

- Not sure how many Europeans you have met and why you say they are less honourable than Japanese...This sort of massive generalisation is a bit silly isn't it? What about Australians? What about North Americans? or South Americans? or Africans perhaps?

- It matters not a jot what caused the Rape of Nanking – Chinese Communists or whatever, it simply does not matter. Fact is, there is no excuse for what happened. No excuse end of. And no, the Japanese are not the only ones to have committed appalling acts in times of war. But that is no excuse – and no reason to try and justify the incident. Just remember the sheer scale of the slaughter. Barbaric. Mind-numbingly barbaric.

- Yep, history is written by the winners – who also dish out the punishment. Were some innocents (or at least innocent enough) killed after the war? Yes, I am sure they were – and some guilty ones who got away too.

- Yes. Pulling out of China and not attacking Pearl Harbor would have been best.

Stop the presses!

For once, Mind_messing and warspite1 are in agreement. Generally.

warspite1

In agreement?! Fetch me my angry trousers... I'm madder than I've ever been [:@]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM
[:)]

- The League was an overwhelming failure outside of mainland Europe.

And within mainland Europe. Italy being the prime example - Hoare / Laval and all that [&:]

[warspite1]

Deleted. Thought better of it. We shall agree to disagree robinsa.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Stop the presses!

For once, Mind_messing and warspite1 are in agreement. Generally.

warspite1

In agreement?! Fetch me my angry trousers... I'm madder than I've ever been [:@]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM
[:)]

[/quote]
Why would you be mad because Mind_messing agrees with you? [&:]


[:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Stop the presses!

For once, Mind_messing and warspite1 are in agreement. Generally.

warspite1

In agreement?! Fetch me my angry trousers... I'm madder than I've ever been [:@]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM
[:)]

Why would you be mad because Mind_messing agrees with you? [&:]

[:)]

warspite1

Most humans like certainty, we like things we know we can rely on - things that give us certainty in a sea of uncertainty; focal points if you will on which we can chart our way through life. We are born. We pay taxes. Then we die. To that list there is 'w1 and m_m will never agree on jack'.

But now, with that comment, he has put my equalibrium right out of er... equal...erm ibrium or whatever.

[:D]

[Orm]

I understand. [:)]


[:D]

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Please read more.

+1

[Terminus]

Japan before and during WWII was a fascistic military dictatorship that perpetrated genocidal aggressive war on its neighbors. There is no moral high ground and no grey areas. There are no excuses to make.

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hi Rising Sun

Well I guess you are coming at this from a Japanese slant – and fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I suspect that you won’t get too many on these forums that will agree with most or all of your comments.

I certainly would be one of those that disagree – although I am not ‘pissed’ with you for stating your view. Happy to debate as always. I would comment on your points as follows:

- Japan may have got tired of being manipulated and controlled by the European powers, but maybe the Koreans and Chinese that were their victims got tired of being controlled by the Japanese? And yes, I know it all seems (and indeed is) double standards – bearing in mind what the European powers/USA/Russia got up to previously. But two wrongs don’t make a right and fact was, times were changing, Empires were coming to an end and, after WWI the plan was for countries not to go around nicking territory by force. Sadly the League of Nations proved an abject failure and that simply encouraged the Axis powers - and we got WWII anyway - but the idea was right.

- The Washington Treaty and their successors were not anti-Japanese. They were a means to try and stop another damaging and expensive naval arms race for all five signatories. Yes it probably stuck in the Japanese craw that they had less tonnage than the British and US, but then Japan was only involved in the Pacific. The other two powers were multi-ocean (frankly the French had more reason to be aggrieved). For the British or the US (acting alone) to take on the smaller Japanese navy they would need to pretty much abandon all other commitments – so really wasn’t that one sided. There was no guarantee the US and the British would fight together (as was indeed the case in 1939-41).

- Not sure what you mean re the Chinese civil issues? Are you suggesting that was sufficient reason for them to be invaded by a foreign power? But then you also say the Chinese started the Sino-Japanese war - so am really non-plussed on that one too....

- Not sure how many Europeans you have met and why you say they are less honourable than Japanese...This sort of massive generalisation is a bit silly isn't it? What about Australians? What about North Americans? or South Americans? or Africans perhaps?

- It matters not a jot what caused the Rape of Nanking – Chinese Communists or whatever, it simply does not matter. Fact is, there is no excuse for what happened. No excuse end of. And no, the Japanese are not the only ones to have committed appalling acts in times of war. But that is no excuse – and no reason to try and justify the incident. Just remember the sheer scale of the slaughter. Barbaric. Mind-numbingly barbaric.

- Yep, history is written by the winners – who also dish out the punishment. Were some innocents (or at least innocent enough) killed after the war? Yes, I am sure they were – and some guilty ones who got away too.

- Yes. Pulling out of China and not attacking Pearl Harbor would have been best.

Stop the presses!

For once, Mind_messing and warspite1 are in agreement. Generally.

warspite1

In agreement?! Fetch me my angry trousers... I'm madder than I've ever been [:@]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM
[:)]

- The League was an overwhelming failure outside of mainland Europe.

And within mainland Europe. Italy being the prime example - Hoare / Laval and all that [&:]

Feel free to tell me. I would be very interested as to what part you do not agree with! I take it most of you are more knowledgeable than I am and as such I would love to hear what you have to say. New perspectives can only be a good thing. Note that this is not a question of personal pride for me and I will not be offended.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Stop the presses!

For once, Mind_messing and warspite1 are in agreement. Generally.

warspite1

In agreement?! Fetch me my angry trousers... I'm madder than I've ever been [:@]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM
[:)]

- The League was an overwhelming failure outside of mainland Europe.

And within mainland Europe. Italy being the prime example - Hoare / Laval and all that [&:]

Feel free to tell me. I would be very interested as to what part you do not agree with! I take it most of you are more knowledgeable than I am and as such I would love to hear what you have to say. New perspectives can only be a good thing. Note that this is not a question of personal pride for me and I will not be offended.

warspite1

Okay – as you asked.

Not just the Japanese. It goes for all sides.

True

There are many instances where Americans didn't take prisoners either

I suspect there were. The British too. My uncle, fighting as an infantryman in France, and up against SS troops, was involved in the taking of Hill 112 and was told “there will be no prisoners taken today lads”.

and we all know of the atrocities committed by allied units.

‘We all know’. Yes any of us who know anything about the war – pretty much any war – will know of incidents we would prefer, in our comfy 21st century world, didn’t happen.

Not to mention the decision to target civilian cities with strategic bombing

It can be argued that in total war, there is not much of a distinction between civilians and combatants. If you weren’t fighting you were perhaps, feeding the war machine – an armaments worker, a farmer, a future soldier, and yes sometimes just a housewife, a pensioner or a child. Do I wish bombing of civilians had not happened? Yes I do. BUT do I lose sleep over it? Does it concern me? No – not at all. A visit to the Holocaust museum or reading about Nanking kind of removes any 'issues' about that. The Allies never asked for the war – despite the nonsense fed by imbeciles like David Irving. The war was not some isolated, localised, small scale war BUT total war fought against regimes that were repugnant and for which the losers would lose everything. Hitting back at the enemy was done in the most effective way possible to end the war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties as possible. That meant aerial bombing. I can live with that.

During Pearl Harbor for example the Japanese pilots were explicitly told not to cause any civilian casualties.

No idea if that is true but let’s say it is. So? As has been said, no one is all bad, no one is all good. We are not 7-years olds watching cowboy movies with the baddies easily identifiable by the fact that they have black hats….. Were there some good Germans or Italians or Japanese? Yes – were there some evil Americans or French or Commonwealth? Yes. Just happens to be that there were less of these types – and the governments of the latter were free, democratic and – as said – didn’t ask for the war.

However, from what I understand the Japanese appear to have been a bit more sadistic than most others.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

How much of this is propaganda and not is hard to tell.

No, no it isn't.

I think its clear though that westerners were treated a lot better than Chinese prisoners.

Yes, I think that is great comfort to the poor bastards my mother treated in Australia at the end of the war. Grown men, beaten, mentally broken and tortured after years of barbaric treatment at the hands of the Japanese in prisoner of war camps. My mother was a young, innocent, 21-year old. She never forget the sites she saw. But hey – they were better treated than the Chinese so that’s great yeah?

Given how Japanese soldiers were starving all over

Yep – read up on Guadalcanal. A regime that can do that to their own people are really best wiped from the planet.

I don't think its strange that many prisoners didn't get fed properly.

Me neither. What about the beatings? The insanely cruel treatment for the smallest of infractions? Nothing to do with having no food – and everything to do with sub-human, sadistic, behaviour. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

It is easy to treat your prisoners well if you're winning and have the means to do so.

Shame that the Japanese didn’t treat their prisoners well then at the start of the war when they were winning isn’t it? Or perhaps the Death marches were made up?