Looking for treatments of WWII in the Pacific from the Japanese side

[Pergamum]

Hello,

I had relatives who fought in the Pacific during WWII and they all speak of the brutality of the Japanese.

I'd like to read from the Japanese side to see how they justified this.

Also, WWII in the Pacific seemed like a quasi-religious struggle; the Japanese believed their island was sacred and the Emperor God and their form of Shintoism influenced their aggressiveness. I'd love to read more how the Japanese religion impacted their way of waging war an contributed to their brutalities.

 

[Edward]

Not a whole lot out there. Google turned this up.

http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Soldiers-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304359785

The Japanese perspective is dealt with in The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 by John Toland.

The basic Jap philosophy was that only cowards surrendered rather than fighting to the death, and that a coward didn't deserve decent treatment. Also remember that the Japs (like the Russians) weren't parties to the Geneva Convention.

 

[arapahoepark]

Part of the book Why The Allies Won by Richard Ovey is devoted to this, particularly the moral contrasts of the Axis and Allied Powers.

 

[JimmyH]

When I was growing up "Remember Pearl Harbor" was the slogan. I suppose you have to be a 'certain age' to know that first hand ? Anyway, if you want to read about the mindset of the Japanese at that time ........ The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Rape of Nanking 1937-38

 

[Free Christian]

My Grandfather was a prisoner of war in Changi. The things I heard that happened was chilling. Once they were lined up on their knees with heads bowed and the Japanese officer went along beheading people at random. The guy kneeling next to my Grandfather was beheaded. He used to have to sneak under barb wire at night to steal food scraps out of the Japanese rubbish bins so that he and his mates could survive. He returned like a skeleton I was told.
My Father joined just towards the end of the war in the Navy and when it was over they went around the islands trying to tell the Japanese soldiers that had been deserted there and left behind that the war was over. Some were so disgusted in their own when brought on board that they begged to not be returned to Japan and to be taken back to Australia. For months the ship my Father was on, they let one stay with them as long as they could and he was for that time the ships barber. My Dad showed me pictures of him cutting their hair. Fancy the Aussies treating them so good after all that had happened and been dished out by them huh! That always amazes me.

 

[Pergamum]

Brett: That is neat. Do you have any details about the name of the ship or where this info might be recorded? I have read about the Japanese eating Australian prisoners on the Kokoda trail in their failed New Guinea campaign.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Pergamum. Im seeing my Mother tomorrow and ill ask her if she knows. My Dad passed away a couple of years ago, he did so in the Lord which was really a great comfort to see especially him wanting me to read from the Bible to him in his last days, will be my greatest memory of him that. Ill get the name of the ships he served on and a pic of the Japanese soldier cutting their hair.

 

[Mushroom]

he did so in the Lord which was really a great comfort to see especially him wanting me to read from the Bible to him in his last days, will be my greatest memory of him that.

Those words made my day...

 

[Philip]

Pergs, part of the problem (as you'll find if you read The Rape of Nanking) is that the subject of what Japan did during the war was basically forbidden afterward. In the honor/shame culture of Japan, there is simply silence on Japan's role in the war. The German leaders that survived the war were mostly tried and punished, and some, like Albert Speer and Admiral Doenitz, would write about the inner workings of Nazi Germany after the war. Nothing like this happened in Japan. A handful of top men were tried and punished, but the allies ended up instituting a swift statute of limitations, mostly because within five years of war's end they were using Japan as a supply base for the war in Korea and the Japanese obligingly preferred not the bring up the subject that they had been fighting their new "allies" five years earlier.

 

[Pergamum]

Philip:

Yes, I wish there was more written. They seemed to insanely fanatical. Are there Japanese today that are nationalistic to that same degree, or have they renounced and become ashamed of their former worldview? Do they still think the Emperor was God and Japan is Deity incarnate?

 

[JimmyH]

Philip:

Yes, I wish there was more written. They seemed to insanely fanatical. Are there Japanese today that are nationalistic to that same degree, or have they renounced and become ashamed of their former worldview? Do they still think the Emperor was God and Japan is Deity incarnate?

If I remember correctly the broadcast in which the Emperor announced to the Japanese people that he was surrendering was the first time they ever heard his voice. While I doubt anyone attributes deity to him in this day and age, the Japanese are still very sensitive regarding their prior history, as this article from todays Washington Post attests .........

Yomiuri, Japan’s biggest newspaper, apologizes for using term ‘sex slaves’ - The Washington Post

 

[Philip]

Yes, I wish there was more written. They seemed to insanely fanatical. Are there Japanese today that are nationalistic to that same degree, or have they renounced and become ashamed of their former worldview? Do they still think the Emperor was God and Japan is Deity incarnate?

There's a shame factor, but from what I can gather, it manifests itself in complete silence over that whole era. Koreans still distrust the Japanese, yet the Japanese are reluctant to acknowledge that they committed atrocities. The worldview has changed so far as the political ideology is concerned, but the culture that values honour over truth seems to be still present, as Jimmy's linked article indicates.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Pergamum. So far I know he served on two Tribal class Destroyers, named after Australian Aboriginal tribe's, the Arunta and the Warramunga, a Frigate the Condamine as well as a stint on a Cruiser the Australia. Still trying to find out the one he was on when they picked up the Japanese soldiers from the islands, we are sure there was another ship he was on. My sister is going to have a look for his photo album of his service days over the coming week. Will turn up eventually.

 

[Pergamum]

I found this: Why Japan Is Still Not Sorry Enough | TIME.com

Keen observers know that Japan’s ugly territorial disputes with its neighbors aren’t really about fishing grounds or oil and gas reserves or ancient historical claims. What they’re about is that the Japanese still – still – won’t admit they did anything wrong during the Second World War or during their long colonial rule in Asia.

But it appears to be written by a Westerner.

 

[Pergamum]

Reading a little about the Japanese, it seemed they were against Western colonialism. There was a racial element to it, they felt they needed to free Asia from Western domination. Some of their literature almost made it sound altruistic (like the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere for a united Asia), though the Japanese were some of the most vicious occupiers ever known to man. Here is a video that seems sympathetic to that view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ti2K5yStfU

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Pergamum. Sorry I couldn't find the photo album, we had a look but think its been moved among some other things when my Dad passed away. One day it'll turn up. Wanted to find it as for sure that pic with the Japanese soldier cutting their hair would have had the ships name with it. I wanted to find it too as there was also a pic of a 12 ft Tiger shark my Dad caught whilst in port somewhere using a handline.

 

[Pergamum]

Okay thanks anyway.

 

[psycheives]

Dear Pergamum, firstly, I applaud your efforts to hear both sides of the story. Sadly, such a search for the truth is missing in much of historical and political writings. In many wars, the winner tells the history and we never learn the other side wasn't quite that the winner describes. In America, mostly we can only expect to hear the horrors of war committed by the Japanese people. Just as we hear with all wars, America is the good guy who never hurt anyone and everyone else is evil. We rarely read that America's desire for war is almost always a product of America's greed and desire to rob others of oil, technology, scientists, natural resources, and the desire to install a local military presence in these countries - this is what lies behind almost all if not all America's wars. We rarely hear about America's inciting war through placing economic sanctions on other countries resulting in the starvation of millions that virtually forces a country to war or die. We never hear about the attempts of these countries to throw off American and Britain occupation. Keep in mind a quote attributed to Ron Paul" "We're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries," Paul said. "We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke.....We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say, China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?" (Other reports show 148 countries, 662 bases) U.S. has disclosed 13 countries host more than 1,000 personnel. They are: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Japan, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Part of other side of the story that is claimed by Japan (Malaysia, India, Singapore, and other Asian countries) is that Japan threw off British occupation of these Asian countries and America (among other things) placed sanctions on them to starve them, forcing the war. America is also said to have desired war with Japan because of motives relating to Germany and Korea. Along with other benefits, America benefitted by gaining military presence in the area.

There is ample evidence on Youtube and Google to support America played a key role in causing the war, then painted over history. You may also find even more stories that claim America played a key role in starting Pearl Harbor. The question one must ask with all wars: Who benefited from the war afterwards, how did they benefit, and did they intend to provoke/force/cause the war to get this benefit?

Always check the claims and quotes of all parties for accuracy:

Radhabinod Pal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war with Japan and expected Japan to act (Zinn, 411).
He was the Indian member appointed to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East's trials of Japanese war crimes committed during the second World War. Among all the judges of the tribunal, he was the only one who submitted a judgment which insisted all defendants were not guilty. While finding that 'the evidence is still overwhelming that atrocities were perpetrated by the members of the Japanese armed forces against the civilian population of some of the territories occupied by them as also against the prisoners of war', he produced a judgment questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal and its rulings.

Here is an interesting video (I have not checked all the quotes for accuracy, only some): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ti2K5yStfU

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/world/asia/31memo.html?_r=0
argue that Japan did not wage a war of aggression in Asia but one of self-defense and liberation.

"Even contemporary historians could think that 'as for the present war, the Principality of Monaco, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, would have taken up arms against the United States on receipt of such a note (Hull note[10]) as the State Department sent the Japanese Government on the eve of Pearl Harbor.'"

Hello,

I had relatives who fought in the Pacific during WWII and they all speak of the brutality of the Japanese.

I'd like to read from the Japanese side to see how they justified this.

Also, WWII in the Pacific seemed like a quasi-religious struggle; the Japanese believed their island was sacred and the Emperor God and their form of Shintoism influenced their aggressiveness. I'd love to read more how the Japanese religion impacted their way of waging war an contributed to their brutalities.

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks for the NY Times article. The Indian judge sounded like he put all of Colonialism on trial. The fact that Japan honors him means little and seems self-serving, however.

I do not buy, however, that the Atomic Bomb was an evil on par with Nazi atrocities. I am not even sure I would call it an evil.

And Japan's treatment of subjected peoples (war criminals and subject peoples like those in Manchuria) was of a difference in quality and not merely a difference in quantity (they did not merely "ape" Western colonial powers, what they were doing was something qualitatively different from the British. Perhaps the Japanese could be compared to Belgium's sinful treatment of the Congo).

But thanks for the links and the thoughts...more to read up on.

 

[Mushroom]

Every State creates narratives with which to convince their particular herd to stampede into battle, and then to assuage their consciences afterward. The enemy herd are always baby-killing savages, which then justifies the 'good guys' becoming... well... baby-killing savages. The Japanese were viciously cruel to the peoples they subjugated, and are despised to this day throughout the territories they occupied. They had their narrative. But babies die both at the ends of bayonets and in atomic infernos. The truth is that without Christ all humanity are savages, narratives notwithstanding.

 

[Edward]

Part of other side of the story that is claimed by Japan (Malaysia, India, Singapore, and other Asian countries) is that Japan threw off British occupation of these Asian countries and America (among other things) placed sanctions on them to starve them, forcing the war. America is also said to have desired war with Japan because of motives relating to Germany and Korea. Along with other benefits, America benefitted by gaining military presence in the area.

There is ample evidence on Youtube and Google to support America played a key role in causing the war, then painted over history. You may also find even more stories that claim America played a key role in starting Pearl Harbor. The question one must ask with all wars: Who benefited from the war afterwards, how did they benefit, and did they intend to provoke/force/cause the war to get this benefit?

Are they teaching garbage like that in college history these days? At the very least, the chronology is wrong. And some distinction needs to be made between colonies and countries.

You might start with the Marco Polo bridge incident, throw in the USS Panay, then move to the rape of Nanking. That should set the stage.

Next look at the Japanese invasion of French Indochina in 1941, which directly led to the US asset freeze and oil embargo.

Then note that the Japanese attacked Dutch territory (present day Indonesia) for oil and rubber, British territory (Malaysia) and US territory (Philippines). THEN the US and British went to war with Nippon.

Here's a challenge to you - do you have the stomach to read unvarnished accounts of Japanese atrocities against the native populations that they 'liberated'? You might start with Nanking, and end with Unit 731.

Now, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, and can buy that Washington was aware that an attack on Pearl Harbor was likely (but probably misjudged the damage that would occur). But for a historian to suggest that America 'started' Pearl Harbor suggests a willing disregard for the facts.

 

[JimmyH]

I do not buy, however, that the Atomic Bomb was an evil on par with Nazi atrocities. I am not even sure I would call it an evil.

I once saw a program on C-Span where, 50 years after the fact, former LBJ 'special assistant' and former president of the motion picture assoc of America, Jack Valenti, spoke with great emotion in support of President Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mr. Valenti had flown 51 combat missions as pilot-commander of a B-25 medium bomber in the European theater.

With the defeat of the nazi regime Valenti's unit was moving to the Pacific theater preparing to attack the Japanese mainland and he was pretty sure he wouldn't have survived had President Truman not dropped the bombs finally causing the Empire of Japan to surrender. "Early experience showed that the average life expectancy of a bomber crew in late 1942 was 8-12 missions. In other words, a bomber crewman at that time only had a 30-50% chance of completing his tour of duty." Lausanne Collegiate School: Combat FAQ

If anyone is critical of the necessity to use such force on Japan to end that conflict here is a good overview of what was under consideration at the time. The Nuking Of Japan Was A Tactical And Moral Imperative - Forbes

 

[Pergamum]

I do not buy, however, that the Atomic Bomb was an evil on par with Nazi atrocities. I am not even sure I would call it an evil.

I once saw a program on C-Span where, 50 years after the fact, former LBJ 'special assistant' and former president of the motion picture assoc of America, Jack Valenti, spoke with great emotion in support of President Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mr. Valenti had flown 51 combat missions as pilot-commander of a B-25 medium bomber in the European theater.

With the defeat of the nazi regime Valenti's unit was moving to the Pacific theater preparing to attack the Japanese mainland and he was pretty sure he wouldn't have survived had President Truman not dropped the bombs finally causing the Empire of Japan to surrender. "Early experience showed that the average life expectancy of a bomber crew in late 1942 was 8-12 missions. In other words, a bomber crewman at that time only had a 30-50% chance of completing his tour of duty." Lausanne Collegiate School: Combat FAQ

If anyone is critical of the necessity to use such force on Japan to end that conflict here is a good overview of what was under consideration at the time. The Nuking Of Japan Was A Tactical And Moral Imperative - Forbes

A wonderful linked article! Thanks.

 

[Eoghan]

I am currently reading “The month-by-month Atlas of World War 2” (ISBN 0-671-68880-4). I little realized the extent to which conflict engulfed every continent (?) and how the Italians were active in the Mediterranean and Africa, the Japanese in the pacific/Asia and Germany in Europe. Watching a film "the Heroes of Ira Jima" I thought that the suicide of Japanese with their last grenade was Hollywood license, reading the account in my book it seems it was all true. [October 1942 the Australians came across evidence of cannibalism in Papua/New Guinea p85)