Drinking one too many beers will do that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It was the conversation as well as I could capture it anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nanjing was just one of many many massacres and democide events caused by the imperial Japanese forces! Its like your comparing one orange to one apple when there is a whole barrel of apples you could compare with and only a handful of oranges! because in the aftermath one got away relatively free while the other had to suffering being split in half for 50 years, had to limit there freedom of speech so no one could ever dare deny what happened and generally kiss there former victims asses regularly. I would like to explore why the divergent injustice when both did equal crimes of killing millions in technically the same war and time period. first of all racism is not a meme, its more of an instinctual behavior, humans automatically separate each other into "us and them" groups, so they can kill the 'them' and take all of the 'them' resources, its what we have been doing probably even before we came down from the trees considering chimps still do it. Probably the opposite, egalitarianism and pacifism would be more akin to a meme, memes aren't bad things mind you. But that has nothing to do with the thread topic, which is limited to: why was japan not punished like the Germans, why were the Japanese allowed to become denialist racist even fascist pricks when Germans could not dare do that without being imprisoned?
this is obvious and has already been answered to some extent. the germans started it before the japanese and were extensive in racist ideology. it's the germans who became abhorred with what had happened from the concentration camps and gas chambers as well as the whole thing right in their country. they started World War II. hello?? there was also more media coverage by westerners and with western issues than others. also, there was a lot of political unrest and einstein had to even flee when war broke out. they would have killed him too. you are also strangely making things up as japanese did not become fascist. they became pacifists (for the better) as they had to surrender and be told what they can and cannot do militarily. hello? your bitterness or issue toward the japanese is not going unnoticed. but it's suspect when you state they became fascist when clearly that's not the case. if you are upset that they couldn't agree with hitler etc, it was obviously partly due to the fact they did not want that to happen again and was in fear that it would. today, this is not the case as much. also, the holocaust and the plight of jews was much more focused on. even today, many people do not know about the massacres of other people in the world but do know about the holocaust or have at least heard of it. nazi's will always have a notorious reputation for obvious reasons as it's very symbolic.
(I'm just guessing here) but that's probably because after they were nuked and taken over (by us) we needed the Emperor to maintain the peace and keep the populous doing what they were told to do. As a divine representation of the Gods, he had the symbolic power of unity. His speech to the nation that the must now endure the unendurable and bear the unbearable was a good peace of propaganda. We made good use of him as a pawn in that way. It should also be noted we needed and still need Japan for our other wars in the Pacific. WE didn't want the Japanese to apologize because WE didn't give two craps about the Chinese. So, you can probably look at the 3 fingers pointing back at you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's pretty much the only answer I can think of. Americans used to be pragmatists like that. As for Germany, well now, we love to hate Nazi's don't we? I mean, Hitler's right out of a comic book bad-guy with his little hair cut and funny mustache. I think Jewish-American refuges have owned a number of media companies and they probably like to publish movies where Hitler and Germans were shown to be jerk-offs. Those movies sell well too.
See now that was not so hard! Fixed, we would not have put Karzai in power of Afghanistan if we were not. But lets take a look at that American pragmatism shalt we: what are we willing to sacrifice justice for? What options did we have in Japan such that we could have prosecuted the empire and his family and still ruled over and modeled japan into a capitalist state, certainly if we had been like the germans or the Japanese them selves we could have murdered a few million Japanese in more atomic bombings, nerve gassing or general induced starvation such that they would not have mind losing the emperor if it meant they would not be raped and dismembered by our rampaging soldiers, but American pragmatism seemed to have involved minimizing death tolls on both sides, even the "dirty little jap" side, that and the soviets, that clearly was a huge factor in trying to smooth the take over of japan as fast as possible. Also look at the pragmatism on the Japanese side, quite impressive that when push came to shove and the hierarchy was threatened, not just by the Americans but by the ever growing possibility of civil revolt as the blockade began to starve the people that they would surrender, chuck all of bushido that they had worked their people into a foaming at the mouth militarism with, where was that Japanese honor then? Certainly 'pragmatism' has got me thinking! I don't think American jewary was powerful enough in 1945 to make Hitler out for the bad guy any more then Hitler did him self. But again Hitler's lack of pragmatism would allow him to fight to his death and the complete destruction and dismemberment of his state, again truly odd the Japanese choose surrender over fighting to the death despite their rhetorical and suicidal willing canon fonder solider. So then was it the Japanese surrendered instead of fighting to the end that allowed them to be spared the humiliation of having ever one of their crime punished? If the militants had succeeded in their coup when the emperor had finally demanded surrender, japan would have likely fought on into 1946. America already by the atomic bombing had become aware that invasions plans Olympic and Diabolic would be death traps as ominous as their code names and that and invasion would be unpalatable to the war weary public, would have continued strategic bombing japan and the blockade and the soviets would have invaded from the north, eventually what was left of japan by 1946 would be too starved and chaotic to make an official surrender, much of it would have fallen to the soviets and god knows what they would have done. The rest would easily have been taken over by the Americans with the aid of food as a weapon, had all that happened, had japan gone down like Germany, would its every crime been displayed and it have been shamed to the same level as Germany?
I'm guess ... maybe Japan's dirty laundry would have been aired out to dry. The thing is the Communists. Didn't the Domino Theory suggest something along the lines that we must do everything and anything to prevent Japan from becoming Communist? I think two atomic bombs on Germany may have changed some German Commander's position on surrender? It's hard to say what would have happened. ALL the people involved in that war fought bitterly. Including the Chinese (even though it meant they lost their government to the Communists). Interesting quote I heard the other day from a North Korean on BBC that went along the lines of: Kim Jung Il's rule has been so shit that life was better under Japanese occupation - at least we got fed and the trains ran on time. When you hear a Korean say THAT you know life's shit! While Japanese acted abhorrently, and they did, when I look back on history I still don't think they in any way stand out. Just more organized and more efficient. But torture and death of an occupied territory ALWAYS involves humiliating the decimating the occupied. From the Roman's provoking and then slaughtering towns of innocent Germans (then piking them along the road - all so to be rewarded with Triumph [which happened enough the Senate had to pass a law banning it]) to we Americans giving blankets with smallpox to native Americans and forcing them off their reservation lands and onto a march that would leave most dead - it's always been the same. Heck, one of the remarkable things about Bronze Age archeological sites is just how many humans die from other humans. Almost ALL men are murdered (arrow in the head, club the skull, etc...). Your point regarding memes is taken. I'm not sure if I agree 'race' as an idea isn't a meme though. Can ideas be encoded? I think prejudice can be encoded (us versus them/skin color/etc...) but the idea that "race" exists is a little too complex isn't it? I mean, Japanese thought they were a different "race" than Chinese. Germans thought Germans who were Jewish were a different "race". I'd say that's more meme than gene Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! NOTE: I just Googled the phrase "that's more meme than gene" and no, it does not exist. I "Michael of the Sciforums" have created it!!! Where's my check? Oh crap, "more meme than gene" gets a ton of hits Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Gods damn it! It's so God's damn difficult to be original now-a-days...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Got it! You nailed the real reason. i think most realize this but maybe didn't register consciously. westerners wouldn't care what happened to the east as much as the west and vice versa.
I think that certainly one reason, but clearly building a wall against the communist and japan surrendering are others, lets just a build a list a reasons now and then argue over which is primary. Finally progress on the truth I was seeking and no more of this weeaboo. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well the Koreans were not treated nearly as badly as the Chinese, Filipinos, etc, they were akin to Germany's treatment of Austria, well akin to that, certainly Korea was not treated as nicely as Hitlers home country was by the Nazis, but out of all the countries occupied by the Japanese Korea was the one lest raped and murdered. Again irrelevant, history is filled with democide and it human nature to kill each other, sure, but my issue is specific to these two modern example of were justice was so divergent. Both events happened at the same times, were of roughly equal lethality, in technically the same war, with the same victors, why so diffract outcomes on guilt and punishment? That is the issue, please stick with it. plleeeaaassse, or do I have to say "desu" or something at the end of my sentences for you to listen? That a very good question for another thread, please start one, certainly the argument can be made that some ideas like language, spirituality, tribalism, etc, could be encoded and evidence exist that they are, that some ideas are merely us categorizing, naming, and rationalizing behaviors that we do on instinct and that these ideas don't propogate via meme theory alone. PS. its 2010 and there is 7 billion people alive, originality is dead, everything is just variations on something before thought of first by someone else.
it's already been answered. the nazi concentration camps were in germany and not out of sight, out of mind. also, westerners are going to identify with other westerners. no one really cared about the chinese. also, you are underplaying the importance of the concentration camps, the extensive racist ideology of the nazis etc. to everyone else, what the japanese were doing was just war but what the nazi's represented was something beyond it. again, obviously there is some truth to this as there are more racist ideological groups or movements within white race or culture even today whereas others are more based on nationalism. also, why would the americans punish the japanese after they used nuclear bombs and demilitarized them? is nuclear bombs and submission not enough? and they bought the results of their human experiments. that action tells you right there that the allied powers did not care so much about what went on in asia or what happened to the people as much. so why would they punish japan if they didn't care? see they were definitely upset about pearl harbor though.
Partly - and just partly, the other reasons (not caring about the Chinese, etc, factored in) because the Japanese did not commit the same kind of atrocity. The Japanese did not attack their own. They abused conquered enemy - people who fought back as a nation. The German occupation as an occupation of enemy was milder, in part because they had allies among the occupied; their crime was worse for the same reason: they and their allies set up death camps and industrial slaughterhouses for people from among their own, fellow Germans and fellow Poles and fellow Frenchmen. The Japanese abused, the Nazis of each fallen nationality abused and betrayed. People instinctively regard betrayal of one's own as worse than abuse of one's enemy. And people instinctively mistrust those who are seen to betray among their own now. That's why so much retrospective effort has been and still is put into isolating Jews as not part of regular society in a country, then or now - it excuses and mitigates the crime, and conceals the nature of the political movements that have inherited the fascist wind. The government that took power in China in the wake of WWII was much more "Chinese" than the succession of colonial proxies and foreign impositions it replaced. (Which gives us a better example of a WWII era atrocity-committing government that has escaped appropriate public condemnation - Kai-Shek's, of the Great Drowning among others).
I agree racism was A factor, but not the only one and arguably not the most important. No, the Japanese were as or even more racial superiority motivated as the nazis. They believe they were decadents of a fucking sun goddess for crying out loud. Clearly you confuse western concept of race with what eastern's believe: a westerner might think all of them are mongoloids/asains but they think of each other as distinct races, not simply nationalist, but distinct races with supposedly distinct blood lines and blood purity to be protected and fought over. was leveling much of Germany and dividing in into two and sending millions of Germans to die in slave camps in Siberia not enough? Possibly, or it just could mean they did not want that knowledge falling into the soviets hands, they wanted it for them selves, here was an opportunity to get really vital research on a weapon that could be more powerful then atomics, research that they them selves could never do to such detail and scale due to morality. Which was seen as racially demeaning by white America, which in interviews from 1942 would often say things like "we need to put those japs in their place" I'm guessing that place below the wonderful white man who second to none of course. Point taken.
Wow, the bullshit is strong in this one! By Jenner's time it was common to inoculate people against smallpox by injecting it into their skin. This produced a much milder, localized outbreak of smallpox that offered future immunity and only had a fatality rate of around 1%, with no nasty full-body scarring. Since at the time about 60% of non-inoculated people were eventually catching smallpox and as you say it had a very high fatality rate, this was a pretty good bet. That was what Jenner did when he attempted to infect his farmhand's son with it - he was basically subjecting the kid to what at the time was already considered a very beneficial procedure. Jenner showed that the cowpox, which was completely safe, provided protection against smallpox, so people no longer needed to run a 1% risk of dying when they got inoculated, as proven by the fact that the kid who was inoculated with cowpox never developed the mild, localized form of smallpox that usually followed smallpox inoculation. As for why he used a farm hand's son rather than his own, it was because his son had already been inoculated with smallpox in exactly the same procedure that he used to expose the farmhand's son (as had pretty much everyone else at the time who was educated enough to understand why it was a good idea and wealthy enough to be able to pay a doctor to do it), and so was already immune to smallpox and thus useless for the test. But hey, don't let inconvenient little things like historical facts get in the way of you equating a great doctor who saved countless millions of lives with a war criminal. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It seems odd that a farm hand wouldn't be immune to small pox already and when I've read the history I've never read the farmhand actually wanted his son to be immunized. So, the main problem I had was with the master/farmhand power relationship. Had every one of these wealthy people's children already been exposed to cow pox? If everyone was already doing it, then father of immunology seems a little excessive. If not and it was novel, then it's just that I don't like it was the farmhand's son. Why not someone of rank? Was this farmhand's son paid some money/compensated? I wonder because it seems like an unethical human experiment when you infect a child with a known virulent strain of small pox that is likely to kill a person. Anyway, I will agree I may be completely wrong in making any sort of comparison at all. And yes I do agree the Japanese experimenting on Chinese was sick in the head. While it doesn't justify their actions, if you look at the way the Americans and Europeans treated people 100 years earlier - well, it's IMM it seems to put things in perspective. The Japanese were acting about as evil as we had been acting in their colonization of China. Actually, I'd say they were mimicking our actions in their colonizations. That's really my point. It's nice to finger the Nazi's or Japanese but give me a break - we did much worse just a short time (historically) earlier.
First off again Tu Quoque fallacy. Second off: "much worse" excuse me but aside for the Conquistadors I don't remember of American or European colonizers undergoing systematic democide at the scales of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Mind you the British and Americans did a lot of horrible things from 1800 onwards but nothing to that magnitude. Third: Why not compare them to the Americans and British at the time who were clearly morally superior, so basically your saying Japanese were as un-evolved as colonialists?
I suppose. Well now, that's a POV. There were a lot of Nations of people in the America's that went extinct. It happened all the time. Entire Nations of Native American people were rounded up and sold into Slavery and went extinct right then and there. Not just in America - everywhere. The English used to sit on trains and shoot Aboriginals as game-sport. The English walked the length of Tasmania and killed every single last Aboriginal purposeful genecide - and it worked. They are extinct. Many people now think Easter Island was prosperous when the Europeans first visited the Island. It was Slave Raiders that nearly drove those people into extinction. Pretty much. I'd even go so far as to say it was our colonial savagery that kicked off the Japanese. They had a few forays into Korea prior to that, but nothing like after they bought weapons and received training from colonial England and France. WWI was a game changer as well. They started dressing like us. Listening to our music. And oh gee, acting just like us.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Statistically speaking, the farm hand probably was immune to it. Most people caught it at one time or another - either "naturally" or when they got inoculated with it. So if you wanted someone who wasn't already immune, you would probably use a kid... I don't know if the farm hand wanted his kid immunized or not. But at the time, immunizing people against smallpox by injecting it into their skin was an established medical procedure that was widely considered beneficial - and statistically speaking, it was beneficial, since the risk of the inoculation was a lot lower than the risk of being un-inoculated. Okay, I can see your point there. But now you've gone from portraying him as a horrific mad scientist who was on par with war criminals, to someone who might have taken advantage of a relationship with an employee in a questionable way. Since pretty much nobody believed his theory that cowpox could provide immunity to smallpox, most likely his friends weren't crazy about intentionally giving their kids a disease. A non-serious one, but still... That's arguably true. People definitely already know about giving someone a mild, localized case of smallpox to inoculate them against it. Jenner's big contribution was to show that you could make a completely save vaccine. As was already explained, it was not likely to kill the child. Even if he was completely wrong and the cowpox vaccination didn't work, the child would have had about a 1% chance of death. Given that at the time about 10-15% of non-inoculated population were dying from smallpox, it would still have been a net increase in the child's safety.
