"if our children can Live safely for one more day" In the eyes of the Japanese, the capture of japanese territory/land by allied forces meant defeat, as well as death, rape, torture, or oppression of japanese civilians. They chose to fight on instead of surrendering land or allowing japanese civilians to be brought under allied control.
Japan, especially in those years, is known for upholding the moral of honor very highly.
If you're on the defensive fighting for your homeland and the enemy is rapidly advancing, you're most likely going to feel the need to fight to the bitter end for your country and people.
"Think of how many more days Hiroshima's or Nagasaki's children may have lived", Why should japan have surrendered? America chose to drop the atom bomb (a weapon which no other nation possessed or could even stand up to in a fair fight) and killed Japanese Civilians in order to protect it's own Soldier casualties (of which all other nations were continuing to lose through the common ravages of war and combat without nuclear annihilation) I personally find it honorable and noble that japan fought on hard all the way until america used the weapon which basically broke every rule/law of warfare, a weapon that was used to annihilate enemy civilians and cities just to reduce the common war casualties of their own Soldiers.
Japan fought until america used the weapon which could erase the human race easily from existence
"Japan, especially in those years, is known for upholding the moral of honor very highly." You sound young so I will try not to be harsh but you have some very clear misconceptions about War in general and especially about Hirohito's Japan. There is no honor in how the Japanese fought their war. None. There would have been honor in surrendering a war that you started, with naked aggression, when you were clearly beaten. Here is some quick reading on Wiki to get you started if you want to know a little more. There are even links to Japan's public apologies since then. [link]
"In the eyes of the Japanese, the capture of japanese territory/land by allied forces meant defeat, as well as death, rape, torture, or oppression of japanese civilians." Yes, the Japanese were heavily influenced by propaganda about what would happen when we took the home islands. Of course they feared we would treat them how they treated everybody they occupied, but we didn't. If you think our occupation was brutal compared to the standards of the day, you are again seriously mistaken. [link]
"I personally find it honorable and noble that japan fought on hard all the way until america used the weapon which basically broke every rule/law of warfare" What rules/laws are you referring to? Targeting civilians? To break the resolve of an enemy determined to fight fanatically to the death? You must realize the depth and severity of the Japanese crimes against the Chinese to realize how silly that statement is if you are trying to garner sympathy for the japanese people. Also, dispite the terrible sight of the A-bomb it did not kill nearly as many people as our firebombing campaigns leading up to it, which were ineffective. Of course it is horrific to use such a waepon against human beings, but they were horrific times and that is why I cringe when you use words like honorable.
I know for a fact you are young and inexperienced and have never been to war or seen combat, but it is not honorable. It is murderous and savage and wrong. The A-bomb was a response to horrible tactics like Kamikaze, not a provocation for them. What you are doing is called "revisionist History," where you have a romantic view of a belligerent and you want to justify the killing they did. I wonder, do you admire the Wermacht and it's commitment to fight till the end? What is really the difference, morally, between the motives and actions of the Japanese and the Nazis in WWII?
I am a history teacher in California so i have a natural desire to confront misconceptions about History. Please, take time to ponder before you respond.I have spent a lot of money and time focusing on WWII. I am not attacking you, just the validity of your ideas and claims.
"Their is no honor in how" That is your opinion of them, not the opinion they had of themselves.
"There would have been honor in surrendering a war that you started" Perhaps in the eyes of americans, but not the japanese.
"But we didn't" that's ironic, considering portions of U.S marines were said to abuse, harass, and even murder japanese POW's. And who could forget that little racial slur that americans decided to use "yellow monkeys"
"What rules and laws are you referring to?" In military combat of the WWII Era, (and before it), there was a standard set of lines known as "Rules of engagement", citing which actions or measures are appropriate given the situation.
"You must realize the depth and severity of the Japanese crimes against the chinese to realize how silly that statement is" Some japanese soldiers were participated in atrocities, but not every single one did, Just as how Some nazi soldiers participated in atrocities, but not every single one did, Just as how american, british, russian, and soldiers from all allied nations did, but no nations armies were guilty of war crimes down to the very last man. If you want to put the blame on the entire group while not recognizing that not all took part in a war crime, then you are performing your so called "revisionist history". Funny thing about most people today is that they think they have a spoiled tendency to look at the axis of WWII and emphasize the war crimes that some of their soldiers committed (while mysteriously never daring to mention allied war crimes) are a form of scapegoat they can use to help themselves feel innocent of their own nation's atrocities in history. The Americans committed native american genocide in the so called name of "conquest" (oh would you look at that, America was infact imperialist, until it stole all the land it wanted and it's resources). The americans enslaved blacks. A short few examples of nation's atrocities in history. Russian pogroms, chinese dynasty social class massacres, Old english motto of "make the world england", England's invasion and enslavement of Ireland, and on, and on, and on it goes...
"Also, despite the terrible sight of the A-bomb it did not kill nearly as many people as our firebombing campaigns did" While i try not to cringe at your nonchalant mention of the deaths of civilians en masse, Apparently while trying to put about the numbers, you ignore the fact that the radiation from the atom bomb had severe consequences and long lasting after effects. Generations of japanese were born with defections and mutations from the radiation. "But they were horrific times and that is why i cringe when you use words like honorable" Your interpretation of "honor" seems to be very poor and misunderstood, Used the term "honor" as the fighting and sacrifice of soldiers in combat. Not to mention i have to cringe because i can only guess what kind of "revisionist history" you would come up with if american war crimes were more publicized. while you seem to biasly point out The opposite side's crimes as inexcusable while granting excuses for american bombing of civilians.
"Where you have a romantic view of a belligerent and you want to justify the killing they did" Oh my, i'm afraid you've already done that when you tried to make excuses for the americans the bomb japanese civilians. Your magical justifications seem to come left and right at every turn.
"I know for a fact you are young and inexperienced" Keep your condescending/inappropriate tone out of it, age discrimination will get you nowhere. In my Interest of The Second World War i've studied it for years, and while i am against the idea that Any of us can be capable of knowing "The 100% truth, facts, and details" of events, I'm open to discussion and intellectual conversation, and while i welcome differing opinions, i will not tolerate behaviors which display an entitled attitude which goes about making claims of "rights and wrongs, and "facts" and "truths" which act as if one side was "good & innocent" & the other biasly called "epitome of evil or wholesomely bad"
"but it is not honorable" that is your opinion of it, Soldiers of all wars who have fought in combat are known for their own varying feelings on the concept of "honor". They are entitled to their perspectives and opinions.
"and have never seen combat" Where did i ever claim i did? I only have a genuine interest in the Historical event, do not make accusational claims in relation to something that i never claimed to have participated in.
"So i have a natural desire to confront misconceptions about history" You mean your Opinions about history, You have no right to claim another persons ideas or beliefs about history to be "misconceptions" (which means "wrong", "inferior", "incorrect") because that is all we can have, opinions. You do not know every fact of a historical event because you paid money, studied, and got a piece of paper giving you a title as a teacher. History is a written set of events which is passed on through memory or recording, and along the way portions of it will always be changed/aletered by people. However, history regarding wars is always even more tangible "history is written by the victor". Much of history has been altered under the influence of bias, denial, greed, and "misconception". You have your "conceptions" of what happened in history, and your own Ideals of what is "good" or "evil" which influences your "conception" of historical events, thus making it an opinion, and everyone else has their very own, so yours is no more superior.
"I wonder, do you admire the Wehrmacht and it's commitment to fight till the end?" I do infact "admire" the Wehrmacht and it's commitment to fight until the end (although that statement is not entirely accurate as anyone should know, portions of soldiers from each national side of the war chose to surrender). Their commitment to fight for their country and cause is one in which i respectable. Although I am strongly against the Racial policies and superiority/inferiority beliefs of Adolf hitler and the Nazi's who agreed with his personal views of racism/superiority. The Nazi soldiers who fought on for their country and family are one's i can condone and respect, just as i do every allied soldier who did nothing more than fight out of service for their own country and families. Soldiers who went to war without participating in the killing of civilians, POW's, rape, or looting are in my understanding the one's who respectfully fought and died for their cause, and soldiers of this description were from every nation in WWII. Some are guilty of crimes, Some are guilty of nothing and only fought for their cause and what they believed in.
"what is really the difference, morally, between the motives and actions of the japanese and the nazi's in WWII?" Circa-1920's-early 1930's germany: Almost half of the german "workforce" unemployed, German civilians starving to death by countless thousands under the atrocious "treaty of versailles" which proceeded to take so much land that the german people were left with nearly no agricultural capacity thus most germans having to resort to theft to obtain food or starving to death, Families misplaced and made homeless by the "treaty"'s massive land grabbing and the post WWI economic collapse of nations. All of a sudden, a small nationalist party shows up. While the fray of the political conflict flew on between the nationalist's and the communist's, Adolf hitler appears and eventually becomes leader of the nationalist party, he makes promises to save the german people from the humiliation, shame, and depravity that they live in. He comes to power, delivers his promises, and revives the nation economically and nationally. And with the german people in awe at his achievements and his commitment to them, some of them rise up readily to his offer in which they would reclaim germany's land and go to war and cast off the shackles and barbarities emplaced by the treaty of versailles. While some germans believed in or fought for Hitler's personal side policies of racism and superiority, others saw the war as a form of redemption and reclamation for germany and it's people and fought for it in that way. Circa-early 1930's japan: With more and more military leaders beginning to hold positions in the political office, they began to have a profound influence on the emperor of japan. It became an ideal belief that they had the capacity and capability to take rule to most of asia, (in the early years mainly east asia) National Conquest became inevitable as Japan's common belief grew that it would pursue an expansionist policy. However as world war 2 began and the years began to go on with more and more allied countries fighting back, It became no more than a Fight for national survival for japan, as the war turned in the allied favor, the japanese ideal of "Serving the emperor until the end" only increased the japanese commitment and moral for the fight, even as things turned for worst.
Final note- I do not think of any nation or any people as "good" "evil" "better" "worse" "superior" or "inferior", In terms of history and warfare, i only believe that each side fights for it's own cause and what it believes in, and While i do follow a Ideology which is seen as "evil" by most people, I regard everyone as equal and everyone having a right to choose what they believe in
If you disagree with me on the events of WWII, or the Nations/soldiers/governments/people that participated in it, that's fine, But don't ever act as if your belief or conceptions of events and history is superior or more correct than mine or anyone else's, your "ideas" and "claims" are no more valid than anyone else's because they are only opinions and beliefs.
As observers of history we can only look back upon past events based on the recordings/assumptions/tales which have been left to us by those that came before. We are free to make assumptions and ideas of history, but we cannot re-write it (and that does not mean record). The few people in the modern world today who have a genuine interest in history can only look at it from a distant foggy mirror and reflect upon it as we do.
"Stand for what you believe in, even if you're standing alone"
You are rambling and lost. There is a concrete difference between your misguided opinions and documented historical facts, which contradict what you are saying. I don't doubt your opinions, just your facts.
One day you will re-read your above comment and be embarrassed. I have nothing more to add. Your support and sympathies for fascism speak for themselves.
Clearly you're lost in your pitiful little idea that your beliefs are superior to others, how disgusting and pathetic. Your sad little Egotistical superiority complex and your bias view of history speak for themselves. You're delusional little ideas of historical conception will get you nowhere. I have nothing more to add, for an ignorant dolt.
is a pixel art
process used to
blend blocks of
colour together or
help apply a texture
to a pixelled
emoticons it is most
commonly used when
it can be used in a
number of other
areas, e.g. massive
Welcome CSS can be
you're unfamiliar to
it. So that's why
we're writing these
articles! If you
have any suggestions
or would like to
write a section in
future CSS Did You
are like Ogres by
Magepresented by the
--- dear friends and
ly I'm not longer
able to make my
large news in
deviant art... the
shows the numbers of
the thumbs but not
the pics...so I'm
just going on here
with my little
hope you enjoy it
`anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More