Japan revisionists deny WW2 sex slave atrocities

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Desubot wrote:
I wasnt aware we were trying to defeat evil and be the good guys.

They attacked us and we fethed them up.

also doing it in a aggressive and powerful looking pose to intimidate Russia to stay the feth away.

Indeed. Not sure how this relates to Japan denying the WWII sex trade, other than the usual "US BAD!" (or in the case "ALLIES BAD!")

**EmilCrane**

Vaktathi wrote:

TL;DR Japan wasn't going to get oil from people who had none to give and/or weren't on great terms with Japan anyway, Japan's mindset was not one that would see sanctions as anything but a threat and provocation, and the US in large part invited attack by inserting herself into a conflict when she was not yet ready for one.

Exalted, people really have trouble understanding this sometimes but attacking Pearl Harbor, from the Japanese point of view, was their only option. To them the sanctions were tantamount to a declaration of war and the only way for them to win was to preemptively destroy as much of the US' fleet as they could, get a good geostrategic position and then try to bring the western allies to the bargaining table. It worked for them before in the Russo-Japanese war

**Frazzled**

Vaktathi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, while the Allies did not want the war, they basically put Japan into a situation where (given the Japanese government of the time) they were going to have to go to war with somebody (and one could argue that warfare had already begun by economic means), and the western allies were the logical target in many respects, and had a not-unrealistic chance of making something work.

Thats blindingly incorrect and reveals serious misjudgement.
Only if you're not fully accounting for the qualifier "with the government at the time" and the existing geopolitical realities of the time.

They put an embargo on Japan because of its depredations in China and their move to take over French Indochina and do the same there.
Japan could have, you know, quit raping and murdering people by the thousands. I know it would have been a burden.
In theory sure. Would it ever happen with the ultranationalist government that was in totalitarian control of Japan at the time? No. Would such a government even be capable of backing down? Not really, particularly when the Army largely did whatever the hell it wanted and started the war in China in large part by its own initiative. Have such sanctions ever stopped a conflict in progress before? No.

To put it another way, if some big strong dude comes across a smaller drunk dude beating up on his crippled neighbor and tells him he won't sell him any more Pabst for being an donkey-cave, would you just expect the drunk dude to stop, just because?

Furthermore, if the bigger dude is mostly distracted by a bigger fight on the other side of the room and still recovering from a wicked hangover and just waking up (the US was still recovering from the Depression and was not fully mobilized for war) and is blocking the drunk dude's path to the liquor cabinet, what other result would you expect than for the smaller drunk dude to take a swing in the hopes of a quick knockout?

if one inserts themselves into a fight, they shouldn't be surprised when they get hit, particularly if they're not geared up for a fight yet.

I'm not trying to justify anything Japan did, only explain what happened and why it wasn't a clear cut case of "they should have just stopped what they were doing " and "well they just attacked out of nowhere for no reason". Those sanctions, to the minds of the Japanese leadership, were a direct provocation and an interference in Japan's sovereign destiny, basically short of a declaration of war in name only. Are there serious issues with why that's messed up? Absolutely, but it is what it is. Lots of people thought that a war was going to break out much as it did. The US made itself a target and made the mistake of giving Japan a realistic opening. Had the US naval oil reserves (larger than Japan's entire national reserve) at Pearl Harbor been attacked and destroyed by the aborted 3rd wave attack on Pearl Harbor and the US carriers been in port to be attacked, it's possible the Japanese could have achieved the goals they were aiming for simply because the US would not have been able to mount any sort of response, Midway could not have happened, etc.

They could have acquired oil from the Axis friendly powers.
Neither of which had oil of their own short of extremely limited artificial production, primarily dependent on Romania for the major supply of oil, and what they could pull out of occupied USSR territory in 1941. It's not like the other Axis powers had oil to spare, and certainly no way to deliver it to Japan on the other side of the planet in any meaningful quantities, particularly past the British Navy.

Was the USSR part of the embargo? If not, they had oil out the yin yang.
The USSR certainly wasn't going to sell oil to Japan. First and foremost, they needed everything they had, with the most destructive conflict in human history taking place on their soil at the time. Second, and almost as important, the USSR had been Japan's chief military nemesis for the previous 40 years, most of Japan's strategic planning had been around another war with the Russians following the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. These two were serious rivals, and the USSR was very much afraid of a Japanese invasion from the east until just a couple of weeks before Pearl Harbor (and is why the USSR only began to move forces out of Siberia after nearly 6 months of war with Germany, just barely in time to defend Moscow).

Note that I'm not trying to argue that Japan was some innocent victim or that the Japanese Empire did deserve much of what happened to it, but rather that the western allies did a lot to make that situation possible and in large part put themselves into the line of fire.

Wow that's way longer than I intended it to be

TL;DR Japan wasn't going to get oil from people who had none to give and/or weren't on great terms with Japan anyway, Japan's mindset was not one that would see sanctions as anything but a threat and provocation, and the US in large part invited attack by inserting herself into a conflict when she was not yet ready for one.

Wow now we're at the point of Blaming the Victim. Its America's fault for Japan attacking it. If only it didn't wear that short dress.
Same for Indochina
Same for China
Same for Singapore
Same for Malaysia
Same for the Marshalls
Same for the Marianas
Same for Korea
Same for the Phillipines
Same for Manchuria

All those evilz countries with their short skirts!

**EmilCrane**

Frazzled wrote:

Wow now we're at the point of Blaming the Victim. Its America's fault for Japan attacking it. If only it didn't wear that short dress.
Same for Indochina
Same for China
Same for Singapore
Same for Malaysia
Same for the Marshalls
Same for the Marianas
Same for Korea
Same for the Phillipines
Same for Manchuria

All those evilz countries with their short skirts!

No he's arguing that attacking the US was the only geopolitically sound move for Japan at the time.

I really think people should be able to talk about WW2 in terms of geopolitics and political realism without getting bombarded by moral arguments. Yes what Japan did was morally wrong, but from a political perspective it was really their only option.

**Swastakowey**

EmilCrane wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Wow now we're at the point of Blaming the Victim. Its America's fault for Japan attacking it. If only it didn't wear that short dress.
Same for Indochina
Same for China
Same for Singapore
Same for Malaysia
Same for the Marshalls
Same for the Marianas
Same for Korea
Same for the Phillipines
Same for Manchuria

All those evilz countries with their short skirts!

No he's arguing that attacking the US was the only geopolitically sound move for Japan at the time.

I really think people should be able to talk about WW2 in terms of geopolitics and political realism without getting bombarded by moral arguments. Yes what Japan did was morally wrong, but from a political perspective it was really their only option.

Also it pays to consider the events that caused the decisions and then the events that caused those before hand etc. Usually it has a lot of butterfly effect going on. Always got to look at why X was done and sometimes the answer can be found way back and then compounded into the event in question. Which is why we have historians who have the fun job of finding this stuff out. Even then, there are always differing opinions on why.

**Frazzled**

EmilCrane wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Wow now we're at the point of Blaming the Victim. Its America's fault for Japan attacking it. If only it didn't wear that short dress.
Same for Indochina
Same for China
Same for Singapore
Same for Malaysia
Same for the Marshalls
Same for the Marianas
Same for Korea
Same for the Phillipines
Same for Manchuria

All those evilz countries with their short skirts!

No he's arguing that attacking the US was the only geopolitically sound move for Japan at the time.

I really think people should be able to talk about WW2 in terms of geopolitics and political realism without getting bombarded by moral arguments. Yes what Japan did was morally wrong, but from a political perspective it was really their only option.

Then he's arguing like an idiot using the PR of a murderous regime.
They could have left China.
They have acquired oil from Eastern Europe and potentially Russia.
The Japanese military had been anti western-particularly Britain and the US- for decades before the war.
They wanted it to happen, and it did and they got their asses kicked for it.

**Swastakowey**

Frazzled wrote:
EmilCrane wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Wow now we're at the point of Blaming the Victim. Its America's fault for Japan attacking it. If only it didn't wear that short dress.
Same for Indochina
Same for China
Same for Singapore
Same for Malaysia
Same for the Marshalls
Same for the Marianas
Same for Korea
Same for the Phillipines
Same for Manchuria

All those evilz countries with their short skirts!

No he's arguing that attacking the US was the only geopolitically sound move for Japan at the time.

I really think people should be able to talk about WW2 in terms of geopolitics and political realism without getting bombarded by moral arguments. Yes what Japan did was morally wrong, but from a political perspective it was really their only option.

Then he's arguing like an idiot using the PR of a murderous regime.
They could have left China.
They have acquired oil from Eastern Europe and potentially Russia.
The Japanese military had been anti western-particularly Britain and the US- for decades before the war.
They wanted it to happen, and it did and they got their asses kicked for it.

No... they did what they did because they did not want to end up like their neighbours (conquered and part of western empires and or very unfair trade deals that were in western favour) so they modernized and decided to flex their power in the region. This involved fighting russia for land in asia and after working with the west (unfortunately the west treated them like crap) they walked out of the League of nations and eventually that lead to WW2.

Honestly I don't blame them. At least they tried working with the west to secure their place in the world before they went a too far. You could say their anti west policy was a result of anti non white policies by the leading powers.

Also Japan was very anti Soviet Union more than anything else, believing the next big war would again be fighting Russia in China.

I am not excusing their actions, merely stating there is a cause and effect and neither side has a pretty picture painted.

**Frazzled**

You don't blame Japan?

They tried working with the West?

Explain Manchuria
Explain China
Explain IndoChina
Explain Korea.

What the hell kind of education are they teaching kids these days?

**EmilCrane**

Frazzled wrote:
You don't blame Japan?

They tried working with the West?

Explain Manchuria
Explain China
Explain IndoChina
Explain Korea.

What the hell kind of education are they teaching kids these days?

An education that understands other narratives besides the black and white anglocentric one that you were brought up with.

God I can't believe I wrote that... its not often I'm arguing against so called "anglocentrism"

**Frazzled**

EmilCrane wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You don't blame Japan?

They tried working with the West?

Explain Manchuria
Explain China
Explain IndoChina
Explain Korea.

What the hell kind of education are they teaching kids these days?

An education that understands other narratives besides the black and white anglocentric one that you were brought up with.

God I can't believe I wrote that... its not often I'm arguing against so called "anglocentrism"

Then answer the question:
Explain Manchuria
Explain China
Explain IndoChina
Explain Korea.

Do you extend the same kind understanding to Nazi Germany?

**EmilCrane**

Frazzled wrote:

Then answer the question:
Explain Manchuria
Explain China
Explain IndoChina
Explain Korea.

Do you extend the same kind understanding to Nazi Germany?

I'm not saying it was "right" in a moral sense, they weren't, they were reprehensible. I'm saying war with America was their only option in a geopolitical sense. In that sense Japan's actions in Asia were irrelevant, other than the fact that Japan needed the resources if they wanted to achieve parity with the US.

And yes I extend the same understand to every nation, when I'm talking geopolitics and power relations.

**Frazzled**

And I am saying you're completely and utterly wrong.

You're excusing rampant empire building, replete with inhuman barbarity on a Mongol level scale, and then saying they had to. Had to why?

Indeed the Japan post war has been far far stronger, and its one of the most peaceful countries in the world (except that Godzilla cat, he's like the world's largest biker picking fights everywhere).

**EmilCrane**

Frazzled wrote:
And I am saying you're completely and utterly wrong.

You're excusing rampant empire building, replete with inhuman barbarity on a Mongol level scale, and then saying they had to. Had to why?

Indeed the Japan post war has been far far stronger, and its one of the most peaceful countries in the world (except that Godzilla cat, he's like the world's largest biker picking fights everywhere).

I'm not excusing anything.

I'm talking about STRATEGY not ETHICS.

**kronk**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
All is fair in love and war. Pulling punches makes no sense unless the other guy is also doing it.

All that does is create an ever escalating cycle of violence.

Really?

It seems that Japan surrendered unconditionally after the bombs were dropped. the cycle was stopped. Japan hasn't invaded another country in 70 years.

History: 1
Shadow Captain Edithae: 0

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Feth America. Feth Japan. Feth ANYBODY that commits atrocities, like Nanking, Holocaust, Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Holodomor.

Then Guck yourself

England:
Boer concentration camps
Amritsar Massacre
Cyprus Internment
Partitioning of India
Exacerbating The Irish Famine
Bloody Sunday
Burning of Cork

**Frazzled**

England:
Boer concentration camps
Amritsar Massacre
Cyprus Internment
Partitioning of India
Exacerbating The Irish Famine
Bloody Sunday
Burning of Cork

You forgot English cuisine. Spotted duck? WTF?

**Ketara**

Frazzled wrote:

England:
Boer concentration camps
Amritsar Massacre
Cyprus Internment
Partitioning of India
Exacerbating The Irish Famine
Bloody Sunday
Burning of Cork

You forgot English cuisine. Spotted duck? WTF?

You forgot the Deep Fried Mars Bar.

**Frazzled**

I thought that was Scottish? Like Haggis and goats.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

So, nobody is talking about japanese negationists anymore? The last one that did was killkrazy but he stopped after I answered his question iirc...

**kronk**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, nobody is talking about japanese negationists anymore? The last one that did was killkrazy but he stopped after I answered his question iirc...

True. The real topic here:

He declares it "another fabrication", saying: "If this is true, how many soldiers had to be mobilised to forcibly drag those women away? And those Korean men were just watching their women taken away by force? Were Korean men all cowards?"

What an ass-hat. Unarmed Korean civilians against platoons of armed Japanese raiding their villages. Who were the cowards here?

**gorgon**

kronk wrote:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Feth America. Feth Japan. Feth ANYBODY that commits atrocities, like Nanking, Holocaust, Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Holodomor.

Then Guck yourself

England:
Boer concentration camps
Amritsar Massacre
Cyprus Internment
Partitioning of India
Exacerbating The Irish Famine
Bloody Sunday
Burning of Cork

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

kronk wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Feth America. Feth Japan. Feth ANYBODY that commits atrocities, like Nanking, Holocaust, Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Holodomor.

Then Guck yourself

England:
Boer concentration camps
Amritsar Massacre
Cyprus Internment
Partitioning of India
Exacerbating The Irish Famine
Bloody Sunday
Burning of Cork

Your point is?

Like I said, feth ANYBODY that does these sorts of things. My country included. The operative word here being ANYBODY.

**Frazzled**

You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

**gorgon**

Frazzled wrote:
You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

A Chinese friend's grandmother told stories about finding men from her village flayed and hung from trees by Japanese soldiers.

But I'm sure there's a very rational political explanation.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Frazzled wrote:
You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

I cited Nanking in that list.

But Keep hitting that straw man if it makes you feel better.

**Frazzled**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

I cited Nanking in that list.

But Keep hitting that straw man if it makes you feel better.

I apologize. I missed it over you berating of the Allies on a thread that was actually about the warcrimes Japan did and how revisionists are trying to cover up history.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

gorgon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

A Chinese friend's grandmother told stories about finding men from her village flayed and hung from trees by Japanese soldiers.

But I'm sure there's a very rational political explanation.

How is that any different from nuking them?

You think I'm applying double standards, but I'm not. I'm applying the same standards, and so I condemn the crimes of both sides.

You people are no better than the Japanese.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

I cited Nanking in that list.

But Keep hitting that straw man if it makes you feel better.

I apologize. I missed it over you berating of the Allies on a thread that was actually about the warcrimes Japan did and how revisionists are trying to cover up history.

Hey, I'm not the one who originally brought up the atomic bombings.

Don't want your delicate sensibilities offended? Then don't post your opinion that the atomic bombings were justified on a public forum where <GASP> people might disagree with you.

**gorgon**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
gorgon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

A Chinese friend's grandmother told stories about finding men from her village flayed and hung from trees by Japanese soldiers.

But I'm sure there's a very rational political explanation.

How is that any different from nuking them?

You think I'm applying double standards, but I'm not. I'm applying the same standards, and so I condemn the crimes of both sides.

You people are no better than the Japanese.

"You people"

Just listen to yourself.

**Frazzled**

gorgon wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
gorgon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You seem really ok with Japan having done it though.

A Chinese friend's grandmother told stories about finding men from her village flayed and hung from trees by Japanese soldiers.

But I'm sure there's a very rational political explanation.

How is that any different from nuking them?

You think I'm applying double standards, but I'm not. I'm applying the same standards, and so I condemn the crimes of both sides.

You people are no better than the Japanese.

"You people"

Just listen to yourself.

The Chinese didn't nuke anyone.
Consider yourself pwoned General Zhou's chicken style.

**kronk**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You people are no better than the Japanese.

I'll have you know that I am better looking than any surviving WWII vet, Allied or Axis.

Stick that in your tea and stir it!

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You people are no better than the Japanese.

I'll have you know that I am better looking than any surviving WWII vet, Allied or Axis.

Stick that in your tea and stir it!

I don't know Genda was a Man's Man. Is he still alive?