Japanese Unearth Remains, and Their Nation’s Past, on Guadalcanal

[Zorch]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/world ... below&_r=0

[chemkid]

ty

[tocaff]

We should all be aware of our past as history serves to help us avoid the same mistakes in the present and future.

[btd64]

History education is the best prevention to reduce or eliminated repeating the mistakes of the past. Some day, hopefully soon, mankind will learn to live on this rock without the need to Kill thy Neighbor....GP

[dr.hal]

History and how it is taught can be either enlightening or misleading. A good book to read concerning the impact on history by historians is E.H. Carr's "What is History". First published in 1961, its basic premiss is "know thy historian". This is certainly evident in the current fight over the US history textbooks adopted by the Texas school board.

[jmalter]

Prob for those of us who've learned some history - we're 'doomed to repeat it' along w/ everyone else!

[Rising-Sun]

Seen that pic so many times. There are more laying around in the Pacific though. If anyone willing to post more and reminder of what truly are.

[Big B]

That was a thoughtful article.
Avoiding politics and an accounting of wrongs - every nation has it's deeds that should never have been done in wartime, and Japan is certainly not innocent, but I'm sure their young men were doing what they believed was right and honorable during those awful years.

My father, who served in the Korean War as an infantryman, took 50 years to come to terms with the fact that the enemy were just people too (one evening he said to me off hand "I suppose, really - the North Koreans and Chinese were young men like me - doing what they had to").

While I believe it is fundamentally wrong to white-wash things (and every people on earth have room to reflect on their history), I firmly believe that future generations should not carry guilt for matters they took no part in - and should have pride in the sacrifices of their countrymen who came before them.

[Reg]

Have any of you read "The Bone Man of Kokoda"? An interesting read of contemporary Japanese attitudes.

The Bone Man of Kokoda by Charles Happell

Happell writes that Nishimura found it very difficult in the 80's as no one wanted to know, not even the relatives.

It must have been very emotional being able to put names and faces to the bones he was digging up.

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: Reg


Have any of you read "The Bone Man of Kokoda"? An interesting read of contemporary Japanese attitudes.

The Bone Man of Kokoda by Charles Happell

I may have, I do remember reading some details about Japanese movements over the mountains trying to travel from Lae or whatever to Port Moresby. It must been bloody hell doing it. Thank for reminding me about it and I need to get that book back and read it again.

[spence]

but I'm sure their young men were doing what they believed was right and honorable during those awful years.

I think there are quite a few Chinese who might take issue with your point. That speaks not at all to any number of Allied POWs of the Japanese. Nor does it speak to the majority of those other Asians who experienced "Asia for the Asians".

The Japanese point of view held by all or most of those young men you speak of was as racist as any "good" Nazi might have felt (in fact the Japanese behavior in Nanking offended even good Nazis). In point of fact the 38th Division, one of the Guadalcanal divisions, established a reputation for bestial behavior in its conquest of Hong Kong in late 1941.

Yes every nation has some ugly warts in its military history. The ruling cliches of only a few have made those warts matters of military/national policy. Japan was one of those though.

I, for one shed no tears, for those who died in those times while in its service.

[Amoral]

Most allied troops held racist attitudes towards the Japanese.
The firebombing civilians was heinous. The allies did not fight cleanly or honorably. There can be no pointing of fingers on that front.
The mistreatment of POWs is the behavior of a losing army, not an evil one. Consider Andersonville prison.

Both sides committed terrible acts, both sides have as much to be ashamed of as proud of.

[spence]

The difference is that only one side committed those heinous acts with the outright encouragement of their government. With the details of the "Nanking Beheading Contest" appearing on the front page in Tokyo it's a stretch to excuse even the civilians in Japan. .

Many of the worst offenders of that government only escaped the hangman's noose because, for the Western Governments, the blush came off of the Soviet "Rose" once the Nazis became (mostly) history.











western
's

[Amoral]

The governments and media on both sides were guilty of dehumanizing the enemy. That dehumanization lead to atrocities, by both sides. Read up about the US habit of "Trophy Taking" that was also sensationalized in US newspapers and magazines.

Neither side was entirely good or evil. I don't know of any evidence that Japanese civilians were more bloodthirsty than American civilians.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Amoral

Most allied troops held racist attitudes towards the Japanese.
The firebombing civilians was heinous. The allies did not fight cleanly or honorably. There can be no pointing of fingers on that front.
The mistreatment of POWs is the behavior of a losing army, not an evil one. Consider Andersonville prison.



Both sides committed terrible acts, both sides have as much to be ashamed of as proud of..

warspite1

First part of that sentence - 100% agree. Second part, nope - not even close. Not even in the same ball-park.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Amoral

Most allied troops held racist attitudes towards the Japanese.
The firebombing civilians was heinous. The allies did not fight cleanly or honorably. There can be no pointing of fingers on that front.
The mistreatment of POWs is the behavior of a losing army, not an evil one. Consider Andersonville prison.



Both sides committed terrible acts, both sides have as much to be ashamed of as proud of..

warspite1

First part of that sentence - 100% agree. Second part, nope - not even close. Not even in the same ball-park.

+1

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Amoral

Most allied troops held racist attitudes towards the Japanese.
The firebombing civilians was heinous. The allies did not fight cleanly or honorably. There can be no pointing of fingers on that front.
The mistreatment of POWs is the behavior of a losing army, not an evil one. Consider Andersonville prison.



Both sides committed terrible acts, both sides have as much to be ashamed of as proud of..

warspite1

First part of that sentence - 100% agree. Second part, nope - not even close. Not even in the same ball-park.

The whole "they were worse than us" line of arguement is merely a deflection away from acts that some nations would rather forget - which is wrong. The bombing of Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo were both terrible acts. If one had a higher body count than the other, so what?

As a friendly suggestion Warspite, I think you should look into reading history from different historiographical viewpoints. While some viewpoints are fairer than others, it never hurts to look at things from a different perspective.

The Second World War being cast as a "moral crusade" is something that's emerged amongst the western perspective on the war, but it doesn't really ring true:

- The vast majority of American citizens were content to let the Japanese and Germans do as they pleased up until Dec 7th.
- The British were quite happy (if not outright pleased) to see Franco win the Spanish Civil War just prior to the outbreak of the war.
- Once the war was won, the British abanonded Poland (after joining WW2 on the pretext of defending Poland) to the Soviet Union.

The simple truth is that no nation can claim the moral high ground - some just had easier ways to promote their interests.

[Big B]

I knew it wouldn't take long for this thread to get here...

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Both sides committed terrible acts, both sides have as much to be ashamed of as proud of..

.
First part of that sentence - 100% agree. Second part, nope - not even close. Not even in the same ball-park.
You little kids have absolutely no clue. Wonderful progressive trans nazional political after-thoughts, after we spent our blood liberating Europe. And you pathetic little weasels want to whine about atrocities.

Next time, I guaran. friffin.tee, we will Not be there and you will have to stew in your own damn juices, and to hell with you.

Yeah, welcome to the new caliphate and prepare your daughters as whores for the the jihadists

{ed} just read Antinia Frasiers biography: Cromwell, The Lord Protector. there is a wealth of stuff in the book; and a wealth of stuff in the pages that give you a picture of Cromwell.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Amoral

Most allied troops held racist attitudes towards the Japanese.
The firebombing civilians was heinous. The allies did not fight cleanly or honorably. There can be no pointing of fingers on that front.
The mistreatment of POWs is the behavior of a losing army, not an evil one. Consider Andersonville prison.



Both sides committed terrible acts, both sides have as much to be ashamed of as proud of..

warspite1

First part of that sentence - 100% agree. Second part, nope - not even close. Not even in the same ball-park.

The whole "they were worse than us" line of arguement is merely a deflection away from acts that some nations would rather forget - which is wrong. The bombing of Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo were both terrible acts. If one had a higher body count than the other, so what?

As a friendly suggestion Warspite, I think you should look into reading history from different historiographical viewpoints. While some viewpoints are fairer than others, it never hurts to look at things from a different perspective.

The Second World War being cast as a "moral crusade" is something that's emerged amongst the western perspective on the war, but it doesn't really ring true:

- The vast majority of American citizens were content to let the Japanese and Germans do as they pleased up until Dec 7th.
- The British were quite happy (if not outright pleased) to see Franco win the Spanish Civil War just prior to the outbreak of the war.
- Once the war was won, the British abanonded Poland (after joining WW2 on the pretext of defending Poland) to the Soviet Union.

The simple truth is that no nation can claim the moral high ground - some just had easier ways to promote their interests.

warspite1

That's a turn up for the books - we appear to be coming at this from different sides. I"m sure there must be something we agree on - we'll find it eventually [;)]

I certainly like to think I look at things from both sides - why you think I don't and impart that advice to me rather than others that have posted here I don't know ..but I'll take the advice the way it was meant.

In the meantime, perhaps you will permit me to return the favour? Please understand that there is such a thing as the real world. It absolutely sucks from time to time but the fact is we have to live in it. Please tell me - the real world being what it is - and not what we would like it to be - what on earth the British (and indeed the Western Powers) could have done about Poland - short of going to war with the Soviet Union? Yes, of course we CAN sit back in our cosy 21st century existence and spout from on high what Truman, Churchill etc should have done - but sadly it ain't always that easy.

No nation can claim the moral high ground? Yes, I think (as was said earlier in the discussion) all nations have done wrong at times - but to somehow suggest the Western Democracies actions during WWII were no better and no worse than those of Germany or Japan? Nah - sorry, that's not a path I'd go down no matter what.