Nikademus
Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
So did Chang's book discuss why such atrocities might have occured? I'm just curious myself. I have not read any book specifically on the subject but IIRC, part of the source of Japan's ire was that the Chinese put up such stiff resistence in Nanking that it frustrated the IJA to no end. I have read similar accounts, like in the DEI, where staunch resistence by Allied forces was seen as a personal front and an embarrasment to Japanese forces. It seems that the Japanese would then take out that frustration on whatever civilian population, or defenders were left. Many instances of "Japanese war crimes" seemed to occur after such resistence. Bataan, Guam, Java (or was it Sumatra), Nanking all fall into that category.
Yes....It's been a while since i read the book and unfortunately it (and the notes and highlighted texts contained therin) are currently packed away in a pickup truck) but i'll try to dredge up what i can so apologies in advance for any errors. Some of this is my interpretation as well:
Yes, part of Japan's ire was that the Chinese had the audacity to fight back, however ineptly (for the most part...with a few notable exceptions). The Japanese [and by that i mean those in the military mostly as well as elements of the government] envisioned an Asian brotherhood that would throw off the shackles and influences of Western Imerialism in all it's forms. One theory expressed is that the Japanese saw the Chinese in particular as an older brother that should by all rights, want the same thing and given her historical position, SHOULD have done something about it rather than let herself get degraded and pushed around. When the Chinese failed to see the light of this vision, it was felt that the older brother needed "correcting", make that stern "correcting".
The more traditional theory of course is that Japan simply wanted to join the imperialism game and China was the best most opportunistic place to do this. As an Aussie friend of mine once said, what was wrong about the Japanese was not in that they attempted Imperialism [given her 'teachers' the West and her desire not to fall victim herself], but in "How" they went about it....with a brutality that shocked the world....even Nazis.
Whichever theory (or both) when the Chinese resisted the Japanese it became doubly insulting. Here Japan was trying to lead Asia into a new era but the "brothers" were actually fighting back. The corrupt state of the Chinese government and military, and the poor state of China's military exaserbated this because of the contrast with the tight, well trained and organized Japanese. You know the whole "bushido" thing....loyalty and devotion....fearless onto death. Finding the Chinese in such poor condition served to bring out contempt in the Japanese. Contempt soon lead to hatred...esp if those same Chinese managed to inflict casualties on the elite soldiers of the Emperor.
Thus came Nanking. The Chinese initially IIRC put up a spirited if fractured defense of the city and at least slowed the Japanese advance and inflicted heavy casaulties. When the Chinese armies finally broke and fled, the victorious Japanese entered the city and began rounding up enemy soldiers who had deserted so that they could be "dealt with" (i.e. no rejoining future Chinese armies that could resist Japan. But that was only part of it. Another part was the Japanese idea of keeping their men happy. In the west..."comfort" women were voluntary....while discouraged there was little that could be done to prevent men from seeking houses of prostituion to satiate needs etc etc. In Japan, "comfort" woman was not only embraced but institutionalized and local populations were forcibly employed.
These elements were but part of the stew though that cannot fully explain what happened in Nanking. A maddness seemed to take over the IJA and things quickly spiraled out of control. The commanding General lost control of his troops to the point that he later felt great shame (post war) for what had happened. Failure to enforce discipline at the junior officer level was largely responsible.....henious acts were often left unpunished which quickly filtered down to most of the men (anything goes!) and it just spiraled completely out of control to the point where you had beheading contests and mass rapes. The book is graphic...and has some graphic pictures....I don't need to see the video believe me.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
LOG! - 
???
I saw three commercails with this before they fixed it. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread