Was the death toll in China inflated?

[gebhk]

yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah

A feeble argument even in the school playground where it belongs.

Your set your own standard which no one nation/force could ever meet.

No, the standard is set by the international community. Both logic and fhe fact that many forces managed to conduct themselves without wholesale murder of civilians and POWs clearly shows that it is a standard which is achievable. Whether nations, organisations and individuals choose to adhere to it is another matter.

Well, at least you admitted decency has degrees.

As neither I or anyone else here has denied it, I am not admitting anything. I am stating the obvious.

Isn't that what I said, decency is in relative terms?

No, it is not relative, as I have already pointed out. Just because something is black, it does not make something else that is grey - white.

[David Thompson]

Two posts from manfredzhang, containing personal remarks about other AHF members, were removed pursuant to forum rules.

manfredzhang -- Consider this a warning. AHF has its rules posted for all to see, and if you haven't read them yet, get started.

[manfredzhang]

yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah

A feeble argument even in the school playground where it belongs.

Your set your own standard which no one nation/force could ever meet.

No, the standard is set by the international community. Both logic and fhe fact that many forces managed to conduct themselves without wholesale murder of civilians and POWs clearly shows that it is a standard which is achievable. Whether nations, organisations and individuals choose to adhere to it is another matter.

Well, at least you admitted decency has degrees.

As neither I or anyone else here has denied it, I am not admitting anything. I am stating the obvious.

Isn't that what I said, decency is in relative terms?

No, it is not relative, as I have already pointed out. Just because something is black, it does not make something else that is grey - white.

Right. But you just simply can not name a single force/country meets that standard...

[manfredzhang]

Two posts from manfredzhang, containing personal remarks about other AHF members, were removed pursuant to forum rules.

manfredzhang -- Consider this a warning. AHF has its rules posted for all to see, and if you haven't read them yet, get started.

I get it. Speaking the truth which you don't like will get punished...

[gebhk]

Right. But you just simply can not name a single force/country meets that standard...

No, I simply do not want to engage in irrelevant whataboutism. What other countries or forces did or did not do has no bearing on whether the behaviour of the Japanese in China can be considered 'decent'. It cannot.

[David Thompson]

A post from manfredzhang, containing personal comments about another member, was removed pursuant to the forum rules and the warning previously posted at viewtopic.php?p=2346403#p2346403.

[manfredzhang]

Right. But you just simply can not name a single force/country meets that standard...

No, I simply do not want to engage in irrelevant whataboutism. What other countries or forces did or did not do has no bearing on whether the behaviour of the Japanese in China can be considered 'decent'. It cannot.

Which country, Which force, met that standard in WWII?

You set up a standard, I just want to have a better understanding of the standard.

The best way is to provide an example...

This is not about whataboutism. Even you name Germany or Italy, I don't mind. As long as you can explain how these countries/forces met your standard...

[gebhk]

Again, not my standard and no I do not intend to play a game of irrelevant whaboutism. I have told you previously where to find perfectly good definitions of crimes against humanity (Rome Statute of the ICC). I hold as self-evident that a nation or force committing crimes against humanity cannot be considered to have behaved 'decently'. This is not my standard, it is one that the vast majority of humanity upholds.

It is you who has claimed the Japanese in China behaved 'decently'. It is up to you, therefore, to demonstrate that they did so. What others did or did not do is irrelevant to this. The 'I am an honest man because Fred and George stole more than me' defence will no work in court because it is neither logical nor convincing. Fred West remains a serial killer even though there are (sadly many) other serial killers who murdered more people than he did.

[manfredzhang]

Again, not my standard and no I do not intend to play a game of irrelevant whaboutism. I have told you previously where to find perfectly good definitions of crimes against humanity (Rome Statute of the ICC). I hold as self-evident that a nation or force committing crimes against humanity cannot be considered to have behaved 'decently'. This is not my standard, it is one that the vast majority of humanity upholds.

It is you who has claimed the Japanese in China behaved 'decently'. It is up to you, therefore, to demonstrate that they did so. What others did or did not do is irrelevant to this. The 'I am an honest man because Fred and George stole more than me' defence will no work in court because it is neither logical nor convincing. Fred West remains a serial killer even though there are (sadly many) other serial killers who murdered more people than he did.

Well, you brought that into the discussion, I am assuming you endorsed/supported this standard and will defend it.
And I have hard time to understand why people here are so much into rejecting the so called whataboutism. You have a standard. Shouldn’t that apply to everyone? You can not hold this standard to Japan and Germany only accusing them committing crimes (Nanking incident, Holocaust) while at the same time ignore the UK and US were doing similar things (bombed cities, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Can you? If so, this is not a standard, this is Cherry Picking or Victor’s Justice.
Talking about Rome Statute of the ICC, firstly, it was established in 1998, more than half century after the conclusion of WWII. What’s the purpose to judge historical event with modern standards? Shouldn’t all Americans be tried for their ancestors’ crimes of human trafficking and mass killing of Native Indians? Well, with the current apology culture going on, I am expecting Joe Biden may bow to Emperor Naruhito and apologize for nuke bombing Japan during his presidency. But until he does it, the nuke bombing is still justified isn’t it? You can not and should not apply a later standard to a previous event. Secondly, it was not accepted by most countries with most population. China and India, the two most populated countries never signed it. The US and Russia, who possess over 90% of the worlds’ nukes both signed and withdraw. I don’t see this is something accepted by the majority of the world. Not something can be called the vast majority of humanity upholds.
As I have repeated many times, decency is a relative term which should be discussed within historical context. Yes, what other did is highly relevant. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth is from the Bible. Any human or nation behaviors should always be discussed within context. That’s why we separate first degree murder from manslaughter from negligence of driving causing death. Different crimes, different penalties.
Fred West is a serial killer. Marco Muzzo killed four people. Does that make him a serial killer?
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/marco-muzzo- ... -1.5301289
Although from the victim’s POV, they are all dead.

[Peter89]

Well, you brought that into the discussion, I am assuming you endorsed/supported this standard and will defend it.
And I have hard time to understand why people here are so much into rejecting the so called whataboutism.

You have a standard. Shouldn’t that apply to everyone? You can not hold this standard to Japan and Germany only accusing them committing crimes (Nanking incident, Holocaust) while at the same time ignore the UK and US were doing similar things (bombed cities, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Can you? If so, this is not a standard, this is Cherry Picking or Victor’s Justice.

The problem with this argument is that the British Empire and the US - although committing war crimes themselves - the scale of these war crimes were nowhere near the crimes of Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire. The actual war crimes committed by the Allies included mass rapes of civilians, mistreatment of POWs and deliberate shooting on bailed out pilots.

Bombing cities, thus deliberate targeting of civilians, was an interwar doctrine, which every nation applied. It did not make it nice or right, and probably contributed to most of the material and cultural loss of the continent, but at the time it was seen as a justifiable tool of war. However hard it is for me to write it, because my ancestors houses were destroyed to the ground and relatives and friends of our family were maimed and killed.

Nuking cities - without knowing the long-term effects of low-level radiation - is a special kind of problem, because we simply know more than the decision makers back then. At the time, it was seen as an extremely powerful bomb, which also made the invasion of the Japanese islands unnecessary.

In my opinion, by far the worst crime the Allies have committed happened in Central-Eastern Europe, where the expulsion of 12-15 millions of Germans happened with immeasurable loss of life, material wealth and where the expulsed were subjected to extreme levels of abuse. But it is also true that the Nazis started to evacuate the lands without sufficient means, which greatly contributed to the high losses.

By no stretch of imagination were the Allies - including the western Allies - some kind of angels.

But again, these crimes were not on the scale of the crimes of the Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire.

Talking about Rome Statute of the ICC, firstly, it was established in 1998, more than half century after the conclusion of WWII. What’s the purpose to judge historical event with modern standards? Shouldn’t all Americans be tried for their ancestors’ crimes of human trafficking and mass killing of Native Indians?

Present day Americans' ancestors are overwhelmingly immigrants after slavery was abolished, and the said human trafficking was not simply done by local slavers but by slave merchants, whom never even lived under the US. Also, by now, "Americans" is a term that includes people from various backgrounds, including the descendants of slaves, slave masters, immigrants, indians, etc. Thus a present day American official represents and serves all citizens, and should not "apologize" for these crimes, because it would mean that the government does not represent those who were ill-affected by these measures.

[David Thompson]

The topic here is "Was the death toll in China inflated?" Let's get back on it.

[manfredzhang]

The problem with this argument is that the British Empire and the US - although committing war crimes themselves - the scale of these war crimes were nowhere near the crimes of Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire.
--------------------
I appreciate this statement. This has always been what I have said in this thread. In my view US and UK were more decent than Japan and Japan was more decent than Chinese.

The topic here is "Was the death toll in China inflated?" Let's get back on it.
---------------------
I guess we have a lot to define first to determine what numbers are we talking about and from which source. When you say China, which China and the War with Japan, from when.
Also, another important thing to keep in mind is when we talk about death toll, was it refer to the total deaths during the war or the direct deaths or to a smaller but more relevant scale the direct deaths by the Japanese forces.
When the ChiCom was babbling about 18M, not only this number is largely inflated by any means but also it was used to play victim card as if, all of the deaths were attributed to the Japanese while in reality, Chinese government and forces killed way more Chinese than Japanese directly or indirectly.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Manfredzhang,

You post, "In my view US and UK were more decent than Japan and Japan was more decent than Chinese." And yet still not on the "decency scale"!

Rana Mitter on p.130 of China's War with Japan 1937-1945, The Struggle for Survival, in a chapter entitled "Massacre at Nanjing": "From the first hours of the occupation, the Japanese troops seem to have abandoned all constraints. For the next six weeks, until the middle of January 1938, the soldiers of the Japanese Central China Area Army embarked on an uninterrupted spree of murder, rape and robbery. Far from establishing a new, if temporary, order in the city, the army seemed determined to reduce Nanjing to utter chaos."

"Six weeks"! "Uninterrupted"! This was no temporary, post-battle, aberration that the Japanese command quickly brought back under control.

As long as you continue to try to frame such Japanese activities in terms of "decency", rather than indecency, you are, in effect, simply acting as an apologist for major war crimes.

As long as you continue to try to whitewash such massacres as mere "incidents", you are, in effect, simply acting as an apologist for major war crimes.

As long as you try to justify the use of prisoners in biological warfare experiments, you are, in effect, simply acting as an apologist for major war crimes.

AHF is, I hope, not the right place to expect a permissive environment for this.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Peter89]

The problem with this argument is that the British Empire and the US - although committing war crimes themselves - the scale of these war crimes were nowhere near the crimes of Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire.
--------------------
I appreciate this statement. This has always been what I have said in this thread. In my view US and UK were more decent than Japan and Japan was more decent than Chinese.

Not at all. We couldn't be farther from each others' views. You tried to present the Japanese war crimes explicitly as inevitable misconduct of the troops, which is, in my opinion, missing the whole point.

Your assessment of Japanese war crimes and crimes against humanity is simply untenable, and one must wonder whether you made a grim joke, or you were actually serious.

Also, another important thing to keep in mind is when we talk about death toll, was it refer to the total deaths during the war or the direct deaths or to a smaller but more relevant scale the direct deaths by the Japanese forces.
When the ChiCom was babbling about 18M, not only this number is largely inflated by any means but also it was used to play victim card as if, all of the deaths were attributed to the Japanese while in reality, Chinese government and forces killed way more Chinese than Japanese directly or indirectly.

What you don't seem to understand here is that Japanese forces were not invited to China (or DEI or PH, or elsewhere). Even if they were, or were they behaving themselves as "liberators" of oppressed nations, it would not erase their role in the horrific crimes happened across Asia. Empires usually used local collaborator elites to do the "dirty job" for them, but it does not mean that "they killed each other, we have nothing to do with it".

[Peter89]

Hi Manfredzhang,

You post, "In my view US and UK were more decent than Japan and Japan was more decent than Chinese." And yet still not on the "decency scale"!

Rana Mitter on p.130 of China's War with Japan 1937-1945, The Struggle for Survival, in a chapter entitled "Massacre at Nanjing": "From the first hours of the occupation, the Japanese troops seem to have abandoned all constraints. For the next six weeks, until the middle of January 1938, the soldiers of the Japanese Central China Area Army embarked on an uninterrupted spree of murder, rape and robbery. Far from establishing a new, if temporary, order in the city, the army seemed determined to reduce Nanjing to utter chaos."

"Six weeks"! "Uninterrupted"! This was no temporary, post-battle, aberration that the Japanese command quickly brought back under control.

As long as you continue to try to frame such Japanese activities in terms of "decency", rather than indecency, you are, in effect, simply acting as an apologist for major war crimes.

As long as you continue to try to whitewash such massacres as mere "incidents", you are, in effect, simply acting as an apologist for major war crimes.

As long as you try to justify the use of prisoners in biological warfare experiments, you are, in effect, simply acting as an apologist for major war crimes.

AHF is, I hope, not the right place to expect a permissive environment for this.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hello Sid,

even though it seems to be an exercise in futility, at least some people have to meet facts and arguments which they don't like. War crime denial will not be erased by banned conversations, but the number and effect of war crime denial can be mitigated with normative and meaningful conversations.

However, even in my lifetime, I see a rise in the intellectual ping-pong effect... when you just pass the ball to the other, and as if it was a brick wall, it bounces back from your debate partner with the same momentum, virtually unchanged, except its direction. That is my treshold for these conversations.