War crimes commited by Allied forces against the Japanese?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Tycoon2002
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 06 Jun 2005 12:31
Location: London, UK

War crimes commited by Allied forces against the Japanese?

Post by Tycoon2002 » 25 Oct 2005 12:55

I recently bought a book from Amazon called 'Hidden Horrors' and written by Yuki Tanaka and in parts of the book he claimed there was 2,000 rapes in Japan by U.S marines in Kanagawa alone including in one case where a woman was gang raped by 30 U.S marines - another claim that the first rape commited by U.S marines happened only 3 and half hours of American occupation where 2 marines went into a house and assaulted them at gun point. - Ive NEVER heard of these claims before and he had stated no sources.

Tanaka also has stated that Russian troops in Manchuko and assaulted every Japanese they saw and advanced into villages where they wanted women for the victorious soldiers, if not they would burn all the villages with Japanese inside - some voluenteed to be raped and most never came back or commited sucidide as they preferred to die then to be taken away by the Russians, another claim was that Russian soldiers mulitated Japanese women just like the Japanese did to every country under their take over.

Tanaka also claimed that Australian troops were the worst and went on a rampage around Kure of destruction (the port of Hiroshima) in Novermber 1945 where they would kidnap tens of young women into their jeeps, drive to the mountains, rape them then throw them off the mountan - Again laughable and a pittiful excuse to whitewash previous Japanese behaviour.

My opinion - Dont read this book, its another example of a Japanese war crime book where the author tries his best to diminsh war crimes and even though he accepts the reponsibily of what his country had done in S.E Asia, he makes it out that the Allies crimes were on par but he seems to forget the Japanese were the agressor through out the war.

User avatar
Barry Graham
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 25 Nov 2004 05:59
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Barry Graham » 26 Oct 2005 02:25

I've read that book - in fact I have it in my hand right now.
Sources are quoted in the appendix for all the incidents referred to in your post.

You may not agree that allied soldiers were capable of such acts but it's a bit naive to suggest that they couldn't have happened.
I'm no apologist for the Japanese - I lost a close relative in the Sandakan death march but reading this book helped me understand why the Japanese behaved as they did.

Contrary to your opinion I would recommend to others that you do read this book if only to appreciate a another perspective on Japanese war crimes during the Pacific War.

eagles nest
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 25 Oct 2005 16:04
Location: Tennessee

Post by eagles nest » 26 Oct 2005 02:44

It wouldn't suprise me if american soldiers commited war crimes. It happened in 'Nam.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002 20:29
Location: MA, USA

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 26 Oct 2005 13:11

You may not agree that allied soldiers were capable of such acts but it's a bit naive to suggest that they couldn't have happened.
I'm no apologist for the Japanese - I lost a close relative in the Sandakan death march but reading this book helped me understand why the Japanese behaved as they did.
How does a rape by a Occupation soldier in the late fall of 1945 prompt the Japaneswe to "behave as they did" during the 1937 Rape of Nanking or the 1942 Bataan Death March?

TRose
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 22:08
Location: California

Post by TRose » 26 Oct 2005 15:59

While every army of any size has a few people that should have been drowned at birth, I have my doubt of this book. It says 2000 people where rape in kanagawa alone, so my quistion is how did he get this number, from police/hospital reports or is it a quote from some Anti -American writer? A book might have an appendix and quote for various sources, but one then needs to check out those sources
Remember if American and allied forces where to commit wide spread rape and pillage, it would have made McArther look bad, and if there anything McArther cared about first and foremost it was his reputation so McArther would have put to stop to such behavior for those reasons.

Tycoon2002
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 06 Jun 2005 12:31
Location: London, UK

Post by Tycoon2002 » 26 Oct 2005 23:13

Rob - WSSOB wrote:
You may not agree that allied soldiers were capable of such acts but it's a bit naive to suggest that they couldn't have happened.
I'm no apologist for the Japanese - I lost a close relative in the Sandakan death march but reading this book helped me understand why the Japanese behaved as they did.
How does a rape by a Occupation soldier in the late fall of 1945 prompt the Japaneswe to "behave as they did" during the 1937 Rape of Nanking or the 1942 Bataan Death March?
I agree, in the 'Warcrimes of Nanking thread' there was a foolish comparison when somone called Michael Mills said the Chinese were justified in getting slaughted in Nanking because the Nationlists were kiling the communists in their civil war and vise versa. He seems to forget that the chinese civilians were the ones getting masscred the most.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 01:39
Location: New Zealand

Re: War crimes commited by Allied forces against the Japanes

Post by JonS » 26 Oct 2005 23:35

Tycoon2002 wrote:I recently bought a book from Amazon called 'Hidden Horrors' and written by Yuki Tanaka and in parts of the book he claimed there was 2,000 rapes in Japan by U.S marines in Kanagawa alone including in one case where a woman was gang raped by 30 U.S marines - another claim that the first rape commited by U.S marines happened only 3 and half hours of American occupation where 2 marines went into a house and assaulted them at gun point.

Tanaka also claimed that Australian troops were the worst and went on a rampage around Kure of destruction (the port of Hiroshima) in Novermber 1945 where they would kidnap tens of young women into their jeeps, drive to the mountains, rape them then throw them off the mountan.
I'm completely at a loss to see how any of the above - given that the reports are accurate - could be viewed as a warcrime :?
My opinion - Dont read this book, its another example of a Japanese war crime book where the author tries his best to diminsh war crimes and even though he accepts the reponsibily of what his country had done in S.E Asia, he makes it out that the Allies crimes were on par but he seems to forget the Japanese were the agressor through out the war.
Noted. Thanks :)

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 27 Oct 2005 02:08

Tanaka is a serious researcher and in fact his book covers Japanese war crimes 1941-45 rather extensively.The book was previously published in Japan around 1993 with the title Shirarezaru Senzou Hanzai (What Japanese Forces Did To Australians).

Tanaka's thesis is that the ordinary Japanese soldier was a victim of a corrupt system that promoted brutuality and denied individual responsibility--" the concept for basic human rights, in particular for individual lives, was lacking among Japanese soldiers."

Tanaka's view on rape is that it is common to all armies.This is where he presents the post-war episodes in Japan.However as he acknowledges it wasn't endorsed or ignored by Allied authorities.Many 'comfort stations' were set up soon after to fulfill the needs of the men.The Australian crimes were sourced from the diary of an Australian member of the Occupation Forces.

LMA-17
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 10:51
Location: Jakarta

Post by LMA-17 » 27 Oct 2005 02:36

another claim that the first rape commited by U.S marines happened only 3 and half hours of American occupation where 2 marines went into a house and assaulted them at gun point. - Ive NEVER heard of these claims before and he had stated no sources.
In fact, this incident had been wrote in Craig Thomas' THE FALL OF JAPAN. But the writer seem thought the incident or the other similar one as negligible episode and solved by MacArthur staff by rounded up Japanese real wh*res and collected them in 'appropriated stations". Thus, allied men could satisfy their's thirst for women in the right place :)

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005 13:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

Post by Kim Sung » 31 Oct 2005 09:10

When I visited Yasukuni shrine in 1998, I saw a photo of 11 Japanese female soldiers who were in charge of military communication in Sakhalin and commited group suicide when invading Soviets tried to rape them in August 1945.

User avatar
DXTR
Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 21 Jun 2005 19:29
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post by DXTR » 31 Oct 2005 09:39

My opinion - Dont read this book, its another example of a Japanese war crime book where the author tries his best to diminsh war crimes and even though he accepts the reponsibily of what his country had done in S.E Asia, he makes it out that the Allies crimes were on par but he seems to forget the Japanese were the agressor through out the war.
I've read Tanakas book too, and I found it a great insight into the japanese war crimes and I fully concur with Peter H' s portrayal of the book.

jons wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to see how any of the above - given that the reports are accurate - could be viewed as a warcrime Confused
I had a debate with David Thompson on the subject of what makes up a war crime can individual rapes make a war crime or are they just a 'crime'. See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ary+crimes and i beleive that we didn't reach a firm conclusion on that subject but feel free to reopen the debate if you have any new insights.

User avatar
simondodkins
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 11 Sep 2005 23:11
Location: Festung Jersey

Post by simondodkins » 31 Oct 2005 10:37

I think its a sad fact of life that war crimes will be perpetuated by all sides (yes including Americans). When enough jumpy, tired, and well armed young men are goaded, pushed and needled enough there is a strong chance at some stage they will lose control.

Imagine wandering into a village and see the mutilated remains of your buddies laying everywhere. Chances are you may "forget" about the Geneva convention for a long time when you come across the "enemy" - whether the "enemy" are actually foreign troops or merely peasant villagers. Many vets from the war talk of not taking any prisoners for a long time after seeing the results of an atrocity.

I think you have to look at the scale of the atrocities committed. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Serbia in the 90's, Ruanda, Iraq - all these governments had state-sponsered programs to permit the wholesale slaughter of anyone who was considered a "threat" - not only men, but woman and children. Jews, Chinese, Albanians, Tutsis, Kurds were all routinely killed, abused, raped and tortured in large numbers by state-sponsered programs.

By comparison the few atrocities committed by the Allies pale into insignificance with those committed by the Axis powers.

I don't much care for a book that tries to suggest otherwise.

User avatar
Barry Graham
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 25 Nov 2004 05:59
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Barry Graham » 01 Nov 2005 04:37

I don't much care for a book that tries to suggest otherwise.
This book doesn't suggest that Allied war crimes were more significant than those of the Axis powers.
The full title of the book is "Hidden Horrors - Japanese War Crimes in World War II".
First published in Japan as "Unkown War Crimes - What Japanese forces did to Australians".
The "hidden horrors" are war crimes that were hidden from the Japanese people.
Tanaka was a visiting research fellow at the Australian National University which explains why the book concentrates on crimes against Australians.

Reading the original post in this thread you may be misled into believing that the book refers to "Hidden" Allied war crimes - this is not the case.
As Peter H pointed out in his post - Tanaka's reference to rape by Allied troops was contained in one chapter "Rape and War" where he discusses the "Universality of Rape in War".
Here Tanaka says:-
Although it is possible that some incidents have been censored or removed from the record of Allied conduct in World War II, it is clear that the conduct of British, American, and Commonwealth soldiers was relatively restrained during the war years.
This is not the case in the occupation of Japan in 1945..........
And goes on to describe the incidents presented in the original post.

Some posters here have suggested that I have accepted the rape of Japan women during the occupation of Japan by Allied troops as a justification of Japanese behaviour during the war.
I didn't say that - and neither does Tanaka.

I repeat my recommendation to read this book - it is a Japanese insight into Japanese war crimes.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 01:39
Location: New Zealand

Post by JonS » 01 Nov 2005 04:55

DXTR wrote: jons wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to see how any of the above - given that the reports are accurate - could be viewed as a warcrime Confused
I had a debate with David Thompson on the subject of what makes up a war crime can individual rapes make a war crime or are they just a 'crime'. See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ary+crimes and i beleive that we didn't reach a firm conclusion on that subject but feel free to reopen the debate if you have any new insights.
No, I fully accept a rape as a crime, and when it happens during war it can reasonably be described as a warcrime, I suppose*. However, my emphasis here is on the 'war' bit. Clearly the events I quoted above happened after the war, and therefore can't - by any reasonable definition - be labelled warcrimes. Put another way: just because the accused is in uniform doesn't make it a warcrime, otherwise all the rapes committed by, for example, US soldiers stationed in Germany in the 1980s would have been warcrimes too.

Regards
Jon

* though I tend to think of WCs as deliberate and 'organised' in some fashion, rather than spontaneous and random. There is also, in my mind, a somewhat nebulous scale qualifier in there too - large scale, deliberate, and organised is definately a WC, for example. But somewhere between there and a soldier stealing or raping on the spur of the moment a line is crossed between 'warcrime' and more general 'crime'. OTOH, I'm not a lawyer, thank god, so what the hell would I know ;)

User avatar
DXTR
Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 21 Jun 2005 19:29
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post by DXTR » 01 Nov 2005 08:44

JonS wrote:
DXTR wrote: jons wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to see how any of the above - given that the reports are accurate - could be viewed as a warcrime Confused
I had a debate with David Thompson on the subject of what makes up a war crime can individual rapes make a war crime or are they just a 'crime'. See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ary+crimes and i beleive that we didn't reach a firm conclusion on that subject but feel free to reopen the debate if you have any new insights.
No, I fully accept a rape as a crime, and when it happens during war it can reasonably be described as a warcrime, I suppose*. However, my emphasis here is on the 'war' bit. Clearly the events I quoted above happened after the war, and therefore can't - by any reasonable definition - be labelled warcrimes. Put another way: just because the accused is in uniform doesn't make it a warcrime, otherwise all the rapes committed by, for example, US soldiers stationed in Germany in the 1980s would have been warcrimes too.

Regards
Jon


* though I tend to think of WCs as deliberate and 'organised' in some fashion, rather than spontaneous and random. There is also, in my mind, a somewhat nebulous scale qualifier in there too - large scale, deliberate, and organised is definately a WC, for example. But somewhere between there and a soldier stealing or raping on the spur of the moment a line is crossed between 'warcrime' and more general 'crime'. OTOH, I'm not a lawyer, thank god, so what the hell would I know ;)
I am not trying to restart the debate on ordinary crimes versus war crimes (that is limited to the above thread), but if you read the thread you will see that it is not a question on wearing a uniform, but the question of wearing a uniform in a condition of war, and commiting a criminal act against a member of a group that you are at war with soldier or civilian. US troops in germany in the 80's were not at war with germany therefore their crimes could not fall into that category of breaching the geneva or hague convention. (this was my original view on the subject) David Thompson viewed War crimes as an act on a higher level of responsibility - states, officers can commit war crimes. But if one has new light to shed on the subject adress it here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ary+crimes

regards

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”