Why I have difficulty calling Japanese to account: Exhibit A

I know this going to piss people off, but here it goes:

Anyone care to tell me why I can’t seem to recall learning a whole lot about this in my middle school textbook?

NOTE: No, I’m not saying the Japanese shouldn’t be honest about their history. Of course they do. Unfortunately, however, it would seem the Japanese aren’t the only ones with hazy memories from that rather ugly period in human history.

Sorry Marmot, you’re off on this one in my view. I’ve heard about the firebombing of Tokyo only about a million and two times - maybe you’re upset because it’s not put in sufficiently negative context for you? Well it shouldn’t be. I didn’t learn much about it in history class, I’ll admit, but that’s because High School history sort of cut out just before that time (and I was in AP History!), but I doubt it was because American History texts couldn’t face our horrible history in WW2 do you?

War is bad. People get hurt. WW2 was total war. Total war of two populations - two civilizations. Japan was an empire when being an “Empire,” “Colonization” and “Cultural Imperialism” hadn’t been watered down to their usual use today and when it meant that a country like Japan, by its own choice, was viciously marauding its way across Asia, executing, enslaving, pillaging, raping, ruling from abroad…

Funny thing about civilian casualties…my dad was a civilian before the Japanese decided to bomb Pearl Harbor. Leave aside that Japanese industry was disbursed, and that even if bombing had been more precise there was little to bomb, leave aside that the Japanese were NOT about to surrender, leave aside who started that war and the way in which THEY conducted themselves day-to-day in a way that made the Allies on their worst days look like pikers, leave aside that Japanese arms and soldiers actually come from somewhere, somewhere you need to take out if you ever want the war to end…leave it all aside and just ask, before you judge our fathers about they way they conducted a just war that liberated an entire region and assured that WE’D likely never have to fight the same war again, ask, if we had tried to fight the kind of “immaculate combat” some people seem to think is necessary, how many years longer you would have liked the war to have gone on (if it ever would have ended) and how many more people would have been killed (on both sides), how many more American sons and daughters and children would have been killed fighting, and died in a country who’s economy would have been stressed from continuing interminable war - a war we didn’t start? Comparing the Allied bombing of Tokyo to the war-crimes committed by the imperial power we were fighting is unjust, unfair and morally tone-deaf.

IMHO.

How’s it goin’, BTW? :)

Solomon — You’re comments are duly noted, and I understand where you are coming from. But I have to take issue. Firstly, my primary issue is one of historical recollection, not who was right or wrong. But since we’re talking about history, let me ask a couple of questions (and make a couple of comments) on your argument above:

War is bad. People get hurt. WW2 was total war. Total war of two populations - two civilizations. Japan was an empire when being an “Empire,” “Colonization” and “Cultural Imperialism” hadn’t been watered down to their usual use today and when it meant that a country like Japan, by its own choice, was viciously marauding its way across Asia, executing, enslaving, pillaging, raping, ruling from abroad…

No argument with the beginning. I’m not quite certain, however, why its so significant that Japan was an empire. Yes, I guess Japan, “by its own choice, was viciously marauding its way across Asia, executing, enslaving, pillaging, raping, ruling from abroad.” But like how in war, bad things happen, in Great Power politics, bad things happen, especially in the international environment of the first half of the 20th century. For that matter, “viciously marauding its way across Asia” was exactly what the Europeans had been doing (albeit, by the First World War, this task had already been completed). They were still in posession of the colonies when the Pacific War began, and they took them back when it ended. (and, as would be the cases in Indonesia and Indochina, fight very nasty wars to keep ‘em). Which is why we didn’t fight the Pacific War to end imperialism — we fought it to keep the Open Door open in China. Or, to put this a bit more bluntly, we fought to maintain a system where all the Great Powers had the opportunity to screw the Chinese, but no one power could usurp for itself a monopoly on screwing the Chinese. Yes, the Japanese got greedy, and for it, they got the ass-whooping that any state that make really poor geopolitical decisions richly deserves. Although in their defense, the Europeans (and Soviets) had already taken most of the prime colonial real estate, so for a late developing state like Japan, there weren’t too many other direction in which it could go.

leave it all aside and just ask, before you judge our fathers about they way they conducted a just war that liberated an entire region and assured that WE’D likely never have to fight the same war again, ask, if we had tried to fight the kind of “immaculate combat” some people seem to think is necessary, how many years longer you would have liked the war to have gone on (if it ever would have ended) and how many more people would have been killed (on both sides), how many more American sons and daughters and children would have been killed fighting, and died in a country who’s economy would have been stressed from continuing interminable war - a war we didn’t start?

Interesting points. Firstly, let me say that the Pacific War did NOT leave a whole region liberated. The Europeans came right back in as soon as it ended, and in a couple of cases, had to be kicked out by force of arms. China, of course, was “liberated,” although one wonder what that means, exactly, when you turn the country back over to Chang Kai-shek. Korea, of course, was “liberated,” although, of course, the word loses some of its luster when one half of the peninsula gets turned over to former collaborators who spend much of the next 40 years trying to emulate their former colonial masters while the other half gets turned over to Stalinists who do their very best to make the other half look good. In fact, prior to the 1980s, how many truly “free” nations can you name in East Asia? I can only think of one — Japan. Irony or ironies, it would seem the only country that really got “liberated” in 1945 was the former enemy. Everyone else would have to wait.

Of course, had the Japanese won, East Asia would probably have been a lot worse off, and just to make this perfectly clear, the Pacific War was a war the U.S. had to fight and win. I would think most East Asians would agree that post-war U.S. hegemony in East Asia was a whole lot better than a Japanese-led one. But before we go patting ourselves on the back, some perspective.

Now, as for the argument that the Tokyo bombing was justified because it saved lives in the end by getting the war over quicker, well, I’m inclined to agree that tactics of that sort can lead to the results you describe, but then again, that’s the key, right? You have to WIN. Had, for example, the Rape of Nanking actually succeeded in breaking Chinese morale, it could have ended the Sino-Japanese War and, heck, perhaps even prevented the greater Pacific War. In that case, it wouldn’t have been a war crime, right? See, this is the problem I have. Japan is held to account for the things it did in a losing effort, while the U.S. isn’t held to account for the things it did in a winning one. And this leaves me nothing but cynical. If, ultimately, the difference between a war crime and a necessary act of war is who wins in the end, why the moralistic calls for self-reflection and repentence?

How’s it goin’, BTW?

Pretty good, thanks. See you redesigned your site. Looking pretty sharp :)

Thanks!

Now, Marmot, Marmot, Marmot. Be careful. You're bordering on the moral equivalency thing again there, although you cover in the end. By the time the war was over, and really when it began, European colonialism was a dying beast completely different from the raw Japanese brand performed in the ancient style as they did. The US certainly didn't go to war in Asia in order that Britain, France and the rest could get their colonies back. Truman and Eisenhower were cynical of the sick men of Europe and their old games and to the extent that we humored them afterward, I'd say blame the Commies.

I could backtrack and qualify a bit based on what you said, but let's not get caught up in the minutiae (besides, if I'm gonna write long essays, I'm saving 'em for my own blog! Oh, and I'm not gonna argue Asian history with the guy living in Korea.), let's not lose the thread. People still castigate the Japanese and their people because their conquests and wars are seen as wars of their own choice, and their chosen methods particularly brutal, while America and her people are seen as having been dragged into a war they didn't particularly have any interest in fighting, and her methods and the ways she treated her prisoners and occupied populations contrast quite favorably with the behavior of our enemy. Those are pretty significant differences when the methods each side uses to end the war as quickly as possible are judged I'd say. One's maiming and murdering to keep the stuff, the other is doing the same to end it all and go home and live in safety and make sure their kids don't have to come back and do it all again.

This may seem like a non-sequitter, but I at least think there's a point in here someplace. FBI profiler-types always worry more about the murderer who cuts the throat of a victim - a very intense, personal act - than the one that shoots from a distance. The difference puts the purps into different categories. Let's not forget - Nanking was "raped" after it was already subdued. [Could I also point out that while that BBC report sort of implies the bombing was simply a "terror" bombing. In fact the purpose was to wear down the enemy's ability to continue to fight. Sadly, you kill a lot of people doing that. Let me also point out that the article mentions there wasn't a lot of rancor toward the US. Maybe they have a better sense of their own responsibility than some of us.]

Like I said, maybe I didn't make my point well, but there is a point in there someplace.

To conclude, I look at pictures like the one you point to and think "wages of sin," not "shame of our fathers." To the extent that I am conflicted about how modern Japanese should comemmorate or bow to their past (and I AM conflicted), it's not because I see an equivalency between what they did and what we did. I don't think the only difference is that we won and they lost and therefore we get to write the history. I think we won and they lost and we get to write the history and isn't that a damn good thing! I think you should, too. Try some St. John's Wort or something. You'll feel better!

Best!

(I'm getting blocked on this one, too. "10 strikes" Trying a third...no sixth... time...changing name to see if that helps...)

Judge them as you see fit of course. Just be aware that the retrospective application of contemporary standards, for use as a “club” in current national and international political debate, may have unintended consequences. For example, “traditional” Americans may come to judge that the risk of all-out war (now presumably including a possible nuclear exchange), in the defense of “allies” who insist on American moral equivalence to criminal world regimes of the past, just isn’t worth it anymore.