This is a great topic.

A couple of books I've read within the last year gave quite a vivid account of Japanese atrocities throughout the South Pacific and Indonesia, Ian Toll's Pacific Crucible and The Conquering Tide.

On a personal level, both of my grandfathers served in the US Navy in the Pacific. I have been told that my mom's dad survived two sinkings of ships that he served on (no direct verification of that as yet, but I've been digging for everything I can find on it, a difficult task given that he passed in 2002 and my mom passed in 2011). Way back after I graduated from A&M, one of the first things I bought for myself was a new car, a Toyota. I made the mistake of parking it in his driveway one day. He told me that I would need to move it right then and there, and never park it there again. His hatred for the Japs ran deep and long, as that was 1991.

Also had a neighbor who was of Chinese ancestry. His parents were the right age to have been children either during or right after WWII. They were stead-fast in their hatred of all things Japanese, and this was more recent, say about 2010 or so.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Way back after I graduated from A&M, one of the first things I bought for myself was a new car, a Toyota. I made the mistake of parking it in his driveway one day. He told me that I would need to move it right then and there, and never park it there again. His hatred for the Japs ran deep and long, as that was 1991.

---

Good. I thought we were the only ones. Nobody in my family dare own a Japanese car. My grandfather bought Zenith televisions up until they quit manufacturing in the USA. Right before he died, he had to get a Japanese made television (because that's all there was) and it really burned him up.

One of my cousins recently bought one of the Toyota Trucks built in San Antonio. My Grandmother passed away a couple of years ago at the age of 93 so at least he waited until after she was gone too before bringing a Japanese car into the family.

The Filipino comments remind me. When I first moved to Australia 10 years ago, I wound up working with a Filipino guy and we had to go somewhere in his car - a Mitsubishi Pajero. I told him that I was kind of surprised that he owned a Japanese car and he said, yeah, well, Filipinos are very forgiving.

When I lived in Austin, my next door neighbor was a graduate of the Filipino version of West Point. His son was into tricking out his 2-door Nissan. Naturally, it had the requisite number of Philippine Flags on it.

Japanese cars.......

Many years ago I returned from a 13 month tour in South Korea and while on leave, along with my parents went to visit the grandparents. Both sets of my grandparents lived in the same town for all of my life. As I was in need of a new car, the discussion one evening went to that subject. I was single, had no debt, and really had the hots for a sports car. When I mentioned the Datsun 240Z as one of the cars I was looking at, my grandmother hit the roof. It was then that I learned in more detail about the experience her nephew, my mother's cousin, had during his internment by the Japanese. My parents and grandparents are all gone now - I bought my first Japanese car this past April.

Every traffic jam in Manila is full of Japanese and Korean vehicles, cars, trucks of all sizes, buses, and vans. Every taxi, every delivery truck, every motorcycle is Japanese or Korean made. The only American car I ever saw there was owned by an American ex-patriot, a retired doctor married to a Filipino woman, living out in the countryside.

The attitude of Filipinos toward the Japanese varies a lot by generation, and there is a healthy dose of pragmatism among those younger than me. Many don't even know much about their own history. I found that it was the elderly, those who were old enough to have been affected by the occupation, either directly as children or indirectly affected as the generation immediately following the occupation that still harbored a hatred of the Japanese. Today most Filipinos view Japan as at least a nation they need to be friendly with - it is China that they worry about now.

One last note - if you ever go to the Philippines and want to see Corregidor and the scene of the famous Muster photograph taken at one end of the Malinta Tunnel, tours run out of Manila daily. Interestingly enough, once you reach the island via ferry, you get on a tour bus with a tour guide who is very well versed on the history of the island and it's historical importance as a guardian of the entrance to Manila Bay. They run a separate tour bus for Japanese tourists and I was told that the narrative of the tour guides on the Japanese buses is quite different from what I heard on my tour. The tour routes are different so that the Japanese tourists finish their lunch and are on their tour again before everyone else stops for lunch.

Thanks for sharing that. The difference in the Japanese tour versus the English language tour reminds me, earlier this year, I saw the movie Hacksaw Ridge become available on the in-flight entertainment on Qantas, United, Etihad, etc. I took a trip to Japan where I flew JAL. Needless to say, Hacksaw Ridge was NOT available on the JAL flight.

Randy Cody said:

---

Just a topic of discussion that could get many different answers: maybe some WWII history buffs can enlighten me with their thoughts. In my readings of the war in both the European and Pacific theater, I've come to the perception the brutality of the war in the Pacific was on whole different level than the European theater. Not to say that the European theater wasn't brutal, it obviously was. But there seems to be something about the violence in the Pacific that elevates it above the violence in Europe. Maybe I'm wrong in this, but there seemed to be a hatred between the Japanese and Americans that was much deeper than the Americans and Germans.

Does anybody else share this perception? Why is this? Was it something about jungle warfare and the environment? Was it possible cultural and racist tensions in both sides thinking the other was inferior? Was it the method of fighting and strategy that the Japanese used?

To be specific, I'm talking about brutality in regards to actual combat and relations between Americans and opposing forces. I'm not talking about the Holocaust or crimes against humanity (obviously that's a whole different discussion).

---

I share the perception of the Pacific theater being the more brutal of the two. Take for example the incendiary bombing of Tokyo. General Lemay re-purposed the B-29 Superfortress from high altitude precision bombing to a low level, carpet bombing aircraft of working class civilian targets at night. Estimates of the deaths vary up to 125,000 in a single night's operation. This was necessary to drive unconditional surrender terms and to avoid an invasion of the Japanese mainland which would have lead to far more casualties, combatant and non-combatant.

I consider the Pacific to be more brutal specifically due to the manner in which the Japs fought. At the end of the day, whether you are killed in a hail of gunfire or having your head lopped off then parts of your anatomy removed and shoved into your mouth, or wherever, well, you're dead just the same. The latter description just seems a bit more brutal. Tokyo firebombing raids can be matched with similar raids against places like Dresden.

You are right in that the B-29 was a high-altitude heavy bomber, but I believe the primary reason that LeMay altered its use against Jap targets was that it was a failure as a high-altitude bomber over Japan. The jet stream caused a lot of problems with bombing accuracy, and they simply weren't bringing the level of destruction that they expected. Using the Superfortress at lower altitudes proved more a more effective use of that bomber. Couple the use of incendiaries with the facts of how the majority of Japanese buildings were constructed, and yes, it was highly effective and also appears more brutal than what we saw in Europe.

There are some pretty jarring letters written by Churchill's advisors who suggest bombing the working class districts of Hamburg because they were so tightly packed the RAF would essentially get more bang for its buck. Hamburg, of course, was a Red city where opposition to Hitler was the most common and that was a center of absolute carnage.

Similarly, one side effect of the atomic bombs was they destroyed a large portion of Japans Catholic community; an important western influence.

The difference between these and Axis crimes are, most importantly, intentions. Post war Germany and Japan were carefully rebuilt into economic powers. I doubt a Nazi occupied Britain or Japanese occupied Korea would receive the same kindness.

UncleJew15 said:

---

I hate to tell you this but, Japan and Germany's leaders during the 1940's really weren't really concerned about casualties

---

In fact the Furher issued in March of 45 the Nero Decree which was for the total destruction of remaining German infrastructure by the retreating Germans. This would have resulted in tens of thousands more civilian casualties. Albert Speer deliberately sabotaged the effort and saved countless lives. However it is absolutely correct that Hitler nor the jap militarists gave a single thought about the fate of civilians as saw them as only tools for the war effort and final victory.

And the Japanese were preparing everyone old enough to hold a bamboo spear, gun, hand grenade and the like to prepare to resist the impending invasion of the Japanese homeland by Allied troops. Thank god it never came to that.

I'm sure many of you have heard that Purple Heart medals handed out since WWII were all made for the impending invasion of the Japanese homeland? While not completely true. There are still plenty from that stockpile that have been refurbished and have been given out to troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

JABQ04 said:

---

And the Japanese were preparing everyone old enough to hold a bamboo spear, gun, hand grenade and the like to prepare to resist the impending invasion of the Japanese homeland by Allied troops. Thank god it never came to that.

I'm sure many of you have heard that Purple Heart medals handed out since WWII were all made for the impending invasion of the Japanese homeland? While not completely true. There are still plenty from that stockpile that have been refurbished and have been given out to troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

And the Germans conscripted old men, and boys to fight with the Volksstrum, 6 million to try and stem the Soviet and Allied tide.

I told my students that an invasion of Japan was estimated to have 1 million casualties and that in reality it would mean close to if not the complete annihilation of Japan's populace. I explained that to students and asked them if knowing that would have convinced you to bomb Japan into submission and a few said yes most said no.

The Original AG 76 said:

---

UncleJew15 said:

---

I hate to tell you this but, Japan and Germany's leaders during the 1940's really weren't really concerned about casualties

---

In fact the Furher issued in March of 45 the Nero Decree which was for the total destruction of remaining German infrastructure by the retreating Germans. This would have resulted in tens of thousands more civilian casualties. Albert Speer deliberately sabotaged the effort and saved countless lives. However it is absolutely correct that Hitler nor the jap militarists gave a single thought about the fate of civilians as saw them as only tools for the war effort and final victory.

---

It's actually more than that. Hitler felt the war loss proved that the Germans were not the stronger race and therefore deserved to die out. It's not that he didn't care. He felt they should die for their failure.

I think this is something, perhaps the most important thing, that needs to be remembered at all times when reading about Hitler and the Nazis; he saw the world as, fundamentally, a struggle of races over resources. If the Germans where to be defeated by 'inferior' races then not only was that understandable, it was perfectly fine under his law of the jungle.

RPag said:

---

I think this is something, perhaps the most important thing, that needs to be remembered at all times when reading about Hitler and the Nazis; he saw the world as, fundamentally, a struggle of races over resources. If the Germans where to be defeated by 'inferior' races then not only was that understandable, it was perfectly fine under his law of the jungle.

---

yep. He saw the Aryan race ,as embodied in the German Volk, as not just the master race but also the salvation of the world from the horrors and ravages of the mongrel hordes from the east. His own ego could not allow him to even conceptualize the fact that it may have possibly have been his policies and interference in the war effort that caused " final" victory to be replaced by total devastation . As he was the perfect Aryan and the ultimate gift to the world and therefor infallible it HAD to be a defect and failure of the German Volk that allowed the mongrel hordes to prevail. This failure on the part of the Germans made them worthy ONLY of total destruction and utter analyzation . I think he probably envisioned some sort of pyric Phoenix like rebirth of some Aryan super race from the ashes of total destruction.
Speer deserves our thanks ( tepid at best he was a damn nazi) for saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions in rebuild aid since , no matter , what the level of destruction the good ole USA would have forked over OUR treasure to rebuild Germany , under the excuse ( probably valid ) of keeping our sector from falling into the pit of communism.

The Original AG 76 said:

---

UncleJew15 said:

---

I hate to tell you this but, Japan and Germany's leaders during the 1940's really weren't really concerned about casualties

---

In fact the Furher issued in March of 45 the Nero Decree which was for the total destruction of remaining German infrastructure by the retreating Germans. This would have resulted in tens of thousands more civilian casualties. Albert Speer deliberately sabotaged the effort and saved countless lives. However it is absolutely correct that Hitler nor the jap militarists gave a single thought about the fate of civilians as saw them as only tools for the war effort and final victory.

---

Under this plan, what kind of "country" did HItler see having left to run? And how did he see them being able to withstand an invasion of a depleted Germany a few years later from someone else?

None. He knew the war was lost. He didn't care anymore about saving Germany or any of the Germans. Same mentality as the kid who gets pissy playing with others and throws a tantrum and takes his ball and his home. If he couldn't win, no one else was going to have anything else to win.

Aust Ag said:

---

The Original AG 76 said:

---

UncleJew15 said:

---

I hate to tell you this but, Japan and Germany's leaders during the 1940's really weren't really concerned about casualties

---

In fact the Furher issued in March of 45 the Nero Decree which was for the total destruction of remaining German infrastructure by the retreating Germans. This would have resulted in tens of thousands more civilian casualties. Albert Speer deliberately sabotaged the effort and saved countless lives. However it is absolutely correct that Hitler nor the jap militarists gave a single thought about the fate of civilians as saw them as only tools for the war effort and final victory.

---

Under this plan, what kind of "country" did HItler see having left to run? And how did he see them being able to withstand an invasion of a depleted Germany a few years later from someone else?

---

He felt , based on the testimony of the survivors of the bunker, that what was formerly called Germany was going to be enslaved along with all of the West by the mongrel hordes under the control of Stalin and his successors for generations until , like a Phoenix, a new Fuerher arises all Moses like . He thought that the only and last hope for his definition of humanity was a planet ruled by the Master Race assisted by the lesser yet Aryan races in total servitude to the Aryan masters . He even forecast an eventual fight with his nipponese allies for total control .

Interesting thread.

I'd kick in -- and each of these areas have already been touched on -- that, firstly, the idea of the Japanese' ferocity being partially due to race considerations might have been applicable once they got to the British and the Americans, but it never exceeded the rape, wanton destruction and slaughter visited on fellow Asians in Manchuria in the 1930s. In other words, 'racial hatred' might be handy in a sociological sense as an explanation of a significant portion of their barbarism against 'roundeyes', but they first displayed and even exceeded it in warfare against others of their own basic physical characteristics. While it might have fit the new situation, the Japanese convincingly demonstrated what they were not only capable of, but predisposed to, before Westerners came into their sights.

Secondly, the assertion that the Russians/Soviets were worse in this area than either the Japanese or the Germans bears some examination, imo.

From the moment the first German tank tread made a complete revolution in their direction, the Russians were involved in a no-holds-barred death match. The Germans early on made plain their iron intention: the utter destruction of Mother Russia and as thorough elimination of the population as could be accomplished. The further they forged to the east and the more primitive the conditions grew, the more callous and heartless became their operations.

To me it seems somewhat off base to compare the Russians to the Japanese. The latter in China -- a comparative walkover -- willfully and even enthusiastically engaged in brutality unnecessary to the military effort. The Russians, by contrast, found themselves from the first fighting from the floor, as it were, against a murderously brutal foe for their and their country's existence. This savage tryst culminated in what many believe the most terrible extended battle in WWII and possibly in recorded history -- the Battle of Stalingrad.

The Russians, as did the Allies in the Pacific, adapted themselves to the fierce tactics of their adversaries, to the point they first stopped and then slowly turned the onslaughts back against their authors. Soviet Russia's only alternative was to perish; it did what it had to do. But (other than the massacre of the Polish officers in the Katyn Forest) generally it's barbarism began in reflex and was not completely gratuitous as was that of the Japanese.

With a few exceptions (the SS at Malmedy one of the worst, plus machine gunning at sea and others) the Germans indeed, as pointed out above, showed much greater restraint with Allied troops (other, again, than Russians). Finding the SS in your front could be pretty dicey, though.

My neighbor as a kid was a Ukrainian lady who hated Stalin and the Russians with a passion and fought with the nazis the whole time. She said, and I have researched elsewhere, to confirm it, that a significant percentage of Eastern Europeans and even Jews fought as partisans or even in ss units against soviets. This is despite some serious sadists and the 'iron fist' treatment by the ss following the front line troops in the east. Some go so far as to say that if Hitler had done a 'hearts and minds' effort instead of a brutality effort, that basically all of the far western soviet population would have joined the nazis early in the war.

jickyjack1 said:

---

That's what I was trying to get across -- probably ineffectually. "Race hatred" is a handy go-to for sociologists, but in the case of the Japanese before and during WWII there was no distinction -- they hated everybody who wasn't specifically Japanese.

---

It wasn't as much that they " hate" everyone else as it is that they consider themselves to be the only " humans " ....everyone not jap is something between a human and an animal.

Doesnt pretty much every Asian culture consider itself superior to all others (Korean, Chinese, Japanese)?

well, in the spirit of olympics, double standards, and racism, I will confirm that in the China Daily in 2008, the government announced that "people of african descent and other undesirables will not be allowed in bars in Beijing during the Olympics"

I could not believe my eyes, and still can't believe Americans dont understand that we and western europe are about the ONLY people in the world working against racism.

It was duly noted that it was the summer olympics, after all, and that a very large number of people of african descent would be coming to Beijing.... the typical chinese government response was to save face by then announcing that instead, ALL bars would be closed for the duration of the Olympics, rather than retract their statement... and then, the bars were magically open.

none of this made news in the US as best I could tell.

I told this story to one of my african american friends that took a job in china, so she would be well prepared for what she might run into.

bufrilla said:

---

POW's during WWII (don't know if these figures are exact, but they are close)
POW held in camp controlled by German Luftwaffe - 95% survival
POW held in camp controlled by German Wehrmacht - 75% survival
POW held by Japanese - 25% survival
A lot of German POW's brought to camps in the USA returned to the USA after the war because of their
excellent treatment.

---

Watched on TV in Germany '56 return of German POWS from Russia by train . You have never seen a more bedraggled bunch of men !

cbr said:

---

bufrilla said:

---

POW's during WWII (don't know if these figures are exact, but they are close)
POW held in camp controlled by German Luftwaffe - 95% survival
POW held in camp controlled by German Wehrmacht - 75% survival
POW held by Japanese - 25% survival
A lot of German POW's brought to camps in the USA returned to the USA after the war because of their
excellent treatment.

---

then there is the german pow held in soviet camp - 4% survival

---

See above .