Patton and War Crimes

[drone]

I don't doubt that the US servicemen took some liberties in the Pacific. Much if this was due to the actions of the Japanese themselves (Pearl, Bataan, Nanking, etc.), which fed the US propaganda machine, and the IJA's Senginkun code which made taking prisoners a dicey prospect at best. The Japanese also lied about following the Geneva conventions on POWs (even though they did not ratify the treaty, they still said they would abide by it). All in all, a vicious fight, fought by different cultures, with less attention in theater than the fight in Europe.

The problem with Panzer's argument is both the scale factor, and the victims. The Axis is responsible for many more atrocities, and these were largely targeted against civilians. The atrocities of the Allies were largely targeted against the enemy combatants.

[Pannonian]

I don't doubt that the US servicemen took some liberties in the Pacific. Much if this was due to the actions of the Japanese themselves (Pearl, Bataan, Nanking, etc.), which fed the US propaganda machine, and the IJA's Senginkun code which made taking prisoners a dicey prospect at best. The Japanese also lied about following the Geneva conventions on POWs (even though they did not ratify the treaty, they still said they would abide by it). All in all, a vicious fight, fought by different cultures, with less attention in theater than the fight in Europe.

The problem with Panzer's argument is both the scale factor, and the victims. The Axis is responsible for many more atrocities, and these were largely targeted against civilians. The atrocities of the Allies were largely targeted against the enemy combatants.

Read descriptions of the London Cage. The read descriptions of Mengele's and Unit 731's activities. Then find somewhere to vomit. Read PJ's comparison of the London Cage with those Axis butchers. Then vomit again. The greatest Allied atrocity of WW2 was the decision not to prosecute Shiro Ishii.

[drone]

Read descriptions of the London Cage. The read descriptions of Mengele's and Unit 731's activities. Then find somewhere to vomit. Read PJ's comparison of the London Cage with those Axis butchers. Then vomit again. The greatest Allied atrocity of WW2 was the decision not to prosecute Shiro Ishii.

I'm quite aware of how ridiculous that claim was. We did worse at Abu Ghraib.

This thread is about Allied war crimes. Did some Allied soldiers torture or shoot prisoners? I don't think that can be denied. But PJ seems to be playing loose and fast with the numbers in an attempt to... what? He hasn't really come up with solid numbers for his claims, the wiki quotes are anecdotal at best. The important questions are: how prevalent were these crimes, and to what extent were they accepted within the chain of command? Comparisons to Axis crimes are meaningless, because there is no comparison.

[Pannonian]

I'm quite aware of how ridiculous that claim was. We did worse at Abu Ghraib.

This thread is about Allied war crimes. Did some Allied soldiers torture or shoot prisoners? I don't think that can be denied. But PJ seems to be playing loose and fast with the numbers in an attempt to... what? He hasn't really come up with solid numbers for his claims, the wiki quotes are anecdotal at best. The important questions are: how prevalent were these crimes, and to what extent were they accepted within the chain of command? Comparisons to Axis crimes are meaningless, because there is no comparison.

This thread struck a nerve because at TWC there was a thread showing North Korean propaganda pictures of US soldiers bayoneting helpless Korean civilians. That made me think of accounts of US soldiers pleading with Japanese civilians not to jump off cliffs, children in their arms. On the ground at least, the western Allies were probably the most humane army of that size ever to have existed, and by extension, the Americans the most humane hegemon there has ever been. The isolated cases are absolutely nothing in the wider context of history. The subject may be of academic interest, but when it's used to whitewash the activities of the Axis in comparison, it offends me.

[PanzerJaeger]

. But PJ seems to be playing loose and fast with the numbers

I resent this, far more than the juvenile accusations of Nazi apologism and other hostility expressed toward me in this thread. I understand that it is easier to malign my intentions than accept reality; however, I do present factual information.

You were correct in your earlier post to remind me that the burden of proof, as it was, rested with me. I assumed that this information was common knowledge. It has been widely discussed on the WW2 forums I frequent and I have read about it often in books and articles on the subject. Tom Hanks has even been discussing it in relation to his new mini series on HBO. However, the information has apparently not filtered down to those who do not study the war.

I posted several well-sourced wiki entries as well as hard copy sources all highlighting the fact that there was widespread refusal to take prisoners, killing of those who did manage to surrender, and mutilization of Japanese soldiers. I can post plenty more if you'd like. The US military's own correspondence explicitly acknowledges the widespread nature of these practices, as do the films shown to soldiers imploring them not to kill surrendering Japanese. You want hard numbers? How about the fact that there were only 604 Japanese POWs in Allied hands in October of 1944. What about these historian's research do you dispute? How am I distorting it?

Now, if you and Pan want to bury your heads in the sand and talk of "isolated incidents" and how humane the US military was in the Pacific, that is your prerogative; but please don't act as though historical consensus favors that position. I've done all I can do.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And sure enough, a simple perusal of the footnotes to that chart shows that counted in "Allied Civilian Deaths" include millions who died in ways that are somewhat difficult to blame on the Axis. Here are some of my favorites:

-famine in unoccupied zones
-disease in unoccupied zones

-French killed during Allied air raids

I hold the Nazis responsible for all of these.

When the nazis hide in a French city to prevent any allied bombing of their position, I place full blame on the nazis. Allied mistakes that were made are the ultimate responsibility of Berlin too. One can argue about the wisdom of bombing mediaeval Caen...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Charnwood
http://passouline.blog.lemonde.fr/20...ime-de-guerre/)

...but at the end of the argument, the Nazis had no business being there in the first place. The allies, French and otherwise, had a moral greenlight to kick them out. This greenlight sits somewhere between the equally preposterous 'destroying and killing the whole of France', and 'enormous allied casualties to save a two French roosters and a wooden shack'. At the final balance, I think the allies did alright, really.


As for famine and disease in unoccupied zones of French territories, I place full blame on the Axis powers too.

[PanzerJaeger]

I hold the Nazis responsible for all of these.

You're missing the point. He posted that graphic to illustrate how many more civilians the Axis countries directly killed than the Allies. However, the chart is full of Allied (and presumably Axis) civilian deaths that were not intentionally inflicted by their respective enemies. If he had said, "the Axis and Russians started the war, and are thus ostensibly responsible for all civilian deaths that occured during the war" there would not be an issue. However, he was taking a more nuanced position that the graph did not represent.

[drone]

Now, if you and Pan want to bury your heads in the sand and talk of "isolated incidents" and how humane the US military was in the Pacific, that is your prerogative; but please don't act as though historical consensus favors that position. I've done all I can do.

I'm not burying my head in the sand, I would like to know the truth. Those wiki articles have lots of examples of war crimes and trophy hunting, but they are light on the detail of how widespread the acts were. I'm not doubting that they happened, I'm just not clear of the extent. And I'm fairly certain they pale in comparison to the actions of the IJA.

Regarding the lack of Japanese POWs, like I said before, the fault lies on both sides. The reputation and the IJA's official code of military conduct meant the Allied forces would have to treat "surrendering" combatants with extreme caution. The Japanese themselves did not care about their own troops that surrendered. What percentage of potential POWs were killed as a result of Senjinkun, and what percentage were just killed out of hand by Allied troops? Unfortunately, it's unlikely we will ever know the answer to this.

[Sarmatian]

You're missing the point. He posted that graphic to illustrate how many more civilians the Axis countries directly killed than the Allies. However, the chart is full of Allied (and presumably Axis) civilian deaths that were not intentionally inflicted by their respective enemies.

No, you missed the point. The graph says WW2 casualties not civilians directly killed. Now, I posted it to give an impression of a huge disrepancy between Allied and Axis civlian casualties. I'm fully aware that graph isn't 100% accurate but even with taking everything you said into account, it doesn't change the ratio that much, therefore it was accurate enough for the point I was trying to make.

Also, you said Can you expand on this a bit in regard to the Soviets? I'm trying to think of the worst things the Nazis did off the top of my head, and everything I can think of was either comparably duplicated by the Soviets or even worse. and American soldiers were just as bad as the Japanese.

That's two major axis and two major allies and you're saying that Soviets were just as bad, or even worse than the nazis and that Americans were just as bad, or even worse, than the Japanese. It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to see that this is basically saying Allies were just as bad, or even worse than the Axis - which is what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that Americans, Soviets... didn't commit crimes, there is substantial proof that they did, I'm not disputing that, it's just that figures don't add up if you say they were just as bad as the Germans or Japanese.

So, if you want to discuss Allied crimes, as far as I'm concerned, go for it. I'd like to read more about it, but when you put "=" between Allies and Axis, we're gonna have a problem.

[Lemur]

Not true. The Marines [...] put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war.

You post unsupported tripe like this, and you wonder why this thread is an explosion of hostility toward your position? Good lord, man. It's one thing to point out that some Marines committed war crimes, it's quite another to equate their behavior with that of the Japanese Empire.

Out of curiosity, based on your history of posting, why is equating the behavior of Axis and Allied soldiers such a consistent PJ theme? Did you have a great-grandfather in the Wehrmacht or something? The way this keeps coming up, it seems as though there's some sort of personal motive.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, you missed the point. The graph says WW2 casualties not civilians directly killed. Now, I posted it to give an impression of a huge disrepancy between Allied and Axis civlian casualties. I'm fully aware that graph isn't 100% accurate but even with taking everything you said into account, it doesn't change the ratio that much, therefore it was accurate enough for the point I was trying to make.

And 2+2=5.... or close enough. I'm sorry, that's just sloppy, misleading, and over-inflates your point.

That's two major axis and two major allies and you're saying that Soviets were just as bad, or even worse than the nazis and that Americans were just as bad, or even worse, than the Japanese. It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to see that this is basically saying Allies were just as bad, or even worse than the Axis - which is what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that Americans, Soviets... didn't commit crimes, there is substantial proof that they did, I'm not disputing that, it's just that figures don't add up if you say they were just as bad as the Germans or Japanese.

This, I think, strikes at the heart of the disagreement. You and the others are taking solace in the fact that the Allies killed less than the Axis. As I've said and re-quoted over and over, I don't disagree. I just don't quantify morality through body counts. Is a man who kills 5 people worse than one who kills 3? Does the fact that Stalin's final body count is some x millions more than Hitler's make him a slightly worse person? Does your equation mean that Mao was the worst person in the world? Certainly the outcome is worse, but does it really take slightly more moral depravity to kill x than y. I think not. Once that line is crossed, once you begin to see people as disposable, body counts are just a function of the amount of power a person wields and how long they are allowed to continue killing.

I judge morality, who was "worse" if you will, based on the depths that the government and people are willing to sink to. It is obvious that the Russians, like the Nazis, had no problem with launching wars of aggression, ethnic cleansing, and internal repression. The Western Allies were certainly different from the Nazis and the Soviets, but it is also clear that they engaged in the same kind of dehumanization and illegal war practices that the Nazis did in the East, as much as some here want to put their fingers in their ears and hum the Star Spangled Banner. I guess it's just a subjective measurement.

You post unsupported tripe like this, and you wonder why this thread is an explosion of hostility toward your position? Good lord, man. It's one thing to point out that some Marines committed war crimes, it's quite another to equate their behavior with that of the Japanese Empire.

Unsupported tripe? I feel like I've stumbled on to StormFront or something. "They changed the Auschwitz sign from saying 4 million were killed to 1 million, therefore if they can overestimate the numbers by 3 million then they don't really know, therefore it didn't happen!!1" The denial is thick. Have you read anything, anything at all, on the subject? Have you read the US military's own correspondence on the issue?

[Brenus]

“You and Brenus seem to know more about my intentions than I do.”
I just read your posts. You are always trying to equal Allies war crimes with Nazi Genocide.
I do not know you intention and in fact I do appreciate your post in term of History.
However, one fundamental in History is to analyze texts in the context and to question who wrote what, to whom and for which purpose.
Your apparent will to equal Nazism with Communism lead me to conclude it is a political issue.
You are not alone in this trend as Poland just passed a motion stating this.

“I just don't quantify morality through body counts. Is a man who kills 5 people worse than one who kills 3?” Nor I do. So to built Extermination camps in order to kill human being just in denying them humanity is worst than to created harsh work camps.
The ideology qualifies for the morality. Japanese and Nazi Germany were based on racism.
The others criminals as Stalin and Mao killed who challenged or were perceived as a potential dangers without race discrimination and that is why they are dictators.
It is said that Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler, due to the length of time of his dictatorship…

You were not without noticing that for the Gulag and Kolyma link, no figures are really given for 1932 to 1954.
The fact that there were still prisoners to grant an amnesty is something that couldn’t happened in Sobibor or Treblinka…
From your source: “The Kolyma authority, which was reorganised in 1958/59 (31 December 1958), finally closed in 1968. However the mining activities did not stop. Indeed, government structures still exist today under the Ministry of Natural Resources. In some cases, the same individuals seem to have stayed on over the years under new management.”
Hardly imaginable in Auschwitz/Birkenau isn’t it?

“Why is it so difficult to accept that both sides practiced dehumanization and their conduct in the war reflected that? For the Germans, it was the Eastern Peoples, for the Western Allies, it was the Japanese.”
I do agree that the US war propaganda was a bit racist against the Japanese. However, if you just consider how the Japanese treated the Asian Countries they “liberated” (2.000.000 dead just for Vietnam thanks to the razzia on rice) and how the US treated Japan…
Some US soldiers commited war crimes and did collect bones, and gold teeth etc. Now it was not a governmental request/duties as in Nazi Germany Camps.
Some did try to save the women jumping with their babies as well.
Some risk their lives to save injured Japanese even if the risk of a grenade explosion was not to underestimate…
This can’t be said for the Japanese side.

Just read about what happened to the French garrisons of Langson or Dong Dang..

[Lemur]

Unsupported tripe?

Indeed.

I feel like I've stumbled on to StormFront or something.

The difference being that white supremacists, much like truthers, birthers and tinfoil-hat wearers of all stripes, stake out a position that is contrary to consensual history. So they have rather a lot more to prove. Analogy: If I assert that gravity exists, there is no overwhelming obligation for me to prove this assertion, as it is in line with just about every respectable physicist. If I assert that gravity does not exist, I have my work cut out for me.

You are the one staking out a minority viewpoint, i.e., that the behavior of the United States Marines was somehow equivalent to the worst excesses of the Japanese Empire. When you make that assertion, you have a lot of work to do, and those telling you to your face that your ideas are nuttier than a granola bar are not out of line.

And even though your motives are entirely salient, you skitter away from addressing them. Again, why is this dubious point so important to you?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I judge morality, who was "worse" if you will, based on the depths that the government and people are willing to sink to. It is obvious that the Russians, like the Nazis, had no problem with launching wars of aggression, ethnic cleansing, and internal repression. The Western Allies were certainly different from the Nazis and the Soviets, but it is also clear that they engaged in the same kind of dehumanization and illegal war practices that the Nazis did in the East, as much as some here want to put their fingers in their ears and hum the Star Spangled Banner. I guess it's just a subjective measurement.

I'm sympathetic to this view right up to the part about Germany on the Eastern front. The Germans were conducting a race war, a war of extermination - not just for the Jews, but to get the inferior Slavs out of the picture. It was far more systematic and intentional than simply shooting POWs because they're Asian. The goal of the war in the Pacific wasn't to clear out all the locals, and I don't think you've shown that the American high command issued orders that POWs should be shot. American massacres of POWs are obviously horrible and possibly (maybe even probably) racially oriented, but they were standard operating practices (or at least not as you've demonstrated).

If you want to make the case that the US was fighting a war of extermination in the Pacific, and you come up with evidence to back that up then maybe you could call the sides somewhat equivalent. But I don't see that from what you've posted.

[Kagemusha]

I think in this PJ your position is untenable. Crimes happen in wars, but there is no proof of systematic murder some axis countries involved themselves from Western Allied. Soviets are another story. Hell even Finland was involved in deaths of Soviet civilians, since great many of them that had been put in refugee camps, plus prison camps died in starvation during winters of 1941-2 simply because of failed harvest Finland couldnt even feed her own population and was reliant on German shipping of foodstuff. War is full of crimes and tragedies. But the systematic slaughter Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan engaged was one of a kind.

[Centurion1]

“I just don't quantify morality through body counts. Is a man who kills 5 people worse than one who kills 3?”

I do. reasons FOR killing people can make all the difference

[PanzerJaeger]

I just read your posts. You are always trying to equal Allies war crimes with Nazi Genocide.
I do not know you intention and in fact I do appreciate your post in term of History.
However, one fundamental in History is to analyze texts in the context and to question who wrote what, to whom and for which purpose.
Your apparent will to equal Nazism with Communism lead me to conclude it is a political issue.
You are not alone in this trend as Poland just passed a motion stating this.

You're mixing threads now, and making this about me and my motivations instead of the issues.

Nor I do. So to built Extermination camps in order to kill human being just in denying them humanity is worst than to created harsh work camps.
The ideology qualifies for the morality. Japanese and Nazi Germany were based on racism.
The others criminals as Stalin and Mao killed who challenged or were perceived as a potential dangers without race discrimination and that is why they are dictators.
It is said that Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler, due to the length of time of his dictatorship…

First of all, I'm not sure killing innocents based on race is somehow worse than killing based on any other pretext. Was the elimination of the Kulaks somehow morally superior to the ideology behind the Holocaust because it was based on a social class instead of a racial group?

Second, your point is somewhat undercut due to the fact that Stalin did indeed target a multitude of ethnic subgroups in Russia, exterminating some completely.

The fact that there were still prisoners to grant an amnesty is something that couldn’t happened in Sobibor or Treblinka…

This is more of a structural distinction than a moral one. The Nazis had concentration camps and then later separate extermination camps. People were released from the concentration camps up until the war started. In Russia, everyone got sent to the Gulags - common criminals, political dissidents, targeted groups, etc. That doesn't mean that those that were marked for death received anything but.

This can’t be said for the Japanese side.

That’s not true. There are certainly stories of compassionate Japanese soldiers, some of them risking severe punishment to help POWs and civilians. If we’re going to use stories of Americans begging people not to jump off cliffs to exonerate them from the endemic racism and war crimes they engaged in, the same standard must be applied to all sides.

Indeed.

You've got some reading to do, sir. As they say, you can lead a horse to the well, but you can't make him drink. I can guide you toward the truth by posting multiple well-sourced wikis and hard copy sources all supporting the fact that dehumanization, refusal to take prisoners, and mutilization were endemic among Allied forces in the Pacific, but I cannot hold your hand and walk you to the library to do the research yourself.

You are the one staking out a minority viewpoint, i.e., that the behavior of the United States Marines was somehow equivalent to the worst excesses of the Japanese Empire. When you make that assertion, you have a lot of work to do, and those telling you to your face that your ideas are nuttier than a granola bar are not out of line.

Well, we need to separate the discussion over the objective facts from the discussion of my subjective opinion.

Some people dispute the widespread nature of the atrocities committed by American forces. I think the research I've highlighted speaks for itself.

You seem to be disputing my subjective opinion that the moral depravity of the US forces was equivalent or worse than that of the Japanese. In this regard, I would place the "excesses" of the Marines on the same level as those of the Japanese. I'm not aware of Hirohito ever receiving any gifts made out of Americans, although I cannot be certain without further research.

And even though your motives are entirely salient, you skitter away from addressing them. Again, why is this dubious point so important to you?

From your Backroom contributions, I have noted that your standard operating procedure is to paint people in to boxes and then dismiss their comments outright. "Coming from a guy who is an admitted fan of Sarah Palin, anything you say must be stupid..." and so on.

My beliefs, motivations, etc. are not germane to the discussion.

I'm sympathetic to this view right up to the part about Germany on the Eastern front. The Germans were conducting a race war, a war of extermination - not just for the Jews, but to get the inferior Slavs out of the picture. It was far more systematic and intentional than simply shooting POWs because they're Asian. The goal of the war in the Pacific wasn't to clear out all the locals, and I don't think you've shown that the American high command issued orders that POWs should be shot. American massacres of POWs are obviously horrible and possibly (maybe even probably) racially oriented, but they were standard operating practices (or at least not as you've demonstrated).

If you want to make the case that the US was fighting a war of extermination in the Pacific, and you come up with evidence to back that up then maybe you could call the sides somewhat equivalent. But I don't see that from what you've posted.

As I said in the quote, there is certainly a significant moral distinction between the motivations of the German, Russian and Japanese leadership and those of the Western Allies. As you correctly note, the Nazis and Japanese, to a lesser extent, sought extermination, while the Allied leadership did not. I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing is that the conduct of the US military forces in the Pacific sunk to the depths of that of the Germans in the East and the Japanese in China, etc; that there was the same belief in racial superiority, dehumanization, and related atrocities committed on the same scale, ie., not "isolated incidents".

In essence, FDR was no Tojo, but the similarities between the Japanese Marines and American Marines, on a moral level, are far closer.

I think in this PJ your position is untenable.

I think you misunderstand my position. See my response to Alexander the Pretty Good.

[Centurion1]

My beliefs, motivations, etc are not germane to the discussion.

HAHAHAHAAHAHA

Intentional???

[PanzerJaeger]

HAHAHAHAAHAHA

Intentional???

Can you please explain what you mean?

[Centurion1]

Can you please explain what you mean?

lol read what i said we are talking about axis allies here no? you had a bit of an unintentional pun i presume. dont get your panties in a bunch

[PanzerJaeger]

lol read what i said we are talking about axis allies here no? you had a bit of an unintentional pun i presume. dont get your panties in a bunch

Oh, my panties are unwound and fitting comfortably; I just don't understand. Not your fault, I'm sure, as I can be pretty dense.

[Centurion1]

we are talknig about the axis and allies of world war two and you said your

beliefs, motivations, etc. are not germane to the discussion

funny because its what everyone is accusing you of.

ahhhh not that funny i got a chuckle though.

[PanzerJaeger]

we are talknig about the axis and allies of world war two and you said your

funny because its what everyone is accusing you of.

ahhhh not that funny i got a chuckle though.

Ahh, I gotcha.

[Sarmatian]

And 2+2=5.... or close enough. I'm sorry, that's just sloppy, misleading, and over-inflates your point.

In a way, yes. When I know that X is in the range of 1-5 and Y is in the range of 500-1000, I have no troubles claiming Y is bigger than X. Whether it is 500 or 750 or 1000, it is bigger and by a big margin and my point stands.

This, I think, strikes at the heart of the disagreement. You and the others are taking solace in the fact that the Allies killed less than the Axis. As I've said and re-quoted over and over, I don't disagree. I just don't quantify morality through body counts. Is a man who kills 5 people worse than one who kills 3? Does the fact that Stalin's final body count is some x millions more than Hitler's make him a slightly worse person? Does your equation mean that Mao was the worst person in the world? Certainly the outcome is worse, but does it really take slightly more moral depravity to kill x than y. I think not. Once that line is crossed, once you begin to see people as disposable, body counts are just a function of the amount of power a person wields and how long they are allowed to continue killing.

That's not the half it. Nazism was an evil ideology based on racism and total contempt for human life that treated various people as vermin, rats and sub-humans, fit only to be exterminated or to be slaves. That ideology got a hold of a powerful country and managed to act on it. Had it been succesful, the world would have been a terrible place to live. Allies on the other hand, with all their quirks and flaws, were fighting a defensive war for the defeat of that ideology, and after that ideology had been defeated, Allies didn't take vengeance but had rebuilt Germany and Japan and allowed them to take their place in the world as influental and successful nations. That is not what would have happened had the Axis won the war. In the process of defeating that evil ideology, Allies also committed far less war crimes and killed far less innocent civilians.

I can not equate Allies with the Axis, unless it is proved to me that Allies started an aggressive war, whose goal was territorial expansion and extermination and enslavement of millions.

[drone]

What I am arguing is that the conduct of the US military forces in the Pacific sunk to the depths of that of the Germans in the East and the Japanese in China, etc; that there was the same belief in racial superiority, dehumanization, and related atrocities committed on the same scale, ie., not "isolated incidents".

In essence, FDR was no Tojo, but the similarities between the Japanese Marines and American Marines, on a moral level, are far closer.

You have avoided addressing my two points on this.

One (POWs), that fate of "surrendering" Japanese troops is largely due to the IJA's official stance on surrender, and the false promises of adhering to the Genevea conventions regarding Allied POWs. Not an excuse, but an understandable result. How were Japanese POWs treated once they were processed and away from the combat zones? How were Allied POWs treated in the same situation?

Two (civilians), that while Allied POWs were subjected to illegal treatment, the war crimes committed against civilians by the Japanese forces were worse, and on a far grander scale, than anything the Allied troops can be accused of.

[PanzerJaeger]

In a way, yes. When I know that X is in the range of 1-5 and Y is in the range of 500-1000, I have no troubles claiming Y is bigger than X. Whether it is 500 or 750 or 1000, it is bigger and by a big margin and my point stands.

Your attempts to retroactively justify the use of that graphic are undercut by the unfortunate fact that it inflates your point by millions of people, which is neither a small number on its face nor a statistically insignificant figure in relation to the chart. Sloppy and inaccurate.

And I'm not even challenging counting the Soviets with the Allies, which is questionable at best as they were just as responsible as Germany for starting the war and then went on to launch their own expansionist war against Finland. Only circumstance eventually forced them on to the Allied side, not any sort of idealogical similarities.

That's not the half it. Nazism was an evil ideology based on racism and total contempt for human life that treated various people as vermin, rats and sub-humans, fit only to be exterminated or to be slaves. That ideology got a hold of a powerful country and managed to act on it. Had it been succesful, the world would have been a terrible place to live. Allies on the other hand, with all their quirks and flaws, were fighting a defensive war for the defeat of that ideology, and after that ideology had been defeated, Allies didn't take vengeance but had rebuilt Germany and Japan and allowed them to take their place in the world as influental and successful nations. That is not what would have happened had the Axis won the war. In the process of defeating that evil ideology, Allies also committed far less war crimes and killed far less innocent civilians.

First of all, historical supposition has no place in this thread. We don't know what the world would have looked like had the Axis won. I could say, with some degree of historical evidence, that Stalin would have overrun Europe both in late 1941 or early 1942 had the Germans not invaded and again in 1945 had the US not used nuclear weapons. And...? Second, Germany and Japan were rebuilt for a very specific purpose, not out of some altruistic Allied intentions.

Other than that, you've got no arguments from me. Nobody is arguing that Nazism was about peace, love, and dandelions.

I can not equate Allies with the Axis, unless it is proved to me that Allies started an aggressive war, whose goal was territorial expansion and extermination and enslavement of millions.

I feel like we've come full circle. Again I must ask, don't you think you should separate the Western Allies from the Soviets?

You have avoided addressing my two points on this.

I have not avoided your points. They have been noted and I think addressed in earlier posts. I can only continue to repeat my points to a certain extent before monotony ensues.

One (POWs), that fate of "surrendering" Japanese troops is largely due to the IJA's official stance on surrender, and the false promises of adhering to the Genevea conventions regarding Allied POWs. Not an excuse, but an understandable result.

The research seems to indicate otherwise, that racial superiority and dehumanization of the Japanese lead to widespread refusal to take prisoners from the start, which did not happen in Europe. As you said, though, there really is no excuse.

How were Japanese POWs treated once they were processed and away from the combat zones?

You mean those 600 hundred who survived to get there by '44? I'm not sure you're making the point that you intended.

Two (civilians), that while Allied POWs were subjected to illegal treatment, the war crimes committed against civilians by the Japanese forces were worse, and on a far grander scale, than anything the Allied troops can be accused of.

Well, I have already touched on one mass rape by American forces and there are others, but yes, the war ended before Japan proper was invaded.

[drone]

The research seems to indicate otherwise, that racial superiority and dehumanization of the Japanese lead to widespread refusal to take prisoners from the start, which did not happen in Europe. As you said, though, there really is no excuse.

And the fact that IJA troops wouldn't surrender as a general rule, or would fake a surrender for an ambush, etc. You are glossing over the fact that the command structure wanted POWs, for intelligence and propaganda. Prisoner execution was not condoned, if anything the propaganda machine was too effective in this case. The same cannot be said within the IJA. Given the nature of the fighting, I'm certain Marines shot surrendering Japanese troops. In some circumstances, these actions would be understandable, if not excusable. In other circumstances, an outright war crime. The scale of the latter is still in question.

You mean those 600 hundred who survived to get there by '44? I'm not sure you're making the point that you intended.

Those, and the ~40-50k taken before the end of hostilities. When you say "by '44" are you talking '41-43, or including '44? Wiki has 921 POWs at Saipan (1944) alone. The Marines didn't have a chance to start taking prisoners until, what, Guadalcanal, and didn't really get moving until 1944, after sorting out their island assault issues from Tarawa. Again, how were the processed Japanese POWs treated, compared to the Allied POWs?

Well, I have already touched on one mass rape by American forces and there are others, but yes, the war ended before Japan proper was invaded.

So Hiroshima/Nagasaki saved the Japanese from the predations of American forces?

The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war.

You still have yet to justify this claim. It fails on both acts and scale.

[The Wizard]

I'm not really sure what to make of that other than a strong suspicion that you didn't read my post thoroughly. It may be a daisy emoticon too far for me.

Let me ask you if you believe civilian deaths caused by the conflict between the various Chinese factions, which ran into the millions, should be attributable to the Axis?

Don't try to change the subject. Fact is, war-related famine in a country that is the victim of aggression by another is the fault of the latter. This is undeniable, and I see you've wisely chosen to stop trying to deny it.

As for the victims of Chinese civil war being included in the number of victims of the Japanese invasion and occupation: I really, really doubt that takes place anywhere except the official PRC history of the war (and maybe the ROC version, too). But academic studies on the subject? Don't think so.

Those that were shot before they were torn limb from limb were the lucky ones. Again, I'm waiting for you to disprove what I said. You'll need a little more than hysterics to do that.

You may notice, if you read my post, that I said nothing regarding the veracity of your claim about U.S. war crimes. All I did was ridicule the assumption that the war crimes carried out by individual Marines or even units of Marines can somehow, in any way, equal a crime on the sheer scale of the Rape of Nanjing.

The point is really that you're trying to morally equate the Allies with the Axis on false grounds. The two are so far apart in number and scale of crimes that it isn't even funny. Just take one look at Louis's post. It would have ended this thread, if you had had the courage to simply distance yourself from the ridiculous claims you're making.

EDIT: I mean, all I really have to do to put your utter nonsense to rest is quote from one of your own posts:

The US military's own correspondence explicitly acknowledges the widespread nature of these practices, as do the films shown to soldiers imploring them not to kill surrendering Japanese.

The U.S. Armed Forces made movies to dissuade its own troops from killing surrendering members of the enemy. What more proof do you need that you are trying to compare incidents to policy of the highest order? What next, PJ? Are you gonna tell us that Goebbels and the Japanese made movies telling their soldiers not to kill the Jewish pest and Slavic Untermensch, or the inferior Chinese?

We are talking about the south not the north. The north was constantly drafting and conscripted soldiers, most southern men signed up right off the bat except for the rich. The men who fought the war for the south were poor Scots-Irish from the Appalachian mountains for the most part.

No, I responded to A Very Super Market talking about the motivations of Northern soldiers.

[Sarmatian]

Your attempts to retroactively justify the use of that graphic are undercut by the unfortunate fact that it inflates your point by millions of people, which is neither a small number on its face nor a statistically insignificant figure in relation to the chart. Sloppy and inaccurate.

Still doesn't change the point. Take away those millions and still a huge difference remain.

And I'm not even challenging counting the Soviets with the Allies, which is questionable at best as they were just as responsible as Germany for starting the war and then went on to launch their own expansionist war against Finland. Only circumstance eventually forced them on to the Allied side, not any sort of idealogical similarities.

Debatable, but that's for another thread.

Other than that, you've got no arguments from me. Nobody is arguing that Nazism was about peace, love, and dandelions.

Unfortunately, it seems you do. Ok, you say that it wasn't your intention to equate Axis and Allies, I'll accept that and let it rest, we're really not getting anywhere. It's just that it wasn't only my impression but pretty much everyone involved in the discussion got the same impression. So, if that wasn't your intention, maybe you should worry about how you're coming off.

[PanzerJaeger]

You still have yet to justify this claim. It fails on both acts and scale.

On the contrary, the research indicates that racism, dehumanization, refusal to take prisoners, executions, mass rapes and mutilazation were common and widespread among US forces in the Pacific. Maybe it would be helpful if you told me what you feel the Japanese did that sinks to an even lower moral level.

The U.S. Armed Forces made movies to dissuade its own troops from killing surrendering members of the enemy. What more proof do you need that you are trying to compare incidents to policy of the highest order? What next, PJ? Are you gonna tell us that Goebbels and the Japanese made movies telling their soldiers not to kill the Jewish pest and Slavic Untermensch, or the inferior Chinese?

You are making my point for me.

German soldiers, for example, were compelled to commit atrocities through a carrot and stick approach by the top Nazi leadership. First, they were force-fed a daily diet of propaganda that dehumanized the Eastern peoples and justified German manifest destiny. Hitler himself used all his charismatic might to fill them with feelings of racial superiority and talk of "subhumans" and "vermin". They were given every excuse in the book from their leaders to justify their actions from the fight against bolshevism to the need for German living space. When encouragement wasn't enough, they used punishment. Those German soldiers who refused orders could expect a wide range of reprisals. They could only hope to be sent to a harsh front, and not wind up in a concentration camp themselves. Still, the Nazi leadership felt the need to continually sanatize their genocide. IIRC, by the time Treblinka was set up, no more than 50 or 100 Germans ever worked there at one time.

American soldiers, on the other hand, had no such encouragement. IIRC, FDR never denigrated the Japanese on a racial basis, and soldiers committing atrocities could technically be charged - although the vast majority of officers looked the other way, if they didn't support it outright. As I pointed out, the military even made an effort to increase live prisoner taking, for intelligence purposes. Despite all that, American soldiers engaged in racism, dehumanization, and atrocities on a wide scale. American culture - from Time Magazine to Hollywood - relished in the same type of racism that Goebbels worked so hard to foster. Unlike the top-down nature of the war crimes committed by the Axis dictatorships, these American war crimes were cultivated from the bottom. American soldiers needed no carrots or sticks to boil the flesh off of Japanese skulls and send them home to their girlfriends, such behavior just came naturally to them.

This is why body counts are not the best context in which to judge morality.

Unfortunately, it seems you do. Ok, you say that it wasn't your intention to equate Axis and Allies, I'll accept that and let it rest, we're really not getting anywhere. It's just that it wasn't only my impression but pretty much everyone involved in the discussion got the same impression. So, if that wasn't your intention, maybe you should worry about how you're coming off.

I long ago stopped bothering. My perspective on the war is not aligned with the black/white, good/evil narrative that has emerged, and any deviation from said narrative usually yields hostility.

As for this discussion, it is all just an intellectual exercise for me. I am not of the belief that we should apply 2010 moral norms to people who lived in 1940. It has been interesting to challenge some established perceptions, and I do think I have opened some people's eyes to elements of history that they may not have known about before, so it has not all been for naught.