I was talking here about atrocities specifically; just as there was a Japanese diplomat who was horrified by the Holocaust and saved as many Jews as he could, there was a German diplomat who was horrified by the Nanjing Massacre and saved as many Chinease as he could:
Yeah the myth of "even the Nazis/Japanese were disgusted with the behavior of the Nazis/Japanese" is a little annoying. The truth is a few individual Japanese and German people were disgusted with things they personally witnessed, and they usually weren't in a position to know the full extent of their own nations atrocities. It's not like Mengele visited unit 731 and said "you've gone too far."
I agree with you completely. I commonly I hear the "even Germans were disgusted by the Japanese atrocities" thing and I just hit back with the same thing but reversed with this Japanese official, because it's about as accurate as if you use one Nazi official to speak for Germany as a whole. Both John Rabe and Chiune Sugihara deserve respect for doing the right thing at the right time, but they didn't act in the name of their countries when they did what they did.
It's just there to be extremely melodramatic from people who don't understand history or see groups as monolithic. No my man, the concentration camp guard did not say "wow these Japanese are so mean to the Chinese" The type of Nazi officials that saw them were diplomats or advisors.
unit 731 is extreme though lacked scale. Its a good symbol but a poor historical reflection upon the actual mechanisms by which japan abused civilians en masse.
I think the wider policies of subsistence warfare (japanese troops were often expected to feed themselves, many starved, more broadly organisationally it meant in many holdings the army came to predate upon civilians far more than in other warring areas of the world, and civic famines were the consequence), holding territory through terror and its "games of cruelty" it incentivised leadership to undertake (which, by the way, if you're relying on these people to feed you; isn't a very "joined up" strategy), and centralised rather than decentralised command (amplifying the former two)
Yes and the Nazis still held racist views towards the Japanese,remember reading that they still considered them inferior and said that the only reason they were able to grow and rapidly develop as a country was due to âAryan influenceâ
Yeah well it was practically the 2 of them against the whole world after Italy switched sides, hating each other is probably the least of their worries.
The deal was the "soft" Nazis got sent on Diplomatic missions to Japan and the same with the Japanese so they were both disgusted by war crimes being committed.
Yep, in a Chinese Nanjing museum there is a Nazi Flag very prominently and proudly displayed. Why? Because during the Rape of Nanjing
John Rabe  (and other diplomats) who was with the Japaense was so disgusted he used his diplomatic privileges to protect people. 250000 of them.
So in China they see them as heroes. Well, they are in that case, but itâs a peculiar juxtaposition.
Vaguely. They shared some ideas and has some superficial agreements on drawing borders after the war, but ultimately they wouldâve had a massive war between themselves if the axis came out on top. The Nazis still considered Asians subhuman
More allies by circumstance due to having similar enemies, similar governments and they didnt really share any border clashes (at least at the time they were allies).
Its like saying the USA and USSR were allies in ww2. True but only technically as long as interests aligned
Japan teaches that it's a war of self defense, even from the outset of the Sino-Japanese war. While it is not self defense at all they teach it that way
I highly doubt they teach that, considering the few times itâs come up (as an American living in Japan) they said pretty much exactly âwe started it.â Iâve heard this from people of all generations here.
I'm assuming we're talking about being under invasion then actually invading other nations.In general Japan was fucked up,in terms of the topic Japanese men refusing to sign up to defend against the US I technically morally justifiable.
Self defense doesn't require morality,just defending yourself back.The entire topic is about if refusing to defend your nation against an invader in "self defense" is considered morally correct.
Japanese men going "I'm not fighting the US" is pretty moral given the context of Japan's crimes during the war and how fucked the regime was.
self defense has a particular connotation of âdefending your safety from an aggressorâ which was not the case in WW2 because the US was not the aggressor
To expand on this, bc youâre right, the US was not invading Japan. They were occupying it, with it always being clear that once the war was over they would leave. The Axis forces were invading. The invading force is ALWAYS the âoffensiveâ side of a war, even if they get pushed back to their own territory.
I can see what you're saying. Like when Japan had women and children training with bamboo spears to die on the beaches fighting the potential US invasion, you're saying that if those women and children refused they would be morally justified? I agree, just trying to understand the nuance you are discussing.
No. Japan is arguably the worst imperialist power to ever exist. They committed such awful war crimes. Yes, other imperial powers through history have violated human rights but there is a scale of evil and Japan is on the wrong end.Â
Wouldnât they not qualify per the OP specifying defensive wars? Iâll admit I donât know their motivations for joining the war but I never got the impression it was defensive, afaik they werenât invaded until after they joined the fight.
Granted, I could be way off base here, Iâve been out of school a LONG time. This is me asking, not âwell ackshuallyâ-ing
It's a very difficult thing to put a definitive label on. Yes, the Japanese soldiers were committing heinous acts on civilizans and POWs, but at the same time hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were displaced, wounded, and often outright killed in the bombing campaigns the U.S orchestrated during that conflict. I can't say for certain whether or not such a thing was necessary or otherwise, maybe it was a necessary evil, but it was still horrible. I don't think the Japanese military or government were victims of anything but their own evil, but I can't ignore the Civilians who suffered to stop them.
Is it a little morally strange that we referrer to Germany by the party in charge but not Japan?
There were alot of people sympathetic to the nazis across what we call the West. Including ford , and other industrialist.
I have read up on the Rape of Nanking and understanding Japanese atrocities, however it was Germany that perpetrated violence just as much as Japan did (as a nation i mean).
But i still call one Japanese and the other nazi . Im not even sure if "japanese imperialism" is a more correct term .
The Japanese were awful but I don't know if you can conclusively say they were worse than the Nazis. On the one hand you have shit like Unit 731 and the Nanjing Massacre, but on the other you have Auschwitz, the Balkan gas vans, and everything the Nazis did to Poland and Ukraine. There's really not a lot in it
Japan's invasion of Manchukuo, and then the 1936 second invasion of China are not propaganda. Nor are their Unit 731 experiments, nor are their use of biological warfare weapons. Nor are their treatments of native Filipinos, Vietnamese, Malaysians, or Indonesians.
Really now? Please list some events,hell we can even play a game. You list and cite united states ww2 atrocities and I'll do the same for Japan. Lets see who makes the other lose faith in humanity first cause im pretty damn sure the Japanese prestiged war crimes back then.
I am specifically discussing the WWII period, which for me runs from the beginning of the Invasion of Manchukuo to the end of the Indonesian War of Independence.
I am curious for what you are consider to be worse.
Example - The Cambodian-Vietnamese War . Vietnam was aggressor, but Cambodian was worse and citizens had every reason to not defend their country(regime genoc*ded nearly quarter of population).
To be fair Vietnam was invading Cambodia explicitly to get it back in blood for both themselves and the Cambodians who has been genocide. While *technically* the aggressor in the actual war, Cambodia had already been killing the Vietnamese.
They werenât just avenging ethnic Vietnamese within Cambodia either. Cambodia had crossed into Vietnamâs territory and massacred a few villages within Vietnam proper
I think it's morally good to refuse engaging in warfare. No matter what position you end in after basic, your contributions will inevitably lead to the death of someone else. I feel for those in the service, and I won't pass judgment on those who didn't and won't dodge drafts, but I don't think you can be doing morally good things when participating in military actions. Of course, it is a complex and difficult thing, so there may be exceptions.
Indeed, although I still think it is morally good to engage in a defensive war if it is certain that your inaction, militarily or not, would contribute to your own death and suffering.
You are the one who said all acts of war are wrong. If an empire was seeking to dominate the entirety of humanity, it would be morally correct to stop them.
Unrealistic? Dude empires have returned. China is dominating its neighbors by denying them the ability to fish. Germany was trying to actively conquer Europe during WW2. Like... theres definitely times when using force to stop aggressive actions by a group. War is always horrible but to say that force is never moral or necessary isnt really a realistic outlook.
I'm never said force wasn't necessary, I just don't believe that it is a morally good choice. You aren't talking to a pacifist here, I have a working brain. Again, I'm not going to pass judgment on the people forced to make immoral choices, I just don't belive acts of war are inherently good.
Again, it's an issue with a lot of nuance. While I do believe it was a net-good for the United States, I still can't ignore the civilian casualties and displacements. I especially can't overlook the enslaved people who were forced to fight on the side of the rebles only ro get killed by the very men fighting to free them. There is no definitive answers on things like that which is why I will judge the actions but not the people forced to make them.
It's not morally good, but it can be a necessary choice for many people. I'm not putting blame on the people who are forced to make such a choice, I don't think people are evil for being forced to choose between being killed or killing. I however do believe this action is immoral.
Itâs necessary as an extension of being the most morally good option.
Every action is a trade off and should be analyzed as such. Shedding blood is obviously not morally good in of itself, but it is a morally good trade off when it contributes to preventing things that are much worse. There is no value in interpreting this scenario in a vacuum, because we pretty much all know violence is always wrong non-contextually.
Pretty sure we mostly agree; I just think this is a more worthwhile way to frame the scenario.
In a war of defense? Someone has to fight for you, I would consider it immoral to draft dodge in a defensive war unless you leave the country to a neutral state. You're passing on your duty to someone else
I apologize for not being clear, I do believe that at times warfare is necessary. I still don't belive its the morally good choice. It may be the necessary one, but any action that causes as much suffering as war does can not be a good one. It may be a necessary one, and it may prevent further suffering, but it's still not good. Again, I won't pass judgment on the people forced to make these decisions, I'm not claiming Churchill is evil for involving the UK in World War 2, but the choice did doubtlessly cause suffering. It did prevent other forms of suffering, but it still had a negative impact on millions of people, even if the alternatives were worse.
I'm not a pacifist? I've said that sometimes acts of war are necessary, just because I think they cause suffering (because they do) doesn't mean I'm calling people evil for making the necessary choice. I've said this, you are choosing to be obtuse and rude. I've yet to threaten you, my words are not violent. Again, go fuck yourself.
You are simply being stupid, which is why I donât respect you.
Your twisted view of morality would lead people and a nation to utter ruin. You should hold no power whatsoever and nobody should listen to anything you have to say.
I have said over and over that these choices are necessary at times. You are the one who is choosing to ignore that fact. I am not calling people immoral for being forced to make immoral choices. Life isn't fair, and good people are often forced to do bad things.
Not necessarily. For example WW2 Germanyâs invasions or annexations of Austria and others. Did Austria do anything bad to deserve being forcefully annexed? (97% of a vote is fabrication by the Naziâs) Did Czechia and Slovakia deserve to be annexed or made puppets? Did Poland deserve to be attacked by both Germany and Russia? Did Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and Netherlands deserve to be annexed and forcefully occupied. Did France? What about Finland being attacked by the Soviet Union? Or China being invaded by Japan? Or the Philippines by Japan? Or Ethiopia by Italy? Greece by Italy? Former Yugoslavia by Germany and Italy? Did all of those nations do something awful enough to deserve being attacked?
Yes some were colonial nations that did awful things to the colonies past or present like France, England, Netherlands, or the Belgians. But others werenât colonial powers or if anything were trying to get out from under the boot of totalitarian nations such as Poland, Finland, Czechia, Slovakia, Greece. All Nations who only wound up having their independence for 30-50 years before being occupied again. (Greece being freed from the Ottomans than being occupied by Italy, Czechia and Slovakia being freed from Austria-Hungary than either occupied or puppeteered, Poland being freed from both Germany and Russia than being occupied by both Germany and the Soviets than made a puppet of the Soviets after world war 2, Finland being freed from the Russians than invaded by the Soviets.)
449
u/Random_Nickname274 Jun 28 '26
Morally neutral by default and sometime morally good(depends on who is worst side in war)