What do you think would've happened if Japan took the idea more seriously or the ones who did take it seriously held more power? That each of the formed "puppets" would actually be ineffect be equal members in the spehere. Where the benefit of one member is to the benefit of all members. Kinda like say the Soviet Union "member states" or the warsaw pact members but freer and not under the domination of Moscow. Assuming that there aren't any atrosities, that the Japanese invaded for the benefit of the various asian countries and to liberate them from the imperialists. Could they have fought the war better? I know that it would've made it easier after the war for Japan to run the colonies, they would be better developed. But what about during the war? Could they gain more resources faster? Could they have recruited the natives to hold more senstive posts and aid them fight the Allies?
Hi there Ryuujin There were some assumptions among conquered pacific regions, even among some Indians (except for China and Korea I presumed ) that Japan or Axis was meant to 'liberated' them. - There were local recruits and natives(PETA, Kempei-Ho, Kaigun Heiho) who fought alongside Japanese soldiers against Allied forces. - there were romusha, or forced labour to support on Japan Infrastructure projects over the conquered regions. - And there were local legislatives under Japanese supervision. Despite of those things, Japan was defeated. Well, am not those who cant forget the Japanese actions during WW2. For me, let the bygone be gone. But, i can't accept your assumption that there were no atrocities, as there were atrocities, You cannot belittling those who were tarnished. Regards Gumalangi
??? When did I say there "weren't" any atrocities? I was mainly saying that what if Japan didn't DO any. I didn't say that there were none since there is plenty of evidence that says otherwise.
Originally posted by Ryuujin@Apr 26 2005, 01:42 PM Assuming that there aren't any atrosities, [post=33542]Quoted post[/post] perhaps i put it wrongly,.. you tried put a scenario(what if) on Japanese never carried out such an act,.. for me i cannot think of such scenario. Regards Gumalangi
Its a distinct possibility if there was more control over the Japanese soldiers and less indifference by the commanding generals.
Originally posted by Ryuujin@Apr 27 2005, 12:22 PM Its a distinct possibility if there was more control over the Japanese soldiers and less indifference by the commanding generals. [post=33609]Quoted post[/post] is it about the atrocities thing?,.. if it is,.. i assumed you are japanese, having thought so, then you should well aware of Jap. Milt Tradition. Japanese Military tradition during WW2 were very much intact from the Meiji time, the code of conduct, etc. Which one of the thing that, the defeated has no right to life as he/she fails to performed his/her duty, in many cases the victors then helps the defeated with the process of sepukku. This code of conduct of course is never acceptable anywhere except in Japan, and this is one of many actions by, be it soldiers or officers, that contibuted to Japan Atrocities during the war. Pls bear in mind am not judging Jap. Culture, just stating what i know,..and I welcome for a correction. Regards. Gumalangi
then you should well aware of Jap. Milt Tradition. Japanese Military tradition during WW2 were very much intact from the Meiji time, the code of conduct, etc Meiji? in the great war the japanese military were very civilised in their treatment of the prisoners PETA, Kempei-Ho, Kaigun Heiho) what is PETA?, kempei - they are civilian police, aren't they? and Kaigun is navy
Originally posted by harribobs@Apr 27 2005, 10:07 PM Meiji? in the great war the japanese military were very civilised in their treatment of the prisoners [ what is PETA?, kempei - they are civilian police, aren't they? and Kaigun is navy [post=33644]Quoted post[/post] if you think Japanese treated POW in civilized manner, pls ref. to any story of bridge over the river kwai,. and this only one of so many examples of how Japanese treated POW during the WW2: http://www.kanchanaburi-info.com/en/muang.html#bridge In march. 1943 Japanese begin to organize local military auxiliaries ("Heiho"), attached to regular Japanese army units. as for Navy it was Kaigun Heiho as for Police force it was Kempei-Ho. the same year October 3 Japanese organize "Giyugun" (local defense forces) for Sumatra and Java. The force for Java is called PETA (Pembela Tanah Air). By the end of the war, around two million Indonesian had been recruited for service in the Giyugun or as Heiho auxiliaries. The Japanese felt that recruiting locals for defense was necessary, since Japanese units were increasingly being called up to fight the Allied elsewhere in the Pacific. Hope this explained. regards Gumalangi
Co-Prosperity Sphere? The concept is laughable. There was no attempt or intention to ever make member states '...equal members of the sphere...'. This was not a case of releasing the oppressed from their colonial masters. What about China? How does co-prosperity occur when you invade someone elses country, murder the majority of their military in cold blood, murder a great portion of the populous and place the rest into forced labour? The fact remains that there was only a very very small portion of the populous of any of the countries occupied who were interested in forming any sort of partnership with the Japanese. Of course the Japanese could have fought the war better....they LOST. Being nicer to people wouldn't have mattered a damn.....they were not invited and were not wanted. Rgds Tim
Originally posted by Ryuujin@Apr 27 2005, 10:22 PM Its a distinct possibility if there was more control over the Japanese soldiers and less indifference by the commanding generals. [post=33609]Quoted post[/post] Indifference.....I don't think so many of these animals were hung for war crimes because of a little indifference!!
Originally posted by GUMALANGI+Apr 28 2005, 02:20 AM-->(GUMALANGI @ Apr 28 2005, 02:20 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-harribobs@Apr 27 2005, 10:07 PM Meiji? in the great war the japanese military were very civilised in their treatment of the prisoners [ what is PETA?, kempei - they are civilian police, aren't they? and Kaigun is navy [post=33644]Quoted post[/post] if you think Japanese treated POW in civilized manner, pls ref. to any story of bridge over the river kwai,. and this only one of so many examples of how Japanese treated POW during the WW2: http://www.kanchanaburi-info.com/en/muang.html#bridge [post=33652]Quoted post[/post] [/b] i was querying your comment that the japanese military had been the same since the meiji period if you read my post, i refer to the great war, also known as the first world war (1914-18), NOT the actions of the japanese military in WW2
No I am not Japanese, and FYI the Japanese did not sign the Geneva Convention so I wonder what the hell are we hanging them for war crimes for if they didn't sign the convention? Legalli they didn't commit anything. And it seems none of you read my post or did not get my meaning what if the Japanese DID attack these colonies in order to liberate them at the very least as an after thought and treated the natives well? Same thing in China, it's possible that with enough effort on the behalf of the IHC the atrosities commited againt the Chinese populace could have been avoided. And also remember that the military leader ship during WWII is different from the civilian leadership of WWI.
Originally posted by Ryuujin@Apr 28 2005, 11:56 AM And it seems none of you read my post or did not get my meaning what if the Japanese DID attack these colonies in order to liberate them at the very least as an after thought and treated the natives well? Same thing in China, it's possible that with enough effort on the behalf of the IHC the atrosities commited againt the Chinese populace could have been avoided. And also remember that the military leader ship during WWII is different from the civilian leadership of WWI. [post=33681]Quoted post[/post] so you are not Japanese,.. it doesnt matter.. colonized countries by Japan did provided huge amount of manpower for Military, Labor and civil Admin. Indonesia as i put, was one simple example. Infact HQ of Giyugun, or local defence created by Japanese was at Saigon. Indonesia alone, contributed to around 2million mens for Japan war effort. These not included Vietnam, Malaya, phillipines, perhaps Burma and Korea. AND these were contributing to military alone. Lets not to talk about forced labor. Above are not assumptions, nor what if. Despite of those contributions, Japanese were defeated. As for china,..one question,.. how do you liberate a free country?, except by Mongolians and Manchus, China never been governed by foreign country. Killing civilians or unarmed and defenseless persons, either you did sign or not on whatever convention,.. is a crime, it's quite universal i suppose. regards Gumalangi
Ryuujin, If you read my last post you would see that I did answer your question. Regardless of the any 'imagined' motivation the Japanese had they were not invited and not wanted in any of the countries they invaded....by the vast majority of the populace. YES....the Japanese COULD have fought the war better....after all they did LOSE....being nicer would not have mattered a damn to the outcome of the war. They still occupied most of SE Asia uninvited!! I don't know which history books you have been reading or where you received your legal training but perhaps its time you went back to school!! I suggest you start with 'The Bridge at Parit Sulong' by Lynette Ramsay Silver. Did not sign the Geneva Convention??!! This is exactly what those murdering *&^%$#@ used to try to excuse genocide at the end of the war. This defence was dismissed at both Nuremburg and in Tokyo. The Japanese WERE in fact signatories to, but then chose not to ratify, the 1929 Convention. This excuses absolutely nothing. The Japanese still breached fundamental International Customary Law. The IJA Code of Military Conduct (Senjinkun) which legally bound all Japanese soldiers instructed soldiers they were not to fire on enemy who surrender, to treat them humanely and stipulated that international courtesy must not be neglected. They also had thier own Red Cross Convention (1864) which specifically outlined the humane treatment of sick and wounded POWs and civilians in wartime. Even Bushido promoted 'humanity' and Japanese military commanders and strategists (Yamaga, Ogyu and Sato) promoted this and the good treatment of POWs up until the 1900's. If these animals thought they were doing nothing wrong at the time why did they go to such great lengths to hide the evidence? Last time I looked murder was actually an offence, punishable by death, in most countries they invaded. In fact I know of nowhere where murdering unarmed Prisoners of War and innocent civilians in cold blood and lopping peoples heads off for personal satisfaction is authorised, justified or excused by law. You ignorance disgusts me and would disgust all veterans of the Pacific War. Rgds Tim
Originally posted by harribobs@Apr 28 2005, 09:36 AM [were very civilised in their treatment of the prisoners [ what is PETA?, kempei - they are civilian police, aren't they? and Kaigun is navy [post=33644]Quoted post[/post] i was querying your comment that the japanese military had been the same since the meiji period if you read my post, i refer to the great war, also known as the first world war (1914-18), NOT the actions of the japanese military in WW2 [post=33676]Quoted post[/post] In the First World War, Japan joined the Allied powers, but played only a minor role in fighting German colonial forces in East Asia. The Japanese forces succeeded in occupying almost the whole coast of China and committed severe war atrocities on the Chinese population, In 1933, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations since she was heavily criticized for her actions in China. Japanese during the GREAT war, except for the Russo-Japanese war was not engage on heavy battle or any battle at all. Since they were too busy expanding their territory at the Far East with uncivilized manner. regards Gumalangi
Originally posted by harribobs@Apr 28 2005, 09:36 AM if you read my post, i refer to the great war, also known as the first world war (1914-18), NOT the actions of the japanese military in WW2 [post=33676]Quoted post[/post] In the First World War, Japan joined the Allied powers, but played only a minor role in fighting German colonial forces in East Asia. The Japanese forces succeeded in occupying almost the whole coast of China and committed severe war atrocities on the Chinese population, In 1933, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations since she was heavily criticized for her actions in China. Japanese during the GREAT war, except for the Russo-Japanese war was not engage on heavy battle or any battle at all. Since they were too busy expanding their territory at the Far East with uncivilized manner. regards Gumalangi
Japanese during the GREAT war, except for the Russo-Japanese war was not engage on heavy battle or any battle at all. Since they were too busy expanding their territory at the Far East with uncivilized manner. really?? which territories did they expand into during 1914- 1918? also the japanese military did not mistreat their russian prisoners during the RJW
Ok I was somewhat ignorant of certain facts. But now its pissing me off. Who are you calling animals? The Japanese people or the leadership that either supported or ignored the atrocities? Never blame the soldiers for taking orders or for being taught to think a certain way or what their heritage tells them. But nevertheless, I was also thinking postwar of how the GEACPS could be kinda like the warsaw pact but hopefully freer and equal partners.
Sorry Ryuujin, No dice. The defence they '...we were merely following orders...'was tried by both the Germans and the Japanese and that one and didn't fly at Nuremburg or in Tokyo either! The traditional common law rule observed when such a defence is raised is that '...an action is justified if done in obedience to a superior order unless the order is necessarily or manifestly unlawful. I don't know where your from but instructing someone to murder someone else is held by most countries of the civilised world to be just that.....necessarily and manifestly unlawful. Who was I calling animals? The bastards who perpetrated these crimes of course....certainly not the Japanese people as a whole. The majority were honourable citizens and their soldiers generally chivalrous and brave. Above all Bushido promoted acting honourably. Certainly it also promoted obedience to orders...but never to the extent of what occurred prior to and during WW2. Bushido was never intended to justify genocide and is just another excuse the animals in the Japanese military used to try escape punishment. To suggest that these animals were not aware what they were doing was morally and legally wrong is ridiculous! The Warsaw Pact...that was a mighty successful concept!! Where is the Warsaw Pact now? Public opinion and the will of the people...bred by oppression...put paid to that one. Rgds Tim
In regards to the original "what if" questions of a successful Coprosperity Sphere, the scenario won't hold water no matter how many caveats you place on it. Mainly, IMHO, because the Japanese used the Coprosperity Sphere as propaganda to legitimize their imperialistic aims. Also, realistically the Japanese would have nothing to gain (at least where the war is concerned) from making equal partners of the conquered territories, even had the Japanese been so inclined. The Japanese already had what they wanted from the bargain, vital raw materials and strategic outposts. They stood to gain nothing more from their point of view by fostering free trade among these nations when the mercantilism they had established fit their plans much better.
