Thursday, December 20, 2007
"In the Second World War, the position of Japan was very similar to that of Germany: both were militaristic regimes whose ambition was to conquer and colonize their continents. They both took the offensive, attacked countries which had not attacked them, and asserted their superiority and fitness to rule others, as well as their right to provide their own people with more land and resources. Both were initially very successful in their military campaigns. And both were unusually brutal in their treatment of both prisoners of war and civilians. "
http://www.asia-wwii.org/Grade10_LessonTwo.html
----------------------------------
No, the Asia Pacific War could not have been avoided. Japan was too ambitious and hungry for power, that they want to conquer the world. They attacked countries to conquer them, and not out of self-defense. Even so, the unjustified killings could have been avoided. If Japan only attacked military targets, innocent people would not have been killed. The brutality of the Japanese caused innocent civilians to be killed, regardless of men, women, or children. What Japan wanted was only land and resources, so why did they even inflict suffering upon the innocent people who had nothing to do with them? The only people who resisted were probably the soldiers, so why did they kill innocent civilians who did nothing? Therefore, I feel that even though the Asia Pacific war could not have been avoided due to Japan's aggression, the killing of civilians could have been avoided, if the Japanese were not so inhumane.
http://www.asia-wwii.org/Grade10_LessonTwo.html
----------------------------------
No, the Asia Pacific War could not have been avoided. Japan was too ambitious and hungry for power, that they want to conquer the world. They attacked countries to conquer them, and not out of self-defense. Even so, the unjustified killings could have been avoided. If Japan only attacked military targets, innocent people would not have been killed. The brutality of the Japanese caused innocent civilians to be killed, regardless of men, women, or children. What Japan wanted was only land and resources, so why did they even inflict suffering upon the innocent people who had nothing to do with them? The only people who resisted were probably the soldiers, so why did they kill innocent civilians who did nothing? Therefore, I feel that even though the Asia Pacific war could not have been avoided due to Japan's aggression, the killing of civilians could have been avoided, if the Japanese were not so inhumane.
what we could have been, 8:49 AM.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Yes, Japan was doomed to fail. This can be concluded from the following reasons:
1) Japan did not have sufficient resources to last.
Japan was fighting against the USA, which was a large country with many resources. This was already a disadvantage to the Japan. The human resources of USA was so much more than those in Japan, and because of that, the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was not a very big impact. Why so? Because the USA had adequate human resources to repair the damaged ships and vessels to recover quickly. The Japanese didn't bomb the oil tank and battle ships because they thought that it would be useful to them, but things did not really turn out the way they expected.
Also, the human resources to be used as troops the USA had outnumbered the troops Japan had. When the Europe war ended, other Allies could come and help USA to fight Japan, and due to this, the human resources that Japan used to defend would be more than those used to attack. This would cause a great loss in human resources. Therefore, it was more difficult to fight on when you are outnumbered. The USA also had more raw materials, fuel and industrial output than the Japanese, which were important resources for them in war. Since Japan already had a shortage of resources as compared to the USA, she was doomed to fail.
2) The impact of the atomic bombs.
The impact of the two atomic bombs which were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan, was so great that 120,000 people were killed on the spot. Buildings were destroyed and food chain was also affected. Before these two bombs were dropped, there were two battles which caused many people to die. During the battle of Iwo-Jima, about 22,000 people died, and during the battle of Okinawa, 150,000 civilians died and 100,000 soldiers died.
Indeed these two atomic bombs made Japan surrender, but why didn't they do so earlier when they already had so many casualties during the battle of Okinawa and Iwo-Jima? The Japanese had the cult of emperor, therefore they would not give up or surrender easily. They insisted on fighting on even after so many people had died, therefore the dropping of the atomic bombs was the deciding factor of their surrender.
----------------------------------
All in all, I feel that Japan should not have fought a war that could not be won. They knew that they were doomed to fail because their resources were so much lesser than the USA, but they still fought on. Even though the spirit of never giving up is good, but this time, Japan brought suffering upon herself.
1) Japan did not have sufficient resources to last.
Japan was fighting against the USA, which was a large country with many resources. This was already a disadvantage to the Japan. The human resources of USA was so much more than those in Japan, and because of that, the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese was not a very big impact. Why so? Because the USA had adequate human resources to repair the damaged ships and vessels to recover quickly. The Japanese didn't bomb the oil tank and battle ships because they thought that it would be useful to them, but things did not really turn out the way they expected.
Also, the human resources to be used as troops the USA had outnumbered the troops Japan had. When the Europe war ended, other Allies could come and help USA to fight Japan, and due to this, the human resources that Japan used to defend would be more than those used to attack. This would cause a great loss in human resources. Therefore, it was more difficult to fight on when you are outnumbered. The USA also had more raw materials, fuel and industrial output than the Japanese, which were important resources for them in war. Since Japan already had a shortage of resources as compared to the USA, she was doomed to fail.
2) The impact of the atomic bombs.
The impact of the two atomic bombs which were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan, was so great that 120,000 people were killed on the spot. Buildings were destroyed and food chain was also affected. Before these two bombs were dropped, there were two battles which caused many people to die. During the battle of Iwo-Jima, about 22,000 people died, and during the battle of Okinawa, 150,000 civilians died and 100,000 soldiers died.
Indeed these two atomic bombs made Japan surrender, but why didn't they do so earlier when they already had so many casualties during the battle of Okinawa and Iwo-Jima? The Japanese had the cult of emperor, therefore they would not give up or surrender easily. They insisted on fighting on even after so many people had died, therefore the dropping of the atomic bombs was the deciding factor of their surrender.
----------------------------------
All in all, I feel that Japan should not have fought a war that could not be won. They knew that they were doomed to fail because their resources were so much lesser than the USA, but they still fought on. Even though the spirit of never giving up is good, but this time, Japan brought suffering upon herself.
what we could have been, 10:19 AM.
Friday, December 14, 2007
"To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have."
In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.
Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.
When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."
Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior."
http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm
----------------------------------
In my opinion, the reason why Japan started a war of aggression was because of the League of Nations. It is mentioned that when Japan wanted to get her share of the terms promised in the Treaty Of Versailles, the other countries in the League of Nations refused to give it to her. Japan then threatened to withdraw from the League of Nations if they did not give her what was promised by the British to her. However, they still did not give her what she should have.
At this time, Japan was alone, with all the Western powers detesting and distrusting her. She probably wanted to get a revenge. Furthermore, When Japan attacked Nanking, the League of Nations did nothing to stop her, which therefore made her feel that the League of Nations could not stop her and she could do what she wanted. Therefore, Japan went on to attack the Pearl Harbor, which started off the war of aggression.
Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have."
In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.
Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.
When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."
Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior."
http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm
----------------------------------
In my opinion, the reason why Japan started a war of aggression was because of the League of Nations. It is mentioned that when Japan wanted to get her share of the terms promised in the Treaty Of Versailles, the other countries in the League of Nations refused to give it to her. Japan then threatened to withdraw from the League of Nations if they did not give her what was promised by the British to her. However, they still did not give her what she should have.
At this time, Japan was alone, with all the Western powers detesting and distrusting her. She probably wanted to get a revenge. Furthermore, When Japan attacked Nanking, the League of Nations did nothing to stop her, which therefore made her feel that the League of Nations could not stop her and she could do what she wanted. Therefore, Japan went on to attack the Pearl Harbor, which started off the war of aggression.
what we could have been, 11:49 PM.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
"On December 7, the Japanese army issued a command to all troops, advising that because occupying a foreign capital was an unprecedented event for the Japanese military, those soldiers who "commit any illegal acts", "dishonor the Japanese Army", "loot", or "cause a fire to break out, even because of their carelessness" would be severely punished. The Japanese military continued to march forward, breaching the last lines of Chinese resistance, and arriving outside the walled city of Nanjing on December 9. At noon, the military dropped leaflets into the city, urging the surrender of Nanjing within 24 hours:
The Japanese Army, one million strong, has already conquered Changshu. We have surrounded the city of Nanking... The Japanese Army shall show no mercy toward those who offer resistance, treating them with extreme severity, but shall harm neither innocent civilians nor Chinese military personnel who manifest no hostility. It is our earnest desire to preserve the East Asian culture. If your troops continue to fight, war in Nanking is inevitable. The culture that has endured for a millennium will be reduced to ashes, and the government that has lasted for a decade will vanish into thin air. This commander-in-chief issue bills to your troops on behalf of the Japanese Army. Open the gates to Nanking in a peaceful manner, and obey the following instructions.
The Japanese awaited an answer. When no Chinese envoy had arrived by 1:00 p.m. the following day, General Matsui Iwane issued the command to take Nanjing by force. On December 12, after two days of Japanese attack, under heavy artillery fire and aerial bombardment, General Tang Sheng-chi ordered his men to retreat. What followed was nothing short of chaos. Some Chinese soldiers stripped civilians of their clothing in a desperate attempt to blend in, and many others were shot in the back by their own comrades as they tried to flee. Those who actually made it outside the city walls fled north to the Yangtze, only to find that there were no vessels remaining to take them. Some then jumped into the wintry waters and drowned. On December 13, the Japanese entered the walled city of Nanjing, facing hardly any military resistance."
http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Nanking-Massacre/index2.html
----------------------------------
In my opinion, I feel that the Japanese committed those atrocities against the Chinese because the Chinese refused to surrender. From the source, the Japanese gave the Chinese an option to open the gates of Nanking to them in a peaceful manner, so that war would be prevented. However, when the Chinese failed to do so, the Japanese troops decided to take Nanking by force. This seemed to be reasonable, but then again, who would agree to open the gates of their own country to await invasion of another?
So, when the Chinese refused to obey their instructions, they launched a massive attack in Nanking, which caused chaos. The Chinese army then decided to retreat because they knew that there was nothing they could do, since the Japanese had besieged the city from various directions. On the 13th December 1937, Nanking fell into the hands of the Japanese.
But why did the Japanese commit such atrocities? I feel that it was because the Japanese were too angry with the Chinese, that they refused to listen to them. Out of rage and anger, they decided to take revenge on the innocent people in Nanking, to release their uncontrollable aggression.
The Japanese Army, one million strong, has already conquered Changshu. We have surrounded the city of Nanking... The Japanese Army shall show no mercy toward those who offer resistance, treating them with extreme severity, but shall harm neither innocent civilians nor Chinese military personnel who manifest no hostility. It is our earnest desire to preserve the East Asian culture. If your troops continue to fight, war in Nanking is inevitable. The culture that has endured for a millennium will be reduced to ashes, and the government that has lasted for a decade will vanish into thin air. This commander-in-chief issue bills to your troops on behalf of the Japanese Army. Open the gates to Nanking in a peaceful manner, and obey the following instructions.
The Japanese awaited an answer. When no Chinese envoy had arrived by 1:00 p.m. the following day, General Matsui Iwane issued the command to take Nanjing by force. On December 12, after two days of Japanese attack, under heavy artillery fire and aerial bombardment, General Tang Sheng-chi ordered his men to retreat. What followed was nothing short of chaos. Some Chinese soldiers stripped civilians of their clothing in a desperate attempt to blend in, and many others were shot in the back by their own comrades as they tried to flee. Those who actually made it outside the city walls fled north to the Yangtze, only to find that there were no vessels remaining to take them. Some then jumped into the wintry waters and drowned. On December 13, the Japanese entered the walled city of Nanjing, facing hardly any military resistance."
http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Nanking-Massacre/index2.html
----------------------------------
In my opinion, I feel that the Japanese committed those atrocities against the Chinese because the Chinese refused to surrender. From the source, the Japanese gave the Chinese an option to open the gates of Nanking to them in a peaceful manner, so that war would be prevented. However, when the Chinese failed to do so, the Japanese troops decided to take Nanking by force. This seemed to be reasonable, but then again, who would agree to open the gates of their own country to await invasion of another?
So, when the Chinese refused to obey their instructions, they launched a massive attack in Nanking, which caused chaos. The Chinese army then decided to retreat because they knew that there was nothing they could do, since the Japanese had besieged the city from various directions. On the 13th December 1937, Nanking fell into the hands of the Japanese.
But why did the Japanese commit such atrocities? I feel that it was because the Japanese were too angry with the Chinese, that they refused to listen to them. Out of rage and anger, they decided to take revenge on the innocent people in Nanking, to release their uncontrollable aggression.
what we could have been, 10:59 PM.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
"Using the outpouring of evidence in recent decades, Professor Yang has developed a far more nuanced and textured explanation for Nanjing than those early efforts. And for the most part, they focus on the dysfunctional operation of institutions either in the short term or long term. Among the factors he cites:
Yang concludes that all of these institutional factors, which reflect an accumulation of poor decisions, contributed to the scale of the Nanjing atrocities. He also finds that battlefield psychology played an exacerbating role. Japanese soldiers had become terrified during the heavier-than-expected losses in the battle for Shanghai. Revenging the death of fallen comrades was one response. Even according to the Imperial Army’s own rules of engagement, there were violations of discipline."
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/12_nanjing_bush.aspx
----------------------------------
Looking at the source cited above, I conclude that the causes of the tragedy would be:
1) Aggression.
The Japanese troops were demanded absolute obedience by their officers through inhumane means, and that was why their desire for aggression became so strong that there was a need for then to take it out on someone. The Chinese suffered as a result of the release of aggression by the Japanese troops, where they committed numerous atrocities against the Chinese.
2) Disrespect towards civilians.
The Japanese officers were in contact with military institutions and ultra-nationalists at an early age. They were probably affected by the ultra-nationalists that their country was the most important and they must bring glory to her. And thus, they tend to disrespect civilians probably because they think that civilians do not have the same thinking as they do. They must have felt that they were more superior.
3) Contempt for Chinese.
The Japanese army seemed to see the Chinese as a lower standard than themselves, and probably feel that the Chinese are inferior as compared to them. Therefore, the treatment of Chinese POWs are considered low off as compared to the Western POWs, since Westerners were often seen as more superior than Asians. Even though Japanese were Asians as well, the Chinese seemed to be a more inferior figure as compare to them, the Japanese.
4) Overlooked the need of clear instructions.
The field commanders of the Japanese failed to see the importance of giving the troops clear instructions on how to behave themselves and how to treat the POWs and civilians. That was probably how it led to the atrociousness that the Japanese had during the invasion of Nanjing.
----------------------------------
Even though some of these reasons were valid, but they are not accepted and not an excuse for them to kill so many innocent Chinese during their invasion, because it is fact that they caused it to happen. They were too cruel and inhumane.
- The Japanese Imperial Army had suffered a long-term decline of discipline. In the climate of more liberal trends in the 1920s Taisho period, officers responded by demanding absolute obedience of recruits through inhumane means. That in turn, it is argued, led to the need for those recruits to transfer aggression elsewhere. The poor Chinese were a convenient outlet once aggression in China began.
- The officer corps was changing in a radical direction. Younger officers tended to have lived in military institutions from an early age. They often had links with ultra-nationalist groups. And they tended to disrespect civilian institutions.
- The Japanese Army had a general contempt for the Chinese and had a lower standard for treatment of Chinese POWs as opposed to Western ones.
- In their drive to carry out their orders to seize Nanjing, field commanders overlooked the need to ensure adequate logistical preparation (particularly food), enough rest for troops, sufficient military policeman to maintain order, and to issue clear orders for the treatment of POWs and civilians.
Yang concludes that all of these institutional factors, which reflect an accumulation of poor decisions, contributed to the scale of the Nanjing atrocities. He also finds that battlefield psychology played an exacerbating role. Japanese soldiers had become terrified during the heavier-than-expected losses in the battle for Shanghai. Revenging the death of fallen comrades was one response. Even according to the Imperial Army’s own rules of engagement, there were violations of discipline."
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/12_nanjing_bush.aspx
----------------------------------
Looking at the source cited above, I conclude that the causes of the tragedy would be:
1) Aggression.
The Japanese troops were demanded absolute obedience by their officers through inhumane means, and that was why their desire for aggression became so strong that there was a need for then to take it out on someone. The Chinese suffered as a result of the release of aggression by the Japanese troops, where they committed numerous atrocities against the Chinese.
2) Disrespect towards civilians.
The Japanese officers were in contact with military institutions and ultra-nationalists at an early age. They were probably affected by the ultra-nationalists that their country was the most important and they must bring glory to her. And thus, they tend to disrespect civilians probably because they think that civilians do not have the same thinking as they do. They must have felt that they were more superior.
3) Contempt for Chinese.
The Japanese army seemed to see the Chinese as a lower standard than themselves, and probably feel that the Chinese are inferior as compared to them. Therefore, the treatment of Chinese POWs are considered low off as compared to the Western POWs, since Westerners were often seen as more superior than Asians. Even though Japanese were Asians as well, the Chinese seemed to be a more inferior figure as compare to them, the Japanese.
4) Overlooked the need of clear instructions.
The field commanders of the Japanese failed to see the importance of giving the troops clear instructions on how to behave themselves and how to treat the POWs and civilians. That was probably how it led to the atrociousness that the Japanese had during the invasion of Nanjing.
----------------------------------
Even though some of these reasons were valid, but they are not accepted and not an excuse for them to kill so many innocent Chinese during their invasion, because it is fact that they caused it to happen. They were too cruel and inhumane.
what we could have been, 8:56 PM.
