Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lorgath]

"The Pacific War" by John Costello was written in 1986, so new information will definitely have appeared by now. However, it's highly regarded as one of the seminal works on the period. It's an 800 page general overview of the whole theatre, so there's probably something of interest in there somewhere.

"The Pacific War: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima" is a more recent collection of essays put together by Osprey. I know the Osprey books tend to be good primers on specific points in history, so I thought this would be a good bet. Stuff that particularly interests me in this is a political overview of Japan's diplomatic moves & motives up to Pearl Harbour. As far as I know the attack was made in part due to years of extremely racist oil related policy from the Americans, where they had repeatedly managed to offend the Japanese whilst misunderstanding their mindset. Anyway, more information on this would be very interesting.

I did consider "Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45" by Max Hastings for a look at the last gasps of the war. Whilst I enjoyed Mr. Hastings' book about the Korean War, everything else has been a steaming pile of wank. He writes for the Daily Mail, and the majority of his work is more sensationalist opinion journalism than actual history.

[Erkki]

"The Pacific War" by John Costello was written in 1986, so new information will definitely have appeared by now. However, it's highly regarded as one of the seminal works on the period. It's an 800 page general overview of the whole theatre, so there's probably something of interest in there somewhere.

"The Pacific War: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima" is a more recent collection of essays put together by Osprey. I know the Osprey books tend to be good primers on specific points in history, so I thought this would be a good bet. Stuff that particularly interests me in this is a political overview of Japan's diplomatic moves & motives up to Pearl Harbour. As far as I know the attack was made in part due to years of extremely racist oil related policy from the Americans, where they had repeatedly managed to offend the Japanese whilst misunderstanding their mindset. Anyway, more information on this would be very interesting.

I did consider "Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45" by Max Hastings for a look at the last gasps of the war. Whilst I enjoyed Mr. Hastings' book about the Korean War, everything else has been a steaming pile of wank. He writes for the Daily Mail, and the majority of his work is more sensationalist opinion journalism than actual history.

Havent heard of or read any of those myself...

I've read some others and found them pretty one-sided, you know, the "Japs were evil yellow nip basterds and should die" mentality written from US/British POV only. OTOH LIFE Magazine's books(with the photographs by their own men on the field only) were excellent with both side's POVs covered in almost every battle and decision.

Myself I mostly see the War in the Pacific as a clash of 2 rising powers(where the other happened to of non-Western culture) than as a clash between "good and evil". Sure good part of Japan's leadership was corrupt, even downright evil, but it was no dictatorship nor did it treat its own people badly. And many US Politicians and military leaders were just as bad as the worst Japanese.

[Anvilfolk]

Haven't read a book on the subject, and I guess those that I read would be biased towards a Western view. Either way, Japan was trying to become a colonial power and gain access to more natural resources which happened to be located on Western colonies (USA, British, French and Dutch). Roosevelt started the embargoes to try to either bargain with them... I get the feeling that this actually edged them on. If some conspiracy theories are to be believed (and I'm not sure they are), this was exactly the objective of the Roosevelt administration. They knew some attack was coming, and some go as far as to say they knew about the Pearl Harbour attack and let it happen.

I tended to look at Japan as a "rising power", as you say, until I started getting some glimpses into what the japanese mindset (that the japanese were a divine race, and everyone else was inferior) turned them into during WWII. There are no words for what their military did in China, for instance - and their government has not issued any official apologies to this day, which is something I find hard to stomach. The japanese government was ruled by some new-fangled military leaders who believed that either japanese destiny or yamato damashii ("fighting spirit") was the main element in winning any battle almost independently of military assets... and they brainwashed the entire military and civilian population according to these principles. Kamikaze, the supposed civilian line of defense of the home islands, the civilian mass suicides in Saipan, the massacres and torture in China... After reading even a little about these things (much more is warranted, of course), I simply cannot claim that Japan was just a "rising power". I do feel Japan - or more accurately its governemnt -  needs to be labelled as "evil", almost on par with Hitler's.

And the sad thing is, because relations are still strained between Japan and China today, neither side is willing to acknowledge what happened. As a result, as the people involved in the "Chinese Incident" die off in the next half a dozen years, so will all the sources of information that would allow the truth to surface...

[Erkki]

Haven't read a book on the subject, and I guess those that I read would be biased towards a Western view. Either way, Japan was trying to become a colonial power and gain access to more natural resources which happened to be located on Western colonies (USA, British, French and Dutch). Roosevelt started the embargoes to try to either bargain with them... I get the feeling that this actually edged them on. If some conspiracy theories are to be believed (and I'm not sure they are), this was exactly the objective of the Roosevelt administration. They knew some attack was coming, and some go as far as to say they knew about the Pearl Harbour attack and let it happen.

Well as we now know, the US knew the attack was coming. But they didnt know the exact date, and then there was the PH intel fiasco series of accidents...

What we can be sure about is everyone knew what would happen with the current direction of politics, and I have no doubt some, if not many, politicians and military leaders wanted exactly what they were to get - war with Japan.

I tended to look at Japan as a "rising power", as you say, until I started getting some glimpses into what the japanese mindset (that the japanese were a divine race, and everyone else was inferior) turned them into during WWII. There are no words for what their military did in China, for instance - and their government has not issued any official apologies to this day, which is something I find hard to stomach. The japanese government was ruled by some new-fangled military leaders who believed that either japanese destiny or yamato damashii ("fighting spirit") was the main element in winning any battle almost independently of military assets... and they brainwashed the entire military and civilian population according to these principles. Kamikaze, the supposed civilian line of defense of the home islands, the civilian mass suicides in Saipan, the massacres and torture in China... After reading even a little about these things (much more is warranted, of course), I simply cannot claim that Japan was just a "rising power". I do feel Japan - or more accurately its governemnt -  needs to be labelled as "evil", almost on par with Hitler's.

Just like the West was US's backyard to say so, China and Manchuria were Japan's. Look at what the Europeans and later USA did to native Americans and compare that to Japan in China and later in the Philippines and East Indies. There isnt much difference. China in civil war was easy pickings, and the glory follows the sword of the victor, or so... Japan in China didnt behave any better than any of the European powers did in Africa, South America or in Asia. This is why I tend try to look beyond the massacres, slavery and the rest of the human rights violations - they really were no worse than the Empires they were trying to match!

Japanese did think they were the divine race, superior culture and what else. So did Sir Winston Churchill, who BTW is still celebrated by a national hero and an icon, when he said this, about Mesopotamian tribes(such as the Kurds...):

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.

There are no words for what their military did in China, for instance - and their government has not issued any official apologies to this day, which is something I find hard to stomach.

Forgot about this. Have the Europeans apologized anyone? AFAIK the only exceptions are Germany(for WW2 genocide attempt) and Belgium(Leopold II's Kongo). It could also be argued Japan's "government" of the time was in almost full control of the Army(and to lesser extent, the Navy) and the actual, voted or chosen political leaders such as the Emperor, had nothing to say about anything. Army's best was equal to Nation's best, so Japan was a sort of an military oligarchy...

[Anvilfolk]

Can you give me the sources for your first statement? I recently read the massive "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange and did not get that idea. They could've known for sure, if it wasn't for continuous problems with miscommunication. However, new information might've surfaced since that book came out. I'd be happy to get my hands on it!

I understand what you are saying, and agree in part. However, there are two differences I personally feel are crucial here. First, it is one thing to have an opinion (i.e. we are a superior people) and quite another actually putting in practise a doctrine of dehumanisation and massacre. I believe anti-semitism was prevalent in WWII in most nations - but only one nation went as far as "the final solution". The second point is that "evil" and "good" are given with respect to acceptable moral and human behaviour at a given time period. Something that was acceptable (i.e. "not evil") in the 17th century might no longer be acceptable in the 20th. It doesn't make colonial slavery any less wrong, but it makes it acceptable given the social norms of the time. I believe that the putting into practise of these doctrines of genocide is "evil" in the 20th century, by the moral standards prevalent at the time. If we allow backtracking to the morals of the past we're not making any progress as consciencious humans. We might as well have every able-bodied man (and boy) off to war, rape and cattle-raiding in the Spring and have'em back in time for Christmas...

The last bit was an exagerations, of course And I obviously do not think those opinions of Churchill, or what the Americans did to the natives is anything decent... but it is inherently different, I feel...

[Erkki]

Can you give me the sources for your first statement? I recently read the massive "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange and did not get that idea. They could've known for sure, if it wasn't for continuous problems with miscommunication. However, new information might've surfaced since that book came out. I'd be happy to get my hands on it!

Oops, I didnt mean attack on Pearl of course. But only a fool couldn't have thought the war between US and Japan wassnt very close after mid-November 1941 - out of the military and political leaders that.

I understand what you are saying, and agree in part. However, there are two differences I personally feel are crucial here. First, it is one thing to have an opinion (i.e. we are a superior people) and quite another actually putting in practise a doctrine of dehumanisation and massacre. I believe anti-semitism was prevalent in WWII in most nations - but only one nation went as far as "the final solution". The second point is that "evil" and "good" are given with respect to acceptable moral and human behaviour at a given time period. Something that was acceptable (i.e. "not evil") in the 17th century might no longer be acceptable in the 20th. It doesn't make colonial slavery any less wrong, but it makes it acceptable given the social norms of the time. I believe that the putting into practise of these doctrines of genocide is "evil" in the 20th century, by the moral standards prevalent at the time. If we allow backtracking to the morals of the past we're not making any progress as consciencious humans. We might as well have every able-bodied man (and boy) off to war, rape and cattle-raiding in the Spring and have'em back in time for Christmas...

I agree here, and if you've ever read The Three Musketeers, you know the reader very quickly finds out the moral standards were a tad bit different back in the 1600s. 

But, Japan was no more than decades behind certain European powers' adventures in India, Middle East and Africa. Some of of which were just as bloody as, say, Nanking. Except usually without the raping part...

The last bit was an exagerations, of course And I obviously do not think those opinions of Churchill, or what the Americans did to the natives is anything decent... but it is inherently different, I feel...

I hope you dont believe that I'm "defending" wartime Japan's actions, which I think are 100% undefendable,  but I believe we must always put things in context and take the highest possible POV. While much of the stuff Japanese did, even when similar to what Western powers did and while leaving just as many bodies, was more cruel, it is partly because we as westerners tend to think of those actions as more cruel largely due to our cultural background. To a Japanese it was no problem to shoot ones comrade who thought of surrender, and it was expected to submit oneself completely to the use of the society, nation, culture(all 3 the same thing there back then), and follow its rules literally. East Asian cultures are all very society-centric, compared to (modern) western individualism.

While Japan's military certainly did commit atrocities and even local genocides, it was usually to achieve the same goal the western powers had in their own colonies: make an example to make the people submit itself under new rule. In large scale, they didn't kill people just because they thought it was fun(although many individuals certainly did, committed and ordered such actions).

Japanese were also able of good. The Navy had no problem picking up survivors as POWs and treat them (usually) well, and it wasn't unheard of Army either to take POWs, or treat them. Considerably more rare, but no more rare than it was to Soviets or Germans in the Eastern Front(as the single greatest conflict in history between 2 nations it was also another barbaric, brutal war in too many ways...).

[Sheb]

And what about Unit 731? Nah, Japan was definitely more brutal and violent that the US for exemple. Not to say the West didn't act horribly (The Free state of Congo stopped existing a mere 30 years before WWII) but it wasn't moral to do so, even at the time. (The Free State of Congo attracted the first international human-right campaign)

[inteuniso]

USA: Advance through Germany(raping of german women), "Indian Wars" in North America, Saving Unit 731 for research on Biological Warfare
UK: Africa, India, Opium Wars (Fought with China in order to make sure that they could sell highly addictive opium to Chinese)
France: Africa
Germany: Europe, Africa
Italy: Africa
Japan: Asia
USSR: USSR

Pretty sure I named every belligerent in WWII, and the places where they did atrocious, unforgivable acts. Every single Great Power of the time did this. Racial superiority was(is) widely believed up until modern times, and many studies of science worked only to prove this.

I am not justifying these actions. Each of the countries I have listed (and others that I have not) committed acts of unspeakable cruelty and violence. They should be remembered that for every great moment, there are two dark ones.

[Sheb]

The rape of german women wasn't a state policy. The Indian wars were much earlier. As for what the UK did in Africa and India, it doesn't compare with the Japanese/Belgian (I'm Beglian BTW). Same for the French.

[mainiac]

The Congo might have been the worst but the rest of African colonialism was hardly a cakewalk.

Exactly how much rape of German women did the Americans do in WWII?  Especially when you compare then to the Soviets with the "let the boys have their revenge" policy.

It's also strange to me that people attribute Pearl Harbor to racism when there is a much simpler explanation to the american embargoes.  The american's didn't just embargo out of the blue or even all at once, the embargoes were directly related to Japanese invasions and the many different embargoes were always in response to the invasions.  Even the Japanese said so in their declaration of war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

The Americans meanwhile had a policy that they wouldn't lift the embargoes until the Japanese started peace talks with China.  Might racism have played a psychological role?  Well sure.  But the actual conflict was that the Americans refused to support a war in China and the Japanese considered that policy belligerent.  The embargo wasn't because Roosevelt was racist, it was because Roosevelt didn't like the Japanese invading China.  Whether or not Roosevelt was racist is immaterial.

And if Roosevelt hadn't pushed for the embargo, the same people who say Pearl Harbor was about racism would blame the Japanese invasion of China on Roosevelt's support for Japan, which was clearly because he was racist.  I mean, what else were the Americans supposed to do in this situation but embargo?

[Erkki]

And what about Unit 731? Nah, Japan was definitely more brutal and violent that the US for exemple. Not to say the West didn't act horribly (The Free state of Congo stopped existing a mere 30 years before WWII) but it wasn't moral to do so, even at the time. (The Free State of Congo attracted the first international human-right campaign)

USA: Advance through Germany(raping of german women), "Indian Wars" in North America, Saving Unit 731 for research on Biological Warfare
UK: Africa, India, Opium Wars (Fought with China in order to make sure that they could sell highly addictive opium to Chinese)
France: Africa
Germany: Europe, Africa
Italy: Africa
Japan: Asia
USSR: USSR

Pretty sure I named every belligerent in WWII, and the places where they did atrocious, unforgivable acts. Every single Great Power of the time did this. Racial superiority was(is) widely believed up until modern times, and many studies of science worked only to prove this.

I am not justifying these actions. Each of the countries I have listed (and others that I have not) committed acts of unspeakable cruelty and violence. They should be remembered that for every great moment, there are two dark ones.

I'm probably balancing on the edge here, but is there someone here who doesnt think the firebombings of Germany and Japan by the British and USA were not war crimes? In those, too, the target was not the enemy's military or industrial might but the "morale" of the enemy represented by the civilian population. Yet the attackers had previous experience in 1940 and previous wars and knew that the bombings do not effect "morale" negatively.

Is it a lesser crime to utterly destroy every city and town in an entire nation by aerial bombing than it is to shoot them or let them starve to death?

I do not believe in the "eye to eye, tooth for tooth" logics. "But they begun it" is never a reason.

The rape of german women wasn't a state policy. The Indian wars were much earlier. As for what the UK did in Africa and India, it doesn't compare with the Japanese/Belgian (I'm Beglian BTW). Same for the French.

The Congo might have been the worst but the rest of African colonialism was hardly a cakewalk.

Exactly how much rape of German women did the Americans do in WWII?  Especially when you compare then to the Soviets with the "let the boys have their revenge" policy.

It's also strange to me that people attribute Pearl Harbor to racism when there is a much simpler explanation to the american embargoes.  The american's didn't just embargo out of the blue or even all at once, the embargoes were directly related to Japanese invasions and the many different embargoes were always in response to the invasions.  Even the Japanese said so in their declaration of war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

The Americans meanwhile had a policy that they wouldn't lift the embargoes until the Japanese started peace talks with China.  Might racism have played a psychological role?  Well sure.  But the actual conflict was that the Americans refused to support a war in China and the Japanese considered that policy belligerent.  The embargo wasn't because Roosevelt was racist, it was because Roosevelt didn't like the Japanese invading China.  Whether or not Roosevelt was racist is immaterial.

And if Roosevelt hadn't pushed for the embargo, the same people who say Pearl Harbor was about racism would blame the Japanese invasion of China on Roosevelt's support for Japan, which was clearly because he was racist.  I mean, what else were the Americans supposed to do in this situation but embargo?

I do not think it was a racism war. Some reasons that led to it were due racism(from both sides) but main reasons were political, and would have led to a war regardless of cultures.

The Americans(and the British, French and the Dutch) all had good reasons to not like Japan in the backyards. Had it been the Chinese, Soviets, Thais or whoever the situation would have probably been the same.

The embargoes were not because of USA or European empires just not liking what Japan was doing(invasions of Manchuko and China for food, resources, such as bauxite for aluminum, and oil that Japan didnt have a drop of on Kyushu or Honshu), but because Japan was a direct threat to their holdings and interests in the area. None of the western powers wanted to share their toys with this new, local, power.

Could there have been a peaceful solution? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Both sides' ambitious leaders and racist thoughts and suspicions towards each other would have shot down every attempt. And they did.

[Sheb]

Right, I forgot about that Dresden bombing and the rest. You got a point.

[inteuniso]

The point of this all, of course, is

"History is written by the victors"

[Sheb]

Quite right. The Nuremberg trials themselves were a really good exemple of that, with War Crimes being defined as whatever wrong stuff the germans did but the allies didn't.

[Erkki]

May 1st


East Indies: Djokjarta on Java and Lautem on Timor fall! Darwin reconnoitered: a couple of thousand troops with only a few bigger guns and vehicles. Looks like it isnt reinforced.

Home Islands: The Allied submarines have finally arrived. A wolfpack of 3 American submarines attack a small convoy carrying resources from Mindanao, sinking one medium size Aden class xAK. Some convoys are re-routed with new waypoints, some ASW squadrons set sail from Nagasaki to sail among the "ASW tunnel" between Kyushu and Formosa, while the search arcs or aerial search and AASW units are double checked and readjusted.