Was there a point to the IJA's atrocities/brutality in WW2?

I'm not saying the Japanese didn't see the Chinese as inferior people, but does that meet the term of racism? We'd need to decide the answerless question of what is race. When the British were fighting the Germans, were they being racist when they called them Krauts? Were the Russians racist when they invaded into Germany and brutalised civilians?

Well race is a purely social construct anyway so I'm not sure what the point of splitting hairs is.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Racism? Isn't this akin to a war between say, Finland and Sweden? There is no differentiation in race I can see in this fight. I'd say the Japanese were fanatically nationalists.
To your eyes there may be no difference.

To Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Burmese, etc. eyes there are noteworthy difference.

Having grown up and worked with individuals from a number of different nationalities, even I can figure out the differences much of the time. They are difficult to describe, but they are very real.
 
Thanks for explaining. Imperial Japan's motives during the World War always confused me.

Also, it should be noted that Japan wasn't always as vicious in its treatment of occupied populations and prisoners of war. Japan was actually internationally reputed for its humane and conscientious treatment of Russian prisoners-of-war during the Russo-Japanese War.

What changed between the Russo-Japanese War and WWII was that there was, much like in other parts of the world, a turn to extremely militant and aggressive nationalism within Japanese society along with a collapse of the tenuous interwar democracy that had existed during the reign of Emperor Taisho. So the Imperial Japanese military of WWII had evolved into a very different (and far more monstrous) group than the Japanese military of the early 20th-century.
 
The IJN could be a mix at times: At Midway, three USN aircrew who were picked up by Kido Butai and interrogated were later executed, and yet, three downed aircrew in the Aleutians were picked up by the cruiser Takao, and nothing was done to them despite their refusal to talk under interrogation. CDR Tamechi Hara in his memoir Japanese Destroyer Captain says that IJN ships picked up over a thousand Allied survivors from ships sunk at Java Sea, and put them aboard a Dutch Hospital ship. Though the survivors were later landed in Java and turned over to the Army, which had responsibility for POWs......and yet, in Feb '44, the cruiser Tone sank the British passenger-cargo ship SS Behar, on the IJN's last commerce raid, and of 104 POWs, 32, including all officers (merchant and several RN or RAF aboard as passengers), and four civilian women passengers, were sent ashore at Batavia, Java, and turned over to the IJA. The other 72 were beheaded en route to Singapore by order of Commander, Cruiser Division 16. (who was executed by the British as a war criminal in 1946).

There were IJN officers who were friendly to shipwrecked Allied survivors (most in the early days of the war), or downed pilots and aircrew, and yet others were savage. No real pattern, and it often depended on the whim of the individual commander.

.
 
To your eyes there may be no difference.

To Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Burmese, etc. eyes there are noteworthy difference.
Well sure, and in the eyes of the Swede and Finn or more traditionally the English and the French there are massive differences, worth fighting and killing over. But are the English and French really a difference race? If yes, then same goes for Chinese and Japanese.
 
Last edited:
Well race is a purely social construct anyway so I'm not sure what the point of splitting hairs is.
That's the point. Calling the Japanese racist for their treatment of the Chinese should be admitted as at minimum inconsistent with how we refer to other neighbouring nations that fight each other. Napoleonic France brutalized the Spanish during the Peninsular War, but no one calls the French racist, in this example anyway. My suggestion is we drop the racist moniker entirely, and for accuracy's sake instead go for ultra nationalism.
 
Racism? Isn't this akin to a war between say, Finland and Sweden? There is no differentiation in race I can see in this fight. I'd say the Japanese were fanatically nationalists.

Asian people are just as capable of ethnic hatred as caucasions. A lot of Koreans still hate the Japanese. Instead of Finland and Sweden for your anaology, think Germans vs. Slavs. The Japanese definitely thought themselves superior to the Chinese as they had built a modern, militarily independent state.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well sure, and the the Swede and Finn or more traditionally the English and the French there are massive differences, worth fighting and killing over. But are the English and French really a difference race? If yes, then same goes for Chinese and Japanese.
Not what I meant. Not even close.

There are physical differences between the groups, just as there are noticeable differences between West Africans and East Africans or Spaniards and Finns. You may not see them, but Asians do, in fact they are as noticeable, in many cases, as the difference between Latins and Nordics.
 
That's the point. Calling the Japanese racist for their treatment of the Chinese should be admitted as at minimum inconsistent with how we refer to other neighbouring nations that fight each other. Napoleonic France brutalized the Spanish during the Peninsular War, but no one calls the French racist, in this example anyway. My suggestion is we drop the racist moniker entirely, and for accuracy's sake instead go for ultra nationalism.

The difference was that the French really weren't adopting an ethnic based rhetoric on their own part. The Japanese specifically were, and in their treatment of occupied populations did vary their treatment based on ethnicity with the Chinese consistently getting the short(est) end of the stick.
 
Not what I meant. Not even close.

There are physical differences between the groups, just as there are noticeable differences between West Africans and East Africans or Spaniards and Finns. You may not see them, but Asians do, in fact they are as noticeable, in many cases, as the difference between Latins and Nordics.

Precisely and as I said earlier it's not about our perceptions but what motivates the people on the ground.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
This is the kind of thing that is less explained by the obectives of the horrifying treatment and more by internal Japanese military mores. Officers brutally treat enlisted men, who in turn brutally treat everyone else.

As for China specifically, racism was definitely a factor, with longstanding propaganda depicting the Chinese agrarian peasant as stupid and subhuman. The Phillipines and the massacres that went on there was because resistance efforts and American/Filipino partisan groups were actually substantial enough in rural areas of Luzon that the Japanese regarded the area as a warzone and treated civilians accordingly with reprisals. There wasn't as much open racism in the Japanese treatment of the Phillipines as political repression with some local puppets who somehow for the most part eluded justice after the war.
 
Even before the Sino-Japanese War and the Japanese brutality in China from 1937, the Japanese had a superior view over the Chinese during their occupation of Manchuria.

War criminal, future Japanese Prime Minister and grandfather of current PM Shino Abe, Nobusuke Kishi during the occupation of Manchuria, reflected typical Japanese views of the time:

A believer in the Yamato race theory, Kishi had nothing but contempt for the Chinese as a people, whom he disparaging referred to as "lawless bandits" who were "incapable of governing themselves".[34] Precisely for these racist reasons, Kishi believed there was no point to establishing the rule of law in Manchukuo as the Chinese were not capable of following laws, and instead brute force was what was needed to maintain social stability.[35] In Kishi's analogy, just as dogs were not capable of understanding such abstract concepts such as the law, but could be trained to be utterly obedient to their masters, the same went with the Chinese, whom Kishi claimed were more mentally closer to dogs than humans.[36] In this way, Kishi maintained that once the Japanese proved that they were the ones with the power, the dog-like Chinese would come to be naturally obedient to their Japanese masters, and as such the Japanese had to behave with a great deal of sternness to prove that they were the masters.[37] Kishi when speaking in private always used the term "Manchū" to refer to Manchukuo, instead of "Manchūkoku", which reflected his viewpoint that Manchukuo was not a state, but rather just a region rich in resources and 34 million people to be used for Japan's benefit.[38] In Kishi's eyes, Manchukuo and its people were literally just resources to be exploited by Japan, and he never made the pretense in private of maintaining Japanese rule was good for the people of Manchukuo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi#The_Economic_Manager_of_Manchukuo
 
Not what I meant. Not even close.

There are physical differences between the groups, just as there are noticeable differences between West Africans and East Africans or Spaniards and Finns. You may not see them, but Asians do, in fact they are as noticeable, in many cases, as the difference between Latins and Nordics.
The important distinction to make is that racism holds these superficial phenotypical differences as indicators of an essential difference.

Racism is a vulgar form of biological reductionist ideology. In the case of Imperial Japan, it meant that the people's under their dominion were subhuman and could be abused and exploited akin to animals, because as their racial inferiors they did not deserve better treatment.
 
Good God! I did not want to read some of that. What a fucked up system it was that gave birth to the monstrosity that was the IJA. While I can intellectually recognize that these soldiers were as much victims as those they whom they'd brutalized so, I still cannot see it as such emotionally.
 
Japanese Soldiers were also subjected to brutal discipline by their officers and NCOs (relative to a 'Western' army) - often beaten to a pulp for minor infractions.

This brutal culture coupled with the afore mentioned racist mind set along with a warped code of Bushido means that the way in which they treated POWs and civilians was not such a surprise really - as it was little different to the way in which they were treated.

And when you consider that many of the POW guards were Koreans (who were treated like dogs by the Japanese) the same mind-set applies without the oversight of a 'more disciplined' IJA leadership structure resulted in even worse treatment in many cases.

Two data points (well, anecdotes).

John Derbyshire, conservative pundit and author of a book of popular mathematics history, lived for several years in Hong Kong and China (he had a bit part in a Bruce Lee movie), and is married to a Chinese woman. IIRC he speaks Chinese. About 10-15 years ago, the family went on an extended visit to China - to hang with Mrs. Derbyshire's family and see the country. During this tour, Derbyshire met a survivor of the Nanking Massacre, who told him that the Manchurian and other auxiliary troops of the Japanese were even worse than the Japanese themselves. (This was mentioned in an e-mail he sent me.)

About 20 years ago, I had a consulting job at a Big Company. I became acquainted with the fellow in the cube across the aisle, though our work had no connection. He was married to a woman from Taiwan - who was ethnic mainlander. not Taiwanese (that's important). Accoring to his wife's family, the "Japanese" guards who abused and murdered prisoners in the Bataan Death March were actually Taiwanese auxiliaries. (Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire from 1895-1945; the Taiwanese "elite" adhered to Japan, served in its armed forces, and were regarded as traitors to China by the mainlanders who ruled Taiwan after 1949.)
 
Not what I meant. Not even close.

There are physical differences between the groups, just as there are noticeable differences between West Africans and East Africans or Spaniards and Finns. You may not see them, but Asians do, in fact they are as noticeable, in many cases, as the difference between Latins and Nordics.

One should also realize that "race" thinking was far more prevalent when people considered other nationalities or ethnicities or regions.

Kipling's story "Pig" deals with a vendetta between two Anglo-Indian bureaucrats.

Now, a Dalesman from beyond Skipton will forgive an injury when the Strid lets a man live; but a South Devon man is as soft as a Dartmoor bog. You can see from their names that Nafferton had the race-advantage of Pinecoffin.

South African Alan Paton (author of Cry, the Beloved Country) once wrote of South Africa's "great racial divide" - by which he meant the division of the whites into Afrikaners and Anglos
 
My question is was there an actual point to the IJA's various atrocities and horrors they inflicted on civilian populations with particular focus on their behavior in China?

Was it to cow the locals into subservience, sheer sadism, to combat partisans and guerillas, or simply because they believed the people they were harming were subhuman?
Others have already covered this well--it was a combination of looking down on others as less than fully human, the brutality inflicted on Militarist Japanese servicemen by their superiors, an out-of-control military, and more. But since you specifically asked about combating partisans, I will answer that yes, that was a part of it.

The "Three Alls" Policy has already been mentioned. As a minor note, this was actually the Chinese name for the policy. Contemporary Japanese documents called it the "Burn to Ash Strategy" (燼滅作戦) or the "Clean Fields Strategy" (静野作戦). Anyway, the policy was first thought up by Major General Tanaka in 1940. It involved dividing up his area of northern China into pacified, semi-pacified, and unpacified areas. In the areas not deemed pacified, villages were destroyed, and crops and livestock were either taken or destroyed. This was aimed at preventing the local population from providing supplies to guerrilla fighters. Vast amounts of people were gathered for forced labor, in order to construct collective, controlled villages, in which the Chinese population was forced to live. In addition, forced labor was also used to build a system of fortifications, trenches, and fences, in order to control the movement of local people. According to wikipedia, historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta cites a figure of more than 2.7 million civilian deaths as a result of this policy.

Again, the policy was aimed at suppressing partisan activity, so that was part of the reason behind some of the brutality inflicted on civilians in China, yes.
 
Top