German versus Japanese atrocities - and a comparison to Rome

[Timotheus]

It might amuse you to know (Assuming you dont already) that David Irving spent a year in prison in Austria for his holocaust denying.

[M. Demetrius]

Man was both good and evil long before "God" came along. Calvin was merely trying to reinforce his stance that Christianity made you a better person because only a man who knows God can be moral.

Might as well hit every sore/provocative subject, eh? Let's include all the cruelty we can find, and make sure we don't miss any nation's darker pages of history? I've read all the above, and none of it seems to be particularly relevant to our forum. No doubt there are many where discussions like this occur regularly, and are more welcomed than here, even in "Off Topic". Keep a close eye, gents, this is right on several edges, and teetering over the brink.

The Romans, Japanese, Germans, Parthians, Persians, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Egyptians, AmerIndians, and many others practiced various forms of horrible tortures, and in their particular situations, world views and intrinsic value of the lives of the tortured, were able to justify their actions to their own satisfaction. For us to look backwards and make judgments about the propriety of ancient/historical peoples compared to our modern sensibilities and personal opinions isn't very valuable. It will only continue in this direction a little further before people become publicly angry. Some have already expressed serious concerns in private messages to various people, including some of the moderators.

I can't think of a way to redeem this conversation and place it back into the normal dialog of RAT's higher standards. Of course, there are other options available.

[Jona Lendering]

I can't think of a way to redeem this conversation and place it back into the normal dialog of RAT's higher standards.

I am a bit more optimistic; as always, I believe a good definition may be useful. I propose to define atrocity as "extreme violence at close range, creating intentionally prolonged suffering".

I think this is more or less what Timothy has in mind when he tries to compare Japanese, German, and Roman atrocities; it excludes Magnus' broadening of the subject with strategic bombing et cetera; and it also excludes my own moralizing turn - I should not have started to philosophize about human nature.

An additional benefit seems to be that it does not use expressions like "lust" and "sadism", leaving open the possibility that people may abhor from the atrocities tradition forces them to commit. I think this point is important. The ancient Persians leaders and, following them, Alexander the Great, have been accused of sadism; in my view, their atrocities towards traitors -cutting ears, nose, tongues, eyes before impaling- had more to do with Iranian custom than with personal intentions. And reading Roman and Greek sources about crucifixion, I always get the impression that nobody liked to see justice administered in this way.

[hoplite14gr]

R.A.T.ers generally are a well behaved lot and have discussed "hot potato" issues before so I do not worry-although mods are well justified for being vigiland.

I watched the issue from the start.

My observations are:

All of are doing our post from our computers with reaching distance from our beverage. We cannot therefore understand the feeling of people who saw their loved ones or friends being torn to pieces and them being unable to help. Or those who went "nuts" through the war ordeal.

Early 90s in Europe proved that we are capable for equally bad as ancients or moderns (choose who you like)
We abhore cruelty which makes us culturally advanced but what is really our limit?

Passing judgement is easy and people never really learn.

Kind regards

[Timotheus]

The Government of Japan has issued apologies and made some payments ($27 Billion) but your question concerns the people themselves and their attitudes towards their recent history -- it would seem that attitude is very complicated.


Narukami

I was under the impression that this was a general "sorry we started the war" type payment in a way similar to the payments forced upon Germany at the end of World War 1.

Am I wrong is this?

[Timotheus]

I can't think of a way to redeem this conversation and place it back into the normal dialog of RAT's higher standards.

I am a bit more optimistic; as always, I believe a good definition may be useful. I propose to define atrocity as "extreme violence at close range, creating intentionally prolonged suffering".

I think this is more or less what Timothy has in mind when he tries to compare Japanese, German, and Roman atrocities; it excludes Magnus' broadening of the subject with strategic bombing et cetera; and it also excludes my own moralizing turn - I should not have started to philosophize about human nature.

An additional benefit seems to be that it does not use expressions like "lust" and "sadism", leaving open the possibility that people may abhor from the atrocities tradition forces them to commit. I think this point is important. The ancient Persians leaders and, following them, Alexander the Great, have been accused of sadism; in my view, their atrocities towards traitors -cutting ears, nose, tongues, eyes before impaling- had more to do with Iranian custom than with personal intentions. And reading Roman and Greek sources about crucifixion, I always get the impression that nobody liked to see justice administered in this way.

I was never trying to judge or determine what an atrocity is. I never made any statement that only the Japanese and Germans commited atrocities in World War 2. Those were statements made by other people in this thread that atempted to derail or change the direction of this thread.

My point in this thread was simple. The militaries of Germany and Japan commited large scale State sanctioned atrocities which had no military value what so ever.

Germany has come to accept her actions, she makes no attempt to hide them and makes it known to her children and her childrens what happened to ensure it will never happen there again.

Japan has not done so. She refuses to accept officially everything she did. She hides and or protects those involved. Japan has on several ocassions attempted to publish textbooks that would hide her actions from future generations.

Why the difference between Germany and Japan.

That is and has been the only point in this topic.

[Robert Vermaat]

Why the difference between Germany and Japan.
That is and has been the only point in this topic.

I'm glad you own up to that. It seems like you are trying to start are modern politics discussion, thinly veiled as an OT discussion with a Roman subject.

This question has no place on this forum. There are many places on the internet that are much better to ask this question.

[Narukami]

Yes, I think that is the general tenor of their apology and payment.

If you take a look at the article I linked in that post there is a movement in California to try and gain additional compensation for the POW's and civilians who survived forced labor working for various Japanese zaibatsu. The Japanese contend, as did the Germans, that their corporations are covered by the blanket payment. This did not work in the case of German companies and may not for Japanese corporations.

I am no legal scholar so may have misunderstood the article but I believe that is the basic thrust of it.

:?

Narukami

[Magnus]

Timotheus, perhaps you should try your questions to a japanese oriented forum, like this one:

http://forums.samurai-archives.com/inde ... a579e1cab7

I'm sure you'll recieve what you are looking for.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Maybe it a good time to state what Off-topic really means. Here is the quote from RAT Rules:

"- By all means goof off in Off Topic and community threads (but try to restrain yourself elsewhere) "

There used to a reference in the rules of Off Topic being something like "everything and anything". If this is not so now the case, then perhaps there should be a clarification.

I have not posted in this thread, so I don't have a cat in this fight. I do sometimes worry about arbitrary censorship, which I have seen happen on this forum since I became a member in 2003.

Ralph Izard.
banned on RAT v1 for 344 something days

[Goffredo]

I think OTs should be cut or shut down only when they degenerate to personal insults. If they don't then any topic should be allowed.

There are many topics where there is a very high probability that the debate will degenerate. I understand that the editors will leap-up and say that chances are too high, but I think they should NOT step-in simply because their experience makes them predict things will get out of hand. They should step-in and close a thread only once the line is crossed.

Period

Jeff

[Timotheus]

Why the difference between Germany and Japan.
That is and has been the only point in this topic.

I'm glad you own up to that. It seems like you are trying to start are modern politics discussion, thinly veiled as an OT discussion with a Roman subject.

This question has no place on this forum. There are many places on the internet that are much better to ask this question.

I figured about as on-topic as "What was the last movie you saw" which is why I put it in OT.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I figured about as on-topic as "What was the last movie you saw" which is why I put it in OT.

The difference being that your question delves into relatively modern politics, and not of the best of kinds either (if there is such a thing). This is still a sensitive issue for many nations, veterans, survivors, families and so on.

I don't think this is the forum for this particular type of discussion, but that is just me.

[Timotheus]

I figured about as on-topic as "What was the last movie you saw" which is why I put it in OT.

The difference being that your question delves into relatively modern politics, and not of the best of kinds either (if there is such a thing). This is still a sensitive issue for many nations, veterans, survivors, families and so on.

I don't think this is the forum for this particular type of discussion, but that is just me.

I would not have expected that a 70 plus year old event would be modern enough for posters here to have personal feelings about it.

If that is the case and this is painful and uncomfortable for people then by all means close the thread. It is not worth it.

Oh and you are definitely right. There is little if anything that has to do with modern politics that is ever a good conversation.

[M. Demetrius]

Am I wrong is this?

You mean wrong in starting what's essentially a WW2 "who is the worse committer of atrocities" thread in a Roman History forum? The opinions of several of the moderators is a resounding "Yes!". We were not taken in by your "--and a comparison to Rome", Tim. That appears to be just an attempt at validating a thread that has made several people very uncomfortable, and brings out the worst things in others.

Please don't do that sort of thing again. It's true that there are people on the forum who are also interested in and sometimes reenact in other historical settings, including WW2. There are forums for those time frames from which you can glean much more information. We try here for escape from the "Anti-[whatever]" conversations, as much as possible, particularly when dealing with things that occurred 1500 years after Rome ceased to be the world power in the West.

Take the hint, if you will, please.