re: Why does Imperial Japan not get the same rep as Nazi Germany

Probably because we put them in camps and dropped nukes on them. shite some people think what we did was way worse.

quote:

---

Japan committed worse atrocities than Germany. People don't care because of the location on the globe in which it happened. Germany did what they did in Europe so people care and to Jews which really makes people care. I'd say the Soviet Union was worse than Germany, as well.

---

I'd also like to note that the communist won the civil war in China and we were fighting them directly in Korea not long after WW2 ended. So, I imagine that quelled a lot of sympathy for the Chinese immediately following the war.

quote:

---

the Japanese did what conquering armies did for thousands of years.

---

Exactly. While what the Japanese did was horrible and rightly shocking to the world, it was nothing new. However, like I said earlier, what the Germans were doing was something the world had never seen.

Think of it this way for comparative purposes. Imagine the Japanese as a member of a street gang that gets busted by the cops after killing a number of rivals and maybe some drug dealers. It's terrible, but people barely notice.

If that's what Japan was, then Germany was more like a Jeffrey Dalhmer where not only did he murder a bunch of people, he did it in a way that's so shocking and disturbing it jolts the public and becomes a huge story.

This is why Japan does not have the same rep as Germany.

quote:

---

Germany was more like a Jeffrey Dalhmer where not only did he murder a bunch of people, he did it in a way that's so shocking and disturbing it jolts the public and becomes a huge story.

---

very good analogy


astonishing.

The war in Europe is so much more famous than the war in the Pacific. Most Americans only learn about Pearl Harbor and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whereas they here all about Hitler and the Holocaust.

quote:

---

The war in Europe is so much more famous than the war in the Pacific

---

Well, if you look at it objectively, WWII was primarily a European War. The scale of the Eastern Front alone dwarfs anything seen in the Pacific.

quote:

---

My great uncle who just recently passed away at the ripe old age of 94 fought for 6 months in the Battle of Luzon. He never talked about it till a few years ago when we would drink scotch together.

He fought in the Market Garden and compared that to a walk in the park.

---

While the individual Japanese infeantryman had a well earned reputation for being among the best in the world, the Japanese army was actually decades behind the other major warring powers from a developmental standpoint. Yes, they were very successful in China and in the opening initial moves of WWII in 41. But that's because they were facing foes even more poorly equipped than they were.

While the Japanese Navy and army air forces were very modern and had some of the best equipment in the world, their army on the other hand was woefully equipped and built to refight a WWI style static trench war than a modern, mobile combined arms fight. But for the Japanese for most of WWII this was not too big of a problem because in the Pacific, the task of defending small islands lended itself to static defensive warfare which the Japanese were excellent at.

However, as the Soviets proved first in 1939 and again in 1945, when the Japanese army tried to fight a modern army trained and equipped to fight a mobile combined arms style of war out in open terrain, the Japanese were in fact woefully ill prepared and easily defeated. The Japanese simply were not trained or equipped to fight a modern war. In fact, even the Italians were better trained and equipped in this regard.

LEGALIZE RANCH

Tha frick did Toto do? He had every right to bite that mean ole bitch.