NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a historical thread:

Who was the more honorable enemy during WW2, Germany or Japan?
This is the way I see it: The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners, they would not shoot medics, and there were certain guidelines, or "rules of war" between the Germans and the Allies. However, the Germans also committed unspeakable atrocities, and they probably killed more people than the Japanese.

The Japanese, on the other hand, fought fanatically. We all know the stories of kamikazes, of Japanese soldiers leading suicide charges at American Marines, of only 1 out of 100 Japanese soldiers being taken alive at battles like Iwo Jima. I admire the Japanese immensely for their commitment and loyalty, but they have their negative aspects too. For one thing, they shot at medics. They also mistreated POWs much more than the Germans, and they did some pretty bad shit in China, too.

So, which one do you pick?

Both were horrible oppressive regimes, and both committed terrible atrocities.

Now, if you are referring to how the average soldier acted, well, that depends entirely on one’s perspective.

The Japanese, on the other hand, fought fanatically. We all know the stories of kamikazes, of Japanese soldiers leading suicide charges at American Marines, of only 1 out of 100 Japanese soldiers being taken alive at battles like Iwo Jima. I admire the Japanese immensely for their commitment and loyalty, but they have their negative aspects too.

I find the fighting to the death thing honourable, so they don't lose points in that regard.

For one thing, they shot at medics.

I see no problem with that. After all, medics are enemies too, and war would be pretty pointless if we all had conventions that once someone is wounded, a medic is allowed to waltz right in and heal him without any fear of being shot.

They also mistreated POWs much more than the Germans, and they did some pretty bad shit in China, too.

So, which one do you pick?

Doesn't live up to the Nazi's genocide.

Therefore, Japan

The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners

Is that so?

Correct #1 as Nazi Germany and add #3: Neither :D

Neither, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were not honorable.

Correct #1 as Nazi Germany and add #3: Neither :D
Add #3 as the USSR, #4 for the Allies and #5 for None.

Japan wins, if only ever-so slightly. ^^

I find the fighting to the death thing honourable, so they don't lose points in that regard.

I see no problem with that. After all, medics are enemies too, and war would be pretty pointless if we all had conventions that once someone is wounded, a medic is allowed to waltz right in and heal him without any fear of being shot.

Doesn't live up to the Nazi's genocide.

Therefore, Japan
Ok, I see what you mean.

Medics are healers, not killers. At least in an ideal world...

Ok, I see what you mean.

This is a historical thread:

Who was the more honorable enemy during WW2, Germany or Japan?
This is the way I see it: The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners, they would not shoot medics, and there were certain guidelines, or "rules of war" between the Germans and the Allies. However, the Germans also committed unspeakable atrocities, and they probably killed more people than the Japanese.

The Japanese, on the other hand, fought fanatically. We all know the stories of kamikazes, of Japanese soldiers leading suicide charges at American Marines, of only 1 out of 100 Japanese soldiers being taken alive at battles like Iwo Jima. I admire the Japanese immensely for their commitment and loyalty, but they have their negative aspects too. For one thing, they shot at medics. They also mistreated POWs much more than the Germans, and they did some pretty bad shit in China, too.

So, which one do you pick?

Neither. Germany executed millions of "undesirables" and Japan had the rape of nanking and the bataan death march.

You forgot to make NEITHER a poll option dude.

Ok, I see what you mean.

Medics are healers, not killers. At least in an ideal world...

Ok, I see what you mean.

Medics still fought.

You forgot to make NEITHER a poll option dude.
Not voting = also an option.

Medics still fought.
yeah, but it's not their chief duty.

Neither. Germany executed millions of "undesirables" and Japan had the rape of nanking and the bataan death march.

You forgot to make NEITHER a poll option dude.
nah, too easy.

None of the obove ?

Germany.

- Eskertania

How about someone define "honourable" first?

As for "the Germans didn't mistreat their POWs", there are probably a few million Russian families that would disagree.

How about someone define "honourable" first?

As for "the Germans didn't mistreat their POWs", there are probably a few million Russian families that would disagree.
Being a POW isn't supposed to be a vacation... I believe by "mistreat" he means they didn't rape them, and / or kill them outright. Or was I mistaken?

- Eskertania

Being a POW isn't supposed to be a vacation... I believe by "mistreat" he means they didn't rape them, and / or kill them outright. Or was I mistaken?
They probably would've raped some of the prettier female ones...

Anyways, what they did was let them starve to death, quite deliberately.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_soviet.html

uhhh... you think that the Germans treated POWs better than the Japanese? try doing a little research on a man i like to call Klaus Barbie. I say Japan any day over the Germans. Also, i forgot his name, but there was this one German, doctor, who decided to experiment on twins. Sick shit.

uhhh... you think that the Germans treated POWs better than the Japanese? try doing a little research on a man i like to call Klaus Barbie. I say Japan any day over the Germans. Also, i forgot his name, but there was this one German, doctor, who decided to experiment on twins. Sick shit.

That would be Josef Mengele

uhhh... you think that the Germans treated POWs better than the Japanese? try doing a little research on a man i like to call Klaus Barbie. I say Japan any day over the Germans. Also, i forgot his name, but there was this one German, doctor, who decided to experiment on twins. Sick shit.

They weren't POWs, they were civilians taken at various captured towns. Read any story of an english POW in Germany and you'll find their story is probably rather different from a Jewish person from Poland...

i hate polls i can't vote in. NEITHER.

Being a POW isn't supposed to be a vacation... I believe by "mistreat" he means they didn't rape them, and / or kill them outright. Or was I mistaken?

- Eskertania
If memeory serves, didn't Germany have a number of forced labor camps for POWs? And I do recall a number died under the care of the Nazis as well.

They did most likely treat them better, on average, than Japan did though.

If memeory serves, didn't Germany have a number of forced labor camps for POWs? And I do recall a number died under the care of the Nazis as well.

They did most likely treat them better, on average, than Japan did though.
I remember this movie, the Rat King, based on what was (allegedly) Japan's worst prison camp. The way the movie presented it it was like a rough weekend at the Scouts, and little more. :confused: I could not take its claim that it was based on Japan's worse prison camp. Most of it revolved around the somewhat understated relationship of the "Rat King" and one of the British officers. Quite bold for such an old film.

Medics still fought.
they weren't given a weapon

If memeory serves, didn't Germany have a number of forced labor camps for POWs? And I do recall a number died under the care of the Nazis as well.

They did most likely treat them better, on average, than Japan did though.

Yeah they did, but forced labour in germany was still probably better than forced labour on say... the Thai-burma railway.

They did most likely treat them better, on average, than Japan did though.
It all had to do with the Racial Theories (note that this is Wehrmacht, not Nazi - another blow to the claims that the Wehrmacht was just an army like any other).

In the East they were quite ready to let millions of Soviet POWs die in the camps. Meant that they wouldn't have to kill them later to repopulate the land with Germans. And if I had to choose, I'd probably prefer to be in a Japanese camp (and believe me, I know about the conditions - Aussies can't shut up about it) to one of those Eastern Front camps.

In the West they fought a lot more civilised for the most part. Only some rather fanatical units didn't make the distinction and treated US prisoners to some of the realities of the Eastern Front, for example in Malmedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre).

Yeah they did, but forced labour in germany was still probably better than forced labour on say... the Thai-burma railway.
I dunno, I heard some horror stories about some of the mines that POWs were forced to work in while "guests" of Germany.

During? They both were without real honor. I'm going to pick Japan just because of their isolationist ways, the citizens of the country had less of a chance to see the errors in their ways. The Germans don't have that excuse. Also, the Japanese viewed their ruler as a God, so disobeying really was not an option. Hitler was charismatic, and you'd get fucked up if you didn't support him, but he wasn't viewed as a God. So I'd give it to the Japanese just based on the ignorance of the average Japanese citizen during the war.

During? They both were without real honor. I'm going to pick Japan just because of their isolationist ways, the citizens of the country had less of a chance to see the errors in their ways. The Germans don't have that excuse. Also, the Japanese viewed their ruler as a God, so disobeying really was not an option. Hitler was charismatic, and you'd get fucked up if you didn't support him, but he wasn't viewed as a God. So I'd give it to the Japanese just based on the ignorance of the average Japanese citizen during the war.
He certainly thought himself to be one. Oh, and some did believe he was a Messiah, there to save Germany from the "evil" Jews and Communists, and restore Vaterland and establish a Volksgemeinschaft. So it's not that different.

This is a historical thread:

Who was the more honorable enemy during WW2, Germany or Japan?
This is the way I see it: The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners, they would not shoot medics, and there were certain guidelines, or "rules of war" between the Germans and the Allies. However, the Germans also committed unspeakable atrocities, and they probably killed more people than the Japanese.

The Japanese, on the other hand, fought fanatically. We all know the stories of kamikazes, of Japanese soldiers leading suicide charges at American Marines, of only 1 out of 100 Japanese soldiers being taken alive at battles like Iwo Jima. I admire the Japanese immensely for their commitment and loyalty, but they have their negative aspects too. For one thing, they shot at medics. They also mistreated POWs much more than the Germans, and they did some pretty bad shit in China, too.

So, which one do you pick?

hello again.
neither, the nasis gassed innocent jews and experimented in children ,the japanese had pow camps that were horrific.Neither side was honourable.

Japan was more honourable. Killing hundreds of POWs is light years away from killing millions of innocent civilians. The Japanese did kill civilians too, especially during the Rape of Nanking, but to a much lesser extent.

The Allies should definitely be in the poll, too. When the Russians advanced into German territory near the end of the war, the soldiers raped every woman from 8 to 80, for instance. The rest of the Allies also committed their fair share of war crimes, but since they won the war, the perpetrators didn't face any trials. That's somewhat disturbing.

The Biscari massacre was a war crime committed by U.S. troops during World War II, in which unarmed German and Italian prisoners of war were killed at Biscari in 1943.
The Canicattì slaughter was a war crime committed by Allied forces during the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, in which at least a dozen unarmed Italian civilians, including six children, were killed by U.S. troops under the command of General George Patton.
The Dachau Massacre took place in the Dachau concentration camp, near Dachau, Germany, on April 29, 1945 during World War II. US soldiers, shocked at what they discovered in the concentration camp, murdered several (est. 50 - 120 dead, 50 wounded) German soldiers whom they had taken prisoner.
The Rheinwiesenlager (Rhine meadow camps) were transit camps for millions of German POWs after World War II. There were some deaths, with a few thousand German POWs dying from starvation and exposure.
The Salina, Utah Prisoners of War Massacre occurred in Salina, Utah which was the home of some 250 German prisoners of war who were being used as workers on the local harvest. Private Clarence V. Bertucci fired a machine gun from one of the guard towers into the tents that were being used to accommodate the prisoners. Nine prisoners of war were killed and 20 were injured.

Japan, they weren't quite as smart as the Germans tho, after all they attacked the U.S.
Japan also had soldiers that were willing to go and commit suicide missions, i have never heard of Germans doing such things.

The rest of the Allies also committed their fair share of war crimes, but since they won the war, the perpetrators didn't face any trials. That's somewhat disturbing.
History is written by the victors...

...unfortunately. :rolleyes:

He certainly thought himself to be one. Oh, and some did believe he was a Messiah, there to save Germany from the "evil" Jews and Communists, and restore Vaterland and establish a Volksgemeinschaft. So it's not that different.
It was similar, but there is a difference in him being a messiah, and having everyone that you have ever seem tell you that the person running your country is a God, and if you disobey him, not only will you disgrace but yourself and your family. And your society is kinda nuts about honor and family. I'm not saying they're blameless, but it would be harder for the average Japanese citizen to see through the bs than the average German citizen.

About the 'not shooting medics'

Medics were armed combatants, trained in military tactics, as well as on the front lines.

If your pal climbs over the trench, gets shot... As a medic..what do you do? Climb over and get shot too?... or Shoot the guy first.. then rescue your pal?

And to the people who either complained about the poll or said 'neither'...
neither of those were an option.. Who is MORE honorable... ie a 'pick A or B' question.... not asking "Who was honorable in the war?"

If you opinion isnt shown... explain your point.. or dont f*ing answer... simple as...... So you've no valid reason to complain


Also, the whole of Japanese culture was based on honor.
in the military now... you get the honor of receiving a 'Purple Heart' medal if you're killed fighting overseas. Militarys see honor in dying for your country, hence the kamikazi

Japan.

He certainly thought himself to be one. Oh, and some did believe he was a Messiah, there to save Germany from the "evil" Jews and Communists, and restore Vaterland and establish a Volksgemeinschaft. So it's not that different.
Dude, why do English-speakers keep using German words whenever it comes to Nazi Germany?
Every one of those has an English equivalent (and by the way, if you translated them, you'd understand why people call Ny Nordland a Nazi...)

It was similar, but there is a difference in him being a messiah, and having everyone that you have ever seem tell you that the person running your country is a God, and if you disobey him, not only will you disgrace but yourself and your family. And your society is kinda nuts about honor and family. I'm not saying they're blameless, but it would be harder for the average Japanese citizen to see through the bs than the average German citizen.
Given the "Goebbels effect", you'd be surprised...Germans were forced to endure endless amounts of propaganda, and had the fear of being labelled as traitors or rebels by the secret services. Some saw Hitler as a saviour, others were brainwashed into it...and others were simply too petrified to do otherwise. Hitler created (or twisted) an entire new set of beliefs, some revolving around honour (duty to nation and race above all else). Of course, Japanese concepts of honour and fealty to the Emperor were somewhat more ingrained in the culture at the time, yet not to the degree that the German equivalents would seem paltry. Germany itself was an empire based on the Divine Right of Kings not too long before and also had its own traditions regarding honour (e.g. Teutonic codes of chivalry and the centrality of familial allegiance in the culture).

Dude, why do English-speakers keep using German words whenever it comes to Nazi Germany?
Every one of those has an English equivalent (and by the way, if you translated them, you'd understand why people call Ny Nordland a Nazi...)
I like using German where German is appropriate. Some concepts are best captured within their original language. I use French words for France, Italian words for Italy, and so on...whatever fits. In their plain English translation all the words I mentioned go to say is "Fatherland" and "people's community". That completely sidetracks the deeper meaning of the word Volk.

How does he fit in to this thread anyway? :confused:

Id say Germany. For the most part they followed the rules of war. And yeah, they had the whole holocaust thing but the Japanese caused equally unspeakable atrocities in China.

I once saw a program on the History Channel about the Japanese and Nazi(not German. Nazis at the time were German, but in a sparrow-bird relationship. The Germans being the birds and the nazis being the sparrows. Sparrows are all birds, but most birds are not sparrows) war crimes.

Japanese: They fought to the death. The war was really the will of the Japanese military because the emperor traditionally stayed out of such matters. The Japanese were really racist. They made the KKK look like a human rights group. They viewed everyone who wasn't Japanese as inferior, One game Japanese tended to play was when they would take a baby from a female pow(civillian, of course), toss it in the air, and catch it on his(the soldier's) bayonet. They also beat, murdered, starved to death, and, in some cases, burned to death prisoners. At least Nazis had the decency to gas most of their victims to death. Alot less ax hacking and fire involved.

Nazis: If you were their prisoner, you better hope they gas you. They tortured some victims. One infamous Nazi doctor would boil his victims almost to death to make live disection easier. Some even skipped the gas chambers and sent their victims to the crematoria alive. Those that were either gassed or shot were the lucky ones. What made the Nazis infamous was that their genocide was so methodical. It was bearocratic.

It was similar, but there is a difference in him being a messiah, and having everyone that you have ever seem tell you that the person running your country is a God, and if you disobey him, not only will you disgrace but yourself and your family. And your society is kinda nuts about honor and family. I'm not saying they're blameless, but it would be harder for the average Japanese citizen to see through the bs than the average German citizen.
From my normal responce to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki debates:

Shintoism and the Emperor as God
This is a little harder to understand. The Emperor Showa was viewed as a kami ( 神 ). Kami ARE NOT GODS, at least not in the western sense. They are far closer to the idea of natural spirits, ala Wicca or Native American religions. ANYTHING can be a kami.

Outside my school right now there's an interesting rock that is a kami. There's a small shrine there were a local priest leaves salt and sake for the kami every once in a while.

The notion of the Emperor as a god doesn't translate out well. The closest western cultures have gotten would be the divine right of kings, were kings were thought to have been touched by God and perhaps granted powers by God and placed in a position to rule. When the popes actually ruled would also be a close parallel. It is not so much as the Emperor was thought holy (which he was thought of), but that people viewed him as the chief priest of Shinto and a direct connection to the divine. They did not think he was an invincible god.

There are also some questions as to just how many Japanese actually believed in the divinity of the Emperor. Religion is taken extremely casually in Japan, or, rather, it is more correct to say that religion is such a part of the culture that it is hard to separate out those who actually believe, and those follow just because being Japanese means you follow it.

The Japanese were really racist. They made the KKK look like a human rights group. They viewed everyone who wasn't Japanese as inferior.
Not all Japanese at the time were racist, not even the majority of them. If you use bird/sparrow for Germans/Nazis please extend the same to the Japanese.

At least Nazis had the decency to gas most of their victims to death. Alot less ax hacking and fire involved.
Depends which you feel is more horrific, undirected brutality by an army that was out of control, or cold-blooded systmatic removal of a race.

Not all Japanese at the time were racist, not even the majority of them. If you use bird/sparrow for Germans/Nazis please extend the same to the Japanese.


Depends which you feel is more horrific, undirected brutality by an army that was out of control, or cold-blooded systmatic removal of a race.
Depends on which is more brutal: Raping and hacking to death with [insert painful object here] or a quickER death by gas or bullets. Both sides used fire.

Also, the whole of Japanese culture was based on honor.
in the military now... you get the honor of receiving a 'Purple Heart' medal if you're killed fighting overseas. Militarys see honor in dying for your country, hence the kamikazi

You get the Purple Heart if you are wounded. I am fairly sure you dont get a purple heart if you are killed in action.

Depends on which is more brutal: Raping and hacking to death with [insert painful object here] or a quickER death by gas or bullets. Both sides used fire.
Both used hacking and raping (and gasing plus shooting). Japan did a lot more of the hacking, randomly (and even then, it was far more likely they would shoot than take the time to play).

The Nazis were far more systamatic in their slaughter, keeping records and notes. That's the difference.

Yeah Japan fucked up China real fucking bad, its a big part of history no-one really knows about, allot like the armenian genocide. Japan exterminated millions of chinese and even had death camps in China. They tested poison gas out on innocent chinese civilians. And used Chinese as human experimentation. And the Rape of Nanking is called that for a reason....RAPE they Raped almost every single person in the city, men, women, babies... everything was killed and raped. And though it wasnt "genocide" it was like... Nationalcide? or something, they did it becuase they were chinese and no other reason. China still holds a grudge against Japan and wants revenge....with China building up their military right now maybe thats one of theyre plans...anyways, Germany wasnt any better and they're soldiers did not fight honorably everywhere (Russian front) and there is no honor in war anyway. anyone who has been to a war will tell you that.

Yeah Japan fucked up China real fucking bad, its a big part of history no-one really knows about, allot like the armenian genocide. Japan exterminated millions of chinese and even had death camps in China. They tested poison gas out on innocent chinese civilians. And used Chinese as human experimentation. And the Rape of Nanking is called that for a reason....RAPE they Raped almost every single person in the city, men, women, babies... everything was killed and raped. And though it wasnt "genocide" it was like... Nationalcide? or something, they did it becuase they were chinese and no other reason. China still holds a grudge against Japan and wants revenge....with China building up their military right now maybe thats one of theyre plans...anyways, Germany wasnt any better and they're soldiers did not fight honorably everywhere (Russian front) and there is no honor in war anyway. anyone who has been to a war will tell you that.
a) Ethnicide would do, but given that the grounds of discrimination were their being Chinese, genocide could fit just as well (Hitler wanted to carry out a genocide of all slavs, and most specifically of Russians).
b) I don't see China doing anything of the sort. Japan has too many alliances (and is economically dominant), China is already in a tense relationship with the US, the domestic population is becoming increasingly fed up with their low living standards and the nation is resource-hungry. Japan would likely keep trace of such activity anyway. These among other things.
c) Honour permeats every aspect of life. In a war, this could mean respecting the right of civilians not to be harmed, and so on.

Japan exterminated millions of chinese and even had death camps in China.
No they didn't. They did terrible, brutal things, but they never had death camps the way the Nazi's did. Unit 731 being the closest, and that was ONE compound.

They tested poison gas out on innocent chinese civilians.
That and more.

And used Chinese as human experimentation.
Which the US proceeded to grant immunity for. Sadly enough.

And the Rape of Nanking is called that for a reason....RAPE they Raped almost every single person in the city, men, women, babies... everything was killed and raped.
Uh... okaaaaay... where the heck did this come from? The Rape of Nanking was a terrible event, but the Japanese didn't rape everything that moved, nor did they kill everyone/thing in the city.

And though it wasnt "genocide" it was like... Nationalcide? or something, they did it becuase they were chinese and no other reason.
There were a lot of reasons that went into this, but it was not a systamatic attempt to kill every Chinese. It was horrible enough, you don't need to make it worse, it's horrible enough.

China still holds a grudge against Japan and wants revenge
There's also quite a bit more with that statement as well that you haven't said, but that is neither here nor there (nor the topic of the thread).

[QUOTE=NERVUN]No they didn't. They did terrible, brutal things, but they never had death camps the way the Nazi's did. Unit 731 being the closest, and that was ONE compound.


yes they did.

yes they did.
Proof please.

and yes they did rape pretty much everyone and everything, then killed them.:fluffle: like that, except with this face :mad: and maybe some wall action :headbang:

Proof please.

no. I am right and you are wrong.

no. I am right and you are wrong.
Wow, you are indeed a master debator. Who can argue against such concrete, air-tight logic?

Wow, you are indeed a master debator. Who can argue against such concrete, air-tight logic?

precisley.:eek:

and yes they did rape pretty much everyone and everything, then killed them.:fluffle: like that, except with this face :mad: and maybe some wall action :headbang:
Proof please.

Esitmates (from China and outside sources) say 300,000 killed and around 20,000 women raped.

Nanking's population stood at 650,000 before Japan gained control of the city.

It was horrible, but they didn't kill everyone or rape everyone.

It's bad enough, you do not have to make it worse.

no. I am right and you are wrong.
*blinks* Ah, a　B4K4^2. That explains everything.

Japan also had soldiers that were willing to go and commit suicide missions, i have never heard of Germans doing such things.
Then you should read up a little more. ;)

That completely sidetracks the deeper meaning of the word Volk.
That's the point. There is no deeper meaning to the word. It just means "people", and that's it.

How does he fit in to this thread anyway? :confused:
It doesn't. My point is that I think English-speakers have taken to using German words for these things in order to convince themselves that they are somehow different from the Germans of the time.
In fact, if you translated most of these words into English, they'd sound just like any given speech made by English or American right-wingers or conservatives. It essentially serves to cover up the close connection between the Nazi ideology and much of Anglo-conservatism.

precisley.:eek:
That's not even funny. :rolleyes:

Proof please.

Esitmates (from China and outside sources) say 300,000 killed and around 20,000 women raped.

Nanking's population stood at 650,000 before Japan gained control of the city.

It was horrible, but they didn't kill everyone or rape everyone.

It's bad enough, you do not have to make it worse.


Ok I'll take what you said into account but how is "300,000 killed and around 20,000 women raped." even honorable in any way shape or form?

That's not even funny. :rolleyes:

take a chill pill.

Ok I'll take what you said into account but how is "300,000 killed and around 20,000 women raped." even honorable in any way shape or form?
Did I ever say it was?

Hmm, no contest really. The Germans were by far the most honorable opponents in World War II.

This is a historical thread:

Who was the more honorable enemy during WW2, Germany or Japan?
This is the way I see it: The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners, they would not shoot medics, and there were certain guidelines, or "rules of war" between the Germans and the Allies. However, the Germans also committed unspeakable atrocities, and they probably killed more people than the Japanese.

The Japanese, on the other hand, fought fanatically. We all know the stories of kamikazes, of Japanese soldiers leading suicide charges at American Marines, of only 1 out of 100 Japanese soldiers being taken alive at battles like Iwo Jima. I admire the Japanese immensely for their commitment and loyalty, but they have their negative aspects too. For one thing, they shot at medics. They also mistreated POWs much more than the Germans, and they did some pretty bad shit in China, too.

So, which one do you pick?
The problem with asking this question is that we have no set definition of the word honor. Different people see honor in different ways. The Japanese were being entirely honorable to their definitions: those who were pathetic enough in battle to be captured--their interpretation of the situation--was without honor and deserved absolutely no decent treatment whatsoever. The West does not typically see honor that way. So until you can choose a specific definition of honor, you cannot answer the question you ask.

"Who was more honorable, Germany or Japan?"

Neither of them had an "honorable" bone in their bodies.

"Who was more honorable, Germany or Japan?"

Neither of them had an "honorable" bone in their bodies.
But again, that depends on your definition of honor, Eut. Surely you know that your definition isn't the only one in existence.

The Nips tended to die against us without much of a fight pretty honourable in my books.

I'd say the Japs were more honourable because they tried to die with the utmost honour i.e. in battle.
Not that the germans didn't but the japs saw it as their utmost duty in massive numbers.

The Germans didn't really go about shooting our medics much...

But i do like the Germans more.

"Who was more honorable, Germany or Japan?"

Neither of them had an "honorable" bone in their bodies.
Have you been watching too many of those American Occupation of Nazi Germany Instruction Films again?:D

What you have to remember about things like mass-murder, rape etc in times of war.... Its war.... It dosent have to be justified.

Where was the honor in the US nuking Japan? There wasnt any... it was a demonstration to the world that the US could mass-murder 340,000+ people, with just 2 bombs.
It crushed the moral of the Japanese and struck fear in other enemies.

Rape is demoralising
Genocide and biological/chemical weapons are demoralising, plus removes possible threats


Its not that I agree with it, but it was war.... bad things happen, honorable or not.

Id say Germany. For the most part they followed the rules of war. And yeah, they had the whole holocaust thing but the Japanese caused equally unspeakable atrocities in China.Only on the Western front...

"Who was more honorable, Germany or Japan?"

Neither of them had an "honorable" bone in their bodies.
Seconded.

One tried to conquer an entire continent and exterminate an entire race, and the other tried to conquer an entire continent and exterminate an entire race.

You can say "but Private Fritz was an honourable soul!" but that isn't what the question is asking. Save such comments for the 'can you find good among evil' threads.

Only on the Western front...
Only the western front should count.

This Poll needs Italy.
The Italians would feign surrender before putting a knife in your back or lobbing a grenade at you and they were unhygenic.

But of course it is asking about Germany vs Japan...

Only the western front should count.

This Poll needs Italy.
The Italians would feign surrender before putting a knife in your back or lobbing a grenade at you and they were unhygenic.

But of course it is asking about Germany vs Japan...Of the Axis, it would probably have been Finland, anyway.

Of the Axis, it would probably have been Finland, anyway.
For being honourable, dishonourable, hygenic or unhygenic?
*Confused*

For being honourable, dishonourable, hygenic or unhygenic?
*Confused*


For being honourable, and for not being the aggressor.
See, the Russians ( allies ) DID attack 'em first, with a notable absence of Due Cause.

It is worth remembering that Japan were not signatories of the Geneva Convention at the time and therefore did not view their own behaviour as being illegal - now where have I seen that idea recently?

It is worth remembering that Japan were not signatories of the Geneva Convention at the time and therefore did not view their own behaviour as being illegal - now where have I seen that idea recently?

They don't judge their deeds.
WE judge their deeds.

Gotta problem with that?

It is worth remembering that Japan were not signatories of the Geneva Convention at the time and therefore did not view their own behaviour as being illegal - now where have I seen that idea recently?
Germany had the same theory.
I've got a nice quote in my room i'll get it tomorrow.:)

they weren't given a weapon

Wrong. Medics were and still are armed with Small arms purely for the defence of themselves and their patients. They may not take part in offensive operations but may fire thier weapons to defend themselves if attacked.

For being honourable, and for not being the aggressor.
See, the Russians ( allies ) DID attack 'em first, with a notable absence of Due Cause.
Thanks Laerod...
:eek:

The Roumanians were pretty weasely switching sides but still ggetting their arse handed to them by the Russians.:cool:

You get the Purple Heart if you are wounded. I am fairly sure you dont get a purple heart if you are killed in action.

To die in action means that you have been wounded but you didn't survive thus the US forces do award the Purple Heart for being KIA. However the British Army ceased the practice of awarding wound badges (an inverted chevron (the same way up as US Rank Stripes) on the left wrist) after WW1 as there were soldiers with 3+ wound badges which was adjudged to be demoralising for the other soldiers. There were also Battalions that every single man ended up with a wound badge due to attrition rates.

They don't judge their deeds.
WE judge their deeds.

Gotta problem with that?

Not at all - it is exactly my point. History will judge deeds like "special rendition" regardless of how they are justified at the time.

Not at all - it is exactly my point. History will judge deeds like "special rendition" regardless of how they are justified at the time.

Good.
The logic of the other feller is irrelevant.
We judge, decide, impose.
The opposition will have to live with that, whether they like it or not.

Who was the more honorable enemy during WW2, Germany or Japan?
This is the way I see it: The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners, they would not shoot medics, and there were certain guidelines, or "rules of war" between the Germans and the Allies.

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhoudt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre

And who knows what remained undocumented, especially in the eastern front.

Anyway, the point is moot, there is no "honour" in war.

Good.
The logic of the other feller is irrelevant.
We judge, decide, impose.
The opposition will have to live with that, whether they like it or not.

Who do you mean by "We"

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhoudt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre

And who knows what remained undocumented, especially in the eastern front.

Anyway, the point is moot, there is no "honour" in war.


*frowns*
You'd say there would be no honour either in waging war on behalf of, say, republican Spain against the baddies?
*surprised*

Who do you mean by "We"

Let's say that if you are part of the 'we' you are aware of that without asking it.
If you are not aware of it, you can define 'we' as not-you.

*frowns*
You'd say there would be no honour either in waging war on behalf of, say, republican Spain against the baddies?
*surprised*

No. Justified maybe, but not honourable.

No. Justified maybe, but not honourable.

*shrugs*
differing definitions of honour, I suppose.

( I don't use the word justified much, apart from inside a religious context. )

*shrugs*
differing definitions of honour, I suppose.

( I don't use the word justified much, apart from inside a religious context. )

Well, subjectively justified, anyway.

Well, subjectively justified, anyway.

*refrains from going into a Kant vz Hume debate in this context*

This is a historical thread:

Who was the more honorable enemy during WW2, Germany or Japan?
This is the way I see it: The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners, they would not shoot medics, and there were certain guidelines, or "rules of war" between the Germans and the Allies. However, the Germans also committed unspeakable atrocities, and they probably killed more people than the Japanese.

The Japanese, on the other hand, fought fanatically. We all know the stories of kamikazes, of Japanese soldiers leading suicide charges at American Marines, of only 1 out of 100 Japanese soldiers being taken alive at battles like Iwo Jima. I admire the Japanese immensely for their commitment and loyalty, but they have their negative aspects too. For one thing, they shot at medics. They also mistreated POWs much more than the Germans, and they did some pretty bad shit in China, too.

So, which one do you pick?

If you were to rename this thread "Which side do you admire more, Germany or Japan" I would have to say Japan because they literally throw everything they had into battle to protect their Empire.

I am also convinced that if the United States had launched an Amphibious operation (Operation Watchtower) against the Japanese home islands most of the adult population would have died in defence of Japan and the Emperor.

Germany

both were bastards but id say Japs were worse

Nazi Germany.

On the Western Front at least they tried (mostly) to abide by the rules of the Geneva convention; No gas, abiding by the rules of POW status etc. The Eastern Front was a war of annihilation rather than conquest or subdual. No quarter was given on either side. Wehrmacht prisoners faced horrible circumstances in Soviet hands and vice versa. In effect, it was a mutual agreement to unrestrained conflict.

The Japanese, however, ignored the rules of war. While the allies followed the dictats of the old legalities in dealing with Japanese prisoners the Japanese seldom responded with even an attempt at quid pro quo. To be honest, I'm impressed that US forces didn't go completely ape-shit on the prisoners they did take.

Nazi Germany.

On the Western Front at least they tried (mostly) to abide by the rules of the Geneva convention; No gas, abiding by the rules of POW status etc. The Eastern Front was a war of annihilation rather than conquest or subdual. No quarter was given on either side. Wehrmacht prisoners faced horrible circumstances in Soviet hands and vice versa. In effect, it was a mutual agreement to unrestrained conflict.

The Japanese, however, ignored the rules of war. While the allies followed the dictats of the old legalities in dealing with Japanese prisoners the Japanese seldom responded with even an attempt at quid pro quo. To be honest, I'm impressed that US forces didn't go completely ape-shit on the prisoners they did take.

No gas? Then what was that whole Auschwitz thing about?

Is it really so much more "honourable" and approved by the Geneva Convention to use gas only on your own citizens, as opposed to during fighting?

No gas? Then what was that whole Auschwitz thing about?

Is it really so much more "honourable" and approved by the Geneva Convention to use gas only on your own citizens, as opposed to during fighting?
That was the Eastern Front darling.

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhoudt_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre

And who knows what remained undocumented, especially in the eastern front.

Anyway, the point is moot, there is no "honour" in war.
15 men survived the massacre, and were eventually found by a regular German Army unit. Their wounds were treated before they were imprisoned in a prisoner of war camp.
Sir, there is your honour!

That was the Eastern Front darling.

Auschwitz wasn't a front, darling sweetums baby angel cakes. ;)

Who was more honourable?

From a political/humanitarian perspective; neither have a grain of honour. Nazi Germany's turn on their Russian 'allies' in Poland or Japan's 'sneak attack' on the US are just a start. Humanitarian-wise, it's not even worth mentioning.

From a military perspective, it depends on your point of view. The Japanese had a different idea of honour. They followed the code of Bushido, rather than the Geneva Convention which they never signed. To the japanese point of view, surrendering was far worse than death, and thus any prisoners captured were treated with incredible disdain - they were dead men in their eyes. The Germans, were brilliant and innovative warriors, and if you remove the nazi element, the German Army was about as honourable or more than comparable western nations. The fact that they did not use chemical weapons, while Churchill debated using them if an amphibious assault was attempted in Britain, shows this.

So who was more honourable? The Japanese were far more devoted to 'honour' as a principle.

Japan by far.
I can understand their reasons for going to war, even though I still definitely disagree with them.
In trying to be a Western nation, Japan tried to be colonial.
They were trying to copy the West.
It's not much of an excuse, but it's better than the German excuse, which is.............
(Crickets chirping)
what?
The Germans had no excuse.
However, I have to admit, I am Japanese, so probably I'm a bit biased.

Japan by far.
I can understand their reasons for going to war, even though I still definitely disagree with them.
In trying to be a Western nation, Japan tried to be colonial.
They were trying to copy the West.
It's not much of an excuse, but it's better than the German excuse, which is.............
(Crickets chirping)
what?
The Germans had no excuse.
However, I have to admit, I am Japanese, so probably I'm a bit biased.

The German excuse, originally, was to take back lands that were taken from them by the victorious allied forces in the first world war. Afterwards, they used any excuse to take more territory, by saying that there were germans ancestrally in certain areas, etc.... and then they stopped using excuses and just took what they wanted.

The japanese, although modernising and trying to match the west, probably only had Kublai Khan's failed invasion of Japan as the only 'grudge' to bear with China.

Both Axis Powers were using military force to rapidly expand their power, excuses or not.

The Japanese imperial troops had no understanding of the word 'surrender' (maybe that's why the nuke was used against Japan). To save face from humiliating defeat, Japanese troops would rather die fighting than give themselves to the enemy or commit Seppuku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku).

Germany... but sorta both, they sorta both were extremely dedicated to their fuhrer/emperor, and were willing to die trying to keep their country alive.... unlike what the U.S. has become, where we apparently have elected a president that is getting approval ratings of 33% and below, about a third of what hitler had... anyways, I would vote Axis in general had more honor than the Allies... and regardless of the halocaust, if the jews had fought back and apparently valued their life at all, then they should have fought, and not gone straight into the arms of the enemy that wants to kill them!!!!! But then later of course, then they apparently want to stay alive and do more than their share of complaining.... well rosenberg then you should have fought back!!!!!!

The japanese are basically, well, the hun.

For being honourable, and for not being the aggressor.
See, the Russians ( allies ) DID attack 'em first, with a notable absence of Due Cause.

For being hygienic too. Finland had one of the lowest attrition rates in the war, largely thanks to frequent sauna baths.

As for the original question, I think they were both quite honorable, although not flawless. I don't think the Holocaust counts as an act of war, because it was mainly directed at the country's own citizens, as opposed to the Rape of Nanking, in which citizens of the enemy were killed. Holocaust was more like a side project, that just happened to take place during the war.

It's very hard to compare these two countries, because their ideas of honour are so different from each other, as has been said many times already. But honour should always be measured with the ideals of the time and culture in question, because those are the ideals, on which the people base their decisions. How are they supposed to know how the future generations will view them?

I picked Japan.

I picked Japan.
So did I. I know of no other military force in history that has fought as selflessly as the Japanese. That's not to say that they weren't barbaric sons a bitches.

Why not do a poll on which tastes better - dog shit or cat shit? It would be about as intelligent.

What the hell kind of "honor" is there in militarism, brutality, and extermination of non-combatants?

Germany by far, it would be better to fight the army that started the war.

We cannot analyze honor in periodos of war for the traditional concept.

In the war what it matters it is to win the enemy and to guarantee the security of its country. An honored army is that one that obtains to fulfill this paper better.

For me it was Japan. It was in war for a long time before it starting in the Ocidente. It fought in worse conditions, it fought more time and only surrender after Hiroshima and Nakasaki. This without counting that the soldiers fought ties the death not to be captured.

A side-note:

People often think the Japanese military was the Bushido-driven pseudo-Samurai cult. In fact, it had little to do with the Samurai.

In my research I did a while ago, I found lots of interesting things about the war against Russia in 1904/05. Not only did the Japanese treat Russian prisoners according to the rules, but the Japanese press was very concerned that the same happened to Japanese prisoners. There was no "they got captured, they have no honour".

Whatever the reason, the behaviour and codes of the Japanese military in WWII cannot be directly traced back to Bushido and the Samurai...probably more to false myths and legends perpetuated by their fascist government.

That's the point. There is no deeper meaning to the word. It just means "people", and that's it.
In direct translation, yes. It almost always has much deeper connotations than the word people though. Especially when used in the Nazi sense. English words simply lack the impact necessary for describing Nazi concepts succinctly.

It doesn't. My point is that I think English-speakers have taken to using German words for these things in order to convince themselves that they are somehow different from the Germans of the time.
In fact, if you translated most of these words into English, they'd sound just like any given speech made by English or American right-wingers or conservatives. It essentially serves to cover up the close connection between the Nazi ideology and much of Anglo-conservatism.
I wouldn't go that far...that is an excessive leap to make. Some Anglo-conservatism may indeed share Nazi ideals; not all though. It's more a religious/economic/nationalist movement than racial.

A side-note:

People often think the Japanese military was the Bushido-driven pseudo-Samurai cult. In fact, it had little to do with the Samurai.

In my research I did a while ago, I found lots of interesting things about the war against Russia in 1904/05. Not only did the Japanese treat Russian prisoners according to the rules, but the Japanese press was very concerned that the same happened to Japanese prisoners. There was no "they got captured, they have no honour".

Whatever the reason, the behaviour and codes of the Japanese military in WWII cannot be directly traced back to Bushido and the Samurai...probably more to false myths and legends perpetuated by their fascist government.
I never got that impression, qudos for you.^_^

Auschwitz wasn't a front, darling sweetums baby angel cakes. ;)
Thanks for clarifying that hunnybuns.

Why not do a poll on which tastes better - dog shit or cat shit? It would be about as intelligent.

What the hell kind of "honor" is there in militarism, brutality, and extermination of non-combatants?
There is much honor in being willing to die for your country, your people. The other stuff sucks ass, I don't consider that honorable.

Um, neither. Both were barbaric and ruthless in their own ways when dealing with their respective 'subhumans'.

The Nazi's had their Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals etc etc.
The Japanese had their millions and millions of Chinese.

I'd rather commit suicide than be captured by either.

There is much honor in being willing to die for your country, your people. The other stuff sucks ass, I don't consider that honorable.
Agreed. There is also honour in how you treat your opponent. Treating them like an animal leaves much to be desired for.

Both were equally disgusting, especially with their attempts at ethnic cleansing.

The Germans had civilized methods of warfare. They generally would not shoot prisoners


Is that so?

Yes. With the number of prisoners that they killed, shooting them was cost prohibitive. That's why they switched to gas chambers.

Both were equally disgusting, especially with their attempts at ethnic cleansing.

Of course, the Japanese based their empire building efforts on ours. They treated the Chinese and the neighboring aboriginal people the way that they learned we treated the native Americans.

You guys got issues. Face it: The age of chivalry has passed. There is no such concept of "honor" in war today. Victory is the only thing that counts and the end will justify the means. Always.

It's simple logic - which is more honorable to die by:

Gas Chamber or Saw?

A side-note:

People often think the Japanese military was the Bushido-driven pseudo-Samurai cult. In fact, it had little to do with the Samurai.

In my research I did a while ago, I found lots of interesting things about the war against Russia in 1904/05. Not only did the Japanese treat Russian prisoners according to the rules, but the Japanese press was very concerned that the same happened to Japanese prisoners. There was no "they got captured, they have no honour".

Whatever the reason, the behaviour and codes of the Japanese military in WWII cannot be directly traced back to Bushido and the Samurai...probably more to false myths and legends perpetuated by their fascist government.

Well said!

I was considering something similar. I remember a guy on the net was in Japan. He had a great-uncle that was a Pearl Harbor flying. One of the ones that died there.

He said the same thing about the modern Bushido followers. He pointed out they were basically "wannabes" and had no concept of what being a Samurai involved.

Neither. There is no honour in war. (Wait a second, that wasn't funny!)

Why not do a poll on which tastes better - dog shit or cat shit? It would be about as intelligent.

What the hell kind of "honor" is there in militarism, brutality, and extermination of non-combatants?
There is much honor in being willing to die for your country, your people. The other stuff sucks ass, I don't consider that honorable.

There is no honor automatically confered because one is willing to die for a country. On the other hand, there is a great deal of honor in standing up to your country, in the face of blind nationalism, to oppose evil policies. You want honor? Look to people like Hans and Sophie Scholl and the other members of the White Rose movement, who died with honor calling for an end to Nazi oppression and tyranny.

Honor is the cloak nationalist hide behind to defend blind loyalty.

Someone should start a thread on who would win....Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan? at the time of world war two....

Someone should start a thread on who would win....Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan? at the time of world war two....

No argument. The Germans. Japan had piss pour tanks and were not very motorized.....

Even if Japan could control the air and the sea, German would be able to rain death on Japan via the V2 rockets.

No argument. The Germans. Japan had piss pour tanks and were not very motorized.....

Even if Japan could control the air and the sea, German would be able to rain death on Japan via the V2 rockets.

thats true, I do believe Japan had a better navy than germany, Germany didnt even have aircraft carriers though, the japanese didn't really have anything for their infantry to counter tanks either. I think it would be a pretty insane, long, and bitter war.

Germany would probably win though, they were way ahead in Nuclear technology too.

You guys got issues. Face it: The age of chivalry has passed. There is no such concept of "honor" in war today. Victory is the only thing that counts and the end will justify the means. Always.

Personally I think you are the one with the issue if you think that the end ALWAYS justifys the means.. Millions of people die and you excuse it for what? Because you think the end will justify all the deaths of civilians? I think not.

If you are interested in a discussion of "honor" and war, pick up a copy of Dalton Trumbo's anti-war novel from WWI called Johnny Got His Gun (some of you may be familiar with it from the Metallica video,One, which uses clips from the '71 movie).

There is no honor in war; only death.

Someone should start a thread on who would win....Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan? at the time of world war two....

I'd say Japan. They just wanted it more.

http://www.britannica.com/dday/article-9044133?tocId=9044133

thats true, I do believe Japan had a better navy than germany, Germany didnt even have aircraft carriers though, the japanese didn't really have anything for their infantry to counter tanks either. I think it would be a pretty insane, long, and bitter war.

the Japanese didn't have anti-tank weaponry because they very rarely met them. however, this does not mean they did not have the capability to develop one.