[Lathdrinor]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

So now it was the fault of Japan's policy that made it impossible to generate a figure.
Get your head out of the proverbial sand of denial and read your own link.
The US enlisted men simply DIDN'T take Japanese POWs.
Haven't you heard of the words "Take no Prisoners" that is exactly what most US servce men did on the battle field.

Here is an excerpt from the link;

Read Japan's military doctrine on surrendering before you spout off your mouth. The US took plenty of prisoners in every conflict fought before, after, and during World War II. How come the US didn't take any for Japan? Because the US has some kind of intense racial hatred for Japanese that it didn't have for other Asians?

Get real.

Also another point to mention is that Japanese POW by the Soviets were all captured AFTER the war since Japan had a Non-aggression pack with the Russian and the Russian only entered the Eastern front after the bombing of Hiroshima.

That's not what "after the war" means.

Read Korean history before annexation, the Chosen kingdom was a vassal state of the Qing Dynasty China and court assassination was the norm.

No, it wasn't. Do you even understand what vassal state means? Korea had its own system of government and its own leaders - Qing imperial theory was very different from that of Japanese (and European) imperial theory.

The so called murder of their princess by Japanese troops is highly doubtful since there were no pictures of the princess at the time so the Japanese troops that went in would not have been able to identify her even if they wanted to kill her.

/facepalm

Annexation of Korea was war booty first winning against Qing and later asserted by winning against the Russians.

Yeah, and in none of these conflicts did Japan ever care about what Korean leaders thought. Do you realize now why it was an occupation? Manchu subjugation of Korea was an occupation, too, and Koreans today do not look back to that era with joy.

Look at it this way - the Korean Emperor refused to sign the treaty of annexation. You understand, presumably, the stature of the Japanese Emperor during World War II? If some country occupied the capital of Japan, forced the prime minister to sign a document annexing Japan to that country, and the Emperor of Japan refused to sign it, what does that tell you? That Japan voluntarily submitted to annexation?

Occupying countries have always depended on provisional governments - created via threat of force - to puppeteer their colonies. Japan created provisional governments for Manchuria, China, Southeast Asia - you name it. Does that mean none of those places were occupied by Japan? That they were all "part" of Japan?

Get real.

Cultural genocide is again highly doubtful unless you are talking about shermanism by introducing science. Fact is majority of the Korean Populous wasn't even able to use their own invented hangul letters.

/facepalm

You really need to brush up on Korean history.

which makes your opinion biased and pitifully meaningless.
Victims will stretch(blur) the truth while suspects will hide it.
There are things like perjury and I believe that in Korea, people's assets can still be confiscated when found guilt of collaborating with the Japanese so natually most people will not speak fondly.

The Japanese Empire tried to erase evidence of its atrocities, much like Nazi Germany did, before the end, so in that sense, yes, there could be quite a bit that historians missed. But things like the Baatan Death March and the Nanjing Massacre were well-documented, and general casualty numbers could be estimated from counting before-and-after numbers for villages, towns, cities, etc. And also from counting graves (though many of the bodies were burned).

In that sense, the numbers for the war are quite reasonable, since they're not just "what the victims said" but also what was actually available from official documents on both sides. No historian worth his salt doesn't corroborate the evidence and cross-examine them to get rid of potential biases. That doesn't mean it's entirely accurate - due to the general chaos of war casualty numbers will always be an estimate - but it's about as good of a guess as you're going to get.

Your view - that history should just be discounted because everybody is biased - on the other hand, is mere revisionism that brushes aside atrocities and war crimes for a "feel good" LIE. If historians thought as you did, then there would be no history, and people would just believe what they like to believe. Yet, that is precisely what led to the atrocities in the first place - because people lied and no one gave a damn about it. The Nuremberg trials was the first time many Germans even knew what their government was doing behind their backs. Just the same, the Tokyo trials should have been a similar wake-up call for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, Japan is so caught up in its own narrative of victimhood that it continues to produce denial after denial, even to this day, as evidenced by your posts here.

So are you making a sweeping generalization that Jews were bad?

I'm saying that's what the Nazis believed - that the Jews were traitors and conspired with Germany's enemies.

You really lack knowledge about this phase of European history. I wouldn't press on without doing some serious research.

In any case, Japan did not have anything against the ethnic Chinese in terms of racism nor did Japan had any lavish scheme to cleanse the ethnic Chinese.
Just tried to subdue the resistance through ethnic choice.(Generalization and a bad choice I know but nevertheless those are the fact)

There was plenty of Japanese racism against Chinese. One simple search would tell you that much, but of course, it's just all Allies propaganda

You'll still generate evidence and I really do not trust some so called historians since most of them also states that the figures for massacre of Nanking is also legitimate when then can't even create a working hypothysis concerning logistics of how Japan obtained enough supply to kill 300,000 people in such a short time.
There is a fact very little known but if the Nanking massacre was true then Japan was more efficient in killing people then the gas chambers in Auschwitz.　

Killing people is very, very easy. Even the Mongols back in the day could raze an entire city to the ground in a few days, much less the modernized Japanese military. The Germans had to round up the Jews from across the country in order to kill them (since they were targeting a specific race and not a location) and were trying to do it in secrecy. For the Japanese Nanjing was just an indiscriminate massacre. It's a completely different situation.

That said, the numbers of 200,000-300,000 are not necessarily the numbers for the Rape of Nanjing (the specific incident in which the Japanese army, after taking the city, rampaged through it). Rather, they often refer to the number of people killed by the Japanese Army as it advanced through the areas surrounding Nanjing. The actual massacres within Nanjing's walls probably numbered in the 40-50,000, which was a significant proportion of the city's population. So, the massacre did occur, and hundreds of thousands of Chinese likely did die during Japan's Nanjing campaign - but the two events did not necessarily occur simultaneously.

A well-sourced website discussing the issue (with many, many sources, including Western, Chinese, and Japanese) can be found here: http://www.nankingatrocities.net/index.htm

And you are ignoring the fact that the warlord era decimated China before Japan came into the picture so again quite the sweeping generalization that Japan was the cause of all evil.

No self-respecting historian counts the deaths during the Warlord era into the deaths during the Second Sino-Japanese War. You're grasping at straws, here.

Yes, China wasn't in the best of conditions to withstand the Japanese invasion. That made the Japanese invasion all the more disgusting as it took advantage of a country that was already vulnerable. That so many people died as a result is no surprise - when you attack a country whose resources were strained to the breaking point, widespread suffering and chaos result.

So again if I am a right winger I wonder where does it place you in with your opinions?

The truth? I hate to say it, but most people in the world believe what I do because they recognize the facts. Japan, on the other hand, has repeatedly attempted to whitewash history by way of omission and underplay. Why is it only Japanese writers deny the atrocities? If you're so convinced that everyone lies, doesn't that make you suspicious?

It'd be one thing if the only evidence we had on Japan's conduct during World War II was from the US, or China, or the Soviets, but that's clearly not the case. Across the world, many nations suffered under Imperial Japan and all of them have produced damning evidence. It's not just China or Korea. It's the entire length of the Japanese Empire. Only early acquisitions like Taiwan were treated with any degree of decency and - *gasp* - historians don't consider Taiwan a Japanese atrocity. Could it be that they're not so biased, after all?

Cross-examining the facts between different nations produced the truth - that of a morally bankrupt, brutal, militaristic regime that cared little about human lives. Do you really think that the Imperial Japanese government, which asked its own soldiers to always fight to the death instead of surrendering (something the Allies did not ask of their soldiers), and which executed up to a third of war prisoners it took, would care all that much about the lives of non-Japanese? That is logic-defying.