well for all the differing opinions in this thread, i must say i think we can pat ourselves on the back. 40 posts and only one inappropriate comment. more important, the thread hasn't degenerated into a slagging off match. this is one of the most sober discussions i've encountered about nanking.

as for the dehumanizing of the enemy, it's what governments and militaries do. once your soldiers think of the enemy as human beings, with families back at home, then they won't be ready to kill. *every* army that's gone to war has done this, to a certain degree -- soldiers need to be made to think their enemy is less than human, or inhuman, unless their leaders really really want to lose.

Maybe it's because mongerers are true advocates of the phrase, "Make love, not war".

We seen lots of historian and humanitarian among the bros....


but after 40 posts....I have yet to get the Yes or No answer to my question....Have any of you watch the movie?

http://www.irischangthemovie.com/home.html


Keep it coming.....

No, I haven't seen the movie.

The thing about the apology is that I don't think China really wants it.  Maybe the people do but the government doesn't. The government needs to keep the Japanese invasion and killings in their back pocket so that they can pull it up whenever they need to whip up nationalistic hysteria. If the Japanese did apologize, other than what they have already said in the past, would the Chinese government or people accept it?  I don't think so.  I think the words would be picked apart to the point that it would mean nothing. For example:

Japan: "I'm sorry for the Rape of Nanking".

China: "That's it! Just you're sorry!!  You need to say more!!!"

Japan: "Well I said I'm sorry"

China: "Thats not enough!" .........(forever).

Personally, I really like Maria Ozawa (Japan), and enjoy the fact that she can come to Macau (China) and do a strip show.

No I haven't, but the torrent is available on Pirate's Bay!

I'll watch it soon.

yeah - but in that sort of situation saying "sorry" is more than just a defensive play - if your opponent continues to push after you've done what was asked for and is reasonable, they become the irrational and unreasonable party.  Lawyers use that sort of tactic a lot, try to look reasonable while simultaneously discreditting the other side.  

Again, not saying I condone the approach: conflict is never going to build a relationship.  But from a tactical view IF conflict is brought to you by another party, the mid-point works much better than holding onto old territory.  

Actually a dynamic that's best studied on the game of Go (Wai Kei in canto, Wei Qi in mando).  

Conclusion: IHMO the Japs are harming themselves by denying the facts ... and until they shift we can't say the Chinese are being (or might be) anything other than reasonable!

this one's an interesting one - I read a study that pointed out that having a professional army is actually a direct CAUSE of war.  What happens when a bunch of people become trained to think about threats, their whole ego identity becomes wrapped up in fighting an enemy ... and over time they use their power and influence to create precisely the conflict they need in order to justify their own existence.  People's need to feel important is so strong, they can't tolerate being a top soldier in peacetime ...

That's a much more subtle dynamic, though.  The more common one is an insecure or exploitative government using an externally perceived threat as an excuse for creating unity and obedience through fear and adversity.

No I haven't watched it and I probably won't, unless you tell me it puts forward a number of new facts? I have read a lot about the subject and it is very disturbing and a depressing view of mankind's potential for evil. I'm not sure I want to revisit that.

Some words have been written here of how Japanese soldiers were brutalised by their own system to become dehumanised themselves. This is true, corporal punishment was the norm, some could be systematically beaten by their fellow soldiers, even to death in some cases. That still doesn't cut it as an excuse to me. The "educated" elite that ran the campaigns and the most horrific of experiments were not subject to the same brutal indoctrination as the foot soldiers.

One point that has not come up is the man himself, Hirohito. There is comprehensive evidence he was not just some innocent token leader but closely involved in all major aspects of the planning and implementation of the Sino-Japanese war, WW2, and responsible for war crimes. Hirohito personally removed the concept of a Chinese prisoner of war, and of following international conventions .... essentially a take no prisoners policy. Hirohito's granduncle Prince Asaka commanded the attack on Nanking and was the ranking officer in the city at the height of the atrocities. Nanking has become a focal point but the Japanese "Annihilation" campaign affected a large swath across China from Nanking to the Soviet border. With the veneration of the royal family it is not too hard to see the difficulty Japan has in any form of a real apology. For those who want more info refer: "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert P. Bix.  ISBN 0-06-019314-X.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/74369/nanking

Works in USA... not sure about elsewhere

People talk about Rape during the war... heck, there are men dieing - for their country!!! The least women could do is fuck? Its the WORLD WAR, What do people expect?

"Nobody", what an apt name. I suspect you don't give a shit and are just here to be provocative and stir things up in a neg way.

If I am mistaken then please prove me wrong by lifting your game ........

I didn't know about this until I came across this thread - the wiki entry makes very disturbing reading.

Agree that "nobody's" comments are unacceptable -  if the men that died were soldiers, then they I assume were knowingly running and accepting that risk every day. Death of a soldier and the death or rape of a civilian are, in my view at least, different in terms of the amount of choice that individual has been able to make in their fate.

yeah soldiers follow orders, officers give those orders, and/or turn a blind eye. The later is the same outcome but worse, the "blind eye" is just the officer's excuse to let their dogs run loose.